News Federal Government Revenue: the Income Tax

[ginru]

Not only do you want to force one neighbor to support his neighbor, you also want the recipient to be forced into agricultural experiments? Wouldn't it be an easier and less expensive solution to just have everyone take take care of themselves and if they want apples to go about learning how to do it, or just go to his neighbor and offer to buy one?

We're misunderstanding each other as the bold part is actually what I'm getting at... basically a voluntary, incentive-based approach rather than forcing the rich neighbor to give money to the poor neighbor. If the poor one manages to work his own investment first, then eventually the rich one will voluntarily pay for that service rather than outsource the job overseas.

You'll get no argument from me on the size and scope of the US military. I am not as niave to think we don't need any military, on the otherhand I think having one of ours' stature only makes it easier to stick our nose where it doesn't belong, costing lives and billions in wealthe. Having a country full of able bodied men who owned any weapon they could design build or think of and describe to another to build would, imo, make any other imperialistic government think twice about invasion.

That's ok as it would be like owning a gun for protecting your house, which I'm not actually against. Raising large sums of money to fund an army to protect your house though is what I feel to be inefficient. This is why when asked how to fund a large military, I would prefer reducing the size of government while going with more cost-effective strategies to peace.

Now I don't expect the current generation in power to make real social progress since our perspectives are dominated by fear of the world. For us, having an army to guard the house and impose our will is considered essential, but eventually we'll get a future generation with a perspective more conducive to fundamental changes. My goal is to figure out how to inspire and empower such a generation, which would hopefully be adept at investing in progress rather than acting out in fear.

Nothing wrong with being a dreamer, i am one myself, but being a dreamer that needs others to supply their dreams is a dissapointment waiting to happen. Money is only a tool making it simpler to trade ones labor/product to another for their labor/product. Money is a liberating invention, not a oppressive one. The only ones who get left behind are those who choose to. You could say they don't know how, or what needs to be done, but if they spent as much time reading, watching, thinking and learning about how to improve themselves or situation, as they do reading, thinking and learning about how society,government owe them, their 'luck' would improve. Reminds me of a quote from Thomas Jefferson that goes something like, I am a firm believer in luck and I find that the harder I work, the luckier I get.

I feel the bold part is the ideal rather than the reality. If someone's life amounts to being a wage slave that works hard but just barely stays above water and doesn't feel they have the time/energy to better themselves, then I don't see that as a liberating situation. That's why I'm calling for an alternative currency/economy that serves to innovate and evolve these standards. The conventional currency would continue to serve the Haves, and of course it should be allowed to do so. But the underclass needs an alternative system that better serves their interests, and ideally I see both systems as being able to work in tandem with each other for everyone's benefit.

And again, I'll repeat that the wealthy should NOT be forced to fund this system against their will. By the end of this year, I'm actually hoping to launch a project like this and I'm determined to avoid depending on donations or government funding.

 

[nismaratwork]

Opinions on what a "fair share" is vary pretty widely...

History would seem to indicate that "fair" is how much you can take before people fight back beyond the capacity of society's means to resist.

In short, there is no fair, but that also means there is no UNfair. So... "eat the rich"?

 

[nismaratwork]

We're misunderstanding each other as the bold part is actually what I'm getting at... basically a voluntary, incentive-based approach rather than forcing the rich neighbor to give money to the poor neighbor. If the poor one manages to work his own investment first, then eventually the rich one will voluntarily pay for that service rather than outsource the job overseas.

That's ok as it would be like owning a gun for protecting your house, which I'm not actually against. Raising large sums of money to fund an army to protect your house though is what I feel to be inefficient. This is why when asked how to fund a large military, I would prefer reducing the size of government while going with more cost-effective strategies to peace.

Now I don't expect the current generation in power to make real social progress since our perspectives are dominated by fear of the world. For us, having an army to guard the house and impose our will is considered essential, but eventually we'll get a future generation with a perspective more conducive to fundamental changes. My goal is to figure out how to inspire and empower such a generation, which would hopefully be adept at investing in progress rather than acting out in fear.



