Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

A 'Modest Proposal' to cut 18% from the federal budget


Recommended Posts

The federal government has to toss money to state and municipal governments because they are taking the money to begin with. I'm a fan of bringing the onus of the taxation closer to the people who it mostly benefits but if we are thinking that we are going to be reducing this kind of spending then we aren't seeing the picture clearly. Currently the reason the federal government pays for this kind of stuff is because of how much money the federal government collects in taxes. The states can't tax more to pay for these things without overburdening their citizens. If the federal government reduced this kind of spending (and the taxation associated with it) then the taxing would just occur lower down. I think that it's better to have the taxing closer to the source of the spending but when people produce stuff like this it seems to make people believe that it is a way to reduce spending. This isn't a way to reduce spending. It's just a way to reduce federal spending. People aren't going to be taxed less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The federal government has to toss money to state and municipal governments because they are taking the money to begin with. I'm a fan of bringing the onus of the taxation closer to the people who it mostly benefits but if we are thinking that we are going to be reducing this kind of spending then we aren't seeing the picture clearly. Currently the reason the federal government pays for this kind of stuff is because of how much money the federal government collects in taxes. The states can't tax more to pay for these things without overburdening their citizens. If the federal government reduced this kind of spending (and the taxation associated with it) then the taxing would just occur lower down. I think that it's better to have the taxing closer to the source of the spending but when people produce stuff like this it seems to make people believe that it is a way to reduce spending. This isn't a way to reduce spending. It's just a way to reduce federal spending. People aren't going to be taxed less.

 

The only reason many of these projects take place at the local level is because of the Federal subsidy.  They wouldn't even be considered without that "free money" from the Feds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure of your point then. If you tax people too much at the federal level it limits your ability to tax at the state level. Thus it limits what types of programs you can fund at the state level. If the federal tax rate went lower and these subsidies stopped then state tax rates would increase. The programs would still continue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure of your point then. If you tax people too much at the federal level it limits your ability to tax at the state level. Thus it limits what types of programs you can fund at the state level. If the federal tax rate went lower and these subsidies stopped then state tax rates would increase. The programs would still continue.

 

That hasn't deterred California from taxing the hell out of everybody. 

 

Your latter two points don't make any sense.  The unnecessary programs/projects/whatever you want to call them would go away if the Federal subsidies were taken off the table.  Notice I said unnecessary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unnecessary is subjective. Expansion of infrastructure and promotion of industry may seem unnecessary to you but not to others. The federal subsidies would just become state subsidies.

LOL @ California taxing the hell out of everybody. The rates are downright desirable compared to what the federal government charges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unnecessary is subjective. Expansion of infrastructure and promotion of industry may seem unnecessary to you but not to others. The federal subsidies would just become state subsidies.

LOL @ California taxing the hell out of everybody. The rates are downright desirable compared to what the federal government charges.

 

My city recently built a 1000 foot walking trail on the side of a hill.  City Hall acknowledged that nobody asked for the trail to be built.  Some bureaucrat at City Hall discovered that we qualified for a grant from the Federal Transit Authority so they applied for it.  The Feds paid the city $434,000 for it to be built. 

 

That's not subjective.  It was unnecessary wasted money for something we didn't need.   Your second point about California taxes makes you look like a clown comparing Federal and State tax rates. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unnecessary is subjective. Expansion of infrastructure and promotion of industry may seem unnecessary to you but not to others. The federal subsidies would just become state subsidies.

LOL @ California taxing the hell out of everybody. The rates are downright desirable compared to what the federal government charges.

Hence all the people flowing into this state like someone mentioned in another thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your second point about California taxes makes you look like a clown comparing Federal and State tax rates.

In a country comprised of many independent states protected by the 9th and 10th amendments held together by a federal-system of government why exactly should the federal tax rate be higher than that state tax rate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a country comprised of many independent states protected by the 9th and 10th amendments held together by a federal-system of government why exactly should the federal tax rate be higher than that state tax rate?

 

The Federal rate is higher because the State rate is lower.  That doesn't mean California's tax rates are reasonable, or even desirable as you suggested. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are even issues about taxation farther down the chain. In Nevada, for instance, the bulk of the population, and therefore the bulk of the revenue raised, comes from Clark County (Las Vegas and the surrounding areas). However, the way the vote is split in the State Legislature, our representatives can be outvoted by the rural bloc, and this often happens. Projects in Clark County, which benefit far more people, often go unfunded while projects in rural areas are approved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If we could get Congress to break its bad, unconstitutional habit of tossing money to state and local governments, the federal budget would shrink substantially. For FY 2015, those outlays will be $640 billion in grants plus more than $60 billion more in administrative costs. Eliminating that would approximately balance the budget, but we should still enact a balanced budget amendment to restrain spending growth in areas where Congress actually does have authority."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am always wary of defecit cutting plans that just look at "earmarks" or "military" or whatever.  True cutting is only going to happen when everything is examined, parsed, weeded out and dealt with in a healthy manner.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

meaning it will never happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...