Debt Free

[Sheepdog1969]

I think that it is not actually an issue of paying taxes, but more about how efficiently/productively those tax dollars are utilized. Obviously, this efficiency issue varies greatly depending on where you reside. Additionally, how and upon whom tax dollars are dispersed will always be seen as good by some and bad by others. Ultimately ROI (return on investment) should determine the efficacy of  any expenditure. And, an evaluation of ROI must focus on the actual amount/percentage of each investment that ultimately reaches the intended recipient(s), versus the amount/percentage of that investment lost to administrating it's allocation. If a program "fails" to achieve it's intended result, yet 99% of the money invested into it is taken by administrative costs, and only 1% is left for the intended recipient, the only thing that can be determined as failing is the system charged with running the program. It is impossible to be able to determine said programs success or failure based on that investment structure. Conversely, if an efficient system funds a program where the recipients receive 90+% of the allocated investment, yet it fails, throwing more money at it will not guarantee a different result. Tax revenue cannot be seen as an endless trough of funding for governments. Nor will blatant inefficiencies regarding the use of tax revenues be tolerated by the small percentage of tax payers who pay the majority of those taxes. The citizens who's success results in disproportionate taxation, are the citizens who are financially able to leave the high tax areas that over rely upon them for their tax payments. Thus, those who cannot afford to escape ultimately bear this unfulfilled tax burden.

Do you really own property/land, if you are forced each year to pay the government property taxes on it, based upon that same government's arbitrary valuation of that property, despite you not selling it and profiting by said sale? If you have a mortgage/loan for said property and your lender holds the title for said property, doesn't that lender actually own the percentage of said property that you currently still owe? Why is the mortgager not responsible for the percentage of that property's property tax liability based on their current percentage of ownership, and the mortgagee not pay the percentage of said property taxes for that property based on their percentage of ownership? Legally, I do not actually own my property until I possess the title/deed for said. Legally, my lender owns my property until every last penny of my loan is paid back, with interest to my lender. Yet, for the entirety of my mortgage, and then until I sell my property, I am responsible for 100% of the property tax liability assessed upon said property. Property tax is actually a "wealth tax", which assess a financial liability based on unrealized and uncapitalized profit for merely residing upon a tract of land mortgage holders do not own, and for title/deed holders, a financial liability in accounting terms due to the associated costs of ownership, (and only as "Equity" when borrowed against or sold.) Note that borrowing against Equity actually increases debt/liabilities, and the sale of Equity includes "Sales taxation" in the form of income tax and/or a sales tax, (without the ability to "write off" years of negative costs/assessed property taxes paid.) 

 Are you old enough to remember when "Staples", such as bread, milk, eggs, and meat were exempted from sales taxes? Do you know that when sales taxes are based on a percentage of an item's cost, that any increase in the cost of said item, (inflation based or otherwise), increases the sales tax on said item at an ever increasing rate for every penny that item increases in price? Do you know what percentage of each gallon of gasoline you buy is tax cost and what percentage is gasoline cost? What percentage of your utility bills are taxes and fees versus the cost of the utility service you are buying? (Currently I pay more in taxes and fees on my Water bill than I pay for the water!)

Paying taxes in order to fund the societal benefits that a Representative Democracy/Democratic Republic provides is far different than being repressed/controlled/owned/enslaved by a gluttonous/unaccountable/inefficient/self serving band of low IQ liars who spend more money to get elected than their job pays per each term.

[fortyearspickn]

NhC -   I guess we can at least agree that we disagree.  

[PrairieDog]

11 hours ago, Larsongs said:

You’re talking about Logic? LOL!!!

You know, we got audited this year.. After a lot of BS from the IRS my Accountant, who is excellent, provided all the proof that they were wrong. After months the IRS sent us a snide sideways apology for their screw up.

