« prev   random   next »

0
0

You know this will come one day, government taxing your wealth.

By MoneySheep follow MoneySheep   2018 May 13, 11:59am 3,729 views   30 comments   watch   nsfw   quote   share    


You know this will come one day, government taxing your wealth. The bureaucrat will tax you for owning something.

How to pay for Unfunded Pension Liability? Chicago Fed has the solution. Chicago Fed proposed levying, across the state and in addition to current property taxes, a special property assessment they estimate would be about 1% of actual property value each year.

http://midwest.chicagofedblogs.org/?p=3096
1   Tenpoundbass   ignore (16)   2018 May 13, 2:49pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

MoneySheep says
The bureaucrat will tax you for owning something.

They tried that once, but once McCarthyism got swinging into full gear the Commies fled in fear and personal property tax was scrapped.
Ever see Christmas Story 2? Mr. Winchell the Assessor was once a real thing to worry about.
2   lostand confused   ignore (0)   2018 May 13, 2:56pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

WTF? These animals-why not discuss firing everyone and replacing with managed services. or even better amend the state constitution-why does this stupid state keep voting democrats?
3   Patrick   ignore (1)   2018 May 13, 3:16pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

The bigger problem is that the government racks up debts it does not have the income to pay.

There should be some constitutional amendment prohibiting that.
4   lostand confused   ignore (0)   2018 May 13, 3:18pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Patrick says
There should be some constitutional amendment prohibiting that

Yup, instead IL has a constitutional amendment that any government workers pension can never be touched evah. So if some state dept hires 1000 people at 300k a pop with a clause that they get 250k a year in pension after 2 years of service-the constitution forbids any changes.

This is public masters overlording over the serfs, not public servants. The dems should change the constitution -Rauner the repub governor won't even suggest it. This state needs a ton of trumpians.
5   pkennedy   ignore (0)   2018 May 13, 3:38pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

It's a good way to collect taxes, and limits how much wealth an individual can obtain really. If you're taxed 2% of your net worth every year, it means you need to add at least 2% to your net worth every year, or you'll go down. It means people can't just sit on wealth and slowly live off it for generations, it needs to be constantly in motion.

Muslims have this as a tithe every year basically, where you add up your wealth and donate 2.5%. I thought it was a pretty good way to keep people from accumulating more wealth than they could earn in a year themselves.
6   FuckCCP89   ignore (6)   2018 May 13, 3:38pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

IL needs its own Prop13.
7   FuckCCP89   ignore (6)   2018 May 13, 3:40pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

pkennedy says
Muslims have this as a tithe every year basically


.... and all Muslim countries were basically shitholes (until Americans discovered oil for them).
8   HeadSet   ignore (3)   2018 May 13, 5:21pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Patrick says
The bigger problem is that the government racks up debts it does not have the income to pay.

There should be some constitutional amendment prohibiting that.



Such as "The budget this year is what was collected in taxes last year." That will get rid of the fat.
9   HunterTits   ignore (4)   2018 May 13, 5:44pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

MoneySheep says
You know this will come one day, government taxing your wealth. The bureaucrat will tax you for owning something.

How to pay for Unfunded Pension Liability? Chicago Fed has the solution. Chicago Fed proposed levying, across the state and in addition to current property taxes, a special property assessment they estimate would be about 1% of actual property value each year.

At least only those in Illinois are paying for that which their voting choices have wrought, not Texans.

How is this any different than how states tax property now? Just another tax. As for 'statewide' property taxes, isn't half the property tax proceeds in CA already going to Sacramento? The State of Texas gets some of its funding from property taxation too. So, nothing new here there.

And amazingly this can't happen in California because of Prop 13. The voters would have to modify/repeal Prop 13...which was a constitutional amendment.
10   HunterTits   ignore (4)   2018 May 13, 5:46pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

lostand confused says
why does this stupid state keep voting democrats?

