One side of the political spectrum has argued that the government will take advantage of this to overcharge citizens. Which sort of treats the taxing entity as an unscrupulous business looking to make a quick buck.
I think the overall issue is that what I personally think someone should do is that if they believe in paying higher taxes, it shouldn't matter what anybody else does, they should just pay higher taxes or even spend money to lobby for higher taxes via campaign contributions, lobbyists, etc.
It just seems like mental gymnastics that some wealthy people use to avoid feeling bad that there are poor people by saying if only they raised taxes you'd pay more while also not paying more. Of course you'd pay more if taxes were raised, except in the case where taxes were raised and then you found loopholes or deductions to not pay them... It's just a way to convince yourself to have your cake and eat it too.
But even if taxes weren't raised, why can't you self-fund social programs? Even at a very basic level - food stamps. You could just offset how much you think you should pay in additional taxes by donating to food pantries or just buying people groceries. You don't need the government to do that. You could make a huge impact in your own community. We all could!
Some of my friends and friends of friends got stimulus money when that first stimulus came around. Based on the previous year's tax returns we received a couple hundred bucks or something. I don't remember exactly. Could have used the money for something? Sure. We could have taken the money and bought something we felt like buying, then went online and said it was a terrible thing that others didn't get enough money and we were getting money. We could have went and did what my friends did and buy new GPUs or something. No. We just turned right around and donated it to the Mid-Ohio Foodbank. They all went on about how they didn't need the money (obviously) and that it was sad people were losing their jobs and on lockdown and all of that and that the government should do something. Like.. why don't you do something? Take that $1,000 you got and turn around and give it to someone who needs it.
Please don't take that personally or anything - I'm exploring this with the aim of a good discussion. I'm not quite as well off as you but we do very well for ourselves and probably need to donate more money anyway. It just always drives me up the wall when Bill Gates or Warren Buffet come out and say they should pay more taxes... they can just do that. They don't need anyone else to. Am I more moral or more of a leader than they are? I highly doubt it. So what's left? Game theory? Or maybe they just want to craft a persona? Idk. I don't mind that people are wealthy. We certainly are depending on who we are being compared to, but I just feel like people are being dishonest with themselves and others on this particular topic, even if it's not intentional.
What frustrates me about income taxes (and really taxes in general) is that proponents often automatically presume that a larger amount of money flowing into the government is a wholly beneficial effect. I trust current US government officials to effectively use my tax dollars about as far as I can throw it. Entirely too much money is squandered on things that do no benefit whatsoever to those who pay into it, rich or poor. It's a deal-breaker for me, without even going into the problem of tax evasion available to the obscenely rich.
Every time someone talks about ways to squeeze me more, I start looking for places that will squeeze me less. This statement will rub particular folks the wrong way and I stand by my words. The government does not and has not ever deserved one penny of the taxes I have paid. In fact, I plan to get 400% of it back from them.
If the justification for a tax is social engineering and not revenue for a budget or project it is probably not a just tax. This tax happens to align with commonly held values, but that alone does not justify the tax.
How are they “constructing a reality?” How much taxes you pay is the reality. They’re trying to draw more attention to it, by forcing you to look the numbers in the face once a year. That’s not “constructing reality” it’s drawing attention to it.
I love paying my taxes and support higher taxes with more government services. But I agree with Norquist that it’s a useful exercise for people to go through once a year and write down how much they make and what part of that the government is taking. I don’t like the idea of socializing people to accept higher taxes by deducting them automatically and making it so they never have to think about how much they’re paying.
Good link. Yes, in fact I did pull that number out of my... well, you know.
It was merely to illustrate that such a point exists. After a certain absolute percent, raising taxes will REDUCE tax receipts and wreck your economy at the same time. I'm certain were all the way down the back side of that curve near the "wreck your economy" shoulder. Yes, even though our absolute tax is lower than some smaller countries whos economies have evolved to operate at a greatly reduced rate.
It does also miss many of the 'hidden' taxes we still pay. For example, everyone in this state has to get a silly sticker on their car every year so the mechanic can pretend to look at the breaks and then try to charge you $35 for a $5 light bulb. The sticker costs $25 but I've never made it thru in less than an hour. The price of the silly sticker AND the wasted hour is a tax. There's one $25 fee and at least one wasted hour for every car in the state. This kind of thing is particularly noxious because they could have just had a little courage and added the $25 to the regular car tax, but instead wasted 100's of thousands of man hours a year on what is almost always a fictitious "inspection".
You should see what it takes to be able to build a shed in the back yard for your lawnmower...
Inflation is usually a tax as well. If a government needs money, can't borrow it, and its not politically expedient to raise taxes again, it can simply print up some money and steal a little from each of the other dollars that people already have.
There's also start of and end of life taxes that have to be amortized over the years of the life of a person. If you make a little money or live in a place that sees real estate rise, this is non-trivial.
Even the tax code ITSELF is a tax. The ever increasing burden of compliance is nothing but dead weight for individuals and businesses.
Finally, there's a stack of extra tax and extra man-hour-wasting hassle headed your way if you have the audacity to try to work for yourself and not simply settle into a nice job in an industry with lobbyists and get your w2 like everyone else. This is probably the one that interests the readers of this forum the most.
One slightly other off subject comment on the article. The government using taxation as a vehicle to transfer wealth from the "rich" to the "poor" is a recipe for economic disaster. Ever dollar "robin hooded" is a dollar sucked directly and completely from economic growth. Its a near perfect disincentive for innovators to innovate.
Sorry to slasdot/troll the issue but I am passionate about this particular area! The point of all this is, there are better ways to fix the economy than an interest rate cut!
It's insisted upon by anti-tax advocates, so that Americans always get reminded about exactly how much the government is adding onto the price. Otherwise, the theory goes, we would get too happy about taxes.
Yes, but the precise amount of taxes you should pay is not some moral principle. If the current tax laws were the “correct” amount, then the government passed a tax cut, are you morally obligated to keep paying the higher amount?
reply