Jump to content
It would probably have been a good idea for Scott to have disclosed that Lynn Abbott is a former county chairman of the Democratic Party and, according to the party website, is the current chairman of a communications committee for the party. So, I might suggest that her views are not quite unbiased.
I have gone on the exchange website to price coverage since I will have to replace my current coverage. I found that to replace my current coverage with similar coverage, my cost will double. This is particularly bad since the cost of my coverage had already doubled in the last couple of years. That means I will be paying almost 4 times as much for coverage as I was a couple of years ago.
To solve the problem, I have dropped the health insurance benefit for my employees, which I am able to do since I have under 50 employees. I suspect a lot of employers will solve the problem this way.
Here is a suggestion for Mr. Jespersen. You might consider forming a nonprofit to investigate obtaining access to the river and what would be involved in constructing boat ramps. You could raise money to buy access easement or maybe have easements donated. You could also raise money for boat ramp construction. I am sure there will be lots of hoops to jump through to build the ramps but you can figure all that out in the course of your investigation. You are much more likely to get the kind of result you want if you take the lead.
Mr. Bashinski, you ask a good question. Given the limitations on the length of these pieces, it is hard to fit in citations to, or detailed discussions of, studies. The 2 that come immediately to mind are (from a more historical perspective) Milton Friedman's Free to Choose (especially Chapter 2) and (from a more statistical perspective) National Center for Policy Analysis Report No. 39, which you can find here:
Given some time, I am glad to give you further citations.
Catherine Engelbrecht directly addressed a lot of what Carole has to say. If you want to see Catherine's presentation, you can see it here:
To clarify Michael's story the boos and murmurs related to some of Prof. Black's comments which included calling Paul Ryan a "liar." They were not related to the rescheduling of the debate. The change in time was necessary because Prof. Black's flight from Kansas City had been cancelled.
Thanks to all who attended and to the Pilot and Today for their coverage.
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." --James Madison, Federalist No. 45
I was not really aware that we were talking about gay marriage or anything along that line, but back to the subject of tax policy and size of government, here is a link to a great article about Milton Friedman:
Mr. Hartless, I think old Rhys is kidding with you a little there.
To answer your question though, take a look at Mr. Wedel's post. When he says "freedom" he means something different than what you and I mean. We have in mind freedom from the force and coercion of government,which is also what America's founders meant. He means being guaranteed certain results, which is what people like Woodrow Wilson and John Dewey meant. Guaranteeing results is an expensive proposition and requires significant taxation on the productive elements of society. Unfortunately, this also erodes the overall productivity of society and leads to the fairness problems that you correctly point out. It further means that someone must perceive themselves as competent to know how to redistribute wealth. I do not believe that such competence exists. I would rather trust free markets.
Thank you for your reply, Mr. Wedel. I am actually quite sure that I am not going to convince you of anything, but for the benefit of other folks reading this, I will reply
First, I did answer your question about the collection plate. It is none of my business what you, Mr. Hartless or anyone else puts in the collection plate. It is not my place to dictate the behavior of others. My only interest is that they be free to make their own choices.
Actually, it is here where I believe our basic differences lie. I look at history and I see that freedom has worked and that government control and planning has not been terribly effective. So, I would say that not only is freedom morally right, but it has demonstrably better practical effects than government control and coercion. This is not to say that government does not serve a proper and necessary role, but just because something needs done, does not mean that government is the party that should do it. Government, by its very nature, works only through coercion. In this regard, it is the opposite of the free market.
Consequently, my view, like this country's founders, is that government should be limited. We are more likely to realize this effect if people see that it is their money that the government is spending. Therefore, I want people to realize that they have skin in the game when the government spends money.
In the final analysis, I do not believe that government properly exists for it own sake. It exists only for the sake of, and to the extent consented to, by the governed. As Adam Smith observed, the proper role of government is limited to protecting us from invasion, administering justice internally,and "erecting and maintaining certain public works, and certain public institutions, which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals to erect and maintain."
Thanks to Mr. Wedel for his response. I would answer with two points.
First, Mr. Hartless can put any amount that he wants in the collection plate ($0, $3, or $30,000). It is really none of my business, except to the extent that I will defend his right to do what he wants. The point is that he and everyone else is free to choose.
Second, your statement that, "The amount of taxes dues (sic) is obviously dependent upon the person's wealth and income." is clearly false. In terms of how the system actually works, in 2010 GE made $14.2 billion worldwide and paid no U.S. income tax. So, your premise does not entirely reflect how the system works now.
In fact, your premise is really the point up for discussion. Why should the amount you pay be dependent upon your income and wealth? Doesn't a system like you describe provide a disincentive to producing income and wealth? Furthermore, that sort of system supports the myth that "Someone else is paying, so why do I care why the government spends?". This is one of the major factors that makes it so difficult to get spending under control. Too much of the electorate thinks that they are playing with someone else's money.
Last login: today
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.