America: Here is your tax dollars.

[CIVPhilzilla]

Those aren't all federal taxes. If you're going to slash federal spending, unless you change the programs, you're going to have to pay more at the state or local level. Thats federalism.

Example: Lets say that the department of Education disapears. No more federal funding for public school districts. Only the uber-rich school districts are 100% (or could be) self-suffient. That means that you'll see more Property Taxes or School taxes, unless you can think of a magic way to create income without taxation.

When people talk about taxes, they tend to just focus on the federal budget....you pay taxes to a hell of a lot of different places too, so you'll have to examine your budget and spending for every level of your government.

Most funding for public schools and roads come from local and state levels, with only a small portion actually coming from federal. A small increase in local taxes will can easily be accommodated by a slashing of federal taxes resulting from a smaller budget.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

And how do you propose we maintain our military standing that we have now?

Who says we need the current standing we have now.

According to the CIA World Factbook 2005 Military Expenditures:

1. United States $ 518,100,000,000
2. China $ 81,480,000,000
3. France $ 45,000,000,000
4. Japan $ 44,310,000,000
5. United Kingdom $ 42,836,500,000
6. Germany $ 35,063,000,000

We currently spend more more than six times the amount of the second nation, and spend more than double the amount of the other top six nations combined. The US's military is by far #1 in the world, and could remain that way even with some major budget cuts.

Way to support the troops in a time of war.

Sorry I don't view the government as an open ATM to anybody, sure there are plenty of places the money should be going to, but it all has to come from somewhere. If you don't fix budgeting issues now they'll just compound (literally) in the future.

Ya, and what would be the incentive for a private company to maintain roads, build new ones, build & maintain libraries, schools, hospitals, fire stations, subways, canals, tunnels, harbours, sewage treatment plants, etc?

Their good will?

Businesses need transportation as well, people can pay tolls for better quality roads and not give their money to lower quality roads, libraries are already being displaced with infinite information that can be accessed with the internet, local taxes can still pay for schools, hospitals and firestations. Subways, canals, tunnels, and habours all can be very profitable for those willing to take on the investment, same with sewage treatment and garbage collection.

 

[downtown]

Most funding for public schools and roads come from local and state levels, with only a small portion actually coming from federal. A small increase in local taxes will can easily be accommodated by a slashing of federal taxes resulting from a smaller budget.

Nope, that depends on the state, and the tax base of the locality. Poorer, or smaller districts have much larger percentages of outside income than richer, suburban districts do.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Perhaps at first, the tuition would be high. But as private organizations get into the business of education, the competition would lower prices, as parents would naturally select the buisiness, in this case the school, that offers the best education at a relatively cheap price.

Then why are private colleges increasing their tuition at breakneck paces?

My $28k/y public education isn't cheap at all, but it's a hell of a lot better than paying $45k/y for the private MIT education I decided I wanted no part of.

 

[Whomp]

Whomp.... looking at that chart, do we not derive ANY revenues from taxes on imports?

The small print on that chart says the numbers don't equal 100% (actually it's 92.8% from the main three sources) and the rest comes from estate, customs, excise, levies etc.

And what the hell is AMT?

Alternative minimum tax. It's a best ball tax meaning you pay the higher of either:
A) regular marginal income tax with deductions between 10%-35%
or
B)the AMT rate which is a flat tax between 25% or 27% with preference items included (IE adding back in children exemptions, itemized deductions, Non AMT tax free bonds, depreciation etc)

 

[Integral]

looking at that chart, do we not derive ANY revenues from taxes on imports?

BEA puts customs duties at a mere $25 billion for 2005. So no, the government does not derive much of anything from import taxes. You can thank the FTA's for that.

According to the CIA World Factbook 2005 Military Expenditures:

1. United States $ 518,100,000,000
2. China $ 81,480,000,000
3. France $ 45,000,000,000
4. Japan $ 44,310,000,000
5. United Kingdom $ 42,836,500,000
6. Germany $ 35,063,000,000

I was about to post similar figures. The USA could easily keep its military dominance without such a high level of spending. Especially in the realm of air power. When are we going to fight a major air war anyway? Last time I checked, Al-Qaeda doesn't have an air force. (And before you ask, I don't see China as an enemy. Any US-China war would be devastating for both sides. War with China simply isn't feasable, IMO.)

Subways, canals, tunnels, and habours all can be very profitable for those willing to take on the investment, same with sewage treatment and garbage collection.

Honest question: when was the last time that private businesses took on responsiblity for internal improvements without having massive government contracts? The initial investment is pretty prohibitive; internal improvements are usually characterized by high fixed costs that few businesses are willing to pay, hence why governments fund them in the first place.

