What does the Government do better than the public? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : What does the Government do better than the public?


Pages : [1] 2

RC-RAMIE
05-10-2012, 13:07
http://youtu.be/C5fua5_IPQM

I was watching this video and started to wonder what does the Government do more efficient? I can't think of one.

Chronos
05-10-2012, 13:28
Mass murder, would be one of the few things:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

His research shows that the death toll from democide is far greater than the death toll from war. After studying over 8,000 reports of government-caused deaths, Rummel estimates that there have been 262 million victims of democide in the last century. According to his figures, six times as many people have died from the inflictions of people working for governments than have died in battle.

The Machinist
05-10-2012, 13:30
Mass murder, would be one of the few things:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide
You stole my answer. Extortion would be another one to add to the list.

Berto
05-10-2012, 13:31
They spend your money pretty good, too.

jtull7
05-10-2012, 13:52
Air traffic control, fight fires, enforce law and order, respond in ambulances, operate national parks, build highways, build dams, annoy people in airports. That's just a small list off the top of my head.

Lethaltxn
05-10-2012, 14:06
The government has gotten a few things right, however, that doesn't absolve them from all the wrong thy do.

Berto
05-10-2012, 14:15
Air traffic control, fight fires, enforce law and order, respond in ambulances, operate national parks, build highways, build dams, annoy people in airports. That's just a small list off the top of my head.

It'd be nice if they could do that stuff without study groups, enviromental impact studies, .Gov Job farms, superstar salaries for mucky-mucks, and double dip retirements....but other than that, they're great.:whistling:

Kingarthurhk
05-10-2012, 14:33
It'd be nice if they could do that stuff without study groups, enviromental impact studies, .Gov Job farms, superstar salaries for mucky-mucks, and double dip retirements....but other than that, they're great.:whistling:

Ah, yes, those evil men and women of United States Military and Border Patrol. How do they sleep at night?:whistling:

RC-RAMIE
05-10-2012, 14:37
Ah, yes, those evil men and women of United States Military and Border Patrol. How do they sleep at night?:whistling:

Air traffic control, fight fires, enforce law and order, respond in ambulances, operate national parks, build highways, build dams, annoy people in airports. That's just a small list off the top of my head.

Nothing in there at all about military or Border Patrol, so what are you talking about?

Ruble Noon
05-10-2012, 14:37
Mass murder, would be one of the few things:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

You stole my answer. Extortion would be another one to add to the list.

They spend your money pretty good, too.

It'd be nice if they could do that stuff without study groups, enviromental impact studies, .Gov Job farms, superstar salaries for mucky-mucks, and double dip retirements....but other than that, they're great.:whistling:

:wavey:

RC-RAMIE
05-10-2012, 14:39
Air traffic control, fight fires, enforce law and order, respond in ambulances, operate national parks, build highways, build dams, annoy people in airports. That's just a small list off the top of my head.

When I get some free time im gonna do some looking and see how many of those services are done with more efficiency by the public sector vs private.

Berto
05-10-2012, 14:43
Ah, yes, those evil men and women of United States Military and Border Patrol. How do they sleep at night?:whistling:

Probably because they aren't fleecing us on the same level Air traffic control, fight fires, enforce law and order, respond in ambulances, operate national parks, build highways, build dams, annoy people in airports

It's not a Monarchy.

cowboywannabe
05-10-2012, 15:46
they waste more money than a welfare hooch on a crack high.

JAS104
05-10-2012, 15:48
Waste money. ;)

Alizard
05-10-2012, 18:08
Air traffic control, fight fires, enforce law and order, respond in ambulances, operate national parks, build highways, build dams, annoy people in airports. That's just a small list off the top of my head.Respond to massive state level emergencies like hurricanes, tornadoes and floods......assuming the president at the time is not a complete moron.

callihan_44
05-10-2012, 18:18
build highways.....yeah they sure do that...though a friend of mine tells me when his company builds a bridge on a state highway they earn almost twice the money vs doing it on a county road.....prevailing wage kicks in....government loves spending the"peoples" money

concretefuzzynuts
05-10-2012, 18:29
Air traffic control, fight fires, enforce law and order, respond in ambulances, operate national parks, build highways, build dams, annoy people in airports. That's just a small list off the top of my head.

Sir,

I respect your opinions but I am puzzled. Some of what you list is questionable and arguably wrong.

For example:


"Fight fires", Many volunteer fire department run much more efficiently than do city or county.

"Respond in ambulances", the same as above. All of these dedicated rescuers perform at peak level. With or without government issue.

"Build highways", this work is usually subcontracted out to private companies.

"Build dams", the Hoover dam, for example was government funded but built by a joint venture for the project with Pacific Bridge Company of Portland, Oregon; Henry J. Kaiser & W. A. Bechtel Company of San Francisco; MacDonald & Kahn Ltd. of Los Angeles; and the J.F. Shea Company of Portland, Oregon. The joint venture was called Six Companies, Inc.

The remaining are questionable in that no private businesses have had the opportunity to run them.

concretefuzzynuts
05-10-2012, 18:30
Respond to massive state level emergencies like hurricanes, tornadoes and floods......assuming the president at the time is not a complete moron.

Well, here you go again....

Rabbit994
05-10-2012, 18:31
Canadians have outsourced their air traffic control with great success. It's non profit company.

concretefuzzynuts
05-10-2012, 18:34
they waste more money than a welfare hooch on a crack high.

Please, you insult the welfare hooche on a crack high by comparing them to Washington bureaucrats.

Lethaltxn
05-10-2012, 18:44
Respond to massive state level emergencies like hurricanes, tornadoes and floods......assuming the president at the time is not a complete moron.

You forgot oil spills.

Rabid Rabbit
05-10-2012, 19:14
Air traffic control, fight fires, enforce law and order, respond in ambulances, operate national parks, build highways, build dams, annoy people in airports. That's just a small list off the top of my head.

Air traffic control, fight fires,enforce law and order,build highways,build dams Nope all of those things have been or are now being done by companies. Who do you think actually builds the dams? Govies?

operate national parks, The govt hires private companies to run the parks with the exception of park rangers.

annoy people in airports dunno its a close call between TSA and Hare Krishnas. Your call.

Rabid Rabbit
05-10-2012, 19:16
Respond to massive state level emergencies like hurricanes, tornadoes and floods......assuming the president at the time is not a complete moron.

I never knew the red cross was a govt agency.:whistling: Nor all those volunteers.

juggy4711
05-10-2012, 19:33
Nothing. The only things the government does that are even remotely efficient are done by private sector contractors.

CAcop
05-10-2012, 19:55
Please, I beg you. Make LE for profit, private sector. Dialing 911 wil require a credit card. Any investigation reguiring more than a patrol officer will require a credit check. Speeders on your block? One of our local security guard companies will charge you $15 for 15 minutes to sit on your block. Throw in court costs and that should double. That is for a $10.50/hr guard. Imagine someone POST certified.

Please, I beg you, go to a for profit, private, fee for service LE.

DonGlock26
05-10-2012, 20:04
What does the Government do better than the public?



They Filmed the War in Color: The Pacific War - Iwo Jima - YouTube


North Hollywood Shootout - YouTube


9/11: Firefighters at Ground Zero - YouTube


Ambulance 284 + EMS Supervisor 902 FDNY - YouTube


_

certifiedfunds
05-10-2012, 20:31
Please, I beg you. Make LE for profit, private sector. Dialing 911 wil require a credit card. Any investigation reguiring more than a patrol officer will require a credit check. Speeders on your block? One of our local security guard companies will charge you $15 for 15 minutes to sit on your block. Throw in court costs and that should double. That is for a $10.50/hr guard. Imagine someone POST certified.

Please, I beg you, go to a for profit, private, fee for service LE.

Who's paying for it all now?

Restless28
05-10-2012, 20:33
The Insurance Companies were the first fire departments. If you did not carry thee mark of their company, you got no assistance.

Thankfully, people in the government like Benjamin Franklin saw a better way.

There is no way that a private company could outdo the FDNY, the Chicago FD, the Boston FD, and thousands more FDs.

This broad umbrella of government hate is getting old and infantile.

concretefuzzynuts
05-10-2012, 20:34
They Filmed the War in Color: The Pacific War - Iwo Jima - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fp_LXObnCj8)


North Hollywood Shootout - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejD1Gml-ZGc)


9/11: Firefighters at Ground Zero - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqXcmGooWX8&feature=relmfu)


Ambulance 284 + EMS Supervisor 902 FDNY - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LX2y2zZEJY&feature=topics)


_

Ok, the solders were individuals fighting for our country.

The hollywood shootout was brave police fighting for that city.

9-11 responders were brave men and women risking their lives to save others.

EMS, as i said, All of these dedicated rescuers perform at peak level. With or without government issue.

These are performances by people working with/for the government. These same people, from their strength and conviction, would perform the same if not better if they worked for private businesses.

My point is we, the people are what is great about this country, not the government. The government is meant to be a servant of ours, not the other way around.

Restless28
05-10-2012, 20:37
Ok, the solders were individuals fighting for our country.

The hollywood shootout was brave police fighting for that city.

9-11 responders were brave men and women risking their lives to save others.

EMS, as i said, All of these dedicated rescuers perform at peak level. With or without government issue.

These are performances by people working with/for the government. These same people, from their strength and conviction, would perform the same if not better if they worked for private businesses.

My point is we, the people are what is great about this country, not the government. The government is meant to be a servant of ours, not the other way around.

Put away the broad paintbrush then.

CAcop
05-10-2012, 20:42
Who's paying for it all now?

If one of your family members is murdered do you have the cash to cover the investigation? $8 million average.

Fee for service. Please.

concretefuzzynuts
05-10-2012, 20:44
The Insurance Companies were the first fire departments. If you did not carry thee mark of their company, you got no assistance.

Thankfully, people in the government like Benjamin Franklin saw a better way.

There is no way that a private company could outdo the FDNY, the Chicago FD, the Boston FD, and thousands more FDs.

This broad umbrella of government hate is getting old and infantile.

No broad paint brush. I'm just tired of government being the hero to the left. People are the hero and without them there would be no great government. "What does the Government do better than the public?" was the question. The answer is nothing, without the public there is no government.

Ruble Noon
05-10-2012, 20:59
If one of your family members is murdered do you have the cash to cover the investigation? $8 million average.

Fee for service. Please.

Okay, so we, the private sector taxpayer's, still have to pay for it. I don't see any difference.

CAcop
05-10-2012, 21:23
Okay, so we, the private sector taxpayer's, still have to pay for it. I don't see any difference.

The difference is this: with fee for service if you don't have the money we don't do anything for you.

Right now we don't send bills to victims.

I would happily send people a bill for services they use. It would cut out a lot of frivolous calls for service. If you want us to respond to your call for service please use the touch tone keypad on your phone to enter you credit card number.

concretefuzzynuts
05-10-2012, 21:26
The difference is this: with fee for service if you don't have the money we don't do anything for you.

Right now we don't send bills to victims.

I would happily send people a bill for services they use. It would cut out a lot of frivolous calls for service. If you want us to respond to your call for service please use the touch tone keypad on your phone to enter you credit card number.

Fire, police, sewer repair are all established public service. Get over yourself.

Oh, and thank you for your service.

Ruble Noon
05-10-2012, 21:34
The difference is this: with fee for service if you don't have the money we don't do anything for you.

Right now we don't send bills to victims.

I would happily send people a bill for services they use. It would cut out a lot of frivolous calls for service. If you want us to respond to your call for service please use the touch tone keypad on your phone to enter you credit card number.

I pay for it either way although, getting rid of government unions would make these services less expensive.

lancesorbenson
05-10-2012, 21:51
No broad paint brush. I'm just tired of government being the hero to the left. People are the hero and without them there would be no great government. "What does the Government do better than the public?" was the question. The answer is nothing, without the public there is no government.

For some reason this made me think of the tower shootings in Austin. The bulk of Whitman's kills came in the first 20 minutes. After that he had troubled getting good shots off because every good old' boy had shown up with their deer rifles and they were shooting back. What a scene. Today those good old' boys would be told to leave it to professionals and be threatened with arrest while SWAT strapped on the body armor and strategized for four hours. Back in 66 three cops and a private citizen just charged up there with shotguns and 38s and killed him.

RC-RAMIE
05-10-2012, 21:53
The Insurance Companies were the first fire departments. If you did not carry thee mark of their company, you got no assistance.

Thankfully, people in the government like Benjamin Franklin saw a better way.

There is no way that a private company could outdo the FDNY, the Chicago FD, the Boston FD, and thousands more FDs.

This broad umbrella of government hate is getting old and infantile.

I guess you missed the efficient part of the question. Private fire department do exist and operate more efficiently than public ones do. I didn't question whether or not there was a need for some public services I asked can or does government do it more efficiently than private companies.


....

CAcop
05-10-2012, 22:03
Fire, police, sewer repair are all established public service. Get over yourself.

Oh, and thank you for your service.

People around here have a problem with the government providing services. I am giving them an alternative. They seem to not like the alternative.

certifiedfunds
05-10-2012, 22:14
If one of your family members is murdered do you have the cash to cover the investigation? $8 million average.

Fee for service. Please.

If it were fee for service, I'm quite sure I could insure against that.

certifiedfunds
05-10-2012, 22:16
The difference is this: with fee for service if you don't have the money we don't do anything for you.

Right now we don't send bills to victims.

I would happily send people a bill for services they use. It would cut out a lot of frivolous calls for service. If you want us to respond to your call for service please use the touch tone keypad on your phone to enter you credit card number.

That sure sounds more efficient to me.:dunno:

The abuse of county ambulance services has been well-documented and discussed here too.

EODLRD
05-10-2012, 22:16
Don't like what the government does? Do something to change it instead of *****ing on the Internet.

And by the way, people get the government they demand. Somebody earlier mentioned environmental impact surveys. Yep, gotta do those or some voter will complain about their being less trees than before big brother moved in.

Bottom line, there are people who will never be pleased. And the government provides an easy scapegoat.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

certifiedfunds
05-10-2012, 22:18
I guess you missed the efficient part of the question. Private fire department do exist and operate more efficiently than public ones do. I didn't question whether or not there was a need for some public services I asked can or does government do it more efficiently than private companies.


....

In my community we vote to tax ourselves to fund our volunteer fire department because having a station within x-feet lowers homeowners premiums.

I believe there is a waiting period to get on the volunteer squad.......

.....to work as a firefighter.......

.....for free..........

certifiedfunds
05-10-2012, 22:22
Ok, the solders were individuals fighting for our country.

The hollywood shootout was brave police fighting for that city.

9-11 responders were brave men and women risking their lives to save others.

EMS, as i said, All of these dedicated rescuers perform at peak level. With or without government issue.

These are performances by people working with/for the government. These same people, from their strength and conviction, would perform the same if not better if they worked for private businesses.

My point is we, the people are what is great about this country, not the government. The government is meant to be a servant of ours, not the other way around.

I also see a lot of fat cops around, riding the clock and waiting to collect their pensions.

Just saying there are 2 sides to every coin.

certifiedfunds
05-10-2012, 22:23
There is no way that a private company could outdo the FDNY, the Chicago FD, the Boston FD, and thousands more FDs.

This broad umbrella of government hate is getting old and infantile.

Really? What about it being public and unionized magically makes it better?

Be specific please.

CAcop
05-10-2012, 22:49
In my community we vote to tax ourselves to fund our volunteer fire department because having a station within x-feet lowers homeowners premiums.

I believe there is a waiting period to get on the volunteer squad.......

.....to work as a firefighter.......

.....for free..........

Vollies are fun to watch.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

USMCSergeant
05-10-2012, 23:15
I supervise a shift in a dispatch/call-taking 911 center. Here at least, organized fire city-paid- fire depts seem to do a better job than rural volunteer stations. Not that those volunteer stations are awful, they're just not as fast, and have less equipment on average. One of the large city stations has 2 large ladder trucks, several tankers, even though on average several hydrants would be available, they use these when they assist rural fire departments on mutual aid calls.

City FD's check en-route faster, equipment is on the way faster. Normally at rural FD's late night calls, personnel check en route, while in reality they are heading to the fire station closest to get the appropriate engines/tankers, etc. 4-5 minutes later on average the same voice is now checking an engine enroute. City FD's, usually within 2 minutes have equipment rolling out of the door towards the emergency, be it fire or medical. In these types of calls, 2-3 minutes can, and does make all the difference in outcome.

