Let Me Know -- What Are Some People So Afraid of Taxes? [Archive]

atszyman

Aug 21, 2008, 10:41 PM

Let's see, everyone has a gun, they're not afraid to use them, we have a large border with Mexico, and we elected W. governor giving him a spring board to run for president... oh you said taxes...

If you want accountability in government I can think of a few changes that would get voters involved and probably have a relatively large impact.

1) Have the treasury department send out a receipt every year itemized by department showing how much of your taxes go to each department, provide a link to the department's page where you can enter your dollar amount and it will calculate out how much of your tax dollars go to each program/study with a link of what the program/study is trying to accomplish. If it's easy enough to click through people will start to wonder why $1.65 of the $15,000 they gave to the U.S. government went to some study of the flow rate of catsup or other nonsensical program.

2) Force legislation to be single issue. Eliminate the riders. The only bill that should have the riders is the federal budget. There's no reason a supplemental request for funding the troops in Iraq or new G.I. Bill should have any other pet projects tacked on. If you can't get it to pass on it's own merit it probably shouldn't be funded by the general tax payer.

3) Educate high school students on finances. Show them how much that 18% interest rate will cost them on the credit card. Show them how the zero interest scams accrue and how much they will cost if you miss the deadline or don't follow the rules properly. Be sure to address the different loopholes employed. In the same class also show them how to properly due their taxes and how much more money they can have if they actually pay in a small amount rather than getting the rebate check every year. If you have #1 implemented then having people understanding that the best situation is actually paying in a small amount they might pay attention to the receipt and trace their funds and start raising hell.

We all get pissed off when we find out about wasteful programs but at this point they're hard to find and we almost have to rely on others to do much of the dirty work. If most taxpayers did just a small bit of research on their money we'd probably be hearing of a new waste of money every few days, and they'll be found even faster as more internet savvy people retire and have nothing better to do.

hulugu

Aug 21, 2008, 10:53 PM

Has everyone seen this?

http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/

I used to have the 2008 poster, it's very interesting to see the breakdown of federal budget expenditures.

pseudobrit

Aug 21, 2008, 11:20 PM

Sales tax, income tax, gas tax, capital gains tax, property tax... you do realize how much they actually take from you when it's all said, right?

Half.

Though the very wealthy typically pay less as a percentage.

Agathon

Aug 22, 2008, 12:16 AM

Taxes are BS. When they become fair across the board let's talk.

Taxation has nothing to do with fairness. Indeed, it is as absurd to describe the ideal tax rates as "fair" as it would be to organize salaries in a capitalist economy by rules of fairness.

The right wingers who argue that really rich people should pay no tax to stimulate them to produce more have a better understanding of tax rates than the clowns who argue for flat taxes or fair taxes. I happen to disagree with them that not taxing the rich would be better, but their underlying reasons are the correct ones.

LethalWolfe

Aug 22, 2008, 01:54 AM

I don't use half the services I pay for, and the ones I do are substandard.

Also, since I'm "rich" (you'd be surprised how little I make) I have to take a 10% extra hit because "I can afford to." I also get to pay to put other people's kids in school when I don't place that burden on the system - where's my tax break for not being an extra burden on the system?

Sales tax, income tax, gas tax, capital gains tax, property tax... you do realize how much they actually take from you when it's all said, right?

Taxes are BS. When they become fair across the board let's talk.

That really is a pretty myopic point of view. If everything from education to the fire department to paving the street outside your residence was 'pay-for-play' prices would be so extraordinarily high that almost all of us would be uneducated and living in tin shacks (tin doesn't burn) on dirt roads. As a collective we can afford things that would normally be unaffordable. Just look at medical insurance. Group coverage is cheaper than individual coverage which is cheaper than no coverage. I don't plan on having kids but I don't mind my tax money going to public schools because, in the big picture, that benefits everyone including me. I know a number of people that pay more in taxes than I make and when they start b*tching I'm just like, really? I keep offering to swap paychecks w/them but for some reason no one has taken me up on it.:D

Not to sound preachy, but there are millions of people all over the world that would gladly trade places with us and accept the burden of taxes in exchange for the everyday luxuries we commonly take for granted in first world nations (reliable electricity, ample food, clean water, in door plumbing, computers, cell phones, the internet, TV, etc.,) so I see it as a rather petty thing to get all bent out of shape about. The only thing that really gets my goat w/regard to taxes is the wasteful way so much of it is spent.

Lethal

Aea

Aug 22, 2008, 02:34 AM

I have no problem with taxes. I have a problem with how they're spent.

This is the same problem I have. There is a level of increasing incompetency as we move across from City to State to Federal in terms of considering the budget to be disposable, and concerns only begin to arise when you're spending more then you have. What's the national debt again?

$260Bn just paid in INTEREST.

$660Bn for the Military

Over a trillion spent on Medicare and Social Security, a program that's nothing more then a pyramid scheme and is inefficient as hell.

és:

Aug 22, 2008, 04:47 AM

No tax, no civilisation.

I want higher taxes for the extremely rich and lower taxes for the extremely poor. Why we continue to let the top 2% hold 80% of the wealth, when it's not in most of our interest, I'll never know.

Why many Americans are happy to see their country spending the most, by a huge margin, on healthcare but having 44 million people not covered and having a system that is ranked around 42nd in the world just because they 'don't want to pay for other people'. All whilst insurance and drug companies make record profits. I'll never know.

Why a society allows some people to sit at home with $20b in their bank whilst others have to work 2 jobs just to feed their kids or pay for their education. We wouldn't let a guest in our home go hungry whilst we sat and ate a luxury meal, so why do it on a much grander scale.

Thomas Veil

Aug 22, 2008, 05:38 AM

I do understand what the OP is talking about. There is a certain core of right-wingers who just hate taxes and view them as the government "stealing" from you.

There was a classic segment of Michael Moore's old show TV Nation in which Moore went down to Newt Gingrich country and asked people their opinions about taxes. Almost to a man they displayed this 'tude about taxes being legalized "theft" and talking about how the government can't do anything right with the taxes it levies.

Then he went to places like libraries and freeway entrances with a bullhorn and started shouting, "Do not use these facilities!! They are financed by tax money!!" People looked at him like he was nuts.

Of course, he wasn't nuts, he knew exactly what he was doing. That was a pretty eloquent depiction, though, of how some people are. They want national defense, they want roads and schools, they want to be able to use libraries, but they don't want to have to pay for them.

BTW, I also agree with és:'s post above.

KingYaba

Aug 22, 2008, 06:21 AM

If it's federal income tax we're talking about, I'd like a flat tax of 7-10% or something similar to a "FairTax" style system.

To be fair, many people feel that our tax dollars are spent poorly.
What he said.

Those of us making 6 figures (or more), can afford to pick-up the slack. Unfortunately, the greedy element in our society, does not see it that way. It is all about them. :mad:
They pick up the slack by spending their money. No need to take more of the income in taxes.

iGary

Aug 22, 2008, 06:30 AM

Oh...somebody's cranky today! :) Honestly, you see no benefit to paying for education for all? Are you kidding? Gee Gary, how do you feel about the police and fire departments? (stands back, watches iGary's head explode :))

And really sir, you'd be surprised at how little I make. But that doesn't make me mad about taxes, it makes me mad at corporate America.

My car has been broken into twice this year in my town.

The last time our fire alarm went off it was 15 minutes before they came to our office.

Great service I get for my money there.

Think of it as containment for the little monsters. Do you really want roving bands of teenagers marauding the streets? You're getting a benefit by having them in school.

You have a point, but I still don't know why I have to pay for it.

Create more taxpayers - get rewarded by the government.

Half.

Though the very wealthy typically pay less as a percentage.

Yup.

Taxation has nothing to do with fairness. Indeed, it is as absurd to describe the ideal tax rates as "fair" as it would be to organize salaries in a capitalist economy by rules of fairness.

The right wingers who argue that really rich people should pay no tax to stimulate them to produce more have a better understanding of tax rates than the clowns who argue for flat taxes or fair taxes. I happen to disagree with them that not taxing the rich would be better, but their underlying reasons are the correct ones.

I think everyone should pay the same - why not?

Sounds to me like a lot of people are willing to accept sub par services for their hard earned money.

I'm not. I work my ass off for my money and expect decent services for it.

és:

Aug 22, 2008, 06:46 AM

leekohler

Aug 22, 2008, 07:33 AM

My car has been broken into twice this year in my town.

The last time our fire alarm went off it was 15 minutes before they came to our office.

Great service I get for my money there.

You have a point, but I still don't know why I have to pay for it.

Create more taxpayers - get rewarded by the government.

Yup.

I think everyone should pay the same - why not?

Sounds to me like a lot of people are willing to accept sub par services for their hard earned money.

I'm not. I work my ass off for my money and expect decent services for it.

We're saying the same thing iGary. But the answer is accountability, not necessarily no taxes. That's our fault, because we don't demand it.

kavika411

Aug 22, 2008, 07:57 AM

ucfgrad93

Aug 22, 2008, 08:16 AM

I don't get it. I pay taxes like everyone else. But alot of my friends and peers get SO upset about taxes at all. One of them even said it was akin to stealing.

When you go to a restaurant you pay foer your food. When you live in a civilized society you pay taxes... :(

What's the big deal?

I don't mind paying taxes, it is just the percentage that I mind. Like many, I recognize that they are necessary, but what is the the most that the government should be able to take?

iJohnHenry

Aug 22, 2008, 08:29 AM

Taxes are inanimate. How can you be "afraid" of them??

Hate them, sure, absolutely.

The more you pay, the more you are a vassal of the State.

Desertrat

Aug 22, 2008, 09:16 AM

The biggest problem is that the majority of all voters have imposed the need for these taxes. They/we have voted to have public services of one sort or another, and we gotta pay for them.

To me, an oddity in all this is the hoo-hah about the federal income tax, and for most people it's among the lesser amounts of taxation. State and local taxes are a higher percentage of one's income.

I did a numbers-game thing in the middle 1990s, figuring my old job at the then-current pay scale of about $50K and assumed a wife and two kids. Roughly, there was FICA at 7.65%, income tax around 13% and state/local taxes/fees of some 28%. Federal gasoline tax, of course, and some of the hidden federal excise taxes--although this latter group is rather small.

es, ya oughta quit being jealous of the wealthy. Envy is not a sign of good mental health. And it's one of those minor sins, in there with sloth and gluttony...

'Rat

pseudobrit

Aug 22, 2008, 09:42 AM

Over a trillion spent on Medicare and Social Security, a program that's nothing more then a pyramid scheme and is inefficient as hell.

And yet somehow they manage to be vastly more efficient than private systems of the same nature.

takao

Aug 22, 2008, 09:47 AM

es, ya oughta quit being jealous of the wealthy. Envy is not a sign of good mental health. And it's one of those minor sins, in there with sloth and gluttony...

and greed and pride of course ;)

leekohler

Aug 22, 2008, 09:50 AM

es, ya oughta quit being jealous of the wealthy. Envy is not a sign of good mental health. And it's one of those minor sins, in there with sloth and gluttony...

'Rat

However, it's quite irritating to hear the wealthy whine about taxes. I mean really- you don't see why that might p*** off people who pay their taxes and don't make a ton of cash?

és:

Aug 22, 2008, 09:52 AM

I don't ask this rhetorically; if you were the decision maker, so to speak, where would you draw the line on how much money a person can keep? To use your example, if someone has accumulated $20 billion, how much do you think they should be entitled to keep? Do you support a cap on how much someone can earn?

Just curious. Thanks.

I want to start of by saying that I don't begrudge anyone success or wealth.

To answer your question, I wouldn't draw a line on how much a person can keep, I'd just make it harder for them to keep as much of it. I'd close tax loopholes that enable the super-rich to earn massive amounts without paying much, if any, tax. I'd take a slice of the profit from super-rich companies or ensure that they gave back to the community (depending on their business).

I'd nationalise rail, water, gas, petroleum, health services and the pharmaceutical industry, dentistry, electricity and more. Why should people be making billions off of these things. Why should an American have to pay for his health service and the houses, boats, cars, holidays, obscene bank balance of insurance company shareholders. Health should be available to everyone and paid for by the government at cost price to the tax payer. People making money off of a heart attack or broken leg is sick and twisted. People making money from a pensioner that needs to heat themselves in the winter is sick and twisted. People making money out of those that need drugs to keep them alive is sick and twisted.

Just look at how much the gas, electricity, oil and insurance companies take in profit every year. It's probably in the tens of trillions per year. That profit comes from us and instead of it going into a few, already super rich, pockets it could saved by people across the country. People don't want to pay taxes to the government but they'll pay much more money so they don't have to.

I'm not talking about people on £32k (nearly $70k) per year. I'm not even talking about families on double that, most people earn under that. I'm talking about multi billion dollar companies and people earning millions per year. Even then, I'm not saying that they shouldn't be rich or have the things they want. I'm asking what's worse; a few thousand people only being able to afford 2 super yachts instead of 10, 10 Ferraris instead of 20 , 5 luxury homes instead of 20, or is it the 44 million in the US that don't have healthcare or the mum that has to work two jobs.

When can let the super rich and the ultra rich take most of the money out of the country and it's resources whilst the rest of us fight for overspills from their pockets. Alternatively, we could live in a country where nearly everyone has what they need and most have what they want.

I want everyone to have a slice of the pie. I don't want two people to have nearly all of it and when they feel sick, they throw the last slice for the other 98 people to share between themselves.

Oh, and don't even start me on the amount of the pie that we're throwing at Iraq and Afghanistan.

és:

Aug 22, 2008, 09:52 AM

es, ya oughta quit being jealous of the wealthy. Envy is not a sign of good mental health. And it's one of those minor sins, in there with sloth and gluttony...

What a bizarre statement. Firstly, you've no idea of my financial situation, so y our 'jealousy' statement is little more than a shot in the dark. Secondly, you've managed tp called me envious, a sinner and imply that I have bad mental health all in just a couple of sentences.

NSNick

Aug 22, 2008, 10:16 AM

No tax, no civilisation.

I want higher taxes for the extremely rich and lower taxes for the extremely poor. Why we continue to let the top 2% hold 80% of the wealth, when it's not in most of our interest, I'll never know.

What do you mean "let." The government should have no say in how much money people can make. You sound like a Marxist.

The Federal Government should ONLY provide for the common defense.

és:

Aug 22, 2008, 10:21 AM

What do you mean "let."

I mean exactly what I said. I mean we, the other 98%, let the top 2% take 80% of the countries wealth.

You sound like a Marxist.

Well, I'm not.

The horror if I was, I'd be made to sit in a corner with those other nasty wrong doers like gays, blacks and Muslims.

NSNick

Aug 22, 2008, 10:23 AM

I'd nationalise rail, water, gas, petroleum, health services and the pharmaceutical industry, dentistry, electricity and more. Why should people be making billions off of these things. Why should an American have to pay for his health service and the houses, boats, cars, holidays, obscene bank balance of insurance company shareholders. Health should be available to everyone and paid for by the government at cost price to the tax payer. People making money off of a heart attack or broken leg is sick and twisted. People making money from a pensioner that needs to heat themselves in the winter is sick and twisted. People making money out of those that need drugs to keep them alive is sick and twisted.

Just look at how much the gas, electricity, oil and insurance companies take in profit every year. It's probably in the tens of trillions per year. That profit comes from us and instead of it going into a few, already super rich, pockets it could saved by people across the country. People don't want to pay taxes to the government but they'll pay much more money so they don't have to.

The problem with your socialist society is that eventually you run out of other people's money to steal.

When can let the super rich and the ultra rich take most of the money out of the country and it's resources whilst the rest of us fight for overspills from their pockets. Alternatively, we could live in a country where nearly everyone has what they need and most have what they want.

Again this word "let" is rediculous. The people have already made the money you can not stop them from doing that all you are doing is stealing it later.

I want everyone to have a slice of the pie. I don't want two people to have nearly all of it and when they feel sick, they throw the last slice for the other 98 people to share between themselves.

Maybe if they put some effort into making the pie larger.

és:

Aug 22, 2008, 10:29 AM

The problem with your socialist society is that eventually you run out of other people's money to steal.

I do love that line. Complete b*llocks of course. It's wonderful when it's trotted out though, shame it doesn't stand up to a second of intellectual scrutiny.

It's not 'other people's money' that I'm after, it's our money that I want. It's fairness that I want, it's everybody that I care about. The real people that are stealing are the very people that you're sticking up for, and my bet is that you're amongst the people being stolen from.

Maybe if they put some effort into making the pie larger.

Well, I'm stunned by the ignorance of that comment. They cooked the pie and paid for the filling and the pastry. The people that you're sticking up for just want to have as much pie as you can for themselves and screw the person who cooked it.

iGary

Aug 22, 2008, 10:34 AM

We're saying the same thing iGary. But the answer is accountability, not necessarily no taxes. That's our fault, because we don't demand it.

I also think that everyone should pay the same rate.

I don't believe in taxing someone more just because they make more.

Would it be fair to make someone pay more sales tax just because they make more? No. So why do we do it with income taxes?

NSNick

Aug 22, 2008, 10:35 AM

I do love that line. Complete b*llocks of course. It's wonderful when it's trotted out though, shame it doesn't stand up to a second of intellectual scrutiny.

It's not 'other people's money' that I'm after, it's our money that I want. It's fairness that I want, it's everybody that I care about. The real people that are stealing is the people that you're sticking up for and my bet is that you're amongst the people being stolen from.

Do you really think government is better able to spend money than individuals?

Look at your NHS which requires people to wait 2 years for an operation that they need to save their lives in 2 months.

Compare that to something like the Gates Foundation. Every dollar that the government took from Bill Gates is not going to charity now.

(I know Bill has caused a lot of suffering for windows users)

Well, I'm stunned by the ignorance of that comment. They cooked the pie and paid for the filling and the pastry. You just want to have as much pie as you can for yourself and screw the person who cooked it.

