coloradoatheist
Veteran Member
I like what Planned Parenthood does but I want someone else to pay for what they do right?
-
Features
Tax question for you guys
- Thread starter coloradoatheist
- Start date
I like what Planned Parenthood does but I want someone else to pay for what they do right?
Alcoholic Actuary
Veteran Member
Ok so I guess you're done with the Warren Buffett example all of a sudden? He's asking for himself to be charged more so he's not a hypocrite. Do we have that argument settled? So really your problem is that 'poor people' are asking for wealthy to pay more? I just want some modicum of consistency in whatever your problem is.
In that case, if I've been receiving apple products for the extent of my life at a discounted price and my discounts have been making it nearly impossible for everyone else to be able to afford any of apple's products, then I don't have a problem with the complaint that the discounts for me are unfair. That's the analogy.
aa
coloradoatheist
Veteran Member
Buffet could easily pay more on his taxes, especially with the estate tax but he won't do it voluntarily. He wants all people forced to do it instead of just saying I will do it because I like it and it's good. It's like saying I love McDonalds but I'll only go there if a law forces me to go there.
Alcoholic Actuary
Veteran Member
Just like no one pays more (voluntarily) for any good or service that they receive. If only there was some law of economics to inform us of what an appropriate clearing price should be.
Nope! I guess everything is charity!!
I'm not going to go so far as to say I know what Warren Buffet wants, but you saying that you do sounds a little bit like a psychotic break.
That's a terrible analogy. Even you are voluntarily living in a society of, by, and for, the people of the United States of America. You are just bitching about the price of it (same as Warren Buffett really), and claiming you are forced to pay it.
aa
funinspace
Don't Panic
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2004
- Messages
- 4,204
- Location
- Oregon
- Gender
- Alien
- Basic Beliefs
- functional atheist; theoretical agnostic
Though Buffet could make a minor dent in the current deficit if he gave it all to the government, it would still not matter much at all. That is how stupid your question is. The “force people” is a crack up. We are nation/society that muddles thru towards agreement on how to collect taxes to pay for the government that we at least in theory want. Again, a few people voluntarily choosing to give more in taxes than is required, pales against the $150,000,000,000 annual revenue hole created by the Repugs last year. You are still quibbling about that toothpick fix...
How about you find a country that doesn’t “force” taxes upon people but merely asks for donations. Funding a country’s government role in society is about akin to choosing to go to McDonalds, as choosing whether or not to take a shit.
PyramidHead
Contributor
No. It's game theory. If I do what I can but few others do the same, which is likely, then my individual contribution is almost worthless. If a large group of people do what they can, which is unlikely unless they are required by law, then the accumulation of many individual contributions becomes valuable.
laughing dog
Contributor
I do not claim to read Mr. Buffet's mind or know his intent, but it seems to me that what he is saying is that everyone in his situation should be paying more in taxes. If that is the case, then he would be fine with paying more if everyone else who is similarly situated pays more as well. IMO, that does not make him a hypocrite now for not paying more in taxes.
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
Well, against that fucking Wall, for one. That comes to mind pretty quickly.
Throwing extra money at the government and hoping they spend it on something I approve of is illogical.
But your premise is still off, no one is simply in favor of [more government spending], without some specific goals attached.
Alcoholic Actuary
Veteran Member
Planned Parenthood gets around $500m of a $4.1T annual Federal Government spend. If you paid $20,000 in taxes last year - planned parenthood would get around $2.50 of that. You're right, let's just hand that over to the wealthy and corporations such that you won't even see a $2 decrease in your tax bill.
Republican Solutions!! Perfect for everyone who sucks at math.
aa
Hermit
Cantankerous grump
Um, and that is wrong because...
J842P
Veteran Member
This is stupid.
In general, the left supports government action with regards to various things (generally because they believe private/individual action will not suffice to solve whatever problem), and members of the left with tolerate higher taxes to raise revenues to see those things implemented. They don't support giving money to the government as an end onto itself.
And many, many leftists **do give money to Planned Parenthood**.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,261
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
One of the primary purposes of government is to redistribute wealth, by reducing the rate at which it accumulates in those parts of the economy where it tends to do that; And by injecting money into parts of the economy that tend to become impoverished.
Taxes are money taken from selected parts of the economy and destroyed They do NOT pay for anything. Government spending does not rely upon taxation in any way. Quite the reverse - taxation follows spending, it doesn't precede it. Government finances are nothing like household budgets, where you can't buy stuff until you get your paycheck; Government finances are the exact opposite - If you are a currency issuer, you can't collect taxes until you have created an economy, by spending money.
As an individual who believes that many wealthy people (including himself) do not pay sufficient tax, Warren Buffet is completely correct to lobby for a tax increase for all citizens in his position, rather than to simply choose to pay more himself - And to suggest otherwise simply indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of what taxes ARE.
