Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

[c1ue]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

*Correction*: The report I referenced was also for enlisted accessions, not all accessions.

It is indeed odd that Heritage used the 2000 Census data with 2006, 2007, and later data in order to come up with their figures for the enlisted accession report you found, but even accounting for that and using only the enlisted data, which disproportionately weighs lower-income households heavier due to the college degree requirement for commissioning, it is definitely impressive that the upper quintile (defined as $100k or above household income) provide around 3.5% of the enlisted ranks. It's even more if you use the $91,705 figure for the top quintile for 2006 (or was it 2007?) which means about 5% of the enlisted ranks come from those that can definitely afford a college degree. When you consider all accessions, the upper quintile number gets boosted substantially.

Then when you consider the top two quintiles combined (around $60,000 household income, which if they are "struggling middle class" then they are struggling likely due to their own financial ineptitude more than any reason) there is no remaining doubt whatsoever that Buffett is just mindlessly repeating an old myth that has only trace roots in reality. That's just from the enlisted accessions.

It doesn't matter though to some people--people who think Buffett is correct in his assertions that the rich don't serve while the poor and middle class do all the fighting are the type of people that would use enlisted-only data to support that conclusion.

I don't automatically assume Buffett is right, hence my inquiry into your data source.

And it certainly appears your data source - the Heritage Foundation - has many inconsistencies in its method and also shows a very different picture than the over-representation you refer to.

The fact remains: the upper quintile is not over-represented in non-prior service accessions.

The upper 2 quintiles might be, but then again the middle class has historically been the source of military manpower post draft era.

Buffett wasn't referring to the upper 2 quintiles, he was specifically referring to the rich.

The rich, defined as some subset of the upper quintile, said quintile in turn defined as being between $88K and $100K income, have a 3.5% representation in the non-prior service accession data. This is 3.5% vs. 20% of incomes.

Perhaps there's a flaw in my line of logic, but I don't see how this disproves anything Buffett has said - unless you believe a disproportionate share of this 3.5% is from the 0.01% or 1% income thresholds.

And in this case, I again ask for data.

I'd also note that accessions which include prior service would definitely include high paid specialists like pilots, which surely you would agree are an anomalous income demographic in the military?

Various links including airforce.com, glassdoor.com, etc all show pilot pay to be from 65K to 141K - well within Jtabeb's notes on pilot pay. Presumably 65K applies to 2nd lieutenants just joined up, while the average is surely quite close to $100K and the upper quintile, even excluding combat bonuses.

The number of pilots is also significant. This report notes 28000 active duty pilots in 1999:

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/ns99102t.pdf

although of course 28000 isn't necessarily a significant factor compared to the overall size of the military.

It's just hopeless to have a reasonable discussion with you.

You constantly ask for sources of documentation. Yet you won't even accept the standard definition of the words and phrases you are using.

In my world: Disposable Income ≠ whatever c1ue says it means

You have the exact same data source I used.

You have the method I used.

You have the conclusions I drew, and why.

You're still welcome as before to take the provided data and a different method to show a potentially different conclusion.

If said conclusion is significantly different, then there would be a reason to continue to discussion. Since you have not undertaken this simple process, I don't see anything to discuss.

Why you have not done so, I do not speculate.

Straw man alert! Nobody is arguing over the definition of spending. Standard c1ue tactic to derail the discussion.

...

It is PART of what makes up disposable income. Net revenue ≠ Gross revenue. Disposable income - spending ≠ disposable income.

Income remaining after spending? This sounds more like a definition of savings:

You're seeking to pick a point when all you have to do is perform the math yourself and see if it makes any difference.

It doesn't. You would realize this if you actually did the math.

Since the spending for entertainment is almost exactly the same ratio to income between both Joe Sixpack and 'Joe Thousand-aire', the numerical differences would be minimal. The only effect is to increase the numerator less than the denominator, but the effect would be similar on both tax to disposable income (whatever your definition) ratios.

But then you seem to think that somehow redefining disposable income would make a difference.

[Sharky]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

Sigh.

You are asserting that the people who operate stores are all millionaires, and all got to that point primarily through their own individual efforts.

According to this view, the corporation doesn't exert significant effect. The value of inherited money doesn't exert significant effect. The impact of banksters is not relevant. The availability of credit, of government subsidies, etc etc doesn't matter.

Operating a store or factory is not the same as driving its creation. It's not store or factory managers that are often millionaires, it's the founders and creators of the chains, franchises and factories; the ones who had an idea and brought it to market.

I worked in the semiconductor industry, one which many many smart people participated in. However, this industry would not exist were it not for massive government subsidies, both direct and defense related, in the 1970 to 1990 era. Most of the executives which led the various sectors of the semiconductor industry in the 1995 to 2005 era worked for these private companies whose primary revenue source was the government.

Did government have a large role in toys? furniture? candy? hotels? glassware?

You believe your individual rights mean you shouldn't have to pay taxes unless you feel like it.

Well, technically a tax isn't voluntary, so I would say my view is that taxation is not a proper or moral way to fund government.

I believe that there is a border between individual rights and collective rights, and that so long as you are a part of society that you must surrender some of your individual rights to the collective rights.

What's an example of a "collective right"?

Since these are beliefs, neither of us is going to change the mind of the other.

I'm not interested in changing your mind; I'm simply trying to understand the other side's arguments better, and to maybe help others see my view better (if not you, then others who might be reading this thread).

On top of this, I'll note the average number of houses sold in the entire city of SF in one year is around 400. This includes condos as well as 2-4 unit buildings.

Perhaps you meant 400 per month? According to trulia.com, there were 2,538 buildings that sold in SF during the last 6 months, or about 5,000 for the year. Of those, about 3,000 sold for more than $600K.

There were 323,067 tax returns with adjusted gross income of $1 million or more in 2008.

Now that 400 are accounted for by San Francisco home sales, only 322, 667 more to go. Of course in reality only a fraction, very likely a tiny fraction of that 400 actually went straight to capital gains of even $500,000.

Quickly extrapolating the sale of 3,000 homes/yr in SF, which has a population of 800K, to the rest of country would mean there were about 1.3M such sales nationwide -- except we know SF is relatively high-priced market. However, even if we de-rate that figure by 90% to 130K it still seems like the numbers support the idea that a large fraction of those earning $1M or more could have been bumped into that category by the sale of their home.

Given that bank deposits today clearly don't matter, I'd say your assertion lacks merit. Toss in the 'absence of manipulation' and the concept of deposits making any difference whatsoever to lending is right now a purely theoretical link.

IMO, the goal should be no manipulation, and in that case bank deposits would matter more than they do today. I also don't think deposits today "don't matter." We still have fractional reserve banking, which is enabled by deposits.

If you've followed anything at all on what I post, you should know that Marxist theory has progressed since the 1800s. Thorsten Veblen, Nitzan and Bichler, and so forth have long since started addressing the concept of Capital in the Marxist unit value of labor conceptual framework.

Thanks for those names. I'm not familiar with their work, but I'll look into it. On quick glance, it sounds like they're Progressives?

I think that whether it is impossible or not, it should be a goal.

I don't subscribe to the notion that something desirable should not be undertaken simply because the accomplishment isn't guaranteed.

