Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
It’s my body, not the governments
Options
Replies
-
I do think the overall education quality has gone down in North America with the allowance of charter schools. That abusive couple in California (13 children!) escaped detection for decades. The dad registered his home as a charter school.
Not that rigid, uniform education is always best. Both my husband and I (at different ends of the IQ spectrum) suffered under the public school system. Neither of us fit the average.6 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »Efficiency and