Republicans plan massive tax code overhaul

[RCinMT]

Since the interstate highway is a federal system, shouldn’t it be paid for by everyone. BTW, everyone benefits by having access to goods that are not produced in their state. The interstates are full of trucks that are just carrying goods from one state to another. The costs of goods will go up, both as a result of tolls and potential time lost going through toll points.

Allow those who sell and use the goods to pay for them. I consider that another consequence of the system could be people shopping for goods produced locally. That seems not to be a bad thing to me.

How would those park service employees raise money to pay for clean-up and enforcement. They already rely on volunteers and fund raising because their budgets do not cover what it costs to maintain them.

Quite simple, I wouldn’t eliminate the DOI nor the USNPS, I would simply have a few experts in the needed field at each park. These people would provide reports to a reduced bureaucratic body at the USNPS with full ability to enforce stated standards. It would be the responsible of the private companies, entrusted as fiduciaries of the public lands, to maintain the lands in accordance with developed standards.

Given the magnitude of some disasters along with the frequency, the charities would not be able to keep up. They already work at all sorts of disasters, both large and small.

It’s possible that lower taxes would increase the giving to these charities, especially in times of need, and these organizations would be flexible and responsive without red tape to cut through.

Privatizing often sounds like a wonderful alternative to government programs. However, you often lose economies from scale, you have even more bureaucracy (each company will have their own bureaucracy, forms, rules, in addition to the federal/state/local stuff,), you are open to more skimming off the top and graft (more fingers in the pie). There is no simple answer as long as people are involved. We are complicated and we make things complicated.

I would argue that government has the same issues if not more. Qualified individuals aren’t always appointed, lifelong employees who are virtually impossible to terminate become apathetic in some cases and governmental red tape is considerably more burdensome than rules established by private, independent firms that exist to serve limited needs.

 

[sallybutler]

Allow those who sell and use the goods to pay for them. I consider that another consequence of the system could be people shopping for goods produced locally. That seems not to be a bad thing to me.

Quite simple, I wouldn’t eliminate the DOI nor the USNPS, I would simply have a few experts in the needed field at each park. These people would provide reports to a reduced bureaucratic body at the USNPS with full ability to enforce stated standards. It would be the responsible of the private companies, entrusted as fiduciaries of the public lands, to maintain the lands in accordance with developed standards.

It’s possible that lower taxes would increase the giving to these charities, especially in times of need, and these organizations would be flexible and responsive without red tape to cut through.

I would argue that government has the same issues if not more. Qualified individuals aren’t always appointed, lifelong employees who are virtually impossible to terminate become apathetic in some cases and governmental red tape is considerably more burdensome than rules established by private, independent firms that exist to serve limited needs.

Have you ever worked for more than 1 large company? or had to deal with more than one? Each has paperwork that has to be done. Each accounting department is going to have different forms they want filled out - usually with the same information, but in a different format than the other companies will want. I don’t know if governmental red tabe is more burdensome than private because I’ve only ever worked for private companies. But I can tell you that for every hour I spend programming and testing, I spend 3 on documentation and forms for departments other than my own.

As for people that are virtually impossible to terminate, that is also a problem in private companies. People often have theories about why person x is still there, ranging from they must have something on someone to … well the imagination soars.

Perhaps, having worked for private companies all my life, I am as cynical about companies as you are about government.

 

[Michael68]

Have you ever worked for more than 1 large company? or had to deal with more than one? Each has paperwork that has to be done. Each accounting department is going to have different forms they want filled out - usually with the same information, but in a different format than the other companies will want. I don’t know if governmental red tabe is more burdensome than private because I’ve only ever worked for private companies. But I can tell you that for every hour I spend programming and testing, I spend 3 on documentation and forms for departments other than my own.

As for people that are virtually impossible to terminate, that is also a problem in private companies. People often have theories about why person x is still there, ranging from they must have something on someone to … well the imagination soars.

Perhaps, having worked for private companies all my life, I am as cynical about companies as you are about government.

So you don’t know the real reason a person is still employed there so instead of find out you gossip and assume. I know people like this and they are annoying.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The contention is that if there were less taxes collected for FEMA purposes, people would donate more to organizations that assist in disaster relief and recovery.

Wow! You can imagine anything you like, I suppose. But if the government stopped all disaster relief, that would make a minuscule change in the spending, and therefore in taxes. The average person would not feel so unburdened that he would immediately take out his checkbook and make a donation to a charity that does disaster relief. Or to put it another way, people are not holding back from making these donations now just because some of their taxes goes to disaster relief. What you are suggesting is a highly questionable experiment that puts at risk the lives of those who become victims of a disaster, all to satisfy your ideological theory.

 

[sallybutler]

So you don’t know the real reason a person is still employed there so instead of find out you gossip and assume. I know people like this and they are annoying.

Actually, people tell me whether I want to know or not. I also don’t pass on the information because it is none of my business. But thanks for letting me know what you assume I do.

