Taxes

[Esper]

What a great way to mark the passing of a big tax change here in the US than an argument a discussion of taxes. I know it's a big topic and people have very strong opinions about this, but I'd like to hear from different perspectives, what people think taxes should be used for, what's a reasonable amount of taxation, who should be taxed, etc. Then we can attack each other.

Disclosure: I'm in favor of taxes in a general sense, as well as (functional) government so that prosperity can be shared among the people, help those in need, etc. (What some call "socialism", "communism", "wealth redistribution", and worse things.) I would like to know from others who don't share my viewpoint what their views are. I do promise not to attack or anything. I'm trying to see what common ground we can maybe find.

 

[gimmepie]

As a general thing, I think taxes should go towards the things that benefit the people the most. Things like socialised healthcare, education, emergency services etc. As for how much a person should be taxed, taxation should be proportional to income earned. However much you can afford to be taxed without it causing a significant change to your lifestyle is how much you should be taxed.

From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

 

[Tsutarja]

Taxes are what help this country pay for services such as social security, medicare, medicaid, you name it. I don't care if cuts in taxes will mean more money in my personal pocket either.

Oh, did I mention that the national debt will raise when these cuts go into affect? Yeah, that's gonna be a lovely thing for this country.

 

[MaӾiej]

Taxes are what help this country pay for services such as social security, medicare, medicaid, you name it. I don't care if cuts in taxes will mean more money in my personal pocket either.

And the unnecessarily high Defense/ Military Budget that our President wants to allocate even more money to.

Oh, did I mention that the national debt will raise when these cuts go into effect? Yeah, that's gonna be a lovely thing for this country.

Yep, that's what I'm thinking. It's sorta got me wondering how much more debt can this country take before the bottom falls out. What's funny but not really funny is they jumped all over Obama for supposedly doubling the debt, yet it wouldn't surprise me if the debt goes to 30 Trillion and beyond, especially if this man gets re-elected. While the debt did rise under Obama, I feel a portion of it was thanks in part to Bush and the two military campaigns he started, plus the tax cuts.

 

[Alex]

I don't think this thread is supposed to be about the latest GOP tax bill, btw. We're just having a general discussion on whether taxes are necessary, and if so, how they should be spent.

I think people have a right to be healthy and educated, and think taxes should fulfill those rights, as well as improve the lives of as many people as possible. Taxes should be spent to subsidize healthcare and higher education, rehabilitation centers and, to an extent, welfare. I don't think the welfare program should give people incentive to live off of the paycheck. Of course, there will always be people who try to make enough money to live without working, so that may simply be a pipe dream. Other than that, taxes should certainly be spent on public infrastructure, and other stuff that I can't bother to think of atm lol.

Short answer is I'm in favour of taxes as long as they benefit society as a whole, and create the opportunities necessary for our society to become more rich.

 

[LDSman]

As a general thing, I think taxes should go towards the things that benefit the people the most. Things like socialised healthcare, education, emergency services etc. As for how much a person should be taxed, taxation should be proportional to income earned. However much you can afford to be taxed without it causing a significant change to your lifestyle is how much you should be taxed.

From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

Who decides what kind of lifestyle a person should live? Who decides what your ability is or what your needs are? What happens when a person refuses to go along with those decisions?

 

[gimmepie]

Who decides what kind of lifestyle a person should live? Who decides what your ability is or what your needs are? What happens when a person refuses to go along with those decisions?

It's got nothing to do with the lifestyle I think people should live. The point is that taxation shouldn't negatively affect a person's quality of life or take so much that it prevents them from experiencing the same lifestyle as if they didn't have to pay.

That's why you have to file taxes and things like that. How much you pay is proportional to how much you earn and you report how much you earn to the taxation department. The taxed money gets fed into public resources and programs so it is used as the need arises.

Well generally if you falsify information to the government or refuse to pay taxes that's illegal and I don't see why that would change just because the amounts taxed became fairer/better for the country.

 

[Ivysaur]

I'm going to add that taxation (and public spending) allows me to have a better lifestyle than I would otherwise have. Without a tax-funded public transport system and healthcare system, I'd probably need to own a car, wasting thousands of euros a year and polluting the world, and would need to spend other few thousand on my chronic stomach issues, so I'd be poorer and much more stressed. I'm glad to hand over 10% of my paycheck every month in return, because the alternative would cost me several times more.

So you don't only have to look at the middle-higher classes who, poor guys, have to give up a bigger share of their considerable wealth, but the working-low/mid classes who get a net contribution to their lives. Redistribution amazingly enough, makes a society fairer and worth living in.

