The problem with taxation

Romantic Heretic · Mar 8, 2010

Don said:
"From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

So, if a woman's husband leaves her and he refuses to look after his responsibilities to his children that's just too bad for those kids? If she leaves because he's a violent drunk and she fears for the safety of her children and herself everyone else can just stand by? If there's no jobs she can get because the economy is bad and she's been a housewife since leaving high school she and her children can starve and live in a cardboard box?

Just wondering.

"I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

Don · Mar 8, 2010

Society <> Gunvernment

There are many things that show we are civilized. Helping those less fortunate is certainly one of those. Donating money, or volunteering to assist in raising funds for those purposes are some of the ways we as individuals can contribute positively to our society.

Helping your neighbors by pointing a gun at your other neighbors and insisting they contribute to your good works? Sorry, that strikes me as throwing away the moral high ground.

Don Allen · Mar 8, 2010

dgiharris said:
Becuase then the government would have to tell people 'no'.

And the people who were told 'no' would blame their representatives and vote someone else into office who will say 'yes'.

The government would also be held accountable meaning that no important or 'hard' choices would be made because those choices could/would be used against the politicians who made that choice and they wouldn't be reelected, so better not to make any hard choices...

Leading to an ineffectual bureaucratic paralysis for which no one person can be held responsible.

My first instinct is to blame government, but truth is, it is the fault of the populace.

We are easily dooped, we are a fickle bunch of complaining whining brats with the attention span of a ferret on crystal meth.

And we are hopelessly locked into a two party system that refuses to cooperate with each other unless the country is literally on fire.

We are screwed. It will take a complete collapse of our current system for us to adopt a new system.

We've moved from tribes to clans to states to nation-states...
We've moved from monarchies to oligarchies to dictators to republics to hybrids...

What we need is the next evolution of government.

Mel...

To paraphrase, we are a fat, lazy stupid society, that have lost our values, morals, and self respect. We want things.........Everyone WANTS, but few are willing to work and achieve. To which, I agree....

Albedo · Mar 8, 2010

Don said:
"From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

I know this was said by bearded Satan himself, but is it really such an unreasonable philosophy?

dmytryp · Mar 8, 2010

No, just an unrealistc one at the stage of human developement we are at (or maybe even ever)

robeiae · Mar 8, 2010

Albedo said:
I know this was said by bearded Satan himself, but is it really such an unreasonable philosophy?

Yes. Because who gets to decide? And what's the incentive to not be dead weight?

Romantic Heretic · Mar 8, 2010

Your boss?

Al Ross · Mar 8, 2010

Tax should be abolished. So does government.

As that won't happen. Next best thing would be flat tax (no deductions, no loop holes) and minimal government (Only: Health-care/education/Police/Infrastructure/primary needs of living)

Anyway tax should never be more than half you earn. The craziness is, some people (Me) in western countries pay more than half what they earn to the government. 19% sales tax and 42% income tax. So the 58% I get, everything I buy with it I pay an additional 19%. So it is actually about 46% of what I earn if for myself, the rest goes to my government. Tax is an evil thing that enslave people. Those that work are in a way slaves who think they are free.

Drive to work...spend your time and energy working....come back home...eat and sleep (and write) rinse and repeat. All that time and energy you only get 46%. So yes tax and the politicians who line their pockets with the energy and time of the people, they should be abolished.

Tax over profit is 29%....so if I become a full time writer I will finally be keeping more than half my money.

veinglory · Mar 8, 2010

I don't see goods and services tax as necessarily unfair to the poor. Rich people tend to buy more stuff, and more expensive stuff, and so pay tax fairly proportionately. New Zealand operates primarily on GST which is fairly high, but straightforward and hard to cheat on or evade. Those who really don't want to pay the tax can make their own stuff or barter.

Romantic Heretic · Mar 8, 2010

The biggest problem with sales taxes is large portions of the economy don't pass through consumption patterns. So such taxes have to be high even in cases of 'minimal' government.

