311–320 of 366 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ask yourself this: is the government efficient with its defense spending? If the answer is no, why would it be any different with its social programs?
Just because one branch/department is wasteful doesn't mean others are. Trim that military budget and you'll start seeing efficiencies simply because they don't have that extra trillion to spunk up the wall.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except for here in the states 25% of the taxpayer money is going to military, intelligence and debt from past wars we know to have been bad ideas and knew all along were bad ideas. And let's just say another 25% is misspent. In a country this big and bloated, that's also likely a low ball figure. But overall, only 50% of taxpayer money is going to anything remotely properly executed and needed. That said, our public…
> Except for here in the states 25% of the taxpayer money is going to military, intelligence and debt from past wars we know to have been bad ideas and knew all along were bad ideas. I don't disagree with your point (about wasteful spending on the military), but your number is substantially inflated and you're wrong on the financial conclusion. The federal + state spending is $6.x trillion, soon to be $7 trillion. Cl…
...a quick search shows this article saying 16% is going to defense:
http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-wh...
I also read recently something to the tune of: 70% of our national debt comes from military related expenditures from the 2 Bush presidents, and by 2020 interest payments will go from 5/6% to 10/12%. What about the principal? When does that get factored in?
I admit I'm not an expert on these matters (as i chose to focus on what i can change). However, there does seem like there are various discrepancies here--so what if the number is closer to 18% vs. 25% or 12.5%. It's way way way too much and would make a difference--more importantly in the lives and hatred abroad we would be sparing. We didn't fix or help anything in Vietnam and no matter what they say, we haven't in Iraq or the Middle East--our selfish financial losses aside.
However, now imagine instead of taking out credit for those wars, we invested. That would be paying major dividends that would further counteract these numbers. Now imagine we invested in ourselves (not just financial instruments)--the potential is far higher.
Military spending without a doubt has put a damper on our progress and perhaps the sole reason America may never reach the potential it once had. America was never great--rather, it had potential to be great. Now it's mediocre, and other countries are eating our lunch, and rightfully so. Not that the world is zero sum--but we'd stand to benefit from taking a page from their playbook (e.g. nordic countries, etc). We have shitty education. We are well on our way to becoming idiocracy. We unfairly lock up way too many people for far too long in shitty prison conditions (and then let corporations exploit them for cheap labor!). We have plenty of money but we spend $11 Billion on the Airforce One and Marine One fleet. That would put $33 in every american's pocket. Our expenditures from the Middle East since 9/11 would put like $30k in each american's pocket. If that was $5k over 6 years, that's life-changing money for half of america. ..This country is just ridiculous. Paying 50% of your earnings as taxes in California is absurd. It's a crime. There's no point owning (why pay that 1% property tax), there's no point making lots of money. Just rent, make far less, and work way less hard--what sort of incentive is that! That said we have a problem of working too hard and too much in this country (at least for people of a certain class)--so from that perspective perhaps it's a good thing. I rather make whatever that sweetspot income is from a taxation point of view ($75k?), rent, not try to make billions from my startup and live a simple life.
And yes, we should cut 90% of our military. Instead, we maintain an arsenal of super modern nukes and a small extremely efficient elite navy-seals-like task force. + Yes, the best cyber-security outfit on the planet (while somehow keeping surveillance on citizens to a minimum). But fire most people in camouflage uniform.
Gun-to-your-head "peace" is not peace. There is no world peace. This "peace" we have enforced will not less forever. As soon as china knows they can beat us they will make us pay for our sins in one way or another. We need to become more cooperative now and show the world how to act NOW while we're on top, cuz once we're not we won't be able to set such examples. We aren't cooperative. We are forceful. Again, it's gun-to-your-head peace. The lessons of history clearly indicate to me that it's a recipe for disaster as those hungry come up from behind you and use the ugly strategies they learned from you against you. These are basically life laws we're talking about here. So we aren't setting a good example. We haven't created true peace. It's temporary peace. And things could get catastrophic unless America completely changes its ways. I'm not even saying gun-to-your-head "peace" wasn't needed to get to this point, i.e. the most peaceful point in human history. I'm saying it's run its course, and if we continue to operate that way, we'll regress--and regress bad!
