Paying the fair share

[PureX]

The state of Arkansas as well as any other state is quite capable of providing resources for its public education system without any meddling from Washington bureaucrats.

The problem is that it won't be willing to do that without federal mandates. We have already been down this road.

 

[Salvador]

The problem is that it won't be willing to do that without federal mandates. We have already been down this road.

Public education when done right by each state and each local community doesn't need federal mandates. May we please agree the role of the feds should be limited to providing for the common defense of the 50 states, providing a subsistence living allowance for all our citizens, and the facilitation of interest commerce. Otherwise, federal spending and regulations will get way out of control. This is why I believe we need decentralized government.

 

[Salvador]

It would also drive the nation into debt so far it would collapse, because no one can live on $400 a month. We can't even live on $800 a month in this country without the help of food stamps and medicaid. So regardless of this universal income, all these social services would still be needed, and the taxes required to pay for them would, too.

In addition to my proposed UBI benefit, my plan provides universal Medicare A hospital insurance coverage and a public option for Medicare B health insurance with a $5,000 annual deductible per insured person at an affordable $200/month Medicare B buy-in premium. Of course, each of our 50 states could provide medicare supplemental insurance and medicare Part B premium payments for their particular needy individuals. There are plenty of charitable organizations who can feed hungry impoverished citizens. My proposed UBI benefit would provide a sufficient enough income for any couple of roommates to pay rent for a low end apartment or trailer home. As my plan details demonstrate, there wouldn't be any significant increases to long term federal spending deficits. ....

 

[Revoltingest]

I need it to be half its size

I'll second that nomination.

 

[Shadow Link]

I didn't follow your point about "fundamental understanding" and "changing influences."

Im reflecting fundamentally on the "Declaration of Independence" that was born from the history of experiences from the generations that preceded it.


"Changing"/"Dynamic influences"

 

[joe1776]

Public education when done right by each state and each local community doesn't need federal mandates. May we please agree the role of the feds should be limited to providing for the common defense of the 50 states, providing a subsistence living allowance for all our citizens, and the facilitation of interest commerce. Otherwise, federal spending and regulations will get way out of control. This is why I believe we need decentralized government.

Some years ago, USA's federal government combed the states for the best ideas in education reform. They settled on three new approaches. Local school systems were selected to take part in a trial.

Teachers were allowed to vote on the approach they were willing to try. They received instruction on the new method and the Rand Corporation was hired to assess the results. After the trial period, they found no change in any of the local systems. All of them went on performing exactly as they had before.

This is the problem with a decentralized system: There is absolutely no control of the implementation phase of management, A government's decision-making can be perfect and still be useless if its policies can't be implemented.

 

[PureX]

Public education when done right by each state and each local community doesn't need federal mandates.

But it won't be "done right" in some states, as it wasn't before federal mandates. It will be done in a way that completely neglects the poor, discriminates against minorities, and promotes backwards majority ideology over honest, useful education. Just as it was being done before federal mandates. And even with federal mandates, it's a struggle to keep the quality equal and honest in many places. And in fact, the desire to discriminate and proselytize though public education is why so many people are so keen to eliminate federal government oversight, today.

May we please agree the role of the feds should be limited to providing for the common defense of the 50 states, providing a subsistence living allowance for all our citizens, and the facilitation of interest commerce. Otherwise, federal spending and regulations will get way out of control. This is why I believe we need decentralized government.

No, we are not going to agree on this. The purpose of the federal government is to hold the state governments to account on issues of national interest. Issues like maintaining free and honest elections, fair and equal access to justice for all citizens, environmental controls, human rights, interstate crime, and so much more. All issues that were being ignored and abused by the states before the federal government asserted national control. In this specific instance it means holding states to account on the right of every child to a quality, free, basic education. Something that the states were not providing before being made to do so by the federal government. And something that, even in spite of federal mandates, some states are intent on dragging their heels and impeding progress every step of the way.

 

[PureX]

In addition to my proposed UBI benefit, my plan provides universal Medicare A hospital insurance coverage and a public option for Medicare B health insurance with a $5,000 annual deductible per insured person at an affordable $200/month Medicare B buy-in premium. Of course, each of our 50 states could provide medicare supplemental insurance and medicare Part B premium payments for their particular needy individuals. There are plenty of charitable organizations who can feed hungry impoverished citizens. My proposed UBI benefit would provide a sufficient enough income for any couple of roommates to pay rent for a low end apartment or trailer home. As my plan details demonstrate, there wouldn't be any significant increases to long term federal spending deficits. ....

