Buffett Offers GOP Donation Challenge

[Packer16]

High redistribution is high tax rates to overpay for services and benefits and thus the state has to skimp on baisc services they are expected to provide.  I do not know why the state is going to fund the white elephant train system when the basic roads in parts of the state are in disrepair.  Just because you pay high taxes does not mean they are being effectively used and the effective use needs to be highlighted and monitored.  Michael Lewis also has a good description of what happens when towns overpay for services just look at San Jose and Vallejo.

 

Packer

[zippy1]

High redistribution is high tax rates to overpay for services and benefits and thus the state has to skimp on baisc services they are expected to provide.  I do not know why the state is going to fund the white elephant train system when the basic roads in parts of the state are in disrepair.  Just because you pay high taxes does not mean they are being effectively used and the effective use needs to be highlighted and monitored.  Michael Lewis also has a good description of what happens when towns overpay for services just look at San Jose and Vallejo.

 

Packer

 

I lived 16 years in both Austin and Dallas, Texas and if I remember correctly, the sales tax rate is above 8% and the property tax rate is the 2.5-3.0% of house value.  However, there is no state income tax.

 

What are the sales tax rate and property tax rate in CA? Isn't CA has a very low property tax rate for house? I wonder if CA should abondon income tax and start tax houses at 2.5%-3% of the house value like Texas?!

[Packer16]

CA and NY are both very high everything tax.  The rate may be lower but the properties are worth more so the state/munis still raise lots of money.  My only point is the states with alot of taxes do not necessarily have more/better services much of that difference goes to higher paid state employees and re-distributive transfer payments.  In my mind it becomes a problem when basic services are not being provided to fund higly paid employees, transfer payments and other nice to have projects.  California is the perfect example and the Feds are also heading that way.  One question you need to ask is pubic service service or time to get overpaid because your employer is a not informed monopolist?

 

Packer   

[zippy1]

CA and NY are both very high everything tax.  The rate may be lower but the properties are worth more so the state/munis still raise lots of money.  My only point is the states with alot of taxes do not necessarily have more/better services much of that difference goes to higher paid state employees and re-distributive transfer payments.  In my mind it becomes a problem when basic services are not being provided to fund higly paid employees, transfer payments and other nice to have projects.  California is the perfect example and the Feds are also heading that way.  One question you need to ask is pubic service service or time to get overpaid because your employer is a not informed monopolist?

 

Packer 

 

I guess that is the reason why some people are leaving NY and CA and moving to places like TX.  People do have some control about which state they live in order to minimize their state tax. 

 

However, I used to work in a major semiconductor company in north TX.  We always try to recruit from silicon valley.  However, my understanding is that it was very hard to recruit people from CA to TX even with the much lower tax rate and much lower cost of living.

 

CA probably will keep charging people current level of high tax rate so long as it can continue to attract enough poeple to come or to stay.

[ERICOPOLY]

The country is interesting. 

 

We spend the most on defense yet we don't have peace.

 

We spend the most on health care by a massive margin yet we're not the healthiest. 

 

 

On March 1, 2010, billionaire investor Warren Buffett said that the high costs paid by U.S. companies for their employees’ health care put them at a competitive disadvantage. He compared the roughly 17% of GDP spent by the U.S. on health care with the 9% of GDP spent by much of the rest of the world, noted that the U.S. has fewer doctors and nurses per person, and said, “[t]hat kind of a cost, compared with the rest of the world, is like a tapeworm eating at our economic body.”

 

The CIA World Factbook ranked the United States 41st in the world for infant mortality rate[117] and 46th for total life expectancy.[118] A study found that between 1997 and 2003, preventable deaths declined more slowly in the United States than in 18 other industrialized nations.[119] For example, the United States was listed as 37th for life expectancy and 41st in low birth weight.[120]

The U.S. stands 50th in the world for a life expectancy of 78.37. Australia, the first major country on the list stands ninth with a life expectancy of 81.81.

 

source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States

 

 

 

[Guest Hester]

The country is interesting. 

 

We spend the most on defense yet we don't have peace.

 

 

Good point on healthcare but as far as defense, we have peace in our homeland, or as close to peace as you can get in a country with 300 million people. There hasn't been a full war fought on American soil since the civil war. In fact this modern global era has been the most peaceful in all of human history relative to how many people there are.

 

The brown people we bomb don't have peace, but the American people very much do.