I feel the bold part is the ideal rather than the reality. If someone's life amounts to being a wage slave that works hard but just barely stays above water and doesn't feel they have the time/energy to better themselves, then I don't see that as a liberating situation. That's why I'm calling for an alternative currency/economy that serves to innovate and evolve these standards. The conventional currency would continue to serve the Haves, and of course it should be allowed to do so. But the underclass needs an alternative system that better serves their interests, and ideally I see both systems as being able to work in tandem with each other for everyone's benefit.

And again, I'll repeat that the wealthy should NOT be forced to fund this system against their will. By the end of this year, I'm actually hoping to launch a project like this and I'm determined to avoid depending on donations or government funding.

It sounds to me that you're on your way to either proving us wrong, or more likely discovering how difficult it is to translate a dream into reality. May your pain be brief, your recovery swift, and the trauma minimal.

 

[ginru]

It sounds to me that you're on your way to either proving us wrong, or more likely discovering how difficult it is to translate a dream into reality. May your pain be brief, your recovery swift, and the trauma minimal.

Hey, thanks After two previous failures, I'm hoping to channel what I've learned into this 3rd attempt. I'm keeping my plans simple, costs low, dependencies minimal, and approaching it as a life-long mission so I'm not relying on instant results. One of my biggest worries is actually what to do in the case of a sudden rush of applicants.

To answer your previous question though about what to do with people that don't wish to contribute. If they put nothing in then they'd simply get nothing out. They're free to invest in whatever they feel brings the best return, so if living in a hermit shack on the outskirts of society is what they prefer then that's their choice (as long as they don't trespass onto others' investments).

 

[nismaratwork]

Hey, thanks After two previous failures, I'm hoping to channel what I've learned into this 3rd attempt. I'm keeping my plans simple, costs low, dependencies minimal, and approaching it as a life-long mission so I'm not relying on instant results. One of my biggest worries is actually what to do in the case of a sudden rush of applicants.

To answer your previous question though about what to do with people that don't wish to contribute. If they put nothing in then they'd simply get nothing out. They're free to invest in whatever they feel brings the best return, so if living in a hermit shack on the outskirts of society is what they prefer then that's their choice (as long as they don't trespass onto others' investments).

...And what of social predators, secret cartels, sociopaths and just-plain narcissists? It is human to seek advantage within a system, and some percentage will do so through intimidation, violence, graft, blackmail, etc. M.I.C.E. never goes out of fashion.

 

[ginru]

...And what of social predators, secret cartels, sociopaths and just-plain narcissists? It is human to seek advantage within a system, and some percentage will do so through intimidation, violence, graft, blackmail, etc. M.I.C.E. never goes out of fashion.

Ah, the plagues of humanity. In the game I'm developing to complement this system, that's exactly what the members are challenged to overcome. It's in their hands to creatively figure out solutions to resolve conflicts and evolve their thinking to handle constant obstacles. My role is to simply provide a developmental arena (a Sandbox) that they can experiment in and test out their ideas/investments. But the real key is in them having the courage and innovation to face these challenges, rather than allow fear to cripple their progress. If they fail, then the time-based currency system encourages a flexible rebuilding of efforts to start over again with a redesigned plan.

 

[nismaratwork]

Ah, the plagues of humanity. In the game I'm developing to complement this system, that's exactly what the members are challenged to overcome. It's in their hands to creatively figure out solutions to resolve conflicts and evolve their thinking to handle constant obstacles. My role is to simply provide a developmental arena (a Sandbox) that they can experiment in and test out their ideas/investments. But the real key is in them having the courage and innovation to face these challenges, rather than allow fear to cripple their progress. If they fail, then the time-based currency system encourages a flexible rebuilding of efforts to start over again with a redesigned plan.

You want to overcome a persistent series of pathologies which have evolved to thwart literally all attempts to remove them from EVERY society in recorded history? Truly, you are embarking on a Herculean task, because courage, ideas, and good-will mean absolutely nothing in the face of rapid predatory social evolution.

 

[ginru]

You want to overcome a persistent series of pathologies which have evolved to thwart literally all attempts to remove them from EVERY society in recorded history? Truly, you are embarking on a Herculean task, because courage, ideas, and good-will mean absolutely nothing in the face of rapid predatory social evolution.

