Explosions at Boston Marathon

[Sava]

"No tax cut would have helped us deal with this or will help us recover,"

While a partisan statement and certainly inappropriate... it's not incorrect. It's just in poor taste.

Are you butthurt by the truth?

[snoopy369]

It's sort of irrelevant.

[The Mad Monk]

"No tax increase would have helped us deal with this or will help us recover,"

This statement is also not incorrect.

[snoopy369]

Honestly, I wonder if we shouldn't work that way - when something bad happens, agree to a 0.01% increase in taxes across the board [or whatever is needed to pay for it] to cover the costs of rebuilding. If you came to the people and asked if you'd be willing to kick in $40 to pay your share of rebuilding from a hurricane or whatnot, don't you think people would be okay with that? Then we wouldn't be deficit spending and whatnot to pay the obvious costs and just pushing the costs back somewhere else.

This particular event probably won't have that high of costs - what, 100 people injured, even if all of them were amputees, maybe give everyone $3MM to cover costs and future lost wages, so $300MM cost plus a few days of police coverage and a few weeks of a few FBI guys, so maybe $350MM maximum? That's $1 per person basically. But even Katrina or whatever, 80 billion dollars, still not that much actual money per person (80,000/320 = $240 each or so); raise the top tax rate 0.1% and the other tax rates 0.05%, and you'd have that easy.

[The Mad Monk]

My main issue with that is that those "temporary" taxes and tolls have a habit of sticking around long after their goals have been met.

[Sava]

It's sort of irrelevant.

Sure. It's basically a bumper-sticker statement.

This statement is also not incorrect.

I'm surprised to hear you say this. Forgive me for thinking you might be a part of the conservative victim crew.

This partisan nonsense is just that... nonsense. We should really move past the whole "government is bad" argument. Government, in this case, is representative democracy. It's role is to plan, organize, and execute. The overall efficiency of expense versus results is the real, legitimate issue. For whatever reason, the conservative argument has become "electing leaders to represent the people, who then plan things... is bad."

I don't like calling people stupid. It's not productive. A tragedy like the bombing in Boston only makes this more apparent in my mind. I'd rather we just discuss politics and come to agreements on public policy. Operating without a plan is still a plan. It's just the worst possible plan. And having a plan that involves representative democracy is not the same thing as jack booted nazi thugs marching jews into gas chambers and ovens.

[Sava]

My main issue with that is that those "temporary" taxes and tolls have a habit of sticking around long after their goals have been met.

Yes. I disagree with what snoopy talks about. The resources of government shouldn't fluctuate based on whatever spectacular event is happening in the news. I would think even the business community would prefer government policies with regards to revenue to be consistent and stable. Government should be able to function in crisis situations without worrying about running up a huge tab. Such things should be thought of in advance.

[snoopy369]

Yes. I disagree with what snoopy talks about. The resources of government shouldn't fluctuate based on whatever spectacular event is happening in the news. I would think even the business community would prefer government policies with regards to revenue to be consistent and stable. Government should be able to function in crisis situations without worrying about running up a huge tab. Such things should be thought of in advance.

We certainly should have some crisis fund set up, but when we don't have enough to cover things (like, Katrina), why not be transparent about it?

[DinoDoc]

We certainly should have some crisis fund set up, but when we don't have enough to cover things (like, Katrina), why not be transparent about it?

Is there really such a thing as a temporary tax?

[rah]

No.
Despite almost record 17% revenue increases this year, no one in Illinois government is talking about removing the TEMPORARY tax increase instituted a few years ago.

Let's be real. Almost every household in America tries to put away a little extra money in case of an emergency. Governments rarely do. If it's there they spend it. (even if it's not, they spend it)

[snoopy369]

It could be done in a meaningful way [we certainly have school bonds and such that are temporary]. Whether it would... who knows.

[Sava]

Let's be real. Almost every household in America tries to put away a little extra money in case of an emergency. Governments rarely do. If it's there they spend it. (even if it's not, they spend it)

Governments don't operate like average American households... nor should they. Governments don't act like businesses. They shouldn't. Deficit spending is perfectly acceptable for a government because they operate under different rules.

As far as spending and "temporary" taxes are concerned... look at it from the government's POV. Government faces tremendous challenges. There is a constant struggle to achieve greater results. I don't think any of us would agree that the results are acceptable. There is always room for improvement. In large part, resources play an enormous role in results. There are countless factions within government competing for a limited pool of resources. Despite views to the contrary, there is accountability in government. Unelected officials face pressure from superiors to achieve results. Ultimately, there are elected officials that are accountable to voters. Bureaucrats need to satisfy their masters.

The difference between public and private organizations doesn't much affect the efficiency in achieving particular results. Low level employees report to mid management. Mid management either ultimately reports to an elected official or a CEO. Whether or not it's a CEO motivated by profit or a corrupt official looking to gain whatever favors he/she can from his/her position... it doesn't make much difference.

Government may be slightly more efficient and responsive to the public needs. CEO compensation far exceeds the costs of even the most corrupt Illinois/Chicago politician. The spoils of government corruption usually amount to six-figures and are dwarfed by CEO and executive compensation packages.

It's fashionable to gripe about government spending. When I hear about stories of mismanagement or corruption... it's maddening. But the fact that we are able to have this discussion and put pressure on government to better manage resources, in my mind, is better than just relying on some billionaire's conscience... and hoping he makes decisions that benefit the public.

[The Mad Monk]

Every organization I've worked at has been the same in one respect: when the end of the year rolls around, everyone goes on a buying spree to empty the remainder of their budget.

Why?

Because it they don't, there is a real danger that their budget for the next year will be reduced since it's "obvious' that they don't need all of it.

This is true of private companies, public institutions, and government bureaucracies. They are the same in this respect.

What isn't the same is that the first two are limited in how far they can go with this by their actual revenues -- sooner or later, somebody will move to limit or reduce those budgets regardless. Governments, as you say, can exceed their revenues, so there is no preessure.

[kentonio]

No.
Despite almost record 17% revenue increases this year, no one in Illinois government is talking about removing the TEMPORARY tax increase instituted a few years ago.)

[kentonio]

DP