 

 

[ERICOPOLY]

Opponents claim that socialized medicine would require higher taxes but international comparisons do not support this. The ratio of public to private spending on health is lower in the U.S than that of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, or any EU country. Yet the per capita tax funding of health in those countries is already lower than that of the United States.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicine

 

In fact here are the health expenditures per capita for 2008:

 

United States:  $7,164

Canada:          $3,867

France:            $3,851

Australia:        $3,365

New Zealand:  $2,655

 

source:

http://www.globalhealthfacts.org/data/topic/map.aspx?ind=66

 

[ERICOPOLY]

The country is interesting. 

 

We spend the most on defense yet we don't have peace.

 

 

Good point on healthcare but as far as defense, we have peace in our homeland, or as close to peace as you can get in a country with 300 million people. There hasn't been a full war fought on American soil since the civil war. In fact this modern global era has been the most peaceful in all of human history relative to how many people there are.

 

The brown people we bomb don't have peace, but the American people very much do.

 

Same can be said for Mexico and Canada.  And Australia/New Zealand.

 

It helps to not be within marching distance of Germany.

[shalab]

noted that the U.S. has fewer doctors and nurses per person

 

You can thank the American Medical Association for that - it is a cartel that keeps the supply of doctors artificially low. There are plenty of doctors from around the world who are willing to come to the U.S; go through the residency program and serve the people at a fraction of the current cost.

 

[ERICOPOLY]

2009 defense figures:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures_per_capita

 

US:        $2,141

Australia:  $893

Canada:    $560

Germany: $558

 

 

[ERICOPOLY]

Were we to match Australia in health care and defense spending, we would save $5,047 per capita.

 

That's $1.57 Trillion!  (estimated 311 million people in the US)

 

Annually!

 

[Guest Hester]

The country is interesting. 

 

We spend the most on defense yet we don't have peace.

 

 

Good point on healthcare but as far as defense, we have peace in our homeland, or as close to peace as you can get in a country with 300 million people. There hasn't been a full war fought on American soil since the civil war. In fact this modern global era has been the most peaceful in all of human history relative to how many people there are.

 

The brown people we bomb don't have peace, but the American people very much do.

 

Same can be said for Mexico and Canada.  And Australia/New Zealand.

 

It helps to not be within marching distance of Germany.

 

True

[ERICOPOLY]

Then of course we spend an average of $91,700 per student between the ages of six and fifteen.  Imagine how much costs we should be able to save there.

 

That's the second highest level of spending in the OECD, yet our 15 yr old kids rank 15th in reading, 19th in math, and 14th in science.

 

It appears that we spend about 30% more than we need to in order to be 15th ranked in spending (to match our results).

 

 

And on the global playing field, the "We're No. 1" honors go to Finland, Japan and Korea - places where the football spurring deep passions is round, not oblong. Finland, Japan and Korea were the top finishers in an OECD (www.oecd.org) study that measured 265,000 15-year-olds' literacy in reading, mathematics and science (see charts accompanying this feature).

        U.S. fans fed up with the BCS may find little comfort in the OECD rankings. The apropos U.S. refrain would run something like, "We're No. . . . Ah, 'Bout Average, Dude, . . . Whatever." U.S. students finished 15th in reading, 19th in math and 14th in science - and in a study that only ranked 31 nations.

 

 

Worse, out of 34 OECD countries, only 8 have a lower high school graduation rate. The United States' education outcomes most resemble Poland's, a nation that spends less than half on education than the U.S.

 

http://mercatus.org/publication/k-12-spending-student-oecd

 

http://www.siteselection.com/ssinsider/snapshot/sf011210.htm

 

If America Spends More Than Most Countries Per Student, Then Why Are Its Schools So Bad?

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-education-spending-compared-to-the-rest-of-the-developed-world-2012-1?nr_email_referer=1

 

 

[Guest Hester]

Well... if we're talking wasteful government spending with outcomes opposite the intended results, the prize would go to marijuana criminalization. 

 

 

$14 billion is spent on marijuana enforcement each year.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/36600923/The_Cost_and_Benefit_Arguments_Around_Enforcement

A report endorsed by a large group (500 including Milton Friedman) of economists estimates the US could raise $10-14 billion in tax revenue each year if marijuana was legalized. http://www.prohibitioncosts.org

 

That's at least $24 billion each year (For comparison, a favorite GOP talking point is to eliminate the EPA, whose budget is $9 billion per year). This is before the cost to jail people convicted of marijuana related crimes.

