there's just so much $$$ that people have.. the obama government continues to ignore simple mathematics, and you can't just keep adding taxes and increase fees and simply believe that everyone with a brain will think it's lovely..
Agree on civil law. Utilities, you are probably right. The sort of arms length public companies like BC Hydro and Enmax are good examples of splitting the difference.
Could expand the list by things like housing, banking, etc... but it is more illustrative than exhaustive
there's just so much $$$ that people have.. the obama government continues to ignore simple mathematics, and you can't just keep adding taxes and increase fees and simply believe that everyone with a brain will think it's lovely..
Glander, on your last point.... isn't that government? These "communities who know their fellows and have common needs" and who create positive examples of "collective effort", would they not have some form of governance? Say, like the municipal government in my home town of 3000. Or the Board I sit on for a service club?
Minimus, activities I think are better handled collectively:
- Transportation - roads, bridges, airports, transit
- Healthcare
- Defense (offence when needed)
- Disaster relief
- Insurance (the very idea is collectivism, of course)
- Monetary policy
- Treaty negotiations
- Criminal law
- Basic Education (though, I'm not sold on this one)
- Enforcement
- Intelligence gathering
- Risk mitigation
- Resource rights
Actives I think are deplorable when handled collectivity:
- Media, publishing
- Property
- Child rearing
- Religious/political indoctrination
- Employment
- Higher education
- Business valuation / investment
- Postal service (was once up top)
- Utilities
- Resource extraction... well, any kind of business
- The actual building of anything the collective has decided to fund (eg, private companies bid to build and maintain roads, etc)
there's just so much $$$ that people have.. the obama government continues to ignore simple mathematics, and you can't just keep adding taxes and increase fees and simply believe that everyone with a brain will think it's lovely..
Glander,
I agree with you. Certainly, disincentives to gainful employment are deplorable for a society. Earlier a poster provided a fascinating graph of "wage cliffs" in another thread. I had never heard of this structure that creates such a massive disincentive to reach for higher wages. If true, it is madness.
So, there is a point at which tax and services creates societies where the Government takes care of all and productivity is terrible (Communism). Then there are societies where tax and services creates societies where productivity is high (much of Europe). Then there are societies where taxes are confusing and productivity is still very high (United States).
Your reflection on the tragedy of the Native Americans is apt. People criticize them as a race but they are only living the way most white welfare families I know live. It is a terrible thing to remove a person's impulse to be productive. However, that is, for me anyway, not a corollary for not providing assistance to those unable to be productive. I'm sure you will agree.
I suppose the question is of degrees and grays. With some people these recent changes are going too far.... just as the left felt the Bush tax cuts went too far the other way.
they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..
Glander,
Very classy. We are all guilty, from time to time, of relaying info we find out later wasn't what it was craked up to be.
they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..
Simon,
I really don't think it is as bad as all of that. The Speaker has stated that he will not allow the country to default.... what we witnessed in late 2011 was complete madness. I'm relieved that they chose this, increasing the government's funding, instead of the coming debt ceiling to stake thier ground. To me, that actually shows they DO care about the country.
That Congress has to increase the debt ceiling is the most bizarre structure I can think of. The Executive has to raise only the taxes Congress authorizes, has to execute the laws Congress enacts (spend money), and can only borrow what the Congress allows. All the other governments I know of legislate the first two and the third naturally follows. A failure to raise the debt ceiling means the President is put in conflict between the Congressional Taxation Power, Spending Power, and Borrowing Power. A constitutional crisis is inevitable in the face of a default. I have read some opinions that should Congress not raise the debt ceiling the President should ignore the debt ceiling and break the Borrowing Power of Congress. This would be unconstitutional and would likely result in impeachment, but is the better of the three to violate.
http://www.columbialawreview.org/how-to-choose-the-lease-unconstitutional-option/
I am very pleased the Republicans are choosing this current tactic rather than the nuke they have access to. [I don't agree with what they are trying to do, but if they were truly terrorists they'd try to blow the economy up with the debt ceiling. Of course, to your point, there are some (few?) Republicans who argue for doing exactly that.....]
there's just so much $$$ that people have.. the obama government continues to ignore simple mathematics, and you can't just keep adding taxes and increase fees and simply believe that everyone with a brain will think it's lovely..
Minimus,
I agree with you, the American fiscal situation is pretty bad. Healthcare is a big part of that (with or without the ACA). It has been worse in the past, though, and I really think it will turn around. Recently some big steps were made to raise revenues and reduce expenses (thanks to the brinkmanship in 2011/2012). I actually think America will get it together in time.
Now, what is scary for me is where individuals in America have deleveraged themselves over the last 5 years, individuals in Canada have been steadily borrowing more and more.
they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..
Minimus,
You are correct. So let them vote. Even Republican reps who would vote against a clean CR have stated that if a clean CR was voted on (as received from the Senate) it would pass as enough Republicans would vote for it. This is no secret, they have been refreshingly candid about it.
The Speaker will not allow a vote on that matter. IF you really want the House of Reps to, well, REPRESENT why not push the Speaker to allow a vote on a clean CR? Would that not demonstrate the will of the duly elected representatives?
You can't say the House of Reps are doing the peoples bidding when the Speaker will not even allow a vote to demonstrate that. This is nothing more than high stakes politics.
there's just so much $$$ that people have.. the obama government continues to ignore simple mathematics, and you can't just keep adding taxes and increase fees and simply believe that everyone with a brain will think it's lovely..
Hoser - well said.
there's just so much $$$ that people have.. the obama government continues to ignore simple mathematics, and you can't just keep adding taxes and increase fees and simply believe that everyone with a brain will think it's lovely..
I don't have to wait, Data-Dog. I was raised by a single mom and we had absolutely no disposable income. It was life in a mobile home, eating frozen french fries, and drinking powdered milk. This was the late 80's... not a long time ago. Although I was envious of my friends who went on an actual vacation I was never without healthcare and education. I was able to get a bit of an education and work my way up. Was actually able to take a trip on an airplane when I was in my 20's!
Now that I'm successful, I'm happy to have my taxes help others who are where I was. In fact, I volunteer to help raise money for charities to further help disadvantaged children.
You seem to confuse "progressive taxation" with taxing the poor to starvation. It is the opposite.
they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..
I'd like to know which cluster of ideas is not true (and I'm being sincere, I don't know):
I'm truly lost. Don't one of these have to be false?
Or will the system be more expense for the private sectore (#2 and #3) and more expensive for the public sector (#1) than it is currently trending? How is this possible economically speaking? Or is category #2 meant to exclude all those who don't have coverage, hence they don't count as individuals that can't afford the extra expense of coverage?
I'm speaking on the macro level here....
