Is adding a couple cents tax on an item really that bad?

Ikohn4ever

CAGiversary!
Feedback
5 (100%)
America's bridge to nowhere

The Minneapolis bridge collapse is a metaphor for our twisted national priorities.

While divers continue their search for the bodies of people who until the moment of death had assumed they were merely commuters, let’s consider these facts:

In 2005, the Minneapolis legislature enacted a hike in the gas tax, with the money earmarked for much-needed road and bridge repairs. But Tim Pawlenty - the Republican governor who has long been billed as a rising star in the conservative firmament, and who has sought to reign on a pledge of No New Taxes – decided that a gas tax hike would violate his principles. So he vetoed the bill. The lawmakers squawked, pointing out that the gas tax at the pump had last been raised in 1988, failed to override the veto.

Then, earlier this year, the lawmakers tried again. Mindful of the fact that Minnesota’s annual shortfall for road and bridge repairs had soared to $1.8 billion, they enacted another hike in the gas tax. But Pawlenty, deciding that the payment of an additional five cents per gallon constituted an undue tax burden, vetoed this bill as well. And again the lawmakers lacked the votes to override.

I’m not suggesting that this no-new-taxes governor is personally responsible for the I-35 bridge collapse; the span may well have fallen anyway, even if there had been new state money for repairs. (The states provide money for interstate repairs, but most of the tab is supposed to be paid by the feds.) But Pawlenty’s vetoes are symptomatic of a society that thinks it can survive on the cheap.

Americans have a general aversion to taxes of any kind – unlike their counterparts in the western European social democracies, where sacrificing for the common good is a given - and American politicians play to that sentiment. Few pay attention to the constant warnings about a deteriorating infrastructure. The 40-year-old Minneapolis bridge was rated as "structurally deficient" in a 2005 federal inventory, but it was hardly unique.

Not surprisingly, the 18.4-cent federal tax on a gallon of gas (a tax designed to raise money for interstate transportation repairs) hasn’t been raised in 14 years. It last happened in '93, during a Democratic Congress. But, in the years since, the drill has been that Republicans don’t want to raise taxes, and Democrats fear being tarred as tax-raisers. Indeed, John Kerry spoke up for a gas tax hike back in the early ‘90s, and the Republicans pounded him for that in TV ads during the 2004 presidential campaign.

In fairness, however, Congress in 2004 did propose to raise the federal gas tax by 4 cents a gallon…but the measure died when President Bush threatened to veto any highway spending bill that included a tax increase. On the campaign trail that year, he complained about the Democrats, saying "there are some in the other party in Washington who would like to raise gas taxes. I think it would be wrong. I think it would be damaging to the economy," while omitting the fact that many Republicans were also backing a gas tax hike.

Bush's stance was unfortunate, because the federal Highway Trust Fund, which depends on the federal gas tax for its revenue, is now projected to go into the red in 2009, for the very first time.

But now that bodies are floating somewhere in the Mississippi River, the mood in Washington has shifted. One Republican congressman, Tom Petri of Wisconsin, a longtime fiscal conservative who did back a gas tax hike in 2004, said yesterday: “People think they're saving money by not investing in infrastructure, and the result is you have catastrophes like this.” And Bush is suddenly talking about sending financial aid to Minnesota, along with his prayers.

Yet even though Bush is pledging to help the state by sending emergency money, his press secretary is suggesting that the state is to blame for the emergency. Tony Snow argued yesterday, "if an inspection report identifies deficiencies, the state is responsible for taking corrective actions."

Expect in the days ahead to hear a surge of rhetoric about the need for long-term thinking (before the Minnesota incident is largely forgotten, at least outside of Minnesota). The American Society of Civil Engineers believes that we're spending only 60 percent of the money that would be required to safeguard our roads and bridges. Put another way, the ASCE says that we need to spend $9.4 billion a year over the next 20 years to make things right.

Sounds like a daunting annual tab. On the other hand, we’re currently spending around $9 billion in Iraq every month, just so the terrorists won’t follow us home and blow up our bridges during our evening commute.