Lets assume the rich person paid for the pie and the poor person baked the pie. Lets also assume that the poor person gets 1% of the pie. If the government takes 50% of the pie and thus 50% of the money for ingridients to bake tomorrows pie, 50% fewer pies will be baked and the poor person will get half the pie that they would have gotten if the government had not taken pie from the rich person the day before.

pseudobrit

Aug 22, 2008, 10:44 AM

I also think that everyone should pay the same rate.

I don't believe in taxing someone more just because they make more.

Would it be fair to make someone pay more sales tax just because they make more? No. So why do we do it with income taxes?

Because a graduated income tax recognizes there's a basic cost of living and as you earn more there's a progression to disposable income.

And besides, by the time the dust settles, everyone pays roughly half.

If you only account for disposable income, the poor pay more than that and the rich less. To make income tax flat and maintain current revenue would be regressive, increasing the tax burden share on the poor and middle class.

The poor cannot afford it and the middle class are already being pushed over the edge enough.

NSNick

Aug 22, 2008, 10:49 AM

Because a graduated income tax recognizes there's a basic cost of living and as you earn more there's a progression to disposable income.

And besides, by the time the dust settles, everyone pays roughly half.

If you only account for disposable income, the poor pay more than that and the rich less. To make income tax flat and maintain current revenue would be regressive, increasing the tax burden share on the poor and middle class.

The poor cannot afford it and the middle class are already being pushed over the edge enough.

This arguement is rediculous. Disposable income is determined by how much one saves. The poor should save more so that they can become rich. The poor should invest so that they have a stake in the capitalist society. Then, maybe they would not want to tax those corporate profits so much if the profits of corporations went into their pockets by way of dividends and capital gains.

és:

Aug 22, 2008, 10:50 AM

Do you really think government is better able to spend money than individuals?

That depends on the government.

Look at your NHS which requires people to wait 2 years for an operation that they need to save their lives in 2 months.

What are you going on about, now? Are you trying to take a one off case and trying to make it the normal.

Why not look at the best healthcare systems in the world? Like Sweden, the very best in the world, that's a socialist system and comapre it to the USA which is 42nd.

Let's look at where you live, Washington DC and compare it to the socialist healthcare system in the 3rd world country Cuba. Cuba has better infant mortality rates than where you live. It has a higher life expectancy for it's citizens than where you life. That's without looking at their education in comparison.

Compare that to something like the Gates Foundation. Every dollar that the government took from Bill Gates is not going to charity now.

Well, that's patently ridiculous. Picking out one of the worlds top philanthropists and making that one rare case into proof for your argument is nonsense. You're going to lose every single time if you pick out isolated cases like you've done twice in this post.

Lets assume

Let's just asume that what you've said isn't the most backward thing I've ever heard and move on, to save you embarrassment.

iGary

Aug 22, 2008, 10:51 AM

The poor cannot afford it and the middle class are already being pushed over the edge enough.

I'm one of the one's being pushed over the edge and I still think taes should be based on a fairer system, even for the very rich.

iJohnHenry

Aug 22, 2008, 10:59 AM

What a bizarre statement. Firstly, you've no idea of my financial situation, so y our 'jealousy' statement is little more than a shot in the dark. Secondly, you've managed tp called me envious, a sinner and imply that I have bad mental health all in just a couple of sentences.

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/terical.gif

Yes, he does have a certain talent. That cannot be denied.

I suggest you try to lighten-up, just a tad.

This is PRSI, after all.

és:

Aug 22, 2008, 11:00 AM

Disposable income is determined by how much one saves.

No, it isn't. Here (http://www.finance-glossary.com/terms/disposable-income.htm?id=422&ginPtrCode=12739) is a little help from the finance glossary.

The poor should save more so that they can become rich. The poor should invest so that they have a stake in the capitalist society.

That's one of the most incredible things I've ever heard, on any subject, in my entire life.

You forgot to mention where the poor, who by definition don't have enough money to live at a normal standard, are getting this money to invest and save.

NSNick

Aug 22, 2008, 11:01 AM

Why not look at the best healthcare systems in the world? Like Sweden, the very best in the world, that's a socialist system and comapre it to the USA which is 42nd.

Let's look at where you live, Washington DC and compare it to the socialist healthcare system in the 3rd world country Cuba. Cuba has better infant mortality rates than where you live. It has a higher life expectancy for it's citizens than where you life. That's without looking at their education in comparison.
First, I would argue that DC is socialist.
Second, those countries gained their healthcare system as a result of giving up almost all fundamental liberty. I would choose liberty over healthcare any day.
Life expectancy is not a fair criteria. Their life expectancy is probably higher because they have less food.

Well, that's patently ridiculous. Picking out one of the worlds top philanthropists and making that one rare case into proof for your argument is nonsense. You're going to lose every single time if you pick out isolated cases like you've done twice in this post.
That case is not isolated. Look at almost every charitable orginization. All started by rich people.
The Gates Foundation is particularly important because they spend more money to fight global health problems than the U.S. government (which spends more than any other country).

NSNick

Aug 22, 2008, 11:04 AM

You forgot to mention where the poor, who by definition don't have enough money to live at a normal standard, are getting this money to invest and save.

Your system discourages people from producing by punishing them for doing so thus producing less for EVERYONE.

és:

Aug 22, 2008, 11:09 AM

First, I would argue that DC is socialist.

That's because you have no idea what you're talking about. Sorry, but you've made it clear in the last few posts that you really have no idea at all.

Second, those countries gained their healthcare system as a result of giving up almost all fundamental liberty.

A direct swap, wasn't it?

What about Sweden? Denmark? France? Do they have no fundamental liberty or did they just give it up in trade for healthcare.

Their life expectancy is probably higher because they have less food.

Oh, that little nugget is going in my signature.

Honestly, what are they teaching kids the the US these days.

és:

Aug 22, 2008, 11:14 AM

Your system discourages people from producing by punishing them for doing so thus producing less for EVERYONE.

Why don't you think before you type, Nick.

The exact opposite is true.

NSNick

Aug 22, 2008, 11:18 AM

That's because you have no idea what you're talking about. Sorry, but you've made it clear in the last few posts that you really have no idea at all.
Saying I have no idea what I am talking about is not an arguement.

A direct swap, wasn't it?

What about Sweden? Denmark? France? Do they have no fundamental liberty or did they just give it up in trade for healthcare.
Yes

Oh, that little nugget is going in my signature.
Do you really think obesity has nothing to do with life expectancy? Maybe you need to go back to school?

Honestly, what are they teaching kids the the US these days.
The Truth (Capital T)

NSNick

Aug 22, 2008, 11:20 AM

Why don't you think before you type, Nick.

The exact opposite is true.

Again, you have not made an arguement here, only a statement.

The more you make or are responsible for making, the more money you take home. The more money you take home, the more money you pay to the government. The more money you pay to the government the more you are punished.

és:

Aug 22, 2008, 11:25 AM

Saying I have no idea what I am talking about is not an arguement.

I wasn't arguing it. It's a statement of fact based on what you've posted so far.

We were talking about healthcare in Washington. It's not socialist, no matter how much you said you'd argue it was.

Yes

Quality.

Do you really think obesity has nothing to do with life expectancy?

Of course it does. However, as you well know, you didn't mention obesity. You said they live longer because they have less food. Which is nothing short of idiotic.

Maybe you need to go back to school?

No, I'm fairly well covered on the schooling front. Thank you all the same.

I've had just about as much nonsense as I can take, so I won't bother replying to any more of your posts in this thread, I'll let someone else have some fun.

és:

Aug 22, 2008, 11:32 AM

WTF happened to my comment? Sarcasm isn't allowed anymore?

They even removed mine that quoted it. Bit daft... they must be power crazed communists.

NSNick

Aug 22, 2008, 11:34 AM

I wasn't arguing it. It's a statement of fact based on what you've posted so far.
Your ability to post without making arguements in this forum is unsurpassed.

We were talking about healthcare in Washington. It's not socialist, no matter how much you said you'd argue it was.
http://www.dchealth.dc.gov/doh/site/default.asp

Quality.
Indeed

Of course it does. However, as you well know, you didn't mention obesity. You said they live longer because they have less food. Which is nothing short of idiotic.
An intelligent person would have caught on to what I was refering to.

atszyman

Aug 22, 2008, 11:36 AM

Again, you have not made an arguement here, only a statement.

The more you make or are responsible for making, the more money you take home. The more money you take home, the more money you pay to the government. The more money you pay to the government the more you are punished.

Until the tax rate above $X goes to 100% or more you do reap rewards for producing more (assuming it is consumed) because you do make more money, just more of that money goes to the government than dolar X. Since the highest tax bracket is 35% and the next one down is 33% you lose a whopping $0.02 on every dollar earned above $357,700. I highly doubt that if they can make it the fact that they only get to keep $0.65 of every dollar versus $0.67 of every dollar is going to have much of an effect on production especially if the demand will have everything sold.

You are not punishing for producing more, you're only slightly reducing the reward. Who in their right mind would say, I could sell 100,000 of these but since I'll earn 2% less on the last 25,000 I'm only going to sell 75,000? If you're making $4.77 per unit that's over $77,000 that you're throwing away (after taxes) because you'd have made almost $80,000 at the next lower tax bracket. You're throwing away $77,000 because you are being "penalized" less than $3,000. That's not a penalty, it's just diminishing returns.

NSNick

Aug 22, 2008, 11:39 AM

Until the tax rate above $X goes to 100% or more you do reap rewards for producing more (assuming it is consumed) because you do make more money, just more of that money goes to the government than dolar X. Since the highest tax bracket is 35% and the next one down is 33% you lose a whopping $0.02 on every dollar earned above $357,700. I highly doubt that if they can make it the fact that they only get to keep $0.65 of every dollar versus $0.67 of every dollar is going to have much of an effect on production especially if the demand will have everything sold.

You are not punishing for producing more, you're only slightly reducing the reward. Who in their right mind would say, I could sell 100,000 of these but since I'll earn 2% less on the last 25,000 I'm only going to sell 75,000? If you're making $4.77 per unit that's over $77,000 that you're throwing away (after taxes) because you'd have made almost $80,000 at the next lower tax bracket. You're throwing away $77,000 because you are being penalized less than $3,000. That's not a penalty, it's just diminishing returns.

Finally a real arguement...

You are still disincentivising people by telling them that the effort they put into their later production during the year is worth less than their effort in the earlier part thus they will be less likely to produce more.

és:

Aug 22, 2008, 11:39 AM

An intellegent person would have caught on to what I was refering to.]

An intelligent person might also know how to spell intelligent. An intelligent person might have actually have said what they meant, or at least implied it, instead of saying something completely different. An intelligent person wouldn't have resorted to ad hominem attacks to cover one's own lack of knowledge.

NSNick

Aug 22, 2008, 11:42 AM

An intelligent person might also know how to spell intelligent. An intelligent person might have actually have said what they meant, or at least implied it, instead of saying something completely different. An intelligent person wouldn't have resorted to ad hominem attacks to cover one's own lack of knowledge.

Would you like to make an arguement yet?

Remember arguements contain both claims and warrants. You have only made claims. You need to take that next step.

iJon

Aug 22, 2008, 11:46 AM

I don't mind taxes. It's just most scenarios my tax money is wasted, then they want more cause they can't pay for other things. It's a never ending cycle.

és:

Aug 22, 2008, 12:13 PM

I don't mind taxes. It's just most scenarios my tax money is wasted, then they want more cause they can't pay for other things. It's a never ending cycle.

Tax wastage is a legitimate gripe and most people, in most countries, have something to say about the money they pay being wasted. That's entirely legitimate.

The waste on all sorts of things is hideous.

atszyman

Aug 22, 2008, 12:26 PM

Finally a real arguement...

You are still disincentivising people by telling them that the effort they put into their later production during the year is worth less than their effort in the earlier part thus they will be less likely to produce more.

But it does not continue downward. It halts at 35%. If it were true diminishing returns you'd keep going until you hit the point where the last unit you produced put you at a point where the next unit would either cost as much to produce as it would bring in or it would cost more to produce than it would bring in.

The highest tax bracket says that everything after dollar X you'll only get $0.65 of every dollar profit after that point.

If we started taxing every dollar above X at 100% or more then I would agree that there is a penalty for increased production because you actually cut into your previous products income for every product produced after $X are earned. Because you still get to keep some of the money, as long as you can produce the product for less than you can sell it for there is incentive to produce it. Unless you're telling me a company would rather not make more money because the government will take a little more of that money. It will not make your point of production halting since it would only tax the profits.

NSNick

Aug 22, 2008, 12:38 PM

But it does not continue downward. It halts at 35%. If it were true diminishing returns you'd keep going until you hit the point where the last unit you produced put you at a point where the next unit would either cost as much to produce as it would bring in or it would cost more to produce than it would bring in.

The highest tax bracket says that everything after dollar X you'll only get $0.65 of every dollar profit after that point.

If we started taxing every dollar above X at 100% or more then I would agree that there is a penalty for increased production because you actually cut into your previous products income for every product produced after $X are earned. Because you still get to keep some of the money, as long as you can produce the product for less than you can sell it for there is incentive to produce it. Unless you're telling me a company would rather not make more money because the government will take a little more of that money. It will not make your point of production halting since it would only tax the profits.

In reality when you factor other taxes in, the highest bracket is well over 50%

it5five

Aug 22, 2008, 01:00 PM

Remember arguements contain both claims and warrants. You have only made claims. You need to take that next step.

Oh, how rich!

You're the one sitting here saying that Washington D.C. is socialist, and that Sweden, Denmark, and France have given up all freedom and liberty in exchange for universal healthcare. Please, provide some sort of evidence of this. I'd love to see it.

NSNick

Aug 22, 2008, 01:02 PM

Oh, how rich!

You're the one sitting here saying that Washington D.C. is socialist, and that Sweden, Denmark, and France have given up all freedom and liberty in exchange for universal healthcare. Please, provide some sort of evidence of this. I'd love to see it.

I posted a link for dc being socialist.

I did not say that those countries gave up all liberties for healthcare, but rather that there was a direct link between liberty and healthcare as in when the state provides better healthcare there is a decrease in liberty.

it5five

Aug 22, 2008, 01:07 PM

I posted a link for dc being socialist.

I did not say that those countries gave up all liberties for healthcare, but rather that there was a direct link between liberty and healthcare as in when the state provides better healthcare there is a decrease in liberty.

Department of Health ≠ Socialist.

But maybe you'd like to try and tell me why it is. It imagine it will be painfully hilarious.

And provide evidence of this direct link between liberty and healthcare.

NSNick

Aug 22, 2008, 01:10 PM

Department of Health ≠ Socialist.

But maybe you'd like to try and tell me why it is. It imagine it will be painfully hilarious.

And provide evidence of this direct link between liberty and healthcare.

You take my money, you take my freedom to decide how it is spent.
Remember when Locke says "life, liberty and property." Take any of my fundamental rights and you are taking my liberty.

Go to the website and see all of the programs it is socialist.

LethalWolfe

Aug 22, 2008, 01:14 PM

Sounds to me like a lot of people are willing to accept sub par services for their hard earned money.

Really?
To be fair, many people feel that our tax dollars are spent poorly.
You are all over this one, Lee! ;) I do not like paying taxes, but it does not upset me much either. Yet, as you say, I hate to see my 'hard-earned', squandered, or not being used intelligently.
I believe the general consensus isn't against paying taxes, it's seeing the money wasted. The problem is that everyone has a different idea of what is wasting their money.
I have no problem with taxes. I have a problem with how they're spent.

We all get pissed off when we find out about wasteful programs but at this point they're hard to find and we almost have to rely on others to do much of the dirty work. If most taxpayers did just a small bit of research on their money we'd probably be hearing of a new waste of money every few days, and they'll be found even faster as more internet savvy people retire and have nothing better to do.
The only thing that really gets my goat w/regard to taxes is the wasteful way so much of it is spent.

This is the same problem I have. There is a level of increasing incompetency as we move across from City to State to Federal in terms of considering the budget to be disposable, and concerns only begin to arise when you're spending more then you have. What's the national debt again?
Sees to me like most people, at least in this thread, aren't very happy overall w/how are tax dollars are being spent.

This arguement is rediculous. Disposable income is determined by how much one saves.
Disposable income is determined by how much one earns. Paycheck - taxes - necessities = disposable income. Someone earning over 1 million dollars a year, but saves none of it will have more disposable income than someone who earns $60k a year but saves 30% of it.

The poor should save more so that they can become rich. The poor should invest so that they have a stake in the capitalist society.
And if people who were starving grew their own food world hunger would be a thing of the past...

Lethal

it5five

Aug 22, 2008, 01:15 PM

You take my money, you take my freedom to decide how it is spent.
Remember when Locke says "life, liberty and property." Take any of my fundamental rights and you are taking my liberty.

Go to the website and see all of the programs it is socialist.

I've been to the website, and found nothing remotely socialist. What I said was that I wanted you to tell me why you think it is socialist. Surely an "intellegent" person such as yourself would have no difficulty doing this.

You also said there was a "direct link" between loss of liberty and universal healthcare. A quote from John Locke doesn't constitute a "direct link", I'm afraid.

atszyman

Aug 22, 2008, 01:21 PM

In reality when you factor other taxes in, the highest bracket is well over 50%

When you factor in all other taxes all income levels are taxed at around 50%. The reason the federal income tax is progressive to to try to even out the regressive nature of the other taxes.

The last time I checked 50% is still quite a bit less than 100%. So if I can make $1 more by producing one more product I'll only get $0.50. But if I don't produce it I don't even make the $0.50. Unless you're telling me that people will not want to earn more money sheerly because the government will take slightly more of that next dollar there is not a penalty for increased production. As long as they can produce the product for less than they can sell it they will make more money. They may pay a little more in taxes on that extra money but they still get rewarded by making more money. There is no tax bracket that penalizes increasing production provided you can sell your goods, since there is no 100+% tax bracket

és:

Aug 22, 2008, 01:32 PM

Oh, how rich!