Not taking away from these volunteer firefighters. These are people risking their life to save yours, usually for nothing. True heroes in my opinion. What kind of man runs into a burning house to save the lives of your children, while risking his, for nothing other than knowing he's doing the right thing?

Cochese
05-10-2012, 23:32
For some reason this made me think of the tower shootings in Austin. The bulk of Whitman's kills came in the first 20 minutes. After that he had troubled getting good shots off because every good old' boy had shown up with their deer rifles and they were shooting back. What a scene. Today those good old' boys would be told to leave it to professionals and be threatened with arrest while SWAT strapped on the body armor and strategized for four hours. Back in 66 three cops and a private citizen just charged up there with shotguns and 38s and killed him.

Um no.

If I were sent to a call ala UT I would be engaging the shooter with whatever I had, be it my 1911 or an AR-15 if I could get to it.

SWAT team would be used to search buildings for additional hostiles after the smoke clears. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

CAcop
05-11-2012, 02:36
Really? What about it being public and unionized magically makes it better?

Be specific please.

I would never work in an area served by a vollie FD unless they made a point to have enough people in the station at all times to at least run one truck with a full crew. People sitting in their lay z boys at home aren't going to cut it when it comes to response times. I can't believe they cut breaks on insurance based on guys sitting at home and not in the station. I wonder if they are telling the truth to insurance companies about their response times.

aspartz
05-11-2012, 02:55
Air traffic control, fight fires, enforce law and order, respond in ambulances, operate national parks, build highways, build dams, annoy people in airports. That's just a small list off the top of my head.
ATC -- Could easily be private
FF -- There are many private and Volly departments out there
PD -- This one I agree, but provate security forces could easily take some of the load.
EMS -- Many services are private and do just as well as government
National Parks -- Not the job of the government to take tax paying property and make it into tax free tree hugging zones
Infrastructure -- The government pays private contractors. They pay MORE than a private company would for the same project to ensure that minority contractors get a cut of the pie, so that the project is pretty, so that only union shops are used....

The Insurance Companies were the first fire departments. If you did not carry thee mark of their company, you got no assistance.

Thankfully, people in the government like Benjamin Franklin saw a better way.
Ben Franklin organized VOLUNTEER fire depatments, not AFSCME/SEIU jobs.

I supervise a shift in a dispatch/call-taking 911 center. Here at least, organized fire city-paid- fire depts seem to do a better job than rural volunteer stations. Not that those volunteer stations are awful, they're just not as fast, and have less equipment on average. One of the large city stations has 2 large ladder trucks, several tankers, even though on average several hydrants would be available, they use these when they assist rural fire departments on mutual aid calls.

City FD's check en-route faster, equipment is on the way faster. Normally at rural FD's late night calls, personnel check en route, while in reality they are heading to the fire station closest to get the appropriate engines/tankers, etc. 4-5 minutes later on average the same voice is now checking an engine enroute. City FD's, usually within 2 minutes have equipment rolling out of the door towards the emergency, be it fire or medical. In these types of calls, 2-3 minutes can, and does make all the difference in outcome.

Not taking away from these volunteer firefighters. These are people risking their life to save yours, usually for nothing. True heroes in my opinion. What kind of man runs into a burning house to save the lives of your children, while risking his, for nothing other than knowing he's doing the right thing?
The vollys usually have a much larger area to protect as well. The 5 minutes it takes for them to get to the hall to pull out the trucks is not as critical when the fire is a 15-20 minute drive from the fire hall.

I would never work in an area served by a vollie FD unless they made a point to have enough people in the station at all times to at least run one truck with a full crew. People sitting in their lay z boys at home aren't going to cut it when it comes to response times. I can't believe they cut breaks on insurance based on guys sitting at home and not in the station. I wonder if they are telling the truth to insurance companies about their response times.
That full time FD is a very expensive service to provide.

You fire insurance is based on the ISO rating of your responding department. IT is based on many things including, but not limited to, full time staffing. The level of documented training, age/type of equipment, the available water supply. The rating goes from 1 to 10. 10 means literally no one shows up if you have a fire. Last time I checked there were only a handfull of departments that got a "1". Most bigger towns (1500+ population) are in the 4-6 range with nothing but volunteers.

ARS

barbedwiresmile
05-11-2012, 04:11
Don't like what the government does? Do something to change it instead of *****ing on the Internet.



What would you suggest? We have the largest and most powerful government in history. What is your understanding of how law (regulatory, tax, and enforcement regimes) is made in such a government and what constituencies do you believe this government serves?

Kingarthurhk
05-11-2012, 04:51
Probably because they aren't fleecing us on the same level Air traffic control, fight fires, enforce law and order, respond in ambulances, operate national parks, build highways, build dams, annoy people in airports

It's not a Monarchy.

I was being sarcastic, regarding another post. You may have missed it.

Kingarthurhk
05-11-2012, 04:55
Ok, the solders were individuals fighting for our country.

The hollywood shootout was brave police fighting for that city.

9-11 responders were brave men and women risking their lives to save others.

EMS, as i said, All of these dedicated rescuers perform at peak level. With or without government issue.

These are performances by people working with/for the government. These same people, from their strength and conviction, would perform the same if not better if they worked for private businesses.

You must have bumped your head. I would love to see the geeks at google get in front of any of that. They wouldn't, they couldn't. It takes a certain mindest, and actual knowledge, skills, ability and training to pull off that sort of work.


My point is we, the people are what is great about this country, not the government. The government is meant to be a servant of ours, not the other way around.

The government is made of people. The people of the government do serve all day every day.

DonGlock26
05-11-2012, 05:07
Ok, the solders were individuals fighting for our country.

The hollywood shootout was brave police fighting for that city.

9-11 responders were brave men and women risking their lives to save others.

EMS, as i said, All of these dedicated rescuers perform at peak level. With or without government issue.

These are performances by people working with/for the government. These same people, from their strength and conviction, would perform the same if not better if they worked for private businesses.

My point is we, the people are what is great about this country, not the government. The government is meant to be a servant of ours, not the other way around.

You aren't getting the point at all. These individuals defeated the Axis with the resources and organization of a state. Without a state, they would never have raised the capital to defeat the Nazis or organized 13 million men in uniform. In short, government and the state have a legitimate purpose.

The socialists on the Left have certainly tried to turn the state into a god on Earth to cater to every whim and redress natural inequality. This is just as wrong headed as saying there is no legitimate role for the state. The founding fathers established a state that would respect personal liberty. We've allowed appointed men in black robes to expand the power of a small centralized gov't over almost all activities in the states and cities. That's our fault. We get the gov't that we deserve. However, we have made progress in redressing this growth of power with the Tea Party.

As far as private citizens filling the role of LE, I just have to laugh. Go over to Carry Issues and listen to grown American men state that they would not stay in a mall shooting to save women and children. Real, red-blooded American cowards. How did someone just put it? Two sides to every coin.


_

DonGlock26
05-11-2012, 05:10
What would you suggest?

The Tea party. Everything else has been pretty ineffective.

_

certifiedfunds
05-11-2012, 05:50
I would never work in an area served by a vollie FD unless they made a point to have enough people in the station at all times to at least run one truck with a full crew. People sitting in their lay z boys at home aren't going to cut it when it comes to response times. I can't believe they cut breaks on insurance based on guys sitting at home and not in the station. I wonder if they are telling the truth to insurance companies about their response times.

I know, I know......only unionized first responders with a public pension can POSSIBLY be professional. You just can't trust someone who will do a job simply because he loves it.

BTW, they're at the station. They rotate but a nuclei of guys are at the station all the time.

Travclem
05-11-2012, 06:20
People around here have a problem with the government providing services. I am giving them an alternative. They seem to not like the alternative.

Well the way I see it, you'd just add police services insurance to the list of other insurances and privatize it. The citizens are still paying for your services in taxes, it's just a risk pool. Everyone pays but not everyone uses the services.

There is nothing the government does that couldn't be more efficient of there was some good ol private sector competition instead of a monopoly.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

certifiedfunds
05-11-2012, 06:30
Well the way I see it, you'd just add police services insurance to the list of other insurances and privatize it. The citizens are still paying for your services in taxes, it's just a risk pool. Everyone pays but not everyone uses the services.

There is nothing the government does that couldn't be more efficient of there was some good ol private sector competition instead of a monopoly.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

No, no, no. I don't think you understand. Monopolies are good when the government owns the monopoly. It allows the public employees a stronger negotiating position against the taxpayers and it allows the politicians something to threaten in exchange for more taxes and power.

DonGlock26
05-11-2012, 06:35
Well the way I see it, you'd just add police services insurance to the list of other insurances and privatize it. The citizens are still paying for your services in taxes, it's just a risk pool. Everyone pays but not everyone uses the services.

There is nothing the government does that couldn't be more efficient of there was some good ol private sector competition instead of a monopoly.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Who is going to police those who do not or cannot pay?

What if no company is willing to police a sparsely populated area?

What if I pay my police more to look the other way or screw with business rivals?

Who prosecutes cases?


_


_

_

Travclem
05-11-2012, 06:38
Who is going to police those who do not or cannot pay?

What if no company is willing to police a sparsely populated area?

What if I pay my police more to look the other way or screw with business rivals?

Who prosecutes cases?


_


_

_

I guess it would be just like healthcare insurance.


You think payoffs dont happen with the gov't?:rofl:

certifiedfunds
05-11-2012, 06:43
Who is going to police those who do not or cannot pay?

What if no company is willing to police a sparsely populated area?

What if I pay my police more to look the other way or screw with business rivals?

Who prosecutes cases?


_


_

_

So, basically you're arguing for the rich to subsidize the poor and middle class here too?

You also assume the publicly-funded police do an unwaveringly superb job everywhere all the time.

The DA will prosecute cases.

Look, I'm not arguing for privatized police. I just think it's hilarious that some here think police can only be good or effective if they are tax-funded and unionized.

DonGlock26
05-11-2012, 06:50
I guess it would be just like healthcare insurance.


You think payoffs dont happen with the gov't?:rofl:

You have to travel to your private healthcare. They don't come out to you at O'Dark Thirty in BFE.

Who's going to do anything about it, if you can simply be the highest bidder?

_

DonGlock26
05-11-2012, 06:55
So, basically you're arguing for the rich to subsidize the poor and middle class here too?

You also assume the publicly-funded police do an unwaveringly superb job everywhere all the time.

The DA will prosecute cases.

Look, I'm not arguing for privatized police. I just think it's hilarious that some here think police can only be good or effective if they are tax-funded and unionized.

It is a primary reason for taxation. I'm not foolishly trying to make the case that food stamps is the same as a military or a police force.

Were the founding fathers wrong in writing the constitution? Should they have avoided making a gov't?

I never said that. They are accountable to the public, and not a private citizen client or company.

What DA? Are you calling for "the rich to subsidize the poor and middle class here too?"

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. Are you for private police or public police? Which is it?


_

Ruble Noon
05-11-2012, 06:57
So, basically you're arguing for the rich to subsidize the poor and middle class here too?

You also assume the publicly-funded police do an unwaveringly superb job everywhere all the time.

The DA will prosecute cases.

Look, I'm not arguing for privatized police. I just think it's hilarious that some here think police can only be good or effective if they are tax-funded and unionized.

If they are not tax funded and unionized who will arrest all the 6 year old school kids?

certifiedfunds
05-11-2012, 07:21
It is a primary reason for taxation. I'm not foolishly trying to make the case that food stamps is the same as a military or a police force.

Were the founding fathers wrong in writing the constitution? Should they have avoided making a gov't?

I never said that. They are accountable to the public, and not a private citizen client or company.

What DA? Are you calling for "the rich to subsidize the poor and middle class here too?"

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. Are you for private police or public police? Which is it?


_


If we had the size government the founders designed and intended, I don't think many would complain about legitimate government functions like fire and police.

I doubt they envisioned public unions negotiating fat bene packages. Just my hunch.

I have no problem with public fire and police. Its a legitimate function of state and local government. Essentially, in theory, they look after your stuff so you can go out and pursue happiness.

What I do object to is those who say it couldn't possibly work any other way, or that police/fire are underpaid or somehow deserve a taxpayer funded pension shoveling out returns and guarantees in excess of what the market could produce.

Travclem
05-11-2012, 07:24
You have to travel to your private healthcare. They don't come out to you at O'Dark Thirty in BFE.

Who's going to do anything about it, if you can simply be the highest bidder?

_

I don't think that is a valid arguement but I'll counter anyway.

Where I'm from we have these Paramedic folks that come out to BFE any time you want them to. They are covered by health insurance and you guessed it, private sector.

concretefuzzynuts
05-11-2012, 07:43
You must have bumped your head. I would love to see the geeks at google get in front of any of that. They wouldn't, they couldn't. It takes a certain mindest, and actual knowledge, skills, ability and training to pull off that sort of work.



The government is made of people. The people of the government do serve all day every day.

You misunderstood my point and made it for me all in one posting. Congrats!

lancesorbenson
05-11-2012, 08:05
Um no.

If I were sent to a call ala UT I would be engaging the shooter with whatever I had, be it my 1911 or an AR-15 if I could get to it.

SWAT team would be used to search buildings for additional hostiles after the smoke clears. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Every time I see one of these mass shootings I see hundreds of cops standing around outside aiming at the building. I've yet to see one where the first guy on the scene charges in and "engages" the shooter. Virginia Tech, Columbine etc. the killers basically ran out of victims and killed themselves before police had a chance to "engage" them. If the question is government versus private, I submit that armed private citizens would have done a better job than any SWAT team in either of those cases. Of course they did take place in areas the government had declared "gun-free" zones, so there's that.

Naelbis
05-11-2012, 08:12
If we had the size government the founders designed and intended, I don't think many would complain about legitimate government functions like fire and police.

I doubt they envisioned public unions negotiating fat bene packages. Just my hunch.
The vast majority of LE agencies aren't union..
I have no problem with public fire and police. Its a legitimate function of state and local government. Essentially, in theory, they look after your stuff so you can go out and pursue happiness.

What I do object to is those who say it couldn't possibly work any other way, or that police/fire are underpaid or somehow deserve a taxpayer funded pension shoveling out returns and guarantees in excess of what the market could produce.
Private policing doesn't work, it inevitable becomes corrupt and completely beholden to the highest bidder. The very reason police agencies exist in their current form is because of the failures and abuses of companies like Pinkerton who provided private police services to the railroads and other big companies. :upeyes:

Responses in bold..

Sam Spade
05-11-2012, 08:16
Isn't this the same board (and some of the same posters?) that tried to spank the private TN fire district when a non-member's home burned? What hypocrisy.

Naelbis
05-11-2012, 08:20
Every time I see one of these mass shootings I see hundreds of cops standing around outside aiming at the building. I've yet to see one where the first guy on the scene charges in and "engages" the shooter. Virginia Tech, Columbine etc. the killers basically ran out of victims and killed themselves before police had a chance to "engage" them. If the question is government versus private, I submit that armed private citizens would have done a better job than any SWAT team in either of those cases. Of course they did take place in areas the government had declared "gun-free" zones, so there's that.
Prior to Columbine police procedure was to secure the scene, establish a perimeter and wait for SWAT/negotiators. This was because training and studies stated that you had a better chance of saving the hostages this way. After Columbine, active shooter training stressed engaging the shooter/shooters as quickly as possible once 2-3 officers were on scene. At Virginia Tech, the situation was muddled by the initial murders taking place at a dorm accross campus from the classroom building. This left the PD response out of position when the second round started. The responding officers attempted entry but Chu had locked the doors with chains which slowed them down. It was all over by the time they got inside. I do not disagree that lawful carry might have made these situations turn out different, but the fault does not lie with the PD response.

DonGlock26
05-11-2012, 08:20
If they are not tax funded and unionized who will arrest all the 6 year old school kids?

Get back with me, when you are up to a serious debate.

_

DonGlock26
05-11-2012, 08:24
If we had the size government the founders designed and intended, I don't think many would complain about legitimate government functions like fire and police.

I doubt they envisioned public unions negotiating fat bene packages. Just my hunch.

I have no problem with public fire and police. Its a legitimate function of state and local government. Essentially, in theory, they look after your stuff so you can go out and pursue happiness.

What I do object to is those who say it couldn't possibly work any other way, or that police/fire are underpaid or somehow deserve a taxpayer funded pension shoveling out returns and guarantees in excess of what the market could produce.



Why would they be concerned about state and municipal issues like contracts???

Thanks for being pro- state police/fire protection. It is only reasonable.

No one has shown how it would work any other way. Show us.



