| 0 |
Subject: TAXES
Posted by: steve houpt
- [11140311] Fri, Feb 09, 10:26
Could someone defend some of the more liberal tax plans I have heard. Some keep talking that you have to look at the TOTAL payroll tax deductions when looking at percent of tax payed.
They are talking about Social Security/Medicare (FICA) AND Federal Income Tax. Every individual has to pay 6.2% Social Security on income up to $76,200 and 1.45% (Medicare) on all income.
Let's assume SS is going to be around. Now the way I understand it, you pay so much a year into SS and if you paid the max each year, you might draw the max. SS is based (partially) on what you paid in over the course of your life (or spouse).
Why should we consider what is paid into SS when considering what is a fair amount of Income Tax each individual should pay? Social Security is a totally separate program. If they want to change the way people pay into Social Security and get SS benifits, do it in a Social Security reform package. Sounds like they are trying to make end runs on SS using Income Tax. Give the lower income more of an Income Tax break because they have to pay SS tax??
Note: Wash Post chart on Bush plan |
| Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well. |
| 57 | Myboyjack
ID: 27651610
Fri, Nov 04, 2005, 12:03
|
bili - you're not saying that that chart shows the number of middle class itemized returns relative to the number of upper class are you?
|
| 58 | biliruben
Leader
ID: 589301110
Fri, Nov 04, 2005, 12:30
|
Well it does show that % in each AGI group in the final row, but that wasn't my main point.
That chart shows data among those who itemized. It shows that even among those in the middle class (<$100,000 AGI) who did itemize, the benefit over the standard deduction was modest. Those with higher AGI reaped extremely large benefits, in comparison.
I'm not sure what you are asking.
|
| 59 | sarge33rd
ID: 670916
Fri, Nov 04, 2005, 12:31
|
IF the mortgage deduction were done away with, it would not hurt the "middle class". Not as a whole. Certain individuals, probably. But most, would see no change what-so-ever. As a "class", the middle class would be unaffected by that elimination. Your closing line MBJ in 55 above, is simply wrong. The people who benefit the most from the mortgage deduction, are those buying million dollar homes and the like. Or million dollar 2nd homes. Surely you dont mean to imply, that joe-sixpack falls into that category?????
True, that deduction is the only way alot of middle class folks can exceed the standard deduction. So what they really gain in reducing their taxes, is maybe a $1000 reduction in taxcable income, courtesy of a $10,000 expenditure. You dont think that by eliminating that deduction, homes wouldnt become more affordable? By paying less for the home, the interest paid automatically declines, and the middle class suddenly sees the cash stay in their own hands each and every month. They then use the standard deduction, and in return for keeping $75/month (random nr) in hand, they pay $180 more tax. Thats 180 out of 900, leaving them with 720 net gain. I doubt it would overly impact the price of the "elite" homes, since those are priced more due to abstracts like view, ammenities and privacy/security afforded as well as exclusiveness of the area.
|
| 60 | biliruben
Leader
ID: 589301110
Fri, Nov 04, 2005, 12:35
|
I think there is some confusion here. The recommendation by the panel wasn't elimination. It was to turn it into a 15% credit so that the middle class would benefit even if they did take the standard deduction.
|
| 61 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Fri, Nov 04, 2005, 12:37
|
The mortgage deduction was intended to help the middle class. I don't think we should let ourselves forget that simply because in this hyper-market the rich are also using the deduction and the poor are left out of the equation almost entirely. This was never a deduction intended for poor first-time homebuyers.
Of course, given that the current Republican Congress has taken to replying to nearly all problems with some kind of tax code tinkering (as if racism, women working, abortion, etc can be solved through lowering or eliminating ferderal taxes), it should be no surprise that the deduction has been oversold.
