Who pays for government?

[T.G.G. Moogly]

... the burden of proof fall 100% upon the OP and those making arguments that presume the validity of the CBO and other data as reliable and valid measures of actual income, which is actually not directly measured anywhere in those data. The burden is upon them to show that their self-report method is reliable enough and that the errors are stable over time and nation enough to make the comparisons they are making valid. This burden is quite high given the mountain of evidence in psychology suggesting that these far from reasonable assumptions.

Thank-you.

And welcome to Conservistan, where all you need to know is what someone tells you.

 

[ronburgundy]

Although "self reported" is generally very weak, this is "self reported on the 1040 to the IRS" which is a whole different level of self report.

Exactly, reporting to the IRS it is much much weaker and more unrealiable than most self-report in the social sciences where anonymity and the lack of any real impact of telling the truth makes people more honest. The IRS is certain to harm you (take your money) if you report the truth. The richer you are, the greater the harm.
They might harm you a bit more if you lie, but that is only a probability if you get caught and the rich have ways of avoiding getting caught. Even if they get caught, the odds are that they will only get caught for a portion of the income they are hiding and thus the penalty will be outweighed by the net gains in the long run. Again, every relevant fact of human decision making and risk taking predicts that most of the rich would take and are taking that chance by lying and under-reporting their income.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

 

[fromderinside]

Although "self reported" is generally very weak, this is "self reported on the 1040 to the IRS" which is a whole different level of self report.

Ooooh. A legal document read by computers with hooks that actually flag suspect reports which are looked at about 1% of the time by humans who act on less than one percent of those. No possibility that such self reporting will pass unnoticed here./sarcasm.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Wow, I've been doing my taxes wrong for YEARS.

 

[untermensche]

Well, no. The vast majority of them work for a living - moreso since others gained so disproportionately while they gained nothing. That doesn't fit any definition of "moochers"

"Suckers" more like.

It fits Uttermenche's definition of moocher perfectly. Sometimes it helps to read the thread...

The greatest taking that is occurring is the taking from workers of the fruits of their labor.

That is how the rich get rich.

They take from many people the fruits of their labor.

Workers are the people suffering from the greatest taking.

The moochers are the people stealing the fruits of labor from workers. The unneeded dead wood that takes from labor in the form of dividends and profits.

 

[fromderinside]

It fits Uttermenche's definition of moocher perfectly. Sometimes it helps to read the thread...

The greatest taking that is occurring is the taking from workers of the fruits of their labor.

That is how the rich get rich.

They take from many people the fruits of their labor.

Workers are the people suffering from the greatest taking.

The moochers are the people stealing the fruits of labor from workers. The unneeded dead wood that takes from labor in the form of dividends and profits.

Actually a human failure to resist bright things. Our education systems should be designed to minimize effects of such tendencies. Its all education's fault./hyperbole

 

[dismal]

It fits Uttermenche's definition of moocher perfectly. Sometimes it helps to read the thread...

The greatest taking that is occurring is the taking from workers of the fruits of their labor.

That is how the rich get rich.

They take from many people the fruits of their labor.

Workers are the people suffering from the greatest taking.

The moochers are the people stealing the fruits of labor from workers. The unneeded dead wood that takes from labor in the form of dividends and profits.

Your description of moochers was, and I quote:

Many pay no taxes and many get far more back than they pay in taxes.

You would agree this is an accurate description of people in the bottom 3 quintiles?

 

[dismal]

because they are a tax payer

What purpose is served by pretending someone who takes more money from the government than they put in is a "tax payer"?

 

[untermensche]

The greatest taking that is occurring is the taking from workers of the fruits of their labor.

That is how the rich get rich.

They take from many people the fruits of their labor.

Workers are the people suffering from the greatest taking.

The moochers are the people stealing the fruits of labor from workers. The unneeded dead wood that takes from labor in the form of dividends and profits.

