tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post3583518095231256807..comments2024-03-28T05:47:55.117-05:00Comments on Althouse: Romney's federal tax returns: "he is likely to pay a total of $6.2 million in taxes on $45 million in income over the two tax years of 2010 and 2011."Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger211125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-33884849970864890892012-09-01T11:38:00.467-05:002012-09-01T11:38:00.467-05:00Jay said...
"Remember when the Clinton&#...Jay said...<br /><br /> "Remember when the Clinton's counted underwear as charitable contributions?"<br /><br />Nixon did that. <br /><br />I had to call the IRS for some information on a charitable deduction. The lady on the assist line said I had to determine the value myself. I asked, what if I claimed the original price. <br /><br /><br />She asked, "Who do you think you are, Richard Nixon?"<br /><br />Still funny, if you remember that far back. Bob from district 9https://www.blogger.com/profile/15274327052594544625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-89598041246187647112012-01-25T03:53:59.472-06:002012-01-25T03:53:59.472-06:00Yes, governments can misallocate - but the reason ...<i>Yes, governments can misallocate - but the reason government got into this in modern society was the failure of private charity and owner/aristocrat generosity to adequately deal with public health issues, caring for the sick and indigent</i>.<br /><br />Not only can governments misallocate resources, they almost invariably grossly misallocate such. It is the nature of government. They do not make decisions based on efficiency. Rather, they are far more likely to make such on the basis of politics. Or, often, at the whim of bureaucrats. <br /><br />When it comes to health care, where do they come up with this supposed obligation? And, what are the limits on it? Why should those who don't work deserve comparable, if not superior, health care, etc. to those who do work, and contribute the most to society? Why shouldn't the amount and quality of healthcare one gets have some relationship to what one contributes to society?Bruce Haydenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10815293023158025662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-33530205182605980912012-01-25T00:17:19.146-06:002012-01-25T00:17:19.146-06:00Yes, governments can misallocate - but the reason ...<i>Yes, governments can misallocate - but the reason government got into this in modern society was the failure of private charity and owner/aristocrat generosity to adequately deal with public health issues, caring for the sick and indigent.<br /></i><br /><br />Or, it was just a power grab from the Bolsheviks on down.Known Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15029003649395214104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-82310183451295554382012-01-24T21:26:38.964-06:002012-01-24T21:26:38.964-06:00There's really no way to fix this unless you w...<i>There's really no way to fix this unless you want to increase the capital gains rates, and that would demolish this economy</i>.<br /><br />But, that would apparently be ok with President Obama, as long as the money were distributed more fairly.Bruce Haydenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10815293023158025662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-31698685691617844962012-01-24T21:25:03.390-06:002012-01-24T21:25:03.390-06:00Solving diseases isn't the only thing that gov...Solving diseases isn't the only thing that governments do worse at than the private sector and private contributions. Look at space flight - at a fraction of what NASA has spent, even on a single shuttle launch, private individuals, companies, etc. have come far closer to getting man permanently in space than the government has over the last couple of years. We now have multiple serious shots at economic space flight, none of which come out of our government. This year, we may see the first private tours of the international space station - somewhere the U.S. government can no longer get us, after spending countless billions of taxpayer dollars. Why? Partially because our government got stuck with 1970s technology with our space shuttles, and politically, could not change course for decades after the technology became obsolete. We are talking a billion or so per space shuttle shot - more money probably per shot than has been spent, in total, in private space development. <br /><br />Governments do little well, and most things badly, and the bigger the money, the more inefficiently and badly it is spent. A good part of that is because how and where the money is spent becomes increasingly political as the amount spent increases. No wonder market incumbents would rather buy members of Congress, than spend their money developing new products or otherwise competing for sales. <br /><br />p.s. Blogger can't count - had to chop this into two posts, because Blogger claimed that the total was > 4096 characters, while Word claimed it to be < 4000, including blanks.Bruce Haydenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10815293023158025662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-20930186115750751012012-01-24T21:23:13.702-06:002012-01-24T21:23:13.702-06:00I also don't trust people to choose charities ...<i>I also don't trust people to choose charities well. (They'll give for the cure of diseases that attack sympathetic people and shell out big time for dogs and cats.) And I don't trust charities to handle vast pools of money properly. Unlike many conservatives, I don't care about the warm feelings of self-love that flood the brains of charitable givers. I care about competently dealing with real needs and avoiding waste and corruption</i>.