Election Day

[Irvinecommuter]

Well maybe I'm an optimist... and if the gov't stopped taxing me $1 so they can keep .90 and just spend .10 on the impoverished, I can spend that whole $1 on them directly.

Until their is more accountability and transparency at the gov't level, our tax dollars will never be optimized to take care of society's "problems". Instead, we inefficiently enable welfare mentality and then people like you think it's because the gov't isn't doing enough.

I think we both want the same things, but we just don't agree on the methods.

You can be an optimist but I live in reality.  We have a minimal welfare system as compared to most of the world and we are falling very short on taking care of the "impoverish".

Government doesn't keep your money...it spends it on things.  Government does all the stuff that are expensive and have no profit margin.  You can agree or disagree on what the money is spent on but it's pretty unfair to say that the money disappears. 

There is no "welfare mentality"...it's something that rich people and Libertarians say to themselves to make them feel superior and righteous.  Many people who are poor work multiple jobs that are physically demanding and minimal wages.  They don't take food stamps because they like it, they take it because they want to feed their children.  People who lost their jobs don't hang out at home collecting unemployment benefits, they look for work. 

Being poor doesn't somehow make you a bad person and being rich doesn't somehow make you a good one.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

As I always tell Libertarians, live outside of your bubble and world.  You live in a society and there are a lot of people who are suffering.  Those people have the same work ethics, motivations, and aspirations as you do, they just got dealt a much tougher hand to begin with. 

Honestly, I can live with the Gordon Gekkos of the world...I understand who they are and they are honest about who they are.  I am annoyed at people who pretend that somehow they are morally superior than other and that the world will be fine if we just left everyone alone.  It's basically a cop-out for being selfish.

I don't think you are fully grasping what I'm saying.

The gov't use of a dollar is highly inefficient. I'm not saying that we should leave everyone alone, but that we should do it directly rather than through gov't. You bring up China, but culturally they have a different mentality, so that's not a good example.

I run across so many people who are charitable and want to give and if the gov't would get out of the way and stop taxing them so much, they would have more to spend directly on those who need it.

I believe that people will always take care of people... you don't need the gov't to take your money and keep some of it to show you how.

What mentality is that? The Chinese government has basically practiced lassiez-faire strategies for the last 20 years.  No consumer regulations, no environmental regulation, no workers rights, widespread taking of land and resources, forced migration of people, essentially anything that would promote business and growth.    Seriously, it's like Ayn Rand's dream world...the result is that you have a class of super wealthy, an increase in the middle class but also a significant portion of the population that has no chance.  Chinese government realized that this is no longer tenable and are starting national program to address those issues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China

Seriously...you believe that.  You believe that people will go and help people if they had more money in their pockets?  People have plenty of money to help other but they rather buy a bigger house, a faster car, or more gadgets. 

Not to mention, the government already promotes giving  by giving a tax deduction. 

Lastly, it has be proven again and again that people who poor give significantly more as a percentage of their income to charity and others than people who are wealthy.  Terms like "welfare state" basically give rich people a way to excuse their relative lack of empathy.
http://nccs.urban.org/nccs/statistics/Charitable-Giving-in-America-Some-Facts-and-Figures.cfm
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/which-americans-are-most-generous-and-to-whom/?_r=0
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/why-the-rich-dont-give/309254/

 

[The Motor Court Company]

Irvinecommunist:
You have not addressed the efficiency part. Government is highly inefficient due to lack of competition and incentives, and also has layers of bureaucracy. At least charity organizations are motivated for a cause they believe in.

Well maybe I'm an optimist... and if the gov't stopped taxing me $1 so they can keep .90 and just spend .10 on the impoverished, I can spend that whole $1 on them directly.

Until their is more accountability and transparency at the gov't level, our tax dollars will never be optimized to take care of society's "problems". Instead, we inefficiently enable welfare mentality and then people like you think it's because the gov't isn't doing enough.