The bold part ties into what I said earlier about how we easily make huge leaps in technological progress yet for some reason we can only measure social progress by generations. It's as if we must wait for the old generation to fade out along with their rigid ideas before a younger one can achieve its potential. Society is crippled by concern over what Ma & Pa Kettle think of homosexuals or mosques down the street, meanwhile criminals are actively recruiting the youth from every ghetto in the city.

Also, we wait until someone has graduated school and found a paying job before we treat them as making a meaningful contribution to the economy, but the criminals will gladly recruit anyone who can pull a trigger to join their cause. A lethargic and fearful approach to progress is what provides ample opportunity for subversive elements to take effect. Yet it's the youth that would be the most adept at keeping up with the rapid nature of social plagues in much the same way they grasp the technology of the web and smart phones faster than their elders. If they can destabilize oppressive regimes by using free social networks then imagine what they could do with a dynamic economic system as part of their arsenal.

 

[nismaratwork]

The bold part ties into what I said earlier about how we easily make huge leaps in technological progress yet for some reason we can only measure social progress by generations. It's as if we must wait for the old generation to fade out along with their rigid ideas before a younger one can achieve its potential. Society is crippled by concern over what Ma & Pa Kettle think of homosexuals or mosques down the street, meanwhile criminals are actively recruiting the youth from every ghetto in the city.

It's easy to change our environment, it's much harder to change ourselves. This isn't an issue of youth-potential either, it's just a matter of mental illness and brain dysfunction... you're not going to avoid that.

Also, we wait until someone has graduated school and found a paying job before we treat them as making a meaningful contribution to the economy, but the criminals will gladly recruit anyone who can pull a trigger to join their cause. A lethargic and fearful approach to progress is what provides ample opportunity for subversive elements to take effect. Yet it's the youth that would be the most adept at keeping up with the rapid nature of social plagues in much the same way they grasp the technology of the web and smart phones faster than their elders. If they can destabilize oppressive regimes by using free social networks then imagine what they could do with a dynamic economic system as part of their arsenal.

By that standard, you'll exclude plenty of decent people would could flourish in your utopia, and include a higher percentage of "sharks".

 

[Aknazer]

The bold part ties into what I said earlier about how we easily make huge leaps in technological progress yet for some reason we can only measure social progress by generations. It's as if we must wait for the old generation to fade out along with their rigid ideas before a younger one can achieve its potential. Society is crippled by concern over what Ma & Pa Kettle think of homosexuals or mosques down the street, meanwhile criminals are actively recruiting the youth from every ghetto in the city.

Also, we wait until someone has graduated school and found a paying job before we treat them as making a meaningful contribution to the economy, but the criminals will gladly recruit anyone who can pull a trigger to join their cause. A lethargic and fearful approach to progress is what provides ample opportunity for subversive elements to take effect. Yet it's the youth that would be the most adept at keeping up with the rapid nature of social plagues in much the same way they grasp the technology of the web and smart phones faster than their elders. If they can destabilize oppressive regimes by using free social networks then imagine what they could do with a dynamic economic system as part of their arsenal.

But with the kids it's a double edged sword. Kids are also the most open to being influenced. Which means that all it would take is one "shark" influencing them in such a way that they believe the current system of government is wrong/bad and they could topple YOUR government.

As for the comments about our military being too large, I don't think that's the issue. Our military is actually smaller now than it was during the Cold War (the Air Force alone has cut it's forces somewhere in the 40-60% range compared to back then). But both the American people and the world basically view us as the "world police" and most people in the world think that America should fix the problems (well until the "problem" is with how they are doing business). You can see this in how much we pay into the U.N., in how much foreign aid the military gives during disasters compared to other countries, and even how other countries cry for us to help when things go wrong (a recent example being Arab nations wanting us to do the Libya no-fly zone, or if the documents from wikileaks are to be believed then some Arab nations thought it would be best for us to hit Iranian nuclear facilities). Instead the world as a whole needs to change it's view on what the U.S. "should" do and the U.S. needs to quit playing "world police" and go back to more of a defensive posture. Oh and we need to learn how to go in and get out, rather than these longer campaigns.

 

[ginru]

It's easy to change our environment, it's much harder to change ourselves. This isn't an issue of youth-potential either, it's just a matter of mental illness and brain dysfunction... you're not going to avoid that.