 

This is also before the health care savings, which would be large over the long term, as some people would shift their recreational drug use from alchohol to marijuana. Weed is less addictive than alchohol (25% as addictive), has substantially less long term negative side effects, has a higher lethal dose to effective dose and thus no deaths directly attributed to consumption (Weed: 50,000 to one, impossible to overdose. Alchohol: 5-9 to one, 3000 alchohol poisoning deaths annually, 50,000 hospitalizations), and substantially less deaths from driving accidents, as it is safer to drive high on marijuana than drunk (States that legalized medical marijuana saw car accidents drop by 9% versus states that did not legalize  http://healthland.time.com/2011/12/02/why-medical-marijuana-laws-reduce-traffic-deaths ).

 

 

Despite all the costs, the intention to stop marijuana use has completely failed. The US has the highest rate of marijuana use among developed nations. Compared to the Netherlands for example, which has extremely lax drug laws and is home to famous weed haven Amsterdam, the US has over twice the percentage of people who have tried marijuana and nearly twice the percentage of people who have used in the last month. (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/67  #12)

 

Of course defense and entitlement waste is huge on an absolute dollar basis, but at least some portion of the total spending goes towards legitimately useful things.

[ERICOPOLY]

Well... if we're talking wasteful government spending with outcomes opposite the intended results, the prize would go to marijuana criminalization. 

 

 

$14 billion is spent on marijuana enforcement each year.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/36600923/The_Cost_and_Benefit_Arguments_Around_Enforcement

A report endorsed by a large group (500 including Milton Friedman) of economists estimates the US could raise $10-14 billion in tax revenue each year if marijuana was legalized. http://www.prohibitioncosts.org

 

That's at least $24 billion each year (For comparison, a favorite GOP talking point is to eliminate the EPA, whose budget is $9 billion per year). This is before the cost to jail people convicted of marijuana related crimes.

 

This is also before the health care savings, which would be large over the long term, as some people would shift their recreational drug use from alchohol to marijuana. Weed is less addictive than alchohol (25% as addictive), has substantially less long term negative side effects, has a higher lethal dose to effective dose and thus no deaths directly attributed to consumption (Weed: 50,000 to one, impossible to overdose. Alchohol: 5-9 to one, 3000 alchohol poisoning deaths annually, 50,000 hospitalizations), and substantially less deaths from driving accidents, as it is safer to drive high on marijuana than drunk (States that legalized medical marijuana saw car accidents drop by 9% versus states that did not legalize  http://healthland.time.com/2011/12/02/why-medical-marijuana-laws-reduce-traffic-deaths ).

 

 

Despite all the costs, the intention to stop marijuana use has completely failed. The US has the highest rate of marijuana use among developed nations. Compared to the Netherlands for example, which has extremely lax drug laws and is home to famous weed haven Amsterdam, the US has over twice the percentage of people who have tried marijuana and nearly twice the percentage of people who have used in the last month. (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/67  #12)

 

Of course defense and entitlement waste is huge on an absolute dollar basis, but at least some portion of the total spending goes towards legitimately useful things.

 

Any guesses on how much we waste on prosecuting prostitution?  How much lost tax revenue there?

 

There are tons of countries that have legalized prostitution and the societies are perfectly fine. No crumbling morals whatsoever.  Just look at Australia -- the place is a nice clean country to visit.  A great place to raise a family.

 

We just waste money left and right.  Mostly right.

 

 

[alpha231616967560]

Well... if we're talking wasteful government spending with outcomes opposite the intended results, the prize would go to marijuana criminalization. 

 

$14 billion is spent on marijuana enforcement each year.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/36600923/The_Cost_and_Benefit_Arguments_Around_Enforcement

A report endorsed by a large group (500 including Milton Friedman) of economists estimates the US could raise $10-14 billion in tax revenue each year if marijuana was legalized. http://www.prohibitioncosts.org

 

That's at least $24 billion each year (For comparison, a favorite GOP talking point is to eliminate the EPA, whose budget is $9 billion per year). This is before the cost to jail people convicted of marijuana related crimes.

 

This is also before the health care savings, which would be large over the long term, as some people would shift their recreational drug use from alchohol to marijuana. Weed is less addictive than alchohol (25% as addictive), has substantially less long term negative side effects, has a higher lethal dose to effective dose and thus no deaths directly attributed to consumption (Weed: 50,000 to one, impossible to overdose. Alchohol: 5-9 to one, 3000 alchohol poisoning deaths annually, 50,000 hospitalizations), and substantially less deaths from driving accidents, as it is safer to drive high on marijuana than drunk (States that legalized medical marijuana saw car accidents drop by 9% versus states that did not legalize  http://healthland.time.com/2011/12/02/why-medical-marijuana-laws-reduce-traffic-deaths ).