Speaking of Iraq, Defense Secretary Robert Gates gets the quote of the week. On his plane yesterday, he said he was disappointed that the dispatch of 30,000 additional U.S. troops has not inspired the Sunni and Shiite politicians to make nice to each other:

“I think the developments on the political side are somewhat discouraging on the national level…We probably all underestimated the depth of mistrust and how difficult it would be for these guys to come together on legislation, which, let’s face it, is not some kind of secondary issue.”

There it is, your bridge repair money at work.

http://dickpolman.blogspot.com/2007/08/americas-bridge-to-nowhere.html


to me this just shows the problem in America, in the past, we as Americans were much more ready to sacrifice when our government asked us too. But now these lifetime politicians are too worried about the their careers to try anything as daring as raising taxes 5 cents in fear of getting kicked out of office.
 
The same person wants to burn up our money destabilizing the middle east and chasing after dictators our nation (our president and his business interests, yes, not our nation) has no beef with.

Our priorities are so fucked up it's not even funny.


It was an entirely preventable disaster, and whatever you have to say about it, we as a nation (and minnesotta as a state) need to severely rethink how we conduct ourselves.
 
One has to wonder why on earth we let the federal government collect taxes on every gallon of gas. The amount of wasted dollars from this tax being collected, sent, filtered, misused, and then finally apportioned by political favor, is money that would be better spent directly by the states, who, are ultimately responsible for the funding and actual repairs. All this money does is allow for another useless bureaucracy and a few well paid administrators that could easily be trimmed from the federal budget.

The state gasoline taxes not being raised in 20 years is also a fallacy. States charge not only a per gallon tax on gasoline, they also charge sales tax. When gas was 99 cents in Michigan, the state took in 6 cents per gallon. Now that gas is $3, it takes in 18 cents a gallon, a 200 % increase, in addition to the standard 19 cents/gallon tax that has not increased in 20 years. And, in 1988, we only had a 4% sales tax, making today's sales tax on a gallon of gas a 450% increase over the last 20 years. And let's not forget to mention that more gas is sold today than in 1988, making a greater profit for them by volume.

Just because the Feds moan their tax hasn't been raised in a while, isn't a valid argument to raise it next week. Also, States that have been derelict of duty in maintenance and repair as a reason for us all to be punished with increased federal confiscation is also not valid.

Spare me the sad song of tight purse strings; the States obviously have a hard time being responsible with other people's money and always think raising taxes is the only solution.
 
Anyone who believes that the government will use your new tax dollars for precisely what they claim to is kidding themselves.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']One has to wonder why on earth we let the federal government collect taxes on every gallon of gas. The amount of wasted dollars from this tax being collected, sent, filtered, misused, and then finally apportioned by political favor, is money that would be better spent directly by the states, who, are ultimately responsible for the funding and actual repairs. All this money does is allow for another useless bureaucracy and a few well paid administrators that could easily be trimmed from the federal budget.

The state gasoline taxes not being raised in 20 years is also a fallacy. States charge not only a per gallon tax on gasoline, they also charge sales tax. When gas was 99 cents in Michigan, the state took in 6 cents per gallon. Now that gas is $3, it takes in 18 cents a gallon, a 200 % increase, in addition to the standard 19 cents/gallon tax that has not increased in 20 years. And, in 1988, we only had a 4% sales tax, making today's sales tax on a gallon of gas a 450% increase over the last 20 years. And let's not forget to mention that more gas is sold today than in 1988, making a greater profit for them by volume.

Just because the Feds moan their tax hasn't been raised in a while, isn't a valid argument to raise it next week. Also, States that have been derelict of duty in maintenance and repair as a reason for us all to be punished with increased federal confiscation is also not valid.

Spare me the sad song of tight purse strings; the States obviously have a hard time being responsible with other people's money and always think raising taxes is the only solution.[/QUOTE]

I pretty much completely agree with this. Why do some people think the answer is always raising taxes instead of fiscal responsibility? Even if tax receipts hadn't gone up (which, as you point out, they have due to increased prices), why should we have to pay more to support a bigger bureaucracy? Why is government waste and inefficiency never the target, but always we need to pay more taxes? Taxes are WAY too high as it is and government WAY too big. Before we even consider raising any tax we should cut our bloated federal and state governments into fractions of their current selves.