By that standard, you'll exclude plenty of decent people would could flourish in your utopia, and include a higher percentage of "sharks".

It comes down to perspective. We have the ability to reason and then use that tool for constructive or destructive purposes. The same clean-cut person that invites us to their church may also be the one too close-minded to accept a gay couple next door. The same investment mentality that goes into business talent recruitment could also be used by a criminal to exploit youth in his gang. We already know that one man's villain could be another man's hero, so rather than fear or avoid them, I feel the key is to engage the issues and harness untapped potential. Anyone that limits themselves by close-mindedness would naturally have limited success in this system (much like a business that fails to adapt to technology). Again, the end goal is to pave a way to a more perfect society by enabling a social evolution that keeps pace with our technological advancements.

Also, in a naturally competitive world, the sharks will proactively challenge themselves to stay competitive and evolve tactics while the decent people are often complacent, reactionary or wasteful in their non-profit programs. How else do you suggest we balance the situation?

 

[nismaratwork]

It comes down to perspective. We have the ability to reason and then use that tool for constructive or destructive purposes. The same clean-cut person that invites us to their church may also be the one too close-minded to accept a gay couple next door. The same investment mentality that goes into business talent recruitment could also be used by a criminal to exploit youth in his gang. We already know that one man's villain could be another man's hero, so rather than fear or avoid them, I feel the key is to engage the issues and harness untapped potential. Anyone that limits themselves by close-mindedness would naturally have limited success in this system (much like a business that fails to adapt to technology). Again, the end goal is to pave a way to a more perfect society by enabling a social evolution that keeps pace with our technological advancements.

Also, in a naturally competitive world, the sharks will proactively challenge themselves to stay competitive and evolve tactics while the decent people are often complacent, reactionary or wasteful in their non-profit programs. How else do you suggest we balance the situation?

I don't know, but then I'm not the one trying to create a utopia on the goodwill of my fellow human, including predators of varying degrees, and the nature of group behaviour. Peolple have plenty of good in them, but they have plenty of other bits too... mixed bags and utopias tend to be a poor fit. Again, I admire your idealism, as I don't think I've ever been that optimistic. If you're right, I'd be thrilled to be wrong.

 

[ginru]

But with the kids it's a double edged sword. Kids are also the most open to being influenced. Which means that all it would take is one "shark" influencing them in such a way that they believe the current system of government is wrong/bad and they could topple YOUR government.

What I say here will be controversial but I feel that this vulnerability comes from their forced dependency. But then of course we force their dependence on family because we see youth as too vulnerable to stand on their own. Either way, they don't have much power in the conventional system for fear of the dangers that you mentioned. But the sharks will still exploit anyone as long as they're old enough to pull a trigger so you have to combat that resourcefulness effectively through a more dynamic system. If a child is old enough to teach then they're old enough to influence the world around them. Yet oppressive measures to protect them will impair their ability to manage problems in the real world, thus enabling the sharks anyway.

The introduction of the Internet has given a clear edge to the youth over the repressive generational system. We're now seeing the political ramifications of them using it in the Middle East to circumvent state-run media for communications. But what happens when they realize they can use it to circumvent the traditional education, employment and banking systems to achieve power through their own simplified currency system? Granted I'm a little scared of the possibilities too, but I don't feel we should let that fear stand in the way of freedom and the potential it has to shape a new world.

As for toppling my system, I'm fine with that too actually. I'm hoping for it to be flexible enough but if someone comes up with a better idea that surpasses my vision and I'm not able to compete with that then I deserve to go the way of the dinosaurs. In order to keep pace with technology, the system should be open to constant challenging for the sake of progress.

 

[Gokul43201]

That is for the state governments I believe. The federal government has a much higher fraction from income tax and has almost no income from fees I believe.

I was being sloppy. The figure I posted before was for total revenues: federal + states. The correct federal pie chart is below (same site, different tab):

 

[Dale]

Yes, that looks more like what I expected.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes, that looks more like what I expected.

In terms of the income tax portion, how much can you jack that up before you start to see diminising returns for a variety of reasons?

Is 53% near the max that we can reasonably have and enforce, or is it just the status quo?

