patrick.net

Outsourcing in a different way is happening with the Healthcare system. People will travel to Asian Sub continents to get Surgeries and other Medical needs that they cannot get here. This is already happening in trickles but when a mass exodus happens, thats when people will realize and start cribbing just like they do about Outsourcing now.

Iraq was a mistake, admit it and move on, instead of spending more on it... Iran is going to be the next mistake....

test

How did Democrats get large numbers of working people to give away even more of their hard-earned money to the rich?

immigrant

Because the Republican Federal govt is the one who sets Federal income taxes and makes tax cuts? Perhaps the Democrat state govts publicly opposed such moves? But they clearly don't have the power to do anything about it, because it is outside their jurisdiction?

Unless you put the question of tax cuts to a national referendum for a decision rather than the govt just announcing it, they were gong to go ahead... Remember Bush saying to a bunch of rich twats, "Some people call you the elites; I call you my base."

I would much rather have rich people take my money and buy yachts than have Democrats use my money to subsidize socialized medicine, for several reasons.

1) The rich can only get my money if I agree to give it to them. If I decide to spend money on Coca-Cola or in an airplane ticket and the shareholders of Coca-Cola or American Airlines make money, that was my choice. The government takes my money by force. If I don`t pay I go to jail.

2) If the rich buy yachts and other luxury goods there are people working building yachts and other luxury goods who make an honest living. They have dignity. The money that goes in taxes feeds corrupt, lazy and callous bureacrats that cannot be fired.

3) The American people are better off having honest jobs and paying for their health insurance out of their pockets than being unemployed due to high taxes and receiving hand-outs from the Democrats.

I think it is a clear choice.

Patrick, I think you would be interested to know that the poor already pay little to no taxes. So when the GOP supported tax cuts, they will not get a large payoff.

So when you have a tax cut, it stands to reason that if you don't pay any or much taxes - you won't get a bigger refund.

Here are stats from IRS.gov

The top 1 percent of tax payers paid, 34.27 percent of federal income tax revenues.

The top 10 percent of tax payers paid 65.84 percent, or 2/3 of all taxes

The top 25 percent pay 83.5% of all taxes

The next 25 percent sahre 12.5% of the total tax burden for a total of 96%

The bottom half of America (the poor and disadvantaged that you refer to Patrick) how much of the tax burden do they share? (they make less then 26,000 a year)

3.5%

as wrote [sic] by: “Liberals are Dumb Says”
excellant [sic] post and nick name.

Ironic, in an argument about the asserted causality between intelligence, logic and one's political alignment. I'm sorry, correlations. Correlations are not causality, but then again intelligent people know this.

The supposed income-level correlation is very weak, much weaker of a statistical predictor of political affiliation than one's zodiac sign in fact. The r-squared for these studies is very unconvincing. For a remedial read on what "correlation" means, and how to interpret it:

www.dartmouth.edu/~mss/data%20analysis/Volume%20II%20pdf/300%20Correlation.pdf

One of the posited reasons for the change in this "common wisdom", from the Pew Research Center:

The value gaps for the GOP are, perhaps surprisingly, greatest with respect to the role of government. The Republicans' bigger tent now includes more lower-income voters than it once did, and many of these voters favor an activist government to help working class people. Government regulation to protect the environment is an issue with particular potential to divide Republicans.

(***disclaimer, I have a very close friend who is a Congressional Chief of Staff who has helped many of Republican get elected to the House. He is very quick to counter common misconceptions).

I think the largest area that the GOP has failed it is actually the exact opposite of Patrick's assertion. The GOP is that they no longer stand for a fiscally conservative policy. The cornerstone of the GOP is smaller government, and fiscal restraint. The Bush administration and the GOP Senate/Congress has increased the size of federal spending by almost 50% in the past 5 years. Almost every social welfare program has received in increase in spending. The very programs that are there to "fight poverty"

This increase in entitlement spending runs contrary to the very foundation conservatives believe in. (teach a man who to fish, don' give him a fish...) In essence, Bush and Company are doing a better job at being big spending democrats (on the domestic front) then any democrat can ever be.