I think we both want the same things, but we just don't agree on the methods.

You can be an optimist but I live in reality.  We have a minimal welfare system as compared to most of the world and we are falling very short on taking care of the "impoverish".

Government doesn't keep your money...it spends it on things.  Government does all the stuff that are expensive and have no profit margin.  You can agree or disagree on what the money is spent on but it's pretty unfair to say that the money disappears. 

There is no "welfare mentality"...it's something that rich people and Libertarians say to themselves to make them feel superior and righteous.  Many people who are poor work multiple jobs that are physically demanding and minimal wages.  They don't take food stamps because they like it, they take it because they want to feed their children.  People who lost their jobs don't hang out at home collecting unemployment benefits, they look for work. 

Being poor doesn't somehow make you a bad person and being rich doesn't somehow make you a good one.

 

[The Motor Court Company]

how do you encourage people to donate? make charitable donations tax credits instead of tax deductibles, with a limit and a stricter standard (i.e. only non-corporate entities can claim donations as credits).

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Irvinecommunist:
You have not addressed the efficiency part. Government is highly inefficient due to lack of competition and incentives, and also has layers of bureaucracy. At least charity organizations are motivated for a cause they believe in.

Well maybe I'm an optimist... and if the gov't stopped taxing me $1 so they can keep .90 and just spend .10 on the impoverished, I can spend that whole $1 on them directly.

Until their is more accountability and transparency at the gov't level, our tax dollars will never be optimized to take care of society's "problems". Instead, we inefficiently enable welfare mentality and then people like you think it's because the gov't isn't doing enough.

I think we both want the same things, but we just don't agree on the methods.

You can be an optimist but I live in reality.  We have a minimal welfare system as compared to most of the world and we are falling very short on taking care of the "impoverish".

Government doesn't keep your money...it spends it on things.  Government does all the stuff that are expensive and have no profit margin.  You can agree or disagree on what the money is spent on but it's pretty unfair to say that the money disappears. 

There is no "welfare mentality"...it's something that rich people and Libertarians say to themselves to make them feel superior and righteous.  Many people who are poor work multiple jobs that are physically demanding and minimal wages.  They don't take food stamps because they like it, they take it because they want to feed their children.  People who lost their jobs don't hang out at home collecting unemployment benefits, they look for work. 

Being poor doesn't somehow make you a bad person and being rich doesn't somehow make you a good one.

Oh good, we're into name calling now.  Governments can be inefficient and bureaucratic but doesn't mean that they have to be or they are.  Many charitable foundations/causes are also highly inefficient and bureaucratic.

For example, Medicare is much better ran than private insurance companies.  It has a lower overhead and fraud rates and provides care to a segment of the population that private insurance does not want to serve.  It also doesn't need to worry about profit or promotion/advertising. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...lue-cross-can-justify-a-17-percent-rate-hike/

 

[Irvinecommuter]

how do you encourage people to donate? make charitable donations tax credits instead of tax deductibles, with a limit and a stricter standard (i.e. only non-corporate entities can claim donations as credits).

But the fact that you have to "encourage" people to donate basically means that they wouldn't do it without the encouragement.  Why do poor people give more than rich people?  Because they value other people's welfare more than their own pocketbooks.

 

[qwerty]

the tax impact for ACA is felt more by the 1%'ers, not you 99%'ers   but there are higher taxes as a result of ACA, however, perhaps there would not be a need for taxes related to the ACA if there was more money in the coffers from not offering the mortgage interest deduction.
http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-taxes/

Edit - didnt realize IHO has posted the same link. IHO - i dont see how you dont think that your tax deduction is not being subsidized by the rest of society. 

 

[Irvinecommuter]

the tax impact for ACA is felt more by the 1%'ers, not you 99%'ers   but there are higher taxes as a result of ACA, however, perhaps there would not be a need for taxes related to the ACA if there was more money in the coffers from not offering the mortgage interest deduction.
http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-taxes/

Exactly...two sides of the same coin.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

You can be an optimist but I live in reality.  We have a minimal welfare system as compared to most of the world and we are falling very short on taking care of the "impoverish".

