Should we not consider cost? Who in their right mind would disagree?

I personally like what they are doing. I think we should do it in every phase of government. If people realized the cost of things and were made to pay for them out of pocket, this country would be a much different place IMHO. Originally Posted by WTF

I agree. If only those people who voted for increases in government programs were obligated to pay for them; this country would be a much different place. :-)

I agree. If only those people who voted for increases in government programs were obligated to pay for them; this country would be a much different place. :-) Originally Posted by Laurentius

Yes, if people had to pay for the children they had instead of getting a tax break, if we had to pay for a war instead of putting it on credit and yes if welfare and prisons.....hey wait a novel idea. Is there a theme here? Pray do tell , to actually consider the cost of things!!!! Heavens help us, what person could get elected and stay elected singing that tune?

Yes, if people had to pay for the children they had instead of getting a tax break, if we had to pay for a war instead of putting it on credit and yes if welfare and prisons.....hey wait a novel idea. Is there a theme here? Pray do tell , to actually consider the cost of things!!!! Heavens help us, what person could get elected and stay elected singing that tune? Originally Posted by WTF

Nobody. Politics these days is the art of telling people you are going to give them something but make somebody else pay the bill.

BTW, I don't get a tax break for my offspring. My ex-wife might, but I sure don't. But I nevertheless send $thousands$ monthly from after-tax money.

Meanwhile, because the public schools too often suck out loud, I also pay for the education of my offspring in private schools. Funny how I never get a rebate on my property tax for paying for my own offspring. I guess I get to pay for my own AND the offspring of other people.

Maybe because, according to some I am "rich" and undeserving of whatever wealth I might have because it all came to me magically through "luck."

Yes, if people had to pay for the children they had instead of getting a tax break, ..........Is there a theme here? Pray do tell , to actually consider the cost of things!!!! Heavens help us, what person could get elected and stay elected singing that tune? Originally Posted by WTF

you are getting perilously close to a non progressive tax schedule.

if nothing else, maintain your hobgoblin mind.

you are getting perilously close to a non progressive tax schedule.

if nothing else, maintain your hobgoblin mind. Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Regressive tax combined with progressive taxes are close to a flat tax.

I can't wait for some of you to finally get that through your thick heads

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=14130


This, however, is not our average tax rate, says Burns. It is what most workers will pay on each additional dollar of income when all taxes are considered. But what it translates to is a bumpy flat tax:s,

The average marginal tax rate on incomes between $20,000 and $500,000 is 40.3 percent, the median tax rate is 41.8 percent and the standard deviation of all those rates is 5.3 percentage points.



.

Regressive tax combined with progressive taxes are close to a flat tax.

I can't wait for some of you to finally get that through your thick heads

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=14130


This, however, is not our average tax rate, says Burns. It is what most workers will pay on each additional dollar of income when all taxes are considered. But what it translates to is a bumpy flat tax:s,

The average marginal tax rate on incomes between $20,000 and $500,000 is 40.3 percent, the median tax rate is 41.8 percent and the standard deviation of all those rates is 5.3 percentage points.
. Originally Posted by WTF

having a hard time following the twists, turns, intricacies and nuances that float through your amygdala

I'm sorry -- I don't know who this NCPA is, but I think they are being somewhat deceptive.

Most people would read that and say "Hey, a married couple with a combined family income of $20k is paying $8000 in tax and only living on $12000." That's not true. Nore do I believe that this hypothetical married couple earning $20,000 pays over 40% tax on the 20,001st dollar.

BUT --- IF they are paying 40% on that dollar, it is a travesty of justice. Nobody in this country should be turning over 40% of his earnings to government. That's insane!

But, either way, let's accept that as true -- that we ALREADY have a flat tax. Well, if that is the case -- that our incredibly complex and convoluted tax system is in effect a flat tax -- why not simply abolish it and replace it with a flat tax that isn't so convoluted that even the IRS won't be held accountable for its own advice on compliance? Why not just send everyone a bill for 40.1% of their income?

Why shouldn't those assessing punishment think about the cost? They weigh many other factors that are unique to each case. Why not cost?

In a county near me, I had a conversation with the DA recently while waiting for my civil hearing to start. He elected not to prosecute a man for DWI manslaughter because of the extremely high cost of treating the man's many diseases. It would have cost the county a ton of money (over $20k a month) to treat him in jail because he had suffered a stroke since he allegedly committed the offense in question.

