Interesting that you'd bring this up. The federal pork trasfer of $1 Billion that
was announced on Sunday to "bridge the digital divide" references an
"access@home" program as a part of its underpinning.
---snip:
LISC/NEF and One Economy Launch $1 Billion Initiative to Bridgethe Digital
Divide; Sen. Hillary Clinton Helps Unveil Initiative
NEW YORK, Aug. 7 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Efforts to close the technological gap
between America's haves and have-nots will get a boost this week. Local
Initiatives Support Corp. (LISC) and its subsidiary the National Equity Fund
(NEF) are partnering with One Economy to launch "access@home," a $1 billion
initiative that will build more than 15,000 affordable homes with high-speed
digital Internet connectivity and provide low-income families personal access to
computers and technology services. The initiative expects to connect nearly
100,000 people to the vast advantage of the Internet.
---end snip
It makes for some interesting reading for those of you tracking where your tax
dollars are going. I'd be interested in reading some comments on this initiative,
either on the board or by email.
I remember @home.com as being one of the defunct domains for which we
always had outbound e-mail queued.
But exactly how is this bill related to the domain name sale other
than the fact that your press release snippet contains the text
string "access@home?" Your post doesn't make that clear.
Our government spends money on myriad of initiatives. Conservatives
like to decry government spending as a total waste of resources.
Keep in mind that every dollar spent by the government goes back
into the economy, whether it be money to the oil industry (ala
the new Energy Bill, money to Halliburton for Iraq operations),
or low-income housing. The point is that the money goes back to
citizens in the form of jobs, subsidized purchases (which help
business sell items and services and create more jobs), or in the
form of tax breaks to extremely wealthy individuals. Contrary to
the rhetoric, the money doesn't vanish down a sinkhole.
matthew black
california state university, long beach
Note: The opinions stated herein represent only myself and other
like-minded individuals and may not represent my employer.
Let's let the government fix everything. Hold on, hasn't that been tried
already? Oh yeah the USSR. That was a blazing success.
Conservatives generally aren't against the government helping in areas NO
ONE ELSE CAN. It is obvious to everyone involved that the government largely
screws up these sorts of "initiatives" and most of the money ends up wasted
anyways. It's these pork projects that kill us.
Wasted? Please elaborate. It's not like the money vanishes. The money
goes somewhere, usually to pay non-government salaries.
Corporate Amerika is wasteful too: WorldCom, Global Crossing, Enron,
and Halliburton. These are companies that hurt the lives of
millions of Americans, including 40,000,000 citizens of California who
pay double the national average for electricity because Enron gamed the
system. We pay 15 cents per kilowatt! That wasn't completely the
government's fault.
matthew black
california state university, long beach
Note: Options expressed are mine and do not necessarily represent
my employer.
OK. Wasted was a poor choice of words, but even if the money does get back
to the people in some way, it is not doing so in a way that really
accomplishes something. Private companies do not invest in something that
will not have a return that benefits them. Political spending sometimes will
have no return other than political capital.
It's like buying candy. You can buya a ton of it, and either eat it or give
it away, but in the end it will be gone and very little will be accomplished
other than the kids who now love you for doing it.
So wasted was a bad term to use. How about used with little return if any.
It's kind of funny that people keep making these general claims as
though the money is wasted or goes to some unproductive purpose.
Personally, I don't consider subsidized housing for the lower-class
to be wasteful or a misuse of money.
I wonder how many people who decry wasteful government spending
would consider road and highway construction a waste of money.
If traffic moves to slow to work for your pleasure, get a job
closer to home or vice versa. After all, this is the land of
opportunity and nobody FORCED you to buy a home far from work.
Highway spending is all government financed, but few complain
about that as a waste.
Funny, when government spends money on something from which
an individual doesn't receive an immediate and personal gain
and suddenly it's labeled a government pork project.
As far as people looking to government to solve some social
ills and inequities, I don't see many people volunteering their
income to help the less fortunate. Many people seem to have money
to burn when donating to their favorite P.A.C. or a nonprofit
"charity" that sponsors their child's sports or music program.
What about donating money to something from which they receive
NO individual gain?
I live in a collective society and accept the fact that some
government spending does not improve my neighborhood. If government
cancelled programs to which there was any objection, nothing would
ever get accomplished.
Discussion of government spending often spins into a discussion
of simplifying the tax code or attempts to make it fairer. Keep
in mind that almost all of the tax code consists of rules lobbied
by and for corporate Amerika. Very little of the income tax code
applies to individuals. As to the fairness question, most of the
lower and middle class class are in a higher marginal tax bracket
than the well-to-do. The latter get a 7.6% marginal tax break
(no FICA or Medicare). So the middle class pay 32.6%; the wealthy
pay 20% or less. Talk about disincentives!
matthew black
california state university, long beach
Note: Opinions expressed herein are totally mine and may not
represent those of my employer.
[I know, I know, don't feed the trolls. But some are just too
cute not to. Just this once.]
Matthew Black wrote:
It's kind of funny that people keep making these general claims as
though the money is wasted or goes to some unproductive purpose.
Personally, I don't consider subsidized housing for the lower-class
to be wasteful or a misuse of money.
I wonder how many people who decry wasteful government spending
would consider road and highway construction a waste of money.
> If traffic moves to slow to work for your pleasure, get a job
> closer to home or vice versa. After all, this is the land of
> opportunity and nobody FORCED you to buy a home far from work.
> Highway spending is all government financed, but few complain
> about that as a waste.
Funny you should say that with the pork laden highway bill
that just went through Congress. There were 6371 individual
special (i.e. pork) projects in the huge bill. I'd say spending
$223 million to build one of the largest bridges in the country
to an island Alaska with 50 residents is a severe misallocation
of limited resources.
That kind of spending IS a waste.
Discussion of government spending often spins into a discussion
of simplifying the tax code or attempts to make it fairer. Keep
in mind that almost all of the tax code consists of rules lobbied
by and for corporate Amerika. Very little of the income tax code
applies to individuals. As to the fairness question, most of the
lower and middle class class are in a higher marginal tax bracket
than the well-to-do. The latter get a 7.6% marginal tax break
(no FICA or Medicare). So the middle class pay 32.6%; the wealthy
pay 20% or less. Talk about disincentives!
It matters how you look at income taxes (figures never lie, but
liars figure). The top 3% of earners pay about 40% of all income
taxes. The top 1/12% pay about 10% of the taxes. Why do the super
rich guys want a flat tax? And the other obvious problem, you pay
a lot of taxes, probably more than you realize, besides income tax.
It matters how you look at income taxes (figures never lie, but
liars figure). The top 3% of earners pay about 40% of all income
taxes. The top 1/12% pay about 10% of the taxes. Why do the super
rich guys want a flat tax? And the other obvious problem, you pay
a lot of taxes, probably more than you realize, besides income tax.
The top few percent will pay a lower _percentage_ of their income to the government in tax than a middle earner would (a high earner will typically save more, or in other words their marginal propensity to save is higher) - they are also able to save more and afford better accountants who will help them avoid paying tax !
In the UK, income tax is hugely regressive - a middle earner may end up paying 51% of some proportion of their income in direct tax alone (combining NHIS contributions and income tax) - this then falls to 41% (combined) when the NHIS contributions hit a certain level. The tax burden on high earners is further reduced when one considers that indirect sales tax in the UK is 17.5%.