 

[Michael68]

Actually, people tell me whether I want to know or not. I also don’t pass on the information because it is none of my business. But thanks for letting me know what you assume I do.

I apologize for the assumption.

 

[sallybutler]

I apologize for the assumption.

Thank you. Apology accepted.

 

[RCinMT]

Wow! You can imagine anything you like, I suppose.

It’s Time to Get Rid of FEMA
Disaster expenditures are determined by whether the states affected are important to the president’s reelection and local representatives are members of oversight committees

EMILY SKARBEK AND DAVID SKARBEK SEP 12, 2011 U.S.
Share Tweet …
TEXT SIZE

Like The Atlantic? Subscribe to the Daily, our free weekday email newsletter.
Email
SIGN UP
Disaster expenditures are determined by whether the states affected are important to the president’s reelection and local representatives are members of oversight committees

theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/09/its-time-to-get-rid-of-fema/244860/

September 2011
In the last two weeks, a 5.9-magnitude earthquake and Hurricane Irene both rocked the East Coast. Immediately, politicians began touting the crucial role that FEMA would play in rebuilding these communities and the need for federal disaster response. However, these presumptions are largely based on the misguided notions that the federal government can redirect necessary resources efficiently and that private enterprise is incapable of getting the job done. Contemporary and historical evidence show that neither of these assumptions is justified.

FEMA is expensive, crippled with bureaucratic red tape, and driven by political interests rather than emergency needs.
Politicians from all sides of the political spectrum agree that FEMA’s work in the wake of Hurricane Katrina was a spectacular failure. The relief efforts and resources were delivered too slowly, to the wrong people, and in insufficient levels. Add to that how they prevented charitable groups like the American Red Cross from entering New Orleans to pick up the slack for their own failed efforts. Unfortunately, FEMA’s failure in New Orleans went well beyond the blundered mistakes of a few inept bureaucrats. Their inability to be effective was a symptom of a much deeper problem.

FEMA consistently responds to political influence rather than the victims’ needs. Economists Thomas Garrett and Russell Sobel studied FEMA’s policies and found that disaster expenditures are strongly determined by whether the states affected are important to the president’s reelection and whether the local congressional representatives are members of FEMA oversight committees. In their study, Garrett and Sobel found that nearly half of all expenditures are determined by political considerations rather than identifying and executing an appropriate need-based response.

Some people fear that in the absence of FEMA, individuals will be left without proper channels for relief in the wake of massive natural disasters. This is simply not true. The American people have a tremendous desire to help others when disaster strikes. Our nation is built upon a strong civil society composed of charitable and non-profit groups whose missions are grounded in providing the organizational backing to support individual efforts to care for others. Within one week of Hurricane Katrina, for example, the American Red Cross had sent thousands of volunteers into disaster areas, opened up 275 shelters in nine states, and were providing nearly 500,000 hot meals to disaster victims every day.

The historical record for disaster response in the absence of FEMA and a centralized federal operation also attests to the ability for private enterprise to provide more efficient relief more effectively. The Great Chicago Fire of 1871, one of the most devastating disasters in the 19th century, is a particularly compelling example. The fire killed hundreds of people, left one third of the city burned to the ground, and over a hundred thousand people homeless. FEMA was not there to direct the emergency response, and, in fact, because there was no income tax, people had no charitable tax-deduction incentive to give.

Despite the complete absence of federal aid, historians have documented how remarkably swift and extensive the relief effort was after the Great Chicago Fire. Donations from businesses, individuals, voluntary associations, and aid from small municipal governments arrived immediately and funded the entire recovery effort. A private charitable organization, the Chicago Relief and Aid Society, managed all of the contributions and coordinated the massive effort. Within a month after the fire, the Society built homes from scratch for over 30,000 people – complete with stoves, crockery, and bedding. Over the course of the following year, the Society supplied over 150,000 people with weekly rations, including fuel and fresh beef, administered over 70,000 free small pox vaccinations, assisted people in finding employment, and provided free transportation on the railroads for people seeking to relocate.

Businesses, charities, and individual citizens gave the most resources to those affected in the Great Chicago Fire. These same charitable foundations continue to exist today, and civil society has both the desire and ability to provide the resources needed to help victims of natural disasters. In contrast, FEMA is expensive, crippled with bureaucratic red tape, and driven by political interests rather than emergency needs. Let’s address the current federal fiscal disaster by cutting the $6 billion budget for FEMA and allow civil society to resume its role in providing true relief for the sustenance of a vibrant democracy.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It’s Time to Get Rid of FEMA
Disaster expenditures are determined by whether the states affected are important to the president’s reelection and local representatives are members of oversight committees

EMILY SKARBEK AND DAVID SKARBEK SEP 12, 2011 U.S.

Saying that FEMA is poorly managed is a very different claim from saying that all government should stop trying to do disaster relief. What about state and local government? Even they helped out in the Chicago Fire.

 

[JonNC]

Saying that FEMA is poorly managed is a very different claim from saying that all government should stop trying to do disaster relief. What about state and local government? Even they helped out in the Chicago Fire.

