If you had to pay?

Just curious as to what others feel would be a fair price for what they as individuals receive from their government if they had to pay out of pocket for it.

Still living abroad, but unlike you I remain a U.S. citizen and taxpayer. The UK should raise taxes high enough to eliminate all their debt and provide more social programs, don't you think?

 

Everyone pays taxes, they're unavoidable, but if taxes were eliminated and you had to write a check weekly to the Federal government, what would you consider a fair amount for the services you receive?

 

Careful eating all those fish, the waters are becoming more polluted every day.

But why are you close to the bottom?

 

I know, it's a difficult question to answer.

 

I'd feel it would quite fair if I paid the whole amount, and went ahead and shared my property unfairly as they, my guests, can possibly prefer ME to be.

 

The question simply asks what "YOU" would consider a fair cost charged to "you" for the services "you" receive from the Federal government. And since I only am talking about the U.S. government what services do you receive, and how much do they cost you?

 

Are you posting in the right thread?

 

Whatever the whole amount is?

 

as far I know the feds dont do shit for me. 5cents..

 

If private businesses provided those services wouldn't they cost much more as businesses are profit motivated, while government provide those services without any profit?

 

If I could subtract war tax,foreign aid(except for humanitarian aid)farm subsidies,government waste, nasa-(what the fucks on the moon?)and add a single payer medical system,legalise drugs(weed out the dumb in the case of meth-crack,ect)from the amount I paid in taxes-I would pay what was fair on what was left to pay on. Who knows what the amount would be? Maybe a flat tax of 15 % or a luxury tax on ---luxuries.

 

5 cents a week?

 

Well, a single payer medical system kind of avoids paying for what you receive, although I guess it could be modified to provide the quality of service relative to the amount you fund it, pills or surgery.

 

A single payer system is all of us paying for all of us. Not you paying for someone else. It works in other civilized countries---but maybe therein lies the rub. Civilized ,as opposed to politicians being bought by insurance companies (and others,of course). Money out of elections might cure the unlimited power of corporations. We are a corporatocracy,you know. A matter of morality,methinks.

 

In other words a socialist form of insurance, which like any insurance program is indeed paying for someone else, except for the fact that private insurance programs require all participants to pay.

And a single payer system, as you call it, is not ALL of us paying for all of us, but only some paying, and some of those quite disproportionately in relation to the benefits, if any, that they might receive. Socialism is a form of government which consumes, stifling real progress as it cannot be perpetually supported economically. The U.S. debt should have made that obvious to the Left by now, and Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, along with a multitude of other indirectly funded social welfare programs which necessitate perpetual borrowing as they consume wealth yet to be created should be adequate to drive home the fact that Socialism does not, can not, and will not work.

While most of todays world is quite civilized, and probably more so where government is least involved, it has nothing at all to do with making each individual equal to another, which government can only accomplish artificially by taking from some and giving to others, which does not motivate members of the society to produce but instead only to consume.

Today, most everyone in the developed world lives beyond their means, with governments not only setting the example but encouraging it of those who least can afford it, making them dependent upon government rather than themselves. Only an absolute fool or the most irresponsible of persons would fail to see this is unsustainable.

Why do these threads always veer off topic so quickly?

 

It depends.
First I would need the fed to provide an itemization of the services they currently provide and at what cost to me. Then I would determine the value I place on those services.

 

You'd have to contact the fed for that information, but if you pay taxes at all I would assume that you must feel the amount is acceptable. I'm certain that many of those who pay none at all feel they are not receiving your monies worth in the services they are provided.

 

Indie

That doesn’t address what I said which was - The thing is that of course it is going to be different for differing families or individuals. For example someone with advantage wouldn’t need much if any direct government assistance, while someone who is deeply disadvantaged might need a lot more.

So it is likely that someone with advantage might not feel like paying much into government.

That is the reason for progressive taxation.

Let us imagine a plague, a disease that could affect anyone but will actually end up only affecting half of the population* But nobody knows which half.

In such a situation I think most sensible people would want the community’s government to try and do something about it and be willing to pay the taxes to tackle the situation.

Now lets say that half a population are born into disadvantage and half not. But since no one can choose beforehand to which half they are to be born, it basically means disadvantage could affect anyone.

The difference with that situation is that there is the problem of hindsight, when those born into advantage are taxed to help the disadvantaged, they don’t go ‘oh I could have been born disadvantaged myself’ they might go ‘why should I help’. It is like knowing who would be affected by the disease and who not.

(*And I’m not saying disadvantage is a disease, I’m just using the plague idea as an example)

 

Indie

But the present economic crisis is not down to ‘socialism’ but to the silly neoliberal ideas that have been in place for the last 30 years or so

Try reading – Age of Greed: The triumph of finance and the Decline of America, 1970 to the Presentby Jeff Madrick


Here is a review - 'The Busts Keep Getting Bigger: Why?’
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jul/14/busts-keep-getting-bigger-why/

I think you should read The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do better by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett

“Income inequality, they show beyond any doubt, is not just bad for those at the bottom but for everyone. More unequal societies are socially dysfunctional across the board. There is more teenage pregnancy, mental illness, higher prison populations, more murders, higher obesity and less numeracy and literacy in more unequal societies. Even the rich report more mental ill health and have lower life expectancies than their peers in less unequal societies.” Will Hutton

Actually it has mainly been those societies and government that have most embraced the neoliberal approach that have been hardest hit in the resent financial crisis (the US, UK, Ireland, Iceland etc.)

It is the neoliberal approach that is unsustainable because for one thing it is only half an economic model and when things go wrong it has to turn to Keynesian type solutions.

Try reading – Utopia, no just Keynes
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=328353&highlight=Utopia%2C+Keynes&f=36

Freefall by Joseph E. Stiglitz

Keynes: the Return of the Master by Robert Skidelsky

 

it was a cultural reference, i don't eat any meat

as to why the bottom, i have little killer instinct

i think most are unaware of what government provides - i always go back to the farmers at the local anti-tax rallies, wallets full of subsidies, crops irrigated courtesy of the new deal