 

[Dale]

Well, 53% is not the income tax rate, it is the proportion of the Federal revenue that comes from income tax. So it is not really something that can be "jacked up" one way or the other. E.g. if you simply abolished Social Security taxes then that 53% would jump up to about 80% without increasing the amount of income tax at all.

 

[nismaratwork]

Well, 53% is not the income tax rate, it is the proportion of the Federal revenue that comes from income tax. So it is not really something that can be "jacked up" one way or the other. E.g. if you simply abolished Social Security taxes then that 53% would jump up to about 80% without increasing the amount of income tax at all.

Right, I expressed myself poorly. What I mean is to ask about the feasability of relying on more or less than the current percentage of income gleaned from that particular brand of taxation. I shouldn't have referenced the 53%, but in general I just wonder if there is an "optimal" income tax to yield maximum returns without driving people and business away. Is that where we are, and if so, when the graph is made, should it look like 53%, or should it be a lesser or greater portion of taxation?

 

[Dale]

I liked this article:
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2010/07/02/does-hiking-tax-rates-raise-more-revenue/
particularly the graph from the Wall Street Journal which showed that revenue is about 20% of GDP regardless of the top marginal tax rate over the past 60 years. So to maximize revenue you would need to set a tax policy which maximizes GDP.

 

[nismaratwork]

I liked this article:
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2010/07/02/does-hiking-tax-rates-raise-more-revenue/
particularly the graph from the Wall Street Journal which showed that revenue is about 20% of GDP regardless of the top marginal tax rate over the past 60 years. So to maximize revenue you would need to set a tax policy which maximizes GDP.

That's what I'm looking for! Thanks DaleSpam, you always come through.

 

[turbo]

I would prefer that marginal rates be rolled back to where they were decades ago, so that people riding the wave would pay an equitable share of their income to support the system of government that makes their incomes possible.

I would also support stripping out loopholes for corporations. GE paid NO corporate income tax last year. Not a dime. They shifted costs and profits around to off-shore divisions so that they paid the US government nothing. Astrazeneca is currently settling off some tax debts arising from their use of the same tactics - to the tune of over $1 billion if the news story I heard today is accurate.

Full disclosure: I was well into the top 2% of earners during the final years of my career, and when I was self-employed, I prepaid my quarterly income taxes and self-employment taxes faithfully, even though a consultant sometimes has no idea what the next quarter might bring. Get an unexpected big fat contract? Pay the IRS a penalty for failing to have a crystal ball.

The GOP is hell-bent on going after "entitlements" while people like my father (WWII vet scraping by on SS) get no COLA because the Feds can't understand that the costs of gas, heating oil, and food are soaring and pinching old people on fixed incomes. To listen to people like Boehner, old folks like my father should sacrifice even more so that wealthy people and businesses can get tax breaks. DC is on acid, people. I'm sick of it.

 

[WhoWee]

The GOP is hell-bent on going after "entitlements" while people like my father (WWII vet scraping by on SS) get no COLA because the Feds can't understand that the costs of gas, heating oil, and food are soaring and pinching old people on fixed incomes. To listen to people like Boehner, old folks like my father should sacrifice even more so that wealthy people and businesses can get tax breaks. DC is on acid, people. I'm sick of it.

I haven't read a single proposal that seeks to cut benefits for people of your father's era. Can you please post a link?

 

[turbo]

I haven't read a single proposal that seeks to cut benefits for people of your father's era. Can you please post a link?

Have you read that there will be no SS COLA again this year for retired people on Medicare? It's all over the news. The GOP needs to come up with budget proposals that address the needs of older people on fixed incomes, and not try to bail out the wealthy by punishing the poor.

 

[nismaratwork]

There is also the issue of military widows having to remarry to receive death benefits... that's generationally appropo.

 

[turbo]

There is also the issue of military widows having to remarry to receive death benefits... that's generationally appropo.

Don't even get me started on military benefits. Until a couple of years ago, old vets like my dad had to drive all the way to the VA hospital in Togus, and sit around for half a day or so to receive basic medical care that was promised to them. Now, the VA has some trailers with office space and treatment rooms so that they can offer services to vets in rural areas. My father lied about his age to join Airborne and fight in WWII, so he's pretty young at 85. Most of the other WWII vets in his region are long gone.