Kind of like the same attitude as you. Dude, you got issues…

It sounds from both parts of your comment you read in a lot of tone where none is intended.  If you’re always looking for a fight, you often will see one where there is none.  Sorry you misread me. I was just being colorful in my analogies.  And I’ve seen those apologies from the feds. I guess I find nothing intentionally snide in the words “We apologize for…”  

[fortyearspickn]

SheepDog,  funny you brought up Water Bills.  This month, many here in San Antonio are up in arms because our billsreflect a new line item:  "Uplift Fee"  1% added to  your bill - no explanation. Our son called them and learned that the  City Council approved the city owned water utility to charge everyone to cover the bills of those who cannot/will not pay.   Salt in the wounds - half those paying are not in the 'city' and do not have a city council member to call to complain.   So, in this small, anecdotal case - we get  Taxation Without Representation giving us Socialism.   Ironically, there had been a place you could 'add a dollar' to help pay those in need.   Since that was not used - one could assume the citizens paying their bills did NOT want the City Council to over-rule them.  That is a microcasm of what we see throughout the layers of taxes we are levied.   

 

[DanvillRob]

14 hours ago, PrairieDog said:

Not exactly, you are in fact biologically forced to eat.  If you fast completely, you end up dead.

 I think perhaps you missed the analogy he is implying he should *never* have to pay for groceries again because he paid enough for them before. 

And you do have some self-determination over taxes too. Work less, pay less.  You only  pay income tax on what your earn.  If you don’t want to pay any tax, quit your job, and go off-grid camping and eat off the land. (Just make sure you aren’t somewhere you’d get shot for trespassing or poaching.) 

No one is really forcing you to have a job (slavery was outlawed sometime ago), or live in a house, or pay rent, or buy stuff.  And you can draw your cash out of the bank so it doesn’t earn any taxable interest, and give away all your investments to charity so you have zero taxable capital gains.  

Or, hey, maybe you could become wealthy and arrange enough write-offs that you net out to zero, like the uber-rich do.  Oh, but you’d have to pay the wealth management firm that gets you there, and I think that service might be taxable… so yeah, there you might be caught.  

 

I think we've entered into the 'silly range' on this.

If I decided to not buy groceries anymore, maybe it's because I plan to eat at a relatives for the year....or eat at a soup kitchen.

But really, I can't speak for anyone else, but my point is that we, in California, pay MORE for goods & services, but get less.

We do give many BILLION$ to illegals and homeless (sometimes the same people), and we have a bullet train that will (one day) take you from Northern California to Bakersfield real fast.....but no one wants to go to Bakersfield "real fast" after Buck & Merle died.   And we have the distinction of the highest-paid teachers in the country....and the honor of being #15 out of 50 on academic achievement!

All the rest of your statement is not my deal.   We all need to pay taxes for basic services....but when you look at the amount we're taxes and the items those taxes fund.....they are NOT "basic services" at all....and California is the worst offender.

 

[PrairieDog]

13 hours ago, fortyearspickn said:

Our school tax potion of our property tax is about half.  So, fire, police, city code inspectors and the city government all run at the same cost of just the schools.  That’s carp.   Suggesting that it’s ok because an educated voting citizenry will result in better government is also.  Implement vouchers and put competition into the equation and see how fast the government monopoly implodes.  If competency scores weren’t dropping, if , for example in Chicago,  “16% of middle school students tested at or above the proficient level for reading, and 12% tested at or above that level for math.” I’d be happy paying.     It’s not like we have dumber kids, or the schools have been “de-funded. 

Schools have been seriously defunded since the 60s/70s.  Voters routinely deny needed levy increases (yes you vote on your school taxes).  

Just here a major school district tried to pass a levy saying the shortfall funding from the slashed fed and state budgets is so great we will have to close schools if it fails.  The levy didn’t pass, “oh the horrors, no taxes!” and now everyone is up in arms because schools are being closed.  Hey, not like they weren’t were warned. 

