The Role of Government

  • Thread starter Danoff
  • 83 comments
  • 1,906 views
In that link that I made such a fuss about it says the following about the year 2001.

The people with incomes reported in the top 1% accounted for 34% of the nations income tax revenue. Not 1%, which would still be more than the government services they use, but 34%.


What about people in the top 5% of incomes? They account for 53% of all income tax revenue. People with incomes in the top 5% pay for more than half of your government services - and they're not even qualified to use many of them.

The top 1/4 of reported incomes pays for 83% of the income tax revenue. That leaves a whopping 17% to be covered by the bottom 2/3 of the country.

That's just the beginning of the picture. The people who make this kind of money also spend a ton of money thereby accounting for a huge portion of the sales tax as well. When it's all said and done, a huge portion of our government is paid for by a tiny portion of the richest people in the country. I owe them a debt of gratitude for how much they contribute to the roads I drive on and the military I depend on. I guess they should feel honored by the countless thousands of people screaming about how they are entitled to more money from these people who are propping up our country.
 
I've seen similar figures from previous years. It has always left me alternately baffled, amused, and utterly infuriated to hear all the completely groundless liberal propaganda about how the poor and middle class bear the biggest burdens, and how any possible tax relief for the wealthy is just stealing money from the poor to make the rich richer.
 
miata? can you hold your old position in light of this new evidence? Care to revise your stand on what government should do?
 
Originally posted by danoff
miata? can you hold your old position in light of this new evidence? Care to revise your stand on what government should do?
Click to expand...
Well, Yes I can retract what I stated earlier. . . I am however in light of the new evidence still in limbo with it. . . I started looking into what the budget from taxes is being spent on and wondering how it could be more efficiently used now. I think that the structure of the government is a lot more solid then I give it credit.

Here is a question, if we could how could we "clean" the excess in taxes and use the money wiser???
 
Here is a question, if we could how could we "clean" the excess in taxes and use the money wiser???
Click to expand...

My urge is to respond to this by recommending that the government cut back on tons of programs, but it would sound somewhat extreme. So I'll start with a biggest chunk of the pie on that first link I posted - Social Security (note that it was bigger than defense spending)

Social security is theoretically money that you will see again when you retire. But you likely won't. I don't know exactly what the dollar cutoffs are for qualifying to get social security but I'm willing to bet that most people don't qualify for it. So lots of people (the mostly the richest) end up shelling out for a few people to be able to retire on the wellfare of the state.

The solution to social security is to privatize it. Allow people to put that money into IRA's that they control. The government could even make it mandatory that people contribute a set percentage (though that's still not the greatest idea) of their income to the social security account. The account would be under their control. They could use it to invest in mutual funds of their choice (not risky like most people think) and make more money on it than the government ever would have returned to you.

Mutual fund companies would get a whole lot more business with that kind of cash back in the system and it would fuel the economy in general. People would feel better about savings when they can watch thier retirement savings grow... the country wins in general. The cato institute has been crusading for social security privitization for a long time and have some good articles and radio commercials at www.cato.org

Eliminating the social security tax would reduce the government's intake of dollars by roughly 1/4. That would be a good start.
 
Here is a question, if we could how could we "clean" the excess in taxes and use the money wiser???
Click to expand...

Miata have I convinced you that our government could use its money better? That tax brackets are there to shelter the poor? What are your thoughts in light of the new evidence? Still in limbo? What questions do you have, I love talking about this.
 
Originally posted by danoff
Miata have I convinced you that our government could use its money better? That tax brackets are there to shelter the poor? What are your thoughts in light of the new evidence? Still in limbo? What questions do you have, I love talking about this.
Click to expand...
I think I have been fairly convinced about this issue. . . Actually I am glad to see this back because yesterday I was thinking about defense, space exploration, and the current job market and wondering where does the government play its role in this. . . As for the government using money better. . . hmmm, it is difficult to say "if" they could use it better per say, I think every resource could be used better then it currently is. I feel that revisions are always in place for more effecient product or produce. So I would say yes they can use it better, but and a big but they are using it better then I initially thought :D.

Now, Military, What role do you believe the government has in sending our troops elsewhere being a self-proclaimed world police? This came up because I got into a conversation with a friend and we discussed our feelings before, during and after the Second ivasion to Iraq. Before we went back I was agianst sending our troops in there for the lack of proof of anything we claimed they had or were doing. Now for the people of Iraq, I don't know if it is better now or worse. I'm not there, I couldn't fathom what the feeling is living over there. So basically before any of our troops were there I didn't want them going. . . Once our troops stepped foot there, at that point my feeling was, my country men are there I fully support them. I would have considered it treason in my mind if I did not support them. People my age are over there fighting and dying, I would not want one person to not support me if I was over there.
 
What role do you believe the government has in sending our troops elsewhere being a self-proclaimed world police?
Click to expand...



World police = bad

Our military should exist to protect the people who are footing the bill, Americans. Both Iraq wars are an example of that.
 