So why not save some money (AND SOME LIVES) and show some real leadership. Real leadership is about taking risks. Risks and faith are what it's all about. As powerful as the US is, it has an opportunity to set that stage. That would be the turning point in human history that civilization has been looking for. It's the next evolution. We have that opportunity right now. We are on the precipice of a turning point while things are still relatively stable. Cut the military, we don't need it. Save us some dollars and focus on education.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my experience, every large organization is terribly managed and inefficient. The government not noticeably different. I guess I'm saying I don't mind paying taxes. I consider the tax rate when choosing how much to charge my customers. I'm sure you do the same when choosing a job. If you paid less in tax, you'd earn less money. Obviously not at a 1:1 ratio, but it's something to keep in mind.
Spot on,anecdotal evidence ahoy but I'm a contractor so I move around a lot in the last few years I've worked for a government department, a mid stage medical startup, a late stage startup, a large corporation, and a very new startup. The efficient ones have been the smaller companies in everything from decision making to process. The gov department and large corp are Kafkaesque nightmares where getting an account is…
This is an interesting story and all that, but honestly, he only got to the "debt free nirvana" after becoming rich and famous. I pay my credit card, pay my taxes and my mortgage, but that takes almost all my money away. So if I look at it my net worth it is basically negative. Only way I'll get to the debt free nirvana is if I get rich somehow. It's not a real choice. So the entire premise of the article is pretty w…
No, that certainly is not the case. Slow and steady saving and investing is the way to become wealthy. Check out www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance or www.mrmoneymustache.com as examples of this.
Off topic, but why did the creator of this site make the top bar move when scrolling? That makes it 100% impossible to read for people who use the top of the screen as a line to read along. Also, is their a chrome extension to cancel that functionality?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem I have, and that I think many people have, is that fraction: 30/60 = 1/2 = getting a bit silly. But why ? I mean, are you just rationalizing? "I think 50% taxes is a lot just because I do, therefore I think it's bad policy." Or is there a logical reason that 50% is "a bit silly" but, say, 30% (or whatever your number is) is fine? This is something that Nobel prize-winning economists fight over -- exactly…
You're only 1/2 way away from slave labor at that point. And when you factor in other taxes, you pay more than 50%, it's too much. And if I choose not to pay those taxes, my freedom is taken away, so don't tell me the slave point is invalid.
No one getting taxed at an effective 50% tax rate in the United States is anywhere near a slave. The minimum wage McDonald's worker with a 15% tax rate is the slave.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Going into debt to vacation in the Caribbean (which is what he did) is not the same as using it to say start a business or get an education. They differ only if the metric you choose to measure against the debt is "money". But some of us do things for other than money; happiness comes to mind.
Precisely. It would be totally sensible also to argue that a trip such as that one paid off even financially later in less obviously connected ways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"How about every 60 minutes you work, 30 minutes of that is spent establishing the world around you?" I am perfectly happy to look at it that way, and indeed I do . Please don't deploy the "I'm arguing with the anti-tax guy" toolkit here - I am not that guy. The problem I have, and that I think many people have, is that fraction: 30/60 = 1/2 = getting a bit silly. YMMV.
The problem I have, and that I think many people have, is that fraction: 30/60 = 1/2 = getting a bit silly. But why ? I mean, are you just rationalizing? "I think 50% taxes is a lot just because I do, therefore I think it's bad policy." Or is there a logical reason that 50% is "a bit silly" but, say, 30% (or whatever your number is) is fine? This is something that Nobel prize-winning economists fight over -- exactly…
No, I don't think I am rationalizing or being irrational.
Note: I don't make any claims to know what the right overall tax rate is - if you're asking me about 32% vs. 38% vs. 29% ... I am as lost as you, and those economists, are.
However I think that 1/2 is not an arbitrary point on that scale - I think there is a qualitative difference between more than one half and less than one half.
If I am assessed more than one half of what I earn, that's unfair in a way that I believe appeals to innate concepts of fairness that we all share, rather than "I just don't like that number".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure let me know how that works out in preventing pollution at nation scale.
When stacked against the bang-up job that the US Government has done, not only on the landmass over which is claims sovereignty but the rest of the world - especially the continent of Africa - I'm certainly open to solutions other than government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel the same. I would have no problem with this rate, but I would like to see some things done better. How money is spent, how gov contracts are given out. It feels like there is a huge amount of money lost on inefficient markets and efforts.
It feels like there is a huge amount of money lost on inefficient markets and efforts. It's a feeling . But is it reality? That's a question for spreadsheets and numbers, not our feelings. Are there countries that are 25% more efficient in government spending than the US? If so, how do they do it?