So without the FDA and USDA no one could hold a company committing fraud accountable?My claim is that no one would know fraud had been committed. Private citizens lack the means to design, conduct, and evaluate large-scale tests. Even if I put together a private company that does nothing else, there's nothing at all to keep me from accepting bribes to give certain products a "pass," since I'm beholden only to my shareholders -- unless in your scheme all consumers have private eyes to watch the private "regulators" who watch the producers? I don't see how removing the FDA actually improves anything.
Are you saying the FDA does those things?
So I ask the same question I keep asking. How much regulation is enough? How many regulators, inspectors and enforcers will it take to make the system work? How many millions of pages of law, regulation, and case law will get the job done? How much will it cost, and how will we pay for it? Do we agree that our current regulatory structure is doing a dreadful job? If we can agree that the current system is failing then what is the solution?
They're doing an imperfect job, which is far better than none at all, but not as good as a perfect one. This isn't a pass/fail thing. I don't think more money and more regulators are the answer -- we might get by with fewer. However, I do believe, very strongly, that some regulation is needed, and that organizing it at a federal level at least, in theory, makes them accountable to the electorate rather than to the shareholders.
Are you saying the FDA does those things?So without the FDA and USDA no one could hold a company committing fraud accountable?My claim is that no one would know fraud had been committed. Private citizens lack the means to design, conduct, and evaluate large-scale tests. Even if I put together a private company that does nothing else, there's nothing at all to keep me from accepting bribes to give certain products a "pass," since I'm beholden only to my shareholders -- unless in your scheme all consumers have private eyes to watch the private "regulators" who watch the producers? I don't see how removing the FDA actually improves anything.
Are you saying the FDA does not test foods or drugs, and is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act?
The FDA does them (or requires them to be done) imperfectly. Which, again, is far better than not at all.
So I ask the same question I keep asking. How much regulation is enough? How many regulators, inspectors and enforcers will it take to make the system work? How many millions of pages of law, regulation, and case law will get the job done? How much will it cost, and how will we pay for it? Do we agree that our current regulatory structure is doing a dreadful job? If we can agree that the current system is failing then what is the solution?They're doing an imperfect job, which is far better than none at all, but not as good as a perfect one. This isn't a pass/fail thing. I don't think more money and more regulators are the answer -- we might get by with fewer. However, I do believe, very strongly, that some regulation is needed, and that organizing it at a federal level at least, in theory, makes them accountable to the electorate rather than to the shareholders.
Is there any point when ineffective, corrupt, and expensive regulation ceases to be better than none at all?
If so, does any thing we have seen reach that threshold? The ATF? MMS? DEA?
Are you saying the FDA does those things?So without the FDA and USDA no one could hold a company committing fraud accountable?My claim is that no one would know fraud had been committed. Private citizens lack the means to design, conduct, and evaluate large-scale tests. Even if I put together a private company that does nothing else, there's nothing at all to keep me from accepting bribes to give certain products a "pass," since I'm beholden only to my shareholders -- unless in your scheme all consumers have private eyes to watch the private "regulators" who watch the producers? I don't see how removing the FDA actually improves anything.Are you saying the FDA does not test foods or drugs, and is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act?
The FDA does them (or requires them to be done) imperfectly. Which, again, is far better than not at all.
The FDA has companies submit studies that those companies pay for. The FDA's review process is political and corrupt. It's pretty imperfect.
I doubt I will ever see federal regulation constrained by the constitution, but maybe we could work toward a regulatory structure that is actually manageable and enforceable. Our regulations are now so complex that the regulators no longer understand them. It's much like our tax code; whether one likes taxes or not our tax code is incomprehensibly complicated. Even the people who make tax policy don't understand taxes or they are irredeemably corrupt.
I suggest we either need to massively refocus on a more narrow regulatory mission. Otherwise it seems that we are going to require a vast army of new regulators to keep up with the massive expansion of regulations that we already don't enforce.
I just don't see where more bureaucracy is the answer to failed bureaucracy. We tried that with DHS, and it was an immense failure.
Let me understand this.
In a time of E. Coli scares, Wall Street bankers cheating people out of their money and wrecking the economy on purpose, collapsing coal mines, lead-painted Chinese toys, flaming tap water, and cataclysmic oil spills...
...You want further deregulation?
The Deepwater Horizon rig was so underregulated that it exploded. It exploded. Do you know what really kills energy industry jobs? Having your workplace explode. Do you know what kills fishing and tourism jobs? Having your workplace covered in oil from said explosion.