At least the damage is contained, thanks to federalism. This is a good thing.
11   Hircus   ignore (0)   2018 May 13, 5:48pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

pkennedy says
It means people can't just sit on wealth and slowly live off it for generations, it needs to be constantly in motion.


I've thought about this - what the pros and cons of such taxes, including inheritance taxes are.

On one hand, I think the general mode of society should be such that pretty much any person who puts in effort and becomes productive, adding real value to society, should be "rewarded" with money in some proportion to their contributions. In other words, work smart + hard, and you will get that cash. This incentivizes people to behave in ways that are good for society, raising all boats so to speak, and is more or less how much of the world currently works. An exception though is that being born into money and/or certain geographic locations gives a non-trivial advantage, which isn't ideal, because some people wont try to become high contributors because they know they have to put in more effort than others to get the same results.

On the other hand, to take taxation steps to reduce generational wealth in order to help level the playing field disincentivizes certain people from working as hard as they might otherwise. I don't have any numbers, but I imagine quite a few breadwinners work extra hard knowing that their descendants will be taken care of due to their hard work today. To make the money evaporate faster makes hard work past a certain point less appealing, which is probably not good for society.

Parasitic king-of-the-hill behavior by rich people who use their generational money and power to maintain dominance by monopolizing a market probably isn't normally good for society as a whole. If they use their money for legit investments however, that seems good and might raise more boats than if that money was taxed away and used by govt.
12   FortWayne   ignore (4)   2018 May 13, 6:34pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

Liberals always run out of other people’s money
13   bob2356   ignore (5)   2018 May 14, 4:11am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

lostand confused says
this stupid state keep voting democrats?


FortWayne says
Liberals always run out of other people’s money




Wow look at some of the liberal democrat states with huge unfunded liabilities. AK, NM,OH,MS, NV,WY,KY,LA,.MT. Yep those states sure are in trouble because they have liberal democrat governments. ROFLOL. Seems like conservative fiscally responsible republicans can piss away taxpayer money just as fast as anyone. But the usual cast of characters don't deal in reality, they can only regurgitate their brainwashing from the right wing echo chamber.
14   lostand confused   ignore (0)   2018 May 14, 5:29am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Many states have large pension liabilities-yes. But apart from IL which state has it written in the constitution that you can never ever touch a government critter's pension-evah?

So unless that is amended, absolutely no change can be made once hired. Guess which part will absolutely not even consider the possibility of amending the constitution?

They recently tried to make one area right to work for private workers. The evil democrats almost passed a veto proof law that would make it a crime to even pass such a law-yeah. Luckily the state has a repub governor-a stupid one at that- but he vetoed it. So you throw local politicians in jail for trying to ease some burdens-democrats are succubus thugs who only can take money and give it to public unions. PIgs-may they rot in hell.
15   pkennedy   ignore (0)   2018 May 14, 6:11am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Hircus says
In other words, work smart + hard, and you will get that cash.


You've hit the nail on the head here. The other point about generational wealth, just being born in the right spot is important. SF vs a city of 2,000. There are so many things that we take for granted. Even the mediocre don't realize how much worse it could be for them, had they been born just a few hundred miles away. 300 miles east of SF and you're prospects in life probably drop to zero.

There was a study done in denmark, which has about the most equal society possible and also the happiest, and in the study they found with all things equal, doctors produced doctors, cashiers produced cashiers and very little moved up or down.

So what it comes down to is ensuring everyone at the ground level has the best life they can , while giving enough incentives for the rich to beat themselves up over becoming rich. I'm not talking about "free X" I'm talking about ensuring they lead a good work/life balance, with reduced stress levels and "putting in" the least number of hours to get their job done. I was going to say working, but then people moan, this isn't about working, this about creating busy work, unnecessary stress, limited vacation time, and generally being able to railroad people simply because you can.
16   pkennedy   ignore (0)   2018 May 14, 6:14am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

bob2356 says
Wow look at some of the liberal democrat states with huge unfunded liabilities.