No one getting $500 a month could afford that deductible. Nor could they afford to by any medications, food, clothes, or even pay a heating bill. Because rent, alone, would require their entire monthly income. Your plan is completely ignoring the many millions of Americans that are trying to survive on public welfare.

 

[wellwisher]

I always wonder...

What is MY fair share?

I hear so many people saying that those of greater capacity need to pay their fair share but I always wonder what their own fair share should be or if they use every loop-hole available (or earned income credit which isn't earned) to get out of paying their fair share and just simply want every one else to pay for what was their own fair share.
thoughts?

To me fair share is not just about the rich paying more. It also about everyone doing a fair share of the work.

The Progressives have set up another one of their patented scams. The current scam adds up to how much can the lazy steal from the industrious to appease their class envy? They blame the rich for the sin of greed, but never accused themselves of the sins of laziness and envy. What is the atonement for laziness and envy to make it fair?

The second half of fair share is, how much should the lazy have to work so they can feel a sense of worker pride, so their envy is less, and therefore they do not need to take as much from the hardest workers, to appease idle envy. It is fair for all people have responsibilities within their means.

For example, is it fair for parents to work extra jobs to pay for college education, while the children stay home and party all summer? Or is fair for the children to work a summer job, so the parents has some time off during the summer, since the parents will need to work extra days the rest of the year to pay for college? Fair to the Progressive is the first option since they never require themselves to do anything, beyond brow beat, extort and collect. This is no mention of any effort, beyond this, as their part of the fair share.

Fair means we all do our part within our capacity. This is the summer job. If after the summer job, there is still deficit, those who are more capable should share of their surplus. The summer job will not be enough to pay for the college education, but since the child sacrificed and tried hard, the parents feel better about the making up the smaller difference.

The idea of WorkFare, which is welfare that requires some work, is connected to the second half of fairness. It lowers the overall tab, as well as appeases some envy, thereby making the greedy less defensive about being forced to give to those who refuse to do their own fair share.

In terms of education, more money does not add to better education. The two biggest problems are bureaucracy and teacher unions. These are there for the bureaucrats and teachers and not for the students or tax payers. These lowers the effort and accountability requirements, so the fair share equation is shifted toward the tax payer and student, making it unfair. Maybe the tax payer and students needs to set up a union, so they can be lazy about paying taxes or doing their homework. Fair share can then mean government and teachers have to work harder and get paid less; give more to offset. Lopsided far share creates all types of social problems and adds costs.

 

[PureX]

... how much can the lazy steal from the industrious to appease their class envy?

Comments like this; that are so idiotically one-sided and absurdly overly simplistic, render your observations completely irrelevant. Anyone stupid enough to buy into such tripe will not be able to offer anything of value to a discussion except by accident, and there would be no point in even trying to engage with them, as they would only work to remain oblivious of it.

It's fascinating that people can get so screwed up in their minds and hearts that they can actually convince themselves of this kind of nonsense. That they can actually focus so intently on their loathing for these evil, lazy, jealous do-nothings that they imagine us all good, hard-working folks to be surrounded by, that they can no longer see ANY other possible motive or cause for poverty, or for the desire to help those caught in it, but the worst of the worst.

 

[Salvador]

No one getting $500 a month could afford that deductible. Nor could they afford to by any medications, food, clothes, or even pay a heating bill. Because rent, alone, would require their entire monthly income. Your plan is completely ignoring the many millions of Americans that are trying to survive on public welfare.

You are ignoring the fact these particular needy people could easily get food and clothes from charity, and their state would still offer state medicaid funding for their medicine and medical out of pocket expenses. My UBI benefit, albeit tax exempt from fed income taxes, would certainly increase the state sales tax base and state income tax base for state and local government spending. ...

 

[Falvlun]

I always wonder...

What is MY fair share?

I hear so many people saying that those of greater capacity need to pay their fair share but I always wonder what their own fair share should be or if they use every loop-hole available (or earned income credit which isn't earned) to get out of paying their fair share and just simply want every one else to pay for what was their own fair share.

thoughts?

What’s your fair share of your electrical bill?

I see government as no different than a utility. Government provides services that we utilize and our taxes are the bill.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Then we need to be consistent... it is always a percentage. A small country who spends 20% of their income on defense is spending more per capita that a large country who spends 10%

I don't think you can go by actual dollars. A large country has more land to protect that, let's say, Lithuania.

The US spends more in actual dollars than Russia, China, UK, and many other nations combined. The US is not larger in population or land area than the combination of these other nations. Not even remotely close. So, there is no reason to spend such an excessive amount on so-called "defense."