Here is a good example from where I live:

Arlington County, VA budget 2003: $754.46 million
http://www.arlingtonva.us/Departmen...budget/fy03_approved/section_a/resolution.htm
Est. Population 2003 = 187,873

Arlington County, VA budget 2007: $1.07 billion
http://www.arlingtonva.us/departmen...dget_resolution-Revised_Adopt_for_Schools.pdf
Est. Population 2007 = 202,800

2003 spending = $4,015.80/person
2007 spending = $5,276.13/person

You see? I don't think this is as drastic in most areas, but give me a break we need to pay more taxes. That is approximately a 30% increase per person in four years!
 
[quote name='elprincipe']

You see? I don't think this is as drastic in most areas, but give me a break we need to pay more taxes. That's beyond doubling in four years![/QUOTE]

No, I don't "see"...check your math again. One of your figures contains the school budget (the higher one) the other doesn't. Plus you are assuming the 2003 budget was adequate.

We can have a discussion but we need to start by being honest about the numbers.

[quote name='bmulligan']

The state gasoline taxes not being raised in 20 years is also a fallacy. States charge not only a per gallon tax on gasoline, they also charge sales tax. [/QUOTE]


Not all states. Do a little research before sweeping generalizations, kay?
 
[quote name='usickenme']No, I don't "see"...check your math again. One of your figures contains the school budget (the higher one) the other doesn't. Plus you are assuming the 2003 budget was adequate.

We can have a discussion but we need to start by being honest about the numbers.[/QUOTE]

Ah, you are absolutely right, took the wrong number off there. Thanks for catching that. I have corrected the post, although my point still stands (spending has gone up dramatically per person, just not as dramatically as the mistake indicated).

I'm not sure what you mean by adequate?
 
Here's the problem with taxes:
The Government doesn't want to stop increasing taxes. Ever. Once they start, they can't stop.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Anyone who believes that the government will use your new tax dollars for precisely what they claim to is kidding themselves.[/quote]

While it's true that not all tax dollars go to the proper place, many of them do. Of course, when a library is built or a road is repared, the nightly news sure as hell isn't going to do a story on it! That's not interesting. It's only when they catch some earmark or some special favor being done by a legislator that the media attention follows.
 
[quote name='usickenme']
We can have a discussion but we need to start by being honest about the numbers.

Not all states. Do a little research before sweeping generalizations, kay?[/QUOTE]

Did I say all states? No, I didn't. I was refering to MY OWN state, primarily, but many others charge sales tax as well. Never did I say ALL STATES, so keep your assweeping generalizations about others' perceived sweeping generalizations to yourself.

Why the hell am I even seeing your comments? I've had you on ignore for over a year now but for some reason your sickeningness seems to have slipped through the cracks.
 
[quote name='dragonreborn23']While it's true that not all tax dollars go to the proper place, many of them do. Of course, when a library is built or a road is repared, the nightly news sure as hell isn't going to do a story on it! That's not interesting. It's only when they catch some earmark or some special favor being done by a legislator that the media attention follows.[/quote]

Pfft. I'm not even going off of the stories. I'm going off the amount of taxes I've seen put on that were supposed to go for X or Y, or, my favorite, be temporary and only last until Z has been paid for. Every one of them merely continued and had the money redirected.
 
In the early 90's michigan increased the sales tax from 4% to 6%. The extra 2% was to go directly to school funding to solve the school budget problem forever. Now, 15 years later we're in a school budget crisis again and they again want to raise taxes. Guess why? As the 50% increase in sales tax has been covering so much of the school budget, they've been cutting $$ for schools out of the general fund for the last 15 years so they could spend it somewhere else.

Never believe politicians when they claim raising taxes will solve your problems.
 
The city of Cincinnati is in an interesting scenario:

Twice, the city was duped (I'm a KY resident, so I'm absolved from responsibility on the matter) by sports franchises (Bengals and Reds) into helping publicize the costs of operating a major league sports franchise (meanwhile, of course, the profits remained private). On each occasion, 1/2 cent sales tax increases were successfully passed in general ballots (so it was the citizens who voted for them, and not the city council as a proxy).

At the moment, the city, like damn near every other city and state in the nation, if facing massive jail and prison overcrowding (for instance, the state of CA's prisons are now operating at 210% capacity). The city council passed (here's the nuance; notice who's passing the sales tax increase here) a 1/2 sales tax increase to go into expanding the current jail and building a new one. Now, Cincy, being a very conservative city, balking like a mofo at a 1/2 cent sales tax increase. They claimed it was being forced on them, and they demanded a right to vote on it. After gathering petitions, it is on the general ballot for this fall (where it will surely die).