 

[warpus]

Businesses need transportation as well, people can pay tolls for better quality roads and not give their money to lower quality roads

And businesses aren't jumping at the apparent (to you) business opportunity here why exactly?

local taxes can still pay for schools, hospitals and firestations.

Well, those are still taxes. Why distinguish between "inherently bad" federal taxes and local taxes?

Subways, canals, tunnels, and habours all can be very profitable for those willing to take on the investment, same with sewage treatment and garbage collection.

Riiight. References, please? Point me to a private company that was able
to enter each of these markets and make a profit.

If these things were profitable, why do we need taxes to support them in the first place? They aren't profitable, usually.

 

[Integral]

Well, those are still taxes. Why distinguish between "inherently bad" federal taxes and local taxes?

Because local officials (who are spending the tax money) can be monitored more closely than Federal officials?

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

And businesses aren't jumping at the apparent (to you) business opportunity here why exactly?

Because the government is paying for it now. Why would they pay for something that the government will pay for?

Well, those are still taxes. Why distinguish between "inherently bad" federal taxes and local taxes?

There is much less bureaucracy associated with local government and they better know the needs of their area, as opposed to a federal government overlooking 300 million people.

Riiight. References, please? Point me to a private company that was able
to enter each of these markets and make a profit.

If these things were profitable, why do we need taxes to support them in the first place? They aren't profitable, usually.

I believe there was a whole controversy over Dubai wanting to purchase operations of some of our major harbors, obviously they saw potential. Any portal of transportation can get money through tolls or ticket fare. Just because the government decides to front the bill now, doesn't mean its better. Garbage collection and sewage treatment can make money like any utility company can, charge for the amount of service they use. All of these businesses can be profitable if opened up more to the private sector.

 

[Kozmos]

I am always amazed to see how American vigorously fight increasing taxes. You'd think with all that wealth and power you'd would be more willing to give more to the government to keep America strong.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

I am always amazed to see how American vigorously fight increasing taxes. You'd think with all that wealth and power you'd would be more willing to give more to the government to keep America strong.

America is strong and successful because of its capitalist roots, money is better held in the hands of Americans than the government.

 

[Kozmos]

Oh well I'll just give all my money to bill gates then.

 

[ravensfire]

There is much less bureaucracy associated with local government and they better know the needs of their area, as opposed to a federal government overlooking 300 million people.

This discussion prompted me to see how my local district was funded. Their website puts Federal funding at between 2 and 3 percent, depending on the year (2.65 in 2006). State funding is 5-7 percent (5.68 in '06). That leaves by far the majority as local funding. In Missouri, that's mostly personal property tax and sales tax.

The presumption is that, generally, local voters are more inclined to support funding for local schools, provided they feel it's needed. That same district went over 2 decades between tax increases because voters felt it wasn't needed. I'm pretty sure there were at least 4 measure to increase the rate that failed.

The Missouri system is under court challenge, as there is a form of revenue sharing to ensure rural and poor districts get adequate funding. Parkway is one of the wealthiest districts in the state, thus reducing the amount of Federal and State funds.

Parkway has a beliefs document (PDF) that covers some of this. Go to the Taxation and Funding section - it's an interesting read covering some of the challenges districts and legislatures face in funding public education.

I am always amazed to see how American vigorously fight increasing taxes. You'd think with all that wealth and power you'd would be more willing to give more to the government to keep America strong.

Nope! As a collective, we don't trust 'em with our money, aren't willing to help others who "don't deserve it" (highly subjective) and darn it, I made the money, I'm not giving it up!

-- Ravensfire

 

[Godwynn]

I am always amazed to see how American vigorously fight increasing taxes. You'd think with all that wealth and power you'd would be more willing to give more to the government to keep America strong.

That's why America is strong!

I don't see Zimbabwe being a threat to us anytime soon.

 

[downtown]

This discussion prompted me to see how my local district was funded. Their website puts Federal funding at between 2 and 3 percent, depending on the year (2.65 in 2006). State funding is 5-7 percent (5.68 in '06). That leaves by far the majority as local funding. In Missouri, that's mostly personal property tax and sales tax.

As you mentioned though, your district is one of the weathiest in the state. Districts with very high property tax values (think homes in the 400,000 and up range, although a distict with much cheaper homes can still be very wealthy) can eat that 8 percent and hike up their property taxes a little. A district where outside revnue is 30, 40 percent of the budget can't eat that. Taxes would be so high that the economic activity would come to a standstill.

Thus, federal involvement.