Brazen careerist
Where ambitious young professionals connect and grow
Email
Print
Last night the governor of Texas said that one day it might be possible for his state to secede from the union, and this drew some big cheers from the conservatives in the audience.
I guess it really is like a whole other country, which makes their flag-waiving and patriotism look pretty hollow.
I am currently reading Read this author's blog.
For more timely, relevant, and engaging articles,
subscribe to Brazen Careerist.
- How To Find a Writing Partner Who Can Help You Achieve Your Goals and Make More Money
- A New Kind of Business Mover and Shaker
- Why You Might Be Better Off Without a Job After College
- Continuing Education: Extending Learning Beyond Your Campus Years
- The Anti-Stalker’s Guide for Converting Online Contact into Real World Collaboration
Comments
04.17.09
As a strident progressive from North Carolina, I take offense at your inaccurate 2008 election map: NC went for Obama, as did Virginia.
04.17.09
So did Colorado, Indiana and Nevada.
04.17.09
Here are the true final 2008 election returns.
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/election_night_2008/election_map_premium/i...
As you can see, Obama got 52.7% of the popular vote and 365 Electoral Votes, not the 311 your graphic shows.
04.17.09
Save your confederate money for the south shall rise again!
04.17.09
You know that a lack of centralised government was one of the main reasons why Spain, England and France so easily conquered America in the first place, right?
I mean, they're not likely to do it again, but it's still better to be united than to be divided into dozens of independent states.
It's not like there's a legitimate reason to seperate. All Americans follow a similar culture and speak the same language, Obama isn't exactly the next Hitler, and wealth levels aren't that drastic between different regions.
And besides, the entire land mass was stolen from the natives. Historic claims go out the window.
04.17.09
This seems like an interesting application for eRepublik ;-)
04.17.09
As a southerner who openly supported and voted for Obama, I don't exactly know what to say about this post. We're not all confederate flag-waving, gun-toting rednecks like everyone seems to think. There are more people like me down here than the rest of the country would like to believe; we're just not the majority.
And yes, it is somewhat like a whole other country down here. Where I might not agree with the political majority in the area, I enjoy the weather, the manners, and the food so much more than I did when I briefly lived above the Mason-Dixon. It's amazing what people will put up with for bbq.
04.17.09
As a conservative, I'd be happy to split from the "progressive" part of the country. Then maybe I could keep more of my money that I bust my ass for.
Who would fund your "progressive" programs? Taxes from a bunch of government workers? Yeah, that has sustainability written all over it.
Posts like this wonder why I bust my ass to get ahead in life. Maybe I should just quit at my current job and become a public school teacher. Then, I can have my summers off and let my "progressive" government give me my house, income, health care, etc. by robbing the other suckers out there who are still working hard!
04.17.09
Or maybe I should become a "freelance" writer like the author of this post. Then I could hang out in coffee shops and bitch about those foolish conservatives that keep going to work each day to make money and support themselves.
Oh yeah, I guess I am a "freelance" writer (I have a blog) but it is in addition to my actual job. I'd rather support myself then hang out at Starbucks and allow other hard working people to fund my entitlement-focused life.
Tim, why are you entitled to my money?
04.17.09
The author of this post says "Wouldn’t we be better off if we didn’t have this albatross hanging around our necks?" referring to the south of America.
So, you are excited to have the thriving state of California driving your country forward? California (and NY) are in absolute shambles and require massive assistance (or insane taxes) just to keep operating.
Only an idiot would want to model the entire country after the state of California.
Ok, that's three comments in a row from me. Currently, the author of this post is "hanging out" at his local Starbucks. He will be back shortly from his long, tough day to respond.
04.17.09
@20's Money Guy - I have to say, I used to look at your writing with respect (even if I didn't agree with all of your opinions) until most recent post and these last few comments. Also having a background in finance (and an actual Series-7 license, quite a bit of money under management, and a 10 year career as well), I too understand the implications of taxes on the overall wealth and prosperity of the country. However, your dismissal of school teachers, government workers, and "freelancers" (as though it's a bad word) is deplorable, not to mention personally insulting.
Being the son of a school teacher and minister, both of whom busted their butt (much like you, or even harder, I'd imagine) and still ended up with less. I made more money in my 3rd year in the financial services industry than my mother made after 10. That's a shame.
As for myself, I'm also a progressive voter who lives in the South. Florida, to be exact. Which, if you're not familiar, has been destroyed by years of a Republican legislature, to the tune of a 6 billion dollar deficit in the state budget. Services have been cut so deep, in fact, that my mother spends some of her own money each year (around $1,000 annually) to provide the necessary items in her class, such as paper. Is that the entitlement program you're referring to?
I see people like you endlessly rail against what you define as entitlement programs as though they are stealing money right out of your pocket. The current structure in the US affords us the opportunity to earn that income, but it comes at a price. That price is we all pitch in. Is the government the most fiscally responsible group? Hardly. But neither is Wall Street, or most people on Main Street. People like Tim and I feel that it is a society's moral obligation to provide certain services, such as health care, for all people, regardless of their situation. You see that as theft, and I don't see us ever agreeing on that.
So my question to you is: why aren't you concerned about military spending, which is higher than any other government program? Perhaps because there is a profit incentive for you? (Investing in companies that have a large amount of military contracts). If spending is such a problem, then I recommend you not only protest the recent increase in the Fed's balance sheet, but also military spending, any public works programs, regulatory oversight groups such as the FCC, etc. So go fund your own militia, pave your own private roads, and grow your own food.
04.17.09
Hey Mr. Enlightened Socially progressive northerner,
So if the South were seperated the rest of the country would have a ridiculous budget deficit such as California's, an extinct manufacturing industry in the rust belt taken down by unions, and a financial industry in New York that basically turned the country's economy upside down. But hey, you would have your universal health care! That has worked wonders for Canada, since they come down here for decent, timely procedures since the "free" health care up there is SO stellar.
Oh yeah, your other point is that you would have an education system that would promote "socially progressive" thinkers like yourself to come up with such interesting ideas such as this, head back to the coffee shop and please keep coming up with these ridiculous thoughts on the "superiority" of the rest of the country because it shows how uninformed and idiotic your way of thinking really is.
