Dick Cheney "Deeply Disappointed" in GOP Leadership

Post Reply New Topic

So are you agreeing with me now? That I am being overtaxed? Or are you just deflecting by moving the goalpost?

I don't feel that is what I said. For one thing, you've merged together very separate points. For another, I think it is false to assume that the conservative positions are less ethical. There may be points on which you and I feel that way, but isn't that a personal opinion? Ethics aren't cast in stone and universally agreed. As for pandering to nut cases, I meant that elected officials in both parties have to do that with other elected representatives; when there is no isle crossing, you can't lose anyone that sits on your own side. It isn't what the voters do.

I take it you were against Trump being banned from Twitter then.

It's not just me who is stating the obvious
https://www.scu.edu/ethics/all-about-et ... lowership/

Mr Neville Chamberlain thought a certain Mr Hitler could be placated if they just gave him Czechoslovakia. I'm sure many normal Germans also shrugged their shoulders and thought let's give Mr Hilter a chance, what have we got to lose.

I realize the below rambles a bit, but maybe something can strike a chord.

Reality is, we all get things from our taxes. Roads, police, services, etc. The question is less whether the total collected is too high, but if it is being collected from the right sources. And, also, what is more likely to make us prosper? Leaving money in the hands of the private sector, or having the government invest where the private sector either has been reluctant to, or as practical matter cannot?

A bit off to side, but my classic example of how retroactive our tax system can be involves looking at social security. If you hire someone who is homeless, you still have to take social security out of their paycheck. There is no floor, there is no reduction based on economic status. It tops out, it never floors out. It annoys the heck out of me because social security hasn't actually ever been a savings account with our names on it, so why do we support funding it as if it is?

But that is a bit separate.

Realistically, the economic prosperity of most individuals in our nation has gone down as the top corporate and individual income tax rates went down. Most of us in the USA were more prosperous before the 1982 tax cuts than we are now. 40 years of tax cuts hasn't exactly given us what was promised. The trillions in spending from the pandemic relief acts, however, has created the lowest poverty and unemployment rates in decades. That will translate to more consumer spending and a growing economy. I know the equation is complex, because I can't exactly complain about how stock investments have done since 1982, but how many people have such investments?

It is also true that the super wealthy have a lot more access to our lawmakers than you and I do. They also have access - partly by economies of scale, partly by aggressiveness - to tax code benefits the simply wealthy, well off, and middle class don't. The super wealthy don't pay their fair share. A law change may save you $1000, but it might save a Bezos $1B, who then plays around and turns it into $2B of savings. That $2B has a magnifying effect on the national budget, far more than your $1000.

There is more and more evidence that we're had our eyes on the wrong ball. We're thinking backwards.

The tricky part is that we've been a global price war for corporate taxes and that has severely hindered our ability to raise taxes on the biggest players. Corporations have more tax credits available than ever, and more than pretty much any other country, but we now also have a top corporate rate less half what it was before Reagan.

When I hear clients complain about taxes, it tends to be less about the sheer dollars, than how the make up compares to some friend or corporation they know. These are people with more money than they need and who live nice lifestyles, but same as anyone primarily earning on the value of their services, they no longer feel the distribution of the tax burden is fair.

Before Reagan, the complaint tended to be the ratio of what was kept to what was paid. There is psychological line there: people should get to keep at least half of what they earn. But now it's "why do I have to pay so much when XX is only paying $$?" It feels like the entire burden is falling on people who earn money for their labors, and they are exhausted.

Is it really your tax burden you are upset about, or your ability to benefit from your labor and the economy? I think it actually is the later, but politics has gotten you to look at the former, instead.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

Let me give you an example related to a more current US political debate: Abortion.

Which is more ethical, aborting a severely deformed baby that will experience extreme pain after it's born, or protecting all unborn children in the womb despite what may come after? That is a real and true debate. Most Democrats will say the former, and most Conservatives will say the later. I'm actually more in the later camp, myself, but see that sort of determination as so difficult I don't think the law should have a place in it.

Most policy decisions are not neat and obvious.

Do I as a liberal Christian, along with many Christian conservative pundits, believe that many Evangelical Republicans are no longer politically supporting policy that sits with the ethics in the Bible? Yes. It's a real discussion. But you have to understand that those who we think have fallen aren't aware they've fallen; they never sat back and knowingly made that trade. Life can be insidious that way, and turning it around is a delicate process. Plus ... how do I know the insidious process didn't infect me, not them? I may forcefully argue an opinion, but I do know it's just an opinion.

I'm saying fear of socialism, and just plain stinginess, on the right is what's responsible for tax dollars not being spent for the American people's good.