So, here we have the public making demands. On one hand, we are a democracy, after all; what the public wants (within reason), the public should have a right to demand. Nevertheless, the contradiction of public demand for (1) functional and operational jails and prisons (and the criminal justice system as well) and (2) their demand for low taxes have presented the city as your typical "we want our cake and we want to eat it, too" public.

To some people, a couple cents is bad no matter what; it's just a thoughtless knee-jerk reaction. They can never admit that any tax is good, but they will always concede that no tax is a foolish idea. Instead, their genuine ideal lives in an amorphous black hole where they can never articulate just what appropriate tax is - it's part of that Pavlovian response that makes them stutter incessantly when presented with the need to admit that some taxes are necessary.

I bristle at the idea that the public should pay for the costs of running a business (Reds/Bengals) while the profits remain private. In every case imaginable, the arguments made by those businesses (increased revenue for the city) fail to come to fruition. Statistics and estimates by Schwirian, Curry, and Waldorf ("High Stakes" 2005) show that only the luckiest cities break even after paying for Big Team Stadium; most end up with a revenue shortfall (not that big stadiums drive people away, but not enough new people come to help cover the costs that the city agreed to pay). I hate that sort of bullshit taxation, because it's done in such a threatening, dunderheaded, and insidious way. I'm sure Bmugs loves it, since even though it is tax, it goes directly to big business coffers, so that's "free enterprise," and not "redistribution of wealth." Right?

On the other hand, the same city that was duped twice is now about to vote down a sales tax increase that will lead to fewer people serving their full sentence, and more people serving no time at all - we simply lack the resources to house them, because the public demands to not pay for the jail. Yay for more unpunished criminals on the street!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I bristle at the idea that the public should pay for the costs of running a business (Reds/Bengals) while the profits remain private. In every case imaginable, the arguments made by those businesses (increased revenue for the city) fail to come to fruition. Statistics and estimates by Schwirian, Curry, and Waldorf ("High Stakes" 2005) show that only the luckiest cities break even after paying for Big Team Stadium; most end up with a revenue shortfall (not that big stadiums drive people away, but not enough new people come to help cover the costs that the city agreed to pay). I hate that sort of bullshit taxation, because it's done in such a threatening, dunderheaded, and insidious way.[/QUOTE]

Not sure how this topic turned into this rant, but I have to say I totally agree with you on this. We here in the DC area have just seen the idiot DC government pony up $611 million of public money for a baseball stadium so the millionaire owners of the baseball team can make more money. Of course, given the numerous studies that indicate these types of things are overall losers for the cities that build them, we can assume that this money would have been much better spent in a zillion ways in DC, the city known as the "murder capital" of the country, whose sewage system is decrepit, taxes very high, infrastructure in need of repair, etc. etc.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
To some people, a couple cents is bad no matter what; it's just a thoughtless knee-jerk reaction. They can never admit that any tax is good, but they will always concede that no tax is a foolish idea. Instead, their genuine ideal lives in an amorphous black hole where they can never articulate just what appropriate tax is - it's part of that Pavlovian response that makes them stutter incessantly when presented with the need to admit that some taxes are necessary.[/QUOTE]

Are you purposely chumming the water?

It's a convenient catagorization to lump tax haters into that sweeping black hole where they find it impossible to define what is and what isn't a fair tax. That your own kettle-calling, knee-jerk reaction to those who would question the government's use of our current tax dollars.

It is unequally more foolish to assume that a few pennies on the dollar are of no consequence, and let the beast of government go unchallenged. Myke would gladly give his fortune and right arm to the protectors of his faith and let them decide what the public needs, when it needs it, and tell you how much it will cost. The citizen's job it simply to relinquish their property for the common good without argument. A black hole from which there is definitely no escape.

Bravo to the citizens of Cincinnati for giving the finger to their so-called representatives. They have only themselves to blame for criminals on the street - or do they?

