Senate Fiscal Cliff Bill Approved by House

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Anyway, life may indeed not be fair, but there can be consequences to taxing those with lower income to the point that they can't pay for essentials.

Is it preferable to have structured rates that encourage more self-sufficiency for those with lower incomes?

Thank you for saying this more clearly and succinctly than I ever could.

Originally Posted by DGTess

I don't think the government should be in the business of validating people's choices. Those who choose to have families on incomes of $15K or of $250K make choices. Taxes are paid on income, not on how one chooses to spend it.

Likewise housing. While I believe access to adequate housing is a right, I don't think home ownership is a right, and don't think the government should reward me more than the couple next door who has been renting their house for 35 years, by their choice.

Is it that person's income? Or the family's income? I have never thought of my income as just mine. That money belongs to me and my children, not just me. I don't think many stay at home moms would be happy to say that the money their husband makes working outside of the home belongs to their spouses. I guess this is a major philosophical difference about you think about a family unit.

Home ownership is a huge boon for our economy. The building, selling and buying of homes creates jobs. All of the people with those jobs then pay taxes. It's all a big flow chart and the taxes paid by all of those people add up to far more than the tax savings of the mortgage interest.

I'm of the mindset that if it is good for society for as a whole, I'm willing to ante up more money to pay for it. That would include education, defense, health care, roads/transportation, medical research, etc. I do feel like there is a lot of waste in our government but I can't put my finger on exactly what it is. We all heard reports of the government paying outrageous amounts for toilet seats, for example. I do think there is too much wealth in this country to tolerate people dying for lack of health insurance, lack of food, lack of heat or shelter... in short, lack of compassion. I know people who work the system and I know people who need help but can't get it from anywhere. I can't even believe they haven't approved spending to help the people suffering damage from Sandy, for example.

I have a feeling the biggest issue is corruption, but where that corruption is, I don't know. And whether ending that corruption would really help the deficit in the long run, I don't know.

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Thank you for saying this more clearly and succinctly than I ever could.



Is it that person's income? Or the family's income? I have never thought of my income as just mine. That money belongs to me and my children, not just me. I don't think many stay at home moms would be happy to say that the money their husband makes working outside of the home belongs to their spouses. I guess this is a major philosophical difference about you think about a family unit.

It is family income, no doubt. The wage earner, however, CHOSE to marry and/or have a family. Why should the government validate or reward that choice?

Home ownership is a huge boon for our economy. The building, selling and buying of homes creates jobs. All of the people with those jobs then pay taxes. It's all a big flow chart and the taxes paid by all of those people add up to far more than the tax savings of the mortgage interest.

OK, we disagree.

I have a feeling the biggest issue is corruption, but where that corruption is, I don't know. And whether ending that corruption would really help the deficit in the long run, I don't know.

I don't think it's corruption.

In my 30+ years in government, I've come to believe we could do what needs to be done with 40% fewer people. Here are just some examples why I say 40% - it may be more or less, but ...
- a person full-time from November to January working on Combined Federal Campaign - from each directorate of each agency
- most government employees I saw spend as much time in idle chit-chat as they do working on any given day. Buying a house, selling puppies, (not)selling cookies/candy/giftwrap for the kids (by simply putting out an order sheet, and waiting for coworkers to ask, the more chitchat, all take place on government time.
- Don't like the way another office with which you work does/documents their job? No problem. Just have one of our people do/document it "our way".
- Duplicate information because computer systems can't talk to one another - in the name of "security" (theater) or "privacy".
- And as I said, every person who wants to make his mark must grow his program - whether that means making new regulations to enforce, sticking his nose somewhere else, or any of a gazillion different things ... what gets rewarded gets done.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by DGTess

In my 30+ years in government, I've come to believe we could do what needs to be done with 40% fewer people. Here are just some examples why I say 40% - it may be more or less, but ...
- a person full-time from November to January working on Combined Federal Campaign - from each directorate of each agency
- most government employees I saw spend as much time in idle chit-chat as they do working on any given day. Buying a house, selling puppies, (not)selling cookies/candy/giftwrap for the kids (by simply putting out an order sheet, and waiting for coworkers to ask, the more chitchat, all take place on government time.
- Don't like the way another office with which you work does/documents their job? No problem. Just have one of our people do/document it "our way".
- Duplicate information because computer systems can't talk to one another - in the name of "security" (theater) or "privacy".
- And as I said, every person who wants to make his mark must grow his program - whether that means making new regulations to enforce, sticking his nose somewhere else, or any of a gazillion different things ... what gets rewarded gets done.

I've worked for two major private corporations, and it's my experience that these things are rampant in the private sector as well. I have never worked in government, so I can't do a side-by-side comparison, but I think a lot of the stereotypes about bad management, laziness, etc. in the government sector are far from absent just because there is a profit motive.