However, instead of tax and spend, it's borrow spend. Nobody can truly know however, how much economic stimulus tax cuts brought versus increased tax receipts - though I'm sure some economist has a chart with possible overlapped predicted trends. So before democrats hound the tax cuts - don't forget Reagan tax's cuts doubled tax receipt in a time of stagflation..(he also increased spending however)

Democrats cannot seize on the fiscal irresponsibility notion since government restraint is not their MO (before anybody bring up Clinton, don't forget how many times government shut down because of the bi-partisan budget)

Which forces me to conclude the only way the GOP can come up with a responsible budget is if there is a Democrat in the White House which saddens me since it appears only partisan maneuvering is the only thing that bring on a sane budget.

Paul Chua,

You are onto the core issue. The GOP has become a very successful coalition of fiscal conservatives -- which tend to be above-working-class -- and social conservatives, which are more largely working class. This was the Reagan genius. However, this coalition is an uneasy one which is becoming strained because of fiscal policy.

Current political common-wisdom holds that the fiscal conservative crowd tend to be socially all over the map. Many don't mind generous social entitlements, because they are rich and don't mind helping out. Many despise large government in all its forms, and would rather let the private sector hand out aid. Some even think all forms of aid are in and of themselves evil. But, they don't generally fear restrictive social conservative agendas (like limitations on abortion, homosexuality, etc.) because they don't feel affected by it. With means, one can dodge most social prohibitions. The rich and well off can get their drugs, have their abortions even if they have to fly to Europe to do it, hire lawyers to protect their interests even if they're gay, even find their way to quiet, discrete euthanasia.

The other side of the GOP camp, while very dedicated to creating a more wholesome society, is anything but fiscally conservative. They tend to have starkly Keynesian attitudes (even if they don't know it by name), are quick to demonize rich corporations, especially foreign ones, and are the fiercest defenders of programs like farm subsidization, trade barriers, medicare, and any other type of "non-big-city" welfare. The uneasy truce comes insofar as, while they are not motivated by the fiscal conservatives' arguments, they are tolerant of the idea that a free-market gives them a chance of a better future too.

But with limits. Witness the ports deal backlash, or more locally, the attempts by midwestern farmers to keep out Dutch dairy farming competitors. Fiscal conservatives champion foreign competition. It only helps the US be stronger. Social conservatives see such foreign competition as a threat to their value system and way of life.

All that said, the Democrats are a mess, without unity, and wholly undeserving leadership. There is virtue in being the loyal opposition. The Democrats missed this opportunity. They would do the system a huge favor by just folding up and letting a dozen "3rd parties" flower.

Upstater, thank you for your comments.

While the direction of the country is very subjective, (in terms of whether it's going in the right/wrong direction) could you elaborate on how the GOP "elites" are robbing America or how Americans have been lied to?

Thanks

Patrick is 100% right. He must have read one of my earlier comments about distraction and misinformation by the media.

The sheeple are told what to think and are not capable of making up their own minds.

Advertise and analyze the facts.

1) The majority of Americans, more than 50% of them, earn less today than they did 5 years ago. The economy is booming for the minority, not the majority. The tax cuts are the reason.

2) The economy is booming because of the housing bubble, not the tax cuts.

3) The top 20% of wage earners earn 60% of all the income. This leaves 40% of the income thats left, for the bottom 80% of wage earners. This is because illegal immigration and out-sourcing makes it impossible for the bottom 80% of wage earners to compete for higher wages. Discuss.

4) The top 5% of the wealthiest people in this country own 75% of all the wealth. They should be paying 75% of all the taxes, don't you think?

5) Corporations now contribute 7% to the revenues collected by the federal government. Before Regan they contributed 32%. Oh and, more than 50% of all stocks are owned by only 1% of the population. Who do you think wrote the tax laws to get their portion down?