It is an appropriate function of state and local government, and appropriate neighborliness when states help each other, like Texas did for Louisiana after Katrina

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It is an appropriate function of state and local government, and appropriate neighborliness when states help each other, like Texas did for Louisiana after Katrina

OK, so the question is, does RCinMT agree with you when RC says:

-I would like to see the government get out of the disaster relief business. Allow organizations like Red Cross, Catholic charities, etc. to assist in these situations

RC does not seem to make a distinction between various levels of government. Care to clarify, RC?

 

[M-Dent]

I am unsure if Trump agrees with the House proposed Border-adjustment tax. Where the taxes are destination based - or where items are sold. Exports would be exempt from US tax. Imports would be taxed at the new lower rate of 20%. It sounds like something the President-elect may agree with.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Saying that FEMA is poorly managed is a very different claim from saying that all government should stop trying to do disaster relief. What about state and local government? Even they helped out in the Chicago Fire.

State and especially local government should take the lead on events like the Chicago Fire.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I believe the liberals look at all money as the government’s and you can have what they allow you to have. It seems they have absolutely no problem taking someone’s money to pay for what they (liberals) feel is necessary.

Someone mentioned we have a spending problem not an income problem. I agree totally with this statement.

The key word in all of this is feel.

 

[SuperLuigi]

“Allow” charities to assist in disaster relief? There is nothing preventing that right now. You are essentially calling for less disaster relief, period. Is there any politician you could vote for that advocates zero disaster relief by government?

Charities are hindered primarily by government. First, because people end up paying in some cases 60 cents for every dollar they make to government instead of being able to give it to charity. Second, because absurd government regulations limit their ability to operate.

 

[JonNC]

State and especially local government should take the lead on events like the Chicago Fire.

The mistake Bush made was waiting for the Louisiana governor and New Orleans mayor to do their job.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Charities are hindered primarily by government. First, because people end up paying in some cases 60 cents for every dollar they make to government instead of being able to give it to charity.

Two points:

1. Nobody pays 60 cents for every dollar they make. The top tax bracket is less than 40%, and that is only paid on income above $400,000. Even if you throw in state income taxes and state sales taxes and every other kind of tax you can imagine, I don’t think you will reach 60% tax rate.
2. Even if the current tax burden is too high, it is not too high because of government disaster relief. And that is the subject I was debating with RCinMT, when RC said that government should get out of the business of disaster relief. If government stopped all disaster relief, that would not change the total government expenditure by more than one penny on the dollar in taxes. It certainly won’t be enough to cause many people to donate more to disaster relief efforts.

Second, because absurd government regulations limit their ability to operate.

There are many government regulations you might be talking about. Some of them may very well be absurd, and others may be good and reasonable. Of course this gets a little far from the thread topic of the Republicans plan for tax overhaul.

 

[ProVobis]

State and especially local government should take the lead on events like the Chicago Fire.

I would think so.

In Chicago, if the roads aren’t plowed right after a snowstorm, the mayor doesn’t get reelected.

 

[SuperLuigi]

1. Nobody pays 60 cents for every dollar they make. The top tax bracket is less than 40%, and that is only paid on income above $400,000. Even if you throw in state income taxes and state sales taxes and every other kind of tax you can imagine, I don’t think you will reach 60% tax rate.

Factor in state and local taxes in some areas and folks are.

1. Even if the current tax burden is too high, it is not too high because of government disaster relief. And that is the subject I was debating with RCinMT, when RC said that government should get out of the business of disaster relief. If government stopped all disaster relief, that would not change the total government expenditure by more than one penny on the dollar in taxes. It certainly won’t be enough to cause many people to donate more to disaster relief efforts.

The issue is that government doesn’t do a good job because of incentives. Saw this first hand in LA during Katrina and in Michigan during Flint water crisis.

If government was good at what it did, people would not need to make moral arguments for big government and its actions would stand on their own merit.

There are many government regulations you might be talking about. Some of them may very well be absurd, and others may be good and reasonable. Of course this gets a little far from the thread topic of the Republicans plan for tax overhaul.

Regulations and fees are basically like a tax because they are added costs to businesses, which just pass the costs on to customers. Liberal Democrats love to say that businesses need to pay their “fair share” really without ever specifying what that is (although some at occupy said 35%, which would be a tax cut for many investors).

 

[ProVobis]

Factor in state and local taxes in some areas and folks are.

The issue is that government doesn’t do a good job because of incentives. Saw this first hand in LA during Katrina and in Michigan during Flint water crisis.

If government was good at what it did, people would not need to make moral arguments for big government and its actions would stand on their own merit.

Regulations and fees are basically like a tax because they are added costs to businesses, which just pass the costs on to customers. Liberal Democrats love to say that businesses need to pay their “fair share” really without ever specifying what that is (although some at occupy said 35%, which would be a tax cut for many investors).

Through the tax code government determines winners and losers, not exactly the most ideal situation for anti-government advocates.