I'm all for free unicorn rides and hot chocolate fountains in every town square. At least as long as they don't cost anything. Free walls to while we are at it.

Overwhelming support of free stuff doesn't mean much. It is when you have to pay you see what people are really interested in.

I'm real tired of entitled dicks who say they have the "right" to everything; but expect me to bear the "responsibility" (aka cost) of providing it by having the gov't take my hard earned money and give it to them.

Add paid leave to the a la carte menu of benefits employees can choose - with premiums - and see how many choose it. At least do something to gauge true demand before you create another federally-mandated, taxpayer-funded entitlement program that sounds good but has potentially-catastrophic unintended consequences.

People just don't understand taxes and taxpayer-funded programs. They tend to be a bit muddled in their thinking about taxes - thinking the tax hikes to pay for more programs will always be on the other guy.

I worked with a guy who insisted people should be taxed on their ability to pay and that there should be no "loopholes for the rich" to avoid taxes. Then, he bragged about shopping regularly on drugstore.com to avoid sales taxes.

I've got an 80-something uncle who travels to Europe regularly and raves about the healthcare in socialized (not necessarily socialist) countries - that "doesn't cost the patient anything." Um Unc, the tax rate there is over 40% just to pay for those programs that don't cost the beneficiary anything. He praises those high-tax-rate benefits while condemning the lack of tax breaks in his home state and ranting about how high his property tax is.

How is it that people think things like this are "free." There is a cost for everything. The question is, who will bear the cost? We can't "just pay for it."

A great deal of economic activity in Europe is diverted from production-related activities - manufacturing, marketing, finance, etc. - and dedicated to tax avoidance. Imagine how much more productive Europe's economy could be if companies could hire more technicians and fewer tax accountants.

A few years ago, I worked for a consulting company in the US that was opening a "tax strategy" practice, to help companies minimize their tax burden. We were going to make millions at it. Imagine how much more money would pour in to the economy if those millions could be used to fund growth-related activities or invest in new business ventures like new software products, new product launches, research and development, etc.

One of the benefits of Reagan's '80s tax reforms was that millions became available for investment by companies and venture capitalists. It took a while for that to pay off, but when it did, we employed more people and grew our economy at record rates. Even if a subsequent president was able to claim a great deal fo the credit, he was smart enough to not kill the golden goose.

In a quasi-aeronautical analogy, any additional cost on the productive engines of the economy creates drag. We're willing and able to accommodate a certain amount of drag endemic to the system in the form of employee pay, costs of goods sold, taxes to provide basic government services, etc. because that drag is a product of the lift being generated.

How much total drag those engines can withstand and still produce enough lift to keep the economy aloft is the question. The answer to that question is different for every economy. What works for Europe may not work for the US.

>> How is it that people think things like this are "free."

because they're stupid.

These results are typical of a range of poll results for entitlements like free college, medicare for all, universal minimum income etc..

Everyone loves the idea until they realize it's going to cost them something - then they hate it.

This is why the most consistent and reliable indicator of party affiliation is political knowledge. Republicans average significantly higher than Democrats and much higher than their minority and female subgroups. This is why Republicans are generally more restrained in their desire to expand entitlements.

For example, women score about 30% lower than men both in the US and internationally. Their political knowledge is estimated to be about 1 major education level below men's, meaning that a college educated woman has the political knowledge of a high school educated man ( on average ).

Not surprisingly women generally LOVE the idea that the government should give them free everything. Because they don't understand that they'll be paying for it.

See: alexandria ocasio-cortez

When you count all the taxes (state, fed, sales, property, highway tolls) I'm paying about 35% of my income. Not only have I directly supported my family, I'm carrying a couple of other people too. At my limit, thanks.
Per a comment above, not only due heavy taxes cause companies to do stuff simply to avoid taxes, they reduce profits, and it is only profits that support retirement accounts and that enable companies to invest to stay competitive or to expand and hire new people. Part of the problem is that if you ask most people they think companies make like 36% profit margins (like Apple) when it is really between 3 and 5% for most. I had an argument with someone recently that someone should just force companies to pay people more. A reflection of this misunderstanding.

I'm real tired of entitled dicks who say they have the "right" to everything; but expect me to bear the "responsibility" (aka cost) of providing it by having the gov't take my hard earned money and give it to them.

You've just described school vouchers and "parental choice," and spelled out why I'm against them.

"Not surprisingly women generally LOVE the idea that the government should give them free everything. Because they don't understand that they'll be paying for it."

Except they won't. Due to earnings gaps, deductibles and less years in the working world, on average women pay less taxes, and receive more benefits than men.

Now now Kevin, be honest. You are opposed to public schools in general. And the other position you've marked out is if public schools have to exist then they must be as ineffective and useless as possible.

Jay:

I'm real tired of entitled dicks who say they have the "right" to everything;

Whenever someone says that to me, I say, "Really? And which constitutional amendment gives you that?"

The Supreme Court hasn't been good about this in the past, but there is a distinction between a "right" and a "liberty." It's confusing and even the Supreme Court isn't always clear on this. The only times they lay this down is when the distinction is relevant. Otherwise they tend to conflate the two terms.

It's the reason the American Civil Liberties Union is not the American Civil Rights Union.

FindLaw has this to say on the subject.

Now now Kevin, be honest. You are opposed to public schools in general. And the other position you've marked out is if public schools have to exist then they must be as ineffective and useless as possible.

That's a mischaracterization on every level. I'm in favor of public schools, and private schools for those who choose them and can afford them. That's real school choice for the parent and the taxpayer.

I'm also in favor of schools of all kinds delivering excellence rather than mediocrity; it's entirely possible, but the last couple of generations of parents seem to have let that go by the wayside.

And which constitutional amendment gives you that? ~ Patrick at December 24, 2018 1:52 PM

I'm going to point out that the Constitution does not grant or "give" us rights. It merely elucidates which rights the government is enjoined from abridging.

The Constitution acknowledges we already have these rights and tacitly acknowledges that sometimes a government has to restrict the rights of citizens, but in the case of the US government, these particular rights are sacred.

As originally written, the Constitution did not enjoin state governments from abridging any of the rights named in the Bill of Rights; only the federal government was so enjoined.

And, yes, I know that's not exactly what you said, but your phrasing "which constitutional amendment gives you that?" is predicated upon an underlying assumption, if not on the part of the speaker then on the part of the listener, that the Constitution bestows rights upon US citizens when it merely restricts the government's authority.

Otherwise I would agree with your assertion that too often people claim as a right what is not a right.

The results of this survey prove that we can be incredibly arrogant and incredibly stingy at the same time.

Amy's right. Let each company pick the policy.

cc: "When you count all the taxes (state, fed, sales, property, highway tolls) I'm paying about 35% of my income."

Counting all taxes - federal,state,local - income tax, social security/medicare (is it 15% now), sales tax, property tax, gasoline tax, utility taxes, licenses and registrations, fees and permits, and a multitude of others; including the amount of the price of goods and services you buy that covers the taxes paid by the parties selling them in the process of producing or acquiring them... I'd bet you're paying closer to 50%.

Re Work/life balance. Some people value lots and lots of free time. They may think it is "unfair" that someone else is willing to work 60 hrs/wk and get a higher income, or spend more years in school. One of the resentments that Thomas Sowell documents is against successful immigrants who are willing to work 14hrs/day--locals think it is unfair (he gives examples in Africa, Asia, the US, elsewhere). There is similar resentment when one of the ladies in a social group dresses dramatically nicer than the others.
Yes, we all believe in magic and would like free stuff. Some women unfortunately view their husband's income as magic, free stuff.