Somewhere the head of a major national gas corporation is approving a gas retrieval method that pumps thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals near groundwater aquifers, a method that has resulted in natural gas leaking into the drinking water to the point where the water coming out of the tap is flammable. The tap water lights on fire.
...And you want further deregulation.
Let me understand this.
In a time of E. Coli scares, Wall Street bankers cheating people out of their money and wrecking the economy on purpose, collapsing coal mines, lead-painted Chinese toys, flaming tap water, and cataclysmic oil spills...
...You want further deregulation?
The Deepwater Horizon rig was so underregulated that it exploded. It exploded. Do you know what really kills energy industry jobs? Having your workplace explode. Do you know what kills fishing and tourism jobs? Having your workplace covered in oil from said explosion.
Somewhere the head of a major national gas corporation is approving a gas retrieval method that pumps thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals near groundwater aquifers, a method that has resulted in natural gas leaking into the drinking water to the point where the water coming out of the tap is flammable. The tap water lights on fire.
...And you want further deregulation.
Yes. I want much less regulation.
Again I ask the question. How much regulation will it take to make us safe? How much will it cost? Who will pay for it? How can you ensure this new influx of resources will go where it is intended and not be misallocated?
Do we need twice as many enforcers? How about five times as many? Will ten times the enforcers work for you?
I wonder what the unintended consequences will be.
Again I ask the question. How much regulation will it take to make us safe?
...More then we have now?
How much will it cost? Who will pay for it?
:psyduck:
Are you honestly asking how much more jobs that will help attack unemployment will cost?
How can you ensure this new influx of resources will go where it is intended and not be misallocated?
That gurantee does not exist anywhere. You seem to think it is unique to the government - it is not.
Do we need twice as many enforcers? How about five times as many? Will ten times the enforcers work for you?
I do not have exact numbers if that is what you ask.
I wonder what the unintended consequences will be.
We will be a safer, richer, and more employed country.
and who will pay for it?
You mention the jobs that it will "create". You do realize that they would be public service jobs that will need taxpayer funding right? This coupled with your corporate income tax increase that will only lead to the increase of the cost of goods and service. Sounds like your plan will lead to me working longer hours just to pay the regulators and maybe, maybe have something left over to buy something to feed my family. But at least I'll be safe after trading in my liberty. wait, where have I heard that before?
and who will pay for it?
You mention the jobs that it will "create". You do realize that they would be public service jobs that will need taxpayer funding right? This coupled with your corporate income tax increase that will only lead to the increase of the cost of goods and service. Sounds like your plan will lead to me working longer hours just to pay the regulators and maybe, maybe have something left over to buy something to feed my family. But at least I'll be safe after trading in my liberty. wait, where have I heard that before?
Why would the cost of goods go up?
Look, let's apply some of that ol' common sense to this;
Your statement is thus: if corporations pay higher taxes, they will charge more for goods.
My counter is this: if they could charge more for goods? They would already be doing so.
On the contrary, you won't have to work longer hours. In fact, if you look at other economies besides the US, those with more widespread social safety nets have smaller working days and more paid vacation days. They also tend to have more progressive tax rates, something we had during the serious economic boom from WWII all the way up to the 60's. Which stopped right around the same time we began dismantling our tax system to make it more regressive. And that means you'd be paying less for things in your life. Hell, just look at how much health coverage costs in the US compared to every other first world country. Look at the state of our infrastructure and our public transportation - which, by the way, makes the cost of living substantially lower.
Also, trading in your liberties? Where did that even come from?
Also, has this been covered yet?
Has what? He claims his sources are "widespread media reports" and his link goes nowhere.
As far as I can tell he's literally making things up.
Also, just an FYI, people with jobs can pay a numerically higher amount of taxes without having to pay a percentage higher amount of taxes. This is why the big problem right now is not debt but unemployment. Money isn't moving. And it's not because those poor poor corporations ([n];_;[/b]) don't have enough, but because they have too much and see no reason not to simply horde it all.
Mmmm....crawfish! The oil adds an earthy flavor!
and who will pay for it?
You mention the jobs that it will "create". You do realize that they would be public service jobs that will need taxpayer funding right? This coupled with your corporate income tax increase that will only lead to the increase of the cost of goods and service. Sounds like your plan will lead to me working longer hours just to pay the regulators and maybe, maybe have something left over to buy something to feed my family. But at least I'll be safe after trading in my liberty. wait, where have I heard that before?Why would the cost of goods go up?