So you think it's reasonable to establish something that's impossible as a goal? Really? Impossible is different from not guaranteed.

You're rehashing old and tired arguments. I've repeatedly asked those who make statements about "limited number of doctors = limited amount of medical care" to back these up with any type of evidence that there is a shortage of doctors.

Well, here in NZ, there are very long waiting lists for certain kinds of medical procedures and appointments. As just one example, where I live, it takes about 2 years to get in to see the local neurologist for the first time. Seems like direct evidence of a doctor shortage to me.

First of all, a Canada style 'public option' only health care system isn't the only public option choice. Europe and the wealthier parts of Asia all have public options along with private systems. Australia and New Zealand also have public systems along with private practices. In Australia and Russia, both places I've had direct contact with health care, doctors often practice in both public and private systems.

In NZ, doctors can opt out of the private system (as the neurologist I mentioned above has done), but they cannot opt out of the public one -- so they don't have full freedom of choice in how they run their business. Not to mention the fact that the price they can charge under the public system is fixed, the tests they can order are limited (both in terms of what's available at all, and also things like a GP is not allowed to order an MRI), the drugs they can prescribe are limited, you have to be referred by a GP before you can see a specialist, etc.

The US is the only one which has a purely 'private' system, and it frankly sucks.

Oh, I agree that the US system is broken. I just have a different view of the cause, which I think is excessive government intervention. I don't believe for a second that adding more intervention will fix anything.

Sure you do, but the fruits of society that you enjoy are paid for by the collective taxation. Unless you can demonstrate how you completely avoid all these benefits while being a part of said society, why then do you insist that you shouldn't pay for them?

You're taking "collective taxation" as a given. Sounds like you subscribe to Social Contract theory?

My view is that I should pay for things (and services) I use. But that means I also get to choose the things I use and the things I don't use -- so it's a choice; it's voluntary, not forced. If I want to be a hermit and independently support myself, I shouldn't have to pay anything.

[c1ue]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

Operating a store or factory is not the same as driving its creation. It's not store or factory managers that are often millionaires, it's the founders and creators of the chains, franchises and factories; the ones who had an idea and brought it to market.

I certainly agree that founders and creators can create value and thus have earned there money, at the same time I do not subscribe the notion of merely being a founder as somehow being unique.

For every Steve Ells, there are dozens of me too franchise founders.

Similarly the owners of the auto dealerships across the nation are pretty much all millionaires.

Do you subscribe to them the notion that they have 'created' value? Which no one else could have?

Or is it simply that they had the capital and the connections to get these localized monopolies?

Did government have a large role in toys? furniture? candy? hotels? glassware?

I'd say you might want to consider better examples - since all of these categories except hotels are dominated by foreign manufacturing.

And for hotels, there are clear lineages where big piles of money and/or land were translated into hotel chains a la the Pritzkers (Hyatt), or the Hiltons (started by a trader in 1925), or even the Marriotts (how many 14 year olds get sent to the big city to sell 3000 sheep?).

Well, technically a tax isn't voluntary, so I would say my view is that taxation is not a proper or moral way to fund government.

Exactly. You want taxes to be voluntary, which in reality means many people won't pay it.

The problem with this approach is that you cannot fund and operate public services based on the whims of voluntary funding.

The entire point of public goods is that they are created and offered at cost in order to benefit the public, rather than created and sold for a profit. One reason why private operations of public utilities is not tenable is exactly this lack of profit, or in the opposite sense the monopoly of a given public service is tremendously damaging if a profit motive is involved.

You do agree that there exists such a thing as a public good, I hope?

What's an example of a "collective right"?

Citizenship in the United States. Access to water, sewage, electricity, roads, bridges, national defense, at cost. Rule of Law.

Perhaps you meant 400 per month? According to trulia.com, there were 2,538 buildings that sold in SF during the last 6 months, or about 5,000 for the year. Of those, about 3,000 sold for more than $600K.

In order to create a $1M capital gain, the home must sell for at least $1M. In reality, there is a $250K exemption for anyone selling after 2 years or more; since it is literally impossible for a house to appreciate $1M in 2 years or less - even in the peak bubble era - realistically you'd need a minimum $1.25M in order to even theoretically reap a $1M capital gain.

There are approximately 400 homes per year in San Francisco which sell for more $1.25M or more.

Quickly extrapolating the sale of 3,000 homes/yr in SF, which has a population of 800K, to the rest of country would mean there were about 1.3M such sales nationwide -- except we know SF is relatively high-priced market. However, even if we de-rate that figure by 90% to 130K it still seems like the numbers support the idea that a large fraction of those earning $1M or more could have been bumped into that category by the sale of their home.

Except of those 3000 homes, only 400 can even theoretically come anywhere close to the $1M capital gain mark.

San Francisco is also one of the most expensive areas in the US - New York being the only one which is more.

And while certainly there are homes which sell for $1.25M or more all over the country, the actual number which result in a $1M capital gain are extremely few.

If we look for data on actual numbers of $1M dollar homes:

http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publicat...p/w04-1_di.pdf

The above report notes from 2000 to 2002, an average of 11,500 or so $1M or more homes sold in the entire state of California, which California itself comprising 40% of all $1M or more home stock.

While it is arguable how much more values are now vs. then, it is not arguable that the numbers of homes sold are way, way down.

We're therefore looking at best at a maximum number of $1M homes sold at around 25K, and again the actual number of these which generate a $1M capital gain is very likely an extremely tiny number. 500? 250? more? less?

No matter how you slice it, not a real factor compared to the 313K+ $1M income returns.

IMO, the goal should be no manipulation, and in that case bank deposits would matter more than they do today. I also don't think deposits today "don't matter." We still have fractional reserve banking, which is enabled by deposits.

I agree no manipulation would be nice, but then again manipulation is exactly how we get the 1981 to 2006 'magic' decades.

Thanks for those names. I'm not familiar with their work, but I'll look into it. On quick glance, it sounds like they're Progressives?

Marx was a Progressive, as is Dr. Michael Hudson. Veblen as well as Nitzan/Bichler are all also Progressives, and furthermore were specifically attempting to build upon Marx's labor value of economics theories.

So you think it's reasonable to establish something that's impossible as a goal? Really? Impossible is different from not guaranteed.

The goal of equal opportunity is impossible not because it cannot be achieved, but because many people desire unequal opportunity or even because circumstances change.

Thus even achieving equal opportunity as defined in the 1800s - i.e. no slavery, land available to any who want to work it, etc etc cannot stand up over time.

Well, here in NZ, there are very long waiting lists for certain kinds of medical procedures and appointments. As just one example, where I live, it takes about 2 years to get in to see the local neurologist for the first time. Seems like direct evidence of a doctor shortage to me.

Are there private practitioners? Or are you just describing the public waiting lists?

And while a specific specialty of neurology might be scarce, surely you aren't trying to say that overall there are any shortages of doctors in New Zealand?

New Zealand has as many doctors per 1000 as Canada (2.2); slightly less than the UK and the US, but more than Japan or South Korea.

