Who Are Paying Taxes?

[red states rule]

No. Thank you. I think that this thread has just about run its course. We can just agree to end it on a happy, funny note. Cheers to you RSR.

As you wish

Cheers

 

[Angel Heart]

You two are going to drive me nuts.

 

[ReillyT]

You two are going to drive me nuts.

It's like West Side Story.

RSR and I come from different backgrounds. The Jets and the Sharks if you will. I am "Tony" and he "Maria." Together, we have found a way to love one another despite our differences. We can look past the petty political bickering and see the person within.

If Maria and I can do it, doesn't this lend hope to the world over? Can we all adopt this newfound spirt of love and companionship and embrace the bi-partisanship for which we all secretly yearn?

Maria, I've just met a girl named Maria,
and suddenly the name will never be the same to me.
Maria! I've just blogged a girl named Maria.
And suddenly I've found how wonderful a sound can be.
Maria, say it loud and there's music playing.
Say it soft and it's almost like praying,
Maria, I never stop saying: "Maria!"

* RSR - Just kidding about the Maria thing.

 

[Bern80]

Well, I agree with part of what you said. Retired Americans do also gain a substantial portion of their incomes from capital gains. However, why not employ a graduated capital gains system, taxing at lower rates for lower returns on income. That way, someone who earns millions each year won't be paying 15%, but retirees still will be able to.




This just isn't true. Tax revenues are up, but not remotely at a level to fund the government right now. A few days ago, I posted a link to a Washington Post article, where a former member of Bush's economic team stated that the higher revenues were in all likelihood not attributable to the lower taxes.

It is about finding the right mix - the right tax level - sufficient to adequately fund the government and still interfere as little as possible with market forces. Take your last line to its logical conclusion, and it would suggest that no taxation is the best approach, but that is obviously not true.

I have a basic question:

Why are you interested in figureing out ways to give government more and more money? What they do spend on right now is far from efficient going to pork barrell and pet projects.

Shouldn't we be putting are foot down and say no more? I know you think government needs all this money to fund stuff, but the more money you give them the more control they have over your life and how you can live. We shouldn't be finding ways to get more money to government. We should be finding ways to make them efficiently spend what we already give them and make them keep a budget.

 

[ReillyT]

I have a basic question:

Why are you interested in figureing out ways to give government more and more money? What they do spend on right now is far from efficient going to pork barrell and pet projects.

Shouldn't we be putting are foot down and say no more? I know you think government needs all this money to fund stuff, but the more money you give them the more control they have over your life and how you can live. We shouldn't be finding ways to get more money to government. We should be finding ways to make them efficiently spend what we already give them and make them keep a budget.

That is a good question, as I think I agree with you if you are saying that government spends our money badly and wastes much of it.

I guess I think that the good outweighs the bad. I have come to expect earmarks, pork barrel projects, and inefficient spending generally. However, lost in all of the press about the bad stuff, I think government also spends a lot of money towards good endeavors. I am thankful for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the EPA, the Justice Department Civil Rights Division,etc.
I guess I accept the waste because I think that the waste will always be there, whether the government spends a lot or a little, and I wouldn't sacrifice these types of important (IMO) programs to rid ourselves of that waste.

 

[Bern80]

That is a good question, as I think I agree with you if you are saying that government spends our money badly and wastes much of it.

I guess I think that the good outweighs the bad. I have come to expect earmarks, pork barrel projects, and inefficient spending generally. However, lost in all of the press about the bad stuff, I think government also spends a lot of money towards good endeavors. I am thankful for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the EPA, the Justice Department Civil Rights Division,etc.
I guess I accept the waste because I think that the waste will always be there, whether the government spends a lot or a little, and I wouldn't sacrifice these types of important (IMO) programs to rid ourselves of that waste.

What I'm leary of is the fine line. Speaking in the most idealistic and broad terms there are only a couple things governmetn should be spending on: the military, Infrastructure (civic buildings, roads, things that improve the community that all will see benefits from), and programs for those that can't help themselves.

The last one is where the fine line is. What I see is that we are slowly creeping from the point of neccessity towards one more akin to government benevolence, or one that thinks it is anyway. Social Security is a good example. I'm not a fan of FDR or anything, but the times made something like SS a neccessity. You couldn't turn to your neighbor because pretty much everyone was down on their luck so FDR created a safety net in SS for people who had know means of getting anything could get something. Since it's original inception it has expanded and transformed greatly into beyond what was original intended, because someone tried to travel down the slippery slope of "well let's use for this cause it's good for peopel".

