Is Supply Side a way to force Austerity in Kansas? (1 Viewer)

[Henrin]

It's really very simple. You live in the U.S.A, it has local, state and federal governments, you enjoy the benefit those various levels of government provide, and by accepting the benefits (which you do by living and working here) you have consented to our laws, including our tax laws. They're not optional. Society doesn't work that way. Don't like it? Delta is ready when you are - one way trips all over the world!

It is really, really sad that you learned with your first job that you have to PAY for the public roads you used to get to your first job, probably after you left your public school, and the way those are paid for is with non-optional taxes! What's a mystery to me is why someone who is old enough to work is surprised to learn that public services aren't free and they're not funded with the equivalent of a collection plate where we put in as much or as little as we want.

It's also very, very sad that the government doesn't give us this checklist and we can pick which laws we like and will follow and which we don't like and can ignore, like SS. I'm kind of bummed my taxes go to our ME adventures - $trillions. Seems like a waste, but I learned as a kid a couple of things - 1) you can't always get what you want, and 2) it's not all about me.

Society is government now? Interesting. So how is society government? If I'm part of society and government is society then wouldn't that logic mean that I'm part of government? When did this happen? I don't recall ever getting hired by the government to do anything. If I am in fact part of government then I should be getting paid. According to your logic I should probably consider taking the government to court for not paying me. Wow, I wonder how much they owe me.

I would love to know how living here is consent to anything, which of course you haven't said other than to say that it is. I would also love to know how getting services that I don't want means that I consented to pay for those services, which of course you haven't told me either. I would lastly like to know why the government deserves a cut of my earnings when they were clearly not part of the employment agreement.

 

[JasperL]

So how do you know those people agreed to pay for those services? It seems to me that you have a system build on generations of forcing people to pay for it. You're talking like you can bank on the prior generations as if you have proof of their agreement. If they were forced against their will and the generation now is forced against their will then all you really have is a service that exists due to what amounts to robbery. The whole thing doesn't even have a starting point of legitimacy.

My basic problem with libertarianism is I have no idea what you think the alternative is. When you drive on the interstate, why in the world do you think you have an OPTION about paying for the taxes that fund it? I know you'd prefer the 'market' build roads and you pay a corporation or individual a fee for its use, but that just objectively is NOT the system we have. Now what should society do to accommodate your feelings on the matter, your preferences?

 

[Henrin]

Walmart should use the governments model. You didn't agree to buy mayonnaise, but you still agreed to pay for it by shopping at our wonderful store! Every time people shop at wal-mart random stuff will be on the receipt that wasn't purchased. lol

 

[Winston]

See, respectfully, I would tend to see that as dishonest, because it is inaccurate, and deliberately so in order to create a presumption in favor of ever larger spending increases.

Say, for example, that the GOP realizes in June they are going to lose the House. So, they need something in 2020.

Easy fix: put an additional $100 bn in the defense budget scheduled for fiscal year 2020. Everyone knows it's ridiculous and won't get picked up by the Democrats. When the Democrats simply then maintain the actual defense budget OUR HERO SOLDIERS DIED IN SYRIA AND INNOCENT MOTHERS AND CHILDREN DIED IN [insert recent terror attack] BECAUSE NAIVE PEACENIK DEMOCRATS BRUTALLY SLASHED THE FUNDS GOING TO PROTECT OUR SERVICEMEMBERS BY $100 BILLION DOLLARS!!!!!!!!!!!

Etc. And so forth. It's a way to only ever ratchet the growth rate of spending up.


Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

Well, education should be tied to population growth and inflation, which has remained low. Still, I think it's commonly accepted in DC that if you don't get the % increase you were expecting it is a cut. As for the chess matches that play out in the Senate commitees and the rhetoric that gets crafted around them, I'll leave that to our esteemed legislative branch.