Your description of moochers was, and I quote:

Many pay no taxes and many get far more back than they pay in taxes.

You would agree this is an accurate description of people in the bottom 3 quintiles?

It is a description of many corporations.

People in the bottom "3 quintiles" are having the fruits of their labor taken by people at the top.

They are the victims of the mooching.

We are all victims of the mooching of large corporations living on the teat of big government. The banks, the weapons builders, the oil corporations, and many others.

 

[dismal]

Your description of moochers was, and I quote:

Many pay no taxes and many get far more back than they pay in taxes.

You would agree this is an accurate description of people in the bottom 3 quintiles?

It is a description of many corporations.

People in the bottom "3 quintiles" are having the fruits of their labor taken by people at the top.

They are the victims of the mooching.

We are all victims of the mooching of large corporations living on the teat of big government. The banks, the weapons builders, the oil corporations, and many others.

Not all of them work for big corporations.

Are the ones that don't work for big corporations and get far more back than they pay in taxes moochers?

 

[ksen]

Because they pay taxes irregardless of what happens at filing time.

There are two things going on at tax time, taxes are getting paid and then appropriate refunds and adjustments are made.

 

[untermensche]

It is a description of many corporations.

People in the bottom "3 quintiles" are having the fruits of their labor taken by people at the top.

They are the victims of the mooching.

We are all victims of the mooching of large corporations living on the teat of big government. The banks, the weapons builders, the oil corporations, and many others.

Not all of them work for big corporations.

Are the ones that don't work for big corporations and get far more back than they pay in taxes moochers?

These corporations are the tool of the 1%.

The 1% does not extract a salary. That would mean they did some labor.

The 1% owns stock. It is the 1% because of the amount of stuff, including stock, it owns.

Since returns from capital investment exceed inflation owning a lot of stuff means your income goes up faster than anybody who works for a living.

This means the rich get richer, while everybody else stagnates, exactly what we are seeing.

This is oligarchy.

 

[dismal]

Because they pay taxes irregardless of what happens at filing time.

There are two things going on at tax time, taxes are getting paid and then appropriate refunds and adjustments are made.

Huh?

Let's say a guy you work with is shot by police on the way home and they take up a collection to buy him a gift. The first time the hat comes by you take out $100. The next time it comes by you put in $10. Are you a contributor to the gift?

I think any sane person would say "no". You took $90 from the gift fund, what you put back in was less than you took out. Since this is the reaction a reasonable person would have, I ask what purpose it serves to pretend you are a contributor when you took money out.

 

[Jayjay]

Because they pay taxes irregardless of what happens at filing time.

There are two things going on at tax time, taxes are getting paid and then appropriate refunds and adjustments are made.

Huh?

Let's say a guy you work with is you are shot by police on the way home and they take up a collection to buy him you a gift. The first time the hat comes by you take out $100. The next time it comes by you put in $10. Are you a contributor to the gift?

I think any sane person would say "no". You took $90 from the gift fund, what you put back in was less than you took out. Since this is the reaction a reasonable person would have, I ask what purpose it serves to pretend you are a contributor when you took money out.

FIFY.

If you are the intended recipient of the gift, as is the case with income transfers, you are not generally considered a moocher.

 

[dismal]

Huh?

Let's say a guy you work with is you are shot by police on the way home and they take up a collection to buy him you a gift. The first time the hat comes by you take out $100. The next time it comes by you put in $10. Are you a contributor to the gift?

I think any sane person would say "no". You took $90 from the gift fund, what you put back in was less than you took out. Since this is the reaction a reasonable person would have, I ask what purpose it serves to pretend you are a contributor when you took money out.

FIFY.

If you are the intended recipient of the gift, as is the case with income transfers, you are not generally considered a moocher.

That depends on one's definition of "moocher". But even as bastardized you're still not a contributor to the gift.

 

[ksen]

Because they pay taxes irregardless of what happens at filing time.

There are two things going on at tax time, taxes are getting paid and then appropriate refunds and adjustments are made.