I know how difficult it is for normal people understand or even remember all these facts as a whole. How can they possibly understand their macro-economic implications. People are only capable of entertaining one thought in their brains at a time, let alone 5 or 6.

There's no hope of discussing topics like this with people whose pattern indicates two dimensional thinking.

Using actual IRS figures

Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.03% of Income Taxes

The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% fell to 33.89% from 37.42% in 2000. This is mainly because their income share (not just wages) fell from 20.81% to 17.53%. However, their average tax rate actually rose slightly from 27.45% to 27.50% Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%!

Here is the link from the IRS website since you’ll probabaly not believe it.
http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls

(sigh)

It is the lesser of two evils. One thinks it can discount 95% of society that isn't the elite. And the other thinks govermental servitude is the answer. It is a question of individual morality. Greed has swallowed up this country no one is thier brothers keeper anymore. It is not for the benefit of the country at large but one's own personal gain.

The perverbial "dog eat dog" in politics. One can strive for and fight for what they deem are the right ideals. Be it wealth at everyone's exspense or social causes. It is up to the individual and how he or she has to live with oneself. But in the end you can't take it with you and you can't expect a medal or recognition. There is alot wrong with this country much self serving and greed. We have sadly given away all that once made this a great society. The generousity we are so known for throughout the world we do not extend to our own less fortunate.

We become bifurcated and divided not human to human. Red vs Blue white vs Black, Rich vs Poor. America has divided itself and when that happens we are no longer a great world power.

I have a number of good friends who voted Republican in the last presidential election. We discussed the matter often, and I gained some insight along the way.

To an extent, they voted their own interests asre personal finance - the break on taxation of dividends was much appreciated, and although they were not counting on further changes to inheritance taxes, theu wouldn't have been opposed to seeing the tax-exempt basis increased again.

Interestingly, not one of them felt the Bush administration was prosecuting the Iraq conflict or East/West diplomacy competently. Nonetheless, they were wary of a change of administration - and the attendant initial delays which always accompany setting up a new administration - with so many volatile foreign policy issues in progress.

While there was considerable distaste for various key members of Bush's team - all of them had admired Colin Powell and some had good reports of Secretary Rice at Stanford - they saw a real and disturbing political ineptitude in the Kerry campaign. Enough to tip their decision somewhat.

I personally would have given something to see Teresa Heinz Kerry somewhere near the oval office. I like and admire her.

Somewhere above is a post asking for an explanation of Mitt Romney in the Massachusetts governorship. He's a good guy, really, and pretty well-liked on all sides. If he were to run for President, I'd have to think about that.

For my part, I'd prefer we avoid giving both houses to any one party, or vast majorities to a single party in either house. Has anyone noticed the word 'bipartisan' has essentially vanished from the language?

I'll disagree with the points about Republicans being independent thinkers. I used to have bass who was hard-core Republican. She had a radio in her office and would listen to Rush Limbaugh EVERY day. I had the office next door and it was quite annoying when I am trying to work and she is giggling over the latest Limbaugh comment. It seemed quite obvious to me there is a large chunk of Republicans who need daily reinforcement of their beliefs in order to keep believing them. A lot of the political comments out of her mouth were just repeats of what she had heard Rush say.

How's this for an angry Republican?

Congrats Bettmen, you have made the condo flippers look smart.

D vs. R, protectionism is ignorance. If pursued, it will be a driving cause of the next great depression, as it contributed to the duration of the last one.
The idea that such command and control policies are effective- is not democrat v. republican, it is communism vs common sense. Get over your messiah/ hitler complex. The world would not be a better place with people like you controlling it.

"Sage" (what a misnomer) says:

3) The top 20% of wage earners earn 60% of all the income. This leaves 40% of the income thats left, for the bottom 80% of wage earners. This is because illegal immigration and out-sourcing makes it impossible for the bottom 80% of wage earners to compete for higher wages. Discuss.

4) The top 5% of the wealthiest people in this country own 75% of all the wealth. They should be paying 75% of all the taxes, don’t you think?

