We're a Nation of Flippin' Idiots--Or "I'm Tired of Working My Ass Off"

[David]

From the WSJ today:

 

"Efforts to tame America's ballooning budget deficit could soon confront a daunting reality: Nearly half of all Americans live in a household in which someone receives government benefits, more than at any time in history.

 

At the same time, the fraction of American households not paying federal income taxes has also grown—to an estimated 45% in 2010, from 39% five years ago, according to the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research organization."

[beemerman2k]

Last one to the Mexican border is a rotten egg!

 

(I'm hoping those border security guards are only looking out for people traveling north, so I might be able to smuggle myself in! )

[David]

What I meant by us being flippin' idiots is that we keep electing people who promise to spend money we don't have, and then remain in office by making additional promises to spend the money we don't have.

 

At some point people like me are going to get tired of carrying a dozen families.

 

Actually, I won't. I'll keep doing what I'm doing, but I am a tad weary of it. Maybe because I just got back from a very hard-working trip.

[questrider]

45%? Why does that shock me?

[Bob Palin]

At the same time, the fraction of American households not paying federal income taxes has also grown—to an estimated 45% in 2010, from 39% five years ago, according to the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research organization."

Doesn't that represent the increase in unemployment as much as the laziness of the people?

[Lawman]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2133115/posts

 

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."

[David]

That could be some of it, for sure.

[Bheckel169]

Gee, I feel better. A couple of years ago, I read it was 47% and this was before the economic downturn. Seems the bounty of our economy caused the rich to grow richer and the poor to be technically under the minimum federal tax requirement to pay.

Bruce

[ghaverkamp]

"Efforts to tame America's ballooning budget deficit could soon confront a daunting reality: Nearly half of all Americans live in a household in which someone receives government benefits, more than at any time in history.

 

At the same time, the fraction of American households not paying federal income taxes has also grown—to an estimated 45% in 2010, from 39% five years ago, according to the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research organization."

 

I guess I don't see the numbers to be all that surprising. We have a quickly growing elderly population, bringing, among others, government benefits of SS, Medicare, and pensions. We have a military that's reversed its downsizing trends, meaning more receiving veterans benefits. We lots of households with children, meaning many receiving public education. Most anyone who leaves home drives on public roads. Most folks receive publicly gathered, processed, and distributed water. Publicly funded police stomp on criminal activity, and publicly funded fire departments prevent homes from burning.

 

Frankly, I'm amazed they could find so many people not receiving government benefits.

[David]

All this rational discussion is not helping me maintain my rant.

[Bullett]

What I meant by us being flippin' idiots is that we keep electing people who promise to spend money we don't have, and then remain in office by making additional promises to spend the money we don't have.

 

At some point people like me are going to get tired of carrying a dozen families.

 

Actually, I won't. I'll keep doing what I'm doing, but I am a tad weary of it. Maybe because I just got back from a very hard-working trip.

 

And it's quarterly tax payment day. Kind of a double whammy.

 

 

[David]

Thanks for that sweet reminder.

[CoarsegoldKid]

From the WSJ today:

 

"Nearly half of all Americans live in a household in which someone receives government benefits, more than at any time in history... the fraction of American households not paying federal income taxes has also grown—to an estimated 45% in 2010, from 39% five years ago, according to the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research organization."

That's the result. What's the problem?

More people on SS?

More people on MC?

Higher birthrate? More deductibles.

More spending on wars?

Less people working?

Less people making more money than they did when they were?

More people on unemployment?

More people paying more fees to pay less tax?

 

What's the fix?

Eliminate SS.

Eliminate MC.

Let people starve and die when out of work.

Put birth control in the water supply. Sell the antidote.

Stop and don't start wars.

Stop all immigration.

Stop giving aid to other countries, even so called allies.

Stop importing goods.

Start educating our children.

Tax everyone but me.

 

 

just kidding!

[Shaman97]

Our choices only seem to be:

 

Tax and Spend candidates

 

OR

 

Don't Tax, but still Spend candidates.

 

Somehow the logic never (or always) works:

 

Last year a Gov't program cost $100 Million. This year, they propose $300 Million, but it gets reduced to $200 Million. This, the pols say, is a CUT of $100 Million.

 

And we somehow keep electing the same 'Goniffs'.

 

We are sheep.

[Dave McReynolds]

In the newspaper this morning, an article noted that Iraq is running a budget surplus. A question was raised as to whether they could use a part of that surplus to help pay for part of the costs of the security we're providing. The response was that Iraq needs the money to rebuild their infrastructure, and can't afford to contribute to those costs at this point in time. We can afford it, of course.