That same governing body can decide to strip law enforcement funding as punishment to that populace instead of finding other areas to cut. It's strange that the first budget item to be held hostage when an impending tax increase comes up for a vote is law enforcement. Yet the funds for a new bike trail, sport stadium, concert hall, public park, flower garden, or library magically appear from the coffers. There are times when budgets are tight enough to warrant tax increases, but I have yet to see one in my lifetime, or my locality.

I've also yet to see a governing body be responsible with other people's money - ever. Until that happens, we owe it to ourselves and our fellow men to take government to task on all their actions, especially the ones that give them more power - the right to tax.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']

It's a convenient catagorization to lump tax haters into that sweeping black hole where they find it impossible to define what is and what isn't a fair tax.
[/quote]


[quote name='bmulligan']
There are times when budgets are tight enough to warrant tax increases, but I have yet to see one in my lifetime, or my locality.

I've also yet to see a governing body be responsible with other people's money - ever .[/QUOTE]

You're right ,it is pretty conveniant. Especially when you prove it in your own post..
 
[quote name='usickenme']You're right ,it is pretty conveniant. Especially when you prove it in your own post..[/quote] Ah, classic Msut/usickenme. One line posts showing only tenuous connections with what was actually said.

Let me guess, you weren't so good at the "One of these things is not like the others." game. He was only speaking of government he had observed and studied. Some people do arrive at their conclusions in good faith, you know.

[quote name='mykevermin']I'm sure Bmugs loves it, since even though it is tax, it goes directly to big business coffers, so that's "free enterprise," and not "redistribution of wealth." Right?[/quote]
Bad faith? Intellectually lazy tarring of opponents in lieu of reasoned debate? I know that smell, its MYKE!
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']

Bad faith? Intellectually lazy tarring of opponents in lieu of reasoned debate? I know that smell, its MYKE![/QUOTE]

The nice thing about myke is that he can make a simple name calling, without reason or logical dissection to back it up, seem like an intellectual analysis when he uses all his big college words.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']It's a convenient catagorization to lump tax haters into that sweeping black hole where they find it impossible to define what is and what isn't a fair tax. That your own kettle-calling, knee-jerk reaction to those who would question the government's use of our current tax dollars.[/quote]

I provided you with evidence of taxes I thought were bullshit, yet you still call me "knee-jerk." No wonder I don't spend a great deal of time with your posts; you can get all curmudgeonly and continue to incorrectly paint me with a broad brush that says "Marxist," then get mad if I fail to adequately sate your thirst for knowledge (and instead engage in creative slander).

Like a particularly astute letter to the editor I read yesterday in the New York Times (SLIMEZ HAW HAW!!!) regarding the weak-ass Democrats' capitulation to expanding FISA for the purposes of making this an even more Orwellian state, "just because you helped pass this law, do you suddenly believe Republicans and Republican commentators will suddenly stop calling you soft on the war on terror?" Likewise, you have me pegged and framed in your own mind, and when I step outside of that, it becomes something you can not address. Instead, break out the Marxist label, as if that ol' chestnut ain't (1) wrong, (2) worn out, (3) not particularly clever, or (4) deserving of a response.

It is unequally more foolish to assume that a few pennies on the dollar are of no consequence, and let the beast of government go unchallenged. Myke would gladly give his fortune and right arm to the protectors of his faith and let them decide what the public needs, when it needs it, and tell you how much it will cost. The citizen's job it simply to relinquish their property for the common good without argument. A black hole from which there is definitely no escape.

Again, a paragraph of conjecture and that same name-calling you and RollingSkull were having a crying party over, replete with the incorrect assumption that i do not bristle at tax increases. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I don't know how to convince you I'm wrong, since it "does not compute" to you that I would dare question Great Government Leaders' Most Honorable Tax Increases; but, quite simply, you are wrong. I'm certainly not an absolutist like you, determined that all tax increases are unneeded, bad, and oppressive. But far more often than you think I am highly skeptical.

Bravo to the citizens of Cincinnati for giving the finger to their so-called representatives. They have only themselves to blame for criminals on the street - or do they?

That same governing body can decide to strip law enforcement funding as punishment to that populace instead of finding other areas to cut. It's strange that the first budget item to be held hostage when an impending tax increase comes up for a vote is law enforcement. Yet the funds for a new bike trail, sport stadium, concert hall, public park, flower garden, or library magically appear from the coffers. There are times when budgets are tight enough to warrant tax increases, but I have yet to see one in my lifetime, or my locality.