 

[nismaratwork]

Don't even get me started on military benefits. Until a couple of years ago, old vets like my dad had to drive all the way to the VA hospital in Togus, and sit around for half a day or so to receive basic medical care that was promised to them. Now, the VA has some trailers with office space and treatment rooms so that they can offer services to vets in rural areas. My father lied about his age to join Airborne and fight in WWII, so he's pretty young at 85. Most of the other WWII vets in his region are long gone.

Yep... we treat our veterans well... as well as a dry cow. Truly, we are a tissue of hypocrisy.

 

[turbo]

Yep... we treat our veterans well... as well as a dry cow. Truly, we are a tissue of hypocrisy.

My father is a proud man. He won't accept any help monetarily. My wife and my brother and I try to help out with heating costs by taping and weatherstripping doors and windows and installing clear "Duck" brand window seals over his windows before every winter season. He lives in a drafty old 175-y-old house that he bought when I was about 10. I froze my *** off in that old barn when I was a kid, and I'm determined that he's not going to live the last years of his life that way. The GOP would rather let him freeze in the dark than allow social programs to expand as needed to address volatility in prices.

BTW, when I was a smart-assed kid, I thought it was cool to support Goldwater, and after the embarrassment of the Nixon administration, I thought that I'd latch onto Reagan. My father was beside himself. The older I get, the more I realize that he might have a point, and my political choices were destructive at best. As a kid growing up in the great depression, he had a bit better perspective than I did.

 

[Perspicacity]

Yep... we treat our veterans well... as well as a dry cow. Truly, we are a tissue of hypocrisy.

Garbage. Military service does not entitle you to a life of luxury, and you can't expect for the government to put up a VA hospital within 15 miles of wherever a veteran might possibly live. There are more programs to help veterans than I can count.

As for the crap Turbo spouted, he seems unable to grasp the concept that no one is taking money from his father and giving it to rich people—it's just that no one is willing to take more from rich people and give it to his father. Fighting in a war doesn't mean that you get to be carried around on a litter by the rest of society until the day you died.

Turbo's father should have provided for his own retirement, like millions of other veterans do, including myself.

 

[Dale]

I would prefer that marginal rates be rolled back to where they were decades ago, so that people riding the wave would pay an equitable share of their income to support the system of government that makes their incomes possible.

That is a typical populist sentiment and it plays very well in politics, but it is purely emotional without any rationality. Over the past 60 years Federal tax revenues hover around 20% of GDP regardless of whether or not the top marginal tax rate was over 90% or under 30%. The way to provide the revenue to pay benefits for people like your dad is to increase the GDP. It may make you feel better to raise tax rates on the rich, but it won't accomplish anything.

 

[Perspicacity]

My father is a proud man. He won't accept any help monetarily.

So because he doesn't want to accept help from his children, the rest of us should fork over? Maybe his pride is keeping him warm through those cold nights.

 

[Aknazer]

Have you read that there will be no SS COLA again this year for retired people on Medicare? It's all over the news. The GOP needs to come up with budget proposals that address the needs of older people on fixed incomes, and not try to bail out the wealthy by punishing the poor.

Entitlements in general need a reform. Medicare, Medicaid, and SS made up 43% of the federal budget last year (SS was 20% by itself). And you can thank both Republicans and Democrats for stealing from SS to pay for other programs. And that doesn't even include other "entitlements" like welfare or unemployment (unemployment is another pool of money that states started draining early rather than saving it for its intended use). I don't agree with everything the GOP does, but at least they're willing to talk about the problem that BOTH parties got us into. Instead of pulling a Harry Reid and simply wanting to stick their head in the sand about the issue until it's truly a crisis. Because by that point it will require even more drastic measures, which will lead to even more civil unrest then addressing it before it's a crisis would.

Maybe you or other people should start suggesting things that would fix the current issue rather than simply saying that the suggested changes are unsat?

 

[turbo]

So because he doesn't want to accept help from his children, the rest of us should fork over? Maybe his pride is keeping him warm through those cold nights.

We are pretty self-sufficient here, so your attitude is not warranted. When you are 85+ years old and have weathered everything he has, you have the right to be proud.