You wanted to "discuss", so here you go:

Holy crap, you are a retard.

a) Illegal immigration quite simply makes it easier for you (a legal citizen) to make MORE money and live at a higher standard of living. Given the fact that all these people take the jobs that you don't want, and for less pay, should make that clear. If they weren't doing it, the pay for those same jobs would go up, yes, but so would the price of the goods. In other words, EVERYONE's (all the "legal" citizens') standard of living would go down. It's really very simple - if a subsection of the population is UNDERpaid for what they are doing, the REST of the population benefits. (Ref: slavery).

b) Your type likes to rally for greater taxation of the "rich" and "corporations", unionized labor, affirmative action, minimum wage (and the list goes on), and then you turn around and complain about outsourcing and companies moving overseas. Again, it's real simple. If you could get a better house or job (and therefore a higher standard of living) by moving somewhere else, would you? How would you like the government telling you where you can live or work, or some dumb fuck complaining about you leaving your old neighborhood for a better deal elsewhere?

like to complain about outsourcing and the movement of U.S. business overseas.

c) As far as your #4 (The top 5% of the wealthiest people in this country own 75% of all the wealth. They should be paying 75% of all the taxes, don’t you think? ):
- Seems odd you would say that the top 20% richest people make 60% of the money, and then follow it by saying that the top 5% make 75% of it, don't you think? Unless you're differentiating "earned annual income" from a pre-existing (and already taxed) "wealth". But even in this case, are you trying to say that people should continue to pay tax, every year, on money they've made in years past? And the "rich" are paying far more tax than the poor, btw. Not really sure what the F*# you think you're talking about.

And corporations do not "pay tax" - ever, you **FUCKING** dolt. YOU pay it for them.

No matter how you try to flower it up, there really is one simple fact that you hyper-liberal armchair economists can't handle or even seem to fathom: the idea that a society that punishes production and efficiency and rewards laziness and incompetence will not ever work. And that is EXACTLY what you champion.

The bottom line is: stop coveting and begging, and go out and earn your own fortune.

Discuss!

And btw, it's not very hard to find things wrong with either political party. However, the Republicans happen to include many people who are less "republican" and more accurately "capitalists" or "libertarian" - people who strongly support free markets and fundamental, constitutional rights and less government.

If you have problems with the Republican party as of late (and who doesn't?) don't fool yourself into believing that all its constituents are hard-core fascists. Those who are proponents of a truly free market and other libertarian concepts are much more strongly aligned with the right (republican) than with the left (democrat). Unfortunately, we all know that in the past those have been the only practical political choices on the ticket. Maybe that is changing.

To Patrick, on a related note: I consider you an intelligent person with a fairly strong sense of economics. I was actually somewhat surprised that you are an avid liberal. I kind of wonder if you are more of an "anti-fascist" than a true socialist liberal. :) It seems that you are generally in the "free market" ideological camp... (e.g., against government bailout of failed capitalists, etc.)

I, for one, resent the term "liberal" being highjacked by the left. It seems plain as day to me that the views of the right (and especially the libertarian party) are more closely aligned to freedom and "liberty". But maybe that's just me.

The more the people are punished the better. When they find themselves in a feudal hell maybe they'll warm up to the ideas of socialism.

Until then, I will enjoy seeing them suffer for their ignorance and selfishness.

Heyo~
1st time poster.

So what you're saying is that if only everyone would change the way they are they'd accept socialism and we'd all live together happy in the fields of harmony? Well, as a capitalist pig I absolutely agree with you.

The problem: People can't change what they are. We need a system of government and an economic plan that responds to what people ARE, not what we'd like them to be.

People are lazy and greedy. People don't want to do much that isn't in their own interest.

Think you're different? Well, that innate feeling of self-satisfaction you carry with you? That's your selfishness.

If you take away from people a feeling that they have control over their own choices and actions, you remove from them the drive to do anything. This is at the core of the republican (REAL REPUBLICAN) ideals of free markets and civil liberties.

