Public Investment
When is it appropriate to use tax money?
During a discussion the person I was speaking with said
- I don't think taxpayers should be paying to start car and rocket companies, or to build them factories or spaceports, how
If billionaires want space ports and to build rockets let them use their own money or private capital. If it was a good investment private capital would fund these projects, but private capital expects actual returns.
Excellent point.
What ELSE should taxpayer money NOT be used for.
NASA is right out (rocket company and spaceports)
Car companies...that would be GMC...(sometimes called Government motors since the Obama Administration bailed them out. Chrysler too.
Speaking of 'bailed out'...how about the banks?
I have a little list (not so little actually) of things the government should NOT be paying for.
Do you?
Should NOT? I would say to add to lists. I would like the government to be not paying for long term welfare. Heck even short term for those who can't pass a drug test. If you are not able to be hired, then you are not able to rejoin the workforce and therefore are not eligible for unemployment benefits.
I would say NOT paying for special insurance that has been taken away from most of the country so that those in government and their extended families are forced to live with what they determined was good enough for the rest of the country.
Government should stick to the major responsibilities it was entrusted to in the beginning. Protecting the citizens who make up this great nation. The most urgent items being infrastructure, Renewable energy, military. Those three items could make this country so prosperous we could go back to being the best nation and send more aid to those in need etc.
I would love to help other countries get out of their economic mess, but I am true to myself and know that when your home is going broke, you have to cut off any expenses that dont help you get back to having a surplus. Without a surplus there is no money for the ice cream truck, for the neighbors, or for the special interest projects of those who would like to try to make this country better.
Hi @moneymanmike
I have had direct involvement with this. I was the city superintendent for a small town who had windmills connected directly to their electrical grid. Enough to run the entire town.
even though the town used more electricity during the day.
even though the town used more electricity summer and winter.
Right on ✌
You do not use fossil fuels at night, or in the spring or fall? The fact that you reduce the need on the lower end does not mean it is useless. If you can burn less fossil fuels, and/or increase battery capacity, then you will gain in the long term. In Indiana, we have windmills, they are beautiful. We have factories that work 24/7 so the power being created is being used. This is allowing the state to slow down and use the finite power sources for peak need, not for all need.
If your city built too many, maybe that is a problem, but then you should sell the power to other cities. Or work on storage facilities to harness a power source that will last for a great many years.
How long ago were the windmills installed? I am curious to learn about their efficiency, their longevity, and the cities ability to utilize them to their full potential.
Here is the original announcement from MPUA, the company that Rock Port purchases their electricity from.
It did save the city a few thousand dollars in wheeling fees, since the wind generators were connected directly to the city distribution. (There were no transmission charges...)
Some links for you to check out...
I will read them. I am glad the city has savings. I view wind as the 3rd best of the 3 major renewables. I plan to build a house and want to have geothermal ran through my floors for radiant heat/cooling as well as temperature stabilization for my pool, water heaters etc. If done correctly, should reduce energy demand by up to 75%. I would then add solar to offset the remaining. Add in a Tesla battery back or 2 and I will be able to be off the grid completely. Lastly, I would back up the entire house with a gasoline powered generator so that I could have a few hundred gallons of gas delivered, and use it to fuel up my mowers, cars etc. and just in case there is a time I don't generate quite enough.
I wish your city the best, and hopefully as prices of electricity continue to rise, the savings will therefore increase, and you will be proud of the decision.
That sounds like a good plan for your home! Best of luck with those projects.
60K a year is great savings for a little town. The problem is that they planned for 125% of the cities need, and the company that owns the windmills has the rights to sell the power to others, not your city. This is a flaw in the leasing and why I turned down that option when offered it here. If I am going to attempt to create extra capacity, I am not going to let someone else reap the benefits. the city should have planned for 75% of need, and added a solar farm at the airport like Indianapolis Airport did, or on top of government building etc. Create some power during day for when wind is slower. This sounds like it was someones pet project, or relative who was paid for the project, so they went all in without thinking about the consequences.
most urgent items being infrastructure, Renewable energy, military
you got one out of three right..
Which of those 3 are not right?
Renewables help reduce our dependence of foreign fossil fuels, and will save this country billions. That will help put this country back on a path to prosperity.
Infrastructure, maybe the most questionable, is part of the interstate commerce clause, and therefore should be partially covered by government.
Military is the main function of the government, although in the beginning each state had a militia, but I understand times have changed and we need a larger and more cohesive force.
ONE of those three is right.
guess which one.
I challenge you to explain which are not. Have some insight and share your own opinions instead of just asking others to argue with themselves.
you're no fun.
"how about you and him fight...I'll make popcorn'
but if you insist.
of the three listed only the military (and of that only the navy) is authorized by the constitution.
Maybe the only one authorized. But the Federal Gov spends millions if not billions on power. Why not spend some, and give them free power, and save our future tax dollars?
Without good infrastructure, this country will fail. Ideally this should be corrected by the states and the companies doing business in them, but without government, I guarantee wal-mart and costco would not be paying for our roads. There are some things that this country needs, and if they are done right, they are short term investments for long term payoffs. If the government only provided a Navy we would no longer be the United states of America. We need more, but you are correct in that the Wasted outnumbers the Useful in terms of their use of our taxpayer money that they take from us.
you make some assumptions.
think outside the box.
suppose we are not 'helped' by government but rather held back (regulations don't you know)
suppose that our degree of economic advancement is not BECAUSE of government but rather in spite of it.