School is nothing like back in the 20th century when most of us were being taught.  Kids don’t get offered half the classes we were. A high school diploma used to prepare you to be an adult.  If you weren’t going to college, you could learn skills that could get you a fair wage paying job and/or manage a home.  Now those classes like shop, home-ec, music, art, typing, are history, most places.  Slashed as too expensive.  

One of the most consequential scraps, Civics, was a requirement through the 1960s, it hasn’t even been a elective in most schools since the 1980s. Seriously, knowing how to be and what the responsibilities of being a citizen in our democracy was deemed “irrelevant.”

This was the class that taught kids about the role and practice of government, how the different bodies are supposed to work together, and the importance of being involved and importantly voting.  So, where do kids learn that now?  Youtube? 

As a result, whole generations are now easily duped by politicians, and led by special interests to misunderstand and thus mistrust how it works and what our government is meant for.  

Exactly what the Founding Fathers feared.  

Less than half of voters now even bother to vote, and winners are decided by about 25% the people. The rest of the 75% who sat on their butts while their lives were being decided for them, complain about the consequences.  

Schools and education are one of the best examples of, “You get what you pay for.”   

Edited May 24 by PrairieDog

[PrairieDog]

8 minutes ago, DanvillRob said:

I think we've entered into the 'silly range' on this.

If I decided to not buy groceries anymore, maybe it's because I plan to eat at a relatives for the year....or eat at a soup kitchen.

But really, I can't speak for anyone else, but my point is that we, in California, pay MORE for goods & services, but get less.

We do give many BILLION$ to illegals and homeless (sometimes the same people), and we have a bullet train that will (one day) take you from Northern California to Bakersfield real fast.....but no one wants to go to Bakersfield "real fast" after Buck & Merle died.   And we have the distinction of the highest-paid teachers in the country....and the honor of being #15 out of 50 on academic achievement!

All the rest of your statement is not my deal.   We all need to pay taxes for basic services....but when you look at the amount we're taxes and the items those taxes fund.....they are NOT "basic services" at all....and California is the worst offender.

 

Okay, the analogy is not about eating, it’s about saying because he “paid for groceries before” he shouldn’t have to keep *paying* when he wants some more.  That is the logic behind,  “we’ve paid in plenty in taxes in the past” implying he shouldn’t be expected to keep paying, even while he still needs the groceries.  

[DanvillRob]

Just now, PrairieDog said:

Okay, the analogy is not about eating, it’s about saying because he “paid for groceries before” he shouldn’t have to keep *paying* when he wants some more.  That is the logic behind,  “we’ve paid in plenty in taxes in the past” implying he shouldn’t be expected to keep paying, even while he still needs the groceries.  

I never said, (and I don't think anyone else has either), we shouldn't pay taxes......we just shouldn't pay taxes to fund wars on the other side of the world, nor pay taxes so our "representatives" can eat for free at the finest restaurants, and fly off to exotic vacations on taxpayer dollars, (only a few examples....there are THOUSANDS of examples of our tax dollars being wasted.

[Sheepdog1969]

24 minutes ago, PrairieDog said:

Civics, was a requirement through the 1960s,

The purposeful elimination of Civics education has resulted in the moronic ignorance of too many of our current government officials that do not understand the purpose of "separation of powers". It also, as you stated, has created an electorate who are easily manipulated by individuals who mislead them with emotional arguments that are antithetical to the Constitution. These ignorant sheeple repeatedly state their willingness to give up Constitutionally protected freedoms for an ounce of perceived safety. They deserve neither!!!

[PrairieDog]

30 minutes ago, DanvillRob said:

I never said, (and I don't think anyone else has either), we shouldn't pay taxes......we just shouldn't pay taxes to fund wars on the other side of the world, nor pay taxes so our "representatives" can eat for free at the finest restaurants, and fly off to exotic vacations on taxpayer dollars, (only a few examples....there are THOUSANDS of examples of our tax dollars being wasted.