Twitter is a private company that can ban whomever they want. I'm talking about how the government can't ban someone's speech in America.

One simple concept that separates the wise from the masses right there.

So the reason why I'm being overtaxed is because the democrats are a lame duck party who are raising taxes even though the republicans are calling the shots on how my tax dollars are being spent.

I'm looking at the gigantic amount of income tax I'm having to pay and expecting to probably have to pay a lot more next year.

I don't know about you, but I'd have a much easier time with it if I felt the money was being well spent, as opposed to being frittered away by political interest groups. Washington doesn't have a state income tax, but they nickel and dime us to death with high sales tax and fees on everything, it's not only annoying, but also regressive, but everyone knows that if we let them enact an income tax, none of the others would go away, they'd just find some new hole to shovel the money into.

It's obvious the money being taken from us isn't being spent properly. And it seems the preferred solution is to take even more of our hard earned dollars away. I know Washington state is using absurdity high vehicle registration fees as a way to gouge folks. And a lot of that is supposedly going towards a monorail system that probably no one asked for.

ok....are you saying, that in terms of moral relativity, that a moral compass doesn't apply when you have two different groups
e.g. Australian Vs American
Republican Vs Democrat

where each group has a different sense of what direction is north?

The state tax rate for WA is 6.5%. The average local tax rate comes to around 9.5%. This includes King County. Most states are between 6.5% and 8.5%. Is WA higher? Yeah. By a few percent. Instead of ~6 cents per dollar, you're paying ~9 cents per dollar. Rent and property are more expensive, but food cost is 4% below the national average, and utilities costs are 25% below the national average. And as mentioned, WA has no state income tax. Most state income taxes are around 3%, with some as high as 13%. That extra 3 percent you pay in sales taxes is offset by the 3% or more you're not paying in income taxes. Plus the money saved on utilities. And as of January 1, the minimum wage is $14.49. Seems like it all balances out.

More often than not, when someone says they're being "over-taxed" in some form or another, it usually turns out to be a misunderstanding of taxes, irresponsible spending habits, or greed - if not a combination. Occasionally it turns out to be dissatisfaction of the return on their taxes rather than the taxes themselves, and even that is sometimes not fully understood.

While correlation isn't causation, there are correlations strong enough to lead one to believe that most of us will enjoy a higher standard of living if the obsession with lowering taxes ends. Simply put, most Americans fare better when taxes are higher. Within limits, as I wrote earlier.

Are you better off if you make $100,000 a year with $25,000 (25%) out to taxes, or if you make $150,000 a year with $45,000 (30%) out to taxes? In the later, both the rate and the dollars are higher, but you have more money. I know that people get upset looking at the sheer dollars, but that isn't the right way to look at it, IMHO. If roads are better, your car and tires get better mileage, which saves you money. If schools are financially well supported, you are less likely to need to enhance your children's education, which saves you money. And so on; it is easy to find examples. All of which makes the correlation of higher taxes = more prosperous middle America start to feel like actual causation.

Within limits.

I understand the frustration with how dollars actually get spent, as well. Simply put, I don't believe any of us can ever feel good about it regardless of how much comes from our paychecks. I've sat in enough school budget meetings and worked on enough spending proposals to see how it works. First, no two people will ever have the same spending priorities. No one ever gets to have it all their way. Second, it is impossible to consistently make efficient spending decisions on any scale. Very, very few people or corporations succeed in avoiding all spending waste; government will never be different. Third, there are costs associated with public spending that you and I don't have to bother with in our private lives, and most of those costs are designed to insure the project meets its goals in a transparent manner, making them here to stay. Fourth, you can't just move an institution (or road, or bridge) because it turns out the lands its on has issues that increase operating, replacement and repair costs; another issue I saw first hand working with schools.

As I wrote earlier, I challenge you to rethink how you look at taxes. Not because I think any of us should turn into sheep that simply accept waste of our earnings, but because we've literally spent 40 years shooting ourselves in the foot. Stop looking at your gross earnings (except when you need to fill out paperwork), and focus on what you actually get to keep.

Dox47, I completely agree that none of those fees would go away if a state income tax was added. I've watched local taxes and fees explode over the past four decades, including in states that have a high state income tax. Things cost what they cost, and the never ending quest to lower taxes often ends up hitting the local levels hardest, driving a bottom up need to raise more revenue. Because local needs are felt more intensely, they can usually get the votes. Once in place, they don't go away. But it all creates huge traps for businesses and individuals, as the patchwork gets more and more complex and impossible to fully accurately comply to. All of which is one more factor that makes me mad about this 40 year trend and mantra of cutting income taxes. It's made a monster.