_

Sam Spade
05-11-2012, 08:27
The responding officers attempted entry but Chu had locked the doors with chains which slowed them down. It was all over by the time they got inside. I do not disagree that lawful carry might have made these situations turn out different, but the fault does not lie with the PD response.

Slight correction: Cho self-inflicted *because* the PD finally forced entry. He had plenty of ammo and plenty of targets left, but shot himself almost immediately when he knew the cops were in.

DonGlock26
05-11-2012, 08:32
I don't think that is a valid arguement but I'll counter anyway.

Where I'm from we have these Paramedic folks that come out to BFE any time you want them to. They are covered by health insurance and you guessed it, private sector.

Sure it is.

Paramedics respond to emergency medical situations that are already occurring. They don't handle child abuse, dogs running in traffic, apprehending wanted persons, ect. They pretty much do one function- stabilize and transport. They don't do a wide number of different tasks 24/7.

But, let's talk about funding. What if a person in BFE hasn't paid his EMS insurance and cannot pay? Do they leave him to die?


_

DonGlock26
05-11-2012, 08:34
Isn't this the same board (and some of the same posters?) that tried to spank the private TN fire district when a non-member's home burned? What hypocrisy.

Yeah, I've been saving that one. LOL!!!!

_

Sam Spade
05-11-2012, 08:38
Yeah, I've been saving that one. LOL!!!!

_

If anyone can link to the old threads, please do. It was Oct/Nov 2010, and the files don't seem to go back that far.

DonGlock26
05-11-2012, 08:47
Every time I see one of these mass shootings I see hundreds of cops standing around outside aiming at the building. I've yet to see one where the first guy on the scene charges in and "engages" the shooter. Virginia Tech, Columbine etc. the killers basically ran out of victims and killed themselves before police had a chance to "engage" them. If the question is government versus private, I submit that armed private citizens would have done a better job than any SWAT team in either of those cases. Of course they did take place in areas the government had declared "gun-free" zones, so there's that.

"Allahu Akbar" heard on Video Inside Trolley Square. - YouTube

Police hunt active killer in Trolley Square shooting incident.



_

lancesorbenson
05-11-2012, 08:49
Prior to Columbine police procedure was to secure the scene, establish a perimeter and wait for SWAT/negotiators. This was because training and studies stated that you had a better chance of saving the hostages this way. After Columbine, active shooter training stressed engaging the shooter/shooters as quickly as possible once 2-3 officers were on scene. At Virginia Tech, the situation was muddled by the initial murders taking place at a dorm accross campus from the classroom building. This left the PD response out of position when the second round started. The responding officers attempted entry but Chu had locked the doors with chains which slowed them down. It was all over by the time they got inside. I do not disagree that lawful carry might have made these situations turn out different, but the fault does not lie with the PD response.

I'm not blaming police. The fault lies with the nut jobs who do the killing. But on the question of personal protection, I think armed private citizens are in a better position to protect themselves than the police, just as a matter of logistics. I can't fight a fire at my house--well I could try--but if someone kicks in my door in the middle of the night the cops won't be much help.

DonGlock26
05-11-2012, 08:50
If anyone can link to the old threads, please do. It was Oct/Nov 2010, and the files don't seem to go back that far.

Don't worry Sam. The regulars remember it. They complained and whined that the city fire dept. didn't fight a fire outside of their jurisdiction that has to pay them for protection. This thread is hilarious to watch because of the flip flopping. I think a few of the biggest whiners will slip away now.

_

Travclem
05-11-2012, 08:52
Sure it is.

Paramedics respond to emergency medical situations that are already occurring. They don't handle child abuse, dogs running in traffic, apprehending wanted persons, ect. They pretty much do one function- stabilize and transport. They don't do a wide number of different tasks 24/7.

But, let's talk about funding. What if a person in BFE hasn't paid his EMS insurance and cannot pay? Do they leave him to die?


_
In a non socialist system... Yep.

DonGlock26
05-11-2012, 08:55
In a non socialist system... Yep.

We don't live in a society that is willing to do that. So, the private EMS company would be stuck with the bill because of society. That cost like much of medical costs will passed on to those who are paying. This is a big reason that our private health care is in danger of collapsing. You will not get any where near a majority of people willing to give the private EMS companies immunity from prosecution, law suits, ect. to leave people to die simply for not being able to pay.

_

Sam Spade
05-11-2012, 08:59
In a non socialist system... Yep.

So it would seem that some forms of socialized services are proper.

lancesorbenson
05-11-2012, 08:59
Who is going to police those who do not or cannot pay?

They complained and whined that the city fire dept. didn't fight a fire outside of their jurisdiction that has to pay them for protection.

So you're sayin...wait, what are you saying? So government would be the ones to protect those who do not or cannot pay except for those who do not or cannot pay?

DonGlock26
05-11-2012, 10:00
So you're sayin...wait, what are you saying? So government would be the ones to protect those who do not or cannot pay except for those who do not or cannot pay?

Lance, my first quoted statement was a question. The second one was a recounting of what others whined about in the past. So, I'm wondering why you pasted them together to try to represent them as an argument.

Which service are you talking about? Police or fire? Police protection is universal, while fire protection is not.

Lance, did you watch the Trolly Square incident video? What conclusions did you draw from it?

-

concretefuzzynuts
05-11-2012, 10:15
"Allahu Akbar" heard on Video Inside Trolley Square. - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kFkS3mmnU8)

Police hunt active killer in Trolley Square shooting incident.



_

Here's a video that explains your video.

Daring Witness Helped Ogden Officer Engage the Shooter - YouTube

certifiedfunds
05-11-2012, 10:34
Responses in bold..

Private policing doesn't work, it inevitable becomes corrupt and completely beholden to the highest bidder. The very reason police agencies exist in their current form is because of the failures and abuses of companies like Pinkerton who provided private police services to the railroads and other big companies.

Government police agencies get corrupted too. I thought that was obvious.

Sam Spade
05-11-2012, 10:37
Government police agencies get corrupted too. I thought that was obvious.

People get corrupted. The proper question is whether the general welfare is best served by a private or public asset empowered with the authority to arrest, search and accuse.

certifiedfunds
05-11-2012, 10:37
Why would they be concerned about state and municipal issues like contracts???

_

Well they wouldn't, obviously. But that isn't the structure we're currently living with and plenty of folks here like to blur the lines between fed/state/local when it comes to taxation/services. I'm just playing along.

Now federal employees..........

Thanks for being pro- state police/fire protection. It is only reasonable.




I'm not "pro" anything. I said I had no problem with it specifically.

certifiedfunds
05-11-2012, 10:38
Sure it is.

Paramedics respond to emergency medical situations that are already occurring. They don't handle child abuse, dogs running in traffic, apprehending wanted persons, ect. They pretty much do one function- stabilize and transport. They don't do a wide number of different tasks 24/7.

But, let's talk about funding. What if a person in BFE hasn't paid his EMS insurance and cannot pay? Do they leave him to die?


_

absolutely

certifiedfunds
05-11-2012, 10:40
So it would seem that some forms of socialized services are proper.

You mean those that benefit everyone equally? Basic infrastructure? Yes.

That doesn't mean they can't be provided more efficiently via private or volunteer.

certifiedfunds
05-11-2012, 10:42
People get corrupted. The proper question is whether the general welfare is best served by a private or public asset empowered with the authority to arrest, search and accuse.

It'd be hard to argue that the NOPD as a whole, is corrupt.

They may be among the worst but I seriously doubt they're alone.

So are we narrowing it down to police alone and excluding fire and EMS?

certifiedfunds
05-11-2012, 10:43
We don't live in a society that is willing to do that. So, the private EMS company would be stuck with the bill because of society. That cost like much of medical costs will passed on to those who are paying. This is a big reason that our private health care is in danger of collapsing. You will not get any where near a majority of people willing to give the private EMS companies immunity from prosecution, law suits, ect. to leave people to die simply for not being able to pay.

_

1. It isn't in danger of collapsing

2. The problems it is experiencing are directly attributable to:

a. Mandates on ERs to provide care to anyone who walks through the door.

b. Medicare

Sam Spade
05-11-2012, 10:46
So are we narrowing it down to police alone and excluding fire and EMS?

I'm just responding to posts that strike my fancy; I'm not deep into this thread. Here, you posted on corrupt police and I responded. Before, some folk posted on private fire and I responded to that. Next, who knows?

lancesorbenson
05-11-2012, 10:56
Lance, my first quoted statement was a question. The second one was a recounting of what others whined about in the past. So, I'm wondering why you pasted them together to try to represent them as an argument.

So you were just being rhetorical when you asked who would pay for policing for those who can't or don't pay under a system of private service? The principle you implied was that in a with private services those who didn't or couldn't pay would be screwed, and it seems pretty clear you're making the argument that these types of services should be public for, at least partially, that reason. Then you bring up a case of a public service provider failing to act because of non-payment. I don't get it.

Which service are you talking about? Police or fire? Police protection is universal, while fire protection is not.

What does this even mean? Police have no obligation to protect anyone and they rarely do. They can't.

Lance, did you watch the Trolly Square incident video? What conclusions did you draw from it?


Do cops sometimes go in and kill bad guys? Sure, and good on 'em. Private citizens do it all the time to protect themselves. Flight 93 didn't hit its target because of a few private citizens, not because of the billions of dollars government spent on intelligence, security, etc. that year.

lancesorbenson
05-11-2012, 11:09
It'd be hard to argue that the NOPD as a whole, is corrupt.

They may be among the worst but I seriously doubt they're alone.

So are we narrowing it down to police alone and excluding fire and EMS?

NOPD used to be lot worse, but it's still pretty dicey. I have friends and family on the job and some of the stuff they've done and tell me about sets off rants from me. At the same time I caught more than my share of breaks as a teenager cause paw-paw was a captain, so I guess I can't complain.

certifiedfunds
05-11-2012, 11:21
I'm just responding to posts that strike my fancy; I'm not deep into this thread. Here, you posted on corrupt police and I responded. Before, some folk posted on private fire and I responded to that. Next, who knows?

:rofl:Just another day in GTPI

Have a good one Sam

certifiedfunds
05-11-2012, 11:25
NOPD used to be lot worse, but it's still pretty dicey. I have friends and family on the job and some of the stuff they've done and tell me about sets off rants from me. At the same time I caught more than my share of breaks as a teenager cause paw-paw was a captain, so I guess I can't complain.

And such is the nature of corruption. :supergrin: What an excellent way to illustrate the point about police corruption and the favoritism that folks were complaining about happening with private policing.

Rabid Rabbit
05-11-2012, 11:44
Apparently Govie ATCs sleep better "Midnight Was Movie Hour, Nap Time in New York Air Tower"

lancesorbenson
05-11-2012, 11:49
And such is the nature of corruption. :supergrin: What an excellent way to illustrate the point about police corruption and the favoritism that folks were complaining about happening with private policing.

Yeah there's something to be said for good old-fashion favoritism, when you're the beneficiary of it :) Something about human nature makes us look out for ourselves and our's, laws be damned. I wonder what the general consensus is on police looking the other way for those close to them on relatively minor infractions. It's a way of life in New Orleans, for better or worse.

Chronos
05-11-2012, 12:04
Of course privately funded police, fire fighters, defense organizations, etc. would be vastly, vastly better in a voluntary framework (rather than a state controlled funded-by-violence one). At least in a large scale modern economy that has excellent communication and computing resources which are constantly competing to make money by finding and eradicating inefficiencies.

It would be easy to set up an insurance system that pays for all of them without tolerance of "public school system" type inefficiency (which is already everywhere, just not as visible due to the obvious, easy-to-measure failures in the government education racket).

And, since the vast majority of people already don't want to see the poor left to die by the EMTs and are self-evidently willing to pay for it out of their own income, a basic level of coverage would exist for everyone, and it would be enormously cheaper and more efficient than the current framework, and there would be far fewer destitute people without the government subsidizing poverty to begin with.

The only thing governments are good at is evil on a grand scale (e.g. stealing ~1/2 the income of every productive adult in a country of three hundred million), and drumming up a veneer of productivity to cover for it.

DonGlock26
05-11-2012, 12:06
Here's a video that explains your video.

Daring Witness Helped Ogden Officer Engage the Shooter - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYam1pczNeM&feature=related)

Thanks, looks like the police hunted down and stopped his shooting rampage. The mall guy did a good job as well.


_

DonGlock26
05-11-2012, 12:35
So you were just being rhetorical when you asked who would pay for policing for those who can't or don't pay under a system of private service? The principle you implied was that in a with private services those who didn't or couldn't pay would be screwed, and it seems pretty clear you're making the argument that these types of services should be public for, at least partially, that reason. Then you bring up a case of a public service provider failing to act because of non-payment. I don't get it.



What does this even mean? Police have no obligation to protect anyone and they rarely do. They can't.



Do cops sometimes go in and kill bad guys? Sure, and good on 'em. Private citizens do it all the time to protect themselves. Flight 93 didn't hit its target because of a few private citizens, not because of the billions of dollars government spent on intelligence, security, etc. that year.


I asked him a question. He didn't really answer it directly.

Yep, about fire protection, not police or military protection.

What don't you get? The police function is a more basic function of the state than fire protection. Do you know any areas that are not under the jurisdiction of at least one law enforcement agency in the US?

I'm not talking about individual personal protection. I am talking about the police function of protecting a community as a whole.

You said you had never seen a cop go in and engage the shooter. Now you have. Just for the record, I think a person can be both pro-CCW and pro-Police. I know that I am.


_

The Machinist
05-11-2012, 12:59
Well, this thread sure is hijacked. The LEO have managed to make it all about them. No one is advocating for the abolition of police, guys. There's no reason your egos shouldn't still be intact.

CAcop
05-11-2012, 13:19
Well, this thread sure is hijacked. The LEO have managed to make it all about them. No one is advocating for the abolition of police, guys. There's no reason your egos shouldn't still be intact.

Well the ongoing theme of this thread is that the private sector can do everything better than the public sector. I pointed out that it is entirely possible to go private sector with policing. To a certain extent SF does it with their "police specials."

Basically it is put up or shut up time. Either put away the broad brush or agree that every single government function can or should be done by the private sector.

lancesorbenson
05-11-2012, 13:22
I asked him a question. He didn't really answer it directly.

Yep, about fire protection, not police or military protection.

What don't you get? The police function is a more basic function of the state than fire protection. Do you know any areas that are not under the jurisdiction of at least one law enforcement agency in the US?

I'm not talking about individual personal protection. I am talking about the police function of protecting a community as a whole.

You said you had never seen a cop go in and engage the shooter. Now you have. Just for the record, I think a person can be both pro-CCW and pro-Police. I know that I am.


_

Seems like there is big difference between jurisdiction and protection. If we're talking about the success rate of police in the US in terms of protection then it's been a miserable failure. The US has one of the highest violent crime rates in the first world. I don't know what the difference is between protecting a community (a collection of individuals) versus individual protection, but either way I think people are more efficient at protecting themselves, just as a matter of circumstances.

For the record, I am not anti-police but indifferent. They are people just like everyone else and just like everyone else they can be heroic, lazy, criminal, etc. I know some great cops and I know some total a holes who are cops.

Ruble Noon
05-11-2012, 13:31
Get back with me, when you are up to a serious debate.

_

I am dead serious.

Arrested Development: The Criminalization of America’s Schoolchildren

http://lewrockwell.com/whitehead/whitehead44.1.html

DonGlock26
05-11-2012, 14:06
Well, this thread sure is hijacked. The LEO have managed to make it all about them. No one is advocating for the abolition of police, guys. There's no reason your egos shouldn't still be intact.

How has it been hijacked? The OP asked a question, and it has been answered. Some people seem to be saying that the private sector can do everything better without explaining how the military/ police role of the state can be replaced by the private sector.

-

RC-RAMIE
05-11-2012, 14:13
How has it been hijacked? The OP asked a question, and it has been answered. Some people seem to be saying that the private sector can do everything better without explaining how the military/ police role of the state can be replaced by the private sector.

-

Well to be fair and I should have worded it better I originally was talking about the Federal government which seemed to be the topic of the video I posted, but the conversation got interesting.

lancesorbenson
05-11-2012, 14:28
How has it been hijacked? The OP asked a question, and it has been answered. Some people seem to be saying that the private sector can do everything better without explaining how the military/ police role of the state can be replaced by the private sector.

-

Has someone argued that the military should be privatized? I for one see the military as one of the few legitimate functions of the state. I also believe law enforcement is probably better left as a government function, but I think the purview of the police has expanded beyond what is appropriate for a free society. The blame doesn't really lie with the police but the lawmakers.