You're the one sitting here saying that Washington D.C. is socialist, and that Sweden, Denmark, and France have given up all freedom and liberty in exchange for universal healthcare. Please, provide some sort of evidence of this. I'd love to see it.

I had to just stop replying to him, he's pretty funny for five minutes. After that you just start feeling sorry for him.

I think the part about the poor saving and investing is something that will stay with me for quite a long time, though. And the thing about Sweden, Denmark and France. These are the type of things that really make me giggle.

it5five

Aug 22, 2008, 01:42 PM

és:

Aug 22, 2008, 01:44 PM

I liked the bit about the poor people investing too. I also love hearing completely uninformed opinions about Europe from Americans. It would probably be funnier if such a large amount of people in this country didn't believe it. Unfortunately I have to live around people like him, so it loses it's humor over time.

Yeah. I don't know if you remember a while back I said to you about a certain type of American?

He is exactly who I meant.

EDIT: I just noticed your signature! What The Eff!?! :D

kavika411

Aug 22, 2008, 01:50 PM

it5five

Aug 22, 2008, 01:51 PM

Yeah. I don't know if you remember a while back I said to you about a certain type of American?

He is exactly who I meant.

EDIT: I just noticed your signature! What The Eff!?! :D

I remember. He's the type exactly. They're everywhere here.

Yep, I'm one of those "vote wasting" Nader supporters. ;)

Pittsax

Aug 22, 2008, 01:59 PM

You take my money, you take my freedom to decide how it is spent.
Remember when Locke says "life, liberty and property." Take any of my fundamental rights and you are taking my liberty.

Go to the website and see all of the programs it is socialist.
Um....no.

You (collectively as in the voting public) control to a degree how the money is spent by whom you elect to serve in government. If more people had voted Democratic instead of for Bush, more money would probably have been spent on things such as medical research via the NIH (choosing an example that affects me personally) and less on blowing up Iraqis for no legitimate reason.

The fundamental flaw in your way of thinking is that it rests on the belief that, left alone without government interference, people will do what's in the best interest of everyone. Bull. People will do what's best for THEMSELVES and to hell with anyone they have to step on. This has been emphasized time and again with the way the Bush Administration, and neo-conservative thinking in general, has caused the wealth gap to widen, be it via de-regulation of banks, the housing industry, or countless other programs. Drug companies, if not regulated, don't do things to benefit the people that buy the drugs. They do what will benefit the people that SELL the drugs (i.e. themselves). Do you really believe that a capitalist health care system is in the country's best interests? And by the way, "country" ≠ "rich people"

NSNick

Aug 22, 2008, 02:04 PM

When you factor in all other taxes all income levels are taxed at around 50%. The reason the federal income tax is progressive to to try to even out the regressive nature of the other taxes.

The last time I checked 50% is still quite a bit less than 100%. So if I can make $1 more by producing one more product I'll only get $0.50. But if I don't produce it I don't even make the $0.50. Unless you're telling me that people will not want to earn more money sheerly because the government will take slightly more of that next dollar there is not a penalty for increased production. As long as they can produce the product for less than they can sell it they will make more money. They may pay a little more in taxes on that extra money but they still get rewarded by making more money. There is no tax bracket that penalizes increasing production provided you can sell your goods, since there is no 100+% tax bracket

Your arguement revolves around the assumption that no effort is required to produce. If that was the case sure people would continue producing so long as they got any benefit. The fact is it does require effort and people will see less value in producing more when they gain less.

NSNick

Aug 22, 2008, 02:05 PM

és:

Aug 22, 2008, 02:05 PM

I remember. He's the type exactly. They're everywhere here.

When we both live in our new country, which will possibly be the same, we'll meet, have a drink and laugh about them :D

Yep, I'm one of those "vote wasting" Nader supporters. ;)

On second thoughts...

;)

I've only seen clips of Nader, he seemed OK in the brief few seconds. I'd have to vote for Obama though, I really would. I don't agree with a lot of his politics, but look at the alternative.

Pittsax

Aug 22, 2008, 02:10 PM

There are several of you on this thread who seem to have strong feelings on this topic - whether those feelings are anti-taxation or pro-higher-taxes-for-wealthy, or somewhere inbetween. What I think would be interesting (although I may be the only one) would be to see people post exact brackets, or cutoffs, or maximimum incomes, or whatever, he/she would mandate if he/she were king, so to speak. In other words, I think it would be interesting for people to draw very real, and very concise, lines concerning allowable wealth, taxable rates, etc., and do so without any emotional rhetoric.

I'm not suggesting a couple of people haven't come close to this, or that this thread is full of emotional rhetoric, but I think the OP raises an interesting issue, but one that can go on forever without people saying exactly, concisely what they'd do if they were "in charge." Just an idea.
My answer: "I don't know" and that's simply because I'm nowhere near the tax expert to be able to factor in the various types of taxes and how they relate to each other.

I do know that the wrong way to go is to continue to make life easier for the people that already have the money. And here's the thing.

Let's say you have a person who is very successful in life, and they manage to make $5 million a year (this is McCain's definition of "rich" by the way). I heard somewhere that the average salary for an American is roughly $60,000 (sorry, I forget where). This means it will take an average person 83 years to make what the rich person made in one year. Now, going by the 1040 tax table for 2007 (I'm simplifying things here by calling everything "earned income" the rich person's tax burden is probably much less) the "average" person will pay about $11,000 in tax, for a take home pay of $49,000. The rich person will pay roughly $1,730,000 in taxes for a takehome pay of $3,270,000. This is still 66 times what the average person makes. And because a lot of income for the wealthy is via investments, I'm overestimating their tax burden.

So yes, the wealthy now pay a lot more in tax, but their take-home is still WAY higher than an average person would ever home to make. So tell me again why Republicans make it sound like they'll be in the poor house unless the tax burden on the wealthy is lowered even more?

it5five

Aug 22, 2008, 02:10 PM

When we both live in our new country, which will possibly be the same, we'll meet, have a drink and laugh about them :D

Sounds good.

I've only seen clips of Nader, he seemed OK in the brief few seconds. I'd have to vote for Obama though, I really would. I don't agree with a lot of his politics, but look at the alternative.

If it looks like it might be a close race here in Arizona (Obama keeps closing up the gap here, so it might turn out to be one) I'd consider voting for Obama, but if McCain is expected to take this state anyway I'll vote for the person I think is a better candidate.

NSNick

Aug 22, 2008, 02:13 PM

My answer: "I don't know" and that's simply because I'm nowhere near the tax expert to be able to factor in the various types of taxes and how they relate to each other.

I do know that the wrong way to go is to continue to make life easier for the people that already have the money. And here's the thing.

Let's say you have a person who is very successful in life, and they manage to make $5 million a year (this is McCain's definition of "rich" by the way). I heard somewhere that the average salary for an American is roughly $60,000 (sorry, I forget where). This means it will take an average person 83 years to make what the rich person made in one year. Now, going by the 1040 tax table for 2007 (I'm simplifying things here by calling everything "earned income" the rich person's tax burden is probably much less) the "average" person will pay about $11,000 in tax, for a take home pay of $49,000. The rich person will pay roughly $1,730,000 in taxes for a takehome pay of $3,270,000. This is still 66 times what the average person makes. And because a lot of income for the wealthy is via investments, I'm overestimating their tax burden.

So yes, the wealthy now pay a lot more in tax, but their take-home is still WAY higher than an average person would ever home to make. So tell me again why Republicans make it sound like they'll be in the poor house unless the tax burden on the wealthy is lowered even more?

Should their take home be exactly the same?

és:

Aug 22, 2008, 02:16 PM

If it looks like it might be a close race here in Arizona (Obama keeps closing up the gap here, so it might turn out to be one) I'd consider voting for Obama, but if McCain is expected to take this state anyway I'll vote for the person I think is a better candidate.

That sounds like a well reasoned voting strategy.

SMM

Aug 22, 2008, 02:17 PM

This arguement is rediculous. Disposable income is determined by how much one saves. The poor should save more so that they can become rich. The poor should invest so that they have a stake in the capitalist society. Then, maybe they would not want to tax those corporate profits so much if the profits of corporations went into their pockets by way of dividends and capital gains.

That statement is just plain stupid. The poor do not have any money to save. Are you trying to set the world record for most unpopular posts by a newbie? If so, I will put my money on you.

NSNick

Aug 22, 2008, 02:20 PM

That statement is just plain stupid. The poor do not have any money to save. Are you trying to set the world record for most unpopular posts by a newbie? If so, I will put my money on you.

Just challenging the liberal bias of the forum.

atszyman

Aug 22, 2008, 02:20 PM

Your arguement revolves around the assumption that no effort is required to produce. If that was the case sure people would continue producing so long as they got any benefit. The fact is it does require effort and people will see less value in producing more when they gain less.

No I'm not ignoring production costs.

Profit = sale price - production costs.

Sure every additional unit requires more cost to produce on a product that experiences diminishing returns. Unless your goal is not to maximize profits you will produce products until you hit the point where the sale price is equal to the production costs and your profit on that unit is zero (ideally you'll stop with the unit before the zero profit unit).

The fact that the government takes slightly more of your profit over X dollars does not affect where you stop production at all. You still make a profit on that last unit (the one before the zero profit unit), although the government may tax it at 50% where the second last unit was taxed at 48%. You'll still make more money by producing that one extra unit even though the government takes more of a percentage of the profit on that unit than it did on previous units.

If your goal is maximizing profits the tax rate will not affect where you stop production unless it is 100% or more. You could tax that last $1 made at 99% and the profits would still be more than if that last unit was not made.

it5five

Aug 22, 2008, 02:20 PM

Just challenging the liberal bias of the forum.

And doing quite an awful job at it, I might add.

NSNick

Aug 22, 2008, 02:24 PM

No I'm not ignoring production costs.

Profit = sale price - production costs.

Sure every additional unit requires more cost to produce on a product that experiences diminishing returns. Unless your goal is not to maximize profits you will produce products until you hit the point where the sale price is equal to the production costs and your profit on that unit is zero (ideally you'll stop with the unit before the zero profit unit).

The fact that the government takes slightly more of your profit over X dollars does not affect where you stop production at all. You still make a profit on that last unit (the one before the zero profit unit), although the government may tax it at 50% where the second last unit was taxed at 48%. You'll still make more money by producing that one extra unit even though the government takes more of a percentage of the profit on that unit than it did on previous units.

If your goal is maximizing profits the tax rate will not affect where you stop production unless it is 100% or more. You could tax that last $1 made at 99% and the profits would still be more than if that last unit was not made.

I am not talking in the sense of a large corporation. It is a disincentive for individuals to commit effort.

és:

Aug 22, 2008, 02:24 PM

Just challenging the liberal bias of the forum.

By saying things like that about the poor? I'm not to be mistaken for a Liberal, on a few issues I'm as far from being liberal as you can get, but that doesn't mean you can make up nonsense.

atszyman

Aug 22, 2008, 02:31 PM

I am not talking in the sense of a large corporation. It is a disincentive for individuals to commit effort.

Why? Even when you move up to the next tax bracket you still make more money. None of the brackets are even close to 100%. I get a raise at my employer an a somewhat yearly basis, as do most people, how many people refuse their raise because it will move them to the next tax bracket? Just because I pay more in on dollar 357,701 than I did on dollar 357,700 does not mean that I don't want the extra $0.50 that I wouldn't get if I only made $357,700. Making that next dollar does not penalize me in any way, it means that I get to take home the untaxed portion of that next dollar and now I have more disposable income, assuming inflation did not exceed my pay increase.

mactastic

Aug 22, 2008, 02:38 PM

I am not talking in the sense of a large corporation. It is a disincentive for individuals to commit effort.
Even large corporations are made up of individuals...

NSNick

Aug 22, 2008, 02:51 PM

Why? Even when you move up to the next tax bracket you still make more money. None of the brackets are even close to 100%. I get a raise at my employer an a somewhat yearly basis, as do most people, how many people refuse their raise because it will move them to the next tax bracket? Just because I pay more in on dollar 357,701 than I did on dollar 357,700 does not mean that I don't want the extra $0.50 that I wouldn't get if I only made $357,700. Making that next dollar does not penalize me in any way, it means that I get to take home the untaxed portion of that next dollar and now I have more disposable income, assuming inflation did not exceed my pay increase.
QED you do not have to expend any additional effort for that raise.

mactastic

Aug 22, 2008, 02:54 PM

QED you do not have to expend any additional effort for that raise.
I don't know what kind of elitist job you have, but every raise I've ever gotten was as a result of additional effort I put in that allowed the company to profit more.

I don't know about you, but I've never gotten a raise simply for punching a time clock. If you are getting raises for doing nothing, that might explain your world view...

atszyman

Aug 22, 2008, 03:02 PM

QED you do not have to expend any additional effort for that raise.

My job responsibilities expand every year, and I do have to work harder each year for that raise. Based on your "penalty" argument offering people more money will not offer them the incentive to work harder because the government will take 2% more of those next dollars that they earn. If you find an employee like that then no matter what you were going to hit a ceiling on that employee at some point.

I've also found that most people don't factor in the taxes when they're told that this promotion will give them an X% raise. They sit down and calculate their pre-tax income and are more than happy to accept the job because even at a tax rate of 99.999% they will still take home more money. I agree that the higher the tax rate the more people would start to weigh the options of the added responsibility and stress, but we're not at that point with taxes yet.

Any employee that would be weighing the stress/responsibility versus the extra money is also someone I might reconsider for the promotion. I'd rather find someone interested in doing the job with excitement and enthusiasm for the experience/advancement than someone who's worried that the extra stress might cause them problems that are not worth the extra money, someone on the fence for those issues is probably a good candidate for burn out in the new position.

Thomas Veil

Aug 22, 2008, 03:31 PM

The more you make or are responsible for making, the more money you take home. The more money you take home, the more money you pay to the government. The more money you pay to the government the more you are punished.If you concede that taxes are punishment, that might, just barely maybe might make sense. But they're not, so it doesn't.

Because a graduated income tax recognizes there's a basic cost of living and as you earn more there's a progression to disposable income.Again, something you'd think would be self-evident.

This arguement is rediculous. Disposable income is determined by how much one saves. The poor should save more so that they can become rich. The poor should invest so that they have a stake in the capitalist society. Then, maybe they would not want to tax those corporate profits so much if the profits of corporations went into their pockets by way of dividends and capital gains.You forgot to mention where the poor, who by definition don't have enough money to live at a normal standard, are getting this money to invest and save.Once again, someone here took the words right out of my mouth. The idea that the poor have anything left over for savings after paying day-to-day living expenses betrays a thought process that is totally divorced from reality.

You take my money, you take my freedom to decide how it is spent.Umm...because our elected officials combine our taxes and determine how they're spent. Or were you thinking of buying your own highways and funding your own army?

1 bracket (very low)And very unrealistic.

fivepoint

Aug 22, 2008, 03:31 PM

High Taxes = Big Government

What's So Bad About Big Government Anyway? (http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4723)
By George C. Leef

People want to and have a right to attempt to maximize happiness in their lives. Every time the government forces people to do things they would prefer not to do, prevents them from doing things they would like to do, or taxes them for things they don’t want, it reduces their ability to maximize their happiness. That is fundamentally wrong.

Big Government vs. Liberty:
Big government is the enemy of liberty. Government actions that go beyond its defensive, rights-preserving functions necessarily entail some form of coercion that diminishes the freedom of at least some people to do what they would like to do. The bigger the government gets, the more it reduces liberty.

Big Government vs. Prosperity:
Individuals strive constantly to make the best use of their resources—their time, money, and physical resources, from forests to carpenter’s tools, coal mines to computers. They carefully examine their options and decide how to allocate their resources to obtain the maximum benefit from them. Sometimes people make bad decisions, but they will change them as soon as it becomes evident that they brought undesirable results.

Self-interest produces the decisions that maximize our wealth and happiness. No one, not even the most ardent statist, likes having his freedom to choose how to spend his time and money usurped by others. Most people realize that turning decision-making authority over to others is apt to leave them worse off. What is true at the personal level is also true at the macroeconomic level, since the entire economy is merely the sum of untold individual decisions. The freer people are to make their own choices, the more prosperous the economy will be.

Big government, however, interferes with those decisions by diverting resources from the realm of individual decision-making and putting them in the realm of political decision-making. Political decision-making means that the use of resources will be determined by people who don’t own them and therefore do not stand to gain from being right or to lose from being wrong. (Being right means using resources in a way that best satisfies consumers.) Comparing private and political decision-making is like comparing how you drive your own car to how joy-riding teenagers would drive it.

Big Government vs. Progress:
Human beings have a natural inclination to search for better ways to do things. When we succeed, we call it progress. The discovery can be as simple as a housewife figuring out a faster way of getting her shopping done or as headline-grabbing as a breakthrough in medical technology. The quest for progress is universal.

When government is doing its proper job of protecting the rights of individuals, it indirectly assists progress by helping to protect innovators against attacks by those who don’t want them to try new and different things. In arresting and jailing the Luddites, the early nineteenth-century workers who violently opposed progress in textile production (power looms and factories threatened their old-fashioned ways of weaving cloth), the British government aided progress. When government protects liberty and property, progress is maximized.

Big government, however, often fails to protect liberty and property. Frequently special-interest groups that feel threatened by some innovation will lobby the government to do what they cannot legally do on their own, namely, interfere with the freedom of the innovators. As a political favor to those groups, big government often locks in the status quo with laws and regulations. Progress is thereby stifled.

Big Government vs. Harmony:
When government is right-sized, it outlaws and punishes aggressive acts against people and their belongings. That raises the cost of aggression, thereby helping to deter it and channel people’s desire to get more for themselves into peaceful means. Cooperation and trade flourish in this environment. People come to realize, at least implicitly, that there is a natural harmony among their interests. (For an intriguing discussion of human cooperation, see Matt Ridley’s The Origins of Virtue [Viking, 1997], and the book review in this issue.) Antagonisms and hatreds may not disappear, but they are minimized.