[sgendler]

More to the point, if you qualify for maximum unemployment in the most generous state in the country, you don't even make a poverty-line living (depending upon number of dependents, anyway). I have a hard time believing that there are large numbers of folks willing to live near poverty line levels in order to avoid getting a job. There may be a few, but it seems unlikely that they'd be statistically significant.

 

The flipside, of course, is that without unemployment insurance, people accept underemployment in order to get any kind of income. This is actually a backfiring strategy for economic growth because someone who is underemployed will take longer to get back to old income levels than someone who remains unemployed for longer in order to find the better job. Once you are employed in any manner, it is harder to find the job that you are really looking for. The net result is that an economy full of chronically underemployed folks will grow slower, over the long term, than one in which unemployment benefits gives them more flexibility in a job search.

 

It's a balancing act, but unemployment benefits are a provably very effective form of economic stimulus. Absolutely every penny gets spent by the recipients every single month, which is why extending them during times of extraordinary unemployment makes a lot of sense. I've never seen a good argument against them that is actually based in a plausible economic model.

 

And before the inevitable comment about 'why don't we offer unlimited unemployment benefits then, if they are so good' arises, in times of full employment (generally considered to be between 5% and 6% unemployed at the moment), there is no need for extended benefits because 13 weeks is enough time for just about anyone to find some form of work and chronic underemployment isn't a concern with full employment, so encouraging folks to find some kind of work by the end of their 13 week benefit period is rational. But that's not the economic condition we are currently experiencing.

[Ken H.]

Last one to the Mexican Canadian border is a rotten egg!

Fixed it for ya!

 

 

 

Oh wait - BTDT

 

(Not to say that we might not be whistling past the graveyard a bit here too.)

[Ken H.]

Nearly half of all Americans live in a household in which someone receives government benefits, more than at any time in history.

That number is so misleading, what defines "government benefits"? Even an FDIC insured savings account could be calculated as a “government benefit” by someone’s measure. Aren’t we ALL suppose to receive benefits from our governments? Isn't that the whole point of a government?

 

Now that being said, I agree the current model and efforts to sustain it are hopeless.

 

[Francois_Dumas]

All this rational discussion is not helping me maintain my rant.

 

Couldn't help but grin over that one....

 

 

The trouble is that it is not only in the US, so where to run to !!?? The alternatives don't look good.......

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

That's the result. What's the problem?

More people on SS?

 

...

What's the fix?

Eliminate SS.

 

We had that particular discussion just seven months ago. The age of elibility needs to increase by at least five years.

[BFish]

as far as those households not paying taxes i'd like to point out that the abundance of tax credits currently available could distort this stat. Have a few decent earning clients with credits ranging from the child care to tuition and everything in between. they have a tax, but don't end up with a liablility due to the credits. in addition, refunds may be coming due to certain credits.

 

without getting political, the higher income taxpayers are covering more of the federal budget. it's a fact. not sure which way the tax rates are going to go, but i've gota feeling that stat will continue to increase. so cut taxes for low to middle income individuals which already get all the tax breaks and credits?

 

i can't go any further without getting political, but i see these issues every day.

 

 

[Whip]

I have had the same feelings on and off for years. Some how I just put them out of my head and go about my day. I try my best to take advantage of the positive side of self employment. I have learned to compartmentalize the bidness side of my life. In other words I know what is going on in our country's economy, but I choose to either ignore it or block it out of my mind.

 

 

 

 

[tallman]

We're supposed to pay taxes?

[beemerman2k]

I see these problems as being related to the "what's in your wallet" thread in that government does not want to accept that when American industries up and move elsewhere (China, for instance) it's not just the former employees of that company that are now without revenue. Government has less revenue coming in as well, which means that government cannot afford the things it once could. Yet government insists upon relying on the credit card and the balooning defecits to continue living as though there was plenty of money in the bank.

[Bob Palin]

The government doesn't do anything long term without the will of the people, if the electorate stands up and says we want fiscal responsibility and will only elect those that give it to us they would get it. But they don't say that, they want the spending programs and tolerate a lot more waste and wanton spending.

[VinnyR11]

The average unemployment check in the U.S. is somewhere around $290 per week. If you eat dirt and save every penny you could hardly buy just one of the bikes most of us ride around on just for fun.

 

Never in my life have I had so many friends and relatives in financial trouble. I agree that we're out of control on spending, but I'm also happy as hell that I'm on the "able to pay taxes" side of the equation.

