my view on Taxes

Post Reply New Topic

Orwell, assuming you're not of college yet and if I'm wrong, my bad, they are oppressing you by paying you s**t when they could clearly be paying you more and then taking it back from you when you have to buy from them. They controll your d#$% life. It is not unfair to make them pay more taxes because they have more money. Without taxes we would live on a s#$%tty planet because there would be no programs to help out the people on the bottom who can't make ends meat or get any vacation time. If we taxed the rich more, our government programs could potentially be much much better.

Oh and assuming you like the book 1984. George Orwell was a socialist. He was critical of communism, but he was a socialist. If you really love him, you wouldn't be following a conservative mindset.

Yes it is, it's sleasy! I don't give a flying chicken f#$% where or how you earned your money. Either play your part in your community and pay your taxes, or ship out.

What faith? I don't think this has anything to do with saying "rich people are amazing people who love me", but rather a notion that the policies are better this way. In any case, businesses aren't people.


There isn't much that people can do in office to keep the economy from doing poorly. What do you expect them to do? Summon up prosperity? The track record for this is not that great, and all mechanisms to do this have something about them making them questionable. Perhaps these people don't want higher taxes on anyone, or more government?


With Orwell, I must argue that a lot of the problems in education are institutional I think. Frankly though, I don't really care much for the public school system, and would prefer a voucher system. I don't see the problem with getting better education for their children, nor do I see why kids should be in public school in the first place.

Why? Because we should be a fascist state? A commune? Some other place where all people are lumped together in categories and forced to submit to the greater powers? I don't want *ANYONE* to be part of a national community, much less myself, and I don't see why I should be the slave to your pathetic desires.


Well, there is a labor market. Employers go get employees from this labor market, and pay them a wage that is good for the particular employee relative to the other offers on this market. Where is the abuse? We can say that one side has more market power, but that does not entail corruption in a system. Not only that, but "they control your d#$% life" does not seem true, unless we lump a group of heterogeneous individuals into a homogeneous group, which seems a questionable reduction. I actually have my doubts on the necessity of taxes anyway. Not only that, but government programs take away from private markets, I mean, if we had a 100% tax rate then I think it easily apparent everything would be worse rather than better, thus meaning that if there is an optimal tax rate, it is less than 100%, thus meaning that at some point somewhere taxes should no longer be increased, the debate is where this point happens to be.


Yes, he knows. Your argument at the end is s*** though. Loving someone's work or ideas or being does not mean being a devoted follower, even at the cost of one's own ideas and inclinations.


Well, Dox47 did put forward an argument and it could be attacked with more effort. In any case, his point stands at "Why should communal involvement be decided by the arbitrary wills of some group of people".

In any case, here is what I shall say to you, countzarroff: taxation is theft. Can you prove that taxation is not theft? Here are the questions you might want to answer: How is the government different than a mafia seeking protection money? It must be recognized that both the government, and the mafia provide some useful services to their clients, so why is one considered better? Also, is there any difference between a good government and a bad government? Should you pay your taxes to Nazi Germany, for instance? If one pays taxes to Nazi Germany, isn't one supporting the murder of Jews? But if not, can an absolute point where one should start paying taxes be determined? What about taxes based upon race or religion? Are those equally just to progressive income taxes? How is one more just than the other? Are your conclusions found in a manner rigorous enough that none can doubt them, or is there room for doubt, or for competing ideas to exist? GO!! !

No, they are not oppressing me. I am paid a fair market wage for what work I do. I'd like to earn more money, yes, but the key word there is earn. Having to buy back from them? I don't think you even have a clear idea of who "them" is. You're just generically ranting against "the man."


If I found my job disadvantageous, I could quit easily enough. So how do they control my life?


If our government programs were run better, they could potentially be much better. Money does not seem to be the issue, and if you look at the federal government budget social programs such as welfare are a pittance compared to other expenditures.


Yes, I know Orwell considered himself a socialist. And believe me, you're not the first one to pull the "But you call yourself Orwell! How come you don't agree with him on this exact specific issue?" card. If I really love him? What is he, my religion? At this point you're just comical.

How come liberals always bash me for being conservative and conservatives always bash me for being liberal?

What is so sleazy about not allowing yourself to be taken advantage of? If the wealthy thought that they were being taxed fairly, it would make sense to simply pay in full. It's when you've got this mentality that the rich need to be punished through higher tax rates that they decide to fight back and go through the rather convoluted process of legally avoiding taxes. Sheltering income isn't free, and isn't necessarily easy, so the incentive for someone to go through all that trouble must be pretty high, in this case a confiscatory tax rate on higher incomes. If the tax rate was fair, there would be much less incentive to dodge it, and some of the loopholes could be written out as the quid pro quo. This is essentially tyranny of the majority versus tyranny of the money, neither one is desirable in my book.

Tests in the UK have shown that when people believe that a tax rate has been fairly calculated, they will pay it. They will however work AROUND what they believe to be unfair taxation.

Example.. I am supposed to declare tips. Tips are generally "get yourself a drink". If I were standing on the other side of the bar, I would receive a drink, at the price paid. If I am behind the bar, the same person will buy me a drink, and I must pay tax on that, thus meaning I receive LESS than a full drink. This strikes me as uneven. Therefore I do not declare tips.