Imagine: It's christmas morning and you wake up the kids. You've been collecting old sweaters and blankets for weeks from your friends and your family is planning to go out and hand out these items to transients and bums living in the city. You and your wife/husband and the kids head out to the car with the stuff you've collected but there is a group of men in black suits and black sunglasses standing in your driveway.

Man:"We're going to deliver these items, give them to us."
You:"But wait, we went through the trouble of collecting it all, can't we just..."
Man:"No, you'll screw it up. We want to do it give it to us or we're going to arrest you."
You: "Ok."

Three days later you see a politician on the news trying to get re-elected since he was the honest wonderful man who got the "Recloth The Poor Initiative" together.

That's your Socialism, that's your Democratic Party. This is EXACTLY what federal overtaxing does. They assume that everyone in america is greedy, selfish, and...oh wait, that part is true. What they are missing is that there is a desire in people to take care of one another (for selfish reasons, truly). Forcing us to do it takes away choice and makes us NOT want to do it at all!

I understand left-wing hate towards the Republicans, I really do. But get ready, cause what you are going to see is the emergence of the NEW Republican Party (which is ironic, cause we're truly the traditional repubs). TRUE free markets don't support or help the mega-rich. Current Neo-Con repubs have sheltered and protected business for many many years now, and we are beginning to see the effects of that type of market interference.

Dems: Take your money and use it to protect other people. (price fixing, individual bail-outs)
Neo-Cons: Take your money and use it to protect business interests (Bear Sterns, HMOs being protected from their own poor decisions!!!).
Traditional Republicans: Leave our money alone. Let us take care of ourselves. Stop bailing out companies, let them crumble if they're bad, new ones will take their place.

Federal Government:
Take our money for our protection from foreign or domestic parties that threaten our civil liberties. AND NOTHING ELSE.

Leftists will begin to warm up to the New/Old Conservatives. Indeed, it's in your nature.

Wow - pretty fascinating what turns up when you hit "random post" on patnet.

Patrick says

#politics

You should have put this thread under #religion because Reaganomics and capitalism are religions to the conservative right. They cannot tolerate questioning of their economic dogma.

Economics is the new religion.

pipeline010 says

Heyo~

1st time poster.

Run before the trolls find you.

Patrick says

Angry Republicans

Is there any other kind?

Patrick says

The trick is to get those workers very angry - at someone else. This distracts them from what's really going on. Karl Rove understands this clearly, so he stokes the anger of ordinary workers. He makes them angry about abortion, evolution, flag burning, France, gays, guns, liberals, newspapers, "rich Democrats", school prayer, anything, anything except the one thing that would make their lives better: fair taxes on passive income, income the rich get for doing nothing at all.

I'm middle class, not rich by any means. I'm a republican because I believe in incentives of work. I don't agree with government increasing my taxes to promote equality of outcomes.

Democrats always increase taxes on business and individuals and at the end we all have less, and poverty doesn't go down.

It has to go both ways. Take iL for example -just enacted a 32% tax hike for all. Now it already has the highest property tax in the nation. This is pushed by the dems and with a few repub switch overs overrode the veto . What do we get in return for this-same pensions, same spending, same evrything.

On top of that dems love free trade and globalism now-so what gives-why vote for a dem unless you like trigglypuff.

Wow, this thread by Patrick in 2005 was from before I joined Patnet, and it was a stellar example of what Patnet used to be. This thread post was beyond awesome, Patrick.

And for the most part, this was before the right-wing propaganda trolls invaded the place. Another bonus.

lostand confused says

It has to go both ways. Take iL for example -just enacted a 32% tax hike for all. Now it already has the highest property tax in the nation. This is pushed by the dems and with a few repub switch overs overrode the veto . What do we get in return for this-same pensions, same spending, same evrything.

On top of that dems love free trade and globalism now-so what gives-why vote for a dem unless you like trigglypuff.