 

We're going through very tough times, but I'm still optimistic that we're going to come through it fine. Labor is inching up, the market has held up surprisingly well considering the depth of our problems, and people are truly getting pissed off at the imagined money trees that many politicians think we have growing in every district.

 

Now if we can only get people to stop saying "the government should spend less!!" and start telling us what the government either gives them now or has promised to give THEM later that they are willing to give up. Many, many fewer takers on that one.

 

 

[Nice n Easy Rider]

Now if we can only get people to stop saying "the government should spend less!!" and start telling us what the government either gives them now or has promised to give THEM later that they are willing to give up. Many, many fewer takers on that one.

+1

I keep hearing people at the local level complain about their taxes being too high but anytime I've asked them what services that our local government provides that they'd be willing to give up - all I get back is silence. As a corollary to that, people say we need more tax-revenue generating businesses in our community - but not in their neighborhoods. I guess it's human nature to want to have your cake and eat it too.

[tallman]

Mimimum Wage @$7.25 to $8.ish times 40 hours = $290 to $330 dollars before taxes, and work related costs.

So why work?

Is unemployment still a check or is there direct deposit?

Not a lot of money, true, but as much as many people who WORK earn and possibly more after expenses.

 

[philbytx]

I'm doing a "Whip" and compartmentalizing .

And I choose not to care one whit about idiots and people making stupid/bad decisions!

 

SO THERE !

 

[Whip]

The government doesn't do anything long term without the will of the people, if the electorate stands up and says we want fiscal responsibility and will only elect those that give it to us they would get it. But they don't say that, they want the spending programs and tolerate a lot more waste and wanton spending.

 

That has been true in the past.

 

[Mike]

Nearly half of all Americans live in a household in which someone receives government benefits, more than at any time in history.

That number is so misleading, what defines "government benefits"? Even an FDIC insured savings account could be calculated as a “government benefit” by someone’s measure. Aren’t we ALL suppose to receive benefits from our governments? Isn't that the whole point of a government?

 

Now that being said, I agree the current model and efforts to sustain it are hopeless.

 

Ken, I think that the definition for the purposes of that statistic, were drawn less expansively, to include things like subsidized housing, food stamps, etc. The WSJ article is here.

 

Regardless of what the percentage is, or how the term "government assistance" is defined, the problem seems to be pretty clear--our country's income projections fall far short of meeting its future financial needs. I'm not too many years away from being part of that 45%, as I'll be eligible for a government pension and Social Security. But, I've begun to wonder if those things will be there.

 

It's all bad enough in my view that my wife and I have at least casually kicked around the idea of moving to another country in our retirement years. It's attractive, in terms of potential savings and in the sense that most of the places we've talked about have a nicer climate (what's not better than Chicago's weather?), but it also saddens me that it's something that we'd even consider.

[Heck]

The government doesn't do anything long term without the will of the people, if the electorate stands up and says we want fiscal responsibility and will only elect those that give it to us they would get it.

 

Listen to the man's prophecies.....

 

 

[Joel]

It's a balancing act, but unemployment benefits are a probably very effective form of economic stimulus. Absolutely every penny gets spent by the recipients every single month, which is why extending them during times of extraordinary unemployment makes a lot of sense. I've never seen a good argument against them that is actually based in a plausible economic model.

 

I can't disagree with the importance of the benefits to the recipient, and that the benefits have some economic effect, but I have a hard time viewing them as "stimulus." And I don't think that is just a matter of semantics. At best, the economic effect of benefits or extended benefits would be to offset some erosion in spending that would have occurred anyway (rent, groceries, etc.), but at a lower level. That might mitigate some impacts of the downturn, but won't do much to reverse the the course. To do that, there needs to be stimulus that will have farther reaching effects.

[Mike]

I keep hearing people at the local level complain about their taxes being too high but anytime I've asked them what services that our local government provides that they'd be willing to give up - all I get back is silence. As a corollary to that, people say we need more tax-revenue generating businesses in our community - but not in their neighborhoods. I guess it's human nature to want to have your cake and eat it too.

 

I can come up with a pretty good list in our community, including something we call a Special Events and Cultural Amenities Fund (SECA), that funds tiny cultural festivals, comedy club productions, art fairs, and the like. In a City facing a $4.8 million deficit next year, we spend $2.9 million on this fund. Our Park District--and I love our parks--is expanding substantially. One of its upcoming projects will be to build a cricket pitch on land it is clearing; I have nothing against cricket, but there are probably no more than a dozen or two people in our city of 140,000 that have ever actually played cricket. Grass is no longer a satisfactory surface for our high school football players or grade school-age soccer teams . . . yep, Astro-Turf (or whatever they call it these days).

