tags:
A video about how much tax you pay to the government and what you see in return. The original title of this video was "RON PAUL 4409 - SMALL PUPPY WANTS HIS MONEY BACK!" But that really is a terrible title. Comments  who voted for this video blankfist
- dystopianfuturetoday
- LadyDeath
- syncron
- NetRunner
- BenjaminFranklin2u
- chilaxe
- Farhad2000
- hbleusea
- nickreal03
- bobknight33
- dead_tofu
- doogle
- upfront
- my15minutes
who voted against this video Superganja23
- rottenseed
who has this post bookmarked blankfist
Federal Income Tax And What You Get Back From It! Related Videos
Hey Sifters!
Help us in the private beta of our new site Dwigger. It's a threaded conversation voting site for Twitter!
Read details about participating in our private Beta Test here. Top New Videos by Vote                Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week VideoSift Links |
Stumble This
Downvote.
Yes, I want freedom from OSHA, because I want all safety to be viewed through the lens of cost-effectiveness, with the value of human life set by the free market.
Yes, I want freedom from corporate taxes, because I can fully expect companies to pass those savings on to me, every penny of it!
Yes, I want freedom from the EPA, because clean air is for pussies.
After all, who needs safe food, safe medicine, a safe work environment, and clean air, when you might get almost a 60% raise, because surely that will pay your healthcare costs when the unregulated insurance market cancels your policy for eating a burger at McDonalds, or breathing the air in any metro area.
This is lunacy, always has been, and always will be.
People who don't believe in government shouldn't ever ask people to put them in charge of it.
That's a very elitist attitude, NR. You're basically saying "If you don't believe in what I'm saying then get out of my way because I know what's best!" What's up with that? To be honest, I think the free market works just fine, because that's truly the power given to the people. You don't need the USDA, OSHA or the EPA. If I remember correctly, the USDA wasn't successful in stopping the salmonella outbreak in tomatoes and jalapenos, even with all of their regulations. The same goes with any government department. They're ineffectual and wasteful.
You're too alarmist for my taste. The free market doesn't set the value of human life. What's that about? We don't need OSHA to care for human life - I say let the people care for the people. If people or property are damaged because of negligence there are ways of rectifying that matter without preemptive bureaucratic restrictions, regulations and subsidies. If a company is negligent they should be held accountable by the communities. For instance, you don't need the EPA when you allow communities to sue corporations for pollution and dumping, but currently we've allowed corporate interests to get way too close to police makers (the same policy makers who devise and run these worthless departments), so instead of allowing communities to sue corporations, the federal government in their infinite wisdom penalizes them instead when they pollute and damage local ecosystems. It's essentially a pollution tax paid to the federal government. Isn't that nice?
I'd say you'd have more of a leg to stand on if you could prove how these departments are worth the amount we pay in for them. But, that's impossible, isn't it?
You read it as a tautology, and I disagree. If we elected the president of GM, and I ran on a platform of "I don't like cars, I think they're bad for everyone, so put me in charge of the largest maker of cars in the world", I'd get what, 1% of the vote?
Same sort of silliness comes from people like Reagan saying "Government isn't the solution to the problem, government is the problem"...so vote for me so I can run the government and prove myself right by making government a problem!
It's okay to say "I think government influence should be reduced", but this outright declaration that all government does is fuck things up should disqualify the person from government service, because it'll be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
As to me having to justify the existence of the government programs, personally I think the burden of proof lies with you -- name a country without those types of institutions where private organizations successfully self-regulate themselves more effectively than what's being done in the U.S.
I have quite a few countries to back up my side of the argument...name one that can back up yours.
Furthermore, your analogy of electing a president of GM is ridiculous, because GM's purpose is to manufacture a product. The federal government doesn't manufacture products. Now you're just running out of steam and being silly.
And, for the record, Reagan won. So, obviously, people want someone who wants to shrink government. You make it sound like because the government is already too large for its own good we have to keep electing people who want larger government. Where's the logic in that?
As for my analogy, it seems like you missed my point. Government exists to enact and enforce laws, yes? Can we agree on that definition? Assuming we can agree on that, why should you put someone in charge of a Government that's averse to enacting and enforcing laws?
We're not talking about a repeal of the laws forbidding murder, but we are talking about the repeal of laws that forbid the use of substances with health risks, or the repeal of laws that might have safeguarded us from some of this credit silliness, and the absolute opposition to laws that might have encouraged the free market to proactively seek alternatives to oil.
