Tax question for you guys

[coloradoatheist]

Since it is approaching tax season, I am curious if anyone on here calculates their tax bill to maximize the amount of taxes you have to pay? For example, do you calculate the difference between itemizing and standard deductions and then pay Uncle Sam the highest of the two?

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?

I didn't say that. Bilby described it as that because taxes are normally to pay for government services that are shared. But certain parts of the government spending can be simply theft, just giving money to one group from another because they are irresponsible.

 

[Horatio Parker]

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.

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?

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.

Rent isn't productive because it doesn't add anything. Not a good or a service. Just a charge(beyond expenses of course).

Land is the classic example.

 

[Ford]

Since it is approaching tax season, I am curious if anyone on here calculates their tax bill to maximize the amount of taxes you have to pay? For example, do you calculate the difference between itemizing and standard deductions and then pay Uncle Sam the highest of the two?

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?

I didn't say that. Bilby described it as that because taxes are normally to pay for government services that are shared. But certain parts of the government spending can be simply theft, just giving money to one group from another because they are irresponsible.

So taxes aren't theft, but government spending is theft? You're going to have to work all this out before you write that manifesto.

 

[coloradoatheist]

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.

Rent isn't productive because it doesn't add anything. Not a good or a service. Just a charge(beyond expenses of course).

Land is the classic example.

I just want to clarify which rent you are throwing under this.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I didn't say that. Bilby described it as that because taxes are normally to pay for government services that are shared. But certain parts of the government spending can be simply theft, just giving money to one group from another because they are irresponsible.

So taxes aren't theft, but government spending is theft? You're going to have to work all this out before you write that manifesto.

No. I said certain programs are, not govt spending in general. Bilby was the one trying to make the case that government spending wasn't to provide for the common services like defense.

 

[Horatio Parker]

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.

Rent isn't productive because it doesn't add anything. Not a good or a service. Just a charge(beyond expenses of course).

Land is the classic example.

I just want to clarify which rent you are throwing under this.

Rent seeking is unproductive use of resources. It does not create wealth.

 

[Treedbear]

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.

Redistribution of wealth is necessary in a capitalistic system because capitalism provides such enormous advantages to those who have more capital and tremendous disadvantages to those who have little capital. Socialism and capitalism go hand in hand. One doesn't work without the other. When they are balanced correctly it's an overall benefit to both economic classes.

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.

I don't understand the part about taxes not paying for anything. They seem to eventually have an effect on the national debt which effects the government's ability to borrow money without losing control of the interest rate. But paying more taxes than the law requires is ludicrous because it places the person at a competitive disadvantage to everyone else. You can't do that and also have capitalism.

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.

The government forceably requires you to pay taxes in order to live in a society. It's part of the social contract. But it doesn't force you to any more than Apple forces you to by a stinkin' iPhone. One can leave the country or try to change the laws.

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.

I don't know. Might be more like leaving the refridgerator door open to heat your house.

 

[bilby]

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.

Your religious preference for simplistic ideology over a system that actually works is noted.

How would you propose to prevent the economy from becoming a neo-feudal dystopia in which only a handful of hyper wealthy people are allowed to have any significant benefits from the productivity of society as a whole?

Or do you fondly imagine that once taxation is eliminated, you will be one of the tiny number of rich people, so it just doesn't matter?

 

[bilby]

Since it is approaching tax season, I am curious if anyone on here calculates their tax bill to maximize the amount of taxes you have to pay? For example, do you calculate the difference between itemizing and standard deductions and then pay Uncle Sam the highest of the two?

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?

I didn't say that. Bilby described it as that because taxes are normally to pay for government services that are shared. But certain parts of the government spending can be simply theft, just giving money to one group from another because they are irresponsible.

Bilby did nothing of the sort. Bilby VERY EXPLICITLY pointed out that taxes DO NOT pay for anything. Taxes are money being removed from the economy.

Governments create money which they spend where they see fit. The creation of money causes a risk of inflation; so AFTER spending money, governments need to take some money out of the economy, and taxes are a good means for doing that.

 

[bilby]

I didn't say that. Bilby described it as that because taxes are normally to pay for government services that are shared. But certain parts of the government spending can be simply theft, just giving money to one group from another because they are irresponsible.

So taxes aren't theft, but government spending is theft? You're going to have to work all this out before you write that manifesto.

No. I said certain programs are, not govt spending in general. Bilby was the one trying to make the case that government spending wasn't to provide for the common services like defense.

Really? Can you quote me saying any such thing?