But we should urge caution not to react too strongly to what is going on in a bubble housing boom, particularly now that we're at the end of it.
|
| 62 | sarge33rd
ID: 670916
Fri, Nov 04, 2005, 12:39
|
And PD, I think originally the deduction did help the middle class. But as those in power in Washington have changed things over the years, the middle class gets more and more of the lip service, while the wealthy get more and more of the $$'s.
|
| 63 | sarge33rd
ID: 670916
Fri, Nov 04, 2005, 12:48
|
and btw bili...I'm not confused. I've argued for many years, to do away with the home mortgage deduction. It doesnt help "joe average" in rural America, in the least. Homes in rural IA/MN/SD/ND/MO/KS/IL/IN/NE for ex, can still be bought in the range of 50-60k in small towns. With standard deductions (IIRC) running in the 8k range, the mortgage interest on those loans, doesnt elevate most filers to the requisite level to itemize anyway.Not sure how to find ouot, but I'd think that rural ID/MT/WY/OR/WA/WV/NC/NC/SC/TN/KY/GA/MS/AL etc etc wouldnt be all that different once you got 150+ miles away from urban sprawl. Bear in mind too, that rural wage earners, are amongst the poorest compensated hourly workers out there. Smaller employment market with fewer opportunites, results in generally lower wages. Where else are they gonna go?) So they pay the interest AND derive absolutely zero tax benefit from the deduction. The only time many of these folks can itemize, isnt due to home mortgage interest, but rather due to a catastrophic health situation.
|
| 64 | biliruben
Leader
ID: 589301110
Fri, Nov 04, 2005, 13:00
|
Okay, Sarge. As long as you we understand elimination is not what's being proposed, and doesn't figure into any proposal that has a realistic chance of being implemented.
For what it's worth, I agree with you. Non-homeowners shouldn't be subsidizing homeowners. I'm not certain that's what happening, however. It may be the rich subsidizing the mortgage borrower.
|
| 65 | sarge33rd
ID: 670916
Fri, Nov 04, 2005, 13:21
|
...and doesn't figure into any proposal that has a realistic chance of being implemented.
And therein lies the root of the problem. No truly meaningful tax reform, has any realistic chance of ever being implemented.
|
| 66 | biliruben
Leader
ID: 589301110
Fri, Nov 04, 2005, 13:39
|
I don't know how you are defining meaningful, Sarge. Do I recall correctly that you have in the past been a proponent of such regressive ideas as sales tax and flat tax? That would be meaningful, I suppose, but very, very bad.
I happen to think the current panel's proposals are very meaningful indeed. I am hearing much pleading to local governments to do something about "housing affordibility" both in rural and urban areas around our state. It is the number 1 issue on many people's minds. The trouble is that local governments can't do anything besides pay lipservice and pad builder's pockets. They can't do anything to make housing more affordable.
These national tax reforms, however, would indeed make housing more affordable. No question they would meaningfully reduce housing costs, particularly on the medium and high end where the interest deductions would no longer be as valuable, meaning the house is affordable to fewer people, decreasing demand and hence price.
|
| 67 | sarge33rd
ID: 670916
Fri, Nov 04, 2005, 14:16
|
In my minds eye bili, meaningful reform would have to accomplish at least two tasks. (Or perhaps I should say, reform wold have to accomplish at least trwo tasks before I would consider it meaningful.)
1) Simplification. Right now, if when doing your taxes (even if you're a tax accountant/lawyer) and you call 10 different IRS offices with a query, you are likely to get 10 different responding guidance instructions. The REAL kicker being, the IRS disavows responsibility, if they give you bad advice! If the code is SO complex that even those charged with administration/enforcement deny responsibility for advice given, then how much worse could the code itself actually be written? Get it down to where it requires no more than one page for every $250,000 in gross income. (Random guideline. This should allow the VAST majority to file a 1 page return.)
2) Reduce the burden on those least able to pay it. (ie, the working poor. Those folks making for ex, 18k-24k annually with both parents working while trying to figure out how to pay rent, groceries, daycare, etc etc etc.)
|
| 69 | BIZMANONE
ID: 46231521
Sat, Nov 05, 2005, 14:10
|
Sarge, Moved this to the proper thread as it was getting off topic in the housing thread.
If you are working 75-80 hours per week and generating sales 40-50% above the national average while getting paid 30% below the national average then you are not asking enough for your skills. It sounds as if you are in sales and if that is the case you should be able to write your own ticket so why are you working for less than you are worth? You sound angry but it's your own fault for accepting less than you deserve.
For your info you are NOT working for someone like me. I would never treat my employees like that. My sales guys work about 40 hours per week yet get paid well above the national average.
