Regarding laying off people due to tax increases:

This topic is worth having its own discussion.

Work is a means to an end.  People go to work in order to make money to pay for the things they need or want.

My job is like that for me. I go to work to make money to pay for the things my family needs and wants.

But for some reason, people think that I am somehow unique in that I should work not to make money to pay for things my family needs and wants but to create jobs for other people.

Which is ridiculous.  Sure, I'm as compassionate as the next person and like anyone else, I'm willing to sacrifice a little.  I'm sure the autoworker making $80k per year on the assembly line might be willing to take a small cut in salary if it means saving some jobs.  But are they willing to make substantially less to save jobs? Probably not.

I am not willing to take on the responsibilities I do or make the sacrifices I make unless I'm compensated for it in a way that is acceptable to me (just like anyone else).  

So yea, if the government is going to effectively try to lower how much I make to the point where I can't afford the things my family wants or needs then I'm going to first not hire as many people and then lay off people.

After all, I don't see poor people willing to give up smoking or reduce their costs in order to require less money from the government which in turn would require less money being taken from other people which would save jobs.

It is always interesting to note that people who tend to fail in life never expect to make any sort of sacrifice themselves but demand the economic winners of life to make the sacrifices.  Maybe that is one of the factors that makes one group of people economic losers and the other group economic winners.

A less optimal solution than the alternative (of just giving those people the money), because that money isn't then being spent in the way to maximise the benefit to the receiving person. If you're going to give them money, you might as well maximise the benefit it provides (in turn meaning that to achieve X benefit to them you need to provide less money than if you restricted what it could be spent on).

I don't see governments arguing that if you earn money you can't spend any of it, and hence if you earn extra money you do get to spend some of it (just not all of it). However taxes are necessary to provide government services, and income taxes (taxes based on a person's income) are the favoured way of raising much of this. If you don't want such taxes (your post suggests that taking money that some has earnt if it's above x amount isn't allowing them to live it, although I'm not certain if this is what you meant), what ones are you suggesting instead to raise the money? Consumption based taxes? Higher corporation taxes? Head taxes?

So what form of welfare state would be acceptable to you? Would you support one that provides money to those out of work (if they're trying to work and there's none available), and also those working for such a low amount they don't have enough to obtain the necessities, or would you support a higher level than this, or only support a lower level than this?

I'd agree with you there, if someone has the money to afford the necessities, it is their decision whether they do or don't, and they shouldn't then be provided additional money if they choose not to.

Not had a chance to read some of your later posts, so I might edit this later

Isn't enough for what?

A person is not entitled to someone else's money. Period.

I find this interesting; not the class war stuff so much as the original question, 'Who decides where our money should go?'

Jill, I'm currently in a Master's program for Public Administration.  It is both incredibly interesting and incredibly frustrating.  As chance has it, I am taking budgeting this quarter (local gov, state gov, and federal gov).

The text book (and Constitutional) answer to this question is...you do.  You, as in me, as in us, the voters, decide how tax money is spent by electing policy makers, ie politicians.

The REALITY is, most people who vote can't tell you what the economic policy is for the person receiving their vote.  (And later I will discuss why even if they do, it may not matter.)

The more I research, the more amazing this becomes....For the most part (and there are always exceptions) local governments and even state governments are run "responsibly."  I'll define that as basically balancing a budget (sad definition for responsible I know)...and states do that mostly because of balanced budget laws (which the fed gov doesn't have).

It's amazing.  Once you hop from state gov to federal government, the abuse, the CRAZINESS grows exponentially.  WHY?

The federal gov by its very nature is too big, WAY too big and its not controllable without a LOT of bureaucracy/administration (which incorporates self-policing and red tape).  And bureaucracy costs a lot of money.  (You can bet at least 50% of every dollar for "national infrastructure" is going to pay administrators to run the program (which is reasonable, someone has to run it) but also to pay for the "policing" of the funding for it.  Because the public wants to be sure the money is not wasted, everything is checked, re-checked and double re-checked, then approved (Again reasonable, transparency is important when spending other people's money....but very expensive and also time consuming).