If you don't want to "fork over" to retirees and vets that have given all of their lives to build this country and protect it, I have a hard time understanding your attitude.

 

[turbo]

Entitlements in general need a reform. Medicare, Medicaid, and SS made up 43% of the federal budget last year (SS was 20% by itself). And you can thank both Republicans and Democrats for stealing from SS to pay for other programs. And that doesn't even include other "entitlements" like welfare or unemployment (unemployment is another pool of money that states started draining early rather than saving it for its intended use). I don't agree with everything the GOP does, but at least they're willing to talk about the problem that BOTH parties got us into. Instead of pulling a Harry Reid and simply wanting to stick their head in the sand about the issue until it's truly a crisis. Because by that point it will require even more drastic measures, which will lead to even more civil unrest then addressing it before it's a crisis would.

Maybe you or other people should start suggesting things that would fix the current issue rather than simply saying that the suggested changes are unsat?

Entitlements DON'T need to be reformed. SS is self-funding for decades and with minor tweaks in caps, it can be self-funding forever. Medicare can drastically reduce costs if we can enact meaningful health-insurance reform. This is not health-care reform. What's needed is health-insurance reform, so that insurance companies can't keep dumping care-costs onto care-givers.

 

[Perspicacity]

We are pretty self-sufficient here, so your attitude is not warranted. When you are 85+ years old and have weathered everything he has, you have the right to be proud.

If you don't want to "fork over" to retirees and vets that have given all of their lives to build this country and protect it, I have a hard time understanding your attitude.

Then why the sob story? There are literally millions of veterans in this nation, and we have no more right to other people's labor than any welfare queen. You'd have us create a system that would steal from productive members of society for the unproductive by putting the face of an 85-year-old veteran on the poor. Yes, some of the poor are just like your father. Some are also thieves, rapists, and murderers. Neither the veteran or the rapist is entitled to be carried through life.

 

[nismaratwork]

Garbage. Military service does not entitle you to a life of luxury, and you can't expect for the government to put up a VA hospital within 15 miles of wherever a veteran might possibly live. There are more programs to help veterans than I can count.

Luxury? I don't think they're at risk for that, but maybe endoscopes that are cleaned between use, MUCH larger scale treatment and long-term care for PTSD and TBIs would be a nice perk. There are lots of programs... better to have one that actually does the job. Forget right, forget honor... if you want good people fighting to keep your life the way it is, then you can't show them a future of brain injury, maiming, and a disinterested populace.

As for the crap Turbo spouted, he seems unable to grasp the concept that no one is taking money from his father and giving it to rich people—it's just that no one is willing to take more from rich people and give it to his father. Fighting in a war doesn't mean that you get to be carried around on a litter by the rest of society until the day you died.

Turbo's father should have provided for his own retirement, like millions of other veterans do, including myself.

Fighting in a war means that you've sacrificed something; my grandfather fought in WWII, and by his own accounts was never the same after. Successful? Oh yes, but maybe if we didn't have a complete clusterlove-in of a mental health system, he wouldn't have just had to suffer quietly, in the luxury he made for himself.

That you leap to the concept of luxury is absurd, your view overly binary, your utter lack of respect for another user who has done NOTHING to you is less than endearing. You like the laws of the jungle?... then you only get what you can protect; if rich people can't keep their wealth from the "poor", tough for them. The theft you abhore can't be your only ethic, or it's not an ethic at all.

 

[Dale]

There are literally millions of veterans in this nation, and we have no more right to other people's labor than any welfare queen.

Well, a veteran does have more right than a welfare queen.

The veteran risked life and limb to provide an extremely valuable service to me, so I am OK paying for pension and medical care (similarly I am ok paying prices for consumer goods which include retirement and medical benefits for their workers). This will allow the military to continue to recruit more people and protect me and my family (similarly that allows companies to continue to recruit people to produce valuable consumer goods for me).

The welfare queen on the other hand never provided anything of value to me, so I don't know why I should pay her way at all.

 

[Aknazer]

We are pretty self-sufficient here, so your attitude is not warranted. When you are 85+ years old and have weathered everything he has, you have the right to be proud.