CAcop
05-11-2012, 16:13
Has someone argued that the military should be privatized? I for one see the military as one of the few legitimate functions of the state. I also believe law enforcement is probably better left as a government function, but I think the purview of the police has expanded beyond what is appropriate for a free society. The blame doesn't really lie with the police but the lawmakers.

There are some that argue that an all volunteer army is a mercenary army. The only difference is that the government is writing checks to its own people. There is a long history of countries supplying other countries with ready made armies. There is nothing stopping us from hiring the Mexican army to do our business. I am sure you could buy them off easy. The Zetas have proven that.

Chronos
05-11-2012, 17:10
Well the ongoing theme of this thread is that the private sector can do everything better than the public sector. I pointed out that it is entirely possible to go private sector with policing. To a certain extent SF does it with their "police specials."

Basically it is put up or shut up time. Either put away the broad brush or agree that every single government function can or should be done by the private sector.

I agree that every single government function can and should be performed by the private sector. :cool:

You illustrate well why "some government services, but not so many" is basically a weak position to take against anyone who wants more government than you do. When you abandon the basic principle that aggression against peaceful, productive people is the wrong way to "solve problems," you have abandoned the moral dimension of a debate that is 90%+ about extremely basic morality.

This is why the "limited government" position has been losing ground dramatically for about a century. Too few people have had the courage to stand on principle, and too many have agreed with the basic premise of the socialists and simply argue over where an arbitrary line should be drawn.

certifiedfunds
05-11-2012, 17:17
I agree that every single government function can and should be performed by the private sector. :cool:

You illustrate well why "some government services, but not so many" is basically a weak position to take against anyone who wants more government than you do. When you abandon the basic principle that aggression against peaceful, productive people is the wrong way to "solve problems," you have abandoned the moral dimension of a debate that is 90%+ about extremely basic morality.

This is why the "limited government" position has been losing ground dramatically for about a century. Too few people have had the courage to stand on principle, and too many have agreed with the basic premise of the socialists and simply argue over where an arbitrary line should be drawn.

Oh damn

Chronos
05-11-2012, 17:30
Has someone argued that the military should be privatized? I for one see the military as one of the few legitimate functions of the state. I also believe law enforcement is probably better left as a government function, but I think the purview of the police has expanded beyond what is appropriate for a free society. The blame doesn't really lie with the police but the lawmakers.

I will argue that the military should be privatized. Widespread private gun ownership plus a small nuclear deterrent make any large-scale invasion/occupation completely impossible. The nukes would probably cost on the order of 10 bucks a year if everyone in the US were interested in funding them -- if only 1 in 5 were interested in funding it, you're looking at $50 a year.

The whole strategy of covering the entire globe with military bases and conventional forces would almost certainly not survive a free-market environment, but the market itself would have to be the ultimate judge.

certifiedfunds
05-11-2012, 17:33
I will argue that the military should be privatized. Widespread private gun ownership plus a small nuclear deterrent make any large-scale invasion/occupation completely impossible. The nukes would probably cost on the order of 10 bucks a year if everyone in the US were interested in funding them -- if only 1 in 5 were interested in funding it, you're looking at $50 a year.

The whole strategy of covering the entire globe with military bases and conventional forces would almost certainly not survive a free-market environment, but the market itself would have to be the ultimate judge.

But an empire needs a professional army.

DonGlock26
05-11-2012, 18:00
Seems like there is big difference between jurisdiction and protection. If we're talking about the success rate of police in the US in terms of protection then it's been a miserable failure. The US has one of the highest violent crime rates in the first world. I don't know what the difference is between protecting a community (a collection of individuals) versus individual protection, but either way I think people are more efficient at protecting themselves, just as a matter of circumstances.

For the record, I am not anti-police but indifferent. They are people just like everyone else and just like everyone else they can be heroic, lazy, criminal, etc. I know some great cops and I know some total a holes who are cops.

Not really, police are charged with community protection within their jurisdiction. CCW holders don't police accidents, take suicidal people to the hospital, go looking for violent felons, mediate domestic disputes, ect, ect, ect.

Frankly, if you separated black on black crime from the general violent crime equation, the crime rate falls dramatically. Society has largely handcuffed the police from effectively policing these areas for political/racial reasons, but that is a subject for another thread.


Police being human beings isn't really part of this argument, since private citizens are also human beings. You seem to have more than "indifference" going on. In fact, most police have to go through a more involved background check, psychological screening, and written test than a CCW holder.

Now, let me ask you a question. Let's say hypothetically, your wife or daughter disappears, and her car is found at the side of the road. You suspect foul play. What are you going to do about it without alerting the police? Or, would you swallow your indifference and call the police?


_

_

DonGlock26
05-11-2012, 18:05
Has someone argued that the military should be privatized? I for one see the military as one of the few legitimate functions of the state. I also believe law enforcement is probably better left as a government function, but I think the purview of the police has expanded beyond what is appropriate for a free society. The blame doesn't really lie with the police but the lawmakers.

I believe so.

_

concretefuzzynuts
05-11-2012, 18:18
Has someone argued that the military should be privatized? I for one see the military as one of the few legitimate functions of the state. I also believe law enforcement is probably better left as a government function, but I think the purview of the police has expanded beyond what is appropriate for a free society. The blame doesn't really lie with the police but the lawmakers.

Well, factually, some of the "military" has been privatized: Academi AKA Blackwater Security, Xe Services LLC, Blackwater Worldwide. Halliburton and KBR, Inc. formerly Kellogg Brown & Root.

And I have no problem with these, I am not "trolling". Just answering a post.

lancesorbenson
05-11-2012, 18:58
Not really, police are charged with community protection within their jurisdiction. CCW holders don't police accidents, take suicidal people to the hospital, go looking for violent felons, mediate domestic disputes, ect, ect, ect.

Private citizens can and often do all those things, believe it or not.

Frankly, if you separated black on black crime from the general violent crime equation, the crime rate falls dramatically. Society has largely handcuffed the police from effectively policing these areas for political/racial reasons, but that is a subject for another thread.

We're gonna cherry-pick stats? How have police been handcuffed from dealing with black criminals? The prisons are full of black criminals?


Police being human beings isn't really part of this argument, since private citizens are also human beings. You seem to have more than "indifference" going on. In fact, most police have to go through a more involved background check, psychological screening, and written test than a CCW holder.

And? That makes them unique somehow?

Now, let me ask you a question. Let's say hypothetically, your wife or daughter disappears, and her car is found at the side of the road. You suspect foul play. What are you going to do about it without alerting the police? Or, would you swallow your indifference and call the police?

I'd probably call the police. I AM paying for police service after all. Having said that I'd also immediately hire a private professional. Of course I can play this game too. If someone kicks in your door while you're surfing GT are you grabbing the phone and calling 911?

certifiedfunds
05-11-2012, 20:42
Now, let me ask you a question. Let's say hypothetically, your wife or daughter disappears, and her car is found at the side of the road. You suspect foul play. What are you going to do about it without alerting the police? Or, would you swallow your indifference and call the police?


Phone Calls in this order:

1. Police
2. Lawyer
3. Private investigator(s) -- best I can find.

certifiedfunds
05-11-2012, 20:43
Wow. Chronos is serving up truth burgers hot off the grill tonite!

CAcop
05-12-2012, 03:58
Phone Calls in this order:

1. Police
2. Lawyer
3. Private investigator(s) -- best I can find.

#1 doesn't exist because the private sector does things better right?

#2 can sue someone for you but you still need someone to enforce any court order or action.

#3 what are his resources?

DonGlock26
05-12-2012, 06:25
Private citizens can and often do all those things, believe it or not.



We're gonna cherry-pick stats? How have police been handcuffed from dealing with black criminals? The prisons are full of black criminals?




And? That makes them unique somehow?



I'd probably call the police. I AM paying for police service after all. Having said that I'd also immediately hire a private professional. Of course I can play this game too. If someone kicks in your door while you're surfing GT are you grabbing the phone and calling 911?


So, you are saying that private citizens can also occasionally act as community protection. It's still community protection. That was my point.

YOU brought up stats, my friend. I pointed out that there are greater powers than the police involved in making them better or worse. Have you ever looked at DoJ stats on crime and incarceration based on race?

A lack of serious response to extreme street violence out of fear of being labeled racist. If ghetto levels of violence were occurring in liberal elite communities, you would see much greater efforts being made to stop it. Did you know that even black leaders are asking for the national guard to be deployed to the inner city?

I never said they are unique. They are better screened. Do you understand the difference?

I knew you would. Why? For the same reason a state was needed to win WWII. The state has greater resources than individuals.

Of course, I would immediately defend myself. I never claimed that 911 is a solution to an immediate threat. You seem to have the need to make strawman arguments.


_

certifiedfunds
05-12-2012, 08:02
#1 doesn't exist because the private sector does things better right?

#2 can sue someone for you but you still need someone to enforce any court order or action.

#3 what are his resources?

#1 - private or public, I call them. Who said they don't exist.

#2 - The lawyer is to protect my ass from the police.

#3 - His resources are whatever I want to spend to get my family back.

You do know you can buy ransom insurance, right?

certifiedfunds
05-12-2012, 08:04
I knew you would. Why? For the same reason a state was needed to win WWII. The state has greater resources than individuals.



I'm assuming this is an accident because it easily qualifies for oxymoron of the year.

Quick question: From where does the state get its resources?

DonGlock26
05-12-2012, 08:52
I'm assuming this is an accident because it easily qualifies for oxymoron of the year.

Quick question: From where does the state get its resources?

Do you know an individual with the yearly income to match the gov't's annual tax collection?

Many, many individuals.

How would an individual combat Nazi Germany?



_

certifiedfunds
05-12-2012, 09:35
Do you know an individual with the yearly income to match the gov't's annual tax collection?

Many, many individuals.

How would an individual combat Nazi Germany?



_

The gov sucks every dime it has from the hands of individuals.

Sam Spade
05-12-2012, 09:51
The gov sucks every dime it has from the hands of individuals.

Sounds like you're being purposefully obtuse (sorry, can't think of a better word, but I'm not trying to be inflammatory) in this latest exchange.

Of course the gov gets it's funding and resources from individuals. That was never in question. The question you posed was in relation to the expenditure of those resources. War, as Don pointed out, is not well-managed by the private sector. From pyramids to space programs, there comes a point where the scale of a program exceeds individual capacity. Then, collective management of resources and direction of effort becomes needed. Sometimes, that includes the coercive power of government to achieve results for the common welfare.

5000 years of recorded history makes this case conclusively.

RC-RAMIE
05-12-2012, 10:25
Sounds like you're being purposefully obtuse (sorry, can't think of a better word, but I'm not trying to be inflammatory) in this latest exchange.

Of course the gov gets it's funding and resources from individuals. That was never in question. The question you posed was in relation to the expenditure of those resources. War, as Don pointed out, is not well-managed by the private sector. From pyramids to space programs, there comes a point where the scale of a program exceeds individual capacity. Then, collective management of resources and direction of effort becomes needed. Sometimes, that includes the coercive power of government to achieve results for the common welfare.

5000 years of recorded history makes this case conclusively.

http://www.moneymorning.com.au/20120511/asteroid-mining-in-space-an-abundant-future-awaits.html

Sam Spade
05-12-2012, 12:02
http://www.moneymorning.com.au/20120511/asteroid-mining-in-space-an-abundant-future-awaits.html

Cool. An excellent example of the flow of things from government back to the private sector.

DonGlock26
05-12-2012, 12:53
Sounds like you're being purposefully obtuse (sorry, can't think of a better word, but I'm not trying to be inflammatory) in this latest exchange.

Of course the gov gets it's funding and resources from individuals. That was never in question. The question you posed was in relation to the expenditure of those resources. War, as Don pointed out, is not well-managed by the private sector. From pyramids to space programs, there comes a point where the scale of a program exceeds individual capacity. Then, collective management of resources and direction of effort becomes needed. Sometimes, that includes the coercive power of government to achieve results for the common welfare.

5000 years of recorded history makes this case conclusively.

Thanks for saving me the bandwidth. :cheers:


_

certifiedfunds
05-12-2012, 13:30
Sounds like you're being purposefully obtuse (sorry, can't think of a better word, but I'm not trying to be inflammatory) in this latest exchange.

Of course the gov gets it's funding and resources from individuals. That was never in question. The question you posed was in relation to the expenditure of those resources. War, as Don pointed out, is not well-managed by the private sector. From pyramids to space programs, there comes a point where the scale of a program exceeds individual capacity. Then, collective management of resources and direction of effort becomes needed. Sometimes, that includes the coercive power of government to achieve results for the common welfare.

5000 years of recorded history makes this case conclusively.

Sam, the post I was replying to:


Originally Posted by DonGlock26 http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=18957022#post18957022)
I knew you would. Why? For the same reason a state was needed to win WWII. The state has greater resources than individuals. The state only has the resources they take from individuals.

I take it from your post that, in some cases, individuals cannot -- even collectively -- make the best use of those resources, combine resources strategically and direct them where they need to go. If I read you right you're saying that government is required to force the owner of those resources to direct them where they are needed to go.

Is that correct? (not being inflammatory, just clarifying).

Honestly, I don't know that we've tried it any other way. Most of the 5000 years of history is a story of kings and enslavement.

But it makes me wonder......of all the military action the United States has engaged in over the years for political reasons, how many would have been vetoed by the owners of the wealth and would we have been better for it?

Now, as Chronos so effectively illustrated, if we didn't have 100 years of expansive foreign policy and empire-building, privately-funded national defense seems entirely reasonable and attainable.

However, if a nation insists on sending troops to foreign wars every few years and having a robust military presence across the globe, that isn't possible and it surely requires state coercion to fund.

certifiedfunds
05-12-2012, 13:32
I also find it interesting that the title of the thread is, "What does the government do better than the public" and we've basically reached the point that we're arguing about the military.

I think that speaks volumes.

certifiedfunds
05-12-2012, 13:36
Cool. An excellent example of the flow of things from government back to the private sector.

Seriously Sam - talk about good money after bad.

DonGlock26
05-12-2012, 13:58
I take it from your post that, in some cases, individuals cannot -- even collectively -- make the best use of those resources, combine resources strategically and direct them where they need to go.

How would they organize to the point of defeating a Nazi Germany and her Axis allies? Would this be a bake sale funded effort? Would they win against a state or alliance of states? Would being enslaved by a foreign state be better than forming a government? Why did the American colonists just defeat the British army and navy by "make the best use of those resources, combine resources strategically and direct them where they need to go"?

_

certifiedfunds
05-12-2012, 14:00
How would they organize to the point of defeating a Nazi Germany and her Axis allies?

_

Have we examined the root cause of the war?

Sam Spade
05-12-2012, 15:05
I also find it interesting that the title of the thread is, "What does the government do better than the public" and we've basically reached the point that we're arguing about the military.

I think that speaks volumes.
Well, we've already done police, fire and a fairly long list from JT. I'm surprised that it took this long to focus on the most visible portion of the state's power.

The state only has the resources they take from individuals.

I take it from your post that, in some cases, individuals cannot -- even collectively -- make the best use of those resources, combine resources strategically and direct them where they need to go. If I read you right you're saying that government is required to force the owner of those resources to direct them where they are needed to go.

Is that correct? (not being inflammatory, just clarifying).

That's my opinon, yes. Two points related to the quoted paragraph above: First, individuals collectively eventually become equivalent to the government. Second, IMO, the reason that govenment involvement becomes needed is that idividuals are woefully short-sighted. You see this in companies that prefer quick returns on this quarter's bottom line than in patient growth with a view towards generations. Government personages often, but by no means always, are looking for a "legacy" and the "verdict of history" on their reigns or administrations.

Sam Spade
05-12-2012, 15:10
http://www.moneymorning.com.au/20120511/asteroid-mining-in-space-an-abundant-future-awaits.html

Cool. An excellent example of the flow of things from government back to the private sector.

Seriously Sam - talk about good money after bad.

To me, it looks like the symbiotic relationship between the public and the private sectors. The .gov forces the construction of the city walls, the economy grows in their protection. Here, the .gov pushed the space program in response to what they saw as a foreign threat, and the private sector can now increase its wealth in an previously unsuspected manner.

CAcop
05-12-2012, 15:56
Have we examined the root cause of the war?

I have. I got my degree in history and this was covered extensively in many classes due to the long term and widespread effects of the war.

Essentially it goes back to European powers trying to expand or maintain their influence in the Balkans/Eastern Europe around the turn of the last century.