 

[LDSman]

It's got nothing to do with the lifestyle I think people should live. The point is that taxation shouldn't negatively affect a person's quality of life or take so much that it prevents them from experiencing the same lifestyle as if they didn't have to pay.

Then you have to determine what quality of life a person needs to determine if the taxes are negatively affecting them. If I didn't have to pay taxes right now, I could have a completely different lifestyle.

That's why you have to file taxes and things like that. How much you pay is proportional to how much you earn and you report how much you earn to the taxation department. The taxed money gets fed into public resources and programs so it is used as the need arises.

I was referring more to the idea that some people could pay more if they stayed at their current job but decide to work less because the gov't takes more money from them if they work harder. What's the point of working harder if you end up with the same income as the people that work less? It's the common failing in communism. People generally don't want to work harder to make the same or similar amount of money as they guy loafing around.

Well generally if you falsify information to the government or refuse to pay taxes that's illegal and I don't see why that would change just because the amounts taxed became fairer/better for the country.

Who decides what's fair or better? I've seen too many idiots complaining that rich guy paid 15% in taxes last year while poor person paid 20%. Completely ignores that rich guy paid 15% of 30 million and made million dollar charitable donations while the poor guy paid 20% on 50 thousand and made zero donations.

 

[MaӾiej]

Don't most rich people who make charitable donations mainly do it a tax write-off? There are even some who donate to faux charities then get the money back later on, one way or another. I've always felt the more one financially benefits from their country, the more of their check they should contribute. Provided, I feel 40% is the most anyone should pay in taxes. It's not like they're getting back anywhere close to less than the person not doing as much as them.

 

[LDSman]

Don't most rich people who make charitable donations mainly do it a tax write-off?

That would be pure speculation. Probably not provable either way.

There are even some who donate to faux charities then get the money back later on, one way or another.

That sounds illegal. Like money laundering. Would also like to see a citation on these fake charity schemes.

I've always felt the more one financially benefits from their country, the more of their check they should contribute. Provided, I feel 40% is the most anyone should pay in taxes. It's not like they're getting back anywhere close to less than the person not doing as much as them.

I disagree that the better one does, the more they should pay. It removes/inhibits incentive for people to work harder in life.

 

[BillysBadFurDay]

as long as he cuts taxes and defunds the welfare state, i am happy

 

[Aliencommander1245]

I disagree that the better one does, the more they should pay. It removes/inhibits incentive for people to work harder in life.

Uh, how? You still earn more money, you just pay your fair share in taxes. Let alone the fact that, overwhelmingly, the rich don't "work harder in life" they're just born into wealth

as long as he cuts taxes and defunds the welfare state, i am happy

That's... absolutely not what this bill does, but i think you're incredibly misinformed about what welfare is for and how people use it. The idea of a "welfare state" is a nonsense once backed up by no facts at all

 

[LDSman]

Uh, how? You still earn more money, you just pay your fair share in taxes. Let alone the fact that, overwhelmingly, the rich don't "work harder in life" they're just born into wealth

If the taxes are high enough, why would someone work harder to get only a little bit more money?
And I'd like to see something that supports the "rich don't work harder, born into it" claim. And why does that matter? If someone's parents worked hard, invested wisely, became rich, why shouldn't their kids benefit from that? If their kids are smart, they earn more money and if they aren't, the next set of kids become poorer and poorer.

And what's a "fair share"? I don't think that it's fair to take more from someone simply because they did better than that other person.

I'd rather see a flat tax across the board rather than the mess we have now.

That's... absolutely not what this bill does, but i think you're incredibly misinformed about what welfare is for and how people use it. The idea of a "welfare state" is a nonsense once backed up by no facts at all

There is a problem with how some people can abuse the welfare system or get on it and then refuse to get off of it.

http://www.businessinsider.com/amer...ot-working-nearly-as-well-as-it-should-2013-9

But she says that many of the other welfare recipients she knows are reluctant to seek work or an education. Life in the system is hardly gold-plated, but it is comfortable enough. Even Ms Devilma admits that, if it were not for her son and the recent expiry of her cash aid, she would rather live on welfare than take an entry-level job at McDonald's, which she considers unsuited to her level of education. As it is, she would take any job "just so I have that little money to provide for him".