Yes, I know the poor can't pay 35% in taxes but the point is that NOBODY should be paying 35% plus in taxes and if everyone was forced into that bracket then just maybe enough pressure would be put on congress to get spending in order. At this point not enough people care about out of control spending because they are not the ones paying the bill and they never will be. I don't really expect the poor to pay 35% taxes.
|
| 70 | BIZMANONE
ID: 46231521
Sat, Nov 05, 2005, 14:15
|
Sarge, As for post 67 point #2
The working poor do not pay any federal taxes. The money taken out of their checks comes back as a refund.
|
| 71 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Sat, Nov 05, 2005, 14:51
|
Well, that's not necessarily true. But discounting sales, state & local, and school taxes is knowingly looking at only a thin slice of the tax picture. Just enough, I might add, to make a flat tax look appealing. But squinting at the issue isn't going to solve the problem of spending.
|
| 72 | sarge33rd
ID: 148422311
Sat, Nov 05, 2005, 16:12
|
re 69
Biz...I spent 18 months out of work when I walked from my last emloyer for just the reasons stated. I am in sales, in the car biz. I'm the Finance Mgr you see on 60 Minutes, 20-20 et al. No, I dont do my job in an underhanded fashion. I practice full and total disclosure on every single deal. Nationally, the avg F&I Mgr, generates $547 gross profit for every deal they do. I run in the $800-$900 per car range. (Fluctuates from month to month a little, but trends closer to 900 than to 800). Avg commission is 19% w/demo or 20% w/o. I was getting 12% w/demo at my last store. Took this job even though it pays low. 12.5% and no demo. But after 18 months....we were to a point where "a jobs ...a job".
I've heard just about every line there is to hear from employers about "do this and we'll make things right". I've had employers reduce commissions by 67%, when they saw what they were paying me in commission dollars. Seems they suddenly become incapable of looking at the number of dollars they get now, that they didnt use to. Then, me being the mild passive individual that I am....well...lol *shrug* I find myself looking for a different employer. Hoping to find one...just ONE, who will honor their end of the deal.
|
| 73 | biliruben
ID: 531202411
Sat, Nov 05, 2005, 16:40
|
So, Biz. Let's get down to the nitty gritty.
You say that spending is out of control. I think there are a few pork projects here and there, but in the big scheme of things, these are a drop in the bucket, and would only negligibly close the nearly half-trillion a year in shortfall the feds have.
Spell out exactly where the spending is out of control, and what you would do to cut spending.
It's easy to spew bullshit, but where the rubber meets the road, are you really advocating cutting Gramma's retirement little Jimmy's education or sick aunt Wilma's medicare? Are are you going to start cutting military expenditures? Because that's where the true costs are. Not a bridge there or a road here.
If you were in charge of the budget, Biz, what would you cut to trim half a trillion? If you can't cut half a trillion/yr, you have no Biz talking about cutting more taxes.
|
| 74 | The Treasonists
ID: 58638223
Sat, Nov 05, 2005, 22:24
|
If I may respond for Biz:
Department of Education
Department of Commerce
Department of Transportation
Department of Agriculture
Department of Labor
Department of Energy
These can all pretty much go. Cut them back to 10% of their old budget. What do they do anyways?
Another idea is to not make federal employees pay federal taxes. Aren't they being paid out of federal taxes? Just the administrative expense alone is costing millions.
I don't understand the logic of....If you can't cut half a trillion, you shouldn't bother to try to cut anything.
|
| 75 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Sat, Nov 05, 2005, 22:40
|
Well, the Department of Energy maintains the nuclear power facilities in the US. Might want to keep them around.
Transportation, of course, maintains our federal highways, airports, train facilities.
If I were a terrorist group, you betcha I'd be having targets maintained by those two departments among my top couple!
|
| 76 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Sat, Nov 05, 2005, 23:47
|
BTW, I don't mean to make it sound as if I would not want to have huge cuts in those very departments. I've always been a spending hawk (which is why Bush has been such a huge disappointment to me), and I feel that the arguments about how to fund government misses the point that the problem with government isn't how it's funded but how it spends.
By and large taxes are unfair not because the wrong people are paying them, or that the percentages are off. Taxes are unfair because they are wasted after they are collected, in duplicate, wasteful, or programs that have outlived (or never met) their usefullness.
Cut spending intelligently, and taxes will become more fair (and come down). Otherwise, this is like a couple that overspends and starts putting things on their credit cards. Their response to this would be trying to get higher paying jobs, or maybe go into business for themselves.