At least that is the cause in the ETO.

The PTO causes were the Japanese and Russians going at it.

CAcop
05-12-2012, 15:59
CF, you sound like the hippies and OWS folks around here. Individuals in small groups are better than governments or corporations.

I throw corporations in there because now would exist without the power of the state protecting them. Take a look at Somalia for a case study in the vacum of state power.

lancesorbenson
05-12-2012, 17:38
I have. I got my degree in history and this was covered extensively in many classes due to the long term and widespread effects of the war.

Essentially it goes back to European powers trying to expand or maintain their influence in the Balkans/Eastern Europe around the turn of the last century.

At least that is the cause in the ETO.

The PTO causes were the Japanese and Russians going at it.

A more interesting question for me are the circumstances that allowed Germany, arguably the most sophisticated country at the time, to allow Hitler and the Nazis rise to power. Many of those same forces are at work today IMO. Philosophically, hard times cause people to turn to government and cut it loose. The founding fathers understood this better than anyone, dangerous servant, fearful master and all that.

aspartz
05-12-2012, 18:31
Essentially it goes back to European powers trying to expand or maintain their influence in the Balkans/Eastern Europe around the turn of the last century.
Which should not have involved us in the 1st place. Our "neutral" for England position (in both wars) drew us into the war. If we had not taken sides in the first war, we would never have had to go fight in the second.

A more interesting question for me are the circumstances that allowed Germany, arguably the most sophisticated country at the time, to allow Hitler and the Nazis rise to power. Many of those same forces are at work today IMO. Philosophically, hard times cause people to turn to government and cut it loose. The founding fathers understood this better than anyone, dangerous servant, fearful master and all that.
The short answer is the Treaty of Versailles. If you keep kicking a group of people when they're down they will eventually listen to anyone who promises them a life with some pride and honor.

ARS

certifiedfunds
05-12-2012, 20:17
Well, we've already done police, fire and a fairly long list from JT. I'm surprised that it took this long to focus on the most visible portion of the state's power.


That's my opinon, yes. Two points related to the quoted paragraph above: First, individuals collectively eventually become equivalent to the government. Second, IMO, the reason that govenment involvement becomes needed is that idividuals are woefully short-sighted. You see this in companies that prefer quick returns on this quarter's bottom line than in patient growth with a view towards generations. Government personages often, but by no means always, are looking for a "legacy" and the "verdict of history" on their reigns or administrations.

Ok Sam. I had to Google "Personage" and unfortunately I still don't understand that sentence.

Are you saying politicians who run on 2, 4 and 6 year election cycles with budgets that operate on baseline and continuing resolutions take the long view and are therefore better equipped to plan strategically?

But more importantly, I see contradiction in your two points:

In the first point you essentially say the government is the people, collective individuals. In the second you decry the short-sightedness of those individuals. Can you clarify?

certifiedfunds
05-12-2012, 20:19
To me, it looks like the symbiotic relationship between the public and the private sectors. The .gov forces the construction of the city walls, the economy grows in their protection. Here, the .gov pushed the space program in response to what they saw as a foreign threat, and the private sector can now increase its wealth in an previously unsuspected manner.

You really think that mining asteroids has merit?

My point is that lots of easy government money makes poor investments more likely.....like mining asteroids.

certifiedfunds
05-12-2012, 20:22
CF, you sound like the hippies and OWS folks around here. Individuals in small groups are better than governments or corporations.



Yeah I'm not following you here. You're crossing too many streams.

I throw corporations in there because now would exist without the power of the state protecting them. Take a look at Somalia for a case study in the vacum of state power. Did I ever once argue for anarchy?

I suppose the question I would ask you here is: Do people exist to serve the government or does government exist to serve the people? (in your opinion)

certifiedfunds
05-12-2012, 20:24
CF, you sound like the hippies and OWS folks around here. Individuals in small groups are better than governments or corporations.

I throw corporations in there because now would exist without the power of the state protecting them. Take a look at Somalia for a case study in the vacum of state power.

BTW, the hippies and OWS folks aren't 100% wrong. There are some veins of truth in their message.

certifiedfunds
05-12-2012, 20:24
A more interesting question for me are the circumstances that allowed Germany, arguably the most sophisticated country at the time, to allow Hitler and the Nazis rise to power. Many of those same forces are at work today IMO. Philosophically, hard times cause people to turn to government and cut it loose. The founding fathers understood this better than anyone, dangerous servant, fearful master and all that.

That's kinda the corner I was in.

RC-RAMIE
05-12-2012, 22:02
You really think that mining asteroids has merit?

My point is that lots of easy government money makes poor investments more likely.....like mining asteroids.

Actually the mining asteroids article was because he said only government could do space exploration. The article list a bunch of all ready successful billionaires who formed a company to mine asteroids for profit, proving that the public sector can do space exploration and I'm willing to bet they do it more efficiently than government. That along with Virgin airline and his space flights which he promise will be affordable as common air flight one day all for profit shows that the government is not better or needed for space exploration.


....

Chronos
05-12-2012, 23:45
I also find it interesting that the title of the thread is, "What does the government do better than the public" and we've basically reached the point that we're arguing about the military.

I think that speaks volumes.

Absolutely right, but the depth of the point is probably lost on everyone.

We have a government basically because we're afraid of other governments who might try to take our stuff. And so to protect us, people spend their time justifying a government that taxes (takes our stuff) at or above the maximum possible sustainable rate and then sells our kids into eternal debt slavery when they need to spend more wealth than they can possibly confiscate from us.

Chronos
05-13-2012, 00:20
Honestly, I don't know that we've tried it any other way. Most of the 5000 years of history is a story of kings and enslavement.


Yes. For ~95% of that 5000 years, the "average guy" who was educated enough to discuss the subject would have vigorously defended the "divine right of kings" (or some more or less equivalent idea) and would have noted that every advanced society in history made extensive use of slaves.

Ultimately, consistency wins out, but it's a slow process and there are some extremely basic truths that most are still unwilling to face.

CAcop
05-13-2012, 03:19
Yeah I'm not following you here. You're crossing too many streams.

Did I ever once argue for anarchy?

I suppose the question I would ask you here is: Do people exist to serve the government or does government exist to serve the people? (in your opinion)

Government serves the wishes of the majority or at least plurality of the people. If you don't like what they do, too bad, you were outvoted.

You seem to think the private sector can do everything better yet you provide no alternative plan. Are you just an angry man upset the government can make you do thing you don't want to do.

CAcop
05-13-2012, 03:49
Certified, you know what I really find funny is that you rail about the power of the federal government yet you benefit from it more than me. Your state gets $1.80 for every dollar you send to the feds vs my state gets $.80 for every dollar sent. Without the fedgov you probably wouldn't have running water, sidewalks, or streets made of something other than dirt.

certifiedfunds
05-13-2012, 06:16
Government serves the wishes of the majority or at least plurality of the people. If you don't like what they do, too bad, you were outvoted.



You just defined a form of tyranny that our founders specifically tried to guard against. Congratulations.

You seem to think the private sector can do everything better yet you provide no alternative plan. Are you just an angry man upset the government can make you do thing you don't want to do. We need to stop this talk of "private sector" and "public sector" as though they are two equal sides of a coin. They aren't. Perhaps "host" and "parasite" would be more appropriate?

Seriously, government by definition means expensive and inefficient. Its a basic law of the universe. Anytime a monopoly exists, it is more expensive and inefficient.

certifiedfunds
05-13-2012, 06:19
Certified, you know what I really find funny is that you rail about the power of the federal government yet you benefit from it more than me. Your state gets $1.80 for every dollar you send to the feds vs my state gets $.80 for every dollar sent. Without the fedgov you probably wouldn't have running water, sidewalks, or streets made of something other than dirt.

I won't even bother checking your data. Tell you what, we'll just put a meter on the oil and gas pipelines coming in from the Gulf and you folks can keep your tax money. Deal?

Cavalry Doc
05-13-2012, 06:46
Ok, the solders were individuals fighting for our country.

The hollywood shootout was brave police fighting for that city.

9-11 responders were brave men and women risking their lives to save others.

EMS, as i said, All of these dedicated rescuers perform at peak level. With or without government issue.

These are performances by people working with/for the government. These same people, from their strength and conviction, would perform the same if not better if they worked for private businesses.

My point is we, the people are what is great about this country, not the government. The government is meant to be a servant of ours, not the other way around.

It takes organization to pull some things off. Right now, privatized para-military organizations don't have a very good rep among some. I'd have to admit that the structure and the discipline, including most of the rules and regulations are the structure that is necessary for good people to do great things.

I think we could privatize a lot. But I'm not so sure that you want to privatize the military or police. EMS has already been privatized in a lot of places.

The government is going to have to shrink, there is no way around that. Sequestration and cuts across the board will likely never happen, but they should. We spend way more than we take in, and that has to change. I prefer to lower spending than raising taxes.

certifiedfunds
05-13-2012, 06:59
It takes organization to pull some things off. Right now, privatized para-military organizations don't have a very good rep among some. I'd have to admit that the structure and the discipline, including most of the rules and regulations are the structure that is necessary for good people to do great things.

I think we could privatize a lot. But I'm not so sure that you want to privatize the military or police. EMS has already been privatized in a lot of places.

The government is going to have to shrink, there is no way around that. Sequestration and cuts across the board will likely never happen, but they should. We spend way more than we take in, and that has to change. I prefer to lower spending than raising taxes.

It really isn't even a legitimate debate.

First, taxation has nothing to do with funding government at the federal level. There is no correlation between tax revenues and spending. Taxation is 100% about control and power.

Second, raising taxes does not increase federal revenue. No matter what is tried, the fed can't suck more than about 20% of GDP. It isn't a static system like leftist politicians like to pretend. Growth is the only thing that increases revenues.

Finally, we have a spending problem not a revenue problem.

(I'm just adding to your thought, not countering you)

Cavalry Doc
05-13-2012, 07:32
It really isn't even a legitimate debate.

First, taxation has nothing to do with funding government at the federal level. There is no correlation between tax revenues and spending. Taxation is 100% about control and power.

Second, raising taxes does not increase federal revenue. No matter what is tried, the fed can't suck more than about 20% of GDP. It isn't a static system like leftist politicians like to pretend. Growth is the only thing that increases revenues.

Finally, we have a spending problem not a revenue problem.

(I'm just adding to your thought, not countering you)

We have a problem with the ability to add and subtract. Over taxation ruins motivation too. I look at what they take from me, and I don't want to go over 250 grand. I'd rather have my wife stay home and work for me than run into the financial penalties for being that successful of a family.

I heard a flaming liberal give a speach on this, he pointed to the fact that you could eliminate the entire federal government and it still didn't balance the budget, of course his answer to the problem was that the rich were not paying their fair share.

Fair didn't include a single percentage flat tax for all wage levels though. It's funny to see what people think is fair.

Ruble Noon
05-13-2012, 08:24
We have a problem with the ability to add and subtract. Over taxation ruins motivation too. I look at what they take from me, and I don't want to go over 250 grand. I'd rather have my wife stay home and work for me than run into the financial penalties for being that successful of a family.

I heard a flaming liberal give a speach on this, he pointed to the fact that you could eliminate the entire federal government and it still didn't balance the budget, of course his answer to the problem was that the rich were not paying their fair share.

Fair didn't include a single percentage flat tax for all wage levels though. It's funny to see what people think is fair.

Now look at what they must take from those of us in the private sector to pay your wages and to pay for what they make you give back.

barbedwiresmile
05-13-2012, 08:31
Government serves the wishes of the majority or at least plurality of the people. If you don't like what they do, too bad, you were outvoted.


This is simply not true. A tyranny of the majority would be bad in and of itself. But it's not the way our modern state works, and you should know this. Modern American government serves, to use your expression, the majority or at least a plurality of the dollars.

DonGlock26
05-13-2012, 08:36
Have we examined the root cause of the war?

Let's, but answer my question so that we can move on.

_

lancesorbenson
05-13-2012, 08:56
I won't even bother checking your data. Tell you what, we'll just put a meter on the oil and gas pipelines coming in from the Gulf and you folks can keep your tax money. Deal?

80% of all Gulf oil and 1/3 of all energy the U.S. consumes comes through LA. Yeah, we're leeches.

lancesorbenson
05-13-2012, 08:57
Let's, but answer my question so that we can move on.

_

Seems like we have moved on without your permission. Sorry.

Cavalry Doc
05-13-2012, 09:02
Now look at what they must take from those of us in the private sector to pay your wages and to pay for what they make you give back.

Well, the question would be whether you want me doing what I do, and whether you are getting a good deal for your money.

If the benefit is worth the cost, it's a good thing. Since the agency I work at has refused to do a salary survey in over 10 years, my salary is lower than those working in the civilian sector a few blocks away, and even lower than another government agency within a 50 mile radius, they pay the average salary in the area. But where I work needs some major fixing, and they have a deserving clientele in my opinion.

All things considered, I believe I am a bargain for the taxpayer. If the job suddenly went away, I happen to be in one of the fastest growing professions in the country, so I would be fine.

HarlDane
05-13-2012, 09:04
80% of all Gulf oil and 1/3 of all energy the U.S. consumes comes through LA. Yeah, we're leeches.The numbers don't lie, LA and most of the other southern states take far more than their share of money from the rest of us.

But if you'd like to get in to a pissing match over just how much each state produces, relative to the amount of federal tax dollars they receive, I wouldn't start with CA.

Cavalry Doc
05-13-2012, 09:07
Have we examined the root cause of the war?

Conflict of interests, and human nature.


Everybody wants things to be the way they want them to be. People disagree. Many times they cannot find a peaceful solution, even where one exists, so they fight about it.

Man has always fought, and likely will continue to fight as long as man exists. If fights are inevitable, I prefer to be on the winning side.

concretefuzzynuts
05-13-2012, 09:53
It takes organization to pull some things off. Right now, privatized para-military organizations don't have a very good rep among some. I'd have to admit that the structure and the discipline, including most of the rules and regulations are the structure that is necessary for good people to do great things.

I think we could privatize a lot. But I'm not so sure that you want to privatize the military or police. EMS has already been privatized in a lot of places.

The government is going to have to shrink, there is no way around that. Sequestration and cuts across the board will likely never happen, but they should. We spend way more than we take in, and that has to change. I prefer to lower spending than raising taxes.

Doc, that was an answer to post#26. Not my opinion on how or what to privatize.

Just an explanation, not a troll.:wavey:

lancesorbenson
05-13-2012, 10:22
The numbers don't lie, LA and most of the other southern states take far more than their share of money from the rest of us.

But if you'd like to get in to a pissing match over just how much each state produces, relative to the amount of federal tax dollars they receive, I wouldn't start with CA.

You're getting a deal. If Louisiana could tax the energy that goes through it even at just $.005 per cubic foot you could keep your federal dollars.

certifiedfunds
05-13-2012, 10:26
Well, the question would be whether you want me doing what I do, and whether you are getting a good deal for your money.

If the benefit is worth the cost, it's a good thing.

Whoah Doc. That's a helluva slippery slope.

certifiedfunds
05-13-2012, 10:28
You're getting a deal. If Louisiana could tax the energy that goes through it even at just $.005 per cubic foot you could keep your federal dollars.

Ha! How about just keeping an equitable share of the offshore revenues instead of states like Cali or Florida or inland states that don't even allow energy production getting a larger share, or a share at all?

Cavalry Doc
05-13-2012, 11:50
Whoah Doc. That's a helluva slippery slope.

It doesn't have to be. There is a risk benefit ratio to most things. Either you are getting your money's worth or not.

Some things government is currently doing, it has no place doing. Some of the things it does is needed and worth the cost, and some of it is worth doing but costs more than it should.

Cavalry Doc
05-13-2012, 11:51
Doc, that was an answer to post#26. Not my opinion on how or what to privatize.

Just an explanation, not a troll.:wavey:

Never thought is was a troll. My response wasn't meant to be confrontational, just a statement of my own opinion.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/CavDoc-3.gif

certifiedfunds
05-13-2012, 12:00
It doesn't have to be. There is a risk benefit ratio to most things. Either you are getting your money's worth or not.



But it is. Every time you use that measure as justification for spending you open the door to someone's perspective. That's what got us here. For instance, there are plenty of very wealthy folks who believe that welfare programs are a good value and should continue. Keeps the riff-raff quiet.


Some things government is currently doing, it has no place doing. Some of the things it does is needed and worth the cost, and some of it is worth doing but costs more than it should.