It would be much cheaper if the fed gov gave the money to the states and let them do their thing because they already have offices for infrastructure in place as well as self-controls for policing.  So admin cost goes to almost nothing. 

The truth is, the people we elect aren't really deciding where the money goes anyway.  They make the general policy (like passing a law)sure, then its handed to administrators who decide the guidelines and all the details (like how the law will be enforced, any funding, policed, etc).  And who are these administrators?  (They aren't elected that's for sure..they're people like, well, me...hah...kinda).

The reason the administration program is frustrating?  For the most part it is full of liberal ideology.  Most administrators I've met (at the City Manager and State levels, as well as most of the people in the program already in this field who are spending tax dollars every single day on the job) are completely anti-capitalist.  Most feel superior for choosing public service as a career and believe all Americans should serve the public, all the time, and not themselves.

I can't tell you how many debates I get in discussing these very issues.  They believe, at a fundamental level, that the gov should be able to tell business owners how to spend their money, and what to pay their employees.  I'm not talking publically traded companies here either, I mean every single private business.  They have issues with (and believe the gov should intercede) if a business owner decides to pay his CEO 50 times what the line worker is making.

I argue with this because I say...its none of their damn business!  Stay out of it. 

I use this example because it parlays onto how taxes are spent.  The liberal ideology of the people actually deciding how specifically the money is spent is..."Its ok to tax the wealthy. They have more than they need." 

Of course each individual subscriber to this ideology has a "Mental Number" (a $ amount they consider more than anyone "needs" in a year), from my experience so far, it hovers around the $200,000-$250,000 a year mark.

Anyone making over that amount should give it to the public as a sort of "public service."

Remember when Biden said paying more taxes is patriotic?  Well, even though he tried to back track..that's EXACTLY the mindset.  EXACTLY.

In fact it is such an accepted mindset, it isn't even taught.  Everyone "starts from there."  And of course if you don't already know it, haven't already internalized it, you're (meaning me) an uneducated breeder (did I mention out of 60 people, the majority of which are in their 30's and 40's...I am only one of two with kids?)

All that to say this.  Imo, our country is never ever going to agree on taxes.  The ideologies are too polar opposite.  Even when you get fiscally conservative politicians in place, the administrators actually deciding HOW to spend the money are still very liberal.

I think this country would be better served if more fiscally conservative minded people went into administrations and started running these gov organizations.

But for some reason, the field doesn't attract conservatives for the most part.

Wonder why? 

It's not what liberals say that keeps me up at night.  It's what they don't say, what they take for granted.

Saying you don't think someone should be entitled to the benefit (i.e. they shouldn't have any legal right to receive benefits from the state) is at face value contrary to saying you don't begrudge them receiving that benefit. It's certainly not "extending what is written into something that is totally different" to question the contradictory nature of this, and you've still failed to clarify how you don't begrudge someone receiving the benefit, yet think they shouldn't be entitled to that same benefit. One reading of it is that while you don't think they should get the benefit, you really don't care enough about it to begrudge them getting the benefit. Alternatively you're somehow arguing that they should get the benefit, but shouldn't be entitled to the benefit, although quite how you'd envisage that working in practice is anyones guess - would the state just say that it'll have a lottery, and 1 random person in 10 will receive a benefit based no their income, and the other 9 won't? If you're going to have a benefit (based on someones income), the fairest way of administering it is to make sure that the default is that every person qualifying with the relevent income level is entitled to receive it. The only other interpretation I can think of is that you're saying that there shouldn't be an automatic right for the government to provide income based benefits at all, but that you have no issue with them providing said benefits, in which case why not just say you don't begrudge them and have done with it? I don't recall anyone claiming it should be a basic human right enshrined in law/set in stone that a government should provide a welfare system, hence the 'entitled' issue shouldn't really arise.