In NZ, doctors can opt out of the private system (as the neurologist I mentioned above has done), but they cannot opt out of the public one -- so they don't have full freedom of choice in how they run their business. Not to mention the fact that the price they can charge under the public system is fixed, the tests they can order are limited (both in terms of what's available at all, and also things like a GP is not allowed to order an MRI), the drugs they can prescribe are limited, you have to be referred by a GP before you can see a specialist, etc.

So it seems New Zealand has a Canada-like system - not Canada in the sense of a private system is disallowed, but Canadian in the sense that doctor's practices are heavily regulated by the government. It is interesting that all doctors are forced to practice at least in part in the public system - what is the breakdown on relative time served for a doctor doing both private and public practice?

Either way I think it is safe to say that NZ is a highly restrictive environment for the practice of medicine.

Oh, I agree that the US system is broken. I just have a different view of the cause, which I think is excessive government intervention. I don't believe for a second that adding more intervention will fix anything.

I actually don't advocate direct regulation of health care insurance - this is futile.

My view is the only way to introduce any systemic change is to offer another choice. A publicly funded public health care provision system has in every other nation had the effect of keeping private health care costs at least in the same order of magnitude.

Forcing everyone to buy private health insurance doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

You're taking "collective taxation" as a given. Sounds like you subscribe to Social Contract theory?

My view is that I should pay for things (and services) I use. But that means I also get to choose the things I use and the things I don't use -- so it's a choice; it's voluntary, not forced. If I want to be a hermit and independently support myself, I shouldn't have to pay anything.

I absolutely agree that there are many categories in which an individual's absence either via taxation or participation won't make any difference, and I'd support the right to choose for those categories.

Gun control, for example, is one I'd put into this category: if you want to own a gun, you should pay licensing costs and be willing to submit to training requirements should they exist.

Ditto driving a car.

However, there are equally many categories for which participation cannot be clearly 'in' or 'out': public utilities. national defense. law and order. public health (i.e. food safety, EPA, etc).

Even beyond the theoretical cost/benefit issue, how could you possibly even define how any individual's or group's use or lack of use?

Enforcement in this case is equally problematic: how do you prosecute someone for not volunteering to pay for the road he used?

At some point there is no point in attempting assignation of everything into individual sized units of consumption and taxation.

[Sharky]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

Quite a different tone now; thanks for that.

I certainly agree that founders and creators can create value and thus have earned there money, at the same time I do not subscribe the notion of merely being a founder as somehow being unique.

I'm not saying the founders and creators are absolutely unique (though of course we all are unique in some way). I'm saying the reason they get wealthy is because they add value to the world (in fact, more value than they receive in exchange). Wealth is created; it's not a pie that gets divided up into a limited number of pieces.

For every Steve Ells, there are dozens of me too franchise founders.

Sometimes, but usually the first one in a new niche ends up the most successful -- and either way, the followers owe their success to the original creators (there's a related argument that applies to intellectual property law, but that's a subject for another thread). Other times, attempts at copying the franchise just fall flat in some way: copycat bands, me-too retailers or eateries, etc, etc.

Similarly the owners of the auto dealerships across the nation are pretty much all millionaires.

Do you subscribe to them the notion that they have 'created' value? Which no one else could have?

I'm not saying no one else could have done it. I'm saying the reason they're wealthy is because they actually did it. And not only did they achieve that goal for themselves, but most of them also had to undertake some risk to do so (I'm not saying fraud and corruption don't exist, just that they are minor factors).

I'd say you might want to consider better examples - since all of these categories except hotels are dominated by foreign manufacturing.

Perhaps today, but there are still plenty of wealthy people in the US who got that way by bringing businesses in those particular areas to life. Plus, plenty of foreign factories are owned (partly or in total) by US citizens. And even a foreign factory adds value to the world -- provided it's reasonably free of force or fraud and that they're producing something people actually want or need, of course.

And for hotels, there are clear lineages where big piles of money and/or land were translated into hotel chains a la the Pritzkers (Hyatt), or the Hiltons (started by a trader in 1925), or even the Marriotts (how many 14 year olds get sent to the big city to sell 3000 sheep?).

OK, but don't ignore the 1, 2 or 3 location owners. They may not be multi-billionaires, but many of them are still wealthy. They took risks: finding a location, building structures, getting financing; they worked hard, they innovated (yes, one hotel can be quite different from another), they sold their ideas to others -- and most importantly (and my point all along) -- they added value to the world.

Exactly. You want taxes to be voluntary, which in reality means many people won't pay it.

Homeowners insurance is voluntary; so is car insurance. Does that mean most people don't pay for it? People will happily voluntarily pay for things they want or need.

The problem with this approach is that you cannot fund and operate public services based on the whims of voluntary funding.

Let's make a concrete example -- say police and fire services. If you did not subscribe to those services, you could still enlist their help, but would be required to pay a very large fee; there would be a financial incentive to subscribe if you ever thought you would need them. In that environment, a company that provides homeowner's insurance may very well stipulate that unless you also have a police and fire service subscription, they won't insure your home. In fact, they just tack on some extra fee to your policy and pass it along to those departments on your behalf.

The entire point of public goods is that they are created and offered at cost in order to benefit the public, rather than created and sold for a profit. One reason why private operations of public utilities is not tenable is exactly this lack of profit, or in the opposite sense the monopoly of a given public service is tremendously damaging if a profit motive is involved.

"At cost" is a hugely misleading thing when it comes to public works. Precisely because there is no profit motive, costs can quickly balloon out of control -- just look at the Big Dig in Boston for one example.

You do agree that there exists such a thing as a public good, I hope?

When you say "public good," what comes to mind for me is "which members of the public is it good for?" If I don't want to pay for or use something, who are you to tell me that it's for my own good? It seems to me that "public good" is really just a euphemism for "whatever the majority say they want." Is that right?

Citizenship in the United States. Access to water, sewage, electricity, roads, bridges, national defense, at cost. Rule of Law.

Interesting list. By "at cost," do you mean you think everyone should pay for those things? So no one should pay zero taxes (unlike the current situation in the US, where something like half the population pays little or no income tax)?

In order to create a $1M capital gain, the home must sell for at least $1M.

Yes, but the sale of a house is rarely a person's only income. In order to move someone who normally earns $900K/yr into the $1M category, they only need to have a $100K gain. I chose $600K as my lower threshold to account for a married couple with a $500K exemption and a $100K profit.

I agree no manipulation would be nice, but then again manipulation is exactly how we get the 1981 to 2006 'magic' decades.

True enough -- but those decades were largely an illusion; a fraud; a mistake. They're certainly not something I would want to try to emulate.

The goal of equal opportunity is impossible not because it cannot be achieved, but because many people desire unequal opportunity or even because circumstances change.

OK. Does that mean you are against using force to achieve your goal?

Are there private practitioners? Or are you just describing the public waiting lists?

I was referring to public waiting lists. However, there are doctors who practice privately, but they are allowed to charge what they want (as far as I'm aware), and can manage their waiting lists that way if they so choose. Even so, I've heard some specialty private surgeons still have waiting lists.

And while a specific specialty of neurology might be scarce, surely you aren't trying to say that overall there are any shortages of doctors in New Zealand?