Agreed. So the measure needs to be strict Constitutional spending for the Fed, regardless of whether it is a good value.

Cavalry Doc
05-13-2012, 12:55
But it is. Every time you use that measure as justification for spending you open the door to someone's perspective. That's what got us here. For instance, there are plenty of very wealthy folks who believe that welfare programs are a good value and should continue. Keeps the riff-raff quiet.




Agreed. So the measure needs to be strict Constitutional spending for the Fed, regardless of whether it is a good value.

At this point, it would probably take a constitutional amendment to force us to pay off the debt, and to allow people to be poor. Poor is without new cars, with dirt floor homes and outhouses, no central cooling and heat, and to allow them to have what they can afford, and not much else. I'm cool with privately funded soup kitchens or meals on wheels programs to keep people from starving. But stop the insanity of the food stamp program, which is corrupt from top to bottom. Stop giving people enough money for nothing that it makes no sense for them to work.

Any person in the country should have a better life working 20 hours a week at minimum wage, than they do on welfare. Period.

certifiedfunds
05-13-2012, 13:02
At this point, it would probably take a constitutional amendment to force us to pay off the debt, and to allow people to be poor. Poor is without new cars, with dirt floor homes and outhouses, no central cooling and heat, and to allow them to have what they can afford, and not much else. I'm cool with privately funded soup kitchens or meals on wheels programs to keep people from starving. But stop the insanity of the food stamp program, which is corrupt from top to bottom. Stop giving people enough money for nothing that it makes no sense for them to work.

Any person in the country should have a better life working 20 hours a week at minimum wage, than they do on welfare. Period.

You know, history is littered with peasant uprisings. I think a lot of the elite actually support the welfare state because it keeps everything nice and stable allowing them to keep and enlarge their fortune.

If when it all gets too topheavy, they can pull a Saverin and find safe harbor just about anywhere.

Chronos
05-13-2012, 13:11
Well, the question would be whether you want me doing what I do, and whether you are getting a good deal for your money.

If the benefit is worth the cost, it's a good thing. Since the agency I work at has refused to do a salary survey in over 10 years, my salary is lower than those working in the civilian sector a few blocks away, and even lower than another government agency within a 50 mile radius, they pay the average salary in the area. But where I work needs some major fixing, and they have a deserving clientele in my opinion.

All things considered, I believe I am a bargain for the taxpayer. If the job suddenly went away, I happen to be in one of the fastest growing professions in the country, so I would be fine.

I tend to agree that a cost benefit analysis is ultimately what we want to happen, but the analysis has to be done by the payer, who can choose whether to spend the money on you or use it for a million different things which might be judged to have more benefit.

For example, you might simultaneously be the most productive pyramid-builder in Egypt, and do the job at 1/2 the going rate. What a bargain for the taxpayer, right? No, not so fast -- you first have to know whether or not the taxpayers would voluntary fund pyramid building if they could spend the money on whatever they want. If they wouldn't fund the pyramids without the threat of a sword, all you can claim is that you're wasting money at slower rate than the other people you know.

Also, it doesn't do any good to compare your job to someone in the free part of the economy (unless you're thinking about switching over). It may look like you're doing the same thing, but the similarity is superficial -- if your job supports an enterprise that wouldn't exist in a free market (due to failing the cost benefit test of the payers), you're still basically a pyramid builder.

Cavalry Doc
05-13-2012, 13:13
You know, history is littered with peasant uprisings. I think a lot of the elite actually support the welfare state because it keeps everything nice and stable allowing them to keep and enlarge their fortune.

If when it all gets too topheavy, they can pull a Saverin and find safe harbor just about anywhere.

That is a problem. I can pull up stakes, load up the truck and head to a very rural area that is defensible. It has plenty of game, water, and plowed ground to support 5 times the number of people that would be there.

Still, it's time to stop the suicidal spending. That means that most people will have to do with less than they have now. I'm even willing to have the .gov break the promises they gave me for taking a lot of chances and for the best years of my life, if everyone else had to give too.

We live in a land of opportunity. If people choose to do nothing, they should receive next to nothing. If they want to fight about it, OK, lets have that fight and be done with it.

certifiedfunds
05-13-2012, 13:16
I tend to agree that a cost benefit analysis is ultimately what we want to happen, but the analysis has to be done by the payer, who can choose whether to spend the money on you or use it for a million different things which might be judged to have more benefit.

For example, you might simultaneously be the most productive pyramid-builder in Egypt, and do the job at 1/2 the going rate. What a bargain for the taxpayer, right? No, not so fast -- you first have to know whether or not the taxpayers would voluntary fund pyramid building if they could spend the money on whatever they want. If they wouldn't fund the pyramids without the threat of a sword, all you can claim is that you're wasting money at slower rate than the other people you know.

Also, it doesn't do any good to compare your job to someone in the free part of the economy (unless you're thinking about switching over). It may look like you're doing the same thing, but the similarity is superficial -- if your job supports an enterprise that wouldn't exist in a free market (due to failing the cost benefit test of the payers), you're still basically a pyramid builder.

The problem is (and I'm not picking on Sam) you have this view from others, and many in government employment:

Sounds like you're being purposefully obtuse (sorry, can't think of a better word, but I'm not trying to be inflammatory) in this latest exchange.

Of course the gov gets it's funding and resources from individuals. That was never in question. The question you posed was in relation to the expenditure of those resources. War, as Don pointed out, is not well-managed by the private sector. From pyramids to space programs, there comes a point where the scale of a program exceeds individual capacity. Then, collective management of resources and direction of effort becomes needed. Sometimes, that includes the coercive power of government to achieve results for the common welfare.

5000 years of recorded history makes this case conclusively.

certifiedfunds
05-13-2012, 13:21
That is a problem. I can pull up stakes, load up the truck and head to a very rural area that is defensible. It has plenty of game, water, and plowed ground to support 5 times the number of people that would be there.

Still, it's time to stop the suicidal spending. That means that most people will have to do with less than they have now. I'm even willing to have the .gov break the promises they gave me for taking a lot of chances and for the best years of my life, if everyone else had to give too.

We live in a land of opportunity. If people choose to do nothing, they should receive next to nothing. If they want to fight about it, OK, lets have that fight and be done with it.

You can do that and survive but it will cost you.

To a man with 10 figures, a luxury estate in any country is suitable. His children will receive the same quality education, he will eat the finest foods, have the same or greater security and enjoy the same or greater influence. With enough wealth you can transport or create your bubble anywhere.

I agree with you, BTW. Perhaps even more strongly. I'm just pointing out an interesting but opposing view.

Cavalry Doc
05-13-2012, 13:24
I tend to agree that a cost benefit analysis is ultimately what we want to happen, but the analysis has to be done by the payer, who can choose whether to spend the money on you or use it for a million different things which might be judged to have more benefit.

For example, you might simultaneously be the most productive pyramid-builder in Egypt, and do the job at 1/2 the going rate. What a bargain for the taxpayer, right? No, not so fast -- you first have to know whether or not the taxpayers would voluntary fund pyramid building if they could spend the money on whatever they want. If they wouldn't fund the pyramids without the threat of a sword, all you can claim is that you're wasting money at slower rate than the other people you know.

Also, it doesn't do any good to compare your job to someone in the free part of the economy (unless you're thinking about switching over). It may look like you're doing the same thing, but the similarity is superficial -- if your job supports an enterprise that wouldn't exist in a free market (due to failing the cost benefit test of the payers), you're still basically a pyramid builder.

I agree absolutely. The taxpayers should be deciding where money is spent, and if they want to spend it on that. I am a taxpayer, and yesterday voted "NO" on a school bond that passed anyway, because the school district is spending like they have a blank check, instead of doing a cost/benefit analysis that any reasonable person would agree with. Have you seen some of the new schools in the Dallas area?????

Versailles is less grand than some of these places. They are palaces for teachers to feel like they are important.

In the current system, where people are entitled to certain services, I save the taxpayer money. I can't go into detail, but a $600 service delivered avoids a $37,000 to $125,000 service that would be needed if we didn't try to prevent the problem with the $600 service.

An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. The most common specific disease process I battle with kills 50,000 people a year, which is significant when you consider that only 43,000 people die in traffic accidents each year. It's cheaper to prevent the problem. It's obviously better for the patient, it is obviously better for the taxpayer, as they are already entitled, and it is better for me. I really dislike telling people they have cancer, but have to do it between one and three times a week on average.

I don't want to claim that I am speaking for my employer, so I will not name it specifically, but my clientele is one I consider deserving of care. Even though I think we could dial things back significantly and still keep the promise that was given.

Cavalry Doc
05-13-2012, 13:29
You can do that and survive but it will cost you.

To a man with 10 figures, a luxury estate in any country is suitable. His children will receive the same quality education, he will eat the finest foods, have the same or greater security and enjoy the same or greater influence. With enough wealth you can transport or create your bubble anywhere.

I agree with you, BTW. Perhaps even more strongly. I'm just pointing out an interesting but opposing view.

Check, Roger, and Hooah.

Civilian Translation: "Understood completely".

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/CavDoc-3.gif

certifiedfunds
05-13-2012, 13:35
Check, Roger, and Hooah.

Civilian Translation: "Understood completely".

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/CavDoc-3.gif

Its ok. Even shrimpers use "Roger" on the radio. :supergrin:

Cavalry Doc
05-13-2012, 13:40
Its ok. Even shrimpers use "Roger" on the radio. :supergrin:

Well then, I guess they aren't all bad.

:cool:

certifiedfunds
05-13-2012, 13:43
Doc - there are a number of folks around here with >$100MM liquid and a few billionaire owners of privately-held companies. They have a penchant for thousand acre parcels in Argentina.

Right now they're for-profit hunting lodges or farms. But a $10 or $20MM bank transfer can have suitable accommodations in place right pronto, with local connections and staff already in place.

Cavalry Doc
05-14-2012, 04:54
Doc - there are a number of folks around here with >$100MM liquid and a few billionaire owners of privately-held companies. They have a penchant for thousand acre parcels in Argentina.

Right now they're for-profit hunting lodges or farms. But a $10 or $20MM bank transfer can have suitable accommodations in place right pronto, with local connections and staff already in place.

People with stuff have places to go. They hire smart guys that can make the plans for them. I'm just a regular joe, and don't have a couple mill to spend on an escape pod. I do have a very good friend with 750 acres in a very rural spot, not on a main thoroughfare. Water, electricity (at the moment), 4 wheelers, pigs, deer, dove, rabbit, about 200 Acres is plowed land, oil and natural gas.

People without stuff, have to bug in instead of bug out. As much as people harp on police around here, the moment the police are seen as broken and ineffective, people will start showing their bad side. Not so much around here, but I would not want to live in an actual city when that happens.

Ruble Noon
05-14-2012, 15:53
I agree absolutely. The taxpayers should be deciding where money is spent, and if they want to spend it on that. I am a taxpayer, and yesterday voted "NO" on a school bond that passed anyway, because the school district is spending like they have a blank check, instead of doing a cost/benefit analysis that any reasonable person would agree with. Have you seen some of the new schools in the Dallas area?????



I have explained this to you and others before and you guy's acted like I slapped a hair lip on your momma. If your salary is derived from the government, you are not a taxpayer. That's just the way it is. You might provide a valuable service but, a taxpayer you are not.

I'll try once again.

Let's say that I live on a small island off the coast of Texas and I raise sheep on this island. The only other inhabitant on this island is Mr. State. Mr. State see's that I am losing 40 sheep per month to the wolves that are a protected species on this island. Mr. State approaches me and says that for a tax of 20 sheep per month he will keep the wolves away from my herd. I agree as this will net me 20 sheep per month. So Mr. State goes to Cavalry Doc and says I have a job for you keeping the wolves away from Mr. Noon's sheep herd. For this service I will pay you 15 sheep per month. You agree to provide this valuable service and accept. After the first month Mr. State comes around to pay you your share of the sheep. You notice that he has only brought 10 sheep with him so you inquire as to the whereabouts of the other 5 sheep. Mr. State tells you that he deducted 5 sheep from your pay in the form of income tax.

Did Cavalry Doc or Mr. State produce any sheep? No. All the sheep came from Mr. Noon's herd. You provided a service and saved some of my sheep from the wolves but you did not produce any sheep.

The government has no money. The government takes money from the private sector where all wealth is created and redistributes it. If your salary is derived from taxes all you are doing is giving some of my money back to the government or, in the case above, sheep.

Chronos
05-14-2012, 18:06
I have explained this to you and others before and you guy's acted like I slapped a hair lip on your momma. If your salary is derived from the government, you are not a taxpayer. That's just the way it is. You might provide a valuable service but, a taxpayer you are not.

I'll try once again.

Let's say that I live on a small island off the coast of Texas and I raise sheep on this island. The only other inhabitant on this island is Mr. State. Mr. State see's that I am losing 40 sheep per month to the wolves that are a protected species on this island. Mr. State approaches me and says that for a tax of 20 sheep per month he will keep the wolves away from my herd. I agree as this will net me 20 sheep per month. So Mr. State goes to Cavalry Doc and says I have a job for you keeping the wolves away from Mr. Noon's sheep herd. For this service I will pay you 15 sheep per month. You agree to provide this valuable service and accept. After the first month Mr. State comes around to pay you your share of the sheep. You notice that he has only brought 10 sheep with him so you inquire as to the whereabouts of the other 5 sheep. Mr. State tells you that he deducted 5 sheep from your pay in the form of income tax.

Did Cavalry Doc or Mr. State produce any sheep? No. All the sheep came from Mr. Noon's herd. You provided a service and saved some of my sheep from the wolves but you did not produce any sheep.

The government has no money. The government takes money from the private sector where all wealth is created and redistributes it. If your salary is derived from taxes all you are doing is giving some of my money back to the government or, in the case above, sheep.

Except that this is overly generous.

To make it a little more analogous to real life, the state would take 15 sheep, keep 5 for themselves, invest 5 in keeping the wolves away from the sheep, and then invest the remaining 5 for the breeding and protection of more wolves. The number of sheep saved from the wolves might be >15 in the first year if the government stopped it's program (due to the large number of government-bred and protected wolves), but without the government you'd figure out how to protect your sheep far more efficiently.

And finally, there would be no "agreement" necessary on your part for the government to embark on its sheep-protection program -- you would be compelled at the point of a sword to turn over the 15 sheep.

Cavalry Doc
05-14-2012, 19:13
I have explained this to you and others before and you guy's acted like I slapped a hair lip on your momma. If your salary is derived from the government, you are not a taxpayer. That's just the way it is. You might provide a valuable service but, a taxpayer you are not.

I'll try once again.

Let's say that I live on a small island off the coast of Texas and I raise sheep on this island. The only other inhabitant on this island is Mr. State. Mr. State see's that I am losing 40 sheep per month to the wolves that are a protected species on this island. Mr. State approaches me and says that for a tax of 20 sheep per month he will keep the wolves away from my herd. I agree as this will net me 20 sheep per month. So Mr. State goes to Cavalry Doc and says I have a job for you keeping the wolves away from Mr. Noon's sheep herd. For this service I will pay you 15 sheep per month. You agree to provide this valuable service and accept. After the first month Mr. State comes around to pay you your share of the sheep. You notice that he has only brought 10 sheep with him so you inquire as to the whereabouts of the other 5 sheep. Mr. State tells you that he deducted 5 sheep from your pay in the form of income tax.

Did Cavalry Doc or Mr. State produce any sheep? No. All the sheep came from Mr. Noon's herd. You provided a service and saved some of my sheep from the wolves but you did not produce any sheep.

The government has no money. The government takes money from the private sector where all wealth is created and redistributes it. If your salary is derived from taxes all you are doing is giving some of my money back to the government or, in the case above, sheep.

All money started out in other hands before it got to you.

Let's leave our Mothers out of this. It's a lot more rude than I'll go into here. And the day after mothers day. Are you having anger issues with yours?


I personally pay taxes. Some of that money might be making a loop, but it's still ME paying taxes.

In the same manner, if your employer has a pension fund, and you contribute, is it still you paying into it, after all, they gave you money so you could give it back.

But hey, if you can convince the IRS that I shouldn't be paying taxes, you will have made a new best friend. Let me know when you get that done.

Syclone538
05-15-2012, 02:24
...
I personally pay taxes. Some of that money might be making a loop, but it's still ME paying taxes.
...

Not on wages you earn from government. Any taxes you "pay", is simply less tax money that you receive.

Cavalry Doc
05-15-2012, 04:41
Not on wages you earn from government. Any taxes you "pay", is simply less tax money that you receive.