Instead of being part of the problem, why don't you offer some solutions here.

Lets start with:

Lets look at how much it will cost to fix Californias pension problem per person, with say Arkansas.

I'm SURE the people of California can foot that bill no problem. How about Arkansas? Bet they have zero ability to raise that money or make any changes or even have the ability to cover that. Make ZERO dollars and it doesn't matter what your liability is, there is no way to fix it.
17   Reality   ignore (8)   2018 May 14, 6:23am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

pkennedy says
It's a good way to collect taxes, and limits how much wealth an individual can obtain really. If you're taxed 2% of your net worth every year, it means you need to add at least 2% to your net worth every year, or you'll go down. It means people can't just sit on wealth and slowly live off it for generations, it needs to be constantly in motion.


Wealth is only a manifestation/form of Power that is potentially subject to market competition. There are other forms of Power that are heritable, such as being born into a political family like Bushes, Clintons and Kennedies. How do you suppose we can tax that form of inheritance? In a mature society, it usually takes more than one generation to build up significant power (whether via wealth, or via politics, or via military careers). Among all the paths to significant power (to be among the top 0.01%, or about 35,000 people in this country that directly influence legislation and enforcement of law; keep in mind there are only 600 or so people in the constitutionally mandated positions in the three branches of government, surrounded by an order of magnitude more staffers then another order of magnitude more of lobbyists and their clients), the wealth path through market competition is likely the most benign, and the only positive-sum path vs. both the other two paths (politics and military) being zero-sum to negative-sum, especially to the rest of the population.




Muslims have this as a tithe every year basically, where you add up your wealth and donate 2.5%. I thought it was a pretty good way to keep people from accumulating more wealth than they could earn in a year themselves.


As the many dozens of Muslim countries show, that system not only does not prevent the rise of the various hereditary princes (i.e. generational Power, having advanced via politics and military), but also prevents that highly concentrated power base from being challenged by the positive-sum competitive market place. The result is serfdom, which is the condition for most of human history since the arrival of civilization 10,000 years ago (before that was primitivism, living like wild animals in the jungle, lives being brutish and short). It's only the past 500 years starting in Western Europe (and for a few hundred years at a time in Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece) that humanity have witnessed relatively free societies thanks to (generational) social mobility via commerce, the only positive-sum game known to humanity besides reproduction itself.
18   everything   ignore (1)   2018 May 14, 6:29am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

They do already, they tax all of it, the rich still pay a ton of taxes though. I just keep moving into smaller living spaces, finding ways to live cheaper. One problem with America is the corruption levels are pretty high for such a big country.
https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_in_the_usa_the_difference_a_year_makes
19   Reality   ignore (8)   2018 May 14, 6:34am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Hircus says
Parasitic king-of-the-hill behavior by rich people who use their generational money and power to maintain dominance by monopolizing a market probably isn't normally good for society as a whole. If they use their money for legit investments however, that seems good and might raise more boats than if that money was taxed away and used by govt.


"Parasitic king-of-the-hill behavior" by rich and/or POWERFUL people. If the generational social mobility via competitive market place is blocked, the only paths left will be via Politics and via Military (essentially revolutionary butchery and private armies loyal only to their commanders, who would then have to rely on their sons to safe-guard their old age, giving rise to actual Aristocracy).

The attempt to build generational POWER (wealth is only one manifestation of POWER, and a form that is subject to market competition unlike raw Political Power) is innate to human psyche, and reinforced by women's hypergamy in mating. Just look at the politicians who are born to politicians, and union bosses born to union bosses; heck even union members born to union members! A society is much better served when that biological/evolutionary drive is channeled through a relatively competitive market place instead via monopolistic politics and/or military. That's the difference between a relatively free (and liberal in the classical sense of the world) society vs. serfdom.
20   Reality   ignore (8)   2018 May 14, 6:58am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

pkennedy says
The other point about generational wealth, just being born in the right spot is important. SF vs a city of 2,000. There are so many things that we take for granted. Even the mediocre don't realize how much worse it could be for them, had they been born just a few hundred miles away. 300 miles east of SF and you're prospects in life probably drop to zero.