Big government, however, holds and inevitably uses the power to make some people better off at the expense of others. This creates hostility, bitterness, and sometimes violence where there would otherwise be none.

Big Government vs. Morality:
Right-sized governments do not try to make their people moral. Instead, they preserve the freedom of individuals to act as they think best to promote morality. Churches, civic groups, writers, and orators are free to try to persuade people to live what they regard as a moral life. Government should protect the right of all to enter the marketplace of ideas about morality but should draw the line at actions that force others to live by those ideas.

What is so bad about big government? My indictment of big government is that it is bad because it attacks liberty, prosperity, progress, harmony, and morality. Thanks to big government, we have significantly less of all of those good things than we would if we had been able to keep government right-sized.

Big government is cancerous. Like a cancer, it hurts the body and tends to spread, doing more and more harm as it grows. It is time for some radical surgery.

Ugg

Aug 22, 2008, 03:37 PM

High Taxes = Big Government

And what's your opinion?

Thomas Veil

Aug 22, 2008, 03:40 PM

That article lost me when is said

Thinking back to my questioner, why shouldn’t government force people to do x, prevent them from doing y, or tax them to support z, as long as these objectives are “in the public interest”? That mind-numbing phrase has been the cover for untold human suffering. The truth is that there is no such thing as “the public interest.” Only individual human beings have interests. When people talk about “the public interest,” what they really mean is that some members of the public want something, and they want it at the expense of others.So...what? If there's no such thing as "the public interest", then we shouldn't even have things like armies or schools.

And does this genius realize that the biggest goverment we've had has come from the guy who's cut the most taxes?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of oversized goverment, but this guy's assertions just do not make sense.

BTW, what kind of "untold suffering" do public interest things like the CDC and Social Security cause?

bobber205

Aug 22, 2008, 03:53 PM

Should their take home be exactly the same?

No of course not. He's arguing they're still extremely well off. They just want MORE which is pure greed.

This whole topics boils down to who's more greedy than the others.

leekohler

Aug 22, 2008, 04:01 PM

High Taxes = Big Government

What's So Bad About Big Government Anyway? (http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4723)
By George C. Leef

Who here has ever argued for big government? No one that I know of. We would just like it to work better for us, do what we need it to do and be more efficient as well as accountable. Just so you know, Bush grew government AND lowered taxes. High taxes don't equal big government. That's a fallacy proven just recently, now isn't it? And just look what this administration has done to our liberties.

NSNick

Aug 22, 2008, 04:05 PM

So...what? If there's no such thing as "the public interest", then we shouldn't even have things like armies or schools.

Private schools and private posession of guns.

it5five

Aug 22, 2008, 04:06 PM

How will poor people be able to afford private school for their kids?

atszyman

Aug 22, 2008, 04:11 PM

How will poor people be able to afford private school for their kids?

They'll have guns. And with no police force because there's not such thing as the "public good" they'll be free to steal what they need from the rich. See, win-win.

Instead of orderly re-distribution of wealth and law enforcement provided by the government we can have anarchy and everyone fending for themselves.

it5five

Aug 22, 2008, 04:17 PM

Sounds great! And even better is that the poor people who saved and invested would be able to send their kids to school without having to steal. They will, of course, need to defend themselves against the envious and jealous poor people who weren't wise enough to think ahead.

bobber205

Aug 22, 2008, 04:27 PM

Liberal bias is so lol. Just because it's an argument against doesn'tmean it's biased.

jmadlena

Aug 22, 2008, 04:31 PM

... I also love hearing completely uninformed opinions about Europe from Americans...

Funny, I was thinking about it the other way around...

fivepoint

Aug 22, 2008, 04:37 PM

And what's your opinion?

I just gave it to you. It's just that George gets paid to write so eloquently, and I don't have the time to put it all in my own words for you, Ugg. What's yours? Tax people as much as possible and give the money to the less fortunate? Legalized theft?

Who here has ever argued for big government? No one that I know of. We would just like it to work better for us, do what we need it to do and be more efficient as well as accountable. Just so you know, Bush grew government AND lowered taxes. High taxes don't equal big government. That's a fallacy proven just recently, now isn't it? And just look what this administration has done to our liberties.

Liberals in general fight for larger government every single day. Every program, every hand-out, every little dollar you tax in the name of the "little guy" is a means to an end. That end is a government which has grown far beyond it's original intention. A government which is toxic to itself and to the people is tries so hard to protect. George, a little help here...

Big government is cancerous. Like a cancer, it hurts the body and tends to spread, doing more and more harm as it grows. It is time for some radical surgery.

leekohler

Aug 22, 2008, 04:41 PM

Liberals in general fight for larger government every single day. Every program, every hand-out, every little dollar you tax in the name of the "little guy" is a means to an end. That end is a government which has grown far beyond it's original intention. A government which is toxic to itself and to the people is tries so hard to protect. George, a little help here...

You failed to address my point, not that I'm surprised.

skunk

Aug 22, 2008, 04:44 PM

Liberals in general fight for larger government every single day.This is such lazy comment. Your precious conservative, right-wing war-mongering administration has presided over an unparalleled increase in government control and special interest spending. Do you ever bother to check in with reality, or is that truth too inconvenient?

mactastic

Aug 22, 2008, 04:56 PM

Private schools and private posession of guns.
You are, of course, free to exercise your right not to pay taxes. Just find yourself a job that pays a wage that allows you to pay zero taxes.

Have some personal responsibility man!

Thomas Veil

Aug 22, 2008, 05:44 PM

Private schools and private posession of guns.Private possession of guns instead of a standing army??

Wow.

Let's try that with the post-9/11 battle against the Taliban. Instead of sending an army over there with well-devised plans formulated in the Pentagon, we just buy an international plane ticket for every gun owner in America and say "See you there!!" Then, arriving in Afghanistan (or the individual's alternate country of choice) with no battle plan, they just begin shooting anything that moves.

fivepoint

Aug 22, 2008, 05:45 PM

This is such lazy comment. Your precious conservative, right-wing war-mongering administration has presided over an unparalleled increase in government control and special interest spending. Do you ever bother to check in with reality, or is that truth too inconvenient?

It's not "MY" administration, and it is hardly "conservative". Do YOU every check with reality? Also, you would think that you would have realized by now that I'm against any unconstitutional governmental growth from other threads along with this one. I've criticized liberals and so-called "conservatives" alike.

You failed to address my point, not that I'm surprised.

I didn't address your "point" directly, because the answer is obvious. Of course high taxes aren't the ONLY thing causing bigger government. So is high spending, for example. Something this particular Administration and (more importantly) congress seems unconcerned with. Also, why do you insist on lumping me in with the administration? I don't know where you'd get such a crazy idea. See my response just above this one.

On a related note, I wonder why you didn't address any of MY points? "Not that I'm surprised." See how lame that sounds?

leekohler

Aug 22, 2008, 05:54 PM

I

I didn't address your "point" directly, because the answer is obvious. Of course high taxes aren't the ONLY thing causing bigger government. So is high spending, for example. Something this particular Administration and (more importantly) congress seems unconcerned with. Also, why do you insist on lumping me in with the administration? I don't know where you'd get such a crazy idea. See my response just above this one.

On a related note, I wonder why you didn't address any of MY points? "Not that I'm surprised." See how lame that sounds?

The only thing that sounded lame was your post full of links, obviously trying to draw the conclusion that High Taxes = Big Government. That was your assertion, and it was false. Taxes were low under Reagan, and government and presidential powers also increased. It's a myth. Government grows because we let it, and refuse to hold it accountable. Get to the cause of the problem, don't just treat the symptom.

fivepoint

Aug 22, 2008, 05:55 PM

Private possession of guns instead of a standing army??

Wow.

Let's try that with the post-9/11 battle against the Taliban. Instead of sending an army over there with well-devised plans formulated in the Pentagon, we just buy an international plane ticket for every gun owner in America and say "See you there!!" Then, arriving in Afghanistan (or the individual's alternate country of choice) with no battle plan, they just begin shooting anything that moves.

That might have actually worked. Apparently you've never been to Texas. ;)

The only thing that sounded lame was your post full of links, obviously trying to draw the conclusion that High Taxes = Big Government. That was your assertion, and it was false. Taxes were low under Reagan, and government and presidential powers also increased. It's a myth.

Yeah, you're right leekohler. High taxes = SMALL Government. That makes so much sense! I don't know what I was thinking. ;)

Hahaha, now wait... wait! Let me just get this straight. It is your contention that more taxes does not grow the size of the government? Right? You feel that increasing the size of the government's bank account, which they use to create more government controlled social programs and hire more government employees, is somehow... SHRINKING the size of government? Just so I know what you're saying for sure. I don't want to put words in your mouth.

BTW, just as a frame of reference here, Lee... where did you go to school?

fivepoint

Aug 22, 2008, 06:01 PM

Government grows because we let it, and refuse to hold it accountable. Get to the cause of the problem, don't just treat the symptom.

Now THIS is something we can agree on! Well said, Lee.

leekohler

Aug 22, 2008, 06:04 PM

Now THIS is something we can agree on! Well said, Lee.

Well yeah- it just gets my goat when people sit there and use their political bias, rather than talk honestly about a problem. The government is only big because we let it get big. It's not high taxes, that's just obviously not the case- it seems to grow no matter what we do on that front.

fivepoint

Aug 22, 2008, 06:09 PM

Well yeah- it just gets my goat when people sit there and use their political bias, rather than talk honestly about a problem. The government is only big because we let it get big. It's not high taxes, that's just obviously not the case- it seems to grow no matter what we do on that front.

Let me explain something to you, Lee. You seem to have the right agenda here, and realize that a large government is not something to be desired. But I think it is important for you to actually sit down and think about what taxes are, and where they go.

Taxes are the LIFEBLOOD of government. Taxes are the only reason that government has any power at all. If you want to change the scope of what government can and can't do, you need to change the rate at which they tax you. If you believe that the size of government should be reduced to a size more closely resembling the original intent of the founding fathers... you must cut the beast off at the knees. Stop the fuel that makes the fire burn. Taxes are this fuel.

Now, don't twist my words, I am not saying that taxes is the ONLY reason government is getting large. You're EXACTLY right when you say that government is big because we let it get big. It's our short-sightedness and our willingness to let things slip for short-term gain that lets our politicians get away with it. There are many ways to slow the growth of government but until society starts to see it as a bigger problem, don't hold your breath. Your best option is to educate yourself and tell your friends about it. Stand by your values, and don't give in because it's popular or easy.

blackfox

Aug 22, 2008, 06:13 PM

I'd like to see the country divided and people allowed to live in the half which better corresponds to their view on the utility and fairness of taxes.

Then perhaps we could get together in a generation and see which half worked better...I wonder who would change their tune.

és:

Aug 22, 2008, 06:15 PM

Let me explain something to you, Lee.

Your best option is to educate yourself and tell your friends about it.

*Snicker*

mactastic

Aug 22, 2008, 06:17 PM

Hahaha, now wait... wait! Let me just get this straight. It is your contention that more taxes does not grow the size of the government? Right? You feel that increasing the size of the government's bank account, which they use to create more government controlled social programs and hire more government employees, is somehow... SHRINKING the size of government? Just so I know what you're saying for sure. I don't want to put words in your mouth.
More spending grows government. Taxes are not the cause of increased government spending. One group simply borrows to increase spending, the other taxes to increase spending.

By that same argument, you could say that selling debt causes larger government.

But, as Lee so eloquently stated, it is the fault of the citizenry that doesn't curb their elected representative's penchant for spending. And why? Because elected representatives are good at bringing spending to their district. People are always happy about spending in their district, and upset about spending in other districts. 'Tis a fact of life.

fivepoint

Aug 22, 2008, 06:23 PM

More spending grows government.
Agreed.

Taxes are not the cause of increased government spending.
Incorrect.

One group simply borrows to increase spending, the other taxes to increase spending.
Agreed.

By that same argument, you could say that selling debt causes larger government.
Often times it does.

But, as Lee so eloquently stated, it is the fault of the citizenry that doesn't curb their elected representative's penchant for spending. And why? Because elected representatives are good at bringing spending to their district. People are always happy about spending in their district, and upset about spending in other districts. 'Tis a fact of life.
You won't get an argument out of me. But I have to ask... liberals and U.S. Democrats have a LONG AND PROUD history of raising taxes at every corner... unless it turns out not to be politically wise... how exactly do you justify this and come to the conclusion that raising taxes has NOTHING to do with the increasing size of government. Like I said, tax revenue is the LIFEBLOOD of spending, and borrowing (in times of non-dramatic economic growth) is it's ugly red-headed step-child.

skunk

Aug 22, 2008, 06:23 PM

It's not "MY" administrationI'm afraid it is. As for your political orientation, I really can't make any sense of it in terms familiar in Europe. Are you a member of the "Screw You, I'm All Right" Party?

mactastic

Aug 22, 2008, 06:34 PM

Incorrect.
It's a symptom, not the cause. You confuse the two.

You won't get an argument out of me. But I have to ask... liberals and U.S. Democrats have a LONG AND PROUD history of raising taxes at every corner... unless it turns out not to be politically wise... how exactly do you justify this and come to the conclusion that raising taxes has NOTHING to do with the increasing size of government. Like I said, tax revenue is the LIFEBLOOD of spending, and borrowing (in times of non-dramatic economic growth) is it's ugly red-headed step-child.
Conservatives and U.S. Republicans have a LONG AND PROUD history of borrowing. How exactly do you justify this and come to the conclusion that borrowing money we don't have has NOTHING to do with increasing the size of government?

And how do you come to the conclusion that it is less fiscally responsible to raise taxes to support your programs than it is to borrow money to support your programs?

If your family wanted to increase it's spending, would it be more fiscally responsible to use the credit card, or get a better paying job?

Agathon

Aug 22, 2008, 06:34 PM

You are just wrong. You, and a significant portion of the posters in this thread, have no idea why we pay taxes. You probably don’t know why we have a market either. I don’t mean to sound rude, but misinformed opinions like yours just irritate the hell out of me.

Let me explain why you are completely wrong.

Individuals strive constantly to make the best use of their resources—their time, money, and physical resources, from forests to carpenter’s tools, coal mines to computers. They carefully examine their options and decide how to allocate their resources to obtain the maximum benefit from them.

This is true, although it is important to note that the “benefit” may not be a selfish benefit – sometimes people will work to advance altruistic goals, like seeing that a new community centre is built, or supporting their country’s athletes, or something like that. However, it is true that people will attempt to make the best use of what they have in order to further the interests they have.

Sometimes people make bad decisions, but they will change them as soon as it becomes evident that they brought undesirable results.

This isn’t true. The reason why it isn’t true is essentially the reason we pay taxes. People often ask the question: “If people want the things that taxation provides, then why does the government make people pay for them, because if they want them, they will pay for them themselves?”

The most important lesson anyone can learn about our societies is that the correct answer to this question is that just because everyone wants something, it does not mean that their individual wants will result in it coming to be.

In Game Theory, this is called a “collective action problem”. It occurs when people act selfishly , but end up with a worse result than they could have had if they had acted unselfishly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

So this:

Self-interest produces the decisions that maximize our wealth and happiness.

is not always true. In fact you cannot explain how markets work without it being false. Markets work to set a price for goods. The market price is what determines supply. If the price is high, and there is profit to be made, a competitor will come in and sell for cheaper. Because of this competition, we end up with the optimal price – the price that makes sure that just enough of a particular good is made (and that we don’t waste time making things that people don’t want). The price system is just a decentralized way of getting people to produce the right goods in the right amount.

It is in the interest of sellers to sell for a high price. However, none of them want to have unsold stock left over. It would be cool for the sellers if they could all promise each other to keep prices high, but because the setting of prices is voluntary in a free market, they can’t force each other to keep them high. So in order to cash out and not have unsold stock, it is in the interest of a seller to slightly discount his goods to make sure he sells all of them, and leave the others with unsold goods. Of course all the sellers will do this and a price cutting war will result. This is bad for the sellers, since they would be better off if they could agree not to cut and make society pay a higher price, but they can’t. So from the point of view of the sellers, self interested action leads to a worse overall outcome, than if they were all unselfish and didn’t try to compete with each other. But it’s a net benefit to society, because we get goods supplied at the cheapest possible price.

So you can see that markets won’t work if your claim were true. It is essential to markets working that people acting in their own self interest can undercut each other.

Market competition doesn’t benefit the sellers, but benefits society. On the other hand, there are cases where the same kind of self interested behaviour leads to a net loss for everyone. These are called “market failures”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure

What happens is that “externalities” (effects that transactions have on non-consenting third parties) stop the price system from working efficiently. For example, everyone has an interest in protecting their country from invasion. So you would think that people would voluntarily pay for an army to defend them. The problem is that such protection generates externalities. If everyone else in my country pays for the army, but I don’t, then I still end up being protected, because the existence of the army deters invaders. You can see that this creates an incentive to “free ride”. This generates a collective action problem – it is in everyone’s interest to hope that other people provide an army, so apart from a few well-meaning people, nobody pays and everyone ends up with less protection than they want.

That is a market failure. Voluntary (i.e. market) funding won’t supply what people want. This is why the government makes us pay tax to support the military. We are better off if the government forces us to do this, because it stops us falling into the collective action problem. Of course, the same applies to the police, who are just mercenaries that protect us from internal as opposed to external aggression.

Pretty much everything we pay tax for is something that is subject to market failure (insurance products like health care are an example). Tax is just the portion of our incomes we pay to fund things that the market sucks at providing.

Welfare is the most obvious example. This is because voluntary charity generates externalities. If you give a bum twenty dollars to stay off the street for a day, then that generates a good for everyone else, because no-one has to see that bum on the street for a whole day. So it is rational to wait around to see if someone else will pay him, and so nobody does. Voluntary charity leads to less charity than everyone wants. It doesn’t matter why people give to charity (maybe they are selfish and just don’t want to see bums on the streets, or maybe they care about the bums), because market failure will occur in either case.

