posted by ptown_trojans_1I think that is debatable when that applies to taxes. Again, this debate goes back to Jefferson v. Hamilton.
It doesn't. It goes back to neither of them having any right to form an organization that compels me to do a damn thing. They are nothing but Vito Corleone using the word "government" instead of "family".
posted by queencitybuckeyeIt's a small number of people, but that certainly doesn't justify its existence IMO.
Correct. It is a moral issue as well. If someone amassed a $30 million estate, why should the government get $10 million of it (40%, after the $5 mill exemption).
Sickening.
posted by jmogI didn't say there wouldn't be a federal income tax, I should the people would revolt and only vote in those that actually want small government if they actually paid attention to how much of their checks go to the government.
Maybe. It could also force a large amount of people to actual focus on what makes good governance, and what services are their taxes going toward and for.
posted by queencitybuckeyeIt doesn't. It goes back to neither of them having any right to form an organization that compels me to do a damn thing. They are nothing but Vito Corleone using the word "government" instead of "family".
Yeah, that is an actual debate the founding fathers had and we are having today. You act like it is settled doctrine and I am saying it is not.
posted by QuakerOats
Correct. It is a moral issue as well. If someone amassed a $30 million estate, why should the government get $10 million of it (40%, after the $5 mill exemption).
Sickening.
You're "sickened" or "disgusted" every day. You must be the most miserable SOB on God's creation.
posted by queencitybuckeyeIt doesn't. It goes back to neither of them having any right to form an organization that compels me to do a damn thing. They are nothing but Vito Corleone using the word "government" instead of "family".
Queencitybuckeye, you're my fellow poster and I love you. But don't ever take sides with anyone against the family again. Ever.
posted by ptown_trojans_1Yeah, that is an actual debate the founding fathers had and we are having today. You act like it is settled doctrine and I am saying it is not.
According to whom? The notion of "settled" implies that the "founders" had some sort of standing. You can't seem to get your head around the fact that they weren't anointed by anyone and had no more standing to form a government than you or I do. So I'll give up and wish you a great day.
posted by queencitybuckeyeAccording to whom? The notion of "settled" implies that the "founders" had some sort of standing. You can't seem to get your head around the fact that they weren't anointed by anyone and had no more standing to form a government than you or I do. So I'll give up and wish you a great day.
No. I am referring to your settled fact that you think that no one has more standing to form a government than you or I.
Sure, you and I have rights given by God, but do taxes and other laws formed by a government, laws of man, and our civil society infringe on those rights and if so where is that line? That is the debate.
You seem to imply that no government has any right to do anything that will infringe on your property. I am saying that several hundred years of history and debate suggest that is not the case.
Who are these chosen people with more standing than me, and how did they get it?
posted by jmog
80% of the people don't even pay attention to how much of their check is gone to taxes.
I've mentioned this a few times over the years, but if you guys want some insights into the financial stupid and irresponsible, pick-up some behavioral finance books.
Anyway, one of the insights is how people compartmentalize budgets and expenses. For example, send someone a $600 stimulus check and it's a windfall to be spent, even if their bonus was $1000 lower than average this year...so they've increased spending, eventhough their total income decreased.
With respect to taxes, it's absolutely hideous. You take from a bunch of different sources a little at a time, and this is more tolerated and less noticeable than a one-time payment annually (especially when most taxpayers end-up with a refund).
People have advocated for more transparency so people understand their true tax burdens. To be honest, I'd have to put in some serious work to calculate how much sales tax I'm paying. The rest is pretty clear on the tax return, although a lot of people don't do their taxes and only pay attention to the refund or what they owe (and that's the "beauty" of how the system is set-up). Even then, it's not entirely straightforward because you take out FICA to get "adjusted AGI", as if what you actually made isn't yours to begin with. And then you have to go over to your state tax return to get the rest, and by the way property taxes are only a deduction on the return since that's collected thru another process.
