Possible government shut down discussion

[Super Dude]

I think you're thinking of Braxis. :nerd:

[PraXis]

Praxis, this is your warning. Either argue in a civilized fashion or leave.

My "evil rich" thing was sarcasm. I'm just stating that the top 1% of wage earners in this country already have the burden of paying 40% of all federal income taxes, while the bottom 47% pay $0 and many get free money back due to all the deductions we have.

[pogoowner]

Wow, this argument is ridiculous. Obviously there's a balance. Sometimes decreasing tax rates will increase tax revenue. Sometimes it will not. You want to find the sweet spot. That's the whole idea of the Laffer Curve.

[PraXis]

Wow, this argument is ridiculous. Obviously there's a balance. Sometimes decreasing tax rates will increase tax revenue. Sometimes it will not. You want to find the sweet spot. That's the whole idea of the Laffer Curve.

The Laffer Curve does not tell you what the perfect rate and it also doesn't address how much should be spent from any revenue..plus Laffer himself was in huge denial when the housing bubble collapse was imminent (and Peter Schiff made him look silly at a debate).

Obviously we can't have 0% or 100% taxation. An income tax is not a viable solution like a consumption (embedded sales) tax such as the FairTax. Under this system, you are only taxed for what you spend. So if you make $50k a year, that's how much your paychecks add up to over 12 months (minus state taxes, and many states have 0% income taxes).

If you happen to be below the poverty level, then you get a monthly reimbursement for how much tax you would have paid for basic necessities. The FairTax also takes away power from the politicians to try to buy votes with promising all these tax deductions and perks for some people, but not for others (more divide and conquer).

[pogoowner]

Wow, this argument is ridiculous. Obviously there's a balance. Sometimes decreasing tax rates will increase tax revenue. Sometimes it will not. You want to find the sweet spot. That's the whole idea of the Laffer Curve.

The Laffer Curve does not tell you what the perfect rate and it also doesn't address how much should be spent from any revenue..plus Laffer himself was in huge denial when the housing bubble collapse was imminent (and Peter Schiff made him look silly at a debate).

I'm well aware of Schiff making him look silly, and it doesn't really have anything to do with this. I was just pointing out the silliness going on this thread, because the arguments were pretty much, "Lowering taxes will increase tax revenue!" and, "No it won't!"

Obviously there are a ton of factors that determine whether it will or will not. It did work with Reagan. Would it work now? I don't know.

[rumborak]

pogo, that was also my point. You can't just make a blanket statement of that any tax reduction will increase business. There will be numerous examples where the ensuing lack of government services will hinder business more than the marginally increased business capital.

rumborak

[Riceball]

The tax system is used by most governments to redistribute wealth/economic activity in various forms.

Income tax is the simplest example of this; tax those with greater means to pay more so than those with less means to pay. By doing so, and providing services and infrastructure such as healthcare, income support, roads, ports etc, society as a whole benefits.

Or, tobacco excise with the aim of raising the physical cost of purchasing of cigarettes to discourage people from buying them. Sure, they are inelastic goods and so they raise a disproportionate amount of revenue relative to the activity they discourage, but thats just the way the system has evolved.

I can't believe the number of times since I've been posting on this forum that people have called for "tax to be lowered" or said "tax is EEEEEVILLLL" or "Government's are trying to screw society over" or "governments are just central planning with democratic lip service". At the end of the day, you pay tax, you get something back. The whole mentality of "I've worked for it, so its mine; and the government cant take it away and provide basic services with it zomg!" is a large contributing factor to why the developed world is so fucked at the moment in an economic sense.

You can't expect to have a decent, functioning society without a government, and a government can run without revenue. Revenue comes in many forms, with taxation the main one ofcourse. Yes, governments have a tendency to get a bit bloated, but they are the biggest organisations in the world. Do you think if Proctor & Gamble or McDonalds served as many customers with as many services as a government does they would be as trim and efficient as they are now? I don't think they could be, happy to be challenged on that.

Sorry, rant over. Please feel free to flame me, troll me, bait me etc.

[pogoowner]

The tax system is used by most governments to redistribute wealth/economic activity in various forms.

Income tax is the simplest example of this; tax those with greater means to pay more so than those with less means to pay. By doing so, and providing services and infrastructure such as healthcare, income support, roads, ports etc, society as a whole benefits.

Or, tobacco excise with the aim of raising the physical cost of purchasing of cigarettes to discourage people from buying them. Sure, they are inelastic goods and so they raise a disproportionate amount of revenue relative to the activity they discourage, but thats just the way the system has evolved.