I never said you did, my shopping comment was responding to Larsongs.  The question is, deciphering what are “wasted” tax dollars.  Often times they actually go for good things that other people just resent or don’t understand why they are needed, but are important to the companies and jobs those dollars go to.  

Taxes don’t just vaporize when they are spent.  They go back out into the economy and people’s pockets, mostly through construction jobs, highways, teacher salaries, social security, medicare (which you paid into) the military, police, fire, local governments… Those are all people doing jobs or receiving benefits paid by tax dollars.  Sure you can think “that person doesn’t deserve my money” but seriously when you break down a trillion dollar budget it is a small fraction of a penny of your money going there.  You couldn’t spend it if you wanted to.  

My business happens to be one of the ones often in the crosshairs.  So I’m used to attacks.  We do an obscure bit of required environmental testing for government and private companies.  Our government contracts are funded with tax dollars.  Because we are very aware those are tax dollars and we pay taxes too, so we make sure those dollars are not “wasted.”  We work efficiently but precisely, often saving public projects millions of dollars with our recommendations. Our cost is  a minute fraction of those savings.

With those tax dollars we provide good 40 hour a week jobs with living wages and full benefits to attract folks who make sure we can keep doing good work.  Those tax dollars go into our employees pockets who in turn spend them. The dollars flow back into the economy and other people’s pockets like the grocery store,  used guitars, whatever they want to buy.  We the owners take a salary, but we don’t take “profit.” We do real work for what we get paid.  And then through our jobs and spending we all pay taxes back in and the cycle starts again.  

Taxes are really a closed loop system.  They don’t get dumped off the pier to be eaten by fish.  Sure there is waste in any inefficiency, but that is why oversight and prosecuting the bad guys is an important piece of the tax system.  

But those tax funded jobs got slashed first in the “reduce the size of government” move.  

Gee, I wonder why the nannies really got fired?  Chuckle.  

Edited May 24 by PrairieDog

[gearbasher]

I saw squirrel today.

[PrairieDog]

22 minutes ago, Sheepdog1969 said:

The purposeful elimination of Civics education has resulted in the moronic ignorance of too many of our current government officials that do not understand the purpose of "separation of powers". It also, as you stated, has created an electorate who are easily manipulated by individuals who mislead them with emotional arguments that are antithetical to the Constitution. These ignorant sheeple repeatedly state their willingness to give up Constitutionally protected freedoms for an ounce of perceived safety. They deserve neither!!!

You get the government you are educated for.

[DanvillRob]

21 minutes ago, PrairieDog said:

Taxes don’t just vaporize when they are spent.  They go back out into the economy and people’s pockets, mostly through construction jobs, highways, teacher salaries, social security, medicare (which you paid into) the military, police, fire, local governments… Those are all people doing jobs or receiving benefits paid by tax dollars.  Sure you can think “that person doesn’t deserve my money” but seriously when you break down a trillion dollar budget it is a small fraction of a penny of your money going there.  You couldn’t spend it if you wanted to.  

Taxes are really a closed loop system.  They don’t get dumped off the pier to be eaten by fish.  Sure there is waste in any inefficiency, but that is why oversight and prosecuting the bad guys is an important piece of the tax system.  

Obviously much of the tax dollars go into the pocket of the ruling class..... I mean, Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Joe Biden (+ much of his family) have somehow become very wealthy while earning less than I did....I wonder just where those dollars came from?    And the new Congressman....the  ex-bartender, in just a few years has become a millionaire while earning the starting salary for a junior partner in a law firm.... maybe she still bartends....I heard the tips can be big!

Well.... I have a couple of songs I'm working on.... and once the wife gets up, I can't practice unless I go into the music room.

 

[DanvillRob]

23 minutes ago, gearbasher said:

I saw squirrel today.

GB.... by "Squirrel" do you mean Damian?   (you ARE a bike guy, after all!)