Yes, I'm saying there's a shortage overall. My example was just one that I have personal experience with. Here's a link to a news article with more details:

Doctor shortage reaches 'crisis' level, Feb 16, 2011
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/health/new...ectid=10706716
(acronym key: DHBs = District Health Boards, the regional governing bodies for the health system; MOH = Ministry of Health, the central agency that runs the DHBs and handles funding at the national level)

It is interesting that all doctors are forced to practice at least in part in the public system - what is the breakdown on relative time served for a doctor doing both private and public practice?

I didn't know the answer to your question, and when I looked into it, I discovered that my earlier statement was in error. Docs in NZ are not required to work in public system. As of 2007, 17.5% of surgeons had private-only practices.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/13629

Having said that, the usual split for docs who do both seems to be 3 days a week public and 2 days a week private (or 1.5 or 1 day private and a regular long weekend; pretty common in the area where I live).

There is a very odd and complex tension between the public and private systems. For example, some private docs will shuffle you back into the public system if you need an expensive test. Some public health officials don't like the idea that lab work is free, regardless of whether your doc is public or private. There are private hospitals and radiology centers that compete with the public system for staff, but the private ones aren't limited by what they can pay, and the public ones are.

Either way I think it is safe to say that NZ is a highly restrictive environment for the practice of medicine.

No doubt. I should add, though, that for the 80 or 90% of the times most people need to see a doctor, it generally works OK -- colds, flu shots, fixing cuts or a broken arm, etc. -- no problems. The GPs even spend a reasonable amount of time with you; a typical appt is 15 min with the doc, vs. about 5 minutes in the US. The big problem is when something bad or out of the ordinary happens. Fortunately, medical tourism in places like Thailand is catching on, so we may have an out if we ever need one. No insurance for that kind of thing, though.

I actually don't advocate direct regulation of health care insurance - this is futile.

That's encouraging.

My view is the only way to introduce any systemic change is to offer another choice. A publicly funded public health care provision system has in every other nation had the effect of keeping private health care costs at least in the same order of magnitude.

In spite of my objections to public health care, I also recognize the current system in the US is not sustainable, and needs to change. Unfortunately, one of the largest barriers to that change is almost certainly going to be the insurance companies and their crony-capitalist buddies on Capital Hill, many of which I believe (again, from personal experience) are corrupt and fraudulent at a very deep level. Looking at it from that perspective, I could almost support some form of public system in the short term, as a way of purging the bad insurance companies. The big problem I have is that I'm also enough of a realist to know that the bad insurance companies are also the ones most likely to survive the change, and it would never be "short term;" once in place, it would be forever or until it collapsed.

However, there are equally many categories for which participation cannot be clearly 'in' or 'out': public utilities. national defense. law and order. public health (i.e. food safety, EPA, etc).

Utilities could be funded by user fees -- price per KWh or per cubic foot of water, etc. If you don't use it, you don't pay. The military and the courts could be funded by a fee applied to contracts. You don't have to pay it, but if you don't, the courts won't help you if you end up in a disagreement.

Food safety these days is focused on things like outlawing raw milk and vitamins; no thanks. In addition, companies today can blame the FDA for letting some bad food slip through -- which seems to happen with increasing regularity -- while continuing their poor practices. Without the FDA, there wouldn't be anyone to blame but them. Would you ever buy food again from a manufacturer who you heard had produced an unsafe product? I sure as hell wouldn't.

Even beyond the theoretical cost/benefit issue, how could you possibly even define how any individual's or group's use or lack of use?

"Use" doesn't have to mean "use it right now." It can mean "the opportunity to use it when the time comes."

Enforcement in this case is equally problematic: how do you prosecute someone for not volunteering to pay for the road he used?

You have the police chase them down and give them a ticket when you see them driving on the road without authorization (similar to how many toll bridges work today); the citation would be for trespassing on private property (a good reason for the private road owners to pay for their police subscription). Road access could easily be subscription-based, combined with other things that people already buy and use -- maybe tires? the details would be for the market to work out.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

Thanks for the debate. I've enjoyed reading the clarifications.

As for "What is a collective right?" my first thought was the right not to be screwed by the pollution (noise and water) by the company that builds the asphalt plant along the river that runs through town.

Second thought was the right to live in a society where everyone is literate. (I'm not kidding) Public education has not been mentioned. Nor the prison system where 3 % of the US popuation resides.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

Homeowners insurance is voluntary; so is car insurance. Does that mean most people don't pay for it? People will happily voluntarily pay for things they want or need.

Sharky, what state/country do you live in?

I was assuming you were from the US from your political views (nobody else in the world typically gets that extreme about taxes), but now that you wrote this, I figure you must be an ex-pat?

In most states homeowners insurance is not optional if you have a mortgage (everyone has a mortgage) and minimum coverage limits are dictated for car insurance (even for 16 year olds who learn that quickly when they want a car). The UK and Germany do this too - I'm guessing most of the West does.

There is only one state where car insurance is not mandatory (and even there the split requirements are defined) and that's NH. The other 49 require it.

[Ghent12]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

I don't automatically assume Buffett is right, hence my inquiry into your data source.

And it certainly appears your data source - the Heritage Foundation - has many inconsistencies in its method and also shows a very different picture than the over-representation you refer to.

The fact remains: the upper quintile is not over-represented in non-prior service accessions.

The upper 2 quintiles might be, but then again the middle class has historically been the source of military manpower post draft era.

Buffett wasn't referring to the upper 2 quintiles, he was specifically referring to the rich.

The rich, defined as some subset of the upper quintile, said quintile in turn defined as being between $88K and $100K income, have a 3.5% representation in the non-prior service accession data. This is 3.5% vs. 20% of incomes.

Perhaps there's a flaw in my line of logic, but I don't see how this disproves anything Buffett has said - unless you believe a disproportionate share of this 3.5% is from the 0.01% or 1% income thresholds.

And in this case, I again ask for data.

You've provided all the data you need to conclude that Buffett is full of it. Buffett said, "While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan..." with the implication that the rich don't contribute at all. You've proven him to be a bullshitter with the data you posted.

As for the rich's contribution to enlisted ranks, frankly 3.5% is 3.5% more than what anyone should expect from that income level. With that income you can easily afford a degree and then try to earn a commission. When you consider officers as well, I doubt the rich is all that underrepresented at all.

I'd also note that accessions which include prior service would definitely include high paid specialists like pilots, which surely you would agree are an anomalous income demographic in the military?

Various links including airforce.com, glassdoor.com, etc all show pilot pay to be from 65K to 141K - well within Jtabeb's notes on pilot pay. Presumably 65K applies to 2nd lieutenants just joined up, while the average is surely quite close to $100K and the upper quintile, even excluding combat bonuses.

The number of pilots is also significant. This report notes 28000 active duty pilots in 1999:

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/ns99102t.pdf

although of course 28000 isn't necessarily a significant factor compared to the overall size of the military.

It seems like you're trying to pull a Buffett too, on at least two levels. First, no pilots are enlisted. Second, the data you cite is for non-prior-service recruits only. Additionally, your logic is completely bonkers--you are saying that "[p]resumably 65K applies to 2nd [L]ieutenants just joined up," even though all the data is only for the enlisted recruit's originating household neighborhood income. Essentially nothing you said makes any sense whatsoever; I guess that's what can be expected from such useless hair splitting.