If we continue down that same slippery slope government in the end will be the only entity allowed to tell you what's good for you. Even you won't get to make that decision anymore.

It is an extremely fine line from what government needs to have in order to help those that can't help themselves, and what governemnt thinks it needs. Perhaps the only government conspiracy I beleive in is that our government is truly trying to breed dependence. they want us to believe we need them for things we don't really need them for. I don't need them to tell me whether or not i can eat food with trans-fats in it for example. It shouldn't be about governmnt legislating what it thinks is best for you and thus making illegal what it thinks isn't (i.e. the proliferation of smoking bans (no I don't smoke)). If you want a free country taht means the freedom to make bad choices too and learning from the consequences.

 

[ReillyT]

What I'm leary of is the fine line. Speaking in the most idealistic and broad terms there are only a couple things governmetn should be spending on: the military, Infrastructure (civic buildings, roads, things that improve the community that all will see benefits from), and programs for those that can't help themselves.

The last one is where the fine line is. What I see is that we are slowly creeping from the point of neccessity towards one more akin to government benevolence, or one that thinks it is anyway. Social Security is a good example. I'm not a fan of FDR or anything, but the times made something like SS a neccessity. You couldn't turn to your neighbor because pretty much everyone was down on their luck so FDR created a safety net in SS for people who had know means of getting anything could get something. Since it's original inception it has expanded and transformed greatly into beyond what was original intended, because someone tried to travel down the slippery slope of "well let's use for this cause it's good for peopel".

If we continue down that same slippery slope government in the end will be the only entity allowed to tell you what's good for you. Even you won't get to make that decision anymore.

It is an extremely fine line from what government needs to have in order to help those that can't help themselves, and what governemnt thinks it needs. Perhaps the only government conspiracy I beleive in is that our government is truly trying to breed dependence. they want us to believe we need them for things we don't really need them for. I don't need them to tell me whether or not i can eat food with trans-fats in it for example. It shouldn't be about governmnt legislating what it thinks is best for you and thus making illegal what it thinks isn't (i.e. the proliferation of smoking bans (no I don't smoke)). If you want a free country taht means the freedom to make bad choices too and learning from the consequences.

I agree with some of what you say (especially towards the bottom - trans-fats, smoking, etc.), but we obviously disagree on where the line should be drawn. I don't have a lot of confidence in the neighbor as a safety net idea, because not everyone has a neighbor, both metaphorically and literally speaking.

 

[Bern80]

I agree with some of what you say (especially towards the bottom - trans-fats, smoking, etc.), but we obviously disagree on where the line should be drawn. I don't have a lot of confidence in the neighbor as a safety net idea, because not everyone has a neighbor, both metaphorically and literally speaking.

Sorry, that wasn't what I was suggesting. What I meant was at the time of the depression the government truly was the only entity most could turn to. Since that time many systems have become commone place that take the place of some of SS features such as 401ks, pensions, HSAs, etc. They may require a little more responsibilty and for planning on the part of the people, but that's a good trait to foster in my opinion.

 

[ReillyT]

Sorry, that wasn't what I was suggesting. What I meant was at the time of the depression the government truly was the only entity most could turn to. Since that time many systems have become commone place that take the place of some of SS features such as 401ks, pensions, HSAs, etc. They may require a little more responsibilty and for planning on the part of the people, but that's a good trait to foster in my opinion.

I see. Okay, there are all sorts of issues with SS specifically that makes it difficult to address (such as many have already paid into it), so I will pull back from SS specifically to government programs generally.

By the way, this is a good discussion, and I am glad that we are having it.

I think that first government must provide for (or make sure that they are provided for) those that cannot provide for themselves, such as children (if their parents do not), the mentally disabled, the mentally unstable, etc.

After that, I think that government should provide for those who would normally help themselves, but for whatever reason, cannot for the moment provide for themselves. Unemployment insurance is what I have in mind here.

I think government, in some circumstances, should provide for those who perhaps had the opportunity to safeguard their futures, but for whatever reason did not. I realize that I just hedged that with "in some circumstances," but it is a tricky subject. If an elderly person loses their pension because they invested poorly, I feel government should make sure that their basic needs are taken care of. I think it is better for society that we not have large numbers of elderly homeless. If a working age person loses their entire investment, then that is too bad, and the government obviously should not cover their loss.