I can't believe the number of times since I've been posting on this forum that people have called for "tax to be lowered" or said "tax is EEEEEVILLLL" or "Government's are trying to screw society over" or "governments are just central planning with democratic lip service". At the end of the day, you pay tax, you get something back. The whole mentality of "I've worked for it, so its mine; and the government cant take it away and provide basic services with it zomg!" is a large contributing factor to why the developed world is so fucked at the moment in an economic sense.

You can't expect to have a decent, functioning society without a government, and a government can run without revenue. Revenue comes in many forms, with taxation the main one ofcourse. Yes, governments have a tendency to get a bit bloated, but they are the biggest organisations in the world. Do you think if Proctor & Gamble or McDonalds served as many customers with as many services as a government does they would be as trim and efficient as they are now? I don't think they could be, happy to be challenged on that.

Sorry, rant over. Please feel free to flame me, troll me, bait me etc.

At what point do they become too bloated and inefficient, though? At what point does it make more sense to have less-centralized government?

[Riceball]

Thats sort-of my point. Its a very abstract concept, hard to define. In a pure economic sense, there will always be a dead-weight loss in the provision of Government services, as they are providing services which the market wont. And, they are taxing economic transactions, which also creates a dead-weight loss. So having a government kind of ensures there will be inefficiency in the economy.

To counter that argument, economists normally add in positive externalities or positive social benefits which arise as a result of Government activity. Therefore, I suppose when the government starts taxing money and not providing a degree of compensation in terms of externalities/social benefits; in an economic sense they are being inefficient.

Although, in the real world, its unrealistic to demand economically efficient government. So many services they provide wouldn't be provided and the private sector wouldn't take them up for the same reasons they don't now.

I'll leave it there for now, I could probably write a mini-ranty-essay on fiscal centrism lol.

[Riceball]

Putting all the discussion above aside, it looks like shit is gonna hit the fan tonight. Sad really.

Latest article I've read is that the two sides are getting closer on their "amount" of budget cuts (rep. are gunning for $40bn, while dem democrats have counter-offerred $34.5bn). However, the sticking point is now what will be cut.

The republicans want to cut abortion programs and environmental protection stuff, which the democrats are refusing.

Wow.

[El Barto]

Yeah, the Planned Parenthood thing is an interesting tactic.  Pretty much shows that both sides are just looking for an ideological victory.  I don't think it'll work the way the GOP wants it to.  Since no federal funds are allowed to go towards abortions, they're really just cutting a fairly useful HHS program. 

[Super Dude]

Yeah, the Planned Parenthood thing is an interesting tactic.  Pretty much shows that both sides are just looking for an ideological victory.  I don't think it'll work the way the GOP wants it to.  Since no federal funds are allowed to go towards abortions, they're really just cutting a fairly useful HHS program. 

And so, no matter what they've learned from 1995, they're making the same mistakes in different packaging.

[El Barto]

I think the '95 guys were actually halfway principled.  They probably cared about the subject more than just as an excuse for a dick-fight.  This is nothing but gamesmanship. 

[Super Dude]

I think the '95 guys were actually halfway principled.  They probably cared about the subject more than just as an excuse for a dick-fight.  This is nothing but gamesmanship.  

I'm not so sure about that.  I mean I don't know for sure because I was in kindergarten at the time learning that sharing is caring (funny how some important people seem to have forgotten that), but I asked my dad recently what the politics were like in the 90s.  His response was, in these words, "Same as now, with a better economy."

[Dublagent66]

One of the differences between 1995 and now is that there are a lot more well informed people now compared to back then.  These politicians better be real careful about who they piss off.  People are getting really tired of this shit.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

One of the differences between 1995 and now is that there are a lot more well informed people now compared to back then.  These politicians better be real careful about who they piss off.  People are getting really tired of this shit.

Not sure i can agree with the first part, but I agree with the second. Watching some reactions (especially by army families, who the GOP keeps mentioning, btw), nobody can understand what the problem is. The only people who seem to want the government to shut down are some Tea Partiers. Saw one on CNN today who was saying it would do the government good. He kept talking about cutting spending, but the anchor pointed out that the last government shutdown ended up costing tons of money, and he was like "oh, you're right" .

[rumborak]

Explaining things like that to a Tea Party member is like that scene in The Simpsons where Homer keeps shocking himself because he doesn't learn that it's not good for him.
You explain something to a TPer and for about 5 seconds it sticks, and after that they're back to the very opposite of what had just been explained to them.

rumborak

[Cool Chris]

This would be more effective if it actually hurt the legislators in some manner.

[Super Dude]

I would not say people are any more or less informed today as then; it's just the people calling the shots and making demands are less intelligent than those in their place 20 years ago.

[juice]

Looks like the government isn't gonna be running tomorrow.

[Jamesman42]

How drastic of a change would a shutdown be (total politics noob here, be gentle).