Look, let's apply some of that ol' common sense to this;
Your statement is thus: if corporations pay higher taxes, they will charge more for goods.
My counter is this: if they could charge more for goods? They would already be doing so.
On the contrary, you won't have to work longer hours. In fact, if you look at other economies besides the US, those with more widespread social safety nets have smaller working days and more paid vacation days. They also tend to have more progressive tax rates, something we had during the serious economic boom from WWII all the way up to the 60's. Which stopped right around the same time we began dismantling our tax system to make it more regressive. And that means you'd be paying less for things in your life. Hell, just look at how much health coverage costs in the US compared to every other first world country. Look at the state of our infrastructure and our public transportation - which, by the way, makes the cost of living substantially lower.
Also, trading in your liberties? Where did that even come from?
The social safety net is irrelevant to talking about increasing regulations and the number of regulators. The cost of goods and services would have to go up with the double dip of increased regulations and increased corporate taxes. Small businesses and start-ups would suffer the most in this system. It is hard enough to get the necessary loans and permits as things are today. Have you ever tried to buy a (for instance) a liquor liscense? And this would only make it harder. Thats why I say if you want to "tax the rich", increase the capital gains tax back to the level it was pre-Clinton, and establish a flat tax with zero loopholes.
As far as liberties are concerned, Im assuming that under the unspecified increase in regulators, the DEA, BATFE, etc would be included. Those agencies exist only to crimp your civil liberties, so yes lets get more of those guys. Even if they are not counted, I would consider self-determination to be an essential liberty. The ability to be anything you want to be. If I wanted to be, say a restaurant owner, in your system, How many more permits would I have to apply for? How much would that cost? But then again I guess I could just get one of those numerous new regulator jobs and someone else can pay my salary. Who is going to pay for all these new regulators again?
EDIT-Make no mistake, I am not arguing for complete deregulation. But I am arguing for an overhaul of the regulatory system. Lets keep the important regulations that work and keep us safe and get rid of alot of the "red tape".
And it's not because those poor poor corporations ([n];_;[/b]) don't have enough, but because they have too much and see no reason not to simply horde it all.
Yes, because greed is wanting to keep what you make.
Also, has this been covered yet?Has what? He claims his sources are "widespread media reports" and his link goes nowhere.
As far as I can tell he's literally making things up.
It appears you are right. Binging it brought up a bunch of results all with same bad link as proof. Finally on page 3 of the results, links were provided debunking it. I am wrong.
The cost of goods and services would have to go up with the double dip of increased regulations and increased corporate taxes.
No it wouldn't.
Again, of corporations could charge more for products, they would already be doing so.
Small businesses and start-ups would suffer the most in this system. It is hard enough to get the necessary loans and permits as things are today. Have you ever tried to buy a (for instance) a liquor liscense? And this would only make it harder.
Worked for an independent, family owned pizza place, and we talked business from time to time. Yeah, it can be rough, I don't doubt that. But it's also important because you are shoving that into your mouth. That's going into your system. That's your temple. You're damn right we need to regulate that.
Thats why I say if you want to "tax the rich", increase the capital gains tax back to the level it was pre-Clinton, and establish a flat tax with zero loopholes.
Flat tax is lol to the lolth dimension. There isn't a serious economist alive who thinks that's in any way legit. It's the most regressive, "F*** the poor" style of tax in existence.
And it's not because those poor poor corporations ([n];_;[/b]) don't have enough, but because they have too much and see no reason not to simply horde it all.Yes, because greed is wanting to keep what you make.
Yes, tell me more how running ponzi schemes, buying politicians, and devouring and stealing every shred of capital that those in the lower 80% have is "earning" their money.
As far as liberties are concerned, Im assuming that under the unspecified increase in regulators, the DEA, BATFE, etc would be included. Those agencies exist only to crimp your civil liberties, so yes lets get more of those guys. Even if they are not counted, I would consider self-determination to be an essential liberty. The ability to be anything you want to be. If I wanted to be, say a restaurant owner, in your system, How many more permits would I have to apply for? How much would that cost? But then again I guess I could just get one of those numerous new regulator jobs and someone else can pay my salary. Who is going to pay for all these new regulators again?
First off, a more rigorous DEA that actually goes after the police and helps kill the thin blue line is exactly what we need.