For various reasons people don’t like poverty (some are saints, some don’t like the crime it generates, some just don’t like seeing homeless people on the streets). Wouldn’t it be cool if everyone could club together and give a little money to prevent poverty? Everyone would be better off. The people who receive welfare would be better off, and the people who pay for it would be better off (because they don’t like poverty either). This would be an efficient transaction. What people don’t understand about welfare is that welfare benefits the givers as much as the receivers. We just don’t notice this because we don’t think about all the problems we would face if welfare stopped (the political right somehow believe that poverty would magically vanish, except we know from history that this has never happened).

But in a voluntary system, people would try to free ride, and so there would be more poverty than anyone would like. This is inefficient. Everyone would be better off if we were forced to pay for it. That’s why we have tax. It’s what we pay to ameliorate poverty and reduce crime.

Now, we could have everyone pay the same amount of tax, but this would also lead to bad outcomes. In particular, some people would be reduced to poverty if we did this. Poverty produces social “bads”, so we should try to avoid it. The obvious way of avoiding it is to lower the tax burden on poorer citizens. But this just means that we have to increase it on richer citizens. But doing so makes everyone better off, since the richer citizens will be better off if the poorer citizens aren’t constantly trying to rob them. One could argue that it would be better to spend money on police to deter the poor people, but that would mean a police state. It’s cheaper and better just to lower their taxes.

That is why it is insane to talk about “fair taxes”. Taxes aren’t about fairness, they are about efficiency. Everyone is better off if we have unequal taxes. That’s why we have them.

Of course there are some mental patients who think that we should provide everything by tax, even things that aren’t subject to market failure. They live in places like North Korea. I’m sure you would not want to move there (I’ve seen it – it isn’t pleasant). Similar, other loons think that there should be no taxation. They live in places like those war-torn African countries where there is little or no personal security and nothing ever gets done. Personally, I’d rather live in North Korea than the Congo. At least the North Koreans have effective police.

This is why we pay tax. This is why our societies are the way they are. Unless you understand the role of market failure in taxation, you have nothing to contribute to the debate.

fivepoint

Aug 22, 2008, 06:35 PM

I'm afraid it is. As for your political orientation, I really can't make any sense of it in terms familiar in Europe. Are you a member of the "Screw You, I'm All Right" Party?

Labels are so ugly. I would also like to point out the falicy that you present that everyone who supports liberty and a constitutional way of thinking... in addition to a capitalist world market view is worrying about only themselves. It's actually quite the opposite. I strongly believe that the more government stops TRYING to help us, the more we can help ourselves. Read the article I posted earlier and you'll get a better idea of where I'm coming from.

I believe that we would ALL be better off. Rich, poor, white, black, whatever... with more freedom, more liberties, and a government which more closely resembles the original intent of the founders. I find your willingness to label anyone with opposing views as your own to be looking out for only their own interests to be VERY short-sighted but, unfortunately very common with people of all political stripes.

Ah well... I'm going to go enjoy my weekend. I suggest you all do the same! Later, gentlemen!

Agathon

Aug 22, 2008, 06:42 PM

I believe that we would ALL be better off. Rich, poor, white, black, whatever... with more freedom, more liberties, and a government which more closely resembles the original intent of the founders. I find your willingness to label anyone with opposing views as your own to be looking out for only their own interests to be VERY short-sighted but, unfortunately very common with people of all political stripes.

You need to take an economics class.

The founders of your country can be forgiven for not being aware of economic discoveries that were made after they died. You can't be.

fivepoint

Aug 22, 2008, 06:53 PM

You are just wrong.

I felt the need to respond to this before I head out. Agathon, I sincerely appreciate you posting this. There is some very good stuff here, and I hope that everybody reads it, because there are lessons to everyone in there.

I feel obligated to tell you, however that I am fully aware of the points you are trying to make. I think where you went wrong was assuming that I wanted NO taxes whatsoever. This is hardly true. Taxes are an essential part of our democratic and free market system. The government is charged with providing society with basic things including a strong defense and a stable economy. You're exactly right about "externalities" and "market failures", but I ask you... is it your position that (in general) with the current situation we're in, that the government is TOO small, not taking ENOUGH taxes, and isn't taking broad ENOUGH social strokes?

I fail to see how any educated person could look at the current state of the government and come to the conclusion that the government needs to take a LARGER role in our lives. That less free market, less freedom, less liberty is the answer we're looking for. Sorry, but defining the reasoning behind TAX in general, does not stand as an argument for higher taxes and for not attempting to reduce the size of our government. Thanks again, sincerely, for your post. I appreciate it. You gave a more eloquent definition than I ever could have.

skunk

Aug 22, 2008, 07:31 PM

I fail to see how any educated person could look at the current state of the government and come to the conclusion that the government needs to take a LARGER role in our lives. That less free market, less freedom, less liberty is the answer we're looking for. Sorry, but defining the reasoning behind TAX in general, does not stand as an argument for higher taxes and for not attempting to reduce the size of our government. Thanks again, sincerely, for your post. I appreciate it. You gave a more eloquent definition than I ever could have.The fact that the USA spends considerably more per capita on healthcare for less effect than those countries with universal healthcare provision should be enough to demonstrate to any educated person that US healthcare is subject to market failure on an epic scale. Simply repeating the buzzwords free market, liberty and freedom cannot mask the truth of the matter. The free market does not work with healthcare, and liberty and freedom count for little if one is confined by chronic sickness and unable to afford effective treatment.

SMM

Aug 22, 2008, 07:31 PM

[...]
You won't get an argument out of me. But I have to ask... liberals and U.S. Democrats have a LONG AND PROUD history of raising taxes at every corner... unless it turns out not to be politically wise... how exactly do you justify this and come to the conclusion that raising taxes has NOTHING to do with the increasing size of government. Like I said, tax revenue is the LIFEBLOOD of spending, and borrowing (in times of non-dramatic economic growth) is it's ugly red-headed step-child.

[...] "LONG AND PROUD history of raising taxes at every corner ...". Your points would be better received if you refrained from embellishing the facts, and not resort to broad generalizations.

The physical size of government and the the government's net annual spending are separate issues. While democrats are much more likely to support social programs, and oversight, republicans will spend the same amount, but it goes to benefit corporations and the military industrial complex. Democrats are more likely to raise taxes to pay for their programs. Republicans attempt to hide their spending, by running up the national debt.

Over the past 7+ years, the administration has reduced the number of federal employees. They make the claim they are reducing the size of government. However, the majority of the cuts are with services which are most important to the public.

1) Every agency, which has oversight responsibility, has had its budget cut. This includes toy inspectors (remember the lead paint scandal?), meat inspectors (USDA is performing zero inspections in 2008), EPA enforcement, FDA enforcement.

2) There have been major cuts in all social services.

3) Veteran's affairs - a national disgrace. We have returning combat troops who are waiting for months for appointments.

4) Who can forget the FEMA debacle?

The fact is, we are spending at a record pace, and getting less government for it.

bobber205

Aug 22, 2008, 07:40 PM

If you're against taxes b/c of big government, then you had better fight the Patriot with your every spare damn breath or ****.

iJohnHenry

Aug 22, 2008, 09:30 PM

"Tis a tale told by an idiot, Full of sound and Fury, Signifying nothing."

You people need to get outside, and actually help others.

Sorry for the interruption. Continue on.

pseudobrit

Aug 22, 2008, 10:49 PM

This arguement is rediculous. Disposable income is determined by how much one saves. The poor should save more so that they can become rich. The poor should invest so that they have a stake in the capitalist society. Then, maybe they would not want to tax those corporate profits so much if the profits of corporations went into their pockets by way of dividends and capital gains.

WTF? Disposable income has nothing to do with savings.

Disposable income is how much money you'd have left after paying for basic living expenses.

pseudobrit

Aug 22, 2008, 10:52 PM

I'm one of the one's being pushed over the edge and I still think taes should be based on a fairer system, even for the very rich.

If by fairer you mean we all pay roughly an equal percentage of our income, then you'd be advocating a tax increase on the rich.

iJohnHenry

Aug 22, 2008, 10:52 PM

WTF? Disposable income has nothing to do with savings.

Disposable income is how much money you'd have left after paying for basic living expenses.

A qualifier, if I may.

Disposable income is how much money you'd have left after paying for basic living expenses, and planned savings.

Agathon

Aug 23, 2008, 01:20 AM

I felt the need to respond to this before I head out. Agathon, I sincerely appreciate you posting this. There is some very good stuff here, and I hope that everybody reads it, because there are lessons to everyone in there.

I feel obligated to tell you, however that I am fully aware of the points you are trying to make. I think where you went wrong was assuming that I wanted NO taxes whatsoever. This is hardly true. Taxes are an essential part of our democratic and free market system. The government is charged with providing society with basic things including a strong defense and a stable economy. You're exactly right about "externalities" and "market failures", but I ask you... is it your position that (in general) with the current situation we're in, that the government is TOO small, not taking ENOUGH taxes, and isn't taking broad ENOUGH social strokes?

I fail to see how any educated person could look at the current state of the government and come to the conclusion that the government needs to take a LARGER role in our lives. That less free market, less freedom, less liberty is the answer we're looking for. Sorry, but defining the reasoning behind TAX in general, does not stand as an argument for higher taxes and for not attempting to reduce the size of our government. Thanks again, sincerely, for your post. I appreciate it. You gave a more eloquent definition than I ever could have.

It wasn't an argument for higher taxes, but an attempt to put the debate on a sound footing. If people want to argue that lower taxes or welfare reform are required, while understanding why we pay tax, then that's fine with me.

I think what you need is smarter government, not smaller government.

Look at the countries like Sweden, that have higher standards of living than almost anywhere. For whatever reason they have created a political system that works well.

The US has a governmental system, the basics of which were designed over 200 years ago for a preindustrial society. Make of that what you will.

és:

Aug 23, 2008, 03:17 AM

A qualifier, if I may.

Disposable income is how much money you'd have left after paying for basic living expenses, and planned savings.

I was the first person to pick our new friend up on this. To avoid argument, I included a link to the finance glossary web page on it. Here it is again...

http://www.finance-glossary.com/terms/disposable-income.htm?id=422&ginPtrCode=12739

és:

Aug 23, 2008, 03:32 AM

Look at the countries like Sweden, that have higher standards of living than almost anywhere. For whatever reason they have created a political system that works well.

If only they hadn't swapped their liberty for healthcare!

skunk

Aug 23, 2008, 03:59 AM

You people need to get outside, and actually help others.Perhaps we do. You have no idea.

leekohler

Aug 23, 2008, 07:23 AM

Let me explain something to you, Lee. You seem to have the right agenda here, and realize that a large government is not something to be desired. But I think it is important for you to actually sit down and think about what taxes are, and where they go.

Taxes are the LIFEBLOOD of government. Taxes are the only reason that government has any power at all. If you want to change the scope of what government can and can't do, you need to change the rate at which they tax you. If you believe that the size of government should be reduced to a size more closely resembling the original intent of the founding fathers... you must cut the beast off at the knees. Stop the fuel that makes the fire burn. Taxes are this fuel.

Now, don't twist my words, I am not saying that taxes is the ONLY reason government is getting large. You're EXACTLY right when you say that government is big because we let it get big. It's our short-sightedness and our willingness to let things slip for short-term gain that lets our politicians get away with it. There are many ways to slow the growth of government but until society starts to see it as a bigger problem, don't hold your breath. Your best option is to educate yourself and tell your friends about it. Stand by your values, and don't give in because it's popular or easy.

We have stupid government. We need it to be smarter and more efficient and force it to work FOR US. If we are willing to set aside ridiculous political talking points and address the real issues, we could accomplish a ton of good things. But idiots like Limbaugh, Franken and Coulter just keep the animosity going, instead of working to solve problems. Morons like them work for their own self-interest and care nothing about the big picture. They've also damaged civil discourse almost beyond repair. I don't know how we're going to get back to a place where both ends of the political spectrum can relate to each other in an honest, productive fashion. To tell the truth, Limbaugh started this. That dysfunctional fool could have been more like a Bill Buckley, but chose to take the low road. Then like-minded liberals decided to do the same thing with the ridiculous Air America. Anyone who listens to any of this crap loses my respect almost immediately.

The answer, as always, lies in the middle. We need government. We have to pay taxes. What we have to fix is corruption. We need to hold our elected officials accountable for their actions. Bush happens to be one of the worst offenders. He started a war for no reason other than to enrich his friends, and did it right out in the open. Look no further than Halliburton for that evidence. The no-bid contracts given away to Cheney's former employer are obscene. And don't think for one moment that there isn't a big fat check waiting for him once his term is over. I'm sick to death of my tax dollars going to garbage like the Iraq War, Halliburton, and Blackwater, when we should be focusing on Afghanistan and our own people.

And hell yes, I'm completely for some form of universal health care. It's utterly ridiculous that we haven't done that. Every single civilized country in the world has it, yet we continue to waste tons of cash on our inefficient, broken system simply because of an illusory belief that the "free market" can solve everything. When people go bankrupt because of medical bills, that should be more than enough proof that our current system is horribly broken. As I've said before, the free market is great for a lot of things, but keeping people healthy isn't one of them. At the very least, health insurance should be not-for-profit. Watch medical bills go WAY down if that happens.

BTW- I don't know how where I went to school is relevant to our discussion, but I will tell you it was state school in Ohio. I'm not giving out personal info on line.

Also, being gay, I've never taken the easy or popular road. I came out during the Reagan years and received numerous death threats in college. So don't even talk to me about taking the easy way out. I spoke in lecture halls on campus- risking my own butt in order to educate others about people like me. I rarely keep my mouth shut when I have something to say. If people don't like me, I don't care. I wasn't put on this Earth to get everyone's approval.

r.j.s

Aug 23, 2008, 08:29 AM

I think what you need is smarter government, not smaller government.

I think we need both, a smaller, smarter government that knows how to handle money properly. One with the interests of the people in mind, not the party, lobbyists or their personal agendas.

KingYaba

Aug 23, 2008, 08:39 AM

I think we need both, a smaller, smarter government that knows how to handle money properly. One with the interests of the people in mind, not the party, lobbyists or their personal agendas.

Let's start by not voting for incumbents.

iGary

Aug 23, 2008, 09:42 AM

If by fairer you mean we all pay roughly an equal percentage of our income, then you'd be advocating a tax increase on the rich.

No, we all pay the same rate.

Actually I think a national sales tax is the answer. Catches everyone and it's fair.

KingYaba

Aug 23, 2008, 10:21 AM

No, we all pay the same rate.

Actually I think a national sales tax is the answer. Catches everyone and it's fair.

Need that refund up to the poverty line. http://www.fairtax.net/14.htm

All valid Social Security cardholders who are U.S. residents will receive a monthly “prebate” to cover the amount of taxes paid on necessary goods and services.

r.j.s

Aug 23, 2008, 11:31 AM

Actually I think a national sales tax is the answer. Catches everyone and it's fair.

I haven't really had the time to do much research into this, but on the surface this does look like a good idea. We pay our taxes based upon how much we consume ...

Let's start by not voting for incumbents.

Agreed.

mactastic

Aug 23, 2008, 11:39 AM

Let's start by not voting for incumbents.
That's an overly simplistic view that unfortunately has dramatic side effects that can be quite detrimental.

Consider the term limits law enacted in California here a while back. The idea was to not allow anyone to become a Sacramento fat cat, spending a career in government.

What you've got to do is vote out the incompetents, not everyone. This requires that an incumbent's natural advantages be neutralized so that challengers don't start out in a giant hole.

By disallowing long-term service, what California has accomplished is to ensure that no one in the legislature is there long enough to become an expert in their committee assignments. Which leads to easy manipulation by lobbyists who can talk circles around you on the issues, and you just don't have the depth of knowledge to accurately assess the issue. State representatives don't have the massive resources to do the homework themselves, and most people who get elected aren't expert in things they need to be. Why? Because they're politicians, not zoning experts or infrastructure experts or any of the other myriad mundane areas of expertise that make up the government's purview. So you get bad law as a result.

And what about the tenure of these politicians? Has this law sent them packing back to their district, to be replaced by fresh blood? Nope. They simply move from one position to another where they have a new set of term limits to outlive before they run for a different position. They're still career politicians. They just don't stay any one place long enough to get good at it.

LethalWolfe

Aug 23, 2008, 04:23 PM

Why does this board seem to attract the type of right-winger that just makes me ashamed to be a registered Republican? I keep thinking about moving to 'independent' but then I feel like I'm admitting that the NeoCons are here to stay and that just leaves a bad taste in my mouth...

Anyway, this is all just a none issue until we stop approaching politics as sport where the only goal is to see your 'team' win. The mindset shouldn't be "Democrats vs Republications." The mindset should be "which individuals will best serve the needs of our community/city/state/nation/world." Traditional party platforms are artificial, inflexible walls that hinder us from adjusting and adapting to a world that is changing faster than ever. The divisive nature of partisan politics is a cancer that has hamstrung our ability to grow as a nation, IMO.

Lethal

Agathon

Aug 23, 2008, 04:26 PM

No, we all pay the same rate.

Actually I think a national sales tax is the answer. Catches everyone and it's fair.

Except the tax rate has nothing to do with fairness, so your comment is rubbish.

If you want to be taxed at the same rate as everyone else because it's "fair", then you should accept that you should be paid at the same rate as everyone else.

Your daft tax suggestion makes about as much sense as that.

skunk

Aug 23, 2008, 04:30 PM

Actually I think a national sales tax is the answer. What was the question? :confused:

Agathon

Aug 23, 2008, 04:34 PM

Why does this board seem to attract the type of right-winger that just makes me ashamed to be a registered Republican?

Because the political parties used to represent regional interests.

The Republicans lost the ideological battle a long time ago, so around Nixon's time they decided to start remaking themselves as an authoritarian party. Basically, they stand for any government program that increases inequality and hierarchy and against any government program that does the opposite.