Government doesn't keep your money...it spends it on things.  Government does all the stuff that are expensive and have no profit margin.  You can agree or disagree on what the money is spent on but it's pretty unfair to say that the money disappears. 

I thought you said you live in "reality". Have you worked for a government? Have you seen their books? Private companies are inefficient and they have to watch their bottom line. Public companies are inefficient and they have stockholders. Gov't has what to watch their spending? How do you think $200m was spent on the Great Park? And that's a city gov't.

There is no "welfare mentality"...it's something that rich people and Libertarians say to themselves to make them feel superior and righteous.  Many people who are poor work multiple jobs that are physically demanding and minimal wages.  They don't take food stamps because they like it, they take it because they want to feed their children.  People who lost their jobs don't hang out at home collecting unemployment benefits, they look for work. 

So you know every poor person and every unemployed person? I would say there is a percentage of those people that are truly "welfare state"enabled. That is where the inefficiencies begin... and don't stop.

Being poor doesn't somehow make you a bad person and being rich doesn't somehow make you a good one.

When did I ever say that?

 

[irvinehomeowner]

Edit - didnt realize IHO has posted the same link. IHO - i dont see how you dont think that your tax deduction is not being subsidized by the rest of society. 

As I stated earlier, if I was a renter, there would be zero home ownership taxes I would be paying.

By me owning property and paying taxes, while my taxable income may be reduced by the mortgage subsidy (and that is suspect as we already know AMT limits that subsidy), I am putting money "into society" not taking from it.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

You can be an optimist but I live in reality.  We have a minimal welfare system as compared to most of the world and we are falling very short on taking care of the "impoverish".

Government doesn't keep your money...it spends it on things.  Government does all the stuff that are expensive and have no profit margin.  You can agree or disagree on what the money is spent on but it's pretty unfair to say that the money disappears. 

I thought you said you live in "reality". Have you worked for a government? Have you seen their books? Private companies are inefficient and they have to watch their bottom line. Public companies are inefficient and they have stockholders. Gov't has what to watch their spending? How do you think $200m was spent on the Great Park? And that's a city gov't.

There is no "welfare mentality"...it's something that rich people and Libertarians say to themselves to make them feel superior and righteous.  Many people who are poor work multiple jobs that are physically demanding and minimal wages.  They don't take food stamps because they like it, they take it because they want to feed their children.  People who lost their jobs don't hang out at home collecting unemployment benefits, they look for work. 

So you know every poor person and every unemployed person? I would say there is a percentage of those people that are truly "welfare state"enabled. That is where the inefficiencies begin... and don't stop.

Being poor doesn't somehow make you a bad person and being rich doesn't somehow make you a good one.

When did I ever say that?

Private companies also go bankrupt and do a lot of bad things.  JPMorgan Chase lost $2 billion because of one guy.  They can also be very inefficient and thus fall behind or go belly up. 

Private companies can also underrate risk and longterm growth for shortterm profits and stockholder appeal.  In fact, the entire financial crisis resulted from shortterm thinking/profit taking and complete lack of appreciation of risk.

I don't know every poor person and every unemployed person but why I should gear policy and action based upon the potential wrongdoing of a few bad apples?  Why should not be concerned about the vast majority of good people that benefit from welfare system?

The use of the term welfare mentality is basically a reflection of how you think of people on welfare.  You have a house and are dependent on the mortgage deduction...do you have a "mortgage deduction mentality?"

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Edit - didnt realize IHO has posted the same link. IHO - i dont see how you dont think that your tax deduction is not being subsidized by the rest of society. 

As I stated earlier, if I was a renter, there would be zero home ownership taxes I would be paying.