LW and maudlin, since this is really gotten off course, let's stop making this about LW because it's getting really tired.  We go back and forth and don't make any ground because LW says "well you are paying my medical" and then when Brad said "she's not entitled" LW goes into how she's actually already paid for it.  So let's take the individual out in order to clarify the point Brad was trying to make.  Plenty of Americans have never or effectively never contributed to the system yet benefit from it.  Brad is saying that he agrees that we all need to help people in our society get back on their feet.  By "not entitled" he is pointing out that pleny of people seem to think that the gov'ment owes them or the "rich people" owe them because the rich people are just luckier than they are.

Anyone who wants to come on and say "I don't know anyone who feels that way" please don't.  I know of plenty who feel exactly that way so just save it.  It isn't something we'll agree on.  And I'm not saying that LW is one of those parties (again, this is not about LW).

Tova, THANK YOU!  Thank you for getting this back on subject.  You are so right!  The main problem I had with President Bush was he wasn't conservative at all.  Growing government is the exact opposite of what Republicans stand for. 

This applies to unions and other professional organizations as well (so not always the "rich.")  In fact if you were to survey lobbyist organizations in this country right now, I'd guess most work for blue collar wage earners who pool their resources under union umbrellas.

For the moment, it is illegal to lobby administrators, and well it should be. 

Woodrow Wilson made a great case for getting gov under control/working in this country.  He said we are a young country and focus all our energies on "constitution building" with no idea how to make it work.  In essence, the actual administration of the very thing people are so passionate about is considered a back burner issue, a "we'll deal with it later."  Well, it IS later.  We can continue arguing over the constitution or just get on with administering it.

So we pass a law saying for example, women and blacks are people, equal rights and all that.  That's pretty.  Well said.  But how to MAKE it happen, how to enforce it, police it, develop it at the "Educational" level..that's all up to administrative discretion, essentially in the hands of people who are NOT elected. 

Administrators are trained to sift every decision through the Consititution...meaning basically asking is this fair to everyone?  That is tedious at best because ultimately it isn't about whats is fair, or constitutional.  It's about what the administrator THINKS is fair or Constitutional.  So ideology plays a central, and I'd say, ESSENTIAL role in government at the actual application level, and is where the seed of our current problems are found.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't think the only choices in life are being fabulously wealthy or being on public assistance.  I have also not been saying you are a loser or a burden in society.

My beef is when people say that it's perfectly fine for the money I earn to be taken away because I have "enough". I don't like seeing people rationalize theft.

When have I ever made it about LW? I prefer to keep things general rather than get tied down in the specifics of a particular individual.

But if you believe in the government offering a helping hand, having people who have never contributed to the system but who benefit from it isn't a bad thing by itself. There's a big difference between someone who finishes school, tries to get a job and either fails or gets such a poor low paying one that they need support from the state to survive, and someone who aims to live on benefits and never even tries getting a job. Both will have never contributed to the system, but at least the first one is trying, and will likely be able to in the future.

Actually he seems to be saying that he disagrees with the plenty of people who think that if they fall on hard times they should be entitled to a helping hand from the government, or the people who think that you should be entitled to some help to survive if you are doing everything you possibly can but still not quite managing to make ends meet. See the comparison to charity in the later post as one example (although not the best) of this. I've not been talking about people who think that the rich "owe" them money because they're luckier, I've been talking about the people who work as hard as they can to survive, yet are unable to earn enough to survive. I believe such people should be entitled to help from the governments. Similarly I believe that someone who pays taxes for a number of years and suddenly suffers an unexpected illness that prevents them working (or greatly reduces their ability to work) should be entitled to some help from the government. It's why I've not had much issue with many of the points you've raised, but have with Brads, because his tend to be more unequivical, such as the "A person is not entitled to someone else's money. Period." comment. Reading on, he now has said he does support a safety net for some people, but this then goes against saying the previously quoted comment. Either people are not entitled to others money period, or they are in some cases. Having a government safety net means that you are supporting a person being entitled to someone elses money in some cases.

