The grade is the outcome of someone's work effort.
"If you earn $100,000 however, then you didn't build that by yourself."
What makes you sure someone didn't earn the $100,000 without the aid of the government?
Services that the government provides, and has provided continuously, 24/7 / 365 to every person resident in the USA, include national defence; the funding of law enforcement; the provision of utilities, whether that be through municipally owned corporations or through public-private partnerships; the subsidisation (or direct ownership and management) of roads and railways; the education and training of the next (and current) generation; the assurance of food safety and inspection (every slaughterhouse has full time federal inspectors); the regulation of food and drugs by the FDA; the subsidisation of hospitals (one third of the cost of new hospitals is met by federal funds); the courts and intellectual property services; and, likely if you're earning a six figure salary, the financial regulators that enforce integrity across the capital markets to prevent you from being defrauded.
Somehow you think the government built it? The government does nothing without the money taken from the people. It's taken either as debt or taxes.
Somehow I don't believe there exists any person who has not benefited from the above services (and currently benefits from them). Without them that person would not be able to survive for very long, much less make lots of money. I get the feeling that you hate it, but we really are in this together. Every man for himself doesn't work anywhere on the planet.
Where to you get your info about the national debt?
What was the poverty rate before the war on poverty?
Here's a chart showing U.S. federal gross debt as a percentage of GDP.
You'll notice it peaked much higher (and during a war that devastated half the planet). If the U.S. can recover from that then it can recover (and is recovering) from the worst global financial crisis (exacerbated by budgets that Bush signed) in history. There is zero chance of the U.S. going bankrupt. It is the sole manufacturer of U.S. Government debt, which is denominated in U.S. Dollar, which itself controls. It cannot go bankrupt.
The author of this opinion piece does not source his chart (and no official data is available for before mid 1960, which is when national data began to be collected, so I'm not sure how he's managed to chart it). In addition, the chart itself is very misleading. For instance, let's ignore the fact that Nixon dismantled the agency that administered the original welfare programmes (and at the same the amount payable by these programmes has decreased ever since the 60s). Instead, consider
the fact that the poverty (and near poverty) rates for those 65+ has decreased substantially since 1966. Near poverty rates also decreased for every other group, albeit less so. Poverty rates for all age groups are lower overall than 1966, although are very dependent on economic downturns.
The relationship between social expenditures and poverty rates is well established. For instance,
this paper has a nice chart that you can look at on p. 83.
We have a homeless crisis in LA, SF, NY, and HI. Several have declared a state of emergency.
I'd like to see your stats on homeless vets.
My source is Obama. He said it himself. But don't worry, it's been
fact checked. Here's
the report source itself if you'd like to see the numbers with your own eyes. Page 41.
So the government can remove the unfunded mandates like social security? I guess they can, but what's your point? Right now they owe and it's a huge number. Are you suggesting they'll just not pay the $1trillion/year? You're suggesting they'll just default on it?
Unfunded liabilities are a worthless measure. What I'm suggesting is that the Government can, at any time, pass a law that reduces benefits or increases revenues. For instance, Bernie Sanders supports a bill that would increase revenues to ensure Social Security is solvent until near the end of the century. This bill could be passed overnight and it would wipe out and change the unfunded liabilities you are referring to.
It sounds scary, and it makes for great headlines on Fox News, to say that the Government has unfunded liabilities up to some arbitrary year of 2070 of hundreds of trillions of dollars. But it's worthless talk that means nothing.
The fact is that 1% of the people in California pay 1/2 the taxes that are used to run the state. I pay property taxes for schools but have no children in those schools. I'm forced to pay for things I don't use.
Not only is this a terrible step back to your earlier posts about every man for himself, but the fact of the matter is that you do indirectly make use of schools, even if you have no children in them. You don't live in a bubble. Government services and private services are provided by other people. Frequently these require an educated workforce. We're talking doctors, nurses, police officers, judges, and, yes, the people that keep your workplace clean or the guy who cooks your lunch. These people will collectively make the country spin. Whether you like it or not, you cannot simply opt out of contributing to the education of the next generation.
At what point has Apple paid enough to cover the cost of the road they actually use? What about the people that have the same access to education, roads, etc, yet don't pay ANY taxes?
The producers and prior American built things from bridges to books that cost far more than they consume.
Are you suggesting that the more you make, the less you pay in taxes because of your lower dependence on the Government? This completely reverts back to the other point, that those people did not get to that position by themselves. Part of the contract you have with society is that to get to where you are, you have benefited from services from other people. It's only fair that you continue to fund the services that give opportunities to the next guy who comes along and replaces you when you retire.
This is the problem, you have people paying zero taxes, while other pay millions. You're suggesting that Apple is stealing from America by not paying even more than what they pay now, yet you don't say a word about those that pay nothing.
Very few people pay zero taxes. If you're talking about federal income taxes, then yes, about 47% do not pay federal income taxes. But half of those do pay payroll taxes. The remainder might not pay any further taxes on income (but perhaps others, such as sales and property), but you have to remember that this group is largely comprised of the elderly, the disabled, students, and the very poor. They are not just people who are sponging off the system.
This is why we need to split this nation up. Let the producers have their freedom to produce and let the socialist have their area. This happened after WWII in Berlin. They built a wall to keep people in and killed them if they tried to leave.
This idea wouldn't work. At the moment, it is largely the dastardly socialists in places like California and New York that are subsidising the "producers" in places like Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Alaska, South Carolina, and Kentucky. These places all receive more from the federal union than they contribute. Places like California, New York, and Massachusetts all receive less than they contribute to the federal system.
Not only that but the whole point of the union is that it is a fully fledged transfer union. Wealth is redistributed across the union.
This argument will never end, some will always feel cheated because someone else has more than they do. There will never be a limit to what people feel they are entitled to. How much is a person entitled to?
It has nothing to do with being jealous of somebody else being rich. It's to do with fairness. Why should Apple, a multinational corporation, have the ability to strike (perhaps illegal) deals internationally and use these foreign jurisdictions to defer revenue, thus minimising its total U.S. tax liability, when small and medium sized domestic businesses obviously cannot do this?
Stats show some 35% are on welfare.
... And here's your problem, this is your own prejudice believing that most of these people do really need the support they are given.
Can you cite this number, please? What do you define as welfare? It may surprise you to know (
p. 15) but even of those in poverty and near poverty, participation in government welfare programmes is quite low. For instance, whilst about 50% of individuals in poverty receive food stamps (mostly children), just 12% receive energy assistance; and only 8% receive housing subsidies. The reality is very different to this right-wing notion that millions of Americans are sitting on their couches sponging off the taxpayer.