By me owning property and paying taxes, while my taxable income may be reduced by the mortgage subsidy (and that is suspect as we already know AMT limits that subsidy), I am putting money "into society" not taking from it.

Someone is paying taxes for you, your landlord.  A portion of your rent payment goes to pay for that.  Your landlord gets some sort of deduction for owning that property and thus potentially reduces you rent payment.

Again, you are benefiting by paying less taxes because you own a home and have a mortgage.  Why should the government subsidize you for doing that?

 

[qwerty]

in general we all pay taxes that subsidize something that we dont get a benefit from.  a lot of us pay much higher property taxes that owners who bought 10, 15, 20 years ago. we get the exact same benefit from the local services but pay different rates for it, that doesnt seem fair.  people who dont have kids pay taxes for schools they will never use, perhaps you should only pay taxes for schools when you use them? seems more fair but that will never happen. 

 

[adventurous]

Of course they can refuse!  They're a sovereign nation...

Like I said, Saddam was the last one to refuse. RIP.

like all other sovereign nations, they can tell the US to get out (see Phillipines).  Are you advocating for a permanent occupation of Iraq by the US with or without their permission?  Seriously, we think we own the world but we really don't.

Like I said, Obama pulled out the troops, but failed to monitor the situation. It's his foreign policy fail.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

in general we all pay taxes that subsidize something that we dont get a benefit from.  a lot of us pay much higher property taxes that owners who bought 10, 15, 20 years ago. we get the exact same benefit from the local services but pay different rates for it, that doesnt seem fair.  people who dont have kids pay taxes for schools they will never use, perhaps you should only pay taxes for schools when you use them? seems more fair but that will never happen. 

Same answer I gave IC:

Just want to give my opinion on these:

Then why should people with no children have to pay taxes to fund public education?

This falls under the preamble of welfare... providing something for society such that they can provide for themselves. Whether or not you have kids, as you've said, should not be an issue. I believe public schools are also largely supported by state/local tax.

Why should pacifists pay taxes to fund the military?

To me, the military is not offense... it's defense. Which is also covered under the preamble of provide for a common defense. Attack a pacifist at home, he will still try to defend himself.

Why should I pay for the police and fire department when I have never called them in my life?

Just because you never called them, doesn't mean you're not using their services. This also falls under common defense and the preambles of establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility and securing the blessings of liberty. And again, these services are mainly state and local.

It's not about paying for things you won't use, it's about at what level these payments are made, what type of service it is... and who will be administering those services.

Other than military, the things you mention are state/local... and more so... they are still *public* entities. That's a larger part of the issue as Liar Loan is saying, because the federal government is going to use *public" funds for *private* services.

Simply put, in the US, there is a standard of education that everyone requires in order to sufficiently provide for themselves. And, this is controlled at state/city level/taxation.

For healthcare, that standard differs vastly, some require high cost healthcare and many others require very little or no healthcare.

I agree, like education, healthcare benefits society. But because of the nuances and variety of healthcare needs in addition to the layer of bureaucracy that both insurance (I did work in the medical insurance arena at one time) and government add, to manage that using public funding at a Federal level is not efficient.

You feel that you should only pay taxes for school when you use them, and I understand that. So at the same time, shouldn't we only pay for healthcare when we use it (the system we had prior to Obamacare)?

Still wondering why IC doesn't think ACA will result in me (or all of us) paying higher taxes.

 

[adventurous]

Of course they can refuse!  They're a sovereign nation...

Like I said, Saddam was the last one to refuse. RIP.

like all other sovereign nations, they can tell the US to get out (see Phillipines).  Are you advocating for a permanent occupation of Iraq by the US with or without their permission?  Seriously, we think we own the world but we really don't.

Like I said, Obama pulled out the troops, but failed to monitor the situation. It's his foreign policy fail.