My employer has to pay tax twice if he buys a drink from his own bar. This is patently unfair.

VAT is a tax that is paid wholly BECAUSE an item is worth money. The more it is worth, the more tax is paid. This makes no sense. Unfair tax.

Your brainwashed. Its sad, but it happens a lot these days and as 50% of the people out there are as such - not much hope aside from trying to set the facts straight; those who wish to live their fantasy bubbles are free to at any time, most will not though.

Who creates jobs? Which 10% of our population pays 70% of the taxes already? What makes jobs stay in the United States rather than going overseas? What keeps a company alive against its competition and keeps it in a place where it continues to do well, continues to hire new employees, and even continues to be able to pay them more as its revenues increase thus even further gaining better and better employees as well as better and better reputation for platinum service with its customers? Which companies can afford to offer great health benefit packages to their employees - companies who have free funds or companies being taxed through the nose?

As for your rich fat cats - they ***are*** the economy, they *are* the ideas, they *are* the products - entrepeneurs are the very people who give us the standard of living we so enjoy by putting their b---s on the line to create companies which in turn hire people which gives people money to spend to buy things. The more people making money the more money that's out there and without losing a bit of value or worth; its backed by our labor, not gold, not silver; that's the nature of what they call 'fiat' money. The high-tax liberals are setting our country up for commercial seppuku. Where does government money come from? Taxes. Where do taxes come from? Usually all of us, 70% from the rich, 30% from the broad array of the middle class and, the bottom 32% nothing (under Obama the people paying nothing would even get refunds for taxes they didn't even pay - why.....). What's a $900 stimulus package worth? Aside from paying the salaries of a few bureaucrats who oversee it - its giving $905 to Uncle Sam and getting $900 back - great investment. Blood transfusion for our economy? Its like taking the same person, drawing blood from their arm, and shooting it into their foot; its symbolic, it makes people think they're getting something, and the joke is on people who aren't wise enough not to fall for it.

Also, I really hate to burst your bubble but hardly any kind of public school gets more government money thrown at it than an inner-city school. Why do they 'suck' so bad then? Money isn't solving the problem, money isn't the problem, the problem is cultural and culture is something that everyone's terrified of talking about it. White's can't talk about it without being called racist, blacks can't talk about it without being called Uncle Tom's, no one can really talk about 'responsibility' because in the last 20 or 30 years we've destroyed freedom to criticize, we've taken shame completely out of the public sphere. People want a nanny state with money that...what... just rains down from the rich as if they have an infinite supply? Its crazy.


The last piece, and I'll close this post with this thought - and you really need to ponder it slowly, carefully, let these words sink in: What people get for free they hold in contempt. Solving poverty doesn't solve crime, nor does it solve any cultural issues. If anything, the more entitlement people feel the worse they get, the more rotten they become, the more cynical, the more they complain about everything, anything, and appreciate almost nothing at all. Make people work for things and they appreciate what they have. I don't just say this about the poor, the entitlement mentality is a poison moving through the middle class as well; people think the government can provide - it won't survive and we'll dive deeper and deeper into deficit unless we realize that it doesn't owe us a thing, we owe ourselves success and basic amenities and unless a person's maimed or disabled - they're on their own, that's how it has to be.

An excelent piece there Techstepp, but you forgot the most important part...


Pwned!! !

Another 50 years of this and it'll be Mexicans talking about border security and illegal immigration problems

We bash you for being conservative because you feel that the rich should have the right to determine how much people should be allowed to make. News flash a lot of rich people don't earn their money at all, they inherit it. Many others that do earn it become selfish and refuse to share it. Again I don't care how hard ANYBODY worked to get where they are, people with more should help people with less. If you aren't willing to help the other members of the team, get the hell out of the stadium. I honestly wouldn't mind capitalism as much as I do if people just showed a little compassion for eachother instead of making up any bulls#$% excuse to be greedy.

The rich don't determine how much people should be allowed to make, and if you had ever studied anything resembling economics you would know that. And it's only socialists who accuse me of conservatism. I'm pro-gay marriage, tenuously pro-choice, and in favor of legalizing pot. I'm also opposed to the Iraq war and military action in general. There's a real right-winger for you, huh?


So? If you have earned money, you have the right to do what you please with it, and that includes giving it to people who never earned it if you so choose.


What are we, in kindergarten? "Now Johnny, play nice and share your toys." Frankly, this isn't about sharing so much as taking the product of a man's labor away from him and using it in ways he may not agree with. These "selfish" people are the ones who give the most to charity, and they already shoulder the bulk of the tax burden.


Why? Sometimes the people with more have more because they've worked harder, and maybe they don't want to help people who are too lazy to make anything of their lives. And even if I take your moral statement to be true, it does not follow that taxation is always just, because there are numerous examples of tax dollars being used in questionable ways, and the proportion of tax money that is actually used to help the poor is almost negligible- about 1% of the federal budget is spent on welfare.