[c1ue]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

I'm not saying the founders and creators are absolutely unique (though of course we all are unique in some way). I'm saying the reason they get wealthy is because they add value to the world (in fact, more value than they receive in exchange). Wealth is created; it's not a pie that gets divided up into a limited number of pieces.

So you're saying then that the Fortune 500 CEOs who are emulating their stock option self gifting, company payroll slashing, offshoring jobs, account manipulating peers are creating value?

Because I don't agree.

Being unethical is one way to make money; to me it is debatable how much value is added.

For that matter from my own experience the primary goal of franchising is fleecing naive investors: why use your own capital and time when you can just tax those using your 'formula'.

Sometimes, but usually the first one in a new niche ends up the most successful -- and either way, the followers owe their success to the original creators (there's a related argument that applies to intellectual property law, but that's a subject for another thread). Other times, attempts at copying the franchise just fall flat in some way: copycat bands, me-too retailers or eateries, etc, etc.

...

I'm not saying no one else could have done it. I'm saying the reason they're wealthy is because they actually did it. And not only did they achieve that goal for themselves, but most of them also had to undertake some risk to do so (I'm not saying fraud and corruption don't exist, just that they are minor factors).

...

Perhaps today, but there are still plenty of wealthy people in the US who got that way by bringing businesses in those particular areas to life. Plus, plenty of foreign factories are owned (partly or in total) by US citizens. And even a foreign factory adds value to the world -- provided it's reasonably free of force or fraud and that they're producing something people actually want or need, of course.

...

OK, but don't ignore the 1, 2 or 3 location owners. They may not be multi-billionaires, but many of them are still wealthy. They took risks: finding a location, building structures, getting financing; they worked hard, they innovated (yes, one hotel can be quite different from another), they sold their ideas to others -- and most importantly (and my point all along) -- they added value to the world.

You're frankly creating a circular argument: those who have money have it because they added value, and they add value because the fact they made money proves it.

There are all sorts of ways to make money without adding value.

We have an entire FIRE sector as an example of both actual value add and fictitious value add.

I'm not saying that no one wealthy has ever added value.

I am, however, saying that merely being wealthy does not in any way relate to value add, just as value add does not itself relate to making money.

Homeowners insurance is voluntary; so is car insurance. Does that mean most people don't pay for it? People will happily voluntarily pay for things they want or need.

Car insurance is not voluntary in most places in the US, and rightly so. A car is a potentially lethal machine and it is perfectly logical that there be some type of bond against unsafe use. Collision car insurance, on the other hand, is entirely voluntary unless you owe someone money on your car.

Home insurance against fire is purely a personal matter. I think what you are really referring to is public fire fighting. Whether you insure yourself or not, the danger of your house burning down and affecting other houses, or being affected by another house burning down, is very clearly a collective issue.

Let's make a concrete example -- say police and fire services. If you did not subscribe to those services, you could still enlist their help, but would be required to pay a very large fee; there would be a financial incentive to subscribe if you ever thought you would need them. In that environment, a company that provides homeowner's insurance may very well stipulate that unless you also have a police and fire service subscription, they won't insure your home. In fact, they just tack on some extra fee to your policy and pass it along to those departments on your behalf.

This is a very tired argument, and one which is in the process of being proven unworkable.

Just as a factory cannot treble or halve its output without consequences, so too are police and fire departments unable to increase or decrease their ability to perform their function without a consistent revenue stream.

Equally it is ridiculous (as noted above) for fire departments to be spending their time verifying the 'fire protection' paid status of a home, or the 'paramedic protection' status of an injured person, or a policeman to check if a given person has his 'police' insurance.

Lastly the concept of direct pay for service is not one you want for a public good. Having this explicit link then encourages discrimination - why spend your time policing a poor neighborhood when the rich folk are so much better spenders? Or how about the converse: charging more for violations based on neighborhood.

"At cost" is a hugely misleading thing when it comes to public works. Precisely because there is no profit motive, costs can quickly balloon out of control -- just look at the Big Dig in Boston for one example.

The Big Dig is used all the time, and the answer I give is also the same: there are all sorts of mechanisms for auditing, for competitive bidding, for penalties due to faulty workmanship or late delivery, etc etc.

That the city of Boston has failed to control that situation is a function of that specific government and procurement procedure; it is not always this way.

It is no different than some CEO granting himself 0.5% of the company he heads after 9/11: it can and it does happen, but there actually are mechanisms intended to prevent these types of abuses.

When you say "public good," what comes to mind for me is "which members of the public is it good for?" If I don't want to pay for or use something, who are you to tell me that it's for my own good? It seems to me that "public good" is really just a euphemism for "whatever the majority say they want." Is that right?

Again, if you desire to live in your own isolated bubble - and are able to achieve this aim - then more power to you.

However, if you don't live in an isolated bubble, then you are a part of society. And yes, that means bowing down to the majority will of society in certain areas.

If the majority will of society was what you think, then there would be no problem right?

Your task is then clear: convince a majority of everyone else that what you want is preferable to what exists now.

Interesting list. By "at cost," do you mean you think everyone should pay for those things? So no one should pay zero taxes (unlike the current situation in the US, where something like half the population pays little or no income tax)?

You're again, deliberately or otherwise, focusing on income taxes.

The reality is that EVERYONE pays taxes.

Maybe they're sales taxes. Maybe they're FICA taxes. Maybe their vehicle licensing fees, or fishing licenses, or gasoline taxes, or telephone universal service taxes, etc etc.

As I demonstrated in a previous post where I did a back of the envelope calculation of income plus social security as a percentage of income paid to FICA+income taxes vs. percentage of income, the 'subsidy' of the poor is far less than the pure income tax vs. population percentage.

Yes, but the sale of a house is rarely a person's only income. In order to move someone who normally earns $900K/yr into the $1M category, they only need to have a $100K gain. I chose $600K as my lower threshold to account for a married couple with a $500K exemption and a $100K profit.

Frankly this is ludicrous. If the home capital gain is only $100K, the net impact on someone who makes $900K in other income is relatively speaking negligible. I don't see any difference whatsoever between $900K 'other income' and $1M 'other income + a $100K capital gain from house sold'.

You're not going to convince that this person is being impoverished by taxes or that the sale of a home in any way inconveniences them in a life altering manner, at least not without demonstrating actual suffering or disproportionate taxation in any way.

For the $300K to $400K level, the percent of overall income earned (estimated using the midpoint between the upper/lower bounds of the range) is 3.62% vs. demographic representation of 0.43%

For that same range, the SS+federal income tax actually paid is 4.62%

In comparison at the $150K to $175K level, the percent of overall income earned vs. percent of tax paid is equal at 5.02% vs. a demographic representation of 2.08%

For the $1M to $1.5M level, the percent of overall income earned is 1.98% with percent of tax paid being 2.73% vs. a demographic representation of 0.09%

The income earned vs. FICA+income tax paid ratios for the above:

$150K - $175K = 1.0
$300K - $400K = 1.28
$1M - $1.5M = 1.38

Now, does the person who makes 2x to 2.29x more ($300K-$400K vs. $150K - $175K) have only 28% more relative disposable income? Clearly if their lifestyles are identical, this is not true.