<br /><br />This is maybe where one of the big differences between left and right here, and why, and why, Ann won't ever move totally over to the dark side.<br /><br />The left believes that governments (run, of course, by themselves) would do a better job at determining where people should spend their money, than those earning it could. We are talking charities here, but the theory applies pretty much across the board.<br /><br />Governments are not good at this sort of thing, by almost any metric. Diseases were mentioned-Bill Gates seems to be doing much better with malaria than all the governments that are trying to address the same problems. <br /><br />The left ignore that when governments spend our money, they do it politically. Funds are not allocated rationally or economically, but rather, politically. And, you find yourself in a situation like we have now, where <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111224/01031317187/jack-abramoff-explains-return-investment-lobbying-22000-is-surprisingly-low.shtml" rel="nofollow">Jack Abramoff claimed that lobbying our government often have a 22,000% ROI</a>. No wonder market incumbents would rather buy members of Congress, than spend their money developing new products or otherwise competing for sales. <br /><br />Who here really believes that breast cancer research is the most cost effective way to spend cancer research money? It isn't, by far. But, it gets huge amounts of public funding, because we are all have mothers, wives, and daughters. And, yes, women whine more than men do, so more money goes to women's cancers than to men's. Note that cancers are not uniformly represented across different races and ethnic groups, and that "white" cancers get a significantly larger share of funding than do "black" types of cancers. Why? Political power.<br /><br />The reality is that the amounts of money spent combating different things that kill us, and the different types of cancers than do so, bear only a marginal relationship to the deaths that they all cause. <br /><br />By now, the major types of cancers, etc., each have their lobbyists, and their allocation of the research pie is more dependent upon their lobbying muscle than their actual need. And, this shouldn't be any surprise to anyone here.Bruce Haydenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10815293023158025662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-33287815538261636282012-01-24T20:36:12.048-06:002012-01-24T20:36:12.048-06:00One could always start a charity to eradicate the ...One could always start a charity to eradicate the infestation of pandas in our zoos.Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07837540030934495651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-88001116866178435042012-01-24T18:56:06.306-06:002012-01-24T18:56:06.306-06:00That itself is one of the main reasons why public ...<i>That itself is one of the main reasons why public aid so often trumps private aid.</i><br /><br />God lord. <br /><br />What <i>is</i> the color of the sky in your world?<br /><br />(seriously, have any handy examples?)Darleenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08430686273729802294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-27248953856746546432012-01-24T18:10:52.220-06:002012-01-24T18:10:52.220-06:00This is one of those things that is perfectly good...This is one of those things that is perfectly good policy but is hard to explain to people.<br /><br />Romney makes most of his money from investments, and that's taxed at the capital gains rate.<br /><br />There's really no way to fix this unless you want to increase the capital gains rates, and that would demolish this economy.Blue@9https://www.blogger.com/profile/16371286571496793710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-76677699274390161862012-01-24T17:59:05.259-06:002012-01-24T17:59:05.259-06:00It's mittens' turn ...
I'm sorry, It&...<a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/videos/2012/01/20/it-s-mitts-turn.html" rel="nofollow">It's mittens' turn ...</a><br /><br />I'm sorry, It's my turn.<br /><br />My time is extremely valuable. Indeed, you cannot put a price on my time as it's my time, not your time.<br /><br />><br /><br />"I am paying for this microphone, Mr. Green"<br /><br />Spencer Tracy used an almost identical line in the movie <i>State of the Union</i>.<br /><br />Reagan, god love him, straight out of central casting. btw, Dutch got the moderators, Mr. Breen, name wrong.<br /><br />hmm, mittens trying to be like Dutch.<br /><br />><br /><br />Any yes, mittens is no Reagan!shilohhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16490952508600134457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-56778628371003375862012-01-24T16:26:01.986-06:002012-01-24T16:26:01.986-06:00During the middle ages certain aristocrats and mer...During the middle ages certain aristocrats and merchants vied with each other to build carillons and church bells. Never ask for whom the bell tolls, ask who paid for the tolling of the bells. I suppose there was a certain amount of self aggrandizement to this charity, but that was the charity that opened their pursestrings. An interesting unintended consequence of this bronze bell casting was that Europeans were able to cast durable cannons. This gave them quite a leg up in their conflicts with other peoples. Church bells today. World domination tomorrow. I'm sure that hard headed realists back then felt that money should not be wasted on church bells and, instead, should be devoted to burning Jews and witches, but that was the decision back then.....According to Keynes, it doesn't matter so much on what the money is spent so much as that the money is spent. So in that sense money spent on panda bears is just as useful as money spent on solar panels. Indeed, I would argue that the causes people care passionately enough about to devote their time, wealth and energy to propagating have more validity than the causes which government bureaucrats wish you to devote your time, wealth, and energy towards.Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07837540030934495651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-85287625041981220232012-01-24T15:44:08.135-06:002012-01-24T15:44:08.135-06:00In concrete reality, public funding is vastly supe...<i>In concrete reality, public funding is vastly superior to private funding for addressing certain kinds of problems or situations, including ones requiring rapid &/or large-scale &/or complex input (health-care delivery is a very relevant example for Americans).</i><br /><br />Huh?<br /><br />Which government office delivers health care treatment to the American public?<br /><br />You mean like the VA?<br /><br /><i>The growing conservative meme now is that private charity can (& will) pick up ALL the slack once national public services are underfunded or unfunded.</i><br /><br />Really?<br /><br />Why don't you provide us some quotes from these Republicans saying these things?Brian Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01772632205321099314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-4999333288053790912012-01-24T15:42:40.960-06:002012-01-24T15:42:40.960-06:00Right on cue:
Democratic presidential candidate B...Right on cue:<br /><br /><i>Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle gave $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004 to charities<br /></i><br /><br />1% ers!Brian Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01772632205321099314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-15967154848221325342012-01-24T15:14:27.411-06:002012-01-24T15:14:27.411-06:00In concrete reality, public funding is vastly supe...In concrete reality, public funding is vastly superior to private funding for addressing certain kinds of problems or situations, including ones requiring rapid &/or large-scale &/or complex input (health-care delivery is a very relevant example for Americans). <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />I suppose that's why the first responders during the Katrina fiasco was the Salvation Army.<br />My leg. You pissing. You know the rest.Rustyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00938263272237104128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-68642195598649701342012-01-24T14:44:43.962-06:002012-01-24T14:44:43.962-06:00"To be fair, Democrats' idea of governmen...<b>"To be fair, Democrats' idea of government is more of a replacement for charity. Let everyone hand over the appropriate amount and government will rationally/politically determine how to deal with all the needs. If you think that's a good idea — isn't it, in the abstract? — then you probably lean Democratic. I do think it's a good idea — in the abstract — but I lean back to the center when I think about concrete reality, and I don't trust the government to determine the needs and dispense the money properly."</b><br /><br />In the abstract? No - in bare-bones functional terms.<br /><br />In concrete reality, public funding is vastly superior to private funding for addressing certain kinds of problems or situations, including ones requiring rapid &/or large-scale &/or complex input (health-care delivery is a very relevant example for Americans). <br /><br />The growing conservative meme now is that private charity can (& will) pick up ALL the slack once national public services are underfunded or unfunded. The only way to see this idea as valid is to posit that America's centuries on end of prior real-world experience with this exact same "Unregulated Free-Market OR ELSE" system of public assistance (& the heinous levels of penury, misery & death that it made commonplace) has all somehow mysteriously ceased to exist, perhaps as a miraculous precursor to the Mayan Apocalypse.<br /><br />Your mistrust of your government in this regard is valid. Note that mechanisms exist by which you can replace them if they fail to deliver the aid that you contribute, & you can even dictate the standards under which they deliver it - as a rule, their private counterparts will offer you no such options. That itself is one of the main reasons why public aid so often trumps private aid.jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06840719620959481121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-898950949707443432012-01-24T14:37:08.001-06:002012-01-24T14:37:08.001-06:00I'd like to see some real rethinking in charit...I'd like to see some real rethinking in charitable dollars deductions. <br /><br />No more charitable deductions for do-gooder projects in foreign countries.<br /><br />No more charitable deductions for animal welfare or "pet cause species with large weepy eyes". Or charity limited by race, class, gender. No more "only black people need apply" scholarships written for a corporate deduction by GM.<br /><br />No more charity deductions by the elites for the elites sake. To write off millions to fund, for instance, a Chinese symphony to play before tux and gowned elites at the Kennedy Center with 60 black kids bused in again to cast a veneer of them enjoying the concert as somehow socially uplifting for the masses.<br /><br />No more church tax writeoffs unless a certain amount is spent on general needs of US citizens without religious restriction.Cedarfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00602418702398818596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-69756466200114824922012-01-24T14:27:46.418-06:002012-01-24T14:27:46.418-06:00William - "At any rate there is absolutely no...William - "At any rate there is absolutely no basis for a belief that governments spend money more wisely than charities."