Some of this we covered in the national sales tax and a number of others. I plugged in "flat tax" into the search field and came up with a number of threads, a half-dozen or so I've just looked through that were quite good. While I didn't agree with him all the time, reading through those threads make me miss Steve Houpt from these boards.
|
| 77 | biliruben
ID: 531202411
Sun, Nov 06, 2005, 11:38
|
I don't understand the logic of....If you can't cut half a trillion, you shouldn't bother to try to cut anything. - Treasonists.
Who said that? If you don't cut spending significantly, it's unconsionable to cut taxes and continue to grow the debt for future generations to deal with.
Even if you were a total idiot and decided to grind our economy to a halt be completely eliminating all those departments, you are still looking at only a couple hundred billion or so. Keep trying.
|
| 78 | soxzeitgeist
ID: 199531715
Sun, Nov 06, 2005, 13:41
|
I'd like to add that abolishing or cutting Agriculture back to "10% of it's current budget" would have pretty disasterous effects on commercial logging, environmental regulations, food and water purity and ag import/export issues. Maybe we should keep them too.
|
| 79 | The Treasonists
ID: 58638223
Sun, Nov 06, 2005, 20:33
|
biliruben: It sounded like that's what you were saying in post 73 re: half a trillion.
Why would eliminating those departments grind our economy to a halt? Most of those departments were created in the last 50 years. Somehow our economy seemed to work before that.
Also. people think it is a given that when the tax rate is cut, it will result in less tax revenues. This is not always the case.
|
| 80 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Sun, Nov 06, 2005, 21:09
|
It pretty much always is. And it doesn't solve the problem. To borrow a phrase: Let's not get stuck on stupid.
The problem is spending. Cut spending. Reduce the size of government. Institute private-sector management into goverment programs and agencies. And most of all, re-introduce PAYGO.
A decent article in today's New York Times about Bush's tax advisory panel. Normally I'd be all over these reports, but it looks like Bush handcuffed the panel and this will be just another waste of paper.
|
| 81 | biliruben
ID: 531202411
Mon, Nov 07, 2005, 01:38
|
Allowing our transportation infrastructure to crumble and ceasing to educate or train our workforce (the bulk of the money you target) would cripple our economy. In case you haven't noticed, there is scarcely any sector which isn't heavily dependent upon functioning highways. Maybe not tomorrow, but definitely the day after that.
I'm not even going to get into education. Look up the numerous threads on this board and you can find my opinion on the funding of education.
|
| 82 | Madman
ID: 43410119
Mon, Nov 07, 2005, 13:38
|
BR 81 -- I agree that education funding should be run through the federal government. It is our best hope to get a Republican majority to ban evolution nationwide.
Similarly, I also agree that it is imperative that we keep building new interstates, bridges to nowhere, and subsidize the maintenance of our transportation infrastructure. To think -- without the federal government, there would be 50 people on an island without a $225m bridge to take them to the mainland! The feds are subsidizing urban sprawl through their mandate to continue to build "interstate" highways to help with local urban traffic.
I guess the difference between myself and you, biliruben, is that a dollar spent evaluating national standards, establishing national curriculae, etc., is a dollar I see as being wasted. Or worse -- a dollar spent by the feds can require dozens of dollars to be spent by locals, with the only result an administratively bloated local education system that drives capable, creative, and inventive teachers away from the profession.
Just because you spend a dollar, doesn't mean that you are helping. Unless you believe in Intelligent Design, that is. The Dept. of Education is our nation's best hope to enforce universal righteousness.
|
| 83 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Mon, Nov 07, 2005, 13:55
|
It's awfully easy to pick out pork from the budget. After all, Republicans have packed plenty of examples into the budget this entire administration. But surely your sarcasm meter is off if you thing the federal highway system has, overall been a waste of money.
Yet the examples what government does right nearly always get ignored. Ironically, many far right chat rooms love to slam the government on a system paid for and designed with money from the federal governement. They drive to jobs on roads build by government money, and slam government wastefullness with their buds while watching sporting events held in stadia paid for by tax dollars.
No one is saying that the government does everything right. Particularly this brand of Republicanism in which spending rules and tax cuts, without accompanying spending cuts, pretty much is the definition of unethical political behavior and is practiced by nearly all Republicans in both legislative and executive branches.
|
| 84 | biliruben
Leader
ID: 589301110
Mon, Nov 07, 2005, 14:14
|
I advocate federal funding and local administration and decision making as to how to spend those funds.