If you don't want to "fork over" to retirees and vets that have given all of their lives to build this country and protect it, I have a hard time understanding your attitude.

I'm currently in the military. My Grandfather on my step-dad's side was in the 101st Airborne in WWII. My grandfather on my mom's side was in the Navy during Vietnam (was on the river boats). My dad is retired Navy. My step-dad is retired Air Force. I've had an uncle in the Army, Navy, Marines, and Army National Guard. I have had relatives in ALL branches of service. And so far every single one of them has gotten another job since either separating or retiring. And every one of them has either planned ahead and saved for retirement, or at least been given the opportunity.

Now I'm sorry if your dad didn't plan ahead. And I'm sorry that the government basically lied to him about Social Security and that he actually trusted in the government. But that doesn't mean my taxes should go up because he didn't properly plan for the future. And if he's too proud to ask/accept help when it's needed then that's on him, not the taxpayer.

I also understand that the military hasn't always been treated the best and that sometimes there's still issues with some vet benefits. But things have greatly improved and you can't expect everything like hospital care to just be handed to you regardless of where you choose to live.

 

[Perspicacity]

Luxury? I don't think they're at risk for that, but maybe endoscopes that are cleaned between use, MUCH larger scale treatment and long-term care for PTSD and TBIs would be a nice perk. There are lots of programs... better to have one that actually does the job. Forget right, forget honor... if you want good people fighting to keep your life the way it is, then you can't show them a future of brain injury, maiming, and a disinterested populace.
Fighting in a war means that you've sacrificed something; my grandfather fought in WWII, and by his own accounts was never the same after. Successful? Oh yes, but maybe if we didn't have a complete clusterlove-in of a mental health system, he wouldn't have just had to suffer quietly, in the luxury he made for himself.

That you leap to the concept of luxury is absurd, your view overly binary, your utter lack of respect for another user who has done NOTHING to you is less than endearing. You like the laws of the jungle?... then you only get what you can protect; if rich people can't keep their wealth from the "poor", tough for them. The theft you abhore can't be your only ethic, or it's not an ethic at all.

You are acting like VA hospitals invented stupid. Plenty of civilian hospitals have scandals, and there are plenty of people who's lives get ruined by a bad doctor who have never worn a uniform a day in their life.

Of course, you know the magic trick to providing perfect health care to all our Vets without ever being embarrassed by a failure in your system, right? How about sharing with the rest of us? Or did I perhaps miss the "don't clean veteran's endoscopes" vote in Congress?

As for your grandfather, why didn't he seek helps from those awesome mental-health professionals that were providing such happy lives for us civilians? Oh! You mean you didn't notice how the mental health community, civilian or military, STILL doesn't really have a grip on many mental health issues.

My lack of respect from Turbo is that he tried to make this issue into a "Pay more taxes or you hate veterans" choice. Well I'm a veteran, so how about "let me keep more of my taxes or you hate veterans choice" for you?

 

[Perspicacity]

Well, a veteran does have more right than a welfare queen.

The veteran risked life and limb to provide an extremely valuable service to me, so I am OK paying for pension and medical care (similarly I am ok paying prices for consumer goods which include retirement and medical benefits for their workers). This will allow the military to continue to recruit more people and protect me and my family (similarly that allows companies to continue to recruit people to produce valuable consumer goods for me).

The welfare queen on the other hand never provided anything of value to me, so I don't know why I should pay her way at all.

Hence benefits like the GI Bill. I signed a contract when I joined, and so far the government has held up their part of the bargain. I'm sure some people do get shafted, but that happens in any system run by humans. It's why we have lawyers and such.

 

[nismaratwork]

Hence benefits like the GI Bill. I signed a contract when I joined, and so far the government has held up their part of the bargain. I'm sure some people do get shafted, but that happens in any system run by humans. It's why we have lawyers and such.

Right, because when you're done fighting a war, your brain has been slapped around skull literally and figureatively, it's best to get right to fighting in the courtroom... against the federal government.

BRILLIANT.

Do you know the rate of TBIs in modern warfare, and what that means? You think that turning people out with this high quality (sarcasm) help leads to anything except a social burden elsewhere? Take a moment for the long view, instead of staring an inch ahead of where you plant your feet.

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed temporarily pending Moderation...