Secondly, who is going to pay all these new regulators? The increased tax money that will be coming in due to increased jobs both in regulation and in the industries. More regulation means industry has to hire more people. More employment means higher monetary taxes with lower percentile taxes to the middle, lower, and poverty-stricken classes.
Again, there's a lot of money in America. It's just in the hands of very, very few.
EDIT-Make no mistake, I am not arguing for complete deregulation. But I am arguing for an overhaul of the regulatory system. Lets keep the important regulations that work and keep us safe and get rid of alot of the "red tape".
We literally no longer have clean water in the US.
We are a first world country and we are choosing to kill our clean water.
Tell me more about deregulation.
Well, all I can say to this is somethign has to change. The producers in this country are shrinking while those depending on gov't assitance are increasing. The solution isn't to take even more from the producers. Eventually, there will be none left that live here.
Something needs to be done before the pendulum swings the other way, and all this class warfare bulls**t backfires, leaving those who truly need help thrown out with the bathwater becasue of those who exploited the previous system.
There is a line.
I believe we are about to cross it, and I don't think it's gonna go the way most liberals* think it will.
*I do not use this word as a derogatory term, but to simply describe a mindset.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...stuff...
You do realize, when you call for the need for more regulation, and to back it up post links about how all the regulation we curretly have is doing exactly dick, it kind of more than proves BT's point, right?
Does a falt tax hurt the poor more than all of the assistance programs in the US drying up becasue there is no one left to pay for them?
Well, all I can say to this is somethign has to change. The producers in this country are shrinking while those depending on gov't assitance are increasing. The solution isn't to take even more from the producers. Eventually, there will be none left that live here.
Something needs to be done before the pendulum swings the other way, and all this class warfare bulls**t backfires, leaving those who truly need help thrown out with the bathwater becasue of those who exploited the previous system.There is a line.
I believe we are about to cross it, and I don't think it's gonna go the way most liberals* think it will.
*I do not use this word as a derogatory term, but to simply describe a mindset.
Yes tell me more about these "producers."
We've been giving them tax cuts and more and more money for, hmm, getting to be thirty years now.
When were they going to start trickling that wealth back down?
Incidentally, you're fooling yourself if you think we don't already live in the midst of class warfare.
"There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning." - Warren Buffett
See, here's the problem with your thinking - that top 1%? They don't produce anything. They don't. Goldman-Sachs isn't producing anything. JP Morgan Chase isn't producing anything.
The real producers - the ones that labor and are ergo laborers - are the ones getting kicked out of jobs and sent home because their corporate leaders no longer need and no longer want them.
You seem to think capitalism exists to produce. It does not. The purpose of a corporation is to accumulate capital. That is it. That's the entire thing. Nothing more. Nothing less. It's goal is to make money. And they've found they can do that just fine without the "producers" butting in.
Does a falt tax hurt the poor more than all of the assistance programs in the US drying up becasue there is no one left to pay for them?
Did you miss my link? There's plenty of money that can go to paying them. It just all sits in the hands of 20% of the population.
Producers are the 53% of Americans that pay into the system.
EDIT: I find it funny when I say 'producer" ya'll immediately think I mean "corporation". No, it means those that pay into the system.
WArren Buffet also donates to a crap ton of charities and does give back to those that need it. Ironicly enough, he does so privately and doesn't write massive checks to the federal gov't every year (other than his taxes) to let them doel it out.
Producers are the 53% of Americans that pay into the system.
...Not the upper 20% that has all the money then? Because they're the ones you called the "producers." Yet clearly, they aren't.
Both incredibly trust-worthy sources of information. Thank you.
EDIT: I find it funny when I say 'producer" ya'll immediately think I mean "corporation". No, it means those that pay into the system.
Well, yes. That's because...
Well, all I can say to this is somethign has to change. The producers in this country are shrinking while those depending on gov't assitance are increasing.
...the "producers" are the ones that depend on government assistance.
WArren Buffet also donates to a crap ton of charities and does give back to those that need it. Ironicly enough, he does so privately and doesn't write massive checks to the federal gov't every year (other than his taxes) to let them doel it out.
Fun fact - this makes him unique, as overwhelmingly the very rich don't donate as much as the very poor do (Middle class comes in last).
High taxes do not, in themselves, make a country a better place to live. They can be spent in ways that do not help.
Well at least we can agree on this.
Both incredibly trust-worthy sources of information. Thank you.
