Coffeehouse Thread

111 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

I'd rather just pay more taxes

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    magicalclick

    @ScanIAm:

    I like them. It is like advertisement to remind people to be grateful and help others. I prefer donation because it is voluntary and I know I can stop donating to a specific group if they are using it to war on other countries.

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    brian.​shapiro

    , ScanIAm wrote

    *snip*

    Both.  I'll not apologize for being annoyed by solicitations for money. 

    *snip*

    I'm proposing what I pretty much said, twice, already: return to paying taxes at a reasonable level so that we fund social programs that currently aren't able to cover the spread.

    And, I'm not sure where you got information about how funding works below the federal level, but you're certainly not describing reality where I live.

    Counties collect property taxes, but there are generally rules put on them by the state's board of equalization.

    We're funding social programs now even without the tax revenue to pay for them, we didn't stop funding them.

  • User profile image
    Cream​Filling512

    In the US at least, you're able to donate to the US treasury if you think they'll do such a great job spending your money.  (Hint: they don't).  The rest of us would rather give a little more thought and care to where we donate our money.

  • User profile image
    vesuvius

    I would prefer to work 4 days at my IT job, and one day a week with the blind, but very few jobs pay enough to allow one to do this, nor does any job allow for this. I am working this weekend.

    I don't want to have to wait till I am in my 60's to do this., but I would have done my bit. The problem is people always approach you as if you didn't give any money last week, or the week before that.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @vesuvius: Actually, I've heard of companies doing this in Holland.

  • User profile image
    vesuvius

    @Maddus Mattus: That is pretty progressive, people in Britain are just too profit oriented, work as hard as possible, and spend your money as much as possible, that seems to be what life is all about, in a nutshell.

    The Government always make statements about flexible working and so on, but business inevitably turn back to them and say £££. If the government was serious they would  say for every day I worked for example, I had some (or all) tax taken off my final wage, but as it is it now costs nearly £8 for a pack of tuna with 4 little cans in it, life is just so expensive.

    In every place I have worked for the last 15 years or so, there are blokes that are work at 7 in the morning and leave at around 7 at night, for no extra pay. It is impossible to impress anyone at work by working hard as Britain is literally a nation of workaholics, I am so unsatisfied with the rat race, there has to be more to life that eating corn flakes, being at work for 8 and jumping from meeting to meeting.

    I digress...

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , CreamFilling512 wrote

    In the US at least, you're able to donate to the US treasury if you think they'll do such a great job spending your money.  (Hint: they don't).  The rest of us would rather give a little more thought and care to where we donate our money.

    That's a straw-man argument if ever there was one. ScanIAm is not complaining that he has too much money and would like the federal government to have more of it - he's complaining that on average taxes are too low for the social programs he agrees with, which is different.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @vesuvius: there is always someone working later then you or harder then you, I just gave up on that fight.

    Now I do stuff in my spare time that are actually fun!

    But I don't think more tax is the solution either, in Holland we have so many tax and Ngo's and the problem still exists. I have a feeling that maybe these groups don't want to solve their problems at all.....

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    , brian.shapiro wrote

    *snip*

    Counties collect property taxes, but there are generally rules put on them by the state's board of equalization.

    We're funding social programs now even without the tax revenue to pay for them, we didn't stop funding them.

    Ya, know, I have a bit of respect for you, so I took it on faith that you wouldn't just make that claim when it wasn't actually true.

    Then, I did a bit of research, and it appears that quite a few programs have had funding cuts at the federal level:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/whats-getting-cut-in-the-fy-2011-budget/2011/04/11/AFMIynLD_blog.html

    Honestly, though, I just succumbed to the pressure and bought a crap load of dry goods to donate at my employer. 

  • User profile image
    JPeless

    @vesuvius: can they arrange to let you work all your hours in 4 days?  A girl I work with does 4-10s in order to do something similar.

  • User profile image
    Cream​Filling512

    , evildictaitor wrote

    *snip*

    That's a straw-man argument if ever there was one. ScanIAm is not complaining that he has too much money and would like the federal government to have more of it - he's complaining that on average taxes are too low for the social programs he agrees with, which is different.

    It's not an argument, it's sarcasm.  It's the job of the legislature to figure out how to fund their own programs, if they can't manage that you should fire them.

    Also you can't close the budget gap simply through higher taxes, even if you taxed at 100% you wouldn't be close to closing the gap on the major entitlement liabilities (SS, Medicare/caid).  The deficit is in trillions, and 100% of the income of top earners ($1 million and up) is more like $700 billion.

    And if you taxed at 100%, you'd have no growth, and the next year everyone would be bankrupt.

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    It's not an argument, it's sarcasm.  It's the job of the legislature to figure out how to fund their own programs, if they can't manage that you should fire them.

    With polling for congress usually just below 10%, I'd have thought abolishing the institution is probably more appropriate than just firing them.