Throughout history, a central tenet of maintaining govt control has been to keep the mob stupid and in the dark. There may not be a better example of that than our tax system.
Very dumb - just look at the tremendous success and benefits with the United Nationsposted by ptown_trojans_1
I'll even say the US decision to not join the League of Nations was a worse idea as well.
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieYou're "sickened" or "disgusted" every day. You must be the most miserable SOB on God's creation.
Not at all ...................I was describing a situation, not me.
This conversation is way to serious for the progressive thread. We should be making fun of Maxine Waters calling for premeditated murder for Trump, or AOC completely playing the public about how at risk she was during the capital riot. Come on!
posted by queencitybuckeyeWho are these chosen people with more standing than me, and how did they get it?
What chosen people? You mean the people that write our laws? The people you elect?
It is like you are against any and all laws of man.
I'm saying the modern laws and things like taxes are an extension of the social contract theory. How far those laws invade our personal space and property is up for debate, but as a citizen of the country, you agree to at the very least to the concept.
posted by gutI've mentioned this a few times over the years, but if you guys want some insights into the financial stupid and irresponsible, pick-up some behavioral finance books.
Anyway, one of the insights is how people compartmentalize budgets and expenses. For example, send someone a $600 stimulus check and it's a windfall to be spent, even if their bonus was $1000 lower than average this year...so they've increased spending, eventhough their total income decreased.
With respect to taxes, it's absolutely hideous. You take from a bunch of different sources a little at a time, and this is more tolerated and less noticeable than a one-time payment annually (especially when most taxpayers end-up with a refund).
People have advocated for more transparency so people understand their true tax burdens. To be honest, I'd have to put in some serious work to calculate how much sales tax I'm paying. The rest is pretty clear on the tax return, although a lot of people don't do their taxes and only pay attention to the refund or what they owe (and that's the "beauty" of how the system is set-up). Even then, it's not entirely straightforward because you take out FICA to get "adjusted AGI", as if what you actually made isn't yours to begin with. And then you have to go over to your state tax return to get the rest, and by the way property taxes are only a deduction on the return since that's collected thru another process.
Throughout history, a central tenet of maintaining govt control has been to keep the mob stupid and in the dark. There may not be a better example of that than our tax system.
Agree that the confusion and complexity of the system is not only a way to keep people in the dark, but to benefit the ones that can best manipulate the system.
posted by gut
Very dumb - just look at the tremendous success and benefits with the United Nations
You mean like getting rid of smallpox?
The narrative for keeping the US in the League of Nations is we would have not let the French and British punish the Germans as much. Therefore, the county would have not had a weak Weimar Republic that saw the rise of Hitler.
posted by ptown_trojans_1What chosen people? You mean the people that write our laws? The people you elect?
It is like you are against any and all laws of man.
I'm saying the modern laws and things like taxes are an extension of the social contract theory. How far those laws invade our personal space and property is up for debate, but as a citizen of the country, you agree to at the very least to the concept.
The concept is stupid as contracts are voluntary agreements.
posted by queencitybuckeyeThe concept is stupid as contracts are voluntary agreements.
Take a look at the countries that have zero or very low income taxes. The list is not impressive to say the least. The countries that would offer a quality of life similar to the US - almost without exception - have a higher tax rate than we do. That's a pickle for the "tax is stealing" crowd.
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieTake a look at the countries that have zero or very low income taxes. The list is not impressive to say the least. The countries that would offer a quality of life similar to the US - almost without exception - have a higher tax rate than we do. That's a pickle for the "tax is stealing" crowd.
Not really. Look again. US has lower tax burdens, across the board, than the EU and most other OECD countries. Want to guess how countries with higher tax burdens compare to the US in terms of economic growth, employment and average wages over the past 30 years?
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieWe all pay taxes, so there is no magic number. If you consider it stealing, then I don't know what else to say to you.
No magic number? Yea there is, the problem is that politicians are too scared to tell you what they think.
The fairest way to tax is to use a tax plan based on consumption.