"David Cay Johnston is a columnist for tax.com and teaches the tax, property and regulatory law of the ancient world at Syracuse University College of Law and Whitman School of Management. He has also been called the “de facto chief tax enforcement officer of the United States” because his reporting in The New York Times shut down many tax dodges and schemes, just two of them valued by Congress at $260 billion. Johnston received a 2001 Pulitzer Prize for exposing tax loopholes and inequities. ."
Yes. Yes it is.
It also cites it's sources for every graph and lists exactly where the numbers came from.
In 2001, Independent Sector, a nonprofit organization focused on charitable giving, found that households earning less than $25,000 a year gave away an average of 4.2 percent of their incomes; those with earnings of more than $75,000 gave away 2.7 percent.
Hmm...4.2% of 25k is $1050.00.
2.7% of 75k is $2025.00.Who gave more again?
So without the FDA and USDA no one could hold a company committing fraud accountable?My claim is that no one would know fraud had been committed. Private citizens lack the means to design, conduct, and evaluate large-scale tests. Even if I put together a private company that does nothing else, there's nothing at all to keep me from accepting bribes to give certain products a "pass," since I'm beholden only to my shareholders -- unless in your scheme all consumers have private eyes to watch the private "regulators" who watch the producers? I don't see how removing the FDA actually improves anything.
i have to agree. It is near impossible for an individual to conduct these types of tests. An organization is needed. I would like to see more private organizations created to take the strain off, however.
Flat tax is also a buzz word that means different things to different people. It usually means a single percentage rate applied to all income, but it often also includes no deductions (or loopholes) and sometimes just means no deductions. I had a long discussion with someone about the flat tax before realizing he was actually talking about a progressive marginal income tax, just with no deductions.
Either way, it hurts the poor. Any flat rate means an increase for everyone but the richest. Removing all deductions includes all the standard deductions as well as the loopholes for the rich, so that means most of us pay more as well.
The flat tax without any loopholes includes that no source of income would be excluded. So those corporations and CEO's? They would pay more than they currently do. We would not necessarily pay more as you could adjust the percentage to wherever it is needed.
Edit- Heck your links even support the idea of a flat tax. Why am I paying more in taxes than these guys?
In 2001, Independent Sector, a nonprofit organization focused on charitable giving, found that households earning less than $25,000 a year gave away an average of 4.2 percent of their incomes; those with earnings of more than $75,000 gave away 2.7 percent.
Hmm...4.2% of 25k is $1050.00.
2.7% of 75k is $2025.00.
Who gave more again?
by percentages, the first party. In terms of raw cash, the latter.
The cost of goods and services would have to go up with the double dip of increased regulations and increased corporate taxes.No it wouldn't.
Again, of corporations could charge more for products, they would already be doing so.
Small businesses and start-ups would suffer the most in this system. It is hard enough to get the necessary loans and permits as things are today. Have you ever tried to buy a (for instance) a liquor liscense? And this would only make it harder.
Worked for an independent, family owned pizza place, and we talked business from time to time. Yeah, it can be rough, I don't doubt that. But it's also important because you are shoving that into your mouth. That's going into your system. That's your temple. You're damn right we need to regulate that.
I agree. Like I said before Im not arguing for complete deregulation. What we dont need to regulate, for example, is the how much of the restaurant's window space is covered in signage, how wide the booths are, etc etc.
Edit- Once again to clarify, since you dont seem to understand. Not massive deregulation. An overhaul of the regulatory system to get rid of the useless stuff and focus on the important stuff. Not make our Water Undrinkable!!! as you claim that I'm saying. Your position seems to be that the regulators are corrupt, so lets hire more of them, as well as "internal affairs" regulators to regulate the regulators. Who regulates them? Do we get regulators to regulate the regulators that regulate the regulators? Where does it end?
I can't answer that because I don't agree with the premise: Everyone except the poor isn't going to leave the country if we don't enact a flat tax.
I'm not talking about an exodus, I'm talking about when it makes more sense to not work than to work because of gov't programs. When everyone's living on the gov'ts dime, where will the gov't get it's dimes from? Right now all I have to do is get fired and I got income for 99 weeks. What happens if unemployment is extended to 120 or more weeks? 3 year vacation paid? Hecks yeah! I can easily cut down on entertainment stuff and live on 60% of my salary for 3 years.
"That's unsustainable" you may say. Alot of gov't programs are unsustainable. I don't see any end for them, either. Eventually, there will be nothing left to put into them.
Let me understand this.