There you go with the usual right-wing tax propaganda again. The Illinois state tax increase was 1.20% POINTS, from 3.75%, to 4.95%
Of course, the right-wing propagandists will cast this as a "32% increase".

Reference:
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/illinois-lawmakers-pass-permanent-income-tax-hike-override-rauners-veto/

justme says

There you go with the usual right-wing tax propaganda again. The Illinois state tax increase was 1.20% POINTS, from 3.75%, to 4.95%

Of course, the right-wing propagandists will cast this as a "32% increase".

Typical heartless democrats filled with hate and name calling anyone who speaks the truth. Why can't you dems just say it like it is-it is a 32% tax hike-that ain't propaganda. Then you wonder why Trump won.

Why not cut untenable pensions, why not cut-oh well-democrats.

There are people struggling to pay 10-15k a year in proeprty taxes on houses that are worth 250-350K and on top of that this. When is enough enough? When will you cut public benefits and have them live like us taxpayers????

Oh and here I took this from the comemnts sections of an article-so much for propaganda.

"Here is a simple example to show the fallacy of the “only 1.2% increase” nonsense.

($5000 of taxable income) x 0.0375 = $187.50
($5000 of taxable income) x 0.0495 = $247.50

If you paid $187.50 one year in taxes and $247.50 the next, guess what? You’re paying (drum roll please) 32% MORE IN TAXES.

Yes – a 32% increase in the personal income tax. Not “only 1.2%.”

Go back to 8th grade math.

When the tax rate increases by 1.2% points, from 3.75%, to 4.95%, is it REASONABLE and INFORMATIVE to leave out the actual tax rates from the discussion, and instead to focus on the number 1.32=4.95/3.75(*)?? I think not, and that is why publishing only the 32% number constitutes propaganda.

(*) That is a little shortcut calculation for you. It will save you some time next time you need to do some math. No need for your more complicated numerical example, although your example does illustrate that a monthly income of $5000 would incur an additional tax of $60 per month. Not exactly a great cause for alarm, is it?

Taking a step back, I think the Republican strategy of "pension envy" has been a great success. I agree that police and firefighter pensions are excessive in many places, especially in California, and quite possibly also Illinois. But that would not make me vote Republican.

justme says

Taking a step back, I think the Republican strategy of "pension envy" has been a great success.

It's been a success because government pensions are literally bankrupting municipalities. It's simply the truth.

Conversely it's also the reason why 8 months of "Trump-Russia" failed to gain any traction. The truth eventually bubbles up.

justme says

No need for your more complicated numerical example, although your example does illustrate that a monthly income of $5000 would incur an additional tax of $60 per month. Not exactly a great cause for alarm, is it?

32% is a fact. Well for 5k-how about when you make 50k or 100k?? Stop belittling the little people. Why should the average joe pay more taxes when you cna't run the govt ina fiscal manner. That is like me going to my neighbor and syaing hey I am broke-pay me 10 bucks a month. This is not a tax that only affects millionares-but everybody-well except the welfare mooches and illegals. You may want to throw labels like propaganda at someone who speaks the truth-but it ain't working. the democrats are now on trigglypuff level-agree with em or you are some ist. Unless you folks change and deal with common folk-you will be the party of the coastal elites. Trump won by embracing many of the principles that used to be owned by the dems.

IL has the highest property taxes in the nation. Pensions and other benefits are taking priority over roads, maintence etc. So what has this deal bought-except to pay pensions? Reduce that-most ordinary americans working similar jobs receive nothing-so why should these freaks enjoy a life of luxury at taxpayer expense.

Unlike CA, those living in Chicago can commute from indiana or Wi. Which si why moody's is still threatening to downgrade. Why pay high taxes and the highest property taxes in the nation when you can move a few miles away and be in indiana-where propriety taxes are capped at 1% ? WI is not bad-state tax is higher , but progressively higher. property taxes are far more reasonable when compared to IL.