Maybe it's not like a president of GM who's philosophically opposed to the existence of cars, maybe it's more like a president of GM who thinks cars shouldn't have doors, or seatbelts, or airbags, because this will encourage people to drive more safely.
You're right, Reagan won the election -- I never said tapping into people's dissatisfaction with government wouldn't be popular. Winning the election isn't proof that Reagan's philosophy was right, though. That's just silly.
You say, "Government exists to enact and enforce laws, yes? Can we agree on that definition?" No, we cannot agree on that. The idea of governing, especially in a Constitutional Republic such as our own, isn't just about enacting and enforcing laws. A government like that would be tyrannical going around coming up with things to do for itself.
The purpose of our government, however, is to serve the people under the rule of the Constitution. In other words, our government is ruled by law and controlled by law so it does not encroach upon our rights and freedoms (or so it is supposed to be). A dictator exists to enact and enforce laws. A Constitutional Republic exists as governed by law of, for and by the people so the people aren't too confident in their government. Do a little studying on the Framers of this country (aka, the Founding Fathers) and you'll see how people like Thomas Jefferson warned us of the confidence in government.
"Eliminate Federal Taxes, and watch highways crumble"
"Eliminate Federal Taxes, and watch the ultra rich rob you blind at every opportunity".
"Take Your Money back, an all of a sudden, American cities develop deadly levels of smog"
"No Amnesty for: ......"
yeah, and no budget to investigate, prosecute, or punish them either.
Okay, countries with some form of economic regulation: All EU nations, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, China, Japan.
There are no cost/benefit analyses I know of for entire departments of the government. There are, however, cost/benefit analyses that those departments create for each and every policy they enact.
They too, need to put a dollar value on human life arbitrarily. Unfortunately, they also can sometimes fudge that to get a desired result. Bush did this recently, lowering the value from the $8 million that was used just a few years ago, to $6.9 million, so he could claim that the EPA limiting carbon emissions would fail the cost/benefit analysis (barely).
When it's government, at least there's some level of transparency, so diligent citizens can catch them when they cook the books.
If you let the corporations self-regulate, who would make sure they don't cook the books like that?
Unless you'd regulate the industry by requiring transparency. Though then you'd need a division of government to investigate and enforce that regulation...oh, the horror.
The cry for fully-written studies though is a bit silly, we're not Senators, we're two dickheads arguing in an internet forum. I don't see how you could have a cost/benefit analysis for something like the FDA, without there being some private organization that does that for an entire country's drug industry to compare it to. If you want to compare it to "do nothing" that's easy, it's a lot better than that, and they have studies to prove that.
If a responsible, competent government is in charge of the money, then average joe has it better; if each individual has control of all their money, then the extremes of society will increase the poor will get poorer and the rich will get richer.
Absolutely no obligation. Representatives are waiting, call now!
downvote for the WTF misleading thumbnail and misspelling of 'untill'
upvote for pointing out the US debt is $30K/citizen
With that said, the idea of removing regulation would lead to all of our demise because the unchecked powerhouses would create an infite amount of barriers to entry, risk our health for cheaper costs, and reduce wages to unsustainable levels blah blah blah blah.... TL;DR: We would become like China.
Even so, there is still truth in the video in the fact that it tries to convey (with much fail lol) the message that governments themselves need to be regulated by citizens in order to prevent an equal possibility of corruption occurring within the government as within the capitalist corporations. The current level of spending by the US is quite stupid and yes it should be lowered, but at the same time it shouldn't be lowered so much that the entire system starves.
In conclusion, that thumbnail is misleading as hell.
Retaining down vote.
The National Income and Product Accounts for 2007 shows individuals spent $9.73 trillion on goods and services (Personal Consumption Expenditures). The government collected $370 billion in corporate income taxes last year. That's 3.8% of every dollar spent. Pretty far from 30%. But let's assume they also included the employer portion of FICA. That ~$435 billion. So that's $805 billion the government collected in corporate income tax and the employer portion of FICA - or 8.3% of every dollar spent by individuals. Still pretty far from 30%. (And all this assumes corporate income taxes cause higher prices which is contrary to common economic belief.)
So let's assume everything - corporate income taxes, employer and employee portions of FICA, and personal income taxes. That totals $2.4 trillion for 2007. A big number but still only 24.6% - not 30% - of every dollar spent by individuals. And if you count personal income taxes and the employee portion of FICA here, you can't count them again when figuring how much more you would get in you paycheck.
I haven't looked at all their other claims but it appears they were way off in their estimate of the salary of the average federal worker ($106,579 average?!? Come on...)
I'm no fan of taxes or big government but I would like to deal with the issue using facts and the truth.