Also, a question for the flat taxers. Would the flat tax apply to corporations since SCOTUS has now declared they are individual citizens with all the rights and duties thereof?

History_Chick · Mar 8, 2010

Albedo said:
She also gets free police and fire coverage, free roads, free education for her kids and the right to vote. Should she be denied these things because she doesn't pay into the system?

I do have an issue with people constantly getting "free stuff" when they don't pay into the system. Bitch? Yes I am.

AndiB · Mar 9, 2010

Romantic Heretic said:
There's a reason personal taxes are so high.

Yeah, it's called a government that refuses to live within its means. The government should not be able to spend money it doesn't have. Period. End of story.

AndiB · Mar 9, 2010

Romantic Heretic said:
So, if a woman's husband leaves her and he refuses to look after his responsibilities to his children that's just too bad for those kids? If she leaves because he's a violent drunk and she fears for the safety of her children and herself everyone else can just stand by? If there's no jobs she can get because the economy is bad and she's been a housewife since leaving high school she and her children can starve and live in a cardboard box?

Just wondering.

"I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

Oddly enough there are charities that offer help in all of these situations. There are charities that help women find emergency housing, feed their children, get clothes for job interviews, develop job skills, and get back on their feet.

These charities do more for those in need with less money than the government has at their disposal because they lack the inherent hands dipping in the cookie jar, backbiting, and oversight. The only thing the government has proven in the last century is that it is a horrible manager of money. Private industry does so much better.

Why can't we lower taxes so that more people can afford to contribute to the charities they deem worthy and leave governing, rather than charity, in the hands of the government?

The founding fathers would be turning over in their graves at the idea that we are now fighting the same war against taxation that led to the Revolutionary War and the ultimate foundation of the country. And somehow these ridiculously high taxes are still not enough. We've run up a debt that is nothing less than astronomical.

Mac H. · Mar 9, 2010

Al Ross said:
Next best thing would be flat tax (no deductions, no loop holes) ..

*No* deductions? Seriously ?

Imagine that you have a flat 15% tax rate.

If you are an entrepreneur who earns income by buying stuff on e-bay for $100, making some tweaks and selling it for $110 ... should you pay tax on the $100 income (ie: $15 tax .. so you make a loss of $5) or pay tax on the $10 income (ie: $1.50 tax) ?

One you say that you should only be taxed on the net income .. you must have deductions!

Mac

Mac H. · Mar 9, 2010

veinglory said:
I don't see goods and services tax as necessarily unfair to the poor. Rich people tend to buy more stuff, and more expensive stuff, and so pay tax fairly proportionately. New Zealand operates primarily on GST which is fairly high, but straightforward and hard to cheat on or evade. Those who really don't want to pay the tax can make their own stuff or barter.

Romantic Heretic said:
The biggest problem with sales taxes is large portions of the economy don't pass through consumption patterns.

Hang-on. How on earth does a GST avoid taxing large portions of the economy?

If company 'A' hires company 'B' to do something, or buys something, then GST is paid. So it doesn't rely on 'consumption patterns'. (Whatever they are)

Mac

DavidZahir · Mar 9, 2010

You know, the people who point out "there are already charities" never address whether private charities are enough. Methinks we'd all love it if they were, but in the real world are they? Well, no.

And why shouldn't government help people again? I never have gotten a straight answer to that one other than the flat out assertion "That is the way it is supposed to be."

Meanwhile, seems to the ultimate freeloaders in our society are the ones who drink the clean water and breathe the clean air, who enjoy the levels of sanitation and the standards for things like food and car safety, who furiously demand that police as well as military need to do their jobs protecting this nation, while rigorously insisting upon their own rights and ignoring the process that makes those legal rights a practical reality--and never ever stop complaining about the fact they have to pay for all this, while the rest of the electorate DARES not to agree with them on ever issue. Along the way, they usually whine about government being imperfect--as if anything more complex than a dinner party has ever achieved perfection.

