how taxes work--probably a repost

[ScoobMaster]

dullard:

I am simply agreeing with you - you nailed my point.

Sorry, I should have preceeded the first sentance with "Yep, you got it....."

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: desy
Scoob Are you spending your money on national security? Law, crime and punishment and on and on and on?
Or just purely shelfish things?
IF you live in a society, there are things that need to be done and its easier and more cost effective to have one governing body to do the work.
Now if you want to argue percentages thats different but you can't deny there is a place for gov't and money has to come from somewhere. . .

True, government is best in some cases such as national defense. The problem is that today government has gone FAR beyond basic services and it has become a bloated, inefficient mess. Social security is the largest example of this.

 

[ScoobMaster]

Originally posted by: desy
Scoob Are you spending your money on national security? Law, crime and punishment and on and on and on?
Or just purely shelfish things?
IF you live in a society, there are things that need to be done and its easier and more cost effective to have one governing body to do the work.
Now if you want to argue percentages thats different but you can't deny there is a place for gov't and money has to come from somewhere. . .

No I cannot and will not deny that. I completely agree that there is a role for government to play. However, I think that an effective government is a very LIMITED one - not the bloated, over-spending behemoth ours has become (*BOTH* of the major political parties have been spending WAAYYYY too much IMHO). If one scrutinizes the spending our governments have been doing, there is much I would consider wasteful foolish spending. Rarely does government look to cut spending - they usually just crank up the taxes.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
True, government is best in some cases such as national defense. The problem is that today government has gone FAR beyond basic services and it has become a bloated, inefficient mess. Social security is the largest example of this.

I agree with you in principle, but I suspect we disagree in the details. By the way, social security is a bad example for this post since social security taxes the rich at a far lower percentage than it taxes the poor (this is due to the income cap, the more you earn the smaller the percentage of your earnings that go to social security if you are above this cap) - the exact opposite than in the case for this thread.

For example we can get rid of the EITC by doing this:
(1) raise minimum wage nationally therefore the poor working don't need the EITC.
(2) of course this lowers the spending of the federal government, so to keep the books even, the federal government should cut taxes on small businesses.
(3) small businesses must pay more to their employees, but they get a huge tax break. So overall, small buisinesses are about even. (Of course the unprofitible small businesses will be hurt and the profitable ones will be helped, you can never do anything that won't change thinks on the microeconomic level).

Net effect: every group is about the same, but government taxes and spending are both lower - giving you your less bloated government.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: ScoobMaster

Originally posted by: desy
Scoob Are you spending your money on national security? Law, crime and punishment and on and on and on?
Or just purely shelfish things?
IF you live in a society, there are things that need to be done and its easier and more cost effective to have one governing body to do the work.
Now if you want to argue percentages thats different but you can't deny there is a place for gov't and money has to come from somewhere. . .

No I cannot and will not deny that. I completely agree that there is a role for government to play. However, I think that an effective government is a very LIMITED one - not the bloated, over-spending behemoth ours has become (*BOTH* of the major political parties have been spending WAAYYYY too much IMHO). If one scrutinizes the spending our governments have been doing, there is much I would consider wasteful foolish spending. Rarely does government look to cut spending - they usually just crank up the taxes.

They don't just crank up the taxes. They increase the spending deficit as Bush has done. The projected deficit for 2004 is I believe about half a TRILLION dollars. Well over $1 billion a day. This is not entirely the politicians fault, you see people demand government services but they don't want to pay for them. Political science surveys have shown this. Therefore, people elect to office politicians who are very willing to borrow billions of dollars in order to appease their constituents. This happens at every level of government, not just federal.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Dissipate
True, government is best in some cases such as national defense. The problem is that today government has gone FAR beyond basic services and it has become a bloated, inefficient mess. Social security is the largest example of this.

I agree with you in principle, but I suspect we disagree in the details. By the way, social security is a bad example for this post since social security taxes the rich at a far lower percentage than it taxes the poor (this is due to the income cap, the more you earn the smaller the percentage of your earnings that go to social security if you are above this cap) - the exact opposite than in the case for this thread.

You don't understand though. About 30% of the national budget is paid into social security as well, so those wealthy people are actually paying into the system twice.

 

[FoBoT]

:light:

 

[sygyzy]

I think a main problem with the complaints about taxation is that there is a much better alternative. Most people think they can run the city and federal programs by themselves but they can't. The no-tax advocates always use one argument: Give me a gun and I'll protect my land. I don't need no stinkin' cops.

As if cops and protecting your land are the only facilities you need. What about the FAA, military, road maintanance.

P.S. Nobody has brought up that point here, but I have seen it plenty of times.

 

[desy]

Maybe 4 year voting cycles are too short for a gov't to have the political will to ignore special interest lobby groups and do the right thing?
I mean thats why they overspend is to buy votes. . . Gov't is giving people what they want which is more.
I don't think I'm in favor of balanced budget legislation as ties the hands , but unlimited power to tax and more and more people with the authority to tax?
Wheres the checks and balances?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: sygyzy
I think a main problem with the complaints about taxation is that there is a much better alternative. Most people think they can run the city and federal programs by themselves but they can't. The no-tax advocates always use one argument: Give me a gun and I'll protect my land. I don't need no stinkin' cops.

As if cops and protecting your land are the only facilities you need. What about the FAA, military, road maintanance.

P.S. Nobody has brought up that point here, but I have seen it plenty of times.

I don't think there are very many no tax advocates. These are called anarchists, a very small percentage of the population.

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Dissipate
True, government is best in some cases such as national defense. The problem is that today government has gone FAR beyond basic services and it has become a bloated, inefficient mess. Social security is the largest example of this.

I agree with you in principle, but I suspect we disagree in the details. By the way, social security is a bad example for this post since social security taxes the rich at a far lower percentage than it taxes the poor (this is due to the income cap, the more you earn the smaller the percentage of your earnings that go to social security if you are above this cap) - the exact opposite than in the case for this thread.

For example we can get rid of the EITC by doing this:
(1) raise minimum wage nationally therefore the poor working don't need the EITC.
(2) of course this lowers the spending of the federal government, so to keep the books even, the federal government should cut taxes on small businesses.
(3) small businesses must pay more to their employees, but they get a huge tax break. So overall, small buisinesses are about even. (Of course the unprofitible small businesses will be hurt and the profitable ones will be helped, you can never do anything that won't change thinks on the microeconomic level).

Net effect: every group is about the same, but government taxes and spending are both lower - giving you your less bloated government.

Funny how a flaming conservative wants to raise the minimuim wage to get people out of poverty.
This will not work. A raising of minimum wage will do two things:

1) raise the cost of goods for everyone because labor that was $5.50 an hour is now $8.50 an hour
2) put more people out of work since the jobs that remained below the curve were simply dropped from the economy, the same way full-service gas stations have been (for 48 of the states).

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: beer
Funny how a flaming conservative wants to raise the minimuim wage to get people out of poverty.
This will not work. A raising of minimum wage will do two things:

1) raise the cost of goods for everyone because labor that was $5.50 an hour is now $8.50 an hour
2) put more people out of work since the jobs that remained below the curve were simply dropped from the economy, the same way full-service gas stations have been (for 48 of the states).

Interesting to be called a flaming conservative - I'm a democrat, a liberal slightly left of center. Under my highly simplified plan wages increase but the business and the business owner pay far less taxes - balancing things out so that the cost of goods won't increase. And yes jobs may be cut but studies have shown the jobs cut are few and far between.