 

The bottom line is that, even on the local level, in a community that tut-tuts irresponsible spending by the state and federal government, we clamor for more. It's a "Where's mine?" mentality that completely ignores the notion that there may be a limited source of funds available through taxation and that, therefore, projects that benefit the most people should take precedence.

[Bob Palin]

This just in:

 

"Percentage of Americans in poverty rises to 14.3% in 2009, highest in decades, Census Bureau says."

[Lawman]

To do that, there needs to be stimulus that will have farther reaching effects.

 

Are you referring to "stimulus" like this?

 

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/75198

[Ken H.]

That might mitigate some impacts of the downturn, but won't do much to reverse the the course. To do that, there needs to be stimulus that will have farther reaching effects.

Is there such a thing? I’ve seen at least one projection model that puts the number at six times the global GDP. I don’t think we can ‘stimulate’ our way back to 1972. A better choice would be to face the music. This current social/economic model is a goner.

[Ken H.]

The bottom line is that, even on the local level, in a community that tut-tuts irresponsible spending by the state and federal government, we clamor for more. It's a "Where's mine?" mentality that completely ignores the notion that there may be a limited source of funds available through taxation and that, therefore, projects that benefit the most people should take precedence.

And that in a nutshell sums up the whole darn stinkin’ problem – 'As long as I get mine, I don’t care.' At any level on just about any subject.

[Matts_12GS]

That might mitigate some impacts of the downturn, but won't do much to reverse the the course. To do that, there needs to be stimulus that will have farther reaching effects.

Is there such a thing? I’ve seen at least one projection model that puts the number at six times the global GDP. I don’t think we can ‘stimulate’ our way back to 1972. A better choice would be to face the music. This current social/economic model is a goner.

 

I recommend we remove the current tax code which seems to exist only to punish achievement and replace it with a pure consumption tax or something similar a la the Fair Tax, although not necessarily the Fair Tax.

 

The stimulus part? It's about liberty and freedom... Let people keep what they earn and pay taxes only on what they use. That will create a fundamental change in the American culture.

 

Idealistic? Yup.

Plausible? Up for debate, but I believe it would work.

Likely to happen? Not a snowball's chance in hell because it would put "We the People" back in charge of the country by taking away so much of the government's ability to control behaviors by taxation.

[tallman]

Just to remind those who may not remember, tomorrow, September 17th is Constitution Day.

 

"We the People..."

[TEDZ]

Here in Illinois, one Governor's candidate is saying the other candidate hasn't had to pay income tax for the last few years. Now I'm sure he's made good money over that period, he's currently a State Representative. (Not judging, just wanting to keep this thread interesting.)

We don't need good sport teams in Illinois, we've got politicians to entertain/frustrate us.

[russell_bynum]

The government doesn't do anything long term without the will of the people, if the electorate stands up and says we want fiscal responsibility and will only elect those that give it to us they would get it. But they don't say that, they want the spending programs and tolerate a lot more waste and wanton spending.

 

Yup.

[Tom R.]

Vinny G said "Now if we can only get people to stop saying "the government should spend less!!"

 

I agree. If we (the tax payers/voters) changed this statement and more accurately said "the tax payers should spend less" we might see a change. The "government" doesn't spend money. The people making the spending decisions are simply other citizens that we the voters elected. We are the government.

 

Like any meaningful change in behavior, we simply need to change the way we think; change our belief system. I lost 50 lbs by admitting to myself that my beliefs about nutrition and exercise were simply wrong. My new belief system is producing better results.

 

If/When enough people change their belief system, we will see a meaningful change in spending.

[Motodan]

We all need to think REAL hard before declaring that anyone of us is breaking their back for others. In one way or another, everyone, in some way, benefits from a gov benefit and directly. From a child's school lunch to a farmer's support levy, we all GET SOMETHING out of the deal. And SS, MC and some of these other "benefits" are my money coming back to me after paying in for 50 years, finally.

[upflying]

I flipped open the newspaper this morning, front page,top left story...

 

"If Congress does not vote to extend Bush era tax cuts, a family of four earning $100,000 will see federal taxes increase by $4500 next year".

 

That kind of news means I will not be stimulating the economy with any big ticket purchases.

 

 

 

 

[tallman]

Not only that, some will sell stuff for a loss leaving them in non-producing mode and take a write off over years.

That'll help ahstimyouleight nuttin for knowbodee.

Been doing my part refurbishing and spending $$ but those days are coming closer to endsies.

May have to get a tutor and learn to speak Canadian...

[Ken H.]