I agree there is pork that can be cut from transportation (like I have stated before), but given that we are locally facing tens of billions of dollars in projects just to keep our roads and bridges from falling down (little or no expansion included) and the state legislature is attempting to tax us 9.5 cents/gallon to pay for it, my perspective is a more skewed than, say an Alaska resident. Of course, because there is no expansion included, it will probably be repealed tomorrow. There are two major highways here that should have probably been condemned 5 years ago. Given that we have a huge port with trucks pouring across these highways day and night to points east that benefit, it would be nice to have some matching federal funds.
|
| 85 | Madman
ID: 43410119
Mon, Nov 07, 2005, 16:26
|
br 84 -- Given that we have a huge port with trucks pouring across these highways day and night to points east that benefit, it would be nice to have some matching federal funds.
Here in Arkansas, Wal-Mart and I thank you for helping to build I-540 and conduct repairs on I-40. It drives very nicely now, thanks. I'm sure it didn't hurt having Clinton as President. You might want to consider getting some more pull in Washington. Until then, enjoy your crappy roads, and I do thank you for your contribution to my lifestyle.
You want to ensure that the rules work like this? Fine, we'll play. I fail to understand why you think this is a particularly good game, but since I'm from a red-state with two conservative Democrat swing voters in case things change, I feel confident I'll continue to win.
|
| 87 | biliruben
Leader
ID: 589301110
Mon, Nov 07, 2005, 17:27
|
It sounds like you are suggesting that it would be in our benefit to cut everyone's fed. taxes, and fund roads locally. That is much further from a winning solution here in Washington. We have no income tax, so we must fund everything on incredibly regressive sales taxes, or tax businesses into relocation. I think some projects are just so monstrous, and the national populous benefits so fairly broadly by them (except for folks like me who drive very little, but that's okay) that they should be funded at a national level. Should the decisions as to where that money is spent be reformed and come from a non-politicized, more local source? Sure. Should it be payed for the local Washingtonian working poor? No.
|
| 88 | Madman
ID: 114321413
Mon, Nov 07, 2005, 23:44
|
I think some projects are just so monstrous You realize that you are talking about roads, right?
Should it be payed for the local Washingtonian working poor? No. Actually, I'd suggest having the drivers pay for it. Either via gas taxes, or a host of other possibilities.
Should the decisions as to where that money is spent be reformed and come from a non-politicized, more local source? Sure. Uh, I thought you were arguing that the funding decision would be at the national level? Or do you trust Uncle Sam to collect the revenue and not have any say in where it goes?
|
| 89 | biliruben
ID: 531202411
Tue, Nov 08, 2005, 11:11
|
Yes, that's what I'm saying. A gas tax, though I'm for it as well to fuel (so to speak) innovation into alternatives to the combustion engine, is horribly regressive. I would prefer that we continue to pay for large projects from income tax revenues, and attempt to fix the corruption and tendency towards pork inherent on the budget process.
Local politics is f-ed up too, you know.
|
| 90 | Madman
ID: 43410119
Tue, Nov 08, 2005, 14:17
|
A gas tax, though I'm for it as well to fuel (so to speak) innovation into alternatives to the combustion engine, is horribly regressive. I'm not nearly as convinced about its regressivity as you apparently are. Regardless, you are paying for services directly, and so even if it is regressive, it is only that way because they utilize the roads more intensely.
If the taxes present an overall income problem, then this can be counteracted through welfare programs, negative income taxes, or other portions of the tax code directly. There is no reason to be a priori concerned about the effects on the income distribution when evaluating incentives for efficient road usage.
Furthermore, some care should be given to taxing shipping, either through deisel taxes or, perhaps more creatively, by innovative taxation of shipping miles, and even changing the tax rate by time of day (I say innovative because people aren't doing this yet, but they could be ... I don't support this for private individuals, but I'm open to listening to arguments for it for trucking and/or companies involved with shipping).
Local politics is f-ed up too, you know. Yes, I do know. But there are a few advantages to having it local. (1) it is relatively easier to move away if it gets bad. (2) the locals are the ones predominantly driving on the roads. They are also the ones that can best assess the value-added versus need, integrate into local planning, etc. (3) private citizens upset with local road conditions can hold local politicians accountable a lot more easily than they can national politicians. (4) There are only so many issues voters can deal with at once. The idea that we should be electing US Congressmen and Presidents because of their road construction policies (or their policies in appointing non-political board members) rather than foreign policy expertise strikes me as particularly unwise. I would suspect that our foreign policies will tend to suffer when we feel relatively safe, and our roads will tend to suffer when we feel relatively vulnerable. And there is no particularly good reason for this.