04.17.09
I am against excessive military spending, especially when we're broke. I disagree with much of our military action, more for fiscal reasons than national security reasons.
Sure, some regulatory structure is needed; however, we're doing a pretty piss poor job in this regard. (Great job SEC).
FYI, I'm in Florida as well. I'm aware of the education cuts. It's a shame, but its the reality that results from terrible fiscal policy. Fiscal responsibility seems to be in most states and at the federal level.
Have I been pro-Republican? No. Bush was almost just as bad as Obama in terms of fiscal discipline.
All I'm saying is you can't have it both ways. When you tax the productive, you're likely to discourage people to be productive. When you print money in the name of "stimulus", you're gonna get inflation. When you bail out people, you tell them that irresponsibility and excessive risk is ok. When you become an entitlement society, you bankrupt the country.
I suggest you take a look at the lifecycle of civilization as described back in 1787... http://www.thefreedomfactory.us/the-lifecycle-of-civilizations/ What stage are we in?
04.17.09
BTW, my wife is a public school teacher.
04.17.09
Your 2008 electoral map is wrong.
Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Indiana, and Nevada all voted for Obama, but they are red on your map.
Missouri was also extremely close.
These facts negate most of your point. Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida were confederate states, and they voted for Obama. Richmond, Virgina was the capital of the Confederacy.
Also, when George Bush Jr. was President, many liberals talked/joked about moving to Canada or annexing their northern state to Canada. Now that Barack Obama has been elected, conservatives are expressing similar sentiments. (although I don't think the conservative states want to annex themselves to Mexico).
04.17.09
I think u had a great argument until you referred to getting rid of the south but I understand where you're coming from. I actually thought you were referring to the fact that in many southern states and some north racism and segregation is secretly practiced and willingly accepted. Only because my recent news of Texas was that many of them still disapprove of the race of our president. I'm so not pro anything especially since money is the only thing involved in most gov't decisions but it does disturb me that so many are not willing to let things go and try something new. Maybe all these policies and such need a revamp b/c times have no doubt changed.
04.17.09
@20's Money Guy - If you're in Florida, and your wife teaches in the public school system, then you know full well what I am speaking about. Florida has been so opposed to any taxation other than a sales tax and property tax (which, given where we are, in somewhat low) that our insurance rates are sky-high and our budget is shot. My wife is a prosecutor for the state, and given her paltry salary compared with the cost of her education, we're in a rough space.
I agree that we can't have it both ways. That's the problem. Most services are such a patchwork of public and private groups that they become inefficient and less valuable. Consider this: the internal costs of Medicare (i.e. paperwork, etc) is 5%. Private insurance? 20% - 30%. I don't think that capitalism is evil, nor do I think socialism is a savior. But there needs to be a clear divide as to what will be public, what will be private, and what the dividing line will be. When a bank becomes so large that their failure can bring down the entire economy, they are no longer a private business.
04.17.09
@Andrew - I don't think Florida's taxation policies are the problem. It's their budget that is the problem. With regards to the banks, then you either break them up and don't let them get that big or you let them fail. Printing money and pumping it into a phony economy to mask losses won't lead to prosperity. If inflation worked, there would be no poverty in the world.
If you're dead set on your "progressive" government ways, then I recommend you buy gold, because our dollars are gonna be crap.
Where do you get your #s on Medicare v. private insurance?
04.17.09
@All- I apologize for the inaccurate map. I originally wrote the post without the Confederate and electoral maps in mind and hurried my research for finding them. The point is still valid I think, that Florida is the only former Confederate state that went for Obama. (I imagine because of its very large Latino population.)
@Al- Thank you - National security is probably the best argument for a centralized federal government. If every individual state were left to defend its own territory we would be far more vulnerable.
@Anonymous- it's very easy to throw insults around without putting your name next to it, isn't it? California's budget woes could be easily rectified through a more progressive tax system. But that won't happen because conservatives need to be placated.
@20's Money- Don't presume to know what I do with my days. I hate Starbucks and I was too busy WRITING and marketing my writing to play footsie with you in the comments section all day. I don't know anything about your personal life and gathering from the fact that you slander your wife's profession on the internet I don't imagine that I ever will care to.
Just because you work in the financial industry doesn't mean that you're smarter than the rest of us. I am not a communist who doesn't have a clue about how the economy works- I just have radically different views on what's important in society than you do.
04.17.09
Typical liberal mentality to blame California's woes on guess what... not enough taxation! Oh wait, California already has the highest tax rates in the country. As of 2007, California's income tax was 9.3% on income over $44,814! Maybe we should make it 15% or 30% or 50%! Then, we could spend all kinds of money on our progressive programs. Unfortunately, all the people earning the money will move to Arizona (except the handful of hollywood celebrities i guess).
California is not run by conservatives. Just because the governor is a Republican doesn't mean he's a conservative. Schwarzenegger is NOT conservative. It is the most liberal state in America with the most "progressive" system of entitlements and government, and guess what, the state is a disaster financially. There is no way out for California but to get Federal money.
Do you really think higher taxes is the solution? That is unbelievable!
FYI, I don't work in the financial industry. I work in the hospitality industry. I just like the stock market and follow it in my own time. And I don't claim to be smarter than anybody, but I do think I understand common sense and basic economic fundamentals.
I'd love to hear what you think is important in society...
04.17.09
I'm always surprised when Americans complain about their incredibly low tax rates.
Australia has taxation rates of 40% for incomes over $80,000 and 45% for incomes over $180,000.
Of course, Australia also has a much higher living standard, lower rates of poverty, less school shootings, no capital punishment, lower crime, better quality of education, and there was only 1 school shooting in the past decade.
I don't object to high taxes; I only object to badly spent taxes.
04.17.09
@20's Money Guy - If the Florida budget is the problem, then I'd love to hear the solution. Simple math says that if income does not equal expenses, then you either increase the income (taxes) or decrease the spending (budget). Well, the Florida budget has already been scraped to the point to where schools are closing, courts are overcrowded, and policeman are getting laid off.