I've lost my taste for class warfare. In reality, most Western countries have a pretty significant degree of class mobility so all this talk about one class oppressing another is pretty BS. If you want more money, then work harder, get an education, and make something of yourself. If you want to help the poor, then do so. But don't force the rest of the world to live according to your values.

disclaimer:i am not smart about these things

i do not like it that higher earners have to pay a greater percentage in tax.
i can not see how that is fair.
if tax was, say, a blanket 25% for all earners, then if i earn $200,000 per year, i still contribute 10 times as much tax as someone on only $20,000 per year.
however i do not use 10 times as much of my society as those on $20,000.
i do not use 10 times the health care, or 10 times the police services.
i do not drive a car 10 times as heavy etc.

but even then, average earners in society are not satisfied. they demand that my tax percentage be raised. so i pay 42% which is even more unfair.
in my personal case, i have not used the health system for more than 10 years, i never catch public transport, and i drive about 50 km per week (because i work from home).

There is even some decent argument to be made for a mildly progressive income tax. Diminishing marginal utility applies to money as well as to anything else, so progressive taxation can easily be justified on those grounds (unless you're an anarchist like AG). But the type of excessively confiscatory policies that pseudo-Marxist class warriors like Countzarroff are calling for will not benefit anyone. Here is one of those little allegories that gets passed through e-mail chain letters.

Rich people share wealth all the time. Who do you think builds the yachts and limousines and big houses? The working classes..

The more rich people spend on s**t, the more everybody gets to work.

The vast majority of rich people were raised in middle class or upper class neighbourhoods with the accompanying generous facilities for development. Some people break though against all odds but just because there are a few famous faces who've gone from rags to riches doesn't justify a system which encourages crime and cycles of poverty in underfunded areas. On a very basic level of ethics, it's unethical to give any person an advantage over another for no good reason. That's precisely what private education does - something most business people who are wealthy support.

The vast majority of wealthy people will never live in a neighbourhood lacking opportunity; as an example, somewhere in Philadelphia - a city plagued by poor public services and crime. I have a lot of respect for people who make lots of money or who inherited it and who don't shelter themselves away on a tax haven island or in a mansion away from some of the more harsh realities of life. Those people usually understand the importance of taxes. And these people usually even if they don't support taxes at least support good causes that are aimed at widening success for others too. And although I agree taxes aren't always spent well, all it needs is for people to protest against the way they're being spent, to advocate better spending and that can fix it.

I can't understand anyone who is against a right for everyone to an equal opportunity in education. A right for everyone who through no fault of their own is disabled to health care. A right for everyone to have enough parks or nature in their area to allow exercise and a chance to relieve from stress. A right for everyone to have police officers and fire officers to protect them from criminal and natural damage. There is an argument health care shouldn't be free for people who develop their own problems such as obesity, alcoholism and drug abuse. Some people will argue these people are victims, others that they willingly make bad decisions. But at least on the other points I don't know how anyone can oppose taxes being spent on those essential services.

What perhaps is needed is reform of public services to make them as competitive as private ones but with the benefit of being for the good of everyone. For example, why not introduce performance-related pay to all teachers, doctors, nurses, police and fire officers. Schools and police stations that get good results get better pay and so on. I think entrepeneurs and very talented people people who have the savvy to make lots of money deserve to be wealthier than other people. But I can think of no good reason why they have the right to avoid paying taxes for access to opportunity and justice for everyone.

The gap between rich and poor over the years has grown and it's ridiculously large now. The gap between the middle class and the working class also has grown farcically. In many ways the middle class are doing even more damage to the world than the upper class. The common desire for most people who make money to buy a large house has led to mass suburbia and the accompanying mass car usage which is both economically wasteful and pointlessly damaging to the environment and health. It's led to areas with haves and areas with have nots - areas with decent education and areas with pitiful education. Liberty and freedom does not equate to owning a car, a large house, private education and buying all the consumer goods you want on credit. With rights come responsibilities - it seems the ruling and middle class are having a lot of difficulty grasping that. And in in the past few years even the working class have been encouraged to live a life of greed and have all been living on credit and embracing crazy consumerism. Hence our deep recession occuring from the excesses of greed in the housing and car market and the accompanying neglect of future investment.

People for a while have thought "live for now, and do whatever brings the most profit to me" and now we're realising that just doesn't work. There has to be more to it, there has to be "live for others" as well. Private companies left to their own devices, almost free from regulations, went crazy and enough of them cheated and became corrupt enough to tarnish the whole system. Enough people given the opportunity of spending a good portion of their money however they liked decided to be overwhelmingly selfish and short-sighted. Thus we now have no choice but to increase the roll of tax and public services. If people won't willingly make some basic good decisions, they'll eventually be forced to by the unstoppable force of progress.

It's not so much that people are against these services, but that they are against paying more than what's fair for them. Especially when you don't use the service in question, like public schools if you've got the money not to, why should you be forced to subsidize the system by paying a higher tax rate?



Tell that to the various unions representing teachers, police, firefighters, etc. They are the biggest obstacle to reforming those services, and they are firmly in the pocket of the Democratic party.

No one here is saying that people should not pay taxes, what we are arguing is that taxes should be fair.