Taxing people based on their income is the fairest method though. You can afford to pay more taxes, the poorest can't, hence if the government wishes to increase taxes, they're going to look at those who can afford the tax increases. The tax on the rich will be taking away luxuries. The tax on the poorest will be taking away necessities. Also there's a massive difference between someone who rationalises higher taxes on the rich than the poor, and people who justify ever increasing amounts of money being taken by one group to be given to another because the receiving group doesn't like how the former group spends their own money. I have no problem with how the rich spend their money (assuming it's not hurting others (i.e. likely illegal), of course), but I have a big problem with taxing the rich as much as the poor

Anyway I think I might join LW and retire from this thread since I've no wish to get involved in a bitter argument (and I get the sense there's a chance of that happening).

And he has amongst the worst reading comprehension of anyone on the site.  Oye.  Which part of "I support a safety net" isn't clear? Sheesh.  He just wants to focuses on piddly semantics instead of discussing a given issue.

I think LW said it best when she compared SS with an insurance policy. I don't begrudge having a safety net. I also don't begrudge LW getting money out of the system because she paid in. But I don't think she or anyone else is entitled to the money of others. But I do think they are entitled to their own money back.

I think Maudin just purposely reads things through the most obtuse prism he can find.  And even that wouldn't bug me if he didn't try to hijack entire discussions in order to try to nitpick some piddly point that he's decided to read a certain way.  Reminds me of Dave Tholen on Usenet who was notorious for that.

If a person is here to fixate on individual words and not topics, then I am happy to see them go.

Exactly.  However, just so you know, I am talking about high level (they are jokingly called Public CEOs) administrators.  So long as they don't violate the law, 99.9% of their decisions go unchallenged by the public or by the policy makers themselves.  Mostly because people believe the "how" is law too, but it isn't.  Which makes it really hard for the average person to change.

The only "checks and balance" on administrators are their own ethics and "transparency" laws.    

I realize that the way I view this topic is not the norm on this site. I also realize that there's no way I'm really going to change anyone’s opinion about it either. However I do at least want to point out that there are other ways to view this.

Forgive me if I haven't bothered to completely read all 3 pages of this thread and follow every nuance of the conversation however I do want to address the concept of "my" money vs. "your" money vs. "our" money because it does seem to be a common theme on this site.

Basically I view everything that anyone has as in some sense the product of living in a civilized society of which the current government is a pretty large part. Without a civilized society providing the framework in which we can work, earn a living and live in relative peace the first person or group of people that came along that was a little bit stronger than you could simply kill you and take everything that you have. So without society/government or whatever you want to call what it is it is that provides the environment in which you can earn and maintain your standard of living, you would have nothing and so therefore whatever portion that we collectively as members of that "society" decide to take of "your" money, which should be decided in the same manner as the portion that is taken from "my" or anyone else's money, for whatever we collectively define as necessary for the upkeep and maintenance of said society, is not something about which anyone really has the right to complain, least of all those that have the most to lose if we were to suddenly no longer live in a civilized society.

So I believe that such money, once taken for the upkeep and maintenance of society, is no longer "your" money or "my" money, however it is still "our" money given that it now belongs to us collectively as members of the society. So while I don't particularly care to see money that "used" to be mine wasted any more than anyone else does, I do acknowledge that it is no longer "my" money but "our" money. I don't get to solely define how it's to be used although we collectively decide how it’s to be used in the manner that society has defined to make such decisions.

I'm pretty sure this shouldn't sound all that unfamiliar as it's simply classic Locke or Rousseau or one of those other guys, I forget which.

Anyway like I said at the beginning I don’t expect this to change anyone’s opinion, however perhaps it will explain why others may view this topic differently.

It depends.  I will try to explain it without writing a book, heh, but it is complex.

Some administrators (like the Pres' cabinet) are appointed (hired), and there are equivalents at the state level as well, appointed by the Governor.