<br /><br />The last two hundred and fifty years of human history have reflected a growing societal belief that the private charity choices of the better off does not form an efficient means of wise allocation of needed money to the most pressing societal needs. Nor obviously, does charity address the decision by many better off people that expect society to serve their enterprises and protect their property - to refuse to give any money whatsoever to charity.<br /><br />Yes, governments can misallocate - but the reason government got into this in modern society was the failure of private charity and owner/aristocrat generosity to adequately deal with public health issues, caring for the sick and indigent.<br /><br />In some sense, the agrarian feudal systems of Asia and Europe worked in doling out "charity" based on need. As a matter of honor, Asian "face", or Christian compassion. <br />But the growth of cities and modern industrial societies left that behind with a new proletariate that were on their own.Cedarfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00602418702398818596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-84363132417317107462012-01-24T14:25:19.281-06:002012-01-24T14:25:19.281-06:00Obama is spending a trillion dollars more than we ...Obama is spending a trillion dollars more than we were in 2008, l repeat, a trillion more than we were 4 years ago and the real issue is that Mitt and his rich cronies aren't contributing more to this runaway spending.Hoosier Daddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12872965118921894534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-28423458334499838252012-01-24T14:04:10.478-06:002012-01-24T14:04:10.478-06:00Ann said…
“…and I don't trust the government ...Ann said…<br /><br />“…and I don't trust the government to determine the needs and dispense the money properly. I also don't trust people to choose charities well. And I don't trust charities to handle vast pools of money properly.”<br /><br /><br /><br />Of course,Ann, but in the case of the former there is little you can do about it. In the case of the latter it's none of your business.Rustyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00938263272237104128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-61348448364107488642012-01-24T13:45:03.333-06:002012-01-24T13:45:03.333-06:00Chuck66 said...
Remember, an average non-prof...Chuck66 said...<br /><br /> Remember, an average non-profit retains 10% of donations for administrative work. Spends 90% on the actual good work (no, I don't have a link, and I doubt this number holds true for certain types of non-profits that hold a lot of "conferences" in nice places).<br /><br />Chuck,<br /><br />Charity Navigator provides a breakout of that information on those charities that report their expenses.<br /><br />http://www.charitynavigator.org/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-77276436030596048542012-01-24T13:37:33.501-06:002012-01-24T13:37:33.501-06:00Remember, an average non-profit retains 10% of don...Remember, an average non-profit retains 10% of donations for administrative work. Spends 90% on the actual good work (no, I don't have a link, and I doubt this number holds true for certain types of non-profits that hold a lot of "conferences" in nice places).<br /><br />Government retails 30-35% to administer its programs. Again, no link, but just things I've read over time.Chuck66https://www.blogger.com/profile/15834146425393263098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-14631978391345441062012-01-24T13:32:42.483-06:002012-01-24T13:32:42.483-06:00Hussein's supporters find much merriment in Wi...Hussein's supporters find much merriment in Willard's middle name.Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07837540030934495651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-46144052202478490152012-01-24T13:30:31.739-06:002012-01-24T13:30:31.739-06:00Cedarford begs the question: If foolish people or...Cedarford begs the question: If foolish people organize to spend money on silly charities, why would they not also organize to form politcal parties and spend money on silly government programs. Panda zoos are not any dumber than solar panels for Seattle. In the fullness of time, we may learn that panda hindquarters are tasty and delicious and naturally low in cholesterol. Our charitable work with pandas may be useful in the commercial farming of panda meat. At any rate there is absolutely no basis for a belief that governments spend money more wisely than charities.Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07837540030934495651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-23561849113792560742012-01-24T13:29:52.142-06:002012-01-24T13:29:52.142-06:00Ann said…
“…and I don't trust the government ...Ann said…<br /><br />“…and I don't trust the government to determine the needs and dispense the money properly. I also don't trust people to choose charities well. And I don't trust charities to handle vast pools of money properly.”<br /><br />Who do you trust?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-32168473378187221732012-01-24T13:28:40.161-06:002012-01-24T13:28:40.161-06:00Andy R. said...
I'm saying people are upset t...<i>Andy R. said...<br /><br />I'm saying people are upset that he thinks he should pay so little in taxes. Many of us don't mind him being rich, we just think he should pay more in taxes<br /></i><br /><br />Um, those 15% capital gains tax rates would have expired if President Obama had not extended them.<br /><br />You will vote for Obama.Brian Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01772632205321099314noreply@blogger.com