But, I suppose that sort of odd thinking is why I'm on the fringe on the right and you're my mirror on the left. ;)
|
| 91 | biliruben
Leader
ID: 589301110
Tue, Nov 08, 2005, 14:54
|
If we had a state income tax, I would probably lean more towards your view. Given our tax structure and the anti-tax mood in our state, the reality is that if a transportation project doesn't have federal dollars, it simply doesn't get done.
|
| 92 | sarge33rd
ID: 148422311
Tue, Nov 08, 2005, 15:04
|
The problem with transferring alot of these things to the local government is multi-fold.
What of rural roads where population density is pretty thin? At $1,000,000 mile (or thereabouts) to build interstate, how many feet of road do YOU want to be responsible for funding?
I was in Wilmington, NC back in 1990 when the local school board was holding a tax referendum. The Superintendant had done a commercial, stating that this was the 6th time since his tenure began, that the ref had been put before the voters. The previous 5, had all been turned down. He went on to say that perhaps NC ranked 49th nationally in education for a reason. If it was voted down again, he was going to resign. Which he did, a short time later. Point being, too many locals wont accept the burden requisite, to support local funding requirements.
|
| 93 | Madman
ID: 43410119
Tue, Nov 08, 2005, 15:52
|
Given our tax structure and the anti-tax mood in our state, the reality is that if a transportation project doesn't have federal dollars, it simply doesn't get done.
This is yet another problem of federal encroachment. If the feds guess right, then there are no problems. But if the feds guess wrong (or are incented to provide goods that the locals don't want, or are incented to ignore an area), then the locality is really screwed.
91-92: The growth of the federal government has hamstrung the growth of state and local revenues.
Dunno. I'm so far out on the fringe that I'm not opposed to all taxation. I'm just opposed to unaccountable taxation that locks in bureaucracies and inefficiencies. Because that is my fear, I tend to oppose federal involvement in many projects, since I perceive the odds of inefficiency and inapplicability being high. (BTW, I'd like to thank everyone on these message boards for paying for the City of Little Rock's anti-terrorism drill that they did yesterday morning. They disabled a fake dirty bomb, and I feel much safer now. Thanks again for everyone's donation to this worthy cause.)
I do vote for every local school/library/police bond, or at least I have so far. Back in my hometown, my uber-conservative dad has fought to increase school funding while working as a liason to the school board, etc.
The part that still perplexes me is that our parties have basically lined up on either side of the AGGREGATE level. Democrats seem to support both local AND national taxation, Republicans seem to oppose both. To be blunt, this bifurcation seems mindnumbingly stupid to me, since I think there are clearly things that are done locally, and vice versa. Instead, it's all or nothing, no-holds-barred, no reasonableness, etc. Just bizarre, and I suspect that there is no single sustainable political equilibrium because there is something in the mind of the median voter that disallows meaningful distinction.
|
| 94 | biliruben
Leader
ID: 589301110
Tue, Nov 08, 2005, 16:08
|
I don't know whether this is how it works in general, but the projects which I am most familiar with work like this:
- Local or state governments identify a need.
- The find partial funding to pay for that need.
- They go begging to DC to find the remainder of that funding, sometimes successfully, sometimes not.
So it sounds like the system works at least partially how I would ideally envision it: Local decision making, National funding.
Is this not the general rule?
|
| 95 | sarge33rd
ID: 148422311
Tue, Nov 08, 2005, 16:09
|
The part that still perplexes me is that our parties have basically lined up on either side of the AGGREGATE level. Democrats seem to support both local AND national taxation, Republicans seem to oppose both. To be blunt, this bifurcation seems mindnumbingly stupid to me, since I think there are clearly things that are done locally, and vice versa. Instead, it's all or nothing, no-holds-barred, no reasonableness, etc. Just bizarre, and I suspect that there is no single sustainable political equilibrium because there is something in the mind of the median voter that disallows meaningful distinction.
Interesting observation/comment there. I personally, can agree with much of your above post. I too oppose unaccountable spending. Its one of the reasons I despise our current administration as much as I do. Our difference appears to be in your general classification. While Dems realize the need for taxes, Republicans seem to be against taxing their income, but have no problem with taxing mine.