This si where dems lose-they do not say hey we need money because of xyz, here is our plan to fix it-instead they demand money and then anybody who opposes is a propogandist some ist. Well asking for accountability when paying more money is now a bad thing .

meanwhile the dem leaders like Bernie own 3 homes and amke a million bucks a year and Obama makes 400k per speech to walls treet all the while pretending to care about the little guy.

Oh it is not pension envy when your taxes are paying the pension-it is just saying you are a public servant paid for by my dolalrs-I don't think you are worth this much-the market does not support it.

yodaking says

Patrick, I think you would be interested to know that the poor already pay little to no taxes. So when the GOP supported tax cuts, they will not get a large payoff.

So when you have a tax cut, it stands to reason that if you don't pay any or much taxes - you won't get a bigger refund.

Here are stats from IRS.gov

The top 1 percent of tax payers paid, 34.27 percent of federal income tax revenues.

The top 10 percent of tax payers paid 65.84 percent, or 2/3 of all taxes

The top 25 percent pay 83.5% of all taxes

The next 25 percent sahre 12.5% of the total tax burden for a total of 96%

The bottom half of America (the poor and disadvantaged that you refer to Patrick) how much of the tax burden do they share? (they make less then 26,000 a year)

3.5%

This is why context is crucial, always. Some people look at this and think "look! Unfair! The poor don't pay their fair share". Math seems to trick simple people like that.

justme says

monthly income of $5000 would incur an additional tax of $60 per month. Not exactly a great cause for alarm, is it

I am not opposed to taxes in principle, but it would be nice if they will be used for something that actually benefits poor people, or general welfare of state/nation. As it stands now, I can predict that (1) tax increase in IL will not bring it back to financial solvency (initial 3% tax was also temporary), (2) they will need another tax increase 1-3 years down the road, and (3) most of the tax increase will be used to pay municipal workers pensions - why should they be more privileged compared to private company employees or self-employed people?. On a federal level, I do not want to be taxed for building another $Trillion nation (after destroying it), an other $Trillion F-666 boondoggle, or another $Trillion subsidy for large agribusiness. Any tax increase will likely flow there.

drBu says

I am not opposed to taxes in principle, but it would be nice if they will be used for something that actually benefits poor people, or general welfare of state/nation. As it stands now, I can predict that (1) tax increase in IL will not bring it back to financial solvency (initial 3% tax was also temporary), (2) they will need another tax increase 1-3 years down the road, and (3) most of the tax increase will be used to pay municipal workers pensions - why should they be more privileged compared to private company employees or self-employed people?. On a federal level, I do not want to be taxed for building another $Trillion nation (after destroying it), an other $Trillion F-666 boondoggle, or another $Trillion subsidy for large agribusiness. Any tax increase will likely flow there.

Government in general sucks at everything.

After working as a consultant for many state clients (including now), I can safely say they are some of the most mismanaged entities in the world. Sure you get your idiots in the private sector and I saw many in my career, but at least the realm of the market usually killed them off in good time.

State and Federal entities always have the tax coffers to raid for their incompetency, and it's never ending, until it does (see Rome 476 A.D, British Empire 1946, etc).

Goran_K says

I can safely say they are some of the most mismanaged entities in the world. Sure you get your idiots in the private sector and I saw many in my career, but at least the realm of the market usually killed them off in good time.

About government, absolutely agree. About companies, in principle yes, but this applies to small and medium-sized companies. Big and connected corporations buy off government (purchase laws that restrict competition or purchase smaller competitors etc) and screw everyone else over while being inefficient. Power companies are a good example - deregulation made electricity prices higher while service sucks as before.

drBu says

About government, absolutely agree. About companies, in principle yes, but this applies to small and medium-sized companies. Big and connected corporations buy off government (purchase laws that restrict competition or purchase smaller competitors etc) and screw everyone else over while being inefficient. Power companies are a good example - deregulation made electricity prices higher while service sucks as before.

Agreed. Competition is the oil that greases a market.

How do you feel about Google?