 

[JasperL]

Society is government now? Interesting. So how is society government? If I'm part of society and government is society then wouldn't that logic mean that I'm part of government? When did this happen? I don't recall ever getting hired by the government to do anything. If I am in fact part of government then I should be getting paid. According to your logic I should probably consider taking the government to court for not paying me. Wow, I wonder how much they owe me.

I would love to know how living here is consent to anything, which of course you haven't said other than to say that it is. I would also love to know how getting services that I don't want means that I consented to pay for those services, which of course you haven't told me either. I would lastly like to know why the government deserves a cut of my earnings when they were clearly not part of the employment agreement.

See my previous response. I don't know what to tell you. It's not about you - the world does not revolve around you. We cannot have a government that bends to your will and does exactly what you want and only what you want. So I really have no idea what you expect, other than the ability as a free person to leave and try your luck in some other country with a government and a society that is more to your liking, which you CAN DO. Millions from this country and many others do it every single year.

 

[iguanaman]

Do you even realize that people that renounce their citizenship are not free from US law? What is even the point of bringing it up here? You should do your research before suggesting courses of action be taken.

Not only that all societies demand a contribution (which you cal thievery) so you really need to find that deserted Island. There at least you wouldn't be a deadbeat since you are not sponging off society.

 

[Henrin]

Not only that all societies demand a contribution (which you cal thievery) so you really need to find that deserted Island. There at least you wouldn't be a deadbeat since you are not sponging off society.

Don't you support welfare? How can you be against people sponging off society when that's a thing you support? Hell, I bet you even support pensions even if those people aren't working.

 

[iguanaman]

Or that they are not rich enough as an individual since painting every "rich" person as a Bill Gates is not accurate.

Then they need to stop whining while benefiting from the society they feel are thieves. Money is no good on a deserted Island anyway.

 

[Henrin]

See my previous response. I don't know what to tell you. It's not about you - the world does not revolve around you. We cannot have a government that bends to your will and does exactly what you want and only what you want. So I really have no idea what you expect, other than the ability as a free person to leave and try your luck in some other country with a government and a society that is more to your liking, which you CAN DO. Millions from this country and many others do it every single year.

My property revolves around me and my desires. In fact, that's kind of the point.

 

[JasperL]

Currently working on leaving dodge.

Great. I wish you the best of luck!

 

[iguanaman]

Don't you support welfare? How can you be against people sponging off society when that's a thing you support? Hell, I bet you even support pensions even if those people aren't working.

I don't support whining babies who have no clue about what they receive as a result of their taxes. Living on deserted island for a year would do wonders for your understanding. And remember that those in the highest tax brackets get so much more. They get to profit off of others work. That's a luxury only the chosen ones in a society receive and some of them complain the loudest about their taxes.

 

[Henrin]

I don't support whining babies who have no clue about what they receive as a result of their taxes. Living on deserted island for a year would do wonders for your understanding.

Whiny babies? You mean people that are complaining public education funds are being cut? Oh, my kids won't be able to be educated with money the government stole!

Oh wait, maybe you mean the whiny babies that want poor people be taken care of and don't have the decency to not steal to reach that goal. Oh right, it won't be reached if government doesn't take peoples property to do it. I mean, if you don't support government welfare then you obviously want people to die in the streets.

 

[JasperL]

My property revolves around me and my desires. In fact, that's kind of the point.

That's great and all but I'm not sure what you propose as an alternative. Go Galt maybe?

 

[Winston]

My basic problem with libertarianism is I have no idea what you think the alternative is. When you drive on the interstate, why in the world do you think you have an OPTION about paying for the taxes that fund it? I know you'd prefer the 'market' build roads and you pay a corporation or individual a fee for its use, but that just objectively is NOT the system we have. Now what should society do to accommodate your feelings on the matter, your preferences?

My basic problem with libertarianism is I think capitalism is inherently self-destructive.

 

[JasperL]

Was that the intent at the time, or did they think the revenue would come through?

Never underestimate the ability of people in government to be incompetent to the tasks we expect government to do.

If you're arguing that people in positions of power who actually believe in a Tax Tooth Fairy are incompetent morons, I agree.