Taxes are not theft, nor do they pay for stuff. Taxes are a way to ensure that money doesn't all end up concentrated in a small number of places, where it cannot do useful work. To be effective, the tax structure needs to be universally applicable - everyone who qualifies to pay $X should pay $X, no matter how much they think or feel they should pay.
If an individual believes that a specific person, organization or program should be better funded, then they should by all means give some money to that person, organization or program. They can also (or instead) lobby for government to increase funding to that thing; Or to begin funding that thing. But government funding has FUCK ALL to do with taxes, so paying extra tax would be completely ineffective, and nobody sane would contemplate it. In fact, the idea that it might be a good idea to pay extra tax if you are in favour of higher government spending is a powerful indication that the originator of the idea hasn't got a fucking clue how any of this works.
It's as smart an idea as setting up floodlights to illuminate your solar panels, so that you can have electricity at night.
Taxes are money taken from selected parts of the economy and destroyed They do NOT pay for anything. Government spending does not rely upon taxation in any way. Quite the reverse - taxation follows spending, it doesn't precede it. Government finances are nothing like household budgets, where you can't buy stuff until you get your paycheck; Government finances are the exact opposite - If you are a currency issuer, you can't collect taxes until you have created an economy, by spending money.
As an individual who believes that many wealthy people (including himself) do not pay sufficient tax, Warren Buffet is completely correct to lobby for a tax increase for all citizens in his position, rather than to simply choose to pay more himself - And to suggest otherwise simply indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of what taxes ARE.
Taxes are not theft, nor do they pay for stuff. Taxes are a way to ensure that money doesn't all end up concentrated in a small number of places, where it cannot do useful work. To be effective, the tax structure needs to be universally applicable - everyone who qualifies to pay $X should pay $X, no matter how much they think or feel they should pay.
If an individual believes that a specific person, organization or program should be better funded, then they should by all means give some money to that person, organization or program. They can also (or instead) lobby for government to increase funding to that thing; Or to begin funding that thing. But government funding has FUCK ALL to do with taxes, so paying extra tax would be completely ineffective, and nobody sane would contemplate it. In fact, the idea that it might be a good idea to pay extra tax if you are in favour of higher government spending is a powerful indication that the originator of the idea hasn't got a fucking clue how any of this works.
It's as smart an idea as setting up floodlights to illuminate your solar panels, so that you can have electricity at night.
coloradoatheist
Veteran Member
If the sole purpose to tax is just to redistribute wealth then what you are describing is straight theft. Taking money from someone that is productive and giving it to someone that isn't productive is theft. We don't allow someone on the street to take $20 from someone's pocket just because they can afford it. At least with paying for shared support services it's makes paying for common services.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,388
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
I'm wondering why coloradoatheist hasn't given all of his money to the military.
Elixir
Made in America
Taking money from someone who is parasitic and actually produces nothing (e.g. Donald J Trump, other billionaire securities investors) in order to maintain an educated populace with individual opportunity for upward social mobility, is a just process, "socialist" though it may be.
Sure , you can have a lot more billionaires if you let them keep their foot on the throat of the rest of the population, but I don't consider creating more dynastic billionaire parasites to be a worthwhile cause. YMMV
Horatio Parker
Veteran Member
So what's rent? It's not productive. Are rentiers thieves?
Why is it ok for people to receive (lots of) money simply for "owning" something, but a person who can't work or can't find a job is a parasite?
Ford
Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2010
- Messages
- 7,252
- Location
- Freedomland
- Basic Beliefs
- Just don't knock on my door on a Saturday Morning
Ah, another brilliant question from the "all taxation is theft" crowd. Follow up question: when are you going to move to a cabin in the woods and write a manifesto?
PyramidHead
Contributor
I think you need to continue your reasoning past the stopping point of the word "theft". Some things are wrong in certain circumstances when done by certain people but not wrong in others, depending on the consequences in each case. If the desirability of the consequences compared to the alternatives outweighs the undesirability of the means to those consequences, calling it wrong would be an oversimplification. Sometimes the ends don't justify the means, and sometimes they do.
But that's being a little too charitable to your complaint, because it's founded on a false premise: namely, that there is something special about the money that is removed from the "productive" via taxation, and whatever part of it is spent on e.g. the poor or the sick is "the same money." Money is of course fungible anyway, so it's all the same money, but as bilby says, the order of operations is the opposite of what you're describing; the money is spent first, and then soaked up again after it goes through the private sector in exchange for goods and services. Spending should be targeted where it is needed the most, and taxation should be targeted where it does the least damage. That sometimes means spending on people who are less productive and taxing people who are more productive. But the other way is lunacy--why would a government spend money on people who don't need it as much, and take money from people who don't have as much to spare?
PyramidHead
Contributor
Also, all support services are "shared support services." The entire society benefits when people have their basic needs covered and have the freedom and mobility to pursue their aspirations. There is no sense that someone who does not need government assistance does not experience any benefit from living in a society that provides it to those who do.
coloradoatheist
Veteran Member
How is rent not productive? They are providing something that is valuable to other people? To get income you have to do something that other people in society consider productive.