We pay more than enough taxes. If someone wants to come up with the socialist type of healthcare at extra 10%-15% on the top of the taxes we already pay, well, they can donate it any time of day or night. I have other priorities than subsidizing  someone's laziness

 

[irvinehomeowner]

Someone is paying taxes for you, your landlord.  A portion of your rent payment goes to pay for that.  Your landlord gets some sort of deduction for owning that property and thus potentially reduces you rent payment.

You are reaching again. If you are going to say that me renting will result in the same net taxes as if I owned, you are not "in reality".

Again, you are benefiting by paying less taxes because you own a home and have a mortgage.  Why should the government subsidize you for doing that?

I think it's safe to argue that I pay more taxes during ownership than less. A landlord will most likely have lower property tax basis on his rental than I would have buying a home with a similar mortgage payment to his rent. I will spend more on retail (increase in sales tax) for a home I own over one I rent. I will provide more income (and income and sales tax) for businesses that service or upgrade my home than I would on a rental.

I know it benefits you to ignore reality when trying to prove your point but the fact remains that as a homeowner, I directly or indirectly put more cash in the pot than not being a homeowner... why do you think that subsidy exists?

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Of course they can refuse!  They're a sovereign nation...

Like I said, Saddam was the last one to refuse. RIP.

like all other sovereign nations, they can tell the US to get out (see Phillipines).  Are you advocating for a permanent occupation of Iraq by the US with or without their permission?  Seriously, we think we own the world but we really don't.

Like I said, Obama pulled out the troops, but failed to monitor the situation. It's his foreign policy fail.

We pay more than enough taxes. If someone wants to come up with the socialist type of healthcare at extra 10%-15% on the top of the taxes we already pay, well, they can donate it any time of day or night. I have other priorities than subsidizing  someone's laziness

Okay...at least you're honest about your stereotypes. 

 

[Irvinecommuter]

IHO:  You creating a line between Education and health care that doesn't exists.  In fact, if you take your statement and flip the words education and health care, it would be exactly the same reasoning.

Your "I put more money into the economy" argument also doesn't fly.  You would have exactly the same level of money to contribute whether you are a renter or a homeowner.  A renter just doesn't get a deduction on his/her taxes. 

You may spend more money on your home but a renter can spend that money on other things like a nicer car or more vacations.  Or, they can invest the money in the stock market or other investments.  In fact, one of the things that people always forget to calculate in determine the cost of homeownership v. renting is the return on investment.  Historically, residential real estate is a terrible investment over the longterm.

I mean, if you want to use that argument, studies have shown that for every dollar you put into food stamps, you get more money stimulus than if you just enacted tax rebates.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/29/news/economy/stimulus_analysis/

 

[yaliu07]

If Iraq refused to get invaded by US in 2003, do you think US would not invade Iraq in 2003.  If UN disagreed to invade Iraq in 2003, do you think US would not invade Iraq.

The US just set up the government in Iraq...you want them to basically ignore that and keep troops there?  Seems pretty insane to me.

the question is who gave the right to US in 2003 to set up an Iraq Govt??

US went in to take out Saddam..I would argue without much justification but based upon the old UN resolution regarding chemical/biological weapon ban.  Remember Colin Powell?

Two questions:
1. Did UN authorize an attack on Iraq in 2003?
2. Did US find chemical/biological weapon?

No on both but there were existing UN resolutions about the use of arms against Iraq if there were biological/chemical weapons.  But of course, the legality of US invasion in 2003 is highly debatable and probably shouldn't be the legal/moral basis for future actions.

I have no idea what that has to do with an agreement signed with the Iraqi government to have US troops leave Iraq by 2011.  Are you saying that Obama should have ignore that agreement and keep troops in Iraq over their objections?

that's correct.  the foreign policy rule is simple.  Whoever has a bigger bat, write the rule of foreign policy.  Thus pulling out troops from Iraq because their govt refused is  just BULLSHIT.

That's why I try to vote for qwerty in this Irvine election because he has a bigger bat.