Even if the richer do spend more for whatever reason, they don't spend more in proportion to the income ratio - we can clearly see this in the consumer spending breakdowns.

What about the person who makes 3.33x to 3.75x more ($1M - $1.5M vs. $300K - $400K)? Do they really only have 7.8% more relative disposable income?

OK. Does that mean you are against using force to achieve your goal?

By definition, anything you do against your will is force. So no, I am not against force to achieve the goal since clearly there are all sorts who don't desire equal opportunity.

But of course what kind of force? The force I expect is the same as might be expected for any legislative goal: incentives and penalties.

Yes, I'm saying there's a shortage overall. My example was just one that I have personal experience with. Here's a link to a news article with more details:

Doctor shortage reaches 'crisis' level, Feb 16, 2011
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/health/new...ectid=10706716
(acronym key: DHBs = District Health Boards, the regional governing bodies for the health system; MOH = Ministry of Health, the central agency that runs the DHBs and handles funding at the national level)

Thank you for the link. I would note, however, that the shortage, if any, appears to be in a few specialities as opposed to overall. It is far from clear that the shortages are either a systemic or a seriously damaging issue.

I didn't know the answer to your question, and when I looked into it, I discovered that my earlier statement was in error. Docs in NZ are not required to work in public system. As of 2007, 17.5% of surgeons had private-only practices.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/13629

Having said that, the usual split for docs who do both seems to be 3 days a week public and 2 days a week private (or 1.5 or 1 day private and a regular long weekend; pretty common in the area where I live).

There is a very odd and complex tension between the public and private systems. For example, some private docs will shuffle you back into the public system if you need an expensive test. Some public health officials don't like the idea that lab work is free, regardless of whether your doc is public or private. There are private hospitals and radiology centers that compete with the public system for staff, but the private ones aren't limited by what they can pay, and the public ones are.

Thank you for the clarification.

In fact this anecdote is one of the reasons Canada disallows private practice of health care. The private doctors in New Zealand are actually serving their customers: why have them pay for expensive tests when they can be gotten for free? The motivation, of course, could also be negative: by pushing costs onto the public system, the private practitioners can make more.

Be that as it may, the fact that many doctors work both publicly and privately is actually a good sign. In the places I've seen, doctors work the private practice for those who can pay and want more service; they work the public sector to serve the public and possibly get public sector benefits like pensions.

No doubt. I should add, though, that for the 80 or 90% of the times most people need to see a doctor, it generally works OK -- colds, flu shots, fixing cuts or a broken arm, etc. -- no problems. The GPs even spend a reasonable amount of time with you; a typical appt is 15 min with the doc, vs. about 5 minutes in the US. The big problem is when something bad or out of the ordinary happens. Fortunately, medical tourism in places like Thailand is catching on, so we may have an out if we ever need one. No insurance for that kind of thing, though.

Indeed - I don't, for example, expect a public option health care system to be the latest and greatest. I actually don't object to doctors being rewarded for being exceptional examples of skill or knowledge.

In spite of my objections to public health care, I also recognize the current system in the US is not sustainable, and needs to change. Unfortunately, one of the largest barriers to that change is almost certainly going to be the insurance companies and their crony-capitalist buddies on Capital Hill, many of which I believe (again, from personal experience) are corrupt and fraudulent at a very deep level. Looking at it from that perspective, I could almost support some form of public system in the short term, as a way of purging the bad insurance companies. The big problem I have is that I'm also enough of a realist to know that the bad insurance companies are also the ones most likely to survive the change, and it would never be "short term;" once in place, it would be forever or until it collapsed.

Indeed. As I noted, my idea of an immediate solution being a public option health care provider is specifically to inject some sanity into the situation. Right now between the billing and insurance bureaucracies, consumers are getting screwed.

The public option health care provider also specifically doesn't address insurance company antics. Ultimately though someone will take advantage of this system both to reduce government payments presently going through Medicare/Medicaid as well as offer insurance programs utilizing the public option as one aspect of an overall solution.

Utilities could be funded by user fees -- price per KWh or per cubic foot of water, etc. If you don't use it, you don't pay. The military and the courts could be funded by a fee applied to contracts. You don't have to pay it, but if you don't, the courts won't help you if you end up in a disagreement.

You cannot base a utility on a flat cost per Kwh, especially if the user demand is even more highly variable than it is now. Power plants cost hundreds of millions to billions to build; grid infrastructure must be maintained whether or not ever user is employing their access to it.

While courts could be paid by fees - do you really want judges being motivated by 'big spender' fee generators? Does lack of participation in the court fee system then mean you automatically lose? And how does enforcement occur when that too is voluntary?

As for the military: How do you charge a fee on military expenditures, and on what contracts would these fees apply?

Pay per use for the above areas sounds nice, but it just doesn't work.

Food safety these days is focused on things like outlawing raw milk and vitamins; no thanks. In addition, companies today can blame the FDA for letting some bad food slip through -- which seems to happen with increasing regularity -- while continuing their poor practices. Without the FDA, there wouldn't be anyone to blame but them. Would you ever buy food again from a manufacturer who you heard had produced an unsafe product? I sure as hell wouldn't.

While the raw milk issue is somewhat questionable, on the other hand to lump all FDA activities in that category is wrong.

And you're assuming you actually know which companies produce what. Companies can change names, they can change venues, they can change brands, they can even change into different food areas.

You should go buy food in some place like China or Russia to get an idea of what a complete lack of regulation nets you: besides outright contamination, you see things like rancid meat chemically treated and then dyed red to look fresh.

You have the police chase them down and give them a ticket when you see them driving on the road without authorization (similar to how many toll bridges work today); the citation would be for trespassing on private property (a good reason for the private road owners to pay for their police subscription). Road access could easily be subscription-based, combined with other things that people already buy and use -- maybe tires? the details would be for the market to work out.

What a wonderful idea. So when someone buys the main artery out of your subdivision and decides to charge $5/mile toll, the police can chase you down on behalf of the road owner.

That's a much better use of police effort than combating violent criminals or actual property theft.

/sarc

[c1ue]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

You've provided all the data you need to conclude that Buffett is full of it. Buffett said, "While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan..." with the implication that the rich don't contribute at all. You've proven him to be a bullshitter with the data you posted.

As for the rich's contribution to enlisted ranks, frankly 3.5% is 3.5% more than what anyone should expect from that income level. With that income you can easily afford a degree and then try to earn a commission. When you consider officers as well, I doubt the rich is all that underrepresented at all.

Let's see if I understand your logic right:

20% of the population only produces 3.5% of the enlisted non prior service recruits.

You say that this shows this demographic is doing more than their share because they could as easily be making more money.

I've asked you to provide some data behind your assertion that Buffett is wrong, but frankly you haven't done so yet.

The Heritage foundation report is flawed - its categorization of what constitutes the top 20% is way off.

So again, while Buffett may indeed be wrong, so far I have yet to see any proof of it.

It seems like you're trying to pull a Buffett too, on at least two levels. First, no pilots are enlisted. Second, the data you cite is for non-prior-service recruits only. Additionally, your logic is completely bonkers--you are saying that "[p]resumably 65K applies to 2nd [L]ieutenants just joined up," even though all the data is only for the enlisted recruit's originating household neighborhood income. Essentially nothing you said makes any sense whatsoever; I guess that's what can be expected from such useless hair splitting.