And here's one example of the spending numbers
http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHIMedicareTechnicalPap...
04.18.09
I will never understand how Americans can complain about taxes, complain about healthcare, complain about poverty, and complain about national safety all in one breath. Something is seriously wrong with that. You really can't have it both ways.
I also don't understand why we complain so much about taxes. We pay lower tax rates than most of the world; definitely most of the "western" world. But we compare ourselves to them, and wonder why our schools aren't as good, our crime rates are higher, and our poverty rates are higher. They pay more to be part of a better system. That is all.
Finally, most states aren't allowed to operate in the red. And if the federal government did the same, things would be so different. Tax rates will have to increase. But social services will as well.
04.18.09
@20's- Al put it better than I. Keep in mind that under Eisenhower income taxes were much, much, much, much, much, much higher. That's how the middle class was built: through high tax rates on the upper class. The economy did pretty freakin well by all accounts from the end of WW2 to Nixon because we understood that if everyone has buying power (real buying power, not just for cheap goods) then American manufacturers and services will greatly benefit as well.
And "progressive" taxation doesn't necessarily mean income tax. It includes carbon tax, legalizing drugs and taxing them, and a number of other no-brainers.
At the end of the day acting like taxes on high levels of income are a crime against God is just plain selfish and ignorant.
04.18.09
@Andrew- we're facing a very similar situation here, at least in the city, I don't know about statewide. The CTA has been consistently underfunded for a few decades and Springfield has balked at serious reform. So, they increase fares every 6 months now. When I started high school 10 years ago a one-way train pass cost 1.50. Today it's 2.25 and still going up.
I'd like to see a casino built on Navy Pier with the guarantee that a big tax be placed on its profits that must be directed towards public trans. We'll see.
@Beth- amen! We have been cutting our taxes since Reagan was elected, and it's gotten us no such promised trickle-down success. Obama has done a great job of articulating the need for social services and how they should be viewed as INVESTMENTS rather than wasteful spending. If we invest in health care and infrastructure, we're going to save a lot of time, pain, and money in the long run.
04.18.09
Beth, actually we can have it both ways. As I have pointed out to Tim in previous articles, there were certain years under Bush where the gov tax revenues were the highest ever on record as a % of GDP.
Oh and don't forget that under Bush, the amount of taxes that the rich paid compared to everybody else actually increased.
04.18.09
To Tim:
"@All- I apologize for the inaccurate map. I originally wrote the post without the Confederate and electoral maps in mind and hurried my research for finding them. The point is still valid I think, that Florida is the only former Confederate state that went for Obama. (I imagine because of its very large Latino population.)"
Did you read the comments? North Carolina and Virginia were two former Confederate states that voted for Obama. The capitol of the Confederacy, Richmond, was in Virgina. So, no, the point is not valid.
04.18.09
@20s Money Guy,
"I do think I understand common sense and basic economic fundamentals."
Sorry, you don't.
04.19.09
To echo the sentiments of 20s Money Girl, saying things like "I do think I understand common sense and basic economic fundamentals" when you're espousing an ideology that has many distinguished critics that are far more educated and established in the field than you are makes you sound like arrogant douche. It implies that people that happen to disagree with your ideology don't understand common sense and basic economic fundamentals. That is arrogance personified.
04.19.09
Oh and by the way:
Re: "Posts like this wonder why I bust my ass to get ahead in life. Maybe I should just quit at my current job and become a public school teacher. Then, I can have my summers off and let my "progressive" government give me my house, income, health care, etc. by robbing the other suckers out there who are still working hard!"
You don't really wonder much because you won't quit. You'll keep striving to make as much money as possible no matter how much you get taxed. This is because you like money. You'll also keep complaining about taxes of course but your love of more money (even if its incrementally a little less than it otherwise would be) will win out at the end of the day.
Personally I'd also like to make more money but the reason why I work hard and will continue to work hard no matter how much I'm taxed or what I do is because I'll be doing something that I believe is good and something I enjoy doing. Not because that extra $10k a year or whatever will complete my life. But hey those are just my personal values.
04.19.09
Guys, you're all missing the point of the article. The author is saying that George W is the modern day Lincoln!
(yes I'm kidding)
(no don't get up in arms about this, just easing the tension)
(yes I like to write in parentheses)
04.19.09
@Alexander said "you sound like arrogant douche"
I wonder what saying that makes you sound like?
04.20.09
@Lance,
I'm not calling the man an arrogant douche. I'm sure he's a great guy. I'm just telling him how his words come across to me. I think it's important to reassess how our language comes across and whether it really represents who we are. If you think me telling him so makes me the same then fair enough.
04.20.09
@20s Money Girl: Telling someone they don't understand economics without any reasons is incredibly persuasive.
@Alexander: "that are far more educated and established in the field than you are makes you sound like arrogant douche" - i love how so many people love to quote the fact that there are "far more educated and established" people out there that think otherwise. I could say the same thing about you. There are plenty of economists that think increasing debts and government spending is not the right way for prosperity. In fact, it doesn't take a Ph D to see how awful the state of California is in.
"You'll keep striving to make as much money as possible no matter how much you get taxed. This is because you like money." - You say this as if this were a bad thing. Like working hard to have a house and provide for my family is a bad thing. Additionally, you really know nothing about me. You don't know how much I earn, or how much I give away. What do I love? Personal responsibility. And I don't mind working hard. What I don't like is bailing out bank CEOs or people who bought a house 5x what they can afford. I don't like paying others for fraud or stupidity. Hey, my house is upside down, but I'm making my mortgage payments. I'd love a reduction in principle!
I could flip this around... you'll keep being lazy because you don't care about earning more money because others will be taxed. This is because you like other people's money.
I asked this above, and I'll ask this again. Why are you entitled to my money that I earn? Because I'm doing my fair share for the common good? Would you change your answer if you knew I gave away 10% of my income last year? Those of you that are for taxing the productive in this country, how much did you give away last year? How much more effective is my money to the needy when I give it directly to a worthy cause, instead of our government taking it and it getting dwindled down to hardly anything as it passes through layers of bureaucracy.