 

[JasperL]

My basic problem with libertarianism is I think capitalism is inherently self-destructive.

That too, of course, when it's not regulated and often even when it is.

 

[Winston]

Walmart should use the governments model. You didn't agree to buy mayonnaise, but you still agreed to pay for it by shopping at our wonderful store! Every time people shop at wal-mart random stuff will be on the receipt that wasn't purchased. lol

Running a government like a business is an idiotic idea. Citizens are not "customers" of government. WE are citizens involved in a society.

 

[Winston]

That too, of course, when it's not regulated and often even when it is.

Capitalism creates such lop sided market distributions, liberatarianism would collapse 9 times out of 10. Not to mention government regulation on business is good, I like the 40 hour work week, overtime pay, and the nice, safe, warm feeling I get when buying a box of cereal, to know it was prepared correctly, and if it wasn't, oversight is there to catch it.

the hyperbole of a libertarian paradise of Somalia is kind of a stretch but, also slightly accurate, IMO. No government regulation, no government run healthcare, guns everywhere and anywhere, and you can do whatever you want.

 

[Henrin]

Capitalism creates such lop sided market distributions,

By the choice of individuals. You an create whatever kind of arrangement you want. The wonderful thing about capitalism is that you can create business model pretty much exactly the same as what you would see in a socialist system if you want. It's not like employee owned businesses aren't out there, you know.

liberatarianism would collapse 9 times out of 10.

Because of the choice of individuals on how they wish to conduct their daily transactions of property? I guess. That's hardly a flaw in the system though.

Not to mention government regulation on business is good, I like the 40 hour work week, overtime pay, and the nice, safe, warm feeling I get when buying a box of cereal, to know it was prepared correctly, and if it wasn't, oversight is there to catch it.

What do you think regulation of business is anyway? People are being told how to run their businesses because of the desires of government. It might be sold on the idea that it is done to prevent harm, but most of it is really just about control over private property to get what politicians want.

 

[KLATTU]

Well, Kansas needed to fill a huge budgetary hole. They proposed cutting education, in order to pay for the tax cuts. Is this something you agree with?

Like I said- I can't answer unless I know more.
Maybe they were already spending way too much on education relative to other things.
I think we can both agree that when spending isn't sustainable, something has to give , no?

 

[KLATTU]

Then why didn't Kansas just cut all the "evil librul" spending and flourish in a new golden age?

?

I can guess. Because politicians spend almost all their energy on solving 2 problems- getting elected and getting re-elected.
Two things that tend to get people un-elected. Raising taxes ( except on the 1 % ers) and cutting programs. ( Talking about doing that before you get elected is one thing- doing it is another).

T

Moreover, why don't low tax, low regulation countries, like in Africa, experience this alleged economic boom?

On could easily ask - then why don't those countries just triple spending ( to create demand) and triple the minimum wage( to raise people out of poverty)?

The answer is the same - it's a bit more complicated than that . IF somebody knew all the ingredients in the secret sauce behind creating economic prosperity the no countries would be poor.

 

[MTAtech]

By the choice of individuals. You an create whatever kind of arrangement you want. The wonderful thing about capitalism is that you can create business model pretty much exactly the same as what you would see in a socialist system if you want. It's not like employee owned businesses aren't out there, you know.
...

Not every public good is a marketplace decision. 150 years ago, the government built canals that made it easier to distribute goods and people to areas that were not previously easy to access. Why didn't the marketplace build these canals? Because it wasn't in any particular person or corporation's individual interest to build canals -- and that's the point. Collective action by government results in individual gains.

It's the same with building a bridge across a dessert gully. The traffic isn't enough for anyone to invest the money to earn a profit. Yet, it's a needed public good.

The interstate highway system improved the efficiency of transportation of goods and people that resulted in GDP gains. But again, nobody but the government was interested in building it.