Fortunately for them, a large number of Americans, especially southerners, are what in ordinary terms would be described as "fascists".

mactastic

Aug 23, 2008, 04:36 PM

Why does this board seem to attract the type of right-winger that just makes me ashamed to be a registered Republican?
You know, I'm not sure. But I know that it's the fault of the liberals here.

iGary

Aug 23, 2008, 04:38 PM

What was the question? :confused:

Taxes? :confused:

iGary

Aug 23, 2008, 04:39 PM

skunk

Aug 23, 2008, 04:43 PM

Why does this board seem to attract the type of right-winger that just makes me ashamed to be a registered Republican?Which shared values make you register as a Republican?

skunk

Aug 23, 2008, 04:45 PM

Taxes? :confused:But any sales tax is regressive.

stubeeef

Aug 23, 2008, 04:49 PM

Why does this board seem to attract the type of right-winger that just makes me ashamed to be a registered Republican?

Lethal

Sorry...:o

I'm a flat taxer, 15%, the more you make the more you pay, right!
I am for a tax floor, meaning individuals under $25k, couples under $50k, and add $5k per dependant, should not pay federal tax.
A couple with 2 kids pay nothing under $60k.
My household would pay zip for the first $65k and 15% for everything above.
If I make $200,000 next year I pay 15% of $135,000 or $20,250 in FEDERAL Tax. Not including federal gas tax, property taxes, license fees, sales taxes, state taxes, medicaid, medicare, unemployment, social security,etc...
If I make $1,065,000 I pay $150,000 in FEDERAL taxes.
Forget other deductions except tax credits to steer the population in desired directions, ie green car purchase, home solar, and so on.

pseudobrit

Aug 23, 2008, 04:55 PM

No, we all pay the same rate.

By the time you include things like capital gains and itemized writeoffs, the rich pay a lower percentage than the middle class.

Actually I think a national sales tax is the answer. Catches everyone and it's fair.

Sales tax is regressive tax. When the dust settles, it places a much heavier burden on those who earn less.

It's extremely difficult to ensure taxes are fair. There are so many variables in play, starting with the wide disparities between regional cost of living, median income, minimum wage, property tax, state and local taxes, healthcare costs and access to credit.

Let me use a simple for-instance using a handful of those variables. Assume basic cost of living is $10,000 for an area. One guy makes $30,000 a year and his healthcare is paid by his employer. Another makes $30,000 and pays $10000 out of pocket for healthcare.

So Taxpayer A has $20,000 a year in disposable income, and Taxpayer B has just $10,000. Now, assuming a 15% universal federal sales tax has hit both for all their transactions for cost of living and disposable income, Taxpayer A shells out $4500 and B pays $3000.

That is 22% vs. 30% of disposable income. The guy who has less pays more as a percentage.

If the sales taxes aren't excluded for purchase of healthcare premiums, it would be even more lopsided. But once you start throwing in exclusions to make things "fair" you end up with a system that effectively acts little different from the graduated income tax we have today.

iJohnHenry

Aug 23, 2008, 04:58 PM

Sorry...:o

You should be.

That avatar has to go!!! :eek:

You don't even know me well enough to cause such a massive loss of sleep. :mad:

Badandy

Aug 23, 2008, 05:19 PM

By the time you include things like capital gains and itemized writeoffs, the rich pay a lower percentage than the middle class.

Citation needed.

Until then:

But Americans did respond to the tax cuts. There was more investment, more hiring by businesses, and a stronger stock market. When we compare the taxes paid under the old system with those paid after the Bush tax cuts, the rich are now actually paying a higher proportion of income taxes. The latest IRS data show an increase of more than $100 billion in tax payments from the wealthy by 2005 alone. The number of tax filers who claimed taxable income of more than $1 million increased from approximately 180,000 in 2003 to over 300,000 in 2005. The total taxes paid by these millionaire households rose by about 80 percent in two years, from $132 billion to $236 billion.

There’s no doubt that the share of total income earned by the wealthy has increased steadily over the past 25 years. Since 1980, the share of income earned by the richest 1 percent has more than doubled, from 9 percent to 19 percent. The share of the income going to the poorest income quintile has declined. Income disparities, in absolute dollars, have grown substantially.

What is significant is that for the top 5 percent and 10 percent of earners, the ratio of taxes paid compared with income earned has risen. For example, in 1980, the top 10 percent earned 32 percent of the income and paid 44 percent of the taxes—a ratio of 1.4. In 2004, this group earned more of the income (44 percent) but paid a lot more of the taxes (68 percent)—a ratio of 1.6. In other words, progressivity—in terms of share of total taxes paid—has risen. On the other hand, for the top 1 percent of earners, progressivity has declined from a ratio of 2.2 in 1980 to 1.9 in 2004.

It’s true that lower tax rates have been a huge boon to shareholders—but most of them are not rich. The latest polls show that 52 percent of Americans own stock and thus benefit directly from lower capital gains and dividend taxes. Reduced tax rates on dividends also triggered a huge jump in the number of companies paying out dividends. As the National Bureau of Economic Research put it, “The surge in regular dividend payments after the 2003 reform is unprecedented in recent years.” Dividend income is up nearly 50 percent since the 2003 tax cut.

blackfox

Aug 23, 2008, 05:27 PM

Badandy,

I must be an idiot - but where is the middle 25% on that graph?

Also share of total Federal income tax bill? I guess I must be looking at it wrong - as I would (simplistically) expect the % to add up to 100%. Unless it means a relationship between total taxes paid...?

Obviously, not competing for financial genius of 2008 here...

Badandy

Aug 23, 2008, 05:31 PM

Badandy,

I must be an idiot - but where is the middle 25% on that graph?

The graph shows the federal income tax bill for those in the top 25%, and the bottom 50% with respect to how much income they make. It looks like it is just not showing 25% of them.

Also share of total Federal income tax bill? I guess I must be looking at it wrong - as I would (simplistically) expect the % to add up to 100%.
.

Your first question, I think, explains this one. The "middle" 25% explains why it doesn't add up to 100%.

blackfox

Aug 23, 2008, 05:38 PM

As a matter of historical comparison, wasn't the top marginal tax rate something like 91% for a couple of decades (40s-60s) and then around 70% till the mid-eighties?

pseudobrit

Aug 23, 2008, 05:49 PM

Citation needed.

Until then:

mcrain was a tax attorney for the federal government and used to post here. You can dig it up or trust me.

The data you cite seems to only discuss federal income tax rates and doesn't appear to include effective rates on Medicare, Social Security, State and local tax, property tax, sales tax, the cost of living being much higher than the standard deductible, mortgage interest deductions, fees, fuel taxes, capital gains income, etc., all of which skew the percentages in slightly in favor of the upper class.

That FICA deductions are capped, for instance, means every dollar of income above $102,000 is not taxed, and as you earn more, your effective tax rate on all income drops.

I'm saying once you include every source of tax from every possible angle on your disposable income, the rich pay less as a percentage, and the rest all pay roughly 50%.

iGary

Aug 23, 2008, 05:52 PM

But any sales tax is regressive.

Not in my opinion - if it replaces a regressive income tax situation.

Look I know us Yanks bitching about taxes is a little funny for you guys over there. :D

gekko513

Aug 23, 2008, 06:02 PM

I do not understand people who complain about taxes.

stubeeef

Aug 23, 2008, 06:04 PM

I do not understand people who complain about taxes.

How much of your income goes to taxes?

What country do you live in?

When you file tax returns do you take deductions? If not why? If so why?

Do you think your government spends the money better than you would or could?

gekko513

Aug 23, 2008, 06:17 PM

How much of your income goes to taxes?

What country do you live in?

When you file tax returns do you take deductions? If not why? If so why?

Do you think your government spends the money better than you would or could?
I used to pay around 28% of my income.

Norway.

Yes, there are some deductions (most importantly you can deduct what you pay in loan interest).

Government spends the money better then I could, because I don't have the capacity alone to research what and who needs the money.

bobber205

Aug 23, 2008, 06:20 PM

At above poster. :D

http://www.auburn.edu/~murraba/elucid/baby,crying,tantrum.jpg

Sorry. I mean two above. The guy above posted while I was posting. :)

pseudobrit

Aug 23, 2008, 06:22 PM

I used to pay around 28% of my income.

I hate you.

stubeeef

Aug 23, 2008, 06:23 PM

I pay nearly twice that amount.
I pay over 6,000 in property taxes alone, not including all the other taxes. I don't think that the government is very good with spending money, they seem to use it to build more government, at least at the size of the US government.
I also pay state taxes, and don't get me started on that....
I am glad you are happy with your situation in Norway, the US is another story.
BTW, I have visited Norway and loved it. The people were wonderful. It was in the late 80's in Stravanger.

stubeeef

Aug 23, 2008, 06:25 PM

bobby,

I find it ironic that most of the rich left that are for increased taxes, presently use deductions for themselves.

gekko513

Aug 23, 2008, 06:30 PM

Well, we also have 25% sales tax, and if my income had been higher I would've paid a larger percentage, so Norway is far from a tax paradise. This year I only have a part time job, so I will probably pay only around 10% income tax.

skunk

Aug 23, 2008, 06:38 PM

I find it ironic that most of the rich left that are for increased taxes, presently use deductions for themselves.Should the "rich left" volunteer to pay more tax than the law requires? Should anybody?

stubeeef

Aug 23, 2008, 06:46 PM

Should the "rich left" volunteer to pay more tax than the law requires? Should anybody?

I gave up Social Security payments while in college in the early 80's. My father died when I was 9yrs old, I received payments from his contributions.
I believed then and now that SS should be used for those most in need, I didn't need it cause I could work. I took odd jobs and paid my way with that money and veterans funding that my fathers death qualified me for. At the time I waived off over $250 per month.

If you want everyone else to pay more, than start at home, and do it yourself. I have no problem with them taking every legal deduction, but I don't want to hear their high and mighty crying about the rich not paying enough when they are paying for legal and professional help to reduce their own payments. Seems to me that most posters here hate that sort of hypocracy. Like the Republican Sen Craig against moral acts he was doing himself.
To thy ownself be true.

.Andy

Aug 23, 2008, 06:47 PM

At above poster. :D

[snip]

Sorry. I mean two above. The guy above posted while I was posting. :)
This is pathetic.

iJohnHenry

Aug 23, 2008, 07:59 PM

This is pathetic.

Yes, it's not even an thumbnail!!

Badandy

Aug 23, 2008, 08:01 PM

Government spends the money better then I could

This is precisely why you see a gap in how Americans (I mean U.S. citizens) view taxes compared to people in Europe.

thechidz

Aug 23, 2008, 08:03 PM

I wouldnt mind paying taxes if I felt it actually went towards bettering our society (arts, education, social programs etc.) but unfortunately I think the majority of our taxes get spent on evil (war, greedy government employees etc)

I used to pay around 28% of my income.

Norway.

Yes, there are some deductions (most importantly you can deduct what you pay in loan interest).

Government spends the money better then I could, because I don't have the capacity alone to research what and who needs the money.

norway is a universe away from the good ole you ess of aye in many ways

skunk

Aug 23, 2008, 08:04 PM

This is precisely why you see a gap in how Americans (I mean U.S. citizens) view taxes compared to people in Europe.Some governments are more corrupt than others.

iJohnHenry

Aug 23, 2008, 08:06 PM

Some governments are more corrupt than others.

Is that akin to "When did you stop beating your wife??" question??

Badandy

Aug 23, 2008, 08:07 PM

Some governments are more corrupt than others.

I'm not talking about that. Whether or not the government is corrupt, I'd guess most Americans (and certainly me) would still say that they could spend their money better than an uncorrupt government. It's about freedom. It's about freedom of enterprise, non-interference, whatever you want to call it.

thechidz

Aug 23, 2008, 08:09 PM

That avatar has to go!!! :eek:

:

absolutely!!!

skunk

Aug 23, 2008, 08:17 PM

Is that akin to "When did you stop beating your wife??" question??I have no idea what you are talking about.

stubeeef

Aug 23, 2008, 08:22 PM

absolutely!!!

In my society people are not judged by their looks. Sorry I'm not a tall, trim, handsome, socialist. Just a good'ole ugly joe.

iJohnHenry

Aug 23, 2008, 08:30 PM

In my society people are not judged by their looks. Sorry I'm not a tall, trim, handsome, socialist. Just a good'ole ugly joe.

Don't be sorry, just jump off a building, and do us all a favour. ;)

stubeeef

Aug 23, 2008, 08:40 PM

Don't be sorry, just jump off a building, and do us all a favour. ;)

I am saddened by your aggressive calus attitude towards me and my place in society, your such a rat!:p
I on the other hand am the prettiest of 3 sons!

iJohnHenry

Aug 23, 2008, 08:49 PM

I am saddened by your aggressive calus attitude towards me and my place in society, your such a rat!:p
I on the other hand am the prettiest of 3 sons!

Callous??

And where the others smothered at berth??

stubeeef

Aug 23, 2008, 08:52 PM

Callous??

And were the others smothered at berth??
Whil I mite hav gr8 loks, I dont spel gooode.

No they became top ranking democrats!:p

iJohnHenry

Aug 23, 2008, 08:57 PM

Well, praise the Lord for allowing my Mom to push me out in Canada.

stubeeef

Aug 23, 2008, 08:59 PM

Well, praise the Lord for allowing my Mom to push me out in Canada.

Sure, brag about having a mother. Rub it in!

BTW. I'm not afraid of taxes. I don't like them (thought I would make an on topic comment)

iJohnHenry

Aug 23, 2008, 09:05 PM

What??

You have a chicken??

With that face it would not surprise me, in the least.

KingYaba

Aug 23, 2008, 10:05 PM

Sales tax is regressive tax. When the dust settles, it places a much heavier burden on those who earn less.
The term marginal propensity to consume comes to mind. Factor in this "prebate" as I linked earlier in the thread, the poor will be paying less.

It's extremely difficult to ensure taxes are fair. There are so many variables in play, starting with the wide disparities between regional cost of living, median income, minimum wage, property tax, state and local taxes, healthcare costs and access to credit.
Can't argue with that. Those problems are not limited to federal sales tax, though. Or are you saying the current system addresses those problems more effectively? Sounds to me the state and municipality should adjust their ways to better address their local communities' needs. Not the federal government.

Let me use a simple for-instance using a handful of those variables. Assume basic cost of living is $10,000 for an area. One guy makes $30,000 a year and his healthcare is paid by his employer. Another makes $30,000 and pays $10000 out of pocket for healthcare.

So Taxpayer A has $20,000 a year in disposable income, and Taxpayer B has just $10,000. Now, assuming a 15% universal federal sales tax has hit both for all their transactions for cost of living and disposable income, Taxpayer A shells out $4500 and B pays $3000.
Disposable income is simply money after taxes. Depending on the goods and services they purchase will determine how much tax they pay.

That is 22% vs. 30% of disposable income. The guy who has less pays more as a percentage.
They both have the same income. They both choose ways to spend it.

once you start throwing in exclusions to make things "fair" you end up with a system that effectively acts little different from the graduated income tax we have today.
Legitimate criticism. The "FairTax" excludes home mortgage payments paid up to the Fed's basic interest rate and donations to charity.

ErikCLDR

Aug 23, 2008, 10:34 PM

Since many people oppose the war in Iraq I'll use it as an example.

Why would you want your money to support something that you don't support?

pseudobrit

Aug 23, 2008, 10:39 PM

Can't argue with that. Those problems are not limited to federal sales tax, though. Or are you saying the current system addresses those problems more effectively? Sounds to me the state and municipality should adjust their ways to better address their local communities' needs. Not the federal government.

I agree in principle. In practice, local government has potential to be exponentially more wasteful and corrupt than state or federal agencies.

Disposable income is simply money after taxes. Depending on the goods and services they purchase will determine how much tax they pay.

You are correct. The term I should be using is discretionary income.

They both have the same income. They both choose ways to spend it.

In my example, one earner has significantly less discretionary income than the other due to his employment situation.

The overall tax system we have now is very far from perfect and fair, but has evolved over the decades for many specific reasons that cannot be ignored. A general "reboot" of the tax system would open many loopholes and catch many unique groups completely off guard when they lose exemptions that currently enable them to just squeak by.

The current system is an overly complex, chaotic mess directly because our economy is an overly complex chaotic mess. Anyone who advocates a simplified tax system either doesn't understand how chaotic our economy is or doesn't care how destructive such a system would be. Any politician who advocates such a system is counting on and pandering to the stupidity of the electorate.

KingYaba

Aug 23, 2008, 11:33 PM

In my example, one earner has significantly less discretionary income than the other due to his employment situation.
O.k. but it doesn't make the tax unfair.

The overall tax system we have now is very far from perfect and fair, but has evolved over the decades for many specific reasons that cannot be ignored. A general "reboot" of the tax system would open many loopholes and catch many unique groups completely off guard when they lose exemptions that currently enable them to just squeak by.

The current system is an overly complex, chaotic mess directly because our economy is an overly complex chaotic mess. Anyone who advocates a simplified tax system either doesn't understand how chaotic our economy is or doesn't care how destructive such a system would be. Any politician who advocates such a system is counting on and pandering to the stupidity of the electorate.
It's not a general reboot and it won't be destructive. And no, advocating for a simple end-user experience does not mean they don't understand how the economy works. It's like you're saying OS X shouldn't be run on computers because computers are complicated and OS X advocates for a simple, user-friendly experience in a world of complex, Windows-running personal computers. It's time to Think Different.™

But hey, I'm all ears (or eyes since this is the internet) for other suggestions on how to solve this chaotic mess of a tax system.