Me, I'm sick of the whiners, the freeloaders, the parasites who act like they're morally superior to everyone else because they get every benefit of civilization while mounting a never-ending attack on one of the bastions of civilization--namely, government. You can find similar idiocy in those who love comfort and civil rights but detest money or sometimes language or some other utterly necessary but imperfect social institution.

Cranky · Mar 9, 2010

That's an awfully broad brush you're wielding, there, David.

Don · Mar 9, 2010

DavidZahir said:
And why shouldn't government help people again? I never have gotten a straight answer to that one other than the flat out assertion "That is the way it is supposed to be."

http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4717798&postcount=27

robeiae · Mar 9, 2010

How do people that work hard, follow the rules, and pay the majority of the taxes qualify as "freeloaders"?

Regardless, government can do good things, in my view. And it's just and fair for it to protect the most vulnerable in society. But lines need to be drawn. And limits must exist, for such protection should not be approached from the standpoint of trampling freedom and should not be exacted from some other societal groups to the degree that it becomes a form of punishment for phantom crimes, assumed to exist merely because of "success."

DavidZahir · Mar 9, 2010

Don said:
http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4717798&postcount=27

And again--you don't address the issue AT ALL! I asked "Why shouldn't the government help people?" and you come up with a diatribe against taxation.

Don · Mar 9, 2010

How are they going to help people with out first taking money from someone else, David? That's exactly my point. Government can only help one person by hurting another. Who's to be the judge of who gets helped and who gets hurt?

robeiae · Mar 9, 2010

Don said:
How are they going to help people with out first taking money from someone else, David? That's exactly my point. Government can only help one person by hurting another. Who's to be the judge of who gets helped and who gets hurt?

That's a little much I think, Don. Consider unemployment insurance (granted, it's a simple tax, not insurance). The essential idea is quite fair, I think. A portion of taxes are set aside to provide for people temporarily out of work ("temporarily" being the key word). Sure, people that aren't receiving benefits are funding it, as a matter of course. But it's a safety net. That's the only way such a thing can exist. And it's a reasonable assumption--in my view--that the great majority of the population might utilize such benefits.

Obviously, it's not an ideologically pure thing, but it makes sense, it works, it helps. The questions of how much and how long are still important. And certainly, there are arguments to be had there. But the idea that it's a hurtful program for those not using it is a stretch, I think.

Don · Mar 9, 2010

As you said, rob, it at least masquerades as insurance. I pay in with the expectation that one day I may get paid back. I'd subscribe to such a service if it were voluntary. My big problem is with waving a gun around to force a monopoly market in such services.

Gregg · Mar 9, 2010

I wish they'd call it what it is - a tax.
The Feds "only" collect a max of $56 per employee per year for unemployment "insurance" - so when they extend benefits to the unemployed, where does that money come from?
I ran a seasonal business - state unemployment tax rate is 9.8% (the max) of $12000 of wages ($1176 per year per employee). Still our "account" was many thousands in the negative. Companies who layoff few or none pay for most of our employees benefits in the off-season.
And there is no incentive for the employees to find temporary work over the winter.

The government has to stop thinking that it can help everybody in need in every situation - well that might be a slight exaggeration, but not much.

robeiae · Mar 9, 2010

As you said, rob, it at least masquerades as insurance. I pay in with the expectation that one day I may get paid back. I'd subscribe to such a service if it were voluntary. My big problem is with waving a gun around to force a monopoly market in such services.

Well look, every service, every aspect of government can be forced to fit such a description. If I never need the police, why should I pay for a police force? Ditto for the courts. Government "ala carte" is as much a fantasy as benevolent dictatorship, in my view. And anarchy is not a system, at all.

But then, I don't think man is any more trustworthy than government. I'd rather bleed myself with a spoon than depend on people to do the right thing, as a matter of course.

The problem with taxation

uncoerced

All Living is Local

Seeking a Sanctuary of Intelligence

Alex

Touch and go

uncoerced

volitare nequeo

uncoerced

Board Visitor

Board Visitor

Malkavian Primogen

All Living is Local

Touch and go

Malkavian Primogen

All Living is Local

Touch and go

All Living is Local

Life is good

Touch and go