As for those basic economics principles I don't understand... here's what I do understand... massive debt + printing money + government spending = Inflation. We've had the largest increase in money supply ever in our history which means we will have HIGH inflation. For all those people you are trying to "protect" with government assistance, they soon will not even be able to afford basic necessities. Gas, groceries, energy... all the costs are going to skyrocket for everybody. I imagine we'll respond with higher taxes and more debt. This will be an ugly cycle, and with a flat consumer, there will be no growth.
Look you vote what you think is right, I'm not going to argue with you there. But, don't be so naive to think that our actions do not have any consequences and that they are isolated. The truth is that our economy has been a house of cards for a long time (through Republicans and Democrats). I was hopeful Obama would be able to guide us through reality and attempt to re-structure our economy; instead, he has taken the path of his predecessors. Massive stimulus and bailouts is doing nothing more than shooting up a heroin addict with another dose of heroin.
When government fiddles with the economy, there are consequences. I'm not saying they're always disastrous but nonetheless, there ARE consequences. When you encourage loosening lending standards, there is probably going to be a rise in defaults. When you print money, that is pure inflation which will result in higher prices. When you tax the business owners, it makes them fire people and consider closing doors in some cases (not defending the business owners, it's just reality). Here's one.... as you expand government benefits, you encourage people to rely on the government.
Have a good week folks
-Arrogant Douche
04.20.09
@20s Money Guy
I realise that there are lots of worthy and qualified opinions on economics out there that are not in sync with mine. I am totally cool with that. My problem with what you said was that it seemed to be suggesting that those that disagree with you don't have common sense and dont know basic economic fundamentals. The last Nobel Laureate for Economics disagrees with you. He may be wrong and you may be right, a Nobel prize doesn't make someone always right, but I'm fairly sure he still has common sense and basic economic fundamentals despite his opposing stance to yours.
As for the rest of it, I never said striving to make more money is a bad thing. I merely said that we have different values, I'm not judging yours. My point was that despite you saying that sometimes I think why you bust your ass to get ahead in life, you don't really wonder much because you will continue to bust your ass to get ahead in life... because you love money. Whether it's bad or good depends on your personal value system.
As for the "worthy causes" you contribute 10% of your income to, since we have no idea what they are, we can't judge whether or not they will contribute anything to any greater good or anyone else. Taxation is about knowing how your money is spent. We can't entrust everyone to dish out a certain percentage of their income to a "worthy cause" and trust that it will be worthy indeed, that's about as likely as Communism. We have taxation and democratically elected Governments so that we can all have a say in what "worthy causes" that money goes to. You may not agree that the causes are worthy, but that's what democracy is all about.
So you'll probably say but why should *my* money be taxed and spent by the *government* when they will misspend it. Well because liberals believe that people should be forced to share some of their income with those that need it and to help run the country. And that the best way to organise for that mass taxation is to democratically elect a government on the basis of how they're going to spend that money. It's a basic ideological tenet of what we believe. Luckily for us, most of the developed world happens to agree with us that taxation is important.
Which of course brings us back to why you bust your ass. A rational and reasoned argument as to why taxation should be radically decreased would be something I'd like to read. Throwing your hands up in the air and rhetorically wondering why you bother isn't because we all know its BS. You love money and you'll always bother to try to make it.
And btw, I found what you said about the large stimulus interesting but I'd like you to elaborate. Why, for example, is the economy a house of cards? Or why do you think governments should not interfere? That would be a lot more interesting for me personally than hysterics about getting taxed and giving up hard work.
04.20.09
Oh and by the way just a quick one.
"I could flip this around... you'll keep being lazy because you don't care about earning more money because others will be taxed. This is because you like other people's money."
Not caring about money doesn't make you lazy. As I mentioned earlier, I work hard because I believe in the cause of what I'm doing. I also care about what I'm getting paid but, at the end of the day, I'd gladly take a pay cut if I loved my job and felt I was doing something good. According to my personal values, I don't mind driving a slightly less shiny car or living in a slightly smaller house if what I'm doing is worthwhile. So striving for more money constantly doesn't make me lazy.
It's important for you to realise that not everyone works just for the money and for many it's not even the main motivating factor.
04.20.09
Saying "I do think I understand common sense and basic economic fundamentals" without any evidence is not incredibly persuasive either.
Either put up or shut up.
04.20.09
@20s Money Girl - You're 2 for 2!
@Alexander - Working hard isn't necessarily about accumulating money. I have a wife and a kid and a mortgage. I work hard to support my family. I work hard so that perhaps my wife can stay home and raise our kids instead of having to day care. I work hard to maybe get some flexibility in my life and be able to be around my kids more. I work hard because I don't expect hand outs.
Look, I think we have the same goals, just very different beliefs in how to accomplish them. I give 10% of my income to an organization that directly helps the really needy in my local area. Why do I do that? For the tax break? No. Because I believe in helping people who are having a tough time.
I think private organizations do a great job of this; better than government. I think we should encourage private giving (Obama is doing the opposite) through tax breaks instead of using taxation as the means for it. This doesn't say that there isn't a role of government for assistance but i think it's way overblown currently. Clinton passed great welfare reform and the results were fantastic in getting people back to work and off the government's tit.
If you really want to improve a poor person's livlihood, a government check doesn't do it. Does it help pay a bill or two? Sure. But it will never get them to a better place. It will make them dependent. The only way you can get that person to a better quality of life is through a better job. Anyways, enough about this.
As for the House of Cards analogy... Our economy has been built on debt-financed consumption and asset bubbles. When our economy is 70% GDP, that isn't a good thing. It's not sustainable. The only thing that generates wealth is production and our productive capacity has been destroyed in recent decades. Consumption doesn't generate wealth, it destroys wealth. Consumption is a benefit of producing something.