 

[Salvador]

The US spends more in actual dollars than Russia, China, UK, and many other nations combined. The US is not larger in population or land area than the combination of these other nations. Not even remotely close. So, there is no reason to spend such an excessive amount on so-called "defense."

I'd favor a budget that'd reduce military spending from its current annual level of $700 billion down to $635 billion by way of eliminating the department of defense's Overseas Contingency Operations Fund (war slush fund), which amounted to $65 billion in 2018.

Overseas Contingency Operations: The Pentagon Slush Fund

 

[Shad]

Or on the whim of the next group of people?

Pretty much. Usually it is the poor demanding the rich pay for stuff while the poor are not taxed beyond sales tax.

 

[Shad]

And include all educational outlets including religious.

Although I didn't state it religious private schools are include in my use of private. I went to a Catholic school when I was a Protestant in a family with an Evangelical bend (obvious sectarian conflict) yet all the Catholic classes were elective. Religious schools can easily do the same by making religion classes (outside of a history class) elective.

I use to be against the idea of vouchers due to religious schools teaching a religious view. Now I see it as a solution to the district trap.

 

[Kenny]

To me fair share is not just about the rich paying more. It also about everyone doing a fair share of the work.

The Progressives have set up another one of their patented scams. The current scam adds up to how much can the lazy steal from the industrious to appease their class envy? They blame the rich for the sin of greed, but never accused themselves of the sins of laziness and envy. What is the atonement for laziness and envy to make it fair?

The second half of fair share is, how much should the lazy have to work so they can feel a sense of worker pride, so their envy is less, and therefore they do not need to take as much from the hardest workers, to appease idle envy. It is fair for all people have responsibilities within their means.

For example, is it fair for parents to work extra jobs to pay for college education, while the children stay home and party all summer? Or is fair for the children to work a summer job, so the parents has some time off during the summer, since the parents will need to work extra days the rest of the year to pay for college? Fair to the Progressive is the first option since they never require themselves to do anything, beyond brow beat, extort and collect. This is no mention of any effort, beyond this, as their part of the fair share.

Fair means we all do our part within our capacity. This is the summer job. If after the summer job, there is still deficit, those who are more capable should share of their surplus. The summer job will not be enough to pay for the college education, but since the child sacrificed and tried hard, the parents feel better about the making up the smaller difference.

The idea of WorkFare, which is welfare that requires some work, is connected to the second half of fairness. It lowers the overall tab, as well as appeases some envy, thereby making the greedy less defensive about being forced to give to those who refuse to do their own fair share.

In terms of education, more money does not add to better education. The two biggest problems are bureaucracy and teacher unions. These are there for the bureaucrats and teachers and not for the students or tax payers. These lowers the effort and accountability requirements, so the fair share equation is shifted toward the tax payer and student, making it unfair. Maybe the tax payer and students needs to set up a union, so they can be lazy about paying taxes or doing their homework. Fair share can then mean government and teachers have to work harder and get paid less; give more to offset. Lopsided far share creates all types of social problems and adds costs.

Insightful, thoughtful and fair.

 

[Kenny]

What’s your fair share of your electrical bill?

I see government as no different than a utility. Government provides services that we utilize and our taxes are the bill.

Yet I turn off the light when I leave the room, turn off the water heater when not in use, change the thermostat when I leave the house. I eliminated Direct TV and curbed other spending to balance the budget and come up with a surplus.

The government leaves the lights on and spends $615,000 by giving it to the University of California at Santa Cruz to digitize photos, T-shirts and concert tickets belonging to the Grateful Dead. (tip of the iceberg) WHILE THEY STILL WANT MORE OF YOUR AND MY FAIR SHARE.

government-waste-20-of-the-craziest-things-that-the-u-s-government-is-spending-money-on

So... there is quite a big difference.

 

[Kenny]

The US spends more in actual dollars than Russia, China, UK, and many other nations combined. The US is not larger in population or land area than the combination of these other nations. Not even remotely close. So, there is no reason to spend such an excessive amount on so-called "defense."

I find it hard that you could actually quantify what Russia and China spends on their military. As it is said "The figures for China are SIPRI estimates, since the government does not release reliable data".

So I can't quite agree.

 

[Shad]

I'd favor a budget that'd reduce military spending from its current annual level of $700 billion down to $635 billion by way of eliminating the department of defense's Overseas Contingency Operations Fund (war slush fund), which amounted to $65 billion in 2018.

Overseas Contingency Operations: The Pentagon Slush Fund

Better accounting would do wonders for the budget and should be a priority before cuts. After all if there are cuts but the budget is still mismanaged the military can come back asking for increased funds due to wasteful spending itself. (I do not mean wasteful based on spending priorities. I mean paying more for items than items are worth)