I happen to believe that some things are best done nationally, and some locally. School bonds and the like, should be local. Highway construction, needs to be national. As I indicate above, if you try and build an interstate using only local funds, what hapens in rural Montana for ex, where there sits one house, and its 25 miles until you see the next one? Who pays for the 25 mile stretch of 4-lane pavement? Pavement used by companies transporting goods from Chicago to Seattle for ex? The local populace, simply cannot bear that burden. Even if taxed at 150% of annual gross income (an obvious impossibility), it would prove insufficient to build the road.
|
| 96 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Tue, Nov 08, 2005, 16:12
|
This is yet another problem of federal encroachment. If the feds guess right, then there are no problems. But if the feds guess wrong (or are incented to provide goods that the locals don't want, or are incented to ignore an area), then the locality is really screwed.
The feds aren't guessing. They are being led to the problem through the local representatives.
|
| 97 | Madman
ID: 43410119
Wed, Nov 09, 2005, 13:36
|
As I indicate above, if you try and build an interstate using only local funds, what hapens in rural Montana for ex, where there sits one house, and its 25 miles until you see the next one? Who pays for the 25 mile stretch of 4-lane pavement?
If the road is only going to one house, then the one house should pay. It is that simple. Ignoring that logic is why we get a quarter-billion dollar bridge built to a community with only dirt roads, no stoplight, and 50 people in it.
Generally, roads go to places. If people value going to those places, then the motivation for bulding the roads is rather clear.
I suspect you are talking about the coordination problems linking localities. It is true that the interstate system benefited from central planning. But, interestingly enough, it frequently was built around roads that developed WITHOUT the central planning that you perceive as necessary. Route 66, for example, developed piece by piece as much as anything. I-40 then tracked it West.
Regardless, coordination of planning hardly justifies the feds controlling $60b in appropriations (or whatever the figure is).
The feds aren't guessing. They are being led to the problem through the local representatives.
The fact that Alaskans themselves are upset about the "bridge to nowhere" should tell you something about how good their "local" representatives are at responding to local demand.
The reality is that we don't elect 100 Senators to carefully weigh the needs and desires of Americans across this country and then we don't hold those Senators accountable for how well they respond to our roadbuilding desires. Senators pour money into transportation as much to get jobs in their state as to solve local transportation needs. And it's rather sad. Senators HAVE to fight tooth and nail like this, or else local tax revenue goes to fund projects in other states. The result is absolute and abject inefficiency.
|
| 98 | sarge33rd
ID: 670916
Wed, Nov 09, 2005, 13:39
|
a road leading to only one house, ceases to be a road and is then called a "driveway" where I come from. :) So yes, that person should pay for their own driveway.
You then go on to bring up my point though. The highways, passing BY a ranch or farmstead, going from here to there....who pays for that?
|
| 99 | Madman
ID: 43410119
Wed, Nov 09, 2005, 13:52
|
who pays for that? I assume you are asking who pays for it in my ideal world ...
a) I'd have some federal involvement for planning, nat'l security, etc. If you *want* to have tax collection run through the feds, my main objection is that they won't be able to keep their grubby hands off of it. In theory, however, I wouldn't have a problem as long as it was proportionately and blindly sent back to the states.
b) Otherwise, the local states pay for it. In the case of inter-state highways, we'd do it more like we used to do it ... some federal involvement, but also a lot of local funding and maintenance. Citizens from state A generally *do* desire to travel to state B, and so locals are indeed still interested in inter-state cooperation. This isn't a case where there is a necessary market failure simply because two states have to both work on a highway.
Interestingly, if citizens from state A really, really, really want to travel to state B, and the citizens in B don't give a rats ass about going to state A, my approach here allows state A to transfer funds to state B to induce them to build the highway. And this seems like a generally fair solution to me, preferable to requiring both states to kick in equally.
|
| 100 | Madman
ID: 43410119
Wed, Nov 09, 2005, 13:57
|
Maybe as an aside, but I will also make it clear that my qualms with federal involvement in road building here aren't an ICC issue (i.e., I don't want to roll back the clock to 1815). But just because the feds have considerable constitutional authority doesn't mean that they should weild that authority with maximal force.
|
| 101 | sarge33rd
ID: 670916
Wed, Nov 09, 2005, 14:00
|
The core problem I see with funding these projects strictly at the state level, is that states with lower population density, will wind up with wooden single lane bridges, while major metro areas (with a vastly greater ability to dilute the cost amongst its population) will wind up with "all the goodies".
ie, Nebraska would have a single paved lane going across it while Florida would have 8-lane roads and bridges going everywhere.
|
| 102 | The Treasonists
ID: 57225913
Wed, Nov 09, 2005, 14:02
|
I have a few ideas on how to save on transportation costs:
1. Instead of having 5 guys standing around watching one guy work a jackhammer, they could scale it back to 4 guys. There's a 20% savings right there.