Our economy naturally attempts to correct this through recessions (this is capitalism), yet it is politically unacceptable to let a correction happen and restructure our economy, so instead we inject massive stimulus into the economy which does nothing but create the next asset bubble (i.e. Greenspan after the tech bubble popped created the real estate bubble trying to prop up our economy). Bush/Bernanke/Obama are doing more of the same, injecting unprecedented amounts of money into the economy and bailing out institutions that should go under. This allocates capital to failing institutions instead of allocating it to future production. All that will happen is another bubble (i think it will be commodities - $150 oil might look cheap; $1000 gold might look cheap).
My hope for Obama was that through his oratory skills guide America through a very tough restructuring of our economy. Because it would be painful and tough; it would be a severe correction because of the past 20 years of over consumption. Instead he is taking the path of the previous administrations and ignoring the real issues. The recession isn't the problem. The bubble is the problem. For an interesting micro-look at this, look at Oklahoma City. They avoided much of the over-development and excess of the past years and right now they are enjoying good employment and slow, steady growth.
Our politicians choose the slow erosion of purchasing power (inflation) vs the short term loss of jobs (recession) since it is advantageous for re-election. Unfortunately, a sound economy can't be built by people who are focused on November 2010. This is reason #1 why government should not interfere w/ the economy (or at least be limited).
My opinion is that anyone who tells you we're gonna get a V-shaped recovery is wrong. America is in for flat growth for a while at best i think.
Good luck to all. Work hard and keep your jobs. Save your money. Buy some gold.
04.21.09
Alex, you are a master of after-the-fact double speak.
So there's no misunderstanding, you sound like an arrogant douche.
What exactly do you do for a living? In looking at your blog I suspect you have access to family money and use it.
04.21.09
@20s Money Guy,
Thanks for the long reply, it's interesting reading and I mean that!
@Peter,
I'm a student and I work part-time in social research. Hopefully you're ok with me using "family money" sometimes though, I intend to provide my kids with "family money" too when they're at university.
My original quote in full is here for your perusal if you happen to have missed it:
'saying things like "I do think I understand common sense and basic economic fundamentals" when you're espousing an ideology that has many distinguished critics that are far more educated and established in the field than you are makes you sound like arrogant douche. '
As you can see I have clearly outlined specifically what part of what 20s Money Guy said I take issue with and why. If you think that misinterpreting me and then not accepting an honest explanation for the sake of convenience means I'm a master of double speak then I'm sorry for you.
04.21.09
Nobody missed what you said, Alex. You sound like an arrogant douche.
No need to be sorry for me. You're the one trying to bolster your point by making it sound as though you make some kind of economic sacrafices in pursuit of ideals when you clearly do not.
Thanks for the high-minded lecture. I'm not saying you are full of b.s., I'm just saying you sound like you're full of b.s.
04.21.09
OK Peter thanks for your thoughts, you really elaborated on your point in that last paragraph of random anonymous hate. lol.
04.21.09
You're welcome Capt. Double Speak.
04.21.09
@20s Money Guy:
"Why are you entitled to my money that I earn?"
Why are you entitled to live in a country where:
*The police will actually come if you call
*Teachers don't demand bribes to teach your kids
*You don't need guards with MP5s patrolling your house to stop roaming criminal gangs from looting your place
*The president doesn't have 1% of the GDP in a Swiss bank account
*You have free access to public libraries, clean streets, clean drinking water
04.22.09
@Rob: Excellent point. You forgot about paying the mortgagees in over their heads and bank CEOs getting bonuses with TARP funds and private planes for politically connected, meidcal care for those chose to spend dollars on something otherthan insurance, retirements for those decided saving os for chumps etc. Of course your entitled to all of 20s money guy's income. So is your neighbor, dog sitter and me!
Money guy, quit whinning about your hours and get back to work -- you've got a lot of people to pay for. Taxes are good becuasethey pay for public services. So the more you pay the better! Our government was founded on this principle according to some of the posters here. Let me know when your done giving it up, I'm going to take a nap. Somebody around here has to work and struggle or we're in for some really tough times down the road.
04.22.09
Biggest controversy must start with California--THE SANCTUARY STATE--that if you can sneak into America, the Angeleno's will keep illegal immigrants afloat with all the welfare they can collect? It 's not a joke to realize that since Proposition 187 that was derailed--never meant to be decided in the Supreme court , illegal aliens have been able take from legal people $$billions$$ in social services, thanks to the mainly Liberal Sacramento Assembly. Then their is Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC) is available to illegal immigrants even if they do not have a valid Social Security number. The EITC Earned Income Tax Credit is the most accessible of the major entitlement programs and used by more people than food stamps or Medicare and is badly abused to the tune of $47 billion dollars, without paying in a cent into the system. In California taxes have risen to one of the highest in the land, through forced mandates of our government. Think about it? If you are in the low income bracket with a large family as many illegal immigrants seem to have, that family receives an average of $30,000 in governmental benefits! Yet they pay only about $9,000 in taxes per year. That creates a $21,000 shortfall that the American taxpayer has to make up according to the Heritage Foundation.
First and foremost we are a nation of laws, or as we are all anticipated? For years of previous administrations have neglected the illegal immigrant problem, to the detriment of American workers. Ever since the inception of the 1986 Immigration & Reform Act, signed into law by Ronald Reagan, the politicians have pushed for a new AMNESTY. In addition, anytime a new law has been drafted to combat the illegal immigrant occupation of our country, they have behind closed doors killed it or weakened it's enactment. The law of given instant citizenship to babies intentionally born here, is a complete misinterpretation of the 14th amendment, after the civil war that emancipated African slaves.
It was never meant for (Anchor Babies) to give pregnant illegal alien mothers the right to legal status? The law has been badly mauled because the children can then draw on US education, free medical care, free baby delivery and after care, low income housing and it is a route to many government handouts. The major problem now facing the Obama White House is are the children of illegal immigrants to blame for their parents breaking the law? Obviously the left-wingers are to blame for this conundrum, but both parties have added to neglect to the sovereign laws of our nation. I think we should follow other countries "Rule of Law" and cement in place that children who have proven themselves can go to a place of higher learning. We desperately need a wide scope of professionals in Engineering, Science and 21st Century technology. But also remember that our government settles the largest population of new immigrants on Earth. What we don't need is more poorly educated, non-English speaking, impoverished aliens, looking for handouts. Like other developed nations we must be very specific, who we pick and choose as new citizens.