I've also yet to see a governing body be responsible with other people's money - ever. Until that happens, we owe it to ourselves and our fellow men to take government to task on all their actions, especially the ones that give them more power - the right to tax.

Where you're wrong about a "budget item to be held hostage" is that we aren't talking about the current amount of the police/jails/prison/cj system. We're talking about finding funding for the short-term up-front cost of a new jail and remodeling of the old one (plus, of course, the ongoing cost of operation). It's an added cost, not one that's existed being held up.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Ah, classic Msut/usickenme. One line posts showing only tenuous connections with what was actually said.

Let me guess, you weren't so good at the "One of these things is not like the others." game. He was only speaking of government he had observed and studied. Some people do arrive at their conclusions in good faith, you know.
[/QUOTE]

I don't know what benefit you guys get from playing dumb but it is not too big a leap to think a "fair" tax is one that is justified by a tight budget and a government that spends wisely. You're right, maybe Bmug only pays attention to his politics within a 5 mile radius of his house. I willing to give him the benefit of doubt.

and here is a tip. If you are going to challenge my post. Don't start off by agreeing with me.
 
[quote name='usickenme']I don't know what benefit you guys get from playing dumb but it is not too big a leap to think a "fair" tax is one that is justified by a tight budget and a government that spends wisely. [/QUOTE]

You can't really be naive enough to believe our federal government has a tight budget and spends wisely, are you?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I provided you with evidence of taxes I thought were bullshit, yet you still call me "knee-jerk." No wonder I don't spend a great deal of time with your posts; you can get all curmudgeonly and continue to incorrectly paint me with a broad brush that says "Marxist," then get mad if I fail to adequately sate your thirst for knowledge (and instead engage in creative slander).
[/QUOTE]

So, you believe some taxes are bullshit, yet you would broadswipe me into that "black hole" of people who believe any tax is a bad tax and has an inability to define anything confiscatory as good. So you're part of your own black kettle? You're off lately, myke. It's like arguing with good old Alonzo, who never met a contradiction he didn't like.

And let's not change topics with the fisa laws and 3d party letters to some newspaper I don't even read. The problem, myke, is that you don't deny, continue to reinforce, and sometimes try to mislead people into believeing you are anything other than a communist. You need to come clean if you want to stop being labeled as anything you aren't, instead of bitching and moaning about how unfairly you've been painted. Be proud of your philosophy, myke, it's really all you have.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']You can't really be naive enough to believe our federal government has a tight budget and spends wisely, are you?[/QUOTE]

Unlke you, I wasn't saying anything definitively about how the any government, let alone our federal government, spends or justifies taxes.

(...well I've NEVER seen...)
 
[quote name='usickenme']Unlke you, I wasn't saying anything definitively about how the any government, let alone our federal government, spends or justifies taxes.

(...well I've NEVER seen...)[/QUOTE]

Well, considering I've lived in the real world, i.e., post college, for many years now, I can DEFINITIVELY say that during my travels, I have never seen any government that operates on a tight budget and justifies all their purchases after taking care of necessities. Any and all governments waste money becuase there's simply no accountability to check up on the spenders save every election cycle.

If my wife checked up on my spending every 2 years and I could get away with lying to her about my expenditures and needs, we'd all have a hell of a lot more fun on friday nights. I'd be ordering drinks for everyone and eating out a lot more than we usually do simply becuase there's no one looking at my credit card statements making me justify every purchase. If you know anything you know damn well that's how government works. People just aren't ties to reality when spending other peoples' endless supply of money.

Hell, the closest you've probably ever been to your state rep, or any rep for that matter, is the last time you saw his name on the ballot. Ever shook his hand and demanded an answer? Ever call him on his bullshit at the last township meeting? Ever called him to persuade him how to vote in the next county board meeting? Ever write a letter to the local paper? I doubt it.

Hell, I'd venture a guess you've never even had to itemize your own deductions, depreciate a business vehicle, pay a mortgage, or even filed your own tax return from the sound of your inexperience in life. Daddy can only write those numbers in those little boxes for so many years before he kicks you out on your ass to do it yourself.

So, yes, goddamnit, I will go out on that fat, fifty year old limb that can hold a semi truck and say from experience that no government is efficient. Of course YOU would never say something like that because you simply don't KNOW.
 