2. A lot of times the Interstate will be down to one lane for 5 miles and one truck will be working on a 20 foot section.
3. I've seen them build a 2 lane road and then 4 or 5 years later, they'll turn it into a 4 lane road at probably triple the cost of building a 4 lane road in the first place.
4. They'll tear up the road to put in sewers a few years after building the road.
5. They'll use inferior materials to repair potholes and have to re-do them a year or two later because it comes out of their annual operating budget, and they want to do it as cheaply as possible.
6. Forget working 8 to 5, that's when all the traffic is. Do the repair work when traffic is the slowest.
There may be reasons why they do things the way they do, but to me it doesen't make a whole lot of sense.
|
| 103 | sarge33rd
ID: 670916
Wed, Nov 09, 2005, 14:06
|
1. Instead of having 5 guys standing around watching one guy work a jackhammer, they could scale it back to 4 guys. There's a 20% savings right there.
reminds me an ethnic joke I heard the other day. (You may need to be from southern TX/NM/AZ/CA...maybe not.)
You know what Davey Crockett said when he peeked over the walls of the Alamo?
Are we laying concrete today?
|
| 104 | Madman
ID: 43410119
Wed, Nov 09, 2005, 14:19
|
The core problem I see with funding these projects strictly at the state level, is that states with lower population density, will wind up with wooden single lane bridges, while major metro areas
But low population densities also mean higher value placed on transportation, and a higher willingness, therefore, to pay to connect longer distances.
Dunno. I don't have good empirical data. But I don't see the history of the US as a story of a road-shortage prior to the burgeoning federal interstate system of the 1950s. (to be clear, there was a road shortage insofar as more roads needed to be built ... but we kept building ... the reason the interstate system came as a federal project was as much because this was just how things were getting back then ... there was a very strong belief in central government, socialized planning, and aggregate funding ... and even then, the direct effect wasn't bad. The biggest problem is that it set in stone a system that has become antiquated, and a dependency on federal largess while at the same time creating a bureaucracy fairly immune to local demands).
|
| 105 | sarge33rd
ID: 670916
Wed, Nov 09, 2005, 14:23
|
None of which am I denying. I simply question the ability of rural America, to shoulder that burden. Population density just isnt there, to allow for sufficient dilution of the costs on a per capita basis.
Actually, this entire topic points to a paper I wrote in college poli-sci, where I decried the current system as putting it in the job description, for elected officials to funnel fed dollars back home, w/o regard to the true value/validity of the project. You want tog et re-elected? Better have gotten me federal money then. The result being, nobody is looking out anymore, for national interests.
|
| 106 | Madman
ID: 43410119
Wed, Nov 09, 2005, 16:34
|
I simply question the ability of rural America, to shoulder that burden. Population density just isnt there, to allow for sufficient dilution of the costs on a per capita basis.
If you want to drive through the hinterland, then you have to pay to drive through the hinterland. The population density in that hinterland is irrelevant to the task at hand, as I point out in my last paragraph in 99. You need the support of potential drivers; whether they are residents or not is secondary.
The key is to tie the result as close to demand and willingness to pay as possible to minimize the number of bridges to nowhere.
|
| 107 | sarge33rd
ID: 670916
Wed, Nov 09, 2005, 16:39
|
Doesnt relate onbly to your or my driving across the middle of nowhere MM. It isnt anywhere near that simple. Do you want the good you buy at the local store, transported? (either in for your purchase or out for your sale?)
The interstates serve the benefit of the nation. Thats why they were federally funded and thats why they should remain federally funded.
|
| 108 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Wed, Nov 09, 2005, 17:41
|
The hinterland, I hear, is a good place to grow the food those who don't have to drive have to eat.
Seems like a fair tradeoff to me.
|
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|