Perhaps if you were to actually read my posts, you would be better aware of what case bilby is or is not trying to make. But right now, it is very clear that you haven't made any serious attempt to understand what I have written.

Government spending is obviously used to provide common services, like defence.

I suspect that your error here is that you don't distinguish between the concepts of 'government spending' and 'taxation'. You are reversing the causality, and so fondly imagine that the latter somehow is an unavoidable prerequisite for the former, and that the two are therefore synonymous. But they are not.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I didn't say that. Bilby described it as that because taxes are normally to pay for government services that are shared. But certain parts of the government spending can be simply theft, just giving money to one group from another because they are irresponsible.

Bilby did nothing of the sort. Bilby VERY EXPLICITLY pointed out that taxes DO NOT pay for anything. Taxes are money being removed from the economy.

Governments create money which they spend where they see fit. The creation of money causes a risk of inflation; so AFTER spending money, governments need to take some money out of the economy, and taxes are a good means for doing that.

First sentence was that one of the primary purposes of government is to redistribute wealth. Redistribution for the sake of redistribution is theft. Taking money from one group just to give to another is. And our government was not set up to do that. The preamble to the constitution doesn't say, "In order to redistribute wealth"

 

[coloradoatheist]

No. I said certain programs are, not govt spending in general. Bilby was the one trying to make the case that government spending wasn't to provide for the common services like defense.

Really? Can you quote me saying any such thing?

Perhaps if you were to actually read my posts, you would be better aware of what case bilby is or is not trying to make. But right now, it is very clear that you haven't made any serious attempt to understand what I have written.

Government spending is obviously used to provide common services, like defence.

I suspect that your error here is that you don't distinguish between the concepts of 'government spending' and 'taxation'. You are reversing the causality, and so fondly imagine that the latter somehow is an unavoidable prerequisite for the former, and that the two are therefore synonymous. But they are not.

First sentence was to redistribute wealth. Not the primary purpose being to run the services necessary to protect the people. And a full fiat money came well after the establishment of the government. So do you think the FFers thought that the money raised to pay for the government services was just meant to control wealth?

 

[Ford]

I didn't say that. Bilby described it as that because taxes are normally to pay for government services that are shared. But certain parts of the government spending can be simply theft, just giving money to one group from another because they are irresponsible.

Bilby did nothing of the sort. Bilby VERY EXPLICITLY pointed out that taxes DO NOT pay for anything. Taxes are money being removed from the economy.

Governments create money which they spend where they see fit. The creation of money causes a risk of inflation; so AFTER spending money, governments need to take some money out of the economy, and taxes are a good means for doing that.

First sentence was that one of the primary purposes of government is to redistribute wealth. Redistribution for the sake of redistribution is theft. Taking money from one group just to give to another is. And our government was not set up to do that. The preamble to the constitution doesn't say, "In order to redistribute wealth"

So the government takes money from taxpayers and gives it to defense contractors. And that's theft. That manifesto is gonna be interesting.

 

[bilby]

I didn't say that. Bilby described it as that because taxes are normally to pay for government services that are shared. But certain parts of the government spending can be simply theft, just giving money to one group from another because they are irresponsible.

Bilby did nothing of the sort. Bilby VERY EXPLICITLY pointed out that taxes DO NOT pay for anything. Taxes are money being removed from the economy.

Governments create money which they spend where they see fit. The creation of money causes a risk of inflation; so AFTER spending money, governments need to take some money out of the economy, and taxes are a good means for doing that.

First sentence was that one of the primary purposes of government is to redistribute wealth. Redistribution for the sake of redistribution is theft. Taking money from one group just to give to another is. And our government was not set up to do that. The preamble to the constitution doesn't say, "In order to redistribute wealth"

Nevertheless, most of what governments do turns out to have that effect, whether they recognise it or not.

Money is, in the modern world, an artefact of government. The government creates money, and the government destroys it. That's what it does. It's the economy, stupid.

The economy is the business of government; and the role of government is to balance the tendency of the markets to destroy themselves by concentrating wealth until the system no longer works.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I don't understand the part about taxes not paying for anything. They seem to eventually have an effect on the national debt which effects the government's ability to borrow money without losing control of the interest rate. But paying more taxes than the law requires is ludicrous because it places the person at a competitive disadvantage to everyone else. You can't do that and also have capitalism.

It's a bit abstract, but since I've been reading about it, I like posting about it.

The US has a free floating fiat currency. That means the the govt as monopoly issuer of the currency has infinite capacity to spend. Therefore, tax revenue is not required for the govt to spend, and spending actually occurs before taxation.

