Should there be room in government policy for empathy and compassion?

I find no evidence of Reagan closing down any IRS offices. If they exist, please source.

Reagan increased the federal debt by $1.6 billion in 8 years. Obama grew it by $9.5 billion over the same period.
Other facts you need to know. Cut from CNN Money
There were other notable tax increases under Reagan.

In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees.

The tax reform of 1986, meanwhile, wasn't designed to increase federal tax revenue. But that didn't mean that no one's taxes went up. Because the reform bill eliminated or reduced many tax breaks and shelters, high-income tax filers who previously paid little ended up with bigger tax bills.

"Some of these taxpayers were substantial contributors to the Republican Party and to the president's re-election campaign, and had direct access to the White House. Reagan rebuffed their pleas," wrote J. Roger Mentz, the Treasury assistant secretary for tax policy in 1986, in a Tax Notes commentary last year.

 

The problem is that we have empathetic collectivist morals of the liberals and individualistic morals of conservatives. Both in my opinion are just emotional ideologies that aren't always completely rational. The best approach is for the government to benefit its people. That means sometimes using progressive taxes to fund things like education, healthcare, childcare and retirement. That also means not becoming a welfare state because this state will actually hurt the people from high taxes and a poor business environment.

 

You mean who decides who's deserving of his compassion and who isn't? Duh! In this case, would you believe - me??? Jesus wept!

 

Too bad you don't understand common sense. I didn't say these were bad things for society. I said they were bad to put in the control of federal government. We should return to being a union of states as outlined in the constitution. All of these things were assigned by the constitution to the states. The mess we see in the federal government today results from it doing things it shouldn't do. The closer things occur to the voters, the better.

Federal government should protect the safety and freedom of the citizens, deal with other countries, handle interstate problems and provide a currency. Everything else belongs somewhere else.

 

Blind compassion no, compassion for a good reason yes.

For instance, the death penalty costs a fkn lot of money because of judicial challenges and onerous requirements. You'd get rid of it not really for the benefit of those on death row, but that is a consequence of abolishing the death penalty.

Compassion alone is not enough.

 

What someone considers compassion is hard to define. Some policies have enabled some families to remain in poverty for generations. Some say this is much the same as providing heroin to a heroin addict. It helps in the short term but is that the goal? These hand out benefits rarely help in the long run. They just preserve the status quo.

I see some are also saying Social Security benefits, unemployment benefits, and veteran's benefits are due to government compassion. This is bull. These benefits are all paid for by those who receive the benefit. They take money out of your paycheck to pay for these. In truth, if this same money was put in a 401K the recipient would be far better off. SS is in reality just another excuse for the government to get in our pockets. The benefit does not match the costs. The veteran's benefits are paid for in blood. Far more valuable than money.

I see so called compassion benefits like some tax deductions as winners. They allow the earner to keep a little more of what they earn. This is giving a helping hand not a hand out. Benefits that are worked for are a winner. Benefits that are doled out are for losers. Why encourage someone to continue being a loser? That is not compassion. Doing things that make you feel good but do not help long term don't really help.

I find it strange that anyone would consider the student load program a form of compassion. Handing out larger quantities to money to people who do not understand financing, leaving them deeply in debt is not a benefit. In my day, people worked their way through college. You gained job experience and learned the value of a buck. Came out owing little and knowing how to work.

I do agree that education is key to escaping poverty. We also see as our poverty rate goes up the quality of education goes down. Just a couple of decades ago America lead the world in educational excellence. Now testing places us at something like 180th. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that we are doing something wrong. I think it would be compassionate to stand up to the teachers union and make them give our kids what we are paying for.

 

I won't vote till that "e" word is replaced with "sympathy," which I think is what is meant.

We "empathize" with robbery victims if we have been robbed ourselves.

 

Are you seriously telling me you feel compassion for a serial child abuser/killer? Supposing that child was yours, would you feel sorry for the scumbag then? If it were up to me, that scumbag wouldn't be around to feel sorry for! He'd be dead meat.