If your argument is that only the legislature can make these decisions, and that does seem to be your argument, then that small county (one of Texas' smallest) busts it's jail budget on one guy who can't even drive now. Judges (and for that matter juries) are perfectly competent to take the costs of varying penalties in mind in deciding which criminals deserve harsher punishment, and which should get a shot at probation. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Beacuse they don't have anything to do with the budget. They don't set it, they are not included it's discussions surrounding it and at the start of a new fiscal year they are not told "you have X to last you all year"...to which they agree before stepping up to do their job. The problem (as several folks have pointed out) is the cost of sentencing. Death penalties cost excessive amounts of money, locking someone up for 50 years..excessive amounts of money. Change the sentencing laws then instead of leaving it to a judge to decide which sentences to change. Just because they are smart enough to do so doesn't necessarily mean they want the hassle or responsibility of doing so.

C

But, either way, let's accept that as true -- that we ALREADY have a flat tax. Well, if that is the case -- that our incredibly complex and convoluted tax system is in effect a flat tax -- why not simply abolish it and replace it with a flat tax that isn't so convoluted that even the IRS won't be held accountable for its own advice on compliance? Why not just send everyone a bill for 40.1% of their income? Originally Posted by Laurentius

You will not get any arguement out of me that we need to overhaul the tax system.

Just don't go trying to sell me this crap that half the country does not pay taxes they do. It is sickening that most people in this country, hell on this board, do not understand that.

Change the sentencing laws then instead of leaving it to a judge to decide which sentences to change. Just because they are smart enough to do so doesn't necessarily mean they want the hassle or responsibility of doing so.

C Originally Posted by Camille

Judges need leeway in sentencing. Cost gives them the political cover to do so.

Yes laws need to be changed. Drug laws have proven not to work, much like prohibition. That is the biggest problem in cost right now.

Yes agree about Leeway. I'm not saying take that away. I'm saying don't broaden it any further just because of money.

xx

Just don't go trying to sell me this crap that half the country does not pay taxes they do. It is sickening that most people in this country, hell on this board, do not understand that. Originally Posted by WTF

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B72fbXDQ7Lg

Change the sentencing laws then instead of leaving it to a judge to decide which sentences to change. Just because they are smart enough to do so doesn't necessarily mean they want the hassle or responsibility of doing so.

C Originally Posted by Camille

The federal sentencing guidelines did this. And it was remarkably unsuccessful. The guidelines (for a while) mandated the term of the sentence, giving the judge little leeway. In some instances, the judge was forced to give harsher sentences than the cases deserved, the guidelines having taken away all leeway that was previously the purview of the judge.

Indeed, the drug sentence were so punitive the sentencing guidelines were uniformly despised, but they were created in an anti-drug political atmosphere by Congress and there was little that could be done about it.

Eventually, litigating the guidelines became an expertise all by itself.

Whereas, prior to the guidelines, judges could use their discretion to either enhance punishment or show leniency as the cases deserved, there was no such discretion after the guidelines. And the guidelines tend to fall on the harsher side of sentencing.

It's really a sad state of affairs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B72fbXDQ7Lg Originally Posted by pjorourke

Everyone pays taxes and dies.

PJ and a few other seem to think they are the only ones paying taxes and evidently will never meet their maker with that un-Godly 'tax the poor' crap!


Camille, briefly, this GOP tough on crime crap was really a lets get elected and spend stupid money on private jails so our rich friends can make a buck off the criminial justice system. It had worked wonderfully for them until we have run outta $. Just another way for the rich to transfer the wealth of this country.

I had hope that the Tea Party folks could see through this crap but they have become blinded by power just as the other two parties.

Missouri

http://www.newser.com/story/100918/m...entencing.html



– We all know the punishment should fit the crime, but what if the punishment costs too much? Along with sentencing guidelines and legal statutes, Missouri judges now have state-supplied information on the bottom line of what various sentencing scenarios will cost. They'd know, for instance, that a three-year sentence for child endangerment would cost $37,000, whereas probation would cost less than $7000



Originally Posted by WTF

Who cares how much it costs to incarcerate a person that would beat a child. (I realize it is the author’s example not your personal example WTF.) Abusers of children should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. How much is it going to cost society to manage a physically abused child as an adult? Weigh the costs? Yes, but what an ignorant example to drive the point home. Abusers of children should not be put on probation unless they are going to wear a sign that says “I beat kids.” because of the cost or for any reason actually.

Non-violent crimes I can see arbitrating based on among other things costs. Costs to incarcerate the convicted, and the overall cost to society to remove bread earning or supportive parent or spouse from a society are also factors to be weighed if cost is to be assessed in determining their sentence.

Everyone pays taxes and dies.

PJ and a few other seem to think they are the only ones paying taxes and evidently will never meet their maker with that un-Godly 'tax the poor' crap! Originally Posted by WTF

Federal taxes, excluding retirement contributions. Never said anything about local taxes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B72fbXDQ7Lg