I think I'm seeing your point finally, but it is still tilted. My paying taxes may not increase total revenue, because if they were not paying me at all, more money would be in the treasury.

But if I am performing a service on contract with the .gov, it is either worth it or not. If not, the job should be eliminated.

But even when seen from that perspective, I personally still pay taxes from my income. To me, and my bank account, the taxes are getting paid. The only time I did not pay taxes, was when I was deployed to a combat zone. Hope that's not a problem.

Syclone538
05-15-2012, 08:54
I think I'm seeing your point finally, but it is still tilted. My paying taxes may not increase total revenue, because if they were not paying me at all, more money would be in the treasury.
...

It's just different ways to look at it.

...
But if I am performing a service on contract with the .gov, it is either worth it or not. If not, the job should be eliminated.
...

You say your job is worth it, and I believe you. While "worth it" is subjective, if we could get everyone to look at everything the gov does this way, I think that would be a huge step in the right direction.

...
But even when seen from that perspective, I personally still pay taxes from my income. To me, and my bank account, the taxes are getting paid. The only time I did not pay taxes, was when I was deployed to a combat zone. Hope that's not a problem.

Not a problem for me.

Cavalry Doc
05-15-2012, 10:16
Not on wages you earn from government. Any taxes you "pay", is simply less tax money that you receive.

But legally, and in the end result, I still pay taxes. If you can convince the IRS that I shouldn't be paying taxes, please let me know. If I don't pay taxes, the same thing that happens to you, happens to me. I don't have any special privileges where the IRS is concerned.

Syclone538
05-15-2012, 10:25
Like I said, It's just different ways to look at it. I think you now understand the argument made by Ruble Noon, and that was the reason I posted. You don't have to agree with it. I see both sides.

CAcop
05-15-2012, 12:55
You say your job is worth it, and I believe you. While "worth it" is subjective, if we could get everyone to look at everything the gov does this way, I think that would be a huge step in the right direction.

Worth it is not entirely subjective. There is an objective part.

Give me a job in the public sector that is absolutely needed, can't do without. Or at least can't do without unless you completely reconfigure society and their expectations.

Give me that and I can show you the objective part.

I can also show you the subjective parts.

G-19
05-15-2012, 14:57
Not on wages you earn from government. Any taxes you "pay", is simply less tax money that you receive.

So, it could be said that your employer pays your taxes. The money you earn from your employer is for providing a needed service that he requires. You pay taxes on that income with the money paid to you by your employer. So in essence he pays your taxes. Where does he get the money? From people buying his service or product. So the money still comes from the people, and you really don't pay the tax your boss does with money from the people, some of who probably are govt. workers.

Any money you pay in taxes is really just less money you actually get paid by your boss. If he did not have to pay your taxes he could pay you less and you would still receive the same amount of money at the end of the week. Of course he could just out source it to China or whoever the lowest bidder is and fire you because if he can get the work done cheaper, and he probably can, why shouldn't he.

I guess it is all in your perspective.

lancesorbenson
05-15-2012, 16:05
So, it could be said that your employer pays your taxes. The money you earn from your employer is for providing a needed service that he requires. You pay taxes on that income with the money paid to you by your employer. So in essence he pays your taxes. Where does he get the money? From people buying his service or product. So the money still comes from the people, and you really don't pay the tax your boss does with money from the people, some of who probably are govt. workers.

Any money you pay in taxes is really just less money you actually get paid by your boss. If he did not have to pay your taxes he could pay you less and you would still receive the same amount of money at the end of the week. Of course he could just out source it to China or whoever the lowest bidder is and fire you because if he can get the work done cheaper, and he probably can, why shouldn't he.

I guess it is all in your perspective.

Can you not even conceive of what it means to be self-employed?

Ruble Noon
05-15-2012, 16:09
All money started out in other hands before it got to you.

Let's leave our Mothers out of this. It's a lot more rude than I'll go into here. And the day after mothers day. Are you having anger issues with yours?


I personally pay taxes. Some of that money might be making a loop, but it's still ME paying taxes.

In the same manner, if your employer has a pension fund, and you contribute, is it still you paying into it, after all, they gave you money so you could give it back.

But hey, if you can convince the IRS that I shouldn't be paying taxes, you will have made a new best friend. Let me know when you get that done.

I didn't insult your mother although, you act like I did and when I explain who actually pays all the taxes you act like I called you a leech or a parasite when I have not although the relationship between public sector and private sector could be aptly described as symbiotic.

I think I'm seeing your point finally, but it is still tilted. My paying taxes may not increase total revenue, because if they were not paying me at all, more money would be in the treasury.

But if I am performing a service on contract with the .gov, it is either worth it or not. If not, the job should be eliminated.

But even when seen from that perspective, I personally still pay taxes from my income. To me, and my bank account, the taxes are getting paid. The only time I did not pay taxes, was when I was deployed to a combat zone. Hope that's not a problem.

It's really pretty damned simple, I bake the pie and you eat it. It has nothing to do with the worth of your service and everything to do with who produces. I produce money and profits while you consume them. Yes, you may provide a valuable service but a gun is held to my head forcing me to pay for your service. If you understand that the government has no money until they confiscate it from the private sector it should be relatively simple to extrapolate that the private sector pays for the whole shebang. Without me producing and the value of my labor being confiscated there would be nothing to pay you with.
I used to think that it was imperative that people understand, especially those in the public sector, where money came from and who actually paid for everything. Sadly, it is no longer necessary to explain this to people as America's chickens are coming home to roost and they are bringing austerity with them.

Ruble Noon
05-15-2012, 16:11
So, it could be said that your employer pays your taxes. The money you earn from your employer is for providing a needed service that he requires. You pay taxes on that income with the money paid to you by your employer. So in essence he pays your taxes. Where does he get the money? From people buying his service or product. So the money still comes from the people, and you really don't pay the tax your boss does with money from the people, some of who probably are govt. workers.

Any money you pay in taxes is really just less money you actually get paid by your boss. If he did not have to pay your taxes he could pay you less and you would still receive the same amount of money at the end of the week. Of course he could just out source it to China or whoever the lowest bidder is and fire you because if he can get the work done cheaper, and he probably can, why shouldn't he.

I guess it is all in your perspective.

He produces a profit for his employer or he would not have a job. A totally foreign concept to public servants.

certifiedfunds
05-15-2012, 16:41
Can you not even conceive of what it means to be self-employed?

No. The training was successful.

certifiedfunds
05-15-2012, 16:44
So, it could be said that your employer pays your taxes. The money you earn from your employer is for providing a needed service that he requires. You pay taxes on that income with the money paid to you by your employer. So in essence he pays your taxes. Where does he get the money? From people buying his service or product. So the money still comes from the people, and you really don't pay the tax your boss does with money from the people, some of who probably are govt. workers.

Any money you pay in taxes is really just less money you actually get paid by your boss. If he did not have to pay your taxes he could pay you less and you would still receive the same amount of money at the end of the week. Of course he could just out source it to China or whoever the lowest bidder is and fire you because if he can get the work done cheaper, and he probably can, why shouldn't he.

I guess it is all in your perspective.

It's is ok for someone to be utterly clueless about the most basic economics but it isn't wise to parade it out in public.

certifiedfunds
05-15-2012, 16:53
A private employer hires a worker for one reason and one reason only.

It isn't because he needs a task or service performed. It IS because the employer can make a margin on his head.

Profit. Wealth is produced in the transaction.

The employer is further tasked with making the best use of his capital.

NONE of the above occurs with public employees. In that case government has simply decided it needs a service performed. There is no profit. No margin. And generally no judicious use of resources.

G-19
05-15-2012, 17:33
Can you not even conceive of what it means to be self-employed?

Not everyone is self employed. Do you have employees? If so you are paying their taxes and yours. However, you still have to depend on others to pay for your service or product so you can pay those taxes. Unless you make your own Money.

So in reality it is just a vicious circle. People work to make money. They then buy products or services, which are provided by others that work to earn money to buy products and services, and they all pay their taxes with money that was earned by others that paid for said products and services. Unless you are completely using a barter system, money must change hands for products/services, and that money pays the bills and taxes.

Unfortunately, some get wrapped up in their own self importance/wealth they forget where that wealth comes from, and how it actually was created. No man could earn money if it was not for the other people in society.

Syclone538
05-15-2012, 17:34
...
Any money you pay in taxes is really just less money you actually get paid by your boss.
...

No, the taxes I pay do not go back to my boss.

G-19
05-15-2012, 17:45
No, the taxes I pay do not go back to my boss.

In a way they do. Some how some where some body is buying that product or service with tax money. It might not be on a grand scale but it does happen.

certifiedfunds
05-15-2012, 18:03
Not everyone is self employed. Do you have employees? If so you are paying their taxes and yours. However, you still have to depend on others to pay for your service or product so you can pay those taxes. Unless you make your own Money.

So in reality it is just a vicious circle. People work to make money. They then buy products or services, which are provided by others that work to earn money to buy products and services, and they all pay their taxes with money that was earned by others that paid for said products and services. Unless you are completely using a barter system, money must change hands for products/services, and that money pays the bills and taxes.

Unfortunately, some get wrapped up in their own self importance/wealth they forget where that wealth comes from, and how it actually was created. No man could earn money if it was not for the other people in society.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:You've illustrated here very clearly that you are the one who has no idea. Good lord.....You're trying to sound educated on the subject, wise and informed but to those here who actually know what we're talking about you're just digging a deeper hole:rofl:

The drug dealers in your pen understand this stuff better than you.

G-19
05-15-2012, 18:04
It's is ok for someone to be utterly clueless about the most basic economics but it isn't wise to parade it out in public.

You got me, I never took an economics class. However, it is pretty common sense how it works. People pay for products/services that others provide to make a profit. If those people don't buy the product the company goes broke, the company can not make a profit without a consumer. If there is no demand there is no sense in making the supply. So as I see it people get all smug about their wealth, thinking they did it by themselves and it just ain't possible. Even a lottery winner had to get the money for the ticket somewhere.

The worst are the ones that got rich from the stock market. They forget they or their parents had to work for the money they started investing with. They forget that to make a profit from those investments someone had to make a product or provide a service and people had to buy the same. The money did not magically appear just because they spoke it up.

So your argument about govt. workers is ridiculous. You may not care for or want the service that govt. supplies but others do, and regardless if you agree or not their wants and desires are just as important as yours. To bad for you the ones who do want that said service out number you. Being wealthy does not make your opinion any better than the guy slinging burgers at McDs or the guy who holds a govt. job.

I know this may hurt your feelings but money don't make you special or important.

Skyhook
05-15-2012, 18:06
No, the taxes I pay do not go back to my boss.

Where did those lost billions come from that Obama threw at favorite companies & people like monkeys fling poop?

Somma dat was yours, citizen.

certifiedfunds
05-15-2012, 18:07
You got me, I never took an economics class. However, it is pretty common sense how it works. People pay for products/services that others provide to make a profit. If those people don't buy the product the company goes broke, the company can not make a profit without a consumer. If there is no demand there is no sense in making the supply. So as I see it people get all smug about their wealth, thinking they did it by themselves and it just ain't possible. Even a lottery winner had to get the money for the ticket somewhere.

The worst are the ones that got rich from the stock market. They forget they or their parents had to work for the money they started investing with. They forget that to make a profit from those investments someone had to make a product or provide a service and people had to buy the same. The money did not magically appear just because they spoke it up.

So your argument about govt. workers is ridiculous. You may not care for or want the service that govt. supplies but others do, and regardless if you agree or not their wants and desires are just as important as yours. To bad for you the ones who do want that said service out number you. Being wealthy does not make your opinion any better than the guy slinging burgers at McDs or the guy who holds a govt. job.

I know this may hurt your feelings but money don't make you special or important.

Deeper and deeper and deeper................:rofl:
You really should spend some time reading up on wealth creation.

G-19
05-15-2012, 18:12
He produces a profit for his employer or he would not have a job. A totally foreign concept to public servants.

No, he provides a service. It is the guy who writes the check to his boss who provides the profit. Finding the guy to write the check is a service.

I know it may be hard to swallow, but you are just an employee providing a service. I don't doubt you may be good at the service you provide, but facts are facts.

certifiedfunds
05-15-2012, 18:14
No, he provides a service. It is the guy who writes the check to his boss who provides the profit. Finding the guy to write the check is a service.

I know it may be hard to swallow, but you are just an employee providing a service. I don't doubt you may be good at the service you provide, but facts are facts.

Look Skippy. I own a business. When we hire a new employee it is 100% purely and simply because we can make more money by hiring her than we pay her.

Period.

End of story.

G-19
05-15-2012, 18:15
Deeper and deeper and deeper................:rofl:
You really should spend some time reading up on wealth creation.

It is funny to see people who may be book smart, be so out of touch.

Like I said I might not know all the fancy words, but the gist is pretty simple. Don't let your inflated ego blind you to the simple truths.

Cavalry Doc
05-15-2012, 18:15
You got me, I never took an economics class. However, it is pretty common sense how it works. People pay for products/services that others provide to make a profit. If those people don't buy the product the company goes broke, the company can not make a profit without a consumer. If there is no demand there is no sense in making the supply. So as I see it people get all smug about their wealth, thinking they did it by themselves and it just ain't possible. Even a lottery winner had to get the money for the ticket somewhere.

The worst are the ones that got rich from the stock market. They forget they or their parents had to work for the money they started investing with. They for get that to make a profit from those investments someone had to make a product or provide a service and people had to buy the same. The money did not magically appear just because they spoke it up.

So your argument about govt. workers is ridiculous. You may not care for or want the service that govt. supplies but others do, and regardless if you agree or not their wants and desires are just as important as yours. To bad for you the ones who do want that said service out number you. Being wealthy does not make your opinion any better than the guy slinging burgers at McDs or the guy who holds a govt. job.

I know this may hurt your feelings but money don't make you special or important.

The entire concept of money is a man made concept. Work is given a value, and an amount of money is assigned. It becomes a traded commodity. Once that commodity can be traded, it is wagered upon, and people get ahead or behind based on wagers.

The phrase "money is the root of all evil" has some credence.

We all do stuff for money, the made up concept.

Oh well, I do stuff I consider important, and someone pays me for it. It's still a lot even if it is about 10% below the average. If that system breaks down, I could easily switch to working for chickens and take care of myself. Being prepared to switch to a barter system is a good plan.

certifiedfunds
05-15-2012, 18:18
The entire concept of money is a man made concept. Work is given a value, and an amount of money is assigned. It becomes a traded commodity. Once that commodity can be traded, it is wagered upon, and people get ahead or behind based on wagers.

The phrase "money is the root of all evil" has some credence.

We all do stuff for money, the made up concept.

Oh well, I do stuff I consider important, and someone pays me for it. It's still a lot even if it is about 10% below the average. If that system breaks down, I could easily switch to working for chickens and take care of myself. Being prepared to switch to a barter system is a good plan.

Doc - couple things:

1. Money is not the root of all evil. Money makes wonderful things possible.

2. Who ever said the work you do isn't important? I think it is.

certifiedfunds
05-15-2012, 18:19
It is funny to see people who may be book smart, be so out of touch.

Like I said I might not know all the fancy words, but the gist is pretty simple. Don't let your inflated ego blind you to the simple truths.

You're "gist" is patently WRONG. You don't know the fancy words and you don't have an understanding of the principles or concepts.

G-19
05-15-2012, 18:19
Look Skippy. I own a business. When we hire a new employee it is 100% purely and simply because we can make more money by hiring her than we pay her.

Period.

End of story.

Oh, I thought you were a big time salesman, that they begged you to come back. Now you own your own business. I think you got you screen names mixed up. Ruble noon just hinted that he was self employed (I assume that means he has his own business). You need to be more careful when posting, people might find out you are posting under different names, just to have someone agree with you. :-)

Ruble Noon
05-15-2012, 18:20
So as I see it people get all smug about their wealth, thinking they did it by themselves and it just ain't possible.

See, that is your problem. You are jealous of those who have made it on their own and you are resentful of the fact that your survival comes from the produce of another. You have no pride because you do not produce and have no measure of self worth.
I know how you feel. I broke my wrist in 3 places about 10 years ago, set it myself BTW, and had to rely on my wife to button my shirts, pants and tie my shoes. I couldn't stand being a burden on someone for 6 weeks and here you are, a burden to the taxpayers for your whole life. I don't see how you can look at yourself in the mirror of a morning, I know I couldn't.

certifiedfunds
05-15-2012, 18:20
Oh, I thought you were a big time salesman, that they begged you to come back. Now you own your own business. I think you got you screen names mixed up. Ruble noon just hinted that he was self employed (I assume that means he has his own business). You need to be more careful when posting people might find out you are posting under different names, just to have someone agree with you. :-)

Both...hard to comprehend, huh?