Finally, I think that government should ensure basic opportunity for the entire populace. If this means closing poor schools and shifting students elsewhere, so be it. If it means funneling money into head start programs, I am okay with that. If it means enforcing laws against discrimination, I am okay with that as well. I am also for low interest loans for higher education.

If there are ways to meet these eventualities, while at the same time minimizing the impact by incentivising people to save their money or invest it properly, I am all for that.

Looking above, I can see that I am a big proponent of government, as inefficient as it can sometimes be. But, then again, that is why I am a liberal.

I understand and sympathize with the idea that providing a safety net spurs people to rely on it, but I wouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[ReillyT]

Actually, the question for me isn't who you provide a safety net for, but who don't you provide a safety net for - children, the elderly, the impoverished, the insane. I couldn't live with myself if I let my government turn its back on any of these groups.

 

[Bern80]

I think that first government must provide for (or make sure that they are provided for) those that cannot provide for themselves, such as children (if their parents do not), the mentally disabled, the mentally unstable, etc.

agreed

After that, I think that government should provide for those who would normally help themselves, but for whatever reason, cannot for the moment provide for themselves. Unemployment insurance is what I have in mind here.

agreed

I think government, in some circumstances, should provide for those who perhaps had the opportunity to safeguard their futures, but for whatever reason did not. I realize that I just hedged that with "in some circumstances," but it is a tricky subject. If an elderly person loses their pension because they invested poorly, I feel government should make sure that their basic needs are taken care of. I think it is better for society that we not have large numbers of elderly homeless. If a working age person loses their entire investment, then that is too bad, and the government obviously should not cover their loss.

pretty much agree

Finally, I think that government should ensure basic opportunity for the entire populace. If this means closing poor schools and shifting students elsewhere, so be it. If it means funneling money into head start programs, I am okay with that. If it means enforcing laws against discrimination, I am okay with that as well. I am also for low interest loans for higher education.

Here enlies a lot of questions. What constitutes basic opportunity? What that loosely implies is somehow getting millions of people from lots of different environements and backgrounds on an equal starting point. All of that is assuming tha those that have the ability to do so take advantage of teh opportunities presented to them. If they don't, do we just show them some tough love, by essentially saying we helped out as best we could, now you're on your own?

And that is really the big point. Life is about choice. In a country that has as much propserity as the U.S. most all where they are because of the choices they made. I have a hard time justifying takeing(via taxes) from people that have made good choices (the rich) and giveing money to those(the poor) that habitually make poor ones.

If there are ways to meet these eventualities, while at the same time minimizing the impact by incentivising people to save their money or invest it properly, I am all for that.

And as you said before it makes people lose the incentive to try hard if they see that the harder they try the less money they get to keep. This really is the rub and why a lot of rich people get upset about taxes. They know they busted there but to get where they are. And they see that a chunk of their money is going to support programs for people that decided they didn't want to make the sacrafice.

Looking above, I can see that I am a big proponent of government, as inefficient as it can sometimes be. But, then again, that is why I am a liberal.

This is something I just have never been able to rap my head around. Probably why I'm a conservative. In my opinion there is nothing government does that does not serve a selfish end. that end is election or re-election. In that vein they will do whatever they have to do to convince you that what their doing is in your best interest. The easiest way to get elected or re-elected is to give people something and thus convince them that they need you. Why is government looked at in almost a savioristic light? Wouldn't you have a greater sense of pride making it on your own? Wouldn't you be a better person for it because of the adversity you made it through?

understand and sympathize with the idea that providing a safety net spurs people to rely on it, but I wouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

nor I, I just want to make darn sure we know which is which

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

BTW -Entitlements did NOT end the Depression

WWII did

Eh, WWII reduced unemployment, but that is only one measure of an economy's strength. If I recall correctly, the economy's total output did not grow much if any during the war years. Wars may be necessary sometimes, but they're still basically government programs.

The economy really got underway in 1947, when a good bit of the New Deal programs were scrapped.

Oh no. I kept it. I am not so much a disinterested actor that I won't keep a tax cut given to me. However, I still don't think that I should be getting these tax cuts.

To salve my conscience, I did give more money to charities that I support this year.

Imagine how much more you could give to charity if you had a bigger tax cut!