trump 2016
- Thread starter The Other Side
- Start date
wkmac
Well-Known Member
bbsam, questions below aren't directed at you, just using your post as launch point.
How would we round up 11 million "unknown" people without a big government effort? How would we keep them from not coming back without a big government effort? What private industries would scale up to help government meet the needs of this new program? In an economy where profit and growth are key, when such private industry that involves itself to the task of capture, deportation and return prevention has done the job, from where then will such industries obtain their future growth and profits to meet the economic goals demanded by our economic system?
If the profits come from the demand of stopping the "illegals", doesn't the very purpose of the task itself directly conflict with the opportunity for future profits or in other words, the economic incentive is to not solve the problem but in some manner grow it? Imagine UPS working with customers to eliminate the need to ever ship packages again while never changing its business model to adapt to the business environment it is creating? Side note: For some extra fun, replace the word illegal with terrorists and then re-ask the questions.
Even for government itself, people wanting careers, job advancement, nicer homes, college for kids, does solving the problem pose the dilemma that their economic dreams might not come to fruition if they actually solve the problem? Wouldn't more "illegals" be the best outcome for both government and private industry making for secure careers along with greater profits and company growth for those industries who geared up to support the government in the name of stopping the illegals? At the very least, a consent churn of illegals seems the most productive and profitable for them. Managing the problem seems the most lucrative for everyone concerned. At least everyone but the person who ultimately foots the bill.
When the goal of capture, deportation and return prevention having been accomplished (for the sake of argument, let's just assume for the moment), by what means then in considering all these questions will the government size decrease by then cutting itself because its function is no longer needed? How will the lobbyists representing those companies enjoying profits from the program then lobby Congress to kill a program even the lobbyists themselves benefit from? So then the problem itself is not about solving in the first place now is it? Or will those advocating such authority and power to government, regardless of motive or ideology, say that such resolution and completion is impossible because such problem is insoluble? Then who benefits from that at the end of the day?
These questions should always be asked when it comes to ANYONE who argues that government needs to solve any given problem. But we never want to look back at the problem itself and drill down into what I call a kind of "root cause failure analysis". The What, Where, When, Who, Why and the How in that order is one I tend to favor and apply best I can. What is the motive? What is the opportunity?
But we don't want to look now do we?
No wonder we have the very government we justly deserve!
newfie
Well-Known Member
has anyone explained to you that there is a tax system that pays for these things you list and that they are therefore not free?
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
Federal taxes on petroleum fuels are supposed to be used to repair and maintain our roads and bridges. With fuel prices at levels not seen in quite some time, perhaps this would be an ideal time to raise those taxes with the assurance that the funds be earmarked for infrastructure repair.
umm, be careful what you ask for. Here in California, Governor Terminator did just that, and those taxes are inching closer to a dollar a gallon every year. That kind of tax scheme once enacted, is almost impossible to repeal because of the amount of dollars raised in taxes.
Here, we would be paying near 1.65 a gallon if not for taxes which is keeping our price above 2.50 a gallon.
TOS.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
I would think part of the problem there are the number of alternative fuel vehicles which use the roads and bridges but don't pay toward their maintenance and/or repair.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Wonder what the true costs of an alternative fuel/high efficiency fuel vehicle that tends to be lighter and less wear/tear on the road really is?
Although less direct excise taxes from gasoline or diesel, what are the amounts of excise taxes collected from the sale of auto parts, tires, oil change and other outlets for said vehicles with embedded federal and state road excise taxes and what the actual true cost/tax revenue per alternative vehicle really is?
Although less direct excise taxes from gasoline or diesel, what are the amounts of excise taxes collected from the sale of auto parts, tires, oil change and other outlets for said vehicles with embedded federal and state road excise taxes and what the actual true cost/tax revenue per alternative vehicle really is?
Of course thats not true, but what would you know about california or our tax system??
Governor terminator used a TAX SWAP plan to try and bail himself out of a huge deficit, caused by cutting taxes for the rich and reducing the revenue of the state while driving up debt. ( just like every republican governor in this country)
The problem arises dave, when gas prices fall, tax revenues drop along with it, and with a mandate of 1.1 billion each year, taxes have to be raised in order to reach that 1.1 bilion.
But in the alternative, when gas prices rise to the republican dreamland of 4 bucks a gallon, tax revenue skyrockets.
You choose your pain.
TOS.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
In my State, gas taxes are multi fold. There is a fixed 7.5 cent per gallon State tax, an additional 4% State sales tax and in many local jurisdictions, an optional 3% local sales tax.
There is also this article on Fuel Taxes in Wikipedia.
There is also this article on Fuel Taxes in Wikipedia.
newfie
Well-Known Member
I guess Governor Moonbeam lowered those taxes once he took office?
MAKAVELI
Well-Known Member
Governed moonbeam brought us out of a deficit.
newfie
Well-Known Member
Governed moonbeam brought us out of a deficit.
so he didn't lower those taxes that TOS was crying about?
No he didnt. Like I SAID, once you have a revenue source, its almost impossible to reverse it and get rid of it. The legislature will never shut off a revenue stream until the public starts screaming, and they are just starting to scream. Activists all over california are all over legislators now that the state is in the BLACK thanks to governor Browns leadership.
Hopefully, they repeal this law, and return to the normal tax per gallon withing the tax limits on purchases.
TOS.
u tell me. your the one who originally didnt want to pay for school with your taxes. now your saying your ok with paying everything up to college.
top marginal tax rate used to be higher than 90% on the rich. not sure if they actually paid that or not, but it was that high during democratic and republican presidencies. corporations used to pay 30% of the federal tax revenues if i remember right and they now pay 8%.
a tax system which taxes something or someone, but not necessarily you. so if a person is not taxed, then it is free for them.
JL 0513
Well-Known Member
If government raised taxes right now while gas is cheap, you can bet they wouldn't be lowered when gas prices double.
JL 0513
Well-Known Member
Never said I didn't want my taxes paying 1-12. Although it does suck if you're sending your kids to a private school.
Do you know why college costs have skyrocketed so much? Easy loan money, particularly federal student loans. Colleges have inflated the cost as students don't deal with the burden upfront and can just borrow whatever it costs.
The same has happened in heathcare where patients rarely even see the real bill. Costs inflated because insurance pays the cost.
In both examples, college and healthcare would be far cheaper if the market was built around what average people could actually afford.
Point is, you make college "free", college cost would would accelerate even faster. Easy federal money, more people flooding the roles...
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
I agree. But his question remains, why would you oppose government paid higher education, but not apply the same line of thinking to k-12 education, or medicare, or roads, or the police, or the military, or anything else the government provides? Wouldn't all those things also be cheaper if "the market was built around what average people could actually afford" as you say? Why do you take such a hard line stance for no government involvement on some things but not others?
Last edited:
JL 0513
Well-Known Member
Seriously? So why don't we all just sit at home and get mailed a government check each week and call it a day.
We are $19 trillion in debt and growing fast. We need to ELIMINATE government programs and spending, not significantly add to it.
Similar threads