G-19
05-15-2012, 18:21
Certified funds = Ruble Noon

G-19
05-15-2012, 18:23
The entire concept of money is a man made concept. Work is given a value, and an amount of money is assigned. It becomes a traded commodity. Once that commodity can be traded, it is wagered upon, and people get ahead or behind based on wagers.

The phrase "money is the root of all evil" has some credence.

We all do stuff for money, the made up concept.

Oh well, I do stuff I consider important, and someone pays me for it. It's still a lot even if it is about 10% below the average. If that system breaks down, I could easily switch to working for chickens and take care of myself. Being prepared to switch to a barter system is a good plan.

Agreed

Ruble Noon
05-15-2012, 18:24
Oh well, I do stuff I consider important, and someone pays me for it.

Having somewhat of an idea as to what you do, I would agree that you provide a valuable service. Producing wealth and providing services are two different critters though.

Ruble Noon
05-15-2012, 18:27
Certified funds = Ruble Noon

No, he's in Louisiana and I'm in Kansas. I do have a brother that I haven't kept track of though. Maybe CF is him.
CF, did you grow up in Kansas?

G-19
05-15-2012, 18:27
See, that is your problem. You are jealous of those who have made it on their own and you are resentful of the fact that your survival comes from the produce of another. You have no pride because you do not produce and have no measure of self worth.
I know how you feel. I broke my wrist in 3 places about 10 years ago, set it myself BTW, and had to rely on my wife to button my shirts, pants and tie my shoes. I couldn't stand being a burden on someone for 6 weeks and here you are, a burden to the taxpayers for your whole life. I don't see how you can look at yourself in the mirror of a morning, I know I couldn't.

I could never be jealous of anyone. I am not the type. Especially of people like you. I am happy with my life, I can tell by your posts you are a miserable human being. I actually kind of feel pity for you.

G-19
05-15-2012, 18:29
No, he's in Louisiana and I'm in Kansas. I do have a brother that I haven't kept track of though. Maybe CF is him.
CF, did you grow up in Kansas?

Oh, of course. Since you said that.






Hahaha

certifiedfunds
05-15-2012, 18:30
No, he's in Louisiana and I'm in Kansas. I do have a brother that I haven't kept track of though. Maybe CF is him.
CF, did you grow up in Kansas?

WTF? Me a Yankee? Paleeeeze :rofl:

certifiedfunds
05-15-2012, 18:30
I could never be jealous of anyone. I am not the type. Especially of people like you. I am happy with my life, I can tell by your posts you are a miserable human being. I actually kind of feel pity for you.

Oh, trust me. You'd be jealous.

Cavalry Doc
05-15-2012, 18:35
Doc - couple things:

1. Money is not the root of all evil. Money makes wonderful things possible.

2. Who ever said the work you do isn't important? I think it is.

Money is a tool. Just like a hammer, you can build or destroy things with it.

Evidently, I am eating pie that others have baked, and that is it. I have some minor problems with that perspective, but I can see how others would see it that way.

Whether we like or not, in the current system, people get more or less depending on their choices.

The current system is not sustainable. I still contribute some to my TSP. I do pretty well putting that into the G Fund when stocks are high, and moving that into stocks when the market crashes. Buy low, sell high. But if it all changed suddenly, and an EMP erased all accounts, I would do fine either way. We have to consider the potential possibilities. Be good to your neighbors, and be ready to do what you need to do to take care of your family.

Be prepared for the system to continue, and be prepared for it to crash. Anything else would be irresponsible.

G-19
05-15-2012, 18:40
Oh, trust me. You'd be jealous.

It is sad you think money equals happiness. I really am starting to take pity on you.

G-19
05-15-2012, 18:43
Both...hard to comprehend, huh?

You now own your own business and work for someone as a big time salesman, and yet you seem to be on GTPI 24 hours a day.


:)

lancesorbenson
05-15-2012, 18:45
I could never be jealous of anyone. I am not the type. Especially of people like you. I am happy with my life, I can tell by your posts you are a miserable human being. I actually kind of feel pity for you.

Ah, the old "I pity you" card. Immediately preceded by the dual account/one person accusation. Both pretty silly and irrelevant. I'm waiting to hear more about this bizarre economic worldview you hold in which no one actually produces profit.

Ruble Noon
05-15-2012, 19:01
Evidently, I am eating pie that others have baked, and that is it. I have some minor problems with that perspective, but I can see how others would see it that way.



It's not just you Doc.

Think about this and how it is all paid for.

Police, fire, prison, court system and its employees, welfare, clinics for the needy, library, schools, city road, sewer, water, maintenance departments, all the county employees and state employees and their healthcare and retirements. Add to that all the federal employees. Now we are using tax dollars to lure new businesses and prop up existing ones. Yes, you contribute your taxes to fund this but ultimately this and more is all funded by the private sector, a private sector that is contracting while the public sector is expanding.

Cavalry Doc
05-15-2012, 19:05
Having somewhat of an idea as to what you do, I would agree that you provide a valuable service. Producing wealth and providing services are two different critters though.

Macro vs. Micro. To me personally, it creates wealth. To the country as a whole, it saves money too. To the people that service is provided too, it is invaluable.

My main job is to stop cancer. We can prevent most of it. If it occurs, we can cure it 2/3 of the time. If we don't screen for it, 1 in 20 will get it. The screening costs $600. The discovery at stage 1, which would not occur without screening because there are no symptoms, would be $37,000. At stage 4, which would be the norm without screening, it costs $125,000. The screening stops 90% of it from happening. 120 screening exams a week, 1.36 will have cancer, 50% will have precancerous lesions that are removed, preventing the development of cancer. 60 people a week receive preventative treatment. I won't lie. I have a personal stake in this. I really hate telling people they have cancer. It sucks arse doing that. And this week, I'm above average. It's Tuesday, and I've told three people they have cancer this week, one is terminal and beyond help, one probably has 6 months to 2 years to live, and the other has a 50/50 chance of beating it. I hate that stuff. They always hate it more. But by preventing it, it is a win-win-win situation. The population I care for is entitled to that care. I consider them deserving, based on the price they have paid prior to asking for the care.

The cost benefit analysis is in favor of the patient and the taxpayer. I'm happy to be of service. Oh well, I guess we all live in our own little microcosm.

Cavalry Doc
05-15-2012, 19:17
It's not just you Doc.

Think about this and how it is all paid for.

Police, fire, prison, court system and its employees, welfare, clinics for the needy, library, schools, city road, sewer, water, maintenance departments, all the county employees and state employees and their healthcare and retirements. Add to that all the federal employees. Now we are using tax dollars to lure new businesses and prop up existing ones. Yes, you contribute your taxes to fund this but ultimately this and more is all funded by the private sector, a private sector that is contracting while the public sector is expanding.

If the system were perfect, you would receive the services you want, and the rest would be eliminated. Unfortunately, there are 350,000,000 of us out there, and about half of them have no end of hear tax liability.

I had an end of year tax liability. Sucks all around from my view.

G-19
05-15-2012, 19:22
Ah, the old "I pity you" card. Immediately preceded by the dual account/one person accusation. Both pretty silly and irrelevant. I'm waiting to hear more about this bizarre economic worldview you hold in which no one actually produces profit.

Where did I say no one made a profit? I said that no one makes it magically. All profit comes from the work and money of other people in some way. It really is not hard to understand.

G-19
05-15-2012, 19:39
If the system were perfect, you would receive the services you want, and the rest would be eliminated. Unfortunately, there are 350,000,000 of us out there, and about half of them have no end of hear tax liability.

I had an end of year tax liability. Sucks all around from my view.

Doc, I agree. There are a lot out there that don't pay any taxes (and some of them are considered rich) and some that even make money on tax day. There should be a fixed tax based on income. No refunds, no loop holes. I would say 5% on 30k or less, 10% on 31K to 50K, 15% on 51K to 100K, 20% on 101K to 250K, 25% on 251K to 1mill, 30% on anything over a mill.

This would be applied to all earnings no matter how they were achieved. The only exclusion would be inheritances, they have already been taxed, but any future gains from that inheritance would be subject to to the fixed tax rate.

Some will say this is not fair, but at least everyone has skin in the game.

Cavalry Doc
05-15-2012, 19:49
Doc, I agree. There are a lot out there that don't pay any taxes (and some of them are considered rich) and some that even make money on tax day. There should be a fixed tax based on income. No refunds, no loop holes. I would say 5% on 30k or less, 10% on 31K to 50K, 15% on 51K to 100K, 20% on 101K to 250K, 25% on 251K to 1mill, 30% on anything over a mill.

This would be applied to all earnings no matter how they were achieved. The only exclusion would be inheritances, they have already been taxed, but any future gains from that inheritance would be subject to to the fixed tax rate.

Some will say this is not fair, but at least everyone has skin in the game.

I'm OK with 18% flat income tax, no loopholes, no deductions, applies to all entities. The number is negotiable.

I'd be OK with a consumption tax too, just make it the same for all.

There were a lot of things about the 9-9-9 plan that made sense.

G-19
05-15-2012, 19:53
I'm OK with 18% flat income tax, no loopholes, no deductions, applies to all entities. The number is negotiable.

I'd be OK with a consumption tax too, just make it the same for all.

There were a lot of things about the 9-9-9 plan that made sense.

Yeah, I kind of liked the 9-9-9 plan also.

What is funny is that some on here dog me out for my job and even claim that I pay no taxes. What they don't understand is that I am married and my wife makes a nice income so our combined income is very nice. So, yeah we also have a year end tax burden. Heck, the 18% you like would save me money.

certifiedfunds
05-15-2012, 20:02
You now own your own business and work for someone as a big time salesman, and yet you seem to be on GTPI 24 hours a day.


:)

Yes. You are correct on all counts.

I carry a macbook air with 4GLTE, Iphone4 and an Ipad II. There is never a dull moment.

certifiedfunds
05-15-2012, 20:03
Ah, the old "I pity you" card. Immediately preceded by the dual account/one person accusation. Both pretty silly and irrelevant. I'm waiting to hear more about this bizarre economic worldview you hold in which no one actually produces profit.

Liberal worship at the altar of government.

certifiedfunds
05-15-2012, 20:06
Where did I say no one made a profit? I said that no one makes it magically. All profit comes from the work and money of other people in some way. It really is not hard to understand.

No. It doesn't.

Cavalry Doc
05-15-2012, 20:07
Yes. You are correct on all counts.

I carry a macbook air with 4GLTE, Iphone4 and an Ipad II. There is never a dull moment.

Hmmm. Ditto, Just one apple product though.

certifiedfunds
05-15-2012, 20:19
I'm really interested in your plan. Mind if I ask some simple questions?

Doc, I agree. There are a lot out there that don't pay any taxes (and some of them are considered rich)

A rich person who doesn't pay taxes? Can you introduce me to one? Provide a link to one? Can you explain to me how a rich person avoids paying any taxes?

and some that even make money on tax day. There should be a fixed tax based on income.

Why not the same dollar amount for every citizen with equal rights and priviliges? Why should my income be any business whatsoever of the government's?

No refunds, no loop holes. I would say 5% on 30k or less, 10% on 31K to 50K, 15% on 51K to 100K, 20% on 101K to 250K, 25% on 251K to 1mill, 30% on anything over a mill.



How very Progressive. The 2nd Plank of the Communist Manifesto. You're cutting my taxes by 5%. I have to ask how you came up with these percentages?

This would be applied to all earnings no matter how they were achieved.

Sounds well thought out. Can you elaborate a bit as to how taxing long term capital gains at 30% will affect the capital markets and the consequences to middle America, their retirement plans and their job opportunities?

The only exclusion would be inheritances, they have already been taxed, but any future gains from that inheritance would be subject to to the fixed tax rate.


So, if someone inherits a million dollars, how are you going to track the profit that million dollars vs any other money they might have already had?

Some will say this is not fair, but at least everyone has skin in the game.

Why shouldn't we all have the exact same skin in the game?

How about we take the annual budget, divide it by the number of citizens of majority age and that = your tax bill? How is that not the epitome of fairness?

Ruble Noon
05-15-2012, 20:30
How about we take the annual budget, divide it by the number of citizens of majority age and that = your tax bill? How is that not the epitome of fairness?

How about dividing the federal budget equally between the people that do all the spending? They spent it so they should pay for it. Sounds fair to me.

lancesorbenson
05-15-2012, 20:31
Where did I say no one made a profit? I said that no one makes it magically. All profit comes from the work and money of other people in some way. It really is not hard to understand.

You sound like a commie. My customers pay me voluntarily. I spent my money, time, and effort to offer something they are willing to me for, of their own volition. If I am inefficient or wrong-headed on a deal I lose money, time, and effort because I failed to understand the market. The profits do not just come from other people but are a function of what I do. Nothing about the above dynamic can be applied to government employees because they're salaries are derived from the people assuming risk in the private sector.

If you're simply saying that I have to offer something the market wants and is willing to pay for well, duh. But I think you're still trying to make the argument the public employment and private employment are the same. They're not.

Just_plinking
05-15-2012, 21:20
What does the Government do better than the public? Get away with it.

certifiedfunds
05-15-2012, 21:29
It is sad you think money equals happiness. I really am starting to take pity on you.

Don't.

I have a very nice existence with a beautiful young family, engaging work, good health and a great set of friends.

Naelbis
05-16-2012, 00:00
So much emotional hyperbole in this thread...:upeyes:. Everyone hates taxes, everyone thinks someone else should pay more and they should pay less, such is human nature. Either way you argue it you still have to deal with what is while you try to convice enough people to support your idea of what should be. This is the cost of living in a large society. I consider myself a taxpayer, some consider me a tax leech but either way I operate within the confines of current tax laws.

I work for my local government providing a service that the people of my county have demanded and I am ok with that. If I ask for more money and they say no, I am free to find a different job. If I ask for more and their elected representatives say yes then they obviously feel I am worth it. If the local voters feel otherwise they are free to change their elected officials to reflect that. It works pretty well for the most part because it is local, I freely admit that it doesn't work as well on a national scale. :dunno:

janice6
05-16-2012, 00:04
You can screw yourself but the Government does a much better job at it.

Ruble Noon
05-16-2012, 05:03
So much emotional hyperbole in this thread...:upeyes:. Everyone hates taxes, everyone thinks someone else should pay more and they should pay less, such is human nature. Either way you argue it you still have to deal with what is while you try to convice enough people to support your idea of what should be. This is the cost of living in a large society. I consider myself a taxpayer, some consider me a tax leech but either way I operate within the confines of current tax laws.

I work for my local government providing a service that the people of my county have demanded and I am ok with that. If I ask for more money and they say no, I am free to find a different job. If I ask for more and their elected representatives say yes then they obviously feel I am worth it. If the local voters feel otherwise they are free to change their elected officials to reflect that. It works pretty well for the most part because it is local, I freely admit that it doesn't work as well on a national scale. :dunno:

Your salary is derived from taxing your neighbor. Where does the money that you pay in taxes come from?

Naelbis
05-16-2012, 05:45
Your salary is derived from taxing your neighbor. Where does the money that you pay in taxes come from?
From the salary I get paid to provide the services the citizens of my county request. I believe that I made it quite clear that I consider it a matter of perspective and opinion.

Cavalry Doc
05-16-2012, 05:55
Your salary is derived from taxing your neighbor. Where does the money that you pay in taxes come from?

The taxation is a step removed. The salary is derived from an agreement between the employee and employer, to trade work for money.

The money does come from taxes, which most of us agree don't need to go any higher, and should probably be overhauled all together.

You can't fix this from the back end. You cannot chastise public employees into quitting their jobs because you get taxed. So do they, and the pain they feel at tax time writing that check is the same pain you feel.

Sequestration should happen, and they should probably double down on it. Cut every thing 20% for a year. Not just take 20% off of the proposed increase, but cut it all 20%.

If we survive, we could decide what was really important.


But that's not likely to happen. The gravy train will continue to roll on printed money until it can't roll any more.

certifiedfunds
05-16-2012, 18:09
From the salary I get paid to provide the services the citizens of my county request.

Correct

I believe that I made it quite clear that I consider it a matter of perspective and opinion. Incorrect. It isn't perspective and opinion. These are facts.