But tax liabilities are critical because without them there's no particular need for anyone to use the currency. Requiring taxes drives demand for the currency, which gives it value. That's one of its purposes.

Taxes also ensure that the govt can provision itself, by removing purchasing power, or creating "fiscal space".

So, to say "taxes don't fund anything" is an oversimplification, but it's not entirely untrue.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Bilby did nothing of the sort. Bilby VERY EXPLICITLY pointed out that taxes DO NOT pay for anything. Taxes are money being removed from the economy.

So, to say "taxes don't fund anything" is an oversimplification, but it's not entirely untrue.

hashtagnotalltaxes. FICA taxes go to the express purpose of paying, and to a lesser degree funding, OASDI and HI benefits (social security and medicare).

aa

 

[coloradoatheist]

Bilby did nothing of the sort. Bilby VERY EXPLICITLY pointed out that taxes DO NOT pay for anything. Taxes are money being removed from the economy.

So, to say "taxes don't fund anything" is an oversimplification, but it's not entirely untrue.

hashtagnotalltaxes. FICA taxes go to the express purpose of paying, and to a lesser degree funding, OASDI and HI benefits (social security and medicare).

aa

But their argument is that the government doesn't need to tax, if it wanted to pay all the SS benefits it could just borrow it.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Bilby did nothing of the sort. Bilby VERY EXPLICITLY pointed out that taxes DO NOT pay for anything. Taxes are money being removed from the economy.

So, to say "taxes don't fund anything" is an oversimplification, but it's not entirely untrue.

hashtagnotalltaxes. FICA taxes go to the express purpose of paying, and to a lesser degree funding, OASDI and HI benefits (social security and medicare).

aa

That's because public policy is to assess the cost. There's no operational requirement to pay as you go, it's a political choice.

It's one Ruml's reasons to tax.

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/BeardsleyRuml.pdf

 

[bilby]

hashtagnotalltaxes. FICA taxes go to the express purpose of paying, and to a lesser degree funding, OASDI and HI benefits (social security and medicare).

aa

That's because public policy is to assess the cost. There's no operational requirement to pay as you go, it's a political choice.

It's one Ruml's reasons to tax.

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/BeardsleyRuml.pdf

Indeed; And of course there are other elements of what we call 'government' that are not, for political reasons, financially coupled to the currency issuing element - State and local governments, for example, raise funds that they (and we) call 'taxes', but they are dissimilar to taxes raised by a currency issuer, and in that case they are needed as a prerequisite to pay for services provided at that level of government, unless the currency issuer decides to underwrite their activities.

Of course, in neither case are such taxes 'theft', any more than meat is 'murder' - This nomenclature is just unhelpful hyperbole, intended to cut off reason in favour of an emotional revulsion.

 

[Treedbear]

I don't understand the part about taxes not paying for anything. They seem to eventually have an effect on the national debt which effects the government's ability to borrow money without losing control of the interest rate. But paying more taxes than the law requires is ludicrous because it places the person at a competitive disadvantage to everyone else. You can't do that and also have capitalism.

It's a bit abstract, but since I've been reading about it, I like posting about it.

The US has a free floating fiat currency. That means the the govt as monopoly issuer of the currency has infinite capacity to spend. Therefore, tax revenue is not required for the govt to spend, and spending actually occurs before taxation.

They spend on the credit people extend to them based on the faith that their currency will maintain its value.

But tax liabilities are critical because without them there's no particular need for anyone to use the currency. Requiring taxes drives demand for the currency, which gives it value. That's one of its purposes.

Money is more convenient than gold or barter. Paying taxes is a one way it's useful.

Taxes also ensure that the govt can provision itself, by removing purchasing power, or creating "fiscal space".

I don't have the financial acumen to know, but it really seems to be over complicating the function of money and the need for government revenue to fund its operations.

Moody's Analytics provides monthly estimates of the fiscal space of many countries. They define it as the difference between an estimated upper limit of public debt (beyond which action would have to be taken to avoid default) and actual public debt, expressed as a percentage of GDP or equivalently as the difference between the debt-limit-to-GDP percentage and the actual-debt-to-GDP percentage.

Purchasing power and "fiscal space" is a matter of savings and/or cash flow.

So, to say "taxes don't fund anything" is an oversimplification, but it's not entirely untrue.

So its not entirely true either. Not to get nasty but it sounds like when Trump claims he's going to build a wall. There's less to it then it's made to seem.