What are you proposing as the big government solution to this "problem" of sheer luck? Taking all kids away and raise them in government-run orphanages to ensure "equal start"? Will the staffers' own children be "more equal" than others? How do you prevent pedophiles getting into that system when there are no parental oversight taking kids home every evening? You know, like the UN peacekeepers' infamy for being sexual predators.


There was a study done in denmark, which has about the most equal society possible and also the happiest, and in the study they found with all things equal, doctors produced doctors, cashiers produced cashiers and very little moved up or down.



1. Isn't that like serfdom? The blacksmith's son is a blacksmith, etc..

2. Are you sure you are not describing a society in stasis? Who will do the new jobs created by new technology? What happens to workers at obsolete industries? Without market pricing, how would you allocate labor and talent efficiently? What happens when the Cashiers are replaced by automatic checkouts? What happens when they have even more children as they have nothing to do while on welfare after being replaced by the machines? Sounds to me like one of those 20th century eastern bloc socialist utopia (where unemployment is 0% as government assigns jobs), which invariably turn into dystopia within a generation or two.

3. and you are against inheritance?


So what it comes down to is ensuring everyone at the ground level has the best life they can , while giving enough incentives for the rich to beat themselves up over becoming rich. I'm not talking about "free X" I'm talking about ensuring they lead a good work/life balance, with reduced stress levels and "putting in" the least number of hours to get their job done.


The best work/life balance in that proposed system is being the feudal lord inheriting power via politics (not subject to taxation): he can focus on sleeping with all the pretty girls of the land, while collecting taxes from the serfs in the name of being the manager / representative of the Divine / Marx / the People. Smart people in that kind of society will strive to kill each other to be the top dog, while the sub-120 IQ population will starve as their betters engage in the negative-sum game of politics and inevitable police-state instead of the positive-sum game of commerce.
21   bob2356   ignore (5)   2018 May 14, 7:26am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

pkennedy says
bob2356 says
Wow look at some of the liberal democrat states with huge unfunded liabilities.


Instead of being part of the problem, why don't you offer some solutions here.

Lets start with:

Lets look at how much it will cost to fix Californias pension problem per person, with say Arkansas.

I'm SURE the people of California can foot that bill no problem. How about Arkansas? Bet they have zero ability to raise that money or make any changes or even have the ability to cover that. Make ZERO dollars and it doesn't matter what your liability is, there is no way to fix it.


How exactly is pointing out the total bankruptcy of conservatism and current conservative thinking as it exists today is part of the problem? The stupidity and idiocy of posters saying that unfunded mandates are a liberal blue state democratic problem is ample proof the only tool of the conservative movement has left is demagoguery totally divorced from real world facts. As per your own example of Arkansas, the hard core conservative states are the poorest, sickest, and least educated. The crabs in the bucket theory, if you can't climb out then bring everyone else down.
22   lostand confused   ignore (0)   2018 May 14, 8:23am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

bob2356 says
. The crabs in the bucket theory, if you can't climb out then bring everyone else down.

Nah this is like the herdsman tending to his flock so he can slaughter his flock. Govt officials do not do much. IL has the highest number of govt units, even more than CA, which when comparing size is stunning. Lot of govt units doing duplicate units. It ahs a constitution that forbids any changes to govt critters benefits. It ahs school superintendents making 400k a year, village managers making 300k a year-which is more than most governors.

It is time for change or the state will collapse and become like MI. MI reacted by dropping state pensions as did Alaska. Alaska democrats are now pushing to get pensions back-surprise, surprise for public employees.