 

[Winston]

Like I said- I can't answer unless I know more.
Maybe they were already spending way too much on education relative to other things.
I think we can both agree that when spending isn't sustainable, something has to give , no?

Well, deficit spending is fine, and public debt is a rather run-of-the-mill financing tool. It's the debt:GDP ratio that investors watch. What kind of debt:GDP ratio are you comfortable with?

 

[Conaeolos]

I do count budget proposals that do not keep up with % increases as cuts. So, if the school was supposed to get a 10% increase in their budget and they only receive a 5% increase, I count that as a cut.

And I guess that is where we diverge a lot. I can understand arguments that drastic reductions can have too big of a short term economic impact especially in terms of unemployment to justify especially for merely cutting taxes a few points which not only is likely to just get raised again when the political climate changes but who effects are not going to be seen for awhile(as making capital available for investment doesn’t just trigger investment especially when you trigger a downturn in order to do it). I can even accept argument that cuts can hobble a departments ability to do it mandate, which we can agree is not a wise way to kill a department.

I am however strongly against an ever expanding bureaucracy and I’d hope you would be too. And in my view that is exactly what guaranteed by budget increases over the rate of inflation. Departments need to justify why they need more money and this idea that if you don’t spend every penny you will lose it only exacerbates the problems as successful department heads will continue to expand their reach out of capacity exactly to justify the need for their next budget increase. A business needs to increase revenue by expanding and is held accountable by market force. A department is only held in by political forces and right now those forces are pathetic considering just how indebted and unbalanced these state balance sheets are looking.

Where is the pressure to shrink in your scenario? I am not even saying they have to shrink especially in a areas such as health or retirement spending, but what is the balancing force that can make room for those to expand? Only the tax burden the populous can withstand before we collapse?

Well beyond measuring graduation rates and likelihood that high school grads go on to college, the education cuts affect people other than students, who work in education...

I am actually with you a lot with this line of thinking. I think it is a great travesty these cuts affect those middle class /working class jobs for lower skilled workers. I think its great to use social tax dollars as “two birds with one stone” and help support hardworking relatively low-skilled people getting fair salaries well providing a public good. The problem is in reality you see more and more of these departments are shifting dollar from these middle/working class jobs to administrative busy work that would be the first cut in the private market. After all cuts in those areas don’t look good for political pressure for budget increase where as those have big returns in increased productivity in the market(e.g. LEAN). Not only does this lead to horrible working conditions for the people we care about (in this case: teachers, bus drivers, janitors, cafeteria workers) but actually in many cases cause them to be more contacted(low job security) and lower paid. When I worked public, I had 5 direct supervisors and countless administrative mangers, there was 26 Vice Presidents for gosh sakes. Wages for the actual workers were constantly on the down slide and interaction with the union a must as you can imagine all the dumb orders and initiatives of all these busywork supervisors. And the whole time the whining of the department was the same — give us more money our poor front line - yet each with each new $ it went 2/3 to increase one administration busywork job instead of 3-4 front line those same $ could do if invested there.

Why? Because departments need monetary pressure that is tied to performance exactly so we can see one of it being all the things your advocating. I encourage you to dig into those salary numbers and confirm for yourself how our system is encouraging what I am saying. Low-skilled workers are getting the shaft for policy appointments.

Blyth is against austerity. And I largely agree that when you reduce government spending in education, or on social programs, it affects spending in local economies.

Sounds like we have more to agree on then not to agree on. Tax cuts can be an awful policy in many cases, but that don't change the fact right now we are cruising for increases at a ridiculous rate unless we start acting and fighting those upward spending forces.

Yes, but, fraud and waste are uncommon.

How then would you define the factors in why big departments under-perform?

 

[Conaeolos]

Then they need to stop whining while benefiting from the society they feel are thieves. Money is no good on a deserted Island anyway.

We have a market equivalent: patents. A company can well go to court and complain of unfair rate without denying the value of paying for the rights to use someone elses intellectual property.

There is a point it is no longer about paying back and is about something else…in this case stopping economic mobility.