LethalWolfe

Aug 24, 2008, 01:13 AM

But hey, I'm all ears (or eyes since this is the internet) for other suggestions on how to solve this chaotic mess of a tax system.
This begs the question, which has been brought up before, is the crux of the problem how our tax dollars are being collected or how they are being spent? If government spent our money more wisely then they would need less meaning we should keep more and it's a win/win situation. I think bringing up taxes/tax reform is an easy distraction because it is something everyone is familiar w/and can be easily broken down in PR sound bites. Irresponsible government spending though is more complex and less 'real' to people because they don't see it immediately impacting their lives. It's a bit like the circus where if you keep the bear worried about standing on top of the ball it’ll never go after the trainer.

Let's say we do get massive tax reform passed. What then? The government would still be as wasteful as it was before and revenue it can't get from tax payers it will just borrow. Yeah, individually we should be better off in the short term but collectively and over the long haul would the financial health of our country really have changed?

Lethal

gekko513

Aug 24, 2008, 02:24 AM

I pay nearly twice that amount.
I pay over 6,000 in property taxes alone, not including all the other taxes.
...
BTW, I have visited Norway and loved it. The people were wonderful. It was in the late 80's in Stravanger.

Do you include property tax when you compare to the 28% figure I mentioned? If so it's not directly comparable, because I could've also owned property that made me pay taxes/fees, but that's not in the 28% number, that's just income tax.

Norway is nice in many ways. :)

Agathon

Aug 24, 2008, 03:43 AM

1I do not understand people who complain about taxes.

They are either really rich people who would actually do better out of lower taxes and leaving everyone to starve. Y'know, the kind of rich people who supported Fascism and Nazism because it would keep poor people in their places.

The others are people duped by the former into voting their way into serfdom.

In the end, it isn't worth worrying about. If the Americans want to run their own country into the ground, it's their problem. At least it gives the rest of us something to laugh at. Suffrage in the US seems to be a case of giving a mentally handicapped child a knife to play with.

I think the internet has resulted in the rest of the English speaking world coming to realize that US politics really is completely insane, and that the stories told about it were actually true. Before the internet, I thought that no-one in the US really fell for that freedom crap their pols spout, but I was wrong.

The Netherlands is a free country. The US is an authoritarian nightmare. In theory you are free to be gay or different, but in practice you have to be a sheep.

Badandy

Aug 24, 2008, 04:25 AM

1

They are either really rich people who would actually do better out of lower taxes and leaving everyone to starve. Y'know, the kind of rich people who supported Fascism and Nazism because it would keep poor people in their places.

The others are people duped by the former into voting their way into serfdom.

In the end, it isn't worth worrying about. If the Americans want to run their own country into the ground, it's their problem. At least it gives the rest of us something to laugh at. Suffrage in the US seems to be a case of giving a mentally handicapped child a knife to play with.

I think the internet has resulted in the rest of the English speaking world coming to realize that US politics really is completely insane, and that the stories told about it were actually true. Before the internet, I thought that no-one in the US really fell for that freedom crap their pols spout, but I was wrong.

The Netherlands is a free country. The US is an authoritarian nightmare. In theory you are free to be gay or different, but in practice you have to be a sheep.

The whole post is incredibly ignorant. Both in its viewpoint of those in the U.S. who oppose tax increases (and why they do), and in our concept of liberty.

skunk

Aug 24, 2008, 06:05 AM

They are either really rich people who would actually do better out of lower taxes and leaving everyone to starve. Y'know, the kind of rich people who supported Fascism and Nazism because it would keep poor people in their places.

The others are people duped by the former into voting their way into serfdom.I find your analysis a little simplistic, to say the least. There are perfectly legitimate reasons to find the tax regime less than perfect. Rates of tax generally are far higher than they would need to be if government spending was less profligate, if politicians everywhere were to lift their snouts from the feeding trough long enough to notice, and if defence spending and debt servicing did not absorb such a huge proportion of the public purse. There are also specific biases and imbalances which are legitimate cause for complaint: in many places the tax system appears to discriminate against small business and the self-employed in favour of large corporations which can take advantage of endless tax breaks and consequently pay a relatively small percentage of their profits to the exchequer. It's not all symptomatic of fascism and nazism.

leekohler

Aug 24, 2008, 07:06 AM

I gave up Social Security payments while in college in the early 80's. My father died when I was 9yrs old, I received payments from his contributions.
I believed then and now that SS should be used for those most in need, I didn't need it cause I could work. I took odd jobs and paid my way with that money and veterans funding that my fathers death qualified me for. At the time I waived off over $250 per month.

If you want everyone else to pay more, than start at home, and do it yourself. I have no problem with them taking every legal deduction, but I don't want to hear their high and mighty crying about the rich not paying enough when they are paying for legal and professional help to reduce their own payments. Seems to me that most posters here hate that sort of hypocracy. Like the Republican Sen Craig against moral acts he was doing himself.
To thy ownself be true.

You paid your way with veterans funding? Wouldn't that be from taxes?

stubeeef

Aug 24, 2008, 08:21 AM

You paid your way with veterans funding? Wouldn't that be from taxes?

It was a benefit my father earned by dying on active duty. It is one bestowed today too.
All money redistributed by the government comes from taxation. So you are correct about that. I could have taken more money, just fill out a form, money in the mail. I chose not to. I believe there are more that could and should do the same.
If you are thinking I had rich people supporting me, my mother and I lived with my grandparents. Her mother was in a nursing home, her father was in constant medical need. She worked as a secretary during the day and went to college at night. She got her masters that way too. All to become an elementary teacher. We know they make big bucks.
The fact is, no matter how you slice it, there is opportunity in the USA. Some take advantage some don't. Most that don't, I believe, either could or should but don't. I believe many don't cause they don't want to. We can both site thousands of cases or exceptions. No question. This is my opinion though.
And this is not a story I wear as a mantle. Just the simple truth.
I believe I was given greater gifts than many at birth. I repay that more efficiently through charity than the government could ever do.

skunk

Aug 24, 2008, 08:22 AM

And this is not a story I wear as a mantle. Just the simple truth.
I believe I was given greater gifts than many at birth. I repay that more efficiently through charity than the government could ever do.Good for you!

pseudobrit

Aug 24, 2008, 09:59 AM

O.k. but it doesn't make the tax unfair.

I would say that someone earning less discretionary income paying a higher effective tax rate than someone holding more money is unfair. In fact, it's the very definition of regressive tax.

It's not a general reboot and it won't be destructive. And no, advocating for a simple end-user experience does not mean they don't understand how the economy works. It's like you're saying OS X shouldn't be run on computers because computers are complicated and OS X advocates for a simple, user-friendly experience in a world of complex, Windows-running personal computers. It's time to Think Different.™

But hey, I'm all ears (or eyes since this is the internet) for other suggestions on how to solve this chaotic mess of a tax system.

Reputation for user-friendliness aside, OS X and the programs written for it can be overwhelmingly complex to the uninitiated.

The average American household has over $9000 in credit card debt. I'd say a hefty majority can't budget, balance a bank account, understand compound interest or manage investment accounts. Is it any wonder they're panicked by the prospect of having to complete a simple 1040?

Continuing the analogy and mixing metaphors, if someone can't figure out how to use a mouse or ⌘-C and ⌘-V, setting up an IMAP account on Mail.app or killing a frozen app with sudo kill from Terminal will seem even more daunting than gathering up a pile of 1099-Rs and filling out a Schedule D.

Math is hard. Sometimes the simplest of problems requires a complex solution. Calculators and software can compute expressions for us, but accounting still requires all the basic figures to be entered, and in our economy there are an awful lot of figures from an awful lot of sources. There are no shortcuts or GUIs for that.

mactastic

Aug 24, 2008, 10:51 AM

It's always amusing to hear conservatives cry out for fairness in taxes as if this is some Socialist state where everything needs to be fair.

Yet you try to implement a "everyone is equal" policy in elementary school sports and these same people tell you how life isn't fair, and how bad it is to level the playing field.

Tax policy doesn't have to be fair any more than the Super Bowl does. There is no right under the Constitution that says tax policy must be fair.

iGary

Aug 24, 2008, 11:14 AM

mactastic

Aug 24, 2008, 11:38 AM

Equal protection under the law if you really wanted to get pedantic about it.

Really pedantic.
You are, of course, free to take a job that earns you a wage that doesn't require you to pay taxes.

Just as I am free to move to a lower cost-of-living area if I don't like how much that costs me.

Isn't freedom a wonderful thing?

robanga

Aug 24, 2008, 11:45 AM

To trust the government with your existence and thus your hard earned resources rubs a lot of people the wrong way I guess. Can't imagine why...when governments are so well known for their efficiency and human rights protection:rolleyes:

Indeed some countries ( casts a look in the direction of Boston harbor) were built on correcting the abuses of government.

If government becomes oppressive there is always the opportunity to forcibly throw them out of power....or so these people might think.

That translates into disdain for taxes.

iGary

Aug 24, 2008, 11:47 AM

You are, of course, free to take a job that earns you a wage that doesn't require you to pay taxes.

Just as I am free to move to a lower cost-of-living area if I don't like how much that costs me.

Isn't freedom a wonderful thing?

No one's forcing you to live in a house.

Sheesh. :D

mactastic

Aug 24, 2008, 12:35 PM

No one's forcing you to live in a house.

Sheesh. :D
Indeed, I am free to make it easier on myself to keep track of how many homes I own, right? :p

Agathon

Aug 25, 2008, 04:44 AM

I find your analysis a little simplistic, to say the least. There are perfectly legitimate reasons to find the tax regime less than perfect.

Not ones with any evidence to support them.

Rates of tax generally are far higher than they would need to be if government spending was less profligate, if politicians everywhere were to lift their snouts from the feeding trough long enough to notice, and if defence spending and debt servicing did not absorb such a huge proportion of the public purse.

Other countries don't tend to have these problems, because we don't elect idiots. It might have to do with the fact that their election campaigns are about the issues and not about sex scandals, secret adherence to Islam, religious rubbish and chucking off at homosexuals.

Americans love pork barrel spending, except when other people are getting it.

There are also specific biases and imbalances which are legitimate cause for complaint: in many places the tax system appears to discriminate against small business and the self-employed in favour of large corporations which can take advantage of endless tax breaks and consequently pay a relatively small percentage of their profits to the exchequer. It's not all symptomatic of fascism and nazism.

Small businesses should be eliminated anyway. But that's another story.

Most of it is symptomatic of fascism and nazism (as labels for the peculiar brand of authoritarianism loved by Americans).

stubeeef

Aug 25, 2008, 05:20 AM

The US government is inefficient in distributing Medicare and Medicaid.
First Link (http://www.prweb.com/printer.php?prid=613891)

Also from my signature has a link to HERE (http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer) for some fine examples of my Taxes spent stupid.

or go HERE (http://www.charitynavigator.org/)and pick an inefficient use of my money, and those that need it.

you can have lots of time, I am going to work to earn a few more grand for the USA

leekohler

Aug 25, 2008, 05:45 AM

skunk

Aug 25, 2008, 06:49 AM

Not ones with any evidence to support them.

Other countries don't tend to have these problems, because we don't elect idiots.Unbelievable Generalisation of The Week award, first and second place...

Small businesses should be eliminated anyway. But that's another story.Are you proposing to tell us this story, or are you just going to leave me thinking I should be "eliminated" with no reason?

Most of it is symptomatic of fascism and nazism (as labels for the peculiar brand of authoritarianism loved by Americans).Peculiarly unhelpful labels, really. Is America such a monolith that you can write off the entire country like this?

és:

Aug 25, 2008, 06:52 AM

are you just going to leave me thinking I should be "eliminated" with no reason?

Well, it would save a **** load of internet arguments :D

bobber205

Aug 25, 2008, 08:59 AM

You know, you could just pretend that YOUR actual dollars are spent on the helpful programs that the government actually does and pretend that everyone else's in spent unwisely.

Or you could move to another country. Or vote for people who want to spend tax money wisely, not just lower taxes.

leekohler

Aug 25, 2008, 09:11 AM

Or vote for people who want to spend tax money wisely, not just lower taxes.

That's what I've been saying this whole thread. Accountability is the key here. We're all pretty much saying the same things.

killr_b

Aug 26, 2008, 01:22 PM

To the OP:

Why don't you study the history of the income tax?
And not just the United States history, but the Tutors and the British Empire also.

You will quickly learn that tax = tyranny.

You may also learn, depending on how much reading you do, that the Federal Income tax only goes to pay the Federal Reserve (a private corporation) the interest they charge us to use our own money. It wasn't always this way. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 started this current phase. But they tried to set up the same banking fraud system twice before then as well.

Ronald Reagan commissioned a study of where the tax dollars go.
His words, "Not one red cent of the federal income tax pays for public services."

mactastic

Aug 26, 2008, 01:32 PM

Ronald Reagan commissioned a study of where the tax dollars go.
His words, "Not one red cent of the federal income tax pays for public services."
Then where does the money come from?

skunk

Aug 26, 2008, 02:13 PM

And who are the Tutors? :confused:

hulugu

Aug 26, 2008, 04:53 PM

iJohnHenry

Aug 26, 2008, 06:06 PM

And who are the Tutors? :confused:

I believe they have something to do with the American educational system??

thechidz

Aug 26, 2008, 08:30 PM

I believe they have something to do with the American educational system??

you are correct sir!

Badandy

Sep 9, 2008, 03:02 AM

Then where does the money come from?

The income tax accounts for approximately 40% of government's yearly "revenue". How about we eliminate the income tax and cut government spending at least 40%? I'd say that instead of spending $2.5 trillion per year, we would do just fine spending $1.5 trillion and relieving EVERYONE'S income tax duties.

és:

Sep 9, 2008, 05:01 AM

The income tax accounts for approximately 40% of government's yearly "revenue". How about we eliminate the income tax and cut government spending at least 40%? I'd say that instead of spending $2.5 trillion per year, we would do just fine spending $1.5 trillion and relieving EVERYONE'S income tax duties.

Sounds great in theory. Horrific in practice.

How about, and this is just a suggestion, stop murdering people in far away lands. Spend the money spent on illegal invasions one making the country better.

I know you would prefer the few dollars in your pocket, but many would prefer a better country with fewer people living in poverty, fewer people living without basic healthcare needs. Better hospitals, better schools.

No tax; no civilisation.

fivepoint

Sep 9, 2008, 07:43 AM

Small businesses should be eliminated anyway. But that's another story.

I'd LOVE to hear a bit more about this one, Agathon! Please, oh please, start a thread on this issue and explain it to us!

Agathon

Sep 9, 2008, 08:01 AM

I'd LOVE to hear a bit more about this one, Agathon! Please, oh please, start a thread on this issue and explain it to us!

Got any money?

fivepoint

Sep 9, 2008, 08:03 AM

Got any money?

Got any logic?

és:

Sep 9, 2008, 08:10 AM

Got any money?

Come on, Agathon. You know the terms here. He's asked you to back up something you've said, that's a legitimate thing for him to do.

skunk

Sep 9, 2008, 10:43 AM

Small businesses should be eliminated anyway. But that's another story.This is the second time you have posted this. I asked you to explain yourself last time. Perhaps you could enlighten us this time.

bobber205

Sep 9, 2008, 12:20 PM

This is the second time you have posted this. I asked you to explain yourself last time. Perhaps you could enlighten us this time.

He must be a CEO of walmart or something. xD

hulugu

Sep 9, 2008, 12:43 PM

The income tax accounts for approximately 40% of government's yearly "revenue". How about we eliminate the income tax and cut government spending at least 40%? I'd say that instead of spending $2.5 trillion per year, we would do just fine spending $1.5 trillion and relieving EVERYONE'S income tax duties.

That's a great theory, but where do we cut 40%? And, would we really cut personal income taxes when corporations are paying another big chunk of the federal budget? So, then between you and me, if it came down to cutting your taxes or cutting the taxes of Walmart, which do you think is more likely to happen?

skunk

Sep 9, 2008, 01:02 PM

He must be a CEO of walmart or something. xDThe thesis that you should get rid of small businesses is patently absurd anyway, unless you also believe that no business whatever should exist.

Agathon

Sep 9, 2008, 06:14 PM

Got any logic?

A million times more than you. If you only knew. :)

My point was that you constantly whine about people wanting freebies, yet you want me to work for you at your whim here (since I think you're a clown and see no personal benefit in replying to you).

But other, more reasonable, people have asked.

The point is rather tame really, which is why I find it weird that people get so het up about it.

Small businesses are a waste of time. It's much more efficient in terms of economies of scale (and for other reasons) to have larger corporations. This is why when people complain about Wal Mart putting Mom and Pop stores out of business, I have no sympathy.

That's why you've probably seen things like auto repair shops slowly becoming part of large chains.

Plus, small business owners tend to be pointlessly right wing, which has its social costs for everyone else. Petty capitalism you could call it.

Agathon

Sep 9, 2008, 06:16 PM

The thesis that you should get rid of small businesses is patently absurd anyway, unless you also believe that no business whatever should exist.

Why so? Is there some rule that everything has to be started out small?

Surely there is nothing preventing established large corporations from developing new and interesting lines of business?

Or do you have some magical reason why they can't?

iJohnHenry

Sep 9, 2008, 06:20 PM

He must be a CEO of walmart or something. xD

I agree that he has a finger in the pie, somehow.

Why so? Is there some rule that everything has to be started out small?

Surely there is nothing preventing established large corporations from developing new and interesting lines of business?

Or do you have some magical reason why they can't?

When you can establish one with some sort of human interaction would you please get back to me.

skunk

Sep 9, 2008, 06:22 PM

Why so? Is there some rule that everything has to be started out small?

Surely there is nothing preventing established large corporations from developing new and interesting lines of business?

Or do you have some magical reason why they can't?Why on earth would you be in favour of all business being vested in the hands of established corporations?

spamdumpster

Sep 9, 2008, 06:36 PM

A million times more than you. If you only knew. ... Small businesses are a waste of time. It's much more efficient in terms of economies of scale (and for other reasons) to have larger corporations.

There's more than a little irony here, and I totally disagree with posters guessing that Agathon is a CEO or "has his finger in the pie." Plainly, he's an extreme socialist who believes that "government" or some other central authority should control the economy. How else would we decide which corporations are to become the large corporations and which should go out of business. Or maybe we should force a bunch of small corporations to merge, thereby forming single large corporation in a particular industry or space.