No government spends money efficiently. That's why I'd rather give the government as little of my money as possible; and take care of my own needs myself rather than leave it in the government's hands.
 
No government spends money efficiently. That's why I'd rather give the government as little of my money as possible; and take care of my own needs myself rather than leave it in the government's hands.
 
Sales tax increases are usually government's way of saying "If you want this thing, then we'll pay for it if you allow this sales tax. We're too busy to figure out how to free up money in our budget.". Or in the worst case it is the government saying "If you like roads and want police protection, you BETTER cough up some sales tax, see?"

Maybe what I'd rather hear government say is "We know you want roads and police protection, and we'll look into paying for it using money we're wasting somewhere else. You know we'd only ask you for a tax increase if we were running a tight financial ship and desperately needed the money."
 
the thing is "TEH GOVERNMENT!!" doesn't exist as a single real entity. The government is made of many different departments, levels (state, local federal), districts. Some are very inefficient and wasteful. Some spend their money quite resonable and get tangible results for the buck. Maybe, it doesn't matter because it is still money you are paying but I note who is asking and where it is going.

So it is completely dishonest to use that as justification for not wanting to participate in society.


As for bmug..when your entire response is based on an incorrent assumption, you shouldn't bother at all.
 
[quote name='usickenme']"TEH GOVERNMENT!!"[/quote]
Please. Just because I have a whimsical orc as an avatar doesn't make me l33t!!1!!111!

[quote name='usickenme']it doesn't matter because it is still money you are paying[/quote]
Yes. Using that logic, it's all the government. The divisions you note are artificial to me...

Every year if you add up all the taxes I pay (income, property, sales, tag, etc.) I think that would probably be my share in getting done what government needs to get done, on local, state, and federal levels. If it isn't enough, I'd at least like the people asking to justify it.

Let me get this straight. When there's a sales tax labelled "This sales tax is for teachers and firemen. If you don't vote for this tax, then you don't love teachers and firemen", I should simply vote yes for the tax because in fact I do support teachers and firemen? Doesn't a little piece of you suspect that if they REALLY cared about teachers and firemen, they could divert the money from another project?

[quote name='usickenme']So it is completely dishonest to use that as justification for not wanting to participate in society.[/quote]
Hey, I vote Libertarian and I pay my taxes. Who said anything about not participating in society?
 
[quote name='Sideswiper']

Let me get this straight. When there's a sales tax labelled "This sales tax is for teachers and firemen. If you don't vote for this tax, then you don't love teachers and firemen", I should simply vote yes for the tax because in fact I do support teachers and firemen? Doesn't a little piece of you suspect that if they REALLY cared about teachers and firemen, they could divert the money from another project?

?[/QUOTE]

Let me start off by saying I do think there is waste is many parts of the government at all levels and no one should have a blank check on spending. Some tax proposal are complete BS and I won't vote for or approve of them. But I take each one as it comes instead of some who claim..."all taxes are bad and all government wastes money all of the time". (Not saying that is your stance). I know better.


Sales tax is a bad example. Sales tax generally goes into a general fund. Sometimes it is advertised as targeting a group but it's just advertising. Generally opponents of such measure get the word out quite well. I think your complaint is with the marketing of some taxes. I know that, yes, they could in theory divert money from another project but that other project just might also be something I desire. I also know that at some point, you have to start paying for all of the programs you demand from the government. I mean, cutting costs can only go so far.

But just because they are "artificial" to you doesn't mean they are. Each year there are plenty of taxes on the ballot (at least here) that are mandated for a specific purpose. Additionally, certain taxes are directed to certain parts of the government. i.e. property taxes generally fund schools.




Also, I wasn't judging your participation at that point of the post. Just a general comment on some tax-haters
 
[quote name='usickenme']The government is made of many different departments, levels (state, local federal), districts. ALL are very inefficient and wasteful.[/QUOTE]

Fixed there for you. I challenge you to name one government entity that is not very inefficient and wasteful.
 
5 cents a gallon.
15 gallons to fill up.
1 fill up a week.
52 weeks in a year.

That's 39 dollars a year. Screw them. Tell the crooked ass politicians to pull it our of their pocket.
 
bread's done
Back
Top