In a time of E. Coli scares, Wall Street bankers cheating people out of their money and wrecking the economy on purpose, collapsing coal mines, lead-painted Chinese toys, flaming tap water, and cataclysmic oil spills...
...You want further deregulation?
The Deepwater Horizon rig was so underregulated that it exploded. It exploded. Do you know what really kills energy industry jobs? Having your workplace explode. Do you know what kills fishing and tourism jobs? Having your workplace covered in oil from said explosion.
Somewhere the head of a major national gas corporation is approving a gas retrieval method that pumps thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals near groundwater aquifers, a method that has resulted in natural gas leaking into the drinking water to the point where the water coming out of the tap is flammable. The tap water lights on fire.
...And you want further deregulation.
Yes. I want much less regulation.
Again I ask the question. How much regulation will it take to make us safe? How much will it cost? Who will pay for it? How can you ensure this new influx of resources will go where it is intended and not be misallocated?
Do we need twice as many enforcers? How about five times as many? Will ten times the enforcers work for you?
I wonder what the unintended consequences will be.
Bookmark, I'll try to catch up soon.
More government in action.
Did Holder deputy lie to Congress about Operation Fast and Furious?
Document drop: More Project Gunrunner fit hits the shan
(conservative opinion)
Well, I already knew about the Tuskegee experiment , but I didn't know about this.
F##%ing disgusting.
An excellent book that discusses this plus other travesties in American medicine is Medical Apartheid. The author can occasionally be shrill as she repeats her main point, but after reading the book, I've started recognizing more and more that what's researched is true.
Very, very scary.
Well, I already knew about the Tuskegee experiment , but I didn't know about this.
F##%ing disgusting.
An excellent book that discusses this plus other travesties in American medicine is Medical Apartheid. The author can occasionally be shrill as she repeats her main point, but after reading the book, I've started recognizing more and more that what's researched is true.
Very, very scary.
Thank you.
Hmm...4.2% of 25k is $1050.00.
2.7% of 75k is $2025.00.
Who gave more again?
41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.
43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”
The flat tax without any loopholes includes that no source of income would be excluded. So those corporations and CEO's? They would pay more than they currently do. We would not necessarily pay more as you could adjust the percentage to wherever it is needed.
Edit- Heck your links even support the idea of a flat tax. Why am I paying more in taxes than these guys?
You're missing that the utility of the dollar does not remain the same.
Bob the Laborer goes in to pay his flat tax and pays 40% of his income. He had 100 dollars, now he has 60.
Wiliam the Banker goes in to pay his flat tax and pays 40% of his income. He had 100,000,000,000 dollars. Now he has 60,000,000,000.
That's why it's incredibly regressive. The dollar has different utility in different amounts. Losing 40 dollars from 100 is a big deal. Loosing 40,000,000,000 out of 100,000,000,000 isn't nearly as big of a deal. It'll result in corporations paying more because they currently don't pay any, but that doesn't mean it's good.
I can't answer that because I don't agree with the premise: Everyone except the poor isn't going to leave the country if we don't enact a flat tax.I'm not talking about an exodus, I'm talking about when it makes more sense to not work than to work because of gov't programs. When everyone's living on the gov'ts dime, where will the gov't get it's dimes from? Right now all I have to do is get fired and I got income for 99 weeks. What happens if unemployment is extended to 120 or more weeks? 3 year vacation paid? Hecks yeah! I can easily cut down on entertainment stuff and live on 60% of my salary for 3 years.
"That's unsustainable" you may say. Alot of gov't programs are unsustainable. I don't see any end for them, either. Eventually, there will be nothing left to put into them.
This is an absolute fallacy though. the vast majority of people on unemployment - ready for this? - don't want to be there.
You do realize the story of the "Welfare Queen" that the habitual liar Reagan told was, well, a lie, right?
The purpose of government programs is to assist those that need them to help them no longer need them. "I can easily cut down on entertainment stuff and live on 60% of my salary for three years!" No! You couldn't and wouldn't, not if you had a choice. There will not be some kind of bizarre exodus of people quitting their jobs so they can collect unemployment, and we know this because it hasn't happened in the countries that have a first world safety net. People in France and Germany haven't all decided to quit their jobs and just sit at home to be leeches. And when America had a more robust safety net, before regressives tore it apart to devour the capital inside, they didn't just sit at home on unemployment either.
Bob the Laborer goes in to pay his flat tax and pays 40% of his income. He had 100 dollars, now he has 60.
Bob the Laborer should be doing better than all that.