Anyone who has to explain how smart he is, rather than letting his words speak for themselves in anything but.

és:

Sep 9, 2008, 06:41 PM

A million times more than you. If you only knew. :)

My point was that you constantly whine about people wanting freebies, yet you want me to work for you at your whim here (since I think you're a clown and see no personal benefit in replying to you).

But other, more reasonable, people have asked.

The point is rather tame really, which is why I find it weird that people get so het up about it.

Small businesses are a waste of time. It's much more efficient in terms of economies of scale (and for other reasons) to have larger corporations. This is why when people complain about Wal Mart putting Mom and Pop stores out of business, I have no sympathy.

That's why you've probably seen things like auto repair shops slowly becoming part of large chains.

Plus, small business owners tend to be pointlessly right wing, which has its social costs for everyone else. Petty capitalism you could call it.

I sort of get your reasoning; it's the reply that I expected. However, not all small businesses are off the shelf convenience stores and the like. You've got butchers, bakers (dare I say candlestick makers... no, better not) designers and many more places that small, personal approaches make a real difference in quality to the consumer.

The problem with the massive corporations in the capitalist climate is that, whilst some saving is passed onto the customer, everything is geared towards getting the customer into the shop. They do this by making a loss on some bargains, often horrific quality, just to make hideous mark up on other things.

If they were not run for the gain of share holders, but for the gain of the population, you could pay farmers more, customers less and the quality of produce would be many times higher.

What we should never do is stop the craftsmen from crafting. That's best for the consumer and the businessman. At the moment, you either have to use the small place to get quality, or you pay massive prices in a chain.

skunk

Sep 9, 2008, 06:50 PM

The point is rather tame really, which is why I find it weird that people get so het up about it.Who's het up? You simply, twice, made a bald and unqualified assertion about small business.

Small businesses are a waste of time. It's much more efficient in terms of economies of scale (and for other reasons) to have larger corporations. This is why when people complain about Wal Mart putting Mom and Pop stores out of business, I have no sympathy.Small businesses can provide a level of attention to detail and flexibility which larger outfits simply cannot. Why the overreaching interest in efficiencies of scale, when there are inefficiencies of scale too? All those big corporations you seem to favour started out as small businesses once.

That's why you've probably seen things like auto repair shops slowly becoming part of large chains.You have also probably noticed that the level of service you can get from large chains is more often than not nowhere near that of a small business with an intimate relationship to its local area.

Plus, small business owners tend to be pointlessly right wing, which has its social costs for everyone else.A crass generalisation, if ever I heard one.

Agathon

Sep 9, 2008, 06:58 PM

PlaceofDis

Sep 9, 2008, 07:06 PM

Plus, small business owners tend to be pointlessly right wing, which has its social costs for everyone else. Petty capitalism you could call it.

tell that to my boss who is decidedly liberal. very much so. nice generalizations based off of nothing.

and the difference between small businesses and large businesses differs more than just on the scale of efficiency. the problem with big business is that they're allowed to exert too much control on the market in terms of whats being sold, prices, and responsibility.

thats why there are small business as an alternative to help balance things out.

its called: Choice.

Agathon

Sep 9, 2008, 07:07 PM

Who's het up? You simply, twice, made a bald and unqualified assertion about small business.

Why do you care so much? You would only be bothered if you cared.

Small businesses can provide a level of attention to detail and flexibility which larger outfits simply cannot. Why the overreaching interest in efficiencies of scale, when there are inefficiencies of scale too?

This is increasingly no longer the case. Small businesses make sense when you have a fragmented market and it is impossible for a large organization to access the information it would need to satisfy a wide range of consumer preferences. IT has changed all that.

That's kind of my point. The old rules no longer apply.

All those big corporations you seem to favour started out as small businesses once.

No. Some were spun off from other large corporations or were born from mergers of large corporations.

If your point is that the original corporations had to start off small, then it's a pretty mundane point, since corporations had to start somewhere. In any case, just because that was true does not mean that the corporations of the future must start out small.

You have also probably noticed that the level of service you can get from large chains is more often than not nowhere near that of a small business with an intimate relationship to its local area.

Not any more. The romance of small retailers is being obliterated by IT as larger organizations are made more flexible by access to information about customer preferences.

Regular retail stores are the easiest to get rid of. Things like small R & D based outfits are harder, but ordinary people don't deal with those.

Of course there's a great countercultural whine about the elimination of "authentic" retail, but like most CC beliefs, it's self-serving hipster crud.

A crass generalisation, if ever I heard one.

But nevertheless, a reasonable one in the long term, I should think.

Agathon

Sep 9, 2008, 07:09 PM

tell that to my boss who is decidedly liberal. very much so. nice generalizations based off of nothing.

O RLY?

and the difference between small businesses and large businesses differs more than just on the scale of efficiency. the problem with big business is that they're allowed to exert too much control on the market in terms of whats being sold, prices, and responsibility.

Not any more. Have you been living in a cave these past ten years?

Anyway, your point is rubbish. Big business is not allowed that much control of what is being sold, since they have to offer what people want to buy. To suggest otherwise is a conspiracy theory.

és:

Sep 9, 2008, 07:21 PM

The only reason I think many small businesses still exist is that we didn't have the technology for large organizations to access the information they would need to satisfy fine grained preferences.

I think a strong case could be made for that in certain areas.

Does anyone really know a better bookstore than Amazon?

This is a good chance to make a point. If you can hunt out a little book shop, owned by someone with a passion for literature. Go in and look through some of the discontinued books, some of the second hand, hand bound, books. Give them a smell and ask the owner about the book and the author. Same with record stores.

I think you're looking at it from, and this something I'm often guilty of myself, a very idealistic point of view.

redwarrior

Sep 9, 2008, 07:21 PM

The problem with larger corporations is that they are out of touch with their consumers. I don't know about you, but when I see polls about consumer preference, I wonder, "Who asked me?"

Now, I can only speak from my personal standpoint as a small business owner. But I see large corporations (I'm thinking Wal-Mart and Dell at the moment), who choose to tell me what I like and then try to sell it to me. As a business owner, I have to deal with suppliers telling me that they don't hold consumer satisfaction as a top priority; they want to do as little as possible for as much money as possible.

IT has done nothing except allow large corporations to become even more distant from their patrons. It only takes one walking out of the house and into a car dealership, computer retailer, and even restaurants, to see that.

Edit: Summary - Large corporations are entities that care nothing for living, breathing, people; it's all about the system(money) to them.

skunk

Sep 9, 2008, 07:27 PM

Why do you care so much? You would only be bothered if you cared.I was puzzled by your seemingly groundless stance. I thought it might have a well-reasoned basis. No longer.
But nevertheless, a reasonable one in the long term, I should think.No reason in any length of term. It depends entirely on each individual.

O RLY?You have no basis on which to be so provocative.

Not any more. Have you been living in a cave these past ten years?

Anyway, your point is rubbish. Big business is not allowed that much control of what is being sold, since they have to offer what people want to buy. To suggest otherwise is a conspiracy theory.You claim that to suggest the abuse of monopoly is a conspiracy theory? Extraordinary. Living in a cave is preferable to living in blinkers.

Agathon

Sep 9, 2008, 08:28 PM

I was puzzled by your seemingly groundless stance. I thought it might have a well-reasoned basis. No longer.

Whatever.

No reason in any length of term. It depends entirely on each individual.

No substantive response? How could I have guessed you would do this?

Yawn...

You claim that to suggest the abuse of monopoly is a conspiracy theory? Extraordinary. Living in a cave is preferable to living in blinkers.

I didn't mention monopolies at all. Stop making things up. There's a difference between claims about large corporations abusing their size to limit what people can buy and one company abusing a monopoly. Companies might do the first, but would not if they could avoid it, since they would make more by serving their customers' individual needs. In the second case, it would be more in their interest to do it, since there would be no competition.

It's simply not the same at all.

Agathon

Sep 9, 2008, 08:35 PM

This is a good chance to make a point. If you can hunt out a little book shop, owned by someone with a passion for literature. Go in and look through some of the discontinued books, some of the second hand, hand bound, books. Give them a smell and ask the owner about the book and the author. Same with record stores.

I think you're looking at it from, and this something I'm often guilty of myself, a very idealistic point of view.

Why would someone with a passion for literature not work in a regular book store?

Similarly, as an avid record buyer, I don't see your point.

When I was a kid, you simply couldn't get much variety in from large corporations. If you wanted specialist stuff, you had to go to a specialist store.

That is increasingly no longer the case. My local supermarket (that I worked in after school) now has a bewildering array of goods from all over the world, and many of the specialist stores have closed because the needs of their customers are now adequately met by the larger stores.

Take coffee. At one point you only buy one kind of real coffee in my home town (it was horrible, by the way). After a while there were a few more brands, but if you wanted semi-decent coffee, you had to buy it from a coffee shop.

Now you can buy a wide array of gourmet coffees from all over the world, both ground and whole bean if you like. The best coffee available from the supermarket is equivalent to the best you can buy from a coffee shop (it's the same coffee), but much cheaper.

People don't notice this, but I wish we could time travel back to a 1975 supermarket to make the point. It honestly would seem like North Korea.

Sedulous

Sep 9, 2008, 09:11 PM

I'm sure people have various reasons to dislike taxes.

Capitalists that believe taxes are equivalent to stealing money from those who have worked hard for their money usually also believe in "the market" where you pay for services that you want. To those with this belief, I think they forget that their wealth and rights are protected by the government. As such, those with more wealth should pay their fair share for this service.

Middle Class individuals once benefited from a more fair tax structure. Those benefits have been lost and I can see why middle class individuals would object to a raise in taxes that was not concomitant with proportional increases to corporations and the wealthy.

Lower Income individuals do not like taxes because as a percent of their "disposable" income, taxes could take more than what is available (although from my point of view, low income individuals do not pay too much in tax).

For those interested, Obama's proposed tax plans would more closely "rebalance" the tax code away from the current Bush (and proposed McCain tax plans) that favor those with a great deal of wealth.

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/06/12/GR2008061200193.gif

hulugu

Sep 9, 2008, 10:51 PM

I sort of get your reasoning; it's the reply that I expected. However, not all small businesses are off the shelf convenience stores and the like. You've got butchers, bakers (dare I say candlestick makers... no, better not) designers and many more places that small, personal approaches make a real difference in quality to the consumer.

The problem with the massive corporations in the capitalist climate is that, whilst some saving is passed onto the customer, everything is geared towards getting the customer into the shop. They do this by making a loss on some bargains, often horrific quality, just to make hideous mark up on other things.

If they were not run for the gain of share holders, but for the gain of the population, you could pay farmers more, customers less and the quality of produce would be many times higher.

What we should never do is stop the craftsmen from crafting. That's best for the consumer and the businessman. At the moment, you either have to use the small place to get quality, or you pay massive prices in a chain.

I think so too.

The only reason I think many small businesses still exist is that we didn't have the technology for large organizations to access the information they would need to satisfy fine grained preferences. That's no longer the case. Does anyone really know a better bookstore than Amazon?

It's still pretty crude (witness Wal Mart), but getting better every day.

I don't see small business or large business being necessary. Depending on the accessibility of information, one or the other becomes a more efficient way of organizing production. At this point in time, the arrow seems to be pointing one way.

I disagree with this. Small businesses are niche creatures, but they add tremendously to daily life. A small business is more able to deal directly with customers in a knowledgeable way. Small businesses are also able to exist between the spaces where large companies would find carrying certain products unprofitable.

For example, I live near a small ice-cream shop that serves hand-made ice cream. It's a great little place run by a mother and daughter. We have a friendly relationship that just doesn't exist at a national chain.
There's also an art supply store. Their advice is unmatched, their prices are low, and they carry specialty items that just aren't carried by Wal-Mart or Amazon.

I could go on and talk about local restaurants too, but each small-business offers something that national chains just can't do. A relationship and a niche product that I want for a good price.

Frankly, I just can't understand anyone who cheers on the death of the small-business for a faceless corporation like Amazon. I like Amazon, but I also like my local bookstore, too.

Agathon

Sep 10, 2008, 12:09 AM

I disagree with this. Small businesses are niche creatures, but they add tremendously to daily life. A small business is more able to deal directly with customers in a knowledgeable way. Small businesses are also able to exist between the spaces where large companies would find carrying certain products unprofitable

I agree with all of this – for now.

The primary reason small businesses are able to do this is because larger companies are too unwieldy. Take es's example of the niche record store. The specialist knowledge required to run one (say a Classical store) makes it prime for a small business, because if you have that knowledge you can run one yourself. You will know what sort of thing to buy and what to avoid.

On the other hand, record stores that attempt to compete with Best Buy in the mainstream market tend to have a bad time of it, because Best Buy can undercut them.

Why doesn't Best Buy hire the dude who runs the small record store? Because the people who they could hire and are prepared to do it can make more money being in it for themselves.

Why doesn't the dude who runs the small record store open a whole chain of niche stores to take advantage of economies of scale? The answer is that there isn't enough money in it to finance such a huge operation.

The answer in both cases has to do with information. Now take a massive operation that is big enough to compete with Best Buy, but has access to the information that the indie store owner has via Information Technology, plus a mass of information about consumer types and habits. There you've basically described Amazon, which pools all these kinds of information.

That's essentially what is happening. It is becoming more feasible for larger companies to deal in niches because the cost of getting the relevant information has come down.

That's one reason why indie record stores have been going out of business.

The same goes for the supermarket I used to work in. Electronic goods scanning made it much easier for the company to send the right goods to the right store at the right time and to deal with niche products.

For example, I live near a small ice-cream shop that serves hand-made ice cream. It's a great little place run by a mother and daughter. We have a friendly relationship that just doesn't exist at a national chain.

And if this becomes popular enough, a larger company will put them out of business, or they will open more branches and become that corporation.

Where do you think all these "home style" bakery chains come from?

There's also an art supply store. Their advice is unmatched, their prices are low, and they carry specialty items that just aren't carried by Wal-Mart or Amazon.

For now.

I could go on and talk about local restaurants too, but each small-business offers something that national chains just can't do. A relationship and a niche product that I want for a good price.

Great. But you have noticed how the trend is for these to be replaced by larger companies.

Frankly, I just can't understand anyone who cheers on the death of the small-business for a faceless corporation like Amazon. I like Amazon, but I also like my local bookstore, too.

Do you like paying more for books or something? Small businesses are inefficient. Capitalism and the profit motive are designed to destroy them. People complain about Wal Mart forcing all their local mom and pop stores to close, but they only closed because most people started shopping at Wal Mart.

I don't get it anyway. What makes the people who work at your local Starbucks any less real than the people who run the ice cream shop?

hulugu

Sep 10, 2008, 12:40 AM

I agree with all of this – for now.

The primary reason small businesses are able to do this is because larger companies are too unwieldy. Take es's example of the niche record store. The specialist knowledge required to run one (say a Classical store) makes it prime for a small business, because if you have that knowledge you can run one yourself. You will know what sort of thing to buy and what to avoid.

On the other hand, record stores that attempt to compete with Best Buy in the mainstream market tend to have a bad time of it, because Best Buy can undercut them.

Why doesn't Best Buy hire the dude who runs the small record store? Because the people who they could hire and are prepared to do it can make more money being in it for themselves.

Why doesn't the dude who runs the small record store open a whole chain of niche stores to take advantage of economies of scale? The answer is that there isn't enough money in it to finance such a huge operation.

The answer in both cases has to do with information. Now take a massive operation that is big enough to compete with Best Buy, but has access to the information that the indie store owner has via Information Technology, plus a mass of information about consumer types and habits. There you've basically described Amazon, which pools all these kinds of information.

That's essentially what is happening. It is becoming more feasible for larger companies to deal in niches because the cost of getting the relevant information has come down.

That's one reason why indie record stores have been going out of business.

The same goes for the supermarket I used to work in. Electronic goods scanning made it much easier for the company to send the right goods to the right store at the right time and to deal with niche products.

And if this becomes popular enough, a larger company will put them out of business, or they will open more branches and become that corporation.

Where do you think all these "home style" bakery chains come from?

For now.

Great. But you have noticed how the trend is for these to be replaced by larger companies.

Do you like paying more for books or something? Small businesses are inefficient. Capitalism and the profit motive are designed to destroy them. People complain about Wal Mart forcing all their local mom and pop stores to close, but they only closed because most people started shopping at Wal Mart.

I don't get it anyway. What makes the people who work at your local Starbucks any less real than the people who run the ice cream shop?

Simply put, the barrista at Starbucks will be gone in a year or two. The turn-around of the chain store, owing to limited pay and an itinerant workforce, means that people don't have as much care as the well-run private business.

The current trend has been the elimination of small-business in exchange for chain stores, and I understand the economic advantages for that. Nonetheless, I prefer the local stores because local stores bring more money to local economies, they offer better services, and because of cheaper shipping and some consortiums for supplies and equipment, they can offer a better product for the same prices.

The problem with books is the relationship with publishers who give large chain bookstores an advantage over smaller ones. This has more to do with corporate power than sales. Publishers give a 50% discount for 1,000 copies and a 65% discount for 10,000, but only 10% for 100. This makes the business untenable. Booksellers can't make their own books (at least in scales large enough to matter), but in other businesses: ice cream, beer, and small niche products, small business can do rather well.

The music store and bookstore are doomed, but there are lots of other niches that can be profitable. A well-run small business will naturally expand, but not everything has to grow into a national chain and some businesses remain ridiculously profitable even as they limit themselves. For instance, take a look at the differences between In'N'Out Burger and Krispy Kreme.

A bike shop, for example, who builds their own frames and buys parts from manufacturers can do well in selling bikes that Wal-Mart wouldn't sell because of limited sales. Wal-Mart heads for the profitable middle, but doesn't care about the edges. That's where the small business survives and even excels.