We must also restrain ourselves from chain migration, who are liable to become a public charges, because the family sponsors have decided the US taxpayer should carry the financial weight?
We can thank our corrupt liberal politicians, judges in the past as drafting a passive law, instead of entering America being a criminal offense. Now we have uncountable number of illegal aliens squatting here, because of the absolute intentional neglect of our lawmakers. Is there any other country in the world, that makes illegally crossing into their sovereign territory a Civil Crime--I really don't think so? Our laws deliberately drafted this way in favor of the open border, big Catholic church and special interest groups. To HXXX with the American people, who are forced to fight for their jobs?
But if American defeat the next Amnesty ready to pounce on the unsuspecting legal population, we must make an example in using the 1986 law. We as a people must build-on the E-Verify application, upgrade, modify to extract illegal job applicants from the workplace. Illegal immigrants who have overstayed visas, illegal crossed the border and children must be exempt from any pardon. All children of illegal parents that have committed crimes, been expelled or just deserted school should leave with parents in the usage of self-deportation. This is a compliance way to remove foreign nationals and any criminal businesses that employ them, must receive mandatory, fines, asset confiscation and prison terms. The use of a in-perpetuity E-Verify will be a ultimate deterrent and see movement of illegal labor and families packing and leaving under the term of "ATTRITION" We must force our reluctant politicians to be governed by--THE PEOPLE'S--WILL or face the dire consequences in the election process. This will surely happen when Sen. Reid, Speaker Pelosi and 48 other Senate lawmakers come up for re-election. They underfunded E-Verify, that obviously is working efficiently for them to kill it. Today I have heard Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano is approaching State governors to appeal the Real ID Act, that would add national standards for state-issued driver licenses and non-driver identification cards, Revising and tightening the laws on application for asylum and deportation of aliens for terrorist activity. That wouldWaiver laws that interfere with construction of physical barriers at the borders, to name a few statutes. So that means since the new Presidency, the Democratic run Congress are trying to revoke E-Verify and the Real ID act. My guess, is under this regime they will be rescinding the Federal program for State and local police called 247(g) that trains officers to arrest and detain illegal alien criminals.
The open border, free traders, special interest groups will use any contradictions, epithets, racial slurs to annul any new law--which they have done successfully up to now. But American should realize strongly, that this has nothing to do with a persons color, religion or ethnic background--and EVERYTHING--to do with being--CARTE BLANCHE--for parasite employers, who pay nothing to illegal immigrant upkeep? It's left to Taxpayers? Its everything to do with billions of dollars spent, to pacify the big Catholic church, a portion of Liberal voters and others who see nothing wrong in loading citizens, residents down with sky high taxes. Supposedly the last White House promised no thoughts of a Path to Citizenship until the border was orderly and closed to undesirable With another drafted and secret Amnesty on the House and Senate table, like always--this is not the case. Drug smuggling and incessant illegal immigration is still very prevalent. The rumors from the new White House are clearly signaling another push for AMNESTY?
So go to these sites: VDARE, FAIRUS, JUDICIALWATCH, NUMBERSUSA, AMERICANPATROL, CAPSWEB & ALIPAC. The stakes are sky high because Amnesty means, thousands more will swamp the border looking for yet a 3rd---AMNESTY.
04.23.09
@Chloe: Then the problem is not "taxes", it's where the tax money is being spent.
@Anoymous: In Australia, the funny thing is, one of the biggest illegal immigrant group are the British. Not all 'illegals' are black/latino/asians...
04.24.09
Rob, it's more than "how." How much is being taken, from whom, what for, and what are the repercussions? Money guy's argument is hardly blunted by the assertion that taxes are necessary to provide public services. No crap. The observation doesn't address the point. It shouldn't come as a surprise that spouting lofty ideals about giving (or "paying your fair share") when you're not the one forced to contribute (and ususally not benefitting to the same degree) can be grating to those that do. The consternation has existed since the founding of our country.
As an side, I find it interesting that Money Guy's most obnoxious critics don't appear to be real taxpayers. That doesn't mean they can't have an opinion, but it's ususally not coincidence that some of the loudest around here sugar coat their opinions with all kinds of altruistic moraility arguments when they are really just advocating on behalf of their own selfish interests. I will refrain from using names, but anyone that reads these blogs with regularity knows who I'm referring to.
04.24.09
Chloe- please enlighten us to what you mean by "real taxpayers." Does that only mean people who would be affected by raising taxes on income over 250k? 100k? 30k? Or are you implying that people below the poverty level are non-entities?
"Money guy's argument is hardly blunted by the assertion that taxes are necessary to provide public services."
Actually, it is, considering he thinks that secession is a noble idea because he doesn't want to contribute his fair share. Arguing for your own selfish interests is something we all do, but a lot of fiscal conservatives are threatening to take their ball and go home now. That's not classical conservatism, it's called anti-social behavior.
04.24.09
@Chloe,
If you are indeed referring to me there is obviously very little I can do to prove to you that I am for real. Firstly, this is the internet. Secondly, I can't help the fact that I'm still at university. But if it makes you feel better, I double pinky swear cross my heart and hope to die that if I should ever reach a high income tax threshold I will be absolutely cool with paying more tax. Does that vindicate me for now? So you have the green light to switch from labelling me inauthentic for pretending to be altruistic to stupid as you obviously believe the money is wasted. I understand your point Chloe, I really do. Perhaps you could just understand that there are some key ideological differences between us and what we feel the role of Government should be, and I don't think that chasm is going to be filled on this forum.
04.24.09
Tim - I don't want to speak for Chloe, but with regard to "real taxpayers," I think it's worth noting that a lot of people on this site are full-time students who earn no income and pay no income taxes/payroll taxes/capital gains taxes/etc. Of course they pay sales tax, and property taxes (at least indirectly) if they rent an apartment, but they really are contributing nothing to federal revenues. Many others on this site are just starting out in their careers, maybe working only part-time, and don't earn enough to have any federal tax liability.