 

I feel sorry for anyone living in a cage. That would suck ****.

Even if you don't feel something for him, everyone is a son, a brother, a spouse - you've got to at least feel for those around the criminal.

My point was that despite my sympathy for the situation, **** you you've forefit your life by your actions.

I myself, no matter what you do, no matter if you are literally Hitler, I'm always willing to permit you a 12 gauge slug to the brain stem. I have no interest in flaying alive or any other execution method by govt. Causing pain is not the goal. You don't torture rats, you just kill them quickly and painlessly.

The current system is a joke. It costs tens of millions and causes unnecessary pain. Just blow their brains out after their appeal fails. Problem solved.

 

Ah now I see what you mean, and I apologise for my intemperate post. Yep, blow their brains out, and I'm just the man who'd do it without a second thought.

 

It was $200m. He's now worth approx $3.1bn. So he self made $2.9bn.

 

It's worth noting in this regard that stories abound of kids inheriting daddy's money and urinating it away. The numbers are incredible. 70% blow it. And it just gets worse in succeeding generations.

Indeed, 70% of wealthy families lose their wealth by the second generation, and a stunning 90% by the third, according to the Williams Group Wealth Consultancy.

When I asked financial planners why the wealthy are so poor at passing along money smarts and why second- and third-generation heirs turn out to be so ham-handed, the answers were surprisingly frank.

A sampling: “Most of them have no clue as to the value of money or how to handle it.” “Generation Threes are usually doomed.” “It takes the average recipient of an inheritance 19 days until they buy a new car.

https://amp-timeinc-net.cdn.ampproj...errer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s

 

That is interesting if true. However, my own experiences tell me different. I know several farmers who are 4th or 5th generation and still working the farm. I have also had friends or worked with people who had a family business for 3 or 4 generations. Some of them did not work in the business, but they were smart enough to have good managers who kept them profitable. The article does say "investable income" I guess that possibly could mean cash and not property. It also does not state what amount is considered "wealthy". Is it 10 mil or 250K. It would be pretty easy to go through 250K or a half mil. You buy a home and it is gone. To me it looks more like a propaganda that an investment outfit would put out to get control over your money rather than give it directly to your kids. This article also does not talk about age. If you wait until you die to distribute it to your children, they may be in their 60s or 70s themselves. People at this age may well say, I am going to buy a retirement home or live it up the for the time I have left.

On another note, I look at myself. I am fairly well off. All my children are well educated and financially secure on their own. I am not a guy who believes in hoarding his money until he dies then letting the kids fight over it. I paid for all their education and gave them a nice chunk when they purchased their first homes. I also max out the tax free gift every year. This way your children are not getting it all in one big lump and thinking they have all the money they will ever need. If you give it to them in installments at a time in their lives when they actually need money it is put to better use.

 

No easy answer. The ones who get any amount in installments run the risk of getting comfortable. As for the story, even if the statistic is exaggerated, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence, that we are all familiar with, of kids growing up in the shadow of dad's fortune and blowing it. "Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations " is an old saw that predates that study.

And it should be expected. There are few people with the intelligence and drive to build a fortune. Growing up rich kills that drive in too many cases. It probably would have killed my own, LOL.

Trump claims that his dad took him to work with him at an early age. I think the Trump kids have been carefully instructed in wealth management. Time will tell ....

 

I think you are correct. A lot of this is probably determined by how you are raised. If you are raised thinking the world revolves around you and don't learn the value of a buck, then money is just something to spend. People like this think there will always be more. However, I don't think many of that kind of people exist. I think kids learn work ethic from their parents. If you see your dad busting his buns and achieving, you are likely to do the same. You as a parent are also responsible to teach your children that things that are earned are the best things. For example, a kid that is made to pay part of the expense of buying a car, then made to pay the insurance and upkeep, will cherish and care for that vehicle. Sports help too. Teach your kids to be competitive. Competitive people don't like to lose at anything. They have a natural drive.