Sorry, but the Air Force itself says that warrant officers do get flight pay. A warrant officer is enlisted.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/20...ht-pay-010611/

Aviation Career Incentive Pay

ACIP, for officers and warrant officers, is based on years of aviation service, not years of active commissioned service.

So in fact there are enlisted who get high pay packages. Are there others? I'm sure they exist: engineers, technical specialists, etc etc.

As for the 65K - that referred to the range of pay which pilots get, which is what glassdoor.com noted. It has nothing whatsoever to do with hosuehold income levels noted in the Heritage report. Apparently you did not read the sentence right before the one you quoted, which said:

Various links including airforce.com, glassdoor.com, etc all show pilot pay to be from 65K to 141K - well within Jtabeb's notes on pilot pay

Lastly I'd note that the Heritage report is what you were referring to.

If indeed you have data showing overall accession income levels, please provide it.

[Sharky]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

Sharky, what state/country do you live in?

I was assuming you were from the US from your political views (nobody else in the world typically gets that extreme about taxes), but now that you wrote this, I figure you must be an ex-pat?

Yes, I'm an ex-pat. I live in New Zealand now, and lived in California for 45+ years before moving here.

In most states homeowners insurance is not optional if you have a mortgage (everyone has a mortgage) and minimum coverage limits are dictated for car insurance (even for 16 year olds who learn that quickly when they want a car). The UK and Germany do this too - I'm guessing most of the West does.

There is only one state where car insurance is not mandatory (and even there the split requirements are defined) and that's NH. The other 49 require it.

The laws do vary by where you live. In NZ, it is not compulsory to have car insurance.

Not that long ago, it wasn't mandatory in California, either. Do they still offer "uninsured motorist" coverage? Just curious.

[Sharky]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

@c1ue, I think we're starting to go in circles a bit. I think I understand your position pretty well now, so I'm going to bow out after this post.

Just as a factory cannot treble or halve its output without consequences, so too are police and fire departments unable to increase or decrease their ability to perform their function without a consistent revenue stream.

Every real business in the world handles fluctuating revenue as a matter of course. A subscription-based model combined with long-term agreements could be used to help provide some predictability.

The Big Dig is used all the time, and the answer I give is also the same: there are all sorts of mechanisms for auditing, for competitive bidding, for penalties due to faulty workmanship or late delivery, etc etc.

Of course, costs can be controlled. The problem is that they aren't. Not just in Boston, almost everywhere in government.

The reality is that EVERYONE pays taxes.

There are multi-generational welfare families these days. All of their income comes from government, so to say they pay taxes too is misleading in the extreme.

By definition, anything you do against your will is force. So no, I am not against force to achieve the goal since clearly there are all sorts who don't desire equal opportunity.

But of course what kind of force? The force I expect is the same as might be expected for any legislative goal: incentives and penalties.

And penalties are generally followed by prison if you don't pay them.

Well, thanks for your intellectual honesty anyway.

Thank you for the link. I would note, however, that the shortage, if any, appears to be in a few specialities as opposed to overall. It is far from clear that the shortages are either a systemic or a seriously damaging issue.

That was just one story. There's also things like a public hospital that was threatening to close its doors because it didn't have enough doctors to make it economic to stay open.

Or there's this article from 2009:
Doctor shortage forces hospital to reject patients
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10566482

You cannot base a utility on a flat cost per Kwh, especially if the user demand is even more highly variable than it is now. Power plants cost hundreds of millions to billions to build; grid infrastructure must be maintained whether or not ever user is employing their access to it.

That's like saying you can't sell an iPod for a fixed price because of how expensive the factory is. Nonsense. Real companies manage pricing risks and capital costs every day. Utilities can use some of the same tools, such as term and quantity commitments with their customers.

While courts could be paid by fees - do you really want judges being motivated by 'big spender' fee generators?

Why would they be so motivated? "Rule in favor of me, so I will sign even more contracts?" Wouldn't a bribe be easier? Second, the judges wouldn't see the money themselves, and third, in a contract situation the costs should be paid equally by both sides, since either one could end up as the damaged party.

Does lack of participation in the court fee system then mean you automatically lose?

No, it would mean for civil cases based on contracts, neither party would be unable to file suit against the other. Instead, disagreements could only be settled through mediation, with no option to force one side into compliance or compensation, as there is in a real court.

I think non-contractual civil cases could be handled with payment of court costs after the completion of the trial. Criminal cases could be paid from the general fund.

As for the military: How do you charge a fee on military expenditures, and on what contracts would these fees apply?

My simple, first-cut suggestion was to charge a fee on all (non-government) contracts, as a percentage of the dollar value of the contract. That fee would go into a General Fund, where it would be used to pay for the courts and the military.

What a wonderful idea. So when someone buys the main artery out of your subdivision and decides to charge $5/mile toll, the police can chase you down on behalf of the road owner.

If roads were private, then anyone buying a house with a single access road would be well advised to make sure that the purchase included access rights on that road, just like they do today with a flag lot or something like that. I could imagine an HOA-like situation, with a group of homeowners funding the construction, care and upkeep of their own roads.

This is exactly the kind of thing cities were supposed to be, before they erupted into law-passing, rights-violating bureaucracies.

That's a much better use of police effort than combating violent criminals or actual property theft.

One benefit of a subscription-based system is that there does not have to be a trade-off between one or the other. If someone has a busy toll road that requires a cop to be onsite to help enforce things, then his subscription cost would be set accordingly (higher use = higher cost, as with many types of health insurance today).

[c1ue]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

Every real business in the world handles fluctuating revenue as a matter of course. A subscription-based model combined with long-term agreements could be used to help provide some predictability.

...

That's like saying you can't sell an iPod for a fixed price because of how expensive the factory is. Nonsense. Real companies manage pricing risks and capital costs every day. Utilities can use some of the same tools, such as term and quantity commitments with their customers.

...

One benefit of a subscription-based system is that there does not have to be a trade-off between one or the other. If someone has a busy toll road that requires a cop to be onsite to help enforce things, then his subscription cost would be set accordingly (higher use = higher cost, as with many types of health insurance today).

You're still trying to equate a public good with a private for profit product.

The reality is that there are very few private for-profit products for whom the absence causes societal problems. Even the magical disappearance of a gigantic multinational like Nestle or Proctor & Gamble would see some short term disruption, but no real suffering outside of its direct employees, distributors, and so forth.

However, the same is not true for police services, water supply, sewage control, firefighting, and so forth. Unless you have competing services in these fields, any disruption has severe ancillary effects. And obviously competing services in areas like the above adds to cost and adds questionable benefit.

Of course, costs can be controlled. The problem is that they aren't. Not just in Boston, almost everywhere in government.

Your assertion is contradicted in any number of areas. Government oversight and regulation of water supply, electricity supply, highways, etc etc seems to be working just fine.

Theoretically these could be cheaper under private management, but as toll roads show - this is purely theory.

There are multi-generational welfare families these days. All of their income comes from government, so to say they pay taxes too is misleading in the extreme.