In these cases, these people have no stake in the cost of federal government, which may incentivize them to vote for increasing that cost. If the federal income tax becomes sharply more progressive, the percentage of voters with zero (or near-zero) federal tax liability will increase. I think it will be a problematic situation to deal with if a majority of voters fall into this category, because they will be able to support increases in taxes on some, while paying little or none themselves. I don't think that is desirable.
However, income inequality is still a problem for several reasons, and taxing income more progressively is the easiest way to deal with it. It's a very tricky situation indeed.
04.24.09
Evan,
I think what you said is true but I still believe there are people who vote on ideological grounds rather than just selfish grounds. If I am on the good side of tax now because I'm a student, that's great, but at the same time I don't mind shelling out more when I'm earning more income to help out the students of tomorrow. Know what I mean? That's just me personally but of course you may be right and some people may vote with self-interest in mind rather than on ideological grounds.
04.24.09
Alex - I know every voter has unique reasons for voting. I'm sure there are some ultra-high-income people who cast a vote for Obama knowing that they would likely have to pay more income tax if he were president. But we vote for politicians, not specific laws. I suspect people who vote against their self interest on some issues do so mostly as a compromise. For example, high earners might vote for Obama because they like his healthcare plan, and feel that that is more important than the income tax increases they would face.
To offer my own perspective: Based on CBO data on effective total federal tax rates by income quintile, and percentage of total federal government revenue by income quintile, I strongly disagree with the idea that "the rich" are not paying their "fair share." (I certainly do not earn $250K, or any other level that could reasonably be considered "rich," by the way). I am also bothered by calls to increase taxes on high income people when the main motivation for doing this is to inflict some kind of punishment. I think the purpose of collecting taxes should be to fund government activities, but it seems that many people simply think taxes should be increased on the rich simply because they are angry or envious. (This is anecdotal based on conversations I've had and things I've read, I don't have any real data here). Anyway, that's just my opinion, and everyone is entitled to his or her own. I think we simply have a disagreement on this point.
04.24.09
Well here's a question for all you anti-tax people: Where would the money for police, hospitals, schools, fire stations, libraries, roads, parks and the millions of other public services come from? Would only rich people have access to these services, while the poor are barred because they can't afford the $1000/year fee for their local library?
I have this horrible image of a fireman demanding a bribe of half your assets before he'll put out the house fire...
Like I said, the issue isn't taxes. American taxes are quite low. In Australia, taxes are way higher (we also have way higher living standards than you Americans!). The issue is how the money is spent.
04.24.09
@Evan: Would you rather have a few envious slightly poor people, or mobs of angry extremely poor people? Yes it's not fair that hard working rich people should be taxed more, but life isn't fair.
And hey, is it fair that you get to live in one of the richest countries in the world? If you were born in Somalia, you'd be too busy shooting people or working in the coal mines to be posting on Brazen Careerist.
04.24.09
Rob - Is it fair that I get to live in the U.S.? Absolutely not. I'm here through no effort of my own; I had the good fortune of being born here. In many ways I, and all of us posting here, were the undeserving "winners of life's lottery" from the moment we were born. Sometimes I forget this, but you're right that if you put it into perspective, it's impossible for me not to feel grateful for the fortunate circumstances of my birth.
Still, it's useful to debate the laws that govern our society, including laws regarding taxation. These laws do have a real impact on our lives, even if our worst case is infinitely better than the best case for many other people.
By your logic, one might say, "well, the government could take 95% of my income as tax, and I would still be better off than billions of others around the world." But that is really not a convincing argument for the idea that the government should tax my income at a rate of 95%, is it? My point is that this really is a topic worthy of debate, and there are reasonable arguments for many different positions on tax laws.
04.24.09
Evan, your comments to Tim captured my thoughts precisely.
@Alex and Tim: I don' have the energy to respond to the balance of what either of you have said. As usual, it's just nonsense. The substance of the discussion is obvious and I will not deal with your strange tactics of baiting and misreprsentation. I'm sure there are plenty of typos for you to hunt down elsewhere to keep you busy.
Rob, "anti-tax people?" Come on. Are you aware of any distinction between municpal, state and federal income tax or and other types of taxation? Have you taken Tim's view that the ecoomy runs like a giant piggy bank operated for the benefit of the federal government or some perverse tool to punish those more productive or fortunate than you?
04.24.09
@Evan - Americans actually pay very low taxes compared with other First World countries (and many of those countries are better than the US in terms of living standards...some correlation, perhaps?). So there's actually very little cause to complain.
Personally I would be happy to pay 0% tax. I would also be happy to become dictator of the world and enslave the human race to do my bidding. But when it comes to the rest of society, I can't see the benefit of extremely low taxes unless people start donating heavily to charity.
@Chloe - You haven't provided any alternatives to raising funds without taxes. Privatisation? Asking Coca Cola to sponsor state schools? Looting enemy countries?
04.24.09
@Evan,
I understand your point, I think it is rather sad that people want to raise taxes on the rich because they're angry or envious but I guess ignorant and unreasonable people exist everywhere. I guess the fundamental difference in opinion lies in what we think of the expensive government programs that the taxes are being used to pay for, and how much impact the taxes really have on the rich when compared to that.
Thanks for the explanation.
04.25.09
Alex - Thanks for your opinion. I think you're right that we just have different ideas about the value of government services, government efficiency, etc. We live in different countries though, so maybe that's part of it. Have you ever lived in the U.S.? I haven't lived in Australia (or anywhere outside the U.S. actually). Interestingly, I live in the country with the lower tax burden, and still favor reducing it, while you live in the country with the higher tax burden, and yet favor increased taxes.
Rob - I know that the tax burden in the U.S. is relatively low. Again, though, I don't think that in itself is a convincing argument for higher taxes (See, other countries pay even more taxes! So you should just shut up and consider yourself lucky!). That seems a little bit like saying that since women in the U.S. are treated better than in many other countries, the U.S. should stop pursuing an even higher level of equality between the sexes. Again, that's not a logical argument.