We all need to think REAL hard before declaring that anyone of us is breaking their back for others. In one way or another, everyone, in some way, benefits from a gov benefit and directly. From a child's school lunch to a farmer's support levy, we all GET SOMETHING out of the deal. And SS, MC and some of these other "benefits" are my money coming back to me after paying in for 50 years, finally.

Agreed.

 

I don’t think it’s about how much the government spends it all. “The government spends too much money!” “Do away with taxes!” choruses are just sound bites designed to elicit an emotional ‘we’re mad at something, we don’t know what, but something’ responses. If you whip people into enough of a frenzy you can get them to do just about anything.

 

The real issue is that we don’t think we’re getting enough value for our money in what the government does. Few people I don’t think honestly could say (or at least they haven’t thought it through) that, taken to its logical extreme, a government that spends nothing would be a better alternative. As you say, we all benefit in a multitude of ways from our respective governments. We just want what it does to cost less.

 

I think part of the problem too is governments (at all levels) don’t really do a good job of selling/promoting what they are doing well. Part of the result then is everyone answers – “Nothing.” Which if we were to be even halfway objective about it; really isn’t true.

 

[Ken H.]

I recommend we remove the current tax code which seems to exist only to punish achievement and replace it with a pure consumption tax or something similar a la the Fair Tax, although not necessarily the Fair Tax.

At first blush; I have a tendency to agree. Consumption taxes or maybe a better term is User Fees are a better, more equitable, more efficient scheme. You pay school taxes/fees while you have kids in school, when you don’t you don’t. More (all?) roads should be toll roads, etc. (But be ready for the fees for the things you DO use to be much higher when the subsidy by those who don’t use them goes away.)

 

But as usual the devil is in the details. How do I calculate what portion of (for example) national defense I ‘used’ this year? Or police, crime prevention. If I never called the police all year and was never a victim of a crime all year, is my ‘Invoice for 2010 Police Services’ n/c? And what about the people who used national defense but truly have no way to pay for it? If (in the case of consumption based crime prevention) they have no way to pay, do the police not come if they call 911?

 

And how do we over come the perception of the value received was worth what I paid? Using the national defense example again - one person feels it is vitally important and is quite willing to pay their ‘Defense Fee’ for the year, but another person thinks it is less so (maybe feels diplomacy is more effective or something) so thinks they were ripped off. So the problem of perception of the value of government remains anyway. In the end you haven’t solved it.

 

[Paul Mihalka]

There are direct ways of applying consumption tax. I can mention two, there may be others, widely used in Europe. One is a federal sales tax, I think in the UK they call it VAT (Value Added Tax, stupid name) which is included in the stated price of whatever you are buying. I just ordered a Nolan helmet from Germany and they discounted 19% sales tax (!) from the advertised price because I don't have to pay it. The other is tax on gas/diesel. Their prices are so much higher than ours on gas because of it. If you don't use it because you are close to everything or use mass transit, you don't pay it. Sales tax is in a way progressive, because rich people buy more stuff so they pay more.

I'm not saying that's the way to go (I might ) but it never hurts to look what other people are doing.

[Ken H.]

There are direct ways of applying consumption tax. I can mention two, there may be others, widely used in Europe. One is a federal sales tax, I think in the UK they call it VAT (Value Added Tax, stupid name) which is included in the stated price of whatever you are buying. I just ordered a Nolan helmet from Germany and they discounted 19% sales tax (!) from the advertised price because I don't have to pay it. The other is tax on gas/diesel. Their prices are so much higher than ours on gas because of it. If you don't use it because you are close to everything or use mass transit, you don't pay it. Sales tax is in a way progressive, because rich people buy more stuff so they pay more.

Yes, in Canada we have a similar GST. I think (but I’d have to do some research to confirm) it is a larger contributor to the federal budget than income taxes are.

 

I do personally agree with the concept of moving more toward that direction, but I think it’s foolhardy to advocate such as a total solution.

 

I think in Canada there is also much less ‘taking out of one pocket and putting in the other.’ Which as two effects. One the moneys collected for A are much more likely to be used for A not B. Secondly it improves the credibility of government as a whole that it is doing what it is saying it is.

 

I'm not saying that's the way to go (I might ) but it never hurts to look what other people are doing.

Slight hijack –

 

I think that’s one of the big problems with the USA and to a lesser extent Canada as a whole. An egotistical driven refusal to scour the rest of the world for solutions, and willingness to consider/implement them. The USA period, and Canada’s propensity to only look toward the USA. Come on (insert name of government head here) it’s a big world out there with thinking people everywhere. You need to ‘get out’ more!