[Adami]

I heard museums and so forth would all shut down.


But I was curious, what about the postal system? I assume that goes on as usual?

[juice]

The postal system would stop working I believe.  And fix'd my previous post.

[rumborak]

You know what the saddest part is? Despite all this, people will still vote Democrats and Republicans after that as if nothing happened. In Europe I am pretty sure something like this would result in a massive boost for minority party. As happened in Germany the other day, where one state elected the Green Party, which was unheard of before.
This has nothing to do with US vs Europe. The more I see of this the more I am convinced this is a shortcoming of the presidential system.

rumborak

[El Barto]

The postal system would stop working I believe.  And fix'd my previous post.

Postal service keeps running.  If it's a protracted shutdown you might see them run slower, but they won't stop working.

Museums, parks, other neat but non-essential stuff will be shuttered.  Ironic since they actually turn a profit.  One of the reasons why the shutdown won't actually save any money. 

[ReaPsTA]

You know what the saddest part is? Despite all this, people will still vote Democrats and Republicans after that as if nothing happened. In Europe I am pretty sure something like this would result in a massive boost for minority party. As happened in Germany the other day, where one state elected the Green Party, which was unheard of before.
This has nothing to do with US vs Europe. The more I see of this the more I am convinced this is a shortcoming of the presidential system.

rumborak

Why the presidential system specifically?

[rumborak]

It seems to me the presidential system enforces stalemates, way more than the parliamentary system. I dunno, it's not a particularly well-formed theory of mine, but I have the impression the mechanics of the system make it block more easily.

rumborak

[Super Dude]

It seems to me the presidential system enforces stalemates, way more than the parliamentary system. I dunno, it's not a particularly well-formed theory of mine, but I have the impression the mechanics of the system make it block more easily.

rumborak

Well the parliamentary system does have the advantage of making coalitions and cooperation necessary, unlike the necessarily competitive bipartisan presidential system.

[ReaPsTA]

It seems to me the presidential system enforces stalemates, way more than the parliamentary system. I dunno, it's not a particularly well-formed theory of mine, but I have the impression the mechanics of the system make it block more easily.

rumborak

I think that really the blockage comes from having only two parties, which is kind of a result of the presidential system.  Since a majority vote is required to win the election, and the presidency is so important, only two parties at a time can truly be relevant.  If I understand correctly, the Prime Minister needs to be supported by a majority of the parliament, but multiple parties form coalitions to choose him/her.

Since there are only two parties in the U.S., all they really have to do is what's necessary to make sure there are still only two parties.  While I like the idea of a president independent from the legislature, the American system needs to be reconfigured so more than two parties are viable.  How this happens I'm not entirely sure, but it has to be something.

EDIT:  Something else to consider.  In a sense, the system is working how it's supposed to.  The government was never meant to have much power, and the different branches were purposely set against each other to prevent that power from going.  So when the government doesn't have much power as it's supposed to, there isn't much conflict.  Build a new road somewhere?  Whatever.  Raise tariffs on Japanese double sided dildos?  Sure.  But when the government gets into the business of expanding its power, that's when things are specifically designed to stall so change is hard.  Relative to what the founding fathers intended, the current government would be considered tyrannical.  So really, it's built into the system's design that it would function so inefficiently as the government tries to become so much more powerful.

But this gets back to that fundamental philosophical divide.  The federal government handling much more than interstate highways, courts, and defense bothers me.  You would of course have a very different opinion.

[MetalJunkie]

Cool. Shutdown averted.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

The postal system would stop working I believe.  And fix'd my previous post.

usps isn't as tied to the government as it used to be, fortunately

[wjc]

You know what the saddest part is? Despite all this, people will still vote Democrats and Republicans after that as if nothing happened. In Europe I am pretty sure something like this would result in a massive boost for minority party. As happened in Germany the other day, where one state elected the Green Party, which was unheard of before.
This has nothing to do with US vs Europe. The more I see of this the more I am convinced this is a shortcoming of the presidential system.

rumborak

More than anything it's the first-past-the-post system that creates this situation by not allowing for any viable alternatives outside the two increasingly less broad major parties (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law)

[berrege]

You know what the saddest part is? Despite all this, people will still vote Democrats and Republicans after that as if nothing happened. In Europe I am pretty sure something like this would result in a massive boost for minority party. As happened in Germany the other day, where one state elected the Green Party, which was unheard of before.
This has nothing to do with US vs Europe. The more I see of this the more I am convinced this is a shortcoming of the presidential system.

rumborak

No, that's because of the First-past-the-post system in the US.

[Super Dude]

I feel like this article is relevant, it's called The Cowardly Congress.  Partisans beware...it's sympathetic to no one.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/opinion/10kristof.html?hp