You're also right that there are countries with a relatively high tax burden whose citizens enjoy a high standard of living. This doesn't necessarily mean that the U.S. would benefit from a higher tax burden. For one thing, studies that explore this kind of thing draw sweeping conclusions that are not applicable to every person. Some of us just have different preferences. Also, the U.S. has a very large and very diverse population. It would be much more difficult for us to tolerate massively increased government influence than, say, Sweden, which is smaller and more homogeneous.
For the record, I would not be happy if I were "dictator or the world." And people do tend to give more to charity when they face a lower tax burden, ceteris paribus.
And again, I don't want to speak for Chloe, but I think you are misunderstanding the positions that some people take with regard to taxes. For example, having a desire to not increase the overall tax burden is not the same thing as having the desire to reduce the tax burden to zero. I don't think anyone commenting here is "anti-tax," some of us just feel that the overall burden should be a bit lower, or at least not increased.
With regards to how we should pay for government services, please understand that things like public schools, fire departments, police departments, libraries, etc. are funded mainly through taxes collected by cities and towns, with some subsidies coming from state governments. Even if the federal income tax rate were reduced to zero, many of these services could still be retained (but I am not advocating this!). In fact, I do think that public goods are necessary, and are best provided by taxes levied on all citizens. But I also think that government spends a lot of money on things that are not really public goods, in the technical economic sense, and that government often is inefficient if only because they must pay themselves to provide services, and that pay comes out of tax revenue. For these and other reasons, I favor reduced taxes. This does not make me stupid or crazy, and it does not mean that I wish to pay no taxes at all. Do you see what I mean?
04.26.09
@Evan:
So you're saying we should raise local/provincial tax rates and reduce federal tax rates? Doesn't that mean we're still paying the same taxes?
What services do you think the government should reduce or disband?
Alternatively, would you be willing to support a more entrepreneurial government in exchange for lowered taxes? For example, corporate sponsorships of schools, privatisation of government functions, selling parklands to private companies, etc?
04.26.09
@ Evan,
No I've never lived in the US, you're right that is interesting though... I'm sure there's also a movement here for lowering taxes but they haven't been quite as vocal as their compatriots in the US (or have gathered less media coverage in any case). Interestingly enough, I did live and work in a country with zero taxes - Bahrain - for a year, and working for an NGO as well...
04.26.09
Rob – Yes, I think that the “pain” caused by a decrease in federal taxes could be offset by an increase in local (city/state) taxes. If local taxes are increased by exactly the same amount that federal taxes are decreased, then of course the total U.S. tax burden would be unchanged (though the increase/decrease wouldn’t necessarily have to be equal). However, with local governments taking more and the federal government taking less, the tax burden would be less uniform across the country. That is the main reason I would favor this approach.
It gives taxpayers more power and more choices. With a higher percentage of taxes being collected and spent by smaller communities, each member of the community has a greater say in how his or her money is spent. And if you strongly disapprove of how your tax dollars are being spent, you could simply move to another town. This is much easier to do than moving to another country (or seceding, which is what this post is about). So, if you wanted to live in a place that spends a ton of money on public schools, but has very little money left over to spend on, say, maintaining roads, you could probably find a town that has similar preferences, and you wouldn’t have to leave the country to find it. If you’d rather live in a place that taxes residents at 80% and provides them with all kinds of great public services but leaves them with very little take-home pay, you could move there instead. Having federal government collect a large percentage of taxes is more restrictive, whereas decentralized power provides more choices and more freedom. But obviously there are important functions of the federal government, so I wouldn’t want to see federal taxes cut completely.
I think the easiest place to start trimming government would be military spending. I also would have preferred a much smaller stimulus package. The bill was passed in a hurry partly because the president urged that it was necessary to act as soon as possible, yet much of the stimulus money will not be spent for years. Since the president’s own economic team predicts economic recovery relatively soon, I don’t see why it’s necessary to include lots of spending that won’t occur for years in a bill that is branded as a way to get us out of the current recession. I might also cut subsidies to corporations, agricultural subsidies, government investment in alternative energy, government investment in national service, etc. (anything that is not really a public good). Truthfully, I don’t really know much about the very low level details of politics and government spending, so if any of these suggestions sound absurd, well, it might be because they *are*. Feel free to call me on it if that is the case.
I’ve never thought much about “entrepreneurial government.” I’d be wary of “corporate sponsorship of schools,” just because corporate-branded elementary schools sound like a scary idea. “Privatization of government functions” is a very broad term. I think it would be good in some cases, and bad in others. Again, my general philosophy is that public goods should usually be provided by the government. Other goods and services should usually be provided by private industry.
Alex – I don’t know anything about how Bahrain works, but I’m guessing they fund the government through oil revenues or something similar? If that is the case, I’m glad I don’t live in a country where the government is able to fund itself only because it has complete control over massive natural resources, even if it means no taxes.
04.26.09
@Evan
Bahrain was the first country in the Middle East to find oil and the first country to run out. At the moment the main business is oil refining (Saudi oil is pumped in and refined) and financial services makes up 30% of the economy. I'm not sure how they manage to run the country tax-free on that platform but it's a tiny country, the size of Singapore with only a million people, and cheap Asian labour is used for more or less everything unpalatable to the locals. I have no idea how they do it all tax-free, haven't given it that much thought... but it's an interesting model.
04.26.09
@Evan: I do agree that local government can be more 'in touch' with their people. However, the problem with giving local government too much control over taxes is that you'll end up with the rich moving into low-tax regions, and the poor moving into high-tax regions. As a result, the low-tax regions will be fine (the rich don't need libraries or public schools), but the high-tax areas won't have anyone to tax.
At the end of the day, high taxes do equal better facilities and living standards, assuming the same level of responsible spending.
You'll find most tax-free countries are very special cases, and it's unlikely such a system could work for the US or any major European state. Better to focus on the high-population countries with the highest living standards for examples.
04.26.09
Speaking of corporate sponsorship of schools...welcome to the McMaths program!
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25214466-5006301,00.html
Got Something To Say?
Got Something To Say?
Not a Member? Brazen Careerist is a career management tool for next-generation professionals. Set up a free account today to comment on this post and start sharing your ideas. Learn more.
Login to view your networks!
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