Huh?

Let's say a guy you work with is shot by police on the way home and they take up a collection to buy him a gift. The first time the hat comes by you take out $100. The next time it comes by you put in $10. Are you a contributor to the gift?

I think any sane person would say "no". You took $90 from the gift fund, what you put back in was less than you took out. Since this is the reaction a reasonable person would have, I ask what purpose it serves to pretend you are a contributor when you took money out.

Your hypothetical isn't accurate. In the tax scenario the same person putting money in isn't reaching in to take anything out. The government is taking it out and giving it to them.

Let's say through payroll withholding you pay $500 in taxes.

At that point any sane person would say you have paid taxes.

 

[Jayjay]

More detail: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49440

We currently have one of the most progressive tax systems in place in the history of the United States. Is that because that's how the oligarchy wants it?

Well, as has been pointed out several times your statement that we currently have one of the most progressive tax systems in history is not accurate. It's important to understand what a progressive tax system is and more importantly why it is necessary. The purpose of progressive taxation, as it was initially used starting in the early twentieth c., was to redistribute the wealth, which by then had been concentrated among a relatively few families. A tax system was devised in which the rates grew progressively higher proportional to income.

I don't think that it has been shown that the tax system is not the most progressive in history of the country (well, since 1980 anyway). I already pointed out to Figure 15 in the report, which shows that the reduction to Gini index from taxes and wealth transfers is at al all/time high (or was back in 2011 anyway):



This is due to transfers mostly, the impact of the tax system has stayed roughly the same.

 

[dismal]

Huh?

Let's say a guy you work with is shot by police on the way home and they take up a collection to buy him a gift. The first time the hat comes by you take out $100. The next time it comes by you put in $10. Are you a contributor to the gift?

I think any sane person would say "no". You took $90 from the gift fund, what you put back in was less than you took out. Since this is the reaction a reasonable person would have, I ask what purpose it serves to pretend you are a contributor when you took money out.

Your hypothetical isn't accurate. In the tax scenario the same person putting money in isn't reaching in to take anything out. The government is taking it out and giving it to them.

Let's say through payroll withholding you pay $500 in taxes.

At that point any sane person would say you have paid taxes.

Yes, I would say you have paid taxes if you put $500 in.

I would say you haven't paid taxes if you put $500 in and took $1000 out.

At that point you are a receiver, not a payer.

 

[bilby]

The problem with concluding that a given quintile are 'moochers' is that people are not quintiles.

Here is Sam, in the second quintile, working his ass off and paying taxes. Sam has a job, and no kids. He gets few or no 'transfers'. The figure for his quintile doesn't reflect Sam's situation at all, so it is pretty rude to insult him on the basis of that figure.

Over here is Joe. Joe is also in the second quintile; but he has a disabled daughter, who needs 24x7 care. If he lived in a small village, the community might rally round to help him out; but in the anonymous world of the big city, they outsource the rallying round to government. Is Joe a 'moocher'?

Here's Bob. Bob worked his ass off all his life, paying taxes all of that time, but since the GFC, he hasn't been able to find work. He collects welfare payments to survive while he looks for work, but he's in his fifties, so it may be he will never work again. Is he a moocher?

Declaring 60% of the population to be 'mooching' on the basis of an over-aggregated statistic is a pointless and empty insult, and serves to stifle debate.

The use of the outdated insult 'moocher' also strongly hints that the person throwing the insult has never read anything not written by Ayn Rand, and as a result has the intellectual development of a goldfish. The word serves only one useful purpose - it allows mindless ideologues to self-identity.

Anyone who wants to be taken seriously should find a less dated insult. 'Scrounger' or 'Parasite' or 'Sponger' would all carry similar (lack of) weight without making you look like a Randroid.







ETA - LOLed when I realised that the iPhone autocorrect won't allow 'Moocher' or 'Scrounger', but is OK with 'Randroid'