Roads?
Why do we need roads?
Back in the day Autogyros, private planes, AirShips and other forms of aviation were..
...pretty much brought to a stop by the FAA...
wonder why that happened?
The Navy would do an adequate job of defending our shores...what other purpose does the military have?
Common defense and common disaster relief. That's about it.
Thought provoking as ever @everittdmickey
How about if we not spend taxpayer money on tax collection agencies?
eliminating tax collection agencies would eliminate taxes
and thus the term taxpayer.
"taxpayer money"
It is the taxpayer's money, not the governments...
I think that taxes should be invested only in an appropriate health system, in education, public safety, and in infrastructure works that are difficult for the private sector because of their greatness. And it should be noted that in many of these areas the private sector should collaborate. But the state should not spend our taxes on "luxuries" like the ones you mention.
I give you the example of my country, Venezuela, the socialist government uses our taxes for a large amount of subsidies that are useless, and in food, clothing and all kinds of companies, most of them in bankrupt because of corruption. A gigantic state that has destroyed Venezuela, and also expropriated thousands of companies, which caused the entire private sector to either leave the country or simply go to bankrupt.
The state has its important roles, but it must not be a company, much less use our taxes for nonsense.
appropriate health system, in education, public safety, and in infrastructure works
how well has that worked out?
Well, I don't know how this worked in the USA. At least in Venezuela, before socialism/communism, the society was not perfect, but our taxes were invested with focus in this four things, and we had a public (not free) good universities for instance, some of the best in Latinamerica. Also our public Hospitals were very good. (Naturally, existed some degrees of corruption as well). However, the Chavism used Venezuelans' taxes in many more ways than in those four branches, and obviously, quality was lost in the public domain. And when the taxes were not enough, there came a point when Chavism rose them, and they became a real burden on companies, with their obvious consequences.
won't those currently in power learn from past mistakes?
No, not at all. Venezuela had problems before Chavez's arrival, poverty was growing and corruption was high. However, the average Venezuelan had opportunities. With a good job a family had a high standard of living. There was an important middle class. And the poor could at least eat three times a day. When Socialism/Communism arrived, all the problems we already had were deepened. 20 years later there is no middle class, no businesses, 80% of Venezuelans eat once a day, or simply don't eat, there's nothing in the supermarkets, getting a flu medicine, something so simple, it's an odyssey. There is a reason why Venezuelans are fleeing the country: 2 million people left in 2017, and if Maduro remains in power, more than 10 million will leave before 2020, and the rest will starve to death.
And it's important to say that I've lived all this in my own flesh all these years. Many of my friends have already left the country because there are no opportunities. Some of us have been able to survive the crisis thanks to cryptocurrencies for example, some venezuelans receive remittances from abroad, but the vast majority are condemned to a salary of 5 dollars a month.
so what's gonna happen when everyone leaves or dies?
It is in the interests of Maduro that the people leave, because the vast majority of them are in opposition to this government. You probably watched in the news that last year there were strong protests in Venezuela. There were literally thousands of people in each city, but because of the military's support for Maduro, the unarmed population, and some "opposition" politicians who were traitors, Maduro was not overthrown.
I don't think all venezuelans gonna leave or die. But without a doubt Venezuela will end up in ruins or will be in a state of permanent backwardness like Cuba.
Btw Thanks for reading my comments. I never expected you were interested in the situation of my Country haha
unarmed population
that might be a clue.
You're welcome.
Thanks for sharing your first hand knowledge of the results of following socialist policies. Everyone in USA should be interested in the situation in your country. We are on the same political path your country followed and more and more people here think it leads to Utopia. Everyone needs to learn what you know about socialist governments.
hello, i have followed your votes for you, you follow my votes
somewhat yes , but government depended on texes
how are taxes different from theft?
yes it is
that's not what I asked.
I asked HOW it was different.
to many different
don't be shy.
Use whole sentences even
somewhat yes
If taxes are not theft, then why can I not choose to pay at the end of the year? I am forced to have them come from every paycheck. When my wife was a contractor, she was forced to pay in advance each quarter of what she hoped to earn. If she did not, or if she made more than she thought, she would be fined and penalized. Taxes did not exist before the war, and were supposed to be short term. Our government was never supposed to have their hands so deep in our pockets that we had to depend on them to give us scraps back. We need to go back to the good old days where the government issued bonds to get cash, and used trade surplus to fund itself. Let the states have more than 0-5% of income taxes and the fed only get 5%. Let states make the decisions and let the people decide. I bet I would move my family to a state that followed my values and let the 5% fund military, interstate highways, and,well, that is it. The states could handle the rest.
Our government gave HOLDEN (GMH) $250 million smackeroos to provide an electric "VOLT" vehicle.
I ain't seen one and Holden have closed down their manufacturing.
Nice BONUS for them courtesy of the TAXpayer..
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-08/governments-urged-to-stop-giving-money-to-holden/4617060
I've been reading about what's going on in Oz lately.
you guys have had it rough.
Ever since you banned guns it's gone from bad to worse.
... but we are so apathetic.. pro gun friends here, just shake their head at the absurdity :)
Sports Stadiums and lotteries.
Especially lotteries. I'm not against lotteries. Free choice, and I play myself occasionally, but I don't believe they are truly beneficial to society as a whole, so why are the people supposedly responsible for the benefit of society running lotteries? Just goes to show govt. isn't actually on the side of the citizens.
very well said sir...tax payers money should go to the tax payers like us.
how about lower taxes?