[gearbasher]

I pretty much started the discussion when I commented about taxes and schools. I was just trying to lighten things up.

[Sgt. Pepper]

27 minutes ago, PrairieDog said:

You get the government you are educated for.

No we get the government of people who have enough money to campaign. Think you or me could run for POTUS and win? Not hardly. You’re not in the club. Look at most in DC. Lots of clowns with law degrees that would  rather get taken out to dinner and patted on the back every day than practice law. 

[DanvillRob]

9 minutes ago, gearbasher said:

I pretty much started the discussion when I commented about taxes and schools. I was just trying to lighten things up.

You know "Squirrel" is a relatively well-known BMX rider, right?

[Sheepdog1969]

Weird how Nancy P and a number of other congress folks, all without finance degrees, have made more money, (returns) on their Stock Market investments, by massive amounts, than the worlds best professional investment companies. It is also weird how these same congress people have exempted themselves from  SEC insider trading regulations. My father was formerly one of the top 6 investment advisers in the world. I, and anyone else who lived in his home, were barred from investing/trading in the market except for investing in funds who's stock picks were independently controlled/chosen by the company who controlled the fund, PER SEC LAW!!!! Yet, Pelosi and her ilk, who know in advance what legislation they will pass which will determine future stock values of companies effected by said legislation, ARE EXEMPTED FROM SEC INVESTMENT REGULATION, BY THEIR OWN LEGISLATION. Sorry folks, Nancy ain't that smart without her insider info. 

[gearbasher]

12 minutes ago, DanvillRob said:

You know "Squirrel" is a relatively well-known BMX rider, right?

Do we want to start this discussion? I'm a Roadie. I do not recognize any other types of cyclists.

[DanvillRob]

28 minutes ago, gearbasher said:

Do we want to start this discussion? I'm a Roadie. I do not recognize any other types of cyclists.

Not even Matt Hoffman?   Dave Mira?   Ryan Nyquist?

[gearbasher]

4 minutes ago, DanvillRob said:

Not even Matt Hoffman?   Dave Mira?   Ryan Nyquist?

Only if you like seeing grown men on children's bikes.

[Sgt. Pepper]

55 minutes ago, Sheepdog1969 said:

Weird how Nancy P and a number of other congress folks, all without finance degrees, have made more money, (returns) on their Stock Market investments, by massive amounts, than the worlds best professional investment companies. It is also weird how these same congress people have exempted themselves from  SEC insider trading regulations. My father was formerly one of the top 6 investment advisers in the world. I, and anyone else who lived in his home, were barred from investing/trading in the market except for investing in funds who's stock picks were independently controlled/chosen by the company who controlled the fund, PER SEC LAW!!!! Yet, Pelosi and her ilk, who know in advance what legislation they will pass which will determine future stock values of companies effected by said legislation, ARE EXEMPTED FROM SEC INVESTMENT REGULATION, BY THEIR OWN LEGISLATION. Sorry folks, Nancy ain't that smart without her insider info. 

It must be a chore to be a millionaire. No financial worries, you have a hand in writing the laws. Push your agenda up people hi-knee holes. I feel for fat cats on Capitol Hill. 

[DanvillRob]

14 minutes ago, gearbasher said:

Only if you like seeing grown men on children's bikes.

Not sure you "Roadies" could pull these off, especially on your "adult bicycles"!

Mat Hoffman (I actually saw him do this, in person, at his place in Oklahoma City)

Ryan Nyquist

My son

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

This place is so funny. It’s why I stick around. Think they are discussing BMX bikes on the Guild, PRS, Fender, Martin or Gretsch Forums? I’ll bet no.

[DanvillRob]

2 minutes ago, Sgt. Pepper said:

This place is so funny. It’s why I stick around. Think they are discussing BMX bikes on the Guild, PRS, Fender, Martin or Gretsch Forums? I’ll bet no.

That's what makes us "special"!