But some worry that welfare is once again encouraging idleness. Paul Ryan, the Republicans' congressional budget guru, frets that America's safety net could become "a hammock that lulls able-bodied people into lives of dependency and complacency". A recent study by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank, tried to add up what a jobless single mother with two children might receive in each state from seven types of benefit: TANF, food stamps, Medicaid (health care for the cash-strapped), housing assistance, utilities assistance, emergency food aid and the programme for Women, Infants and Children. There was huge variation between states. Such a mother might receive a whopping $49,175 worth of benefits in Hawaii, the most generous state, but only $16,984 in Mississippi, the least.

Michael Tanner and Charles Hughes, the study's authors, argue that welfare is too generous. In 39 states, their hypothetical single mother would make more from benefits than a secretary does from work. In 11, she would make more than a first-year teacher. For many Americans, says Mr Tanner, not working is a "rational alternative" to working.

Older article re Europe

https://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1234

UK

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ow-welfare-state-created-age-entitlement.html

 

[Grey Wind]

Being rich versus being poor isn't simply a case of "doing better". If you're born into poverty it's incredibly difficult to get out of it, no matter how hard you work.

 

[LDSman]

Being rich versus being poor isn't simply a case of "doing better". If you're born into poverty it's incredibly difficult to get out of it, no matter how hard you work.

Doing better in life is always hard. People do get out of poverty and into the middle class or even higher.

People also go the other way. Blow through the family fortune and descend into poverty.

 

[Nah]

Doing better in life is always hard. People do get out of poverty and into the middle class or even higher.

People also go the other way. Blow through the family fortune and descend into poverty.

How often do you hear of people actually getting out of poverty though to a significant degree, or even just going significantly higher at all? Poverty tends to beget itself because it doesn't provide one with the means to get out of it. If you never have access to the tools to do something in the first place, you're not likely to accomplish the task.

Going from being rich to poor because one "blew through the family fortune" is not really comparable, since that's just one being an idiot (ie it's their own fault), while the other stems from one being born into an unfortunate circumstance--something beyond their control that they never asked for.

 

[LDSman]

How often do you hear of people actually getting out of poverty though to a significant degree, or even just going significantly higher at all?

Fairly often.

Poverty tends to beget itself because it doesn't provide one with the means to get out of it. If you never have access to the tools to do something in the first place, you're not likely to accomplish the task.

Those tools are mostly available. It's hard work for a lot of people, but it is possible.

Going from being rich to poor because one "blew through the family fortune" is not really comparable, since that's just one being an idiot (ie it's their own fault),

Debatable. How smart is it to go out and buy the latest iphone just because? Plenty of people who should save their money instead waste it on the most recent car, name brand kicks or latest iphone just to say they have it while they are living in horrible conditions.

while the other stems from one being born into an unfortunate circumstance--something beyond their control that they never asked for.

Nobody gets to choose where they are born.

 

[Nah]

Fairly often.

idk if this is something that one can relatively easily find info for, so if you can't provide me with anything I'll understand, but do you happen to have anything to verify?

Those tools are mostly available. It's hard work for a lot of people, but it is possible.

I suppose the wording in my previous post makes it sound like I think the tools are completely inaccessible, but to clarify, I agree in that I don't think that it's totally impossible, but it's also harder than it needs to be imo.

Debatable. How smart is it to go out and buy the latest iphone just because? Plenty of people who should save their money instead waste it on the most recent car, name brand kicks or latest iphone just to say they have it while they are living in horrible conditions.

I mean, yeah, that's not smart either. I'm sure that there exists people who remain poor for little more reason than their own bad choices, but for some people that is not the case and they still struggle to move upwards socioeconomically.

There's a lot of poor people in the USA, and I have a hard time believing that it's all mostly due to people making bad decisions and/or not working hard enough.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[LDSman]

idk if this is something that one can relatively easily find info for, so if you can't provide me with anything I'll understand, but do you happen to have anything to verify?

Nothing official at hand. Just the various success stories you hear about plus personal history and anecdotal stories.

I suppose the wording in my previous post makes it sound like I think the tools are completely inaccessible, but to clarify, I agree in that I don't think that it's totally impossible, but it's also harder than it needs to be imo.

I don't think the difficulties some people experience are intentional.

I mean, yeah, that's not smart either. I'm sure that there exists people who remain poor for little more reason than their own bad choices, but for some people that is not the case and they still struggle to move upwards socioeconomically.

part of the problem is figuring out which is which.

There's a lot of poor people in the USA, and I have a hard time believing that it's all mostly due to people making bad decisions and/or not working hard enough.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It's hard to tell which are poor due to bad decisions and which are poor due to bad luck.