    Also you can't close the budget gap simply through higher taxes, even if you taxed at 100% you wouldn't be close to closing the gap on the major entitlement liabilities (SS, Medicare/caid).  The deficit is in trillions, and 100% of the income of top earners ($1 million and up) is more like $700 billion.

    And if you taxed at 100%, you'd have no growth, and the next year everyone would be bankrupt.

    The deficit is more than the GDP, but the budget gap isn't. The US certainly couldn't pay back all it's debts in a year even with 100% taxes, but it could raise taxes high enough to not need to borrow in a year. I'm not saying that's a good or practicable idea, but it's possible.

  • User profile image
    spivonious

    The real answer is cutting spending, not increasing revenue. There are a lot of federal programs that would be much more efficient at a state level (interior, education, agriculture, HUD, transportation, labor, energy, to name a few). Others could be absorbed into more general departments: defense, homeland security, and veteran's affairs is a good set that could all be put in one cabinet department. Then we could strip out the tax code and charge a flat rate for everyone. No more deductions, no more credits - just pay a percentage off of your income.

    I bet we could get rid of the debt in less than ten years if we did all of that.

  • User profile image
    cbae

    @spivonious: No, the real answer is cutting spending in some sectors and increasing it in others while increasing revenue. Our economy depends on government spending, but certain sectors like the military industrial complex are leeches that have worn out their welcome.

    And you have got to be kidding about local governments being more efficient. What needs to happen is more federal funding for regional branches of these federal departments and complete abolishment of redundant state-level organizations.

  • User profile image
    spivonious

    , cbae wrote

    @spivonious: No, the real answer is cutting spending in some sectors and increasing it in others while increasing revenue. Our economy depends on government spending, but certain sectors like the military industrial complex are leeches that have worn out their welcome.

    And you have got to be kidding about local governments being more efficient. What needs to happen is more federal funding for regional branches of these federal departments and complete abolishment of redundant state-level organizations.

    Obviously, my liberatarian views are going to clash with your socialist views.

    Our economy depends on spending yes, but from independent investors, not the government. The Department of Defense does spend way too much. We need to pull out of countries where we're not actively involved in a war, and we need to finish up in the countries that we are. Local governments are definitely more efficient. I have a problem with my water supply, I go to the local officials. I don't write a letter to the EPA and hope they find time to come and address my problem.

  • User profile image
    Cream​Filling512

    , evildictaitor wrote

    With polling for congress usually just below 10%, I'd have thought abolishing the institution is probably more appropriate than just firing them.

    The federal government is slow and incompetent by design, it was supposed to be protection against tyranny and dictators.  Now it's asked to do everything it wasn't designed to do.  It didn't need to be agile in the original design, it was just supposed to do some limited number of things.  It was expected that the states would govern everything else because they're more agile and have widespread powers over their sovereign territory.

    The deficit is more than the GDP, but the budget gap isn't. The US certainly couldn't pay back all it's debts in a year even with 100% taxes, but it could raise taxes high enough to not need to borrow in a year. I'm not saying that's a good or practicable idea, but it's possible.

    I think you're confusing deficit with the absolute debt.  When I say deficit, I'm referring to the budget deficit, (i.e. the gap in funding everything).  The budget deficit for 2011 was $1.3 trillion (i.e. it added $1.3 trillion of new debt).  You're not going to cover $1.3 trillion through added taxes no matter how impractical they are.  I don't think 2012 is going to be much different, they cut a billion here, a billion there, doesn't add up to much.  And when more of Obamacare starts kicking in, it's going to get much worse. 

  • User profile image
    Cream​Filling512

    , cbae wrote

    And you have got to be kidding about local governments being more efficient. What needs to happen is more federal funding for regional branches of these federal departments and complete abolishment of redundant state-level organizations.

    You're the one who's kidding?  That's not how the US government works.  The federal government is just there to carry out certain delegated powers from the states.  If the state governments aren't there, the federal government wouldn't be legitimate, it gets its legitimacy from the states via the Constitution.

    The transfer of power goes like this:  Natural Rights -> People -> States -> Federal

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    Oh christ, now we get to rehash the same old arguments about how to interpret the the various founding documents.  I swear some folks read them like they're some kind of religious text.  Regardless of how forward thinking you feel the authors were, they had no concept of how to manage a society hundreds of millions of people in a world filled with 6 billion people.  They barely had running water and the vast majority of them would not have been adverse to sh*tting outdoors year round.  They did well with what they had, but the only way the remain relavent is through selective reinterpretation of what was written.  And before you argue with me, I've got 3/5ths of a response concerning the value of a slave as a person.

    We need to make a decision, as a society, what we want to do with people who suck at life acutely or chronically.  If the decision is to say 'screw em', then I'll accept that.  If the decision is to try and help them, then I'll accept that.  We need to make this decision, however, because the constant back and forth over it is counterproductive.

    And this bull-sh*t where we play games trying to starve the beast only ends up hurting the people who actually need the help.  The scam artists and fraudsters can game their social connections just as easily as they game the government.  The truly needy are only served by being cute (puppies, toys for tots, etc.) or having decent PR.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.