Public sector employees are supposed to be public servants and democrats have exalted them to be public masters where their security and lives trumps all. Countless people in IL loose their homes because they lost a job or egt cancer-because of the abhorrent property taxes. But no some guy making 300k for being a village manager has to get his pension and retire in Hawaii on your taxes -so hey lets kick out the serfs.

When you rely on public taxes , being asked why you get those benefits is not crabs pulling another crab back-it is me asking why I am paying so much money to fund your lifestyle and what better deal I can get. Public sector unions ought to be abolished. They are a drain on society and serve very little useful purpose and drain the quality of life for millions and they don't care one whit about the public-just their pocket books.

Ina competitive world we would have choice. In public sector , the choice is democrats who love public sector, higher and higher taxes improvising every one so the public sector thugs can live in caligulan splendor and repubs who at least try some reform.
23   pkennedy   ignore (0)   2018 May 14, 8:35am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

bob2356 says
The crabs in the bucket theory, if you can't climb out then bring everyone else down.


In reality, there isn't a problem. That's what it comes down to. There are liabilities that need to be covered, but they can be. The problem is, it's about raising taxes to pay for liabilities and spending that the voters (everyone) allowed to take place. It was spent, now it needs some paying, and so be it.

I'm not saying "keep it up!" but it's not some crippling problem. There are problems in this society, but aiming at the lowest income earners or aiming at the government all the time just creates a system where everyone starts to believe that crap and ignores the real problem. Rich aren't paying sufficient taxes, and are withdrawing far too much from society. It's a system that worked so well, and so efficiently, that they've done a great job. No question about it, but clearly the results aren't sustainable and we need to tweak the whole system. More money needs to go to the lower tiers, how it gets there is either via taxes or higher wages.
24   FortWayne   ignore (4)   2018 May 14, 8:49am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

Illinois is going toward Soviet Union model. Government rulers, and the tax paying peasants.
25   Reality   ignore (8)   2018 May 14, 9:18am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

pkennedy says
In reality, there isn't a problem. That's what it comes down to. There are liabilities that need to be covered, but they can be. The problem is, it's about raising taxes to pay for liabilities and spending that the voters (everyone) allowed to take place. It was spent, now it needs some paying, and so be it.


If I promised someone else your house, does that give them the right to kick you out of your house? If I promised someone else your kidney, does that give them the right to cut it out of you? If I promised a third party the house and kidney of your future children, does that give them the right to kick your future children out of their homes and take their kidneys? That is the crux of "public debt": an identity fraud, because it is a promise to be forced out of people who were not yet born or were too young to have voted when the promise was made. If someone is either stupid enough to believe a false promise or venal enough to invest in a mobster enterprise (say, buying weapons for the mobsters to rob people), his recourse has to be sought with the con man or the mobster, not the rest of the population.

pkennedy says
I'm not saying "keep it up!" but it's not some crippling problem. There are problems in this society, but aiming at the lowest income earners or aiming at the government all the time just creates a system where everyone starts to believe that crap and ignores the real problem. Rich aren't paying sufficient taxes, and are withdrawing far too much from society. It's a system that worked so well, and so efficiently, that they've done a great job. No question about it, but clearly the results aren't sustainable and we need to tweak the whole system. More money needs to go to the lower tiers, how it gets there is either via taxes or higher wages.


Only relatively free market choice by individuals spending their own money can direct money towards the production of goods and services that people want, raising living standards for everyone. Only a relatively free competitive market place can drive wages higher in real purchasing power terms. Raising taxes wouldn't direct money to the lower tiers, but only creating a new class of parasites living off the productive society, and this class of parasites deliver even less what the average people want while bidding up prices of everything the average people want without having to deliver anything in return. Besides, the bureaucrats created by higher taxes are not exactly in the "lower tiers" but new fat cats living at the expense of the rest of the society.