 

Despite all the costs, the intention to stop marijuana use has completely failed. The US has the highest rate of marijuana use among developed nations. Compared to the Netherlands for example, which has extremely lax drug laws and is home to famous weed haven Amsterdam, the US has over twice the percentage of people who have tried marijuana and nearly twice the percentage of people who have used in the last month. (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/67  #12)

 

Of course defense and entitlement waste is huge on an absolute dollar basis, but at least some portion of the total spending goes towards legitimately useful things.

 

I am also an advocate for legalizing marijuana. I always refer back to the William F. Buckley article "The War on Drugs is Lost".

 

But for me, the other ludicrous portion of marijuana being illegal is that hemp (the workhorse brother of marijuana which contains no magic juju) is also guilty by association. This costs our culture a lot since hemp is cheap (requires no herbicide, little pesticide and generally is among the first plants to grow in a clearcut forest) to grow and its uses are manifold - paper, textiles, plastic, food. In fact the first American currency was printed on hemp, but the cotton lobby won in the end and it was made illegal.

 

The good news is that it does seem to me that marijuana is headed for blanket legalization in the next decade or so based on the number of states that have been writing more and more accommodating laws for medical marijuana.

 

[beerbaron]

As a Canadian what bother's me is that Marijuana is still illegal here by default. Diplomatically there is no way the US would allow it's northern cousin to legalize drugs if the US spends gazillions of dollars fighting it.

 

BeerBaron

[Guest Hester]

 

I am also an advocate for legalizing marijuana. I always refer back to the William F. Buckley article "The War on Drugs is Lost".

 

But for me, the other ludicrous portion of marijuana being illegal is that hemp (the workhorse brother of marijuana which contains no magic juju) is also guilty by association. This costs our culture a lot since hemp is cheap (requires no herbicide, little pesticide and generally is among the first plants to grow in a clearcut forest) to grow and its uses are manifold - paper, textiles, plastic, food. In fact the first American currency was printed on hemp, but the cotton lobby won in the end and it was made illegal.

 

The good news is that it does seem to me that marijuana is headed for blanket legalization in the next decade or so based on the number of states that have been writing more and more accommodating laws for medical marijuana.

 

Hemp is maybe the most ridiculous legislation in America.

 

I think there's still a long way to go with legalization. Medical marijuana legalization is a good start, but I shouldn't have to be sick and/or have to see a doctor if I want that three day old pizza to taste a little bit better for a couple of hours.

 

Denver was the first city to legalize marijuana in 2005, you can possess up to an ounce (which is a lot), but federal laws override all non-medical marijuana state legalization laws. That's the problem. Ron Paul and Barney Frank were trying to introduce marijuana legalization at the federal level. If Paul's record of getting legislation passed is any clue about the future, I wouldn't get your hopes up.

[Guest Hester]

Any guesses on how much we waste on prosecuting prostitution?  How much lost tax revenue there?

 

There are tons of countries that have legalized prostitution and the societies are perfectly fine. No crumbling morals whatsoever.  Just look at Australia -- the place is a nice clean country to visit.  A great place to raise a family.

 

We just waste money left and right.  Mostly right.

 

No idea on the number, but I agree 100%. Those who have read the Freakonomics books will know that at least in Chicago, a police officer is more likely to solicit a prostitute than arrest one. Talk about ineffective big government legislation!

 

While we're at it, LSD should probably be legal too. The case isn't as strong as marijuana, but the long term negative effects are weak, or comparable to some legal drugs like alchohol. The lethal dose to effective dose is 1000 to 1, so no overdoses, and it is one of the least addictive drugs, less than marijuana even. Steve Jobs said taking it was one of his best decisions in life. We probably wouldn't have the Iphone without it. Francis Crick discovered the double helix structure of DNA while on LSD. I'd say those are some decent enough contributions to society to at least warrant some consideration.

 

The legislation and culture around drugs in the US is a joke. I've seen people smoking a cigarette, while drinking an energy drink, on their way to a bar, saying they will never touch drugs.

 

Part of the problem is the drug education programs in schools pool the milder illegal drugs with the horrible drugs, under the "all is bad" category. The truth is not so cut and dry.

[biaggio]

"While we're at it, LSD should probably be legal too. The case isn't as strong as marijuana, but the long term negative effects are weak, or comparable to some legal drugs like alchohol."

 

Hester, I always enjoy your post.

 

I think you re going over the line on this one.