Often appointees have no real "operating" experience in these areas and end up being dressing/fluff/figure heads.  Even with a vast amount of knowledge, they are not trained in that particular gov bureaucracy so have no applicable experience.

What can they do?  What they do, do.  heh.  They rely on the people who were there before them and will be there long after, to direct, train, and lead to a large extent....and those people are administrators.  (And in many cases they can NOT be fired by the new "head.")

The ultimate idea behind the Pres' cabinet is to "guide" administrators to interpret and administer in ways favorable to the current President.  It doesn't work that way in reality, but its the idea.

For continuity of government, most administrators are hired on their own merit /experience/education and supposed to be separate from the politics.  This also makes it very difficult to fire them.

But, can you imagine how bad it would be if every department was potentially replaced every 4 years with a new President?

We used to do it that way in this country, but it led to corruption, the Spoils System, (new Presidents appointed family and friends to positions they could not do...still happens but a few thousand appointees is nothing in the big scheme of gov...and for the most part they are "figure heads" anyway.)

So administrators are hired by human resources on merit (education/experience).   Occasionally there are extra steps but ultimately it is a hire process.

Administrators are supposed to be experts in the field as well as government bureaucracy.  They are SUPPOSED to be there to implement policy made by elected officials.

What generally occurs is ....people like Obama get elected and he is a novice.  He knows nadda about running a country, and just a little more about being a Senator. 

That's not a slam, just a fact.  So now instead of really making policy himself (as the people wanted), he has to rely on the "expert" advice of hired and occasionally appointed people to make policy.  Most of that advice comes from administrators who are supposed to be non-political.  (The idea of going into this field is to serve Americans fairly, effectively, efficiently, and Constitutionally, not politically.)

Sure he signs things on tv and looks all official, like he's making changes...but the things he signs are usually very general, the details of which are worked out by....you guessed it.... administrators. 

So for instance Clinton can sign a Don't Ask Don't Tell policy for the military, but how its interpreted, how its enforced, all of that is decided by DOD Administrators (yes a lot are soldiers as well, but equally administrators).

Another example, this infra-structure idea under Obama.  Who do you think is coming up with the nuts and bolts of it?  How its run.  How much money it needs?  Where it starts, when?  From what I am hearing/ reading in the Administrators Journals and other professional literature, administrators are doing it all with very little guidelines from elected officials.

They'll get the plan all written up, give it to Obama/Obama's figure head.  He'll make a change here and there if its politically expedient, but for the most part, these unelected administrators will decide everything about the program.

On the local level you see this in the Council/Manager form of Government.  The Council is elected and then they hire a City Manager to run the city.  The City Manager isn't accountable to the public.  He's accountable to the council.  So long as they're happy, he's fine.  They make policy and he implements it but more often than not the CM takes the budget, his new policy ideas, etc to the Council and "sells" it.  They vote on it, and most times defer to his expertise.  So you tell me.  Who is REALLY running the gov?

It's not the guys on tv.

This is why IMO political ideology is the root of the economic problems we face in this country.  For whatever reason, the field of administration tends to draw "elitists" or people like Mumblefratz who believe essentially, what you have is at the disposal of the civilized society in which you live. And anyone making over a certain $ amount should give the "extra" to the gov to re-distribute.  (If that summation is wrong Mumble, my apologies.  However, it doesn't negate the point.)

No matter how conservative the President is, unless we can somehow get some checks and balances on administrators (we have ethics and transparency and that's it...and how many Americans have the time to go through thousands of pages of administrative decisions made every single day?) our debt will only get worse.

Right now the Pres only has control of 48% of the budget (which is why the military is often cut because their budget comes from his 48%).  The other 52% is tagged by law and under the purview of administrators.  (Source:  Denhardt & Denhardt, Public Administration: An Action Orientation, 6th edition,).

So now that I've totally confused you....hahahaa.  Hope that helps.