Originally posted by danoff
Social security is theoretically money that you will see again when you retire. But you likely won't. I don't know exactly what the dollar cutoffs are for qualifying to get social security but I'm willing to bet that most people don't qualify for it. So lots of people (the mostly the richest) end up shelling out for a few people to be able to retire on the wellfare of the state.

The solution to social security is to privatize it. Allow people to put that money into IRA's that they control.
Click to expand...
Speaking of hidden agendas! Social Security was never truly intended to provide retirement income for elderly people. It was always a way for FDR to have the government borrow an obscene amount of money from its own citizens for a long time, only pay a potion of it back, and with no interest. It was just disguised as something "progressive".

FDR was a bigger fascist than Bush could ever aspire to be. But I bet Turbosmoke thinks FDR walks on water.
 
But I bet Turbosmoke thinks FDR walks on water.
Click to expand...

I'll bet Turbosmoke doesn't know the first thing about FDR.

...and you're right. FDR is responsible for almost everything wrong with America today.
 
...which is why you hold a lot of the political opinions you appear to.
 
Turbo,

I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing that you don't know much about FDR. I guess it's a good thing because I can claim that I totally called it. :)

Anyway, I'll educate you on him. He was the American president that is responsible for sending our country down the socialist path it is on.... in other words... he was single handedly more damaging to the country than any other president I can think of. His policies were an attempt to get Americans to believe that he was doing something about the depression so that they would not dispair (or blame him). Unfortunately our government never gets rid of any policies, it just legislates over top of them. That's why we still have all of his bad ideas.

The reason that redline was saying that you think that FDR walks on water is because he did lots to promot the socialist agenda here, and you are something of a socialist. So you should like him.
 
Hold on girls..

how did i get dragged into a topic that i have no interest in or have perviously posted in..?

i cant say i have read FDR's latest biography....i had no idea he was a socialist...

is there a reason why i should have known?
 
is there a reason why i should have known?
Click to expand...

Not particularly, other than that he championed your cause here in America when America was weak. It's not a big deal, I just thought I'd let you know why your name came up.
 
It's tax time! I think this is a particularly good time to talk about what the government is doing with your money.

Should government be forcing you and your neighbors to give them money to spend it on...

Job Education Programs
Unemployment Checks and Job Placement
Prescription Drugs
Medicare
Some sort of universal health care package
roads
schools
military
museams
naitonal parks
space exploration
helping Africa deal with aids and milaria
construction of Iraq
homeland security
clean energy
environmental protection?
 
Originally posted by danoff
Why do human beings need a government? What roles should government play? Why should the government play that role? What roles should the government not play? Why not?
Click to expand...

Human beings need government because they are idiots (see stupid/ignorant) and because they do not take responsibility for themselves.

The government should play no roles whatsoever in people's lives. The only reason the government should exist is to provide defense for the country; other than that reason alone, there should be no government. The government should play this role because obviously the people will need someone to defend them from invasion; it is not the right of one government or another to police the world. The people as a whole should be responsible and smart enough to govern themselves.

The government should not play the role of regulating people. The people should have strong morals and should know the difference between right and wrong.

So, the government should only exist to provide a defense for the people of the country and the people should be responsible enough to govern themselves.
 
Human beings need government because they are idiots (see stupid/ignorant) and because they do not take responsibility for themselves.

The government should play no roles whatsoever in people's lives. The only reason the government should exist is to provide defense for the country; other than that reason alone, there should be no government. The government should play this role because obviously the people will need someone to defend them from invasion; it is not the right of one government or another to police the world. The people as a whole should be responsible and smart enough to govern themselves.

The government should not play the role of regulating people. The people should have strong morals and should know the difference between right and wrong.

So, the government should only exist to provide a defense for the people of the country and the people should be responsible enough to govern themselves.
Click to expand...

Wow! You're stupid.
 
Hey, thanks! I tend to try and be that way; really though, I needed to rant about nonsense on getting a ticket today.
Click to expand...

Actually, you were closer to my own opinions than most people get.

I hope you don't really believe this though:

So, the government should only exist to provide a defense for the people of the country and the people should be responsible enough to govern themselves.
Click to expand...

That's basically anarchy.
 
I understand that it is basically anarchy; but in a perfect world, people would be able to solve all of their problems among one another and not need to have this whole formal government. But since this is not a perfect world, I have to decide what the best views are on issues and go with that instead.
 
Forgetting changing humanity. One role I would want a perfect government structure to play is protect some basic human rights of mine (like property) and enforce contracts.
 

Similar threads

mef
  • Poll
Digital IDs and how they will be used to control us
2
Replies
40
Views
4K
MatskiMonk
MatskiMonk
Joey D
Cross-Racial Casting
2 3
Replies
86
Views
7K
Imari
Imari
GranTurNismo
Cuban protests, and US-Cuba relations in general
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
the_boy
the_boy
Zona
Americans of GTPlanet, how would an extra $1,000 a month impact you?
2
Replies
48
Views
2K
Pupik
Pupik
P
GT and past controversies
Replies
18
Views
2K
Lightpilgrim
Lightpilgrim

Latest Posts

Back