While I am certain these exist, I am equally certain the taxes these families don't pay is nothing compared to the money the tax dodging corporations and individuals don't pay.

Not certain what your point is.

If you're trying to say there shouldn't be a free lunch, I'd say that the families who engage in this type of behavior aren't getting a free lunch in any sense but the most literal. Their kids aren't going to get out of this death spiral of dependence, their own existence may be cheap but isn't anything to desire. I hear this kind of talk all the time, and have first hand view in SF of these types of people.

Sure, you can get a very nice 2 bedroom, 1 bath apartment for $88 a month as a welfare recipient in SF. You only have to live among the crack addicts, violent criminals, and general socially apathy of the Projects. No thanks.

That was just one story. There's also things like a public hospital that was threatening to close its doors because it didn't have enough doctors to make it economic to stay open.

Or there's this article from 2009:
Doctor shortage forces hospital to reject patients
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10566482

The conclusion of the article is interesting because the theoretical staff numbers (900) vs. the number of residents (500,000) is way below the overall doctor to population ratio for NZ as a whole (2.2), much less the actual 664. Which brings to question: where are all the doctors then if the ratio is 2.2? Are they all private? Somewhere else in NZ?

Perhaps the issue is simply inadequate pay in the NZ public health care system, as opposed to a physical shortage.

That's like saying you can't sell an iPod for a fixed price because of how expensive the factory is. Nonsense. Real companies manage pricing risks and capital costs every day. Utilities can use some of the same tools, such as term and quantity commitments with their customers.

An iPod doesn't require custom made components with a lead time of 18 months to ramp up.

A lack of iPods doesn't kill anyone.

You can't eat an iPod. iPods don't remove the trash. iPods don't wash the clothes/dishes/people. iPods aren't needed to move products to market and people to work. iPods need utility provided electricity. iPod patents and trademarks are enforced by the government.

Why would they be so motivated? "Rule in favor of me, so I will sign even more contracts?" Wouldn't a bribe be easier? Second, the judges wouldn't see the money themselves, and third, in a contract situation the costs should be paid equally by both sides, since either one could end up as the damaged party.

A major business source is itself a money motivator.

Do you really treat your largest clients the same as the smallest? Few businesses do.

And that's the point. Rule of Law is meant to be objective, not a transactional affair.

Introducing explicit fees for law turns law from an exercise in justice into a transaction.

No, it would mean for civil cases based on contracts, neither party would be unable to file suit against the other. Instead, disagreements could only be settled through mediation, with no option to force one side into compliance or compensation, as there is in a real court.

I think non-contractual civil cases could be handled with payment of court costs after the completion of the trial. Criminal cases could be paid from the general fund.

I don't know about you, but my direct experiences with the civil justice system is an inability to compel compliance on either/both sides equals no justice.

My simple, first-cut suggestion was to charge a fee on all (non-government) contracts, as a percentage of the dollar value of the contract. That fee would go into a General Fund, where it would be used to pay for the courts and the military.

I'd say that you might look into how much this fee would have to be in order to fund the present system, before you seriously propose such a construct.

If roads were private, then anyone buying a house with a single access road would be well advised to make sure that the purchase included access rights on that road, just like they do today with a flag lot or something like that. I could imagine an HOA-like situation, with a group of homeowners funding the construction, care and upkeep of their own roads.

This is exactly the kind of thing cities were supposed to be, before they erupted into law-passing, rights-violating bureaucracies.

Ah, so now you're advocating the insertion of all sorts of access and right of way clauses into real estate. The legal profession thanks you.

Frankly the above proposals seem tortuous.

You're only engaging in these because you seek to find a way to no longer have to pay taxes, not because these proposals actually provide better service/results.

Not that long ago, it wasn't mandatory in California, either. Do they still offer "uninsured motorist" coverage? Just curious.

The mandatory insurance law in California has been active since at least 2001.

http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/newsrel/newsrel06/2006-25.htm

Wiki notes that all states plus the District of Columbia have a mandatory minimum auto liability insurance with the only exception being New Hampshire.

[mesyn191]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

c1ue needs to get paid or a custom AV or something for these posts. The amount of effort he is putting into those posts is quite high and informative.

[Sharky]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

OK, just one more.

You're only engaging in these because you seek to find a way to no longer have to pay taxes, not because these proposals actually provide better service/results.

If that's what you think, then you have entirely missed my point (although that's been true at just about every step of the discussion, so I'm not surprised). My goal is to move toward a system that supports individual rights, including property rights, and forbidding the initiation of the use of force by both government and individuals -- and which does so in an internally consistent, non-contradictory way. Not being forced to pay taxes is a consequence, not a primary.

[Ghent12]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

Let's see if I understand your logic right:

20% of the population only produces 3.5% of the enlisted non prior service recruits.

You say that this shows this demographic is doing more than their share because they could as easily be making more money.

I didn't say it's "more than their share," but that it's more than one should reasonably expect. The Heritage report did conclude that it was "more than their share," but that was based upon a rather odd methodoly. Neither of us has the data to conclude whether any given income quintile is contributing its share of military manpower or not, since none of the data includes Officer accessions.

I've asked you to provide some data behind your assertion that Buffett is wrong, but frankly you haven't done so yet.

The Heritage foundation report is flawed - its categorization of what constitutes the top 20% is way off.

So again, while Buffett may indeed be wrong, so far I have yet to see any proof of it.

You have provided all the proof you need. Read the data you posted and read what Buffett said. Any value greater than 0% means that Buffett is wrong, and since even the enlisted-only, non-prior-accession data gives a figure of 3.5%, then that is conclusive that Buffett is full of it. He's not the only one, apparently:

Sorry, but the Air Force itself says that warrant officers do get flight pay. A warrant officer is enlisted.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/20...ht-pay-010611/

So in fact there are enlisted who get high pay packages. Are there others? I'm sure they exist: engineers, technical specialists, etc etc.

No, Warrant Officers are not enlisted. Be careful when you make assertions that you aren't sure about. Warrant Officers are technical specialists and are in a series of paygrades that allows the respective services to have individuals exclusively train and operate in certain specific roles or capacities. They are not technically Commissioned Officers even though they are treated as such, but they are certainly not enlisted. There are, however, many enlisted personnel that do receive significant bonuses. These include special forces, nuclear-trained personnel, and those serving in a critical rating billet or MOS.

All of that is irrelevant to this discussion, however, because no data posted here uses prior-service accessions.

As for the 65K - that referred to the range of pay which pilots get, which is what glassdoor.com noted. It has nothing whatsoever to do with hosuehold income levels noted in the Heritage report. Apparently you did not read the sentence right before the one you quoted, which said:



Lastly I'd note that the Heritage report is what you were referring to.

If indeed you have data showing overall accession income levels, please provide it.

Nobody really does "all military accessions" because of the college degree requirement to become a Commissioned Officer. Reports generally focus on enlistment because that's open to all medically-qualified people. Also, you have not posted and I have not seen any data that includes re-enlistment and re-accession into the armed forces, so all comments about pilot or specialist pay is moot. Why bring up irrelevant and often erroneous contentions?

c1ue needs to get paid or a custom AV or something for these posts. The amount of effort he is putting into those posts is quite high and informative.

I suppose misinformative is a type of informative.