We can take a look at a simplified beef+chicken economy: if the bulk of the population can only afford $3/lb ground beef and $1.50/lb chicken thigh, the ranchers raising cattle making millions and chicken farmers raising chicken making millions while preferring $12/lb fillet mignon and $2.50/lb chicken breast are actually beneficial to the general population living off lower priced cuts: the high price the rich pay for the higher priced cuts make the raising of cattle and chicken viable and profitable while selling the lower-priced cuts at even lower prices. Taking away the incentives to raise more cattle and chicken (via taxation), and giving the money to the counter-productive bureaucrats getting in the way of production would only cause all the meats to become less affordable to everyone else, especially taking the ground beef away from people who could previously afford it: because every dollar that the bureaucrat spends, if his consumer basket is similar to the average person, is taking the good out of the basket of the average person; if any item in the bureaucrat' basket is similar to that of the rich, then the bureaucrat is taking away the incentive for the (market-produced) owner of capital to produce more.
26   socal2   ignore (1)   2018 May 14, 10:02am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

bob2356 says
The stupidity and idiocy of posters saying that unfunded mandates are a liberal blue state democratic problem is ample proof the only tool of the conservative movement has left is demagoguery totally divorced from real world facts.


FFS - whats the difference between Indiana and Illinois other than Illinois has been governed by retarded Democrats for over half a century?

Which party get's almost 100% financial support from the Public Sector Unions to protect their gold plated pensions? It ain't the Republicans.

Which party is constantly pining to raise our taxes, all the while they continue to reduce services to prop up the bureaucracy's pay and benefits. It ain't the Republicans.

Which states are seeing the biggest decline in population fleeing from high taxes and dysfunctional Democrat rule? It's not Red States.
27   bob2356   ignore (5)   2018 May 14, 11:51am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

socal2 says

FFS - whats the difference between Indiana and Illinois other than Illinois has been governed by retarded Democrats for over half a century?

Which party get's almost 100% financial support from the Public Sector Unions to protect their gold plated pensions? It ain't the Republicans.

Which party is constantly pining to raise our taxes, all the while they continue to reduce services to prop up the bureaucracy's pay and benefits. It ain't the Republicans.

Which states are seeing the biggest decline in population fleeing from high taxes and dysfunctional Democrat rule? It's not Red States.


FFS what's the difference between AK/MS/NV/NM/WY/KY and IL? Which party is propping up the bureaucracy's pay and benefits in those states that they are top of the list for unfunded mandates?

The states with the biggest declines are AK -3.5 per k Ct -3.6 IL -6 KS -4.4 LA -1.1 NM -3.5 NY -3.7 ND -6.7 VT -3.1 WV -3.7. Ok I'll bite what dysfunctional democratic rule are people fleeing in AK,KS,LA,NM,ND,WV? CA is. 0.9+

I rest my case. Pure dogma no thinking needed.
28   socal2   ignore (1)   2018 May 14, 12:13pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

bob2356 says
FFS what's the difference between AK/MS/NV/NM/WY/KY and IL?


Most of those "Red States" have Democrat mayors running their bigger cities with the pension crisis. The terrible 80+ year governance of Chicago is destroying the finances of the entire State.
29   bob2356   ignore (5)   2018 May 14, 1:54pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

socal2 says
bob2356 says
FFS what's the difference between AK/MS/NV/NM/WY/KY and IL?


Most of those "Red States" have Democrat mayors running their bigger cities with the pension crisis


ROFLOL. Those are states with a state employee unfunded mandate problem, not city employee within the state problem. Want to try again? Welcome to fact free america, demagogue are us. .
30   socal2   ignore (1)   2018 May 14, 2:09pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

bob2356 says
ROFLOL. Those are states with a state employee unfunded mandate problem, not city employee within the state problem. Want to try again? Welcome to fact free america, demagogue are us. .


Yes - and where do most public employees live and work?

At least in Kentucky, the Republican Governor and legislators are trying to fix the problem.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/11/us/kentucky-teachers-pension-governor/index.html

While public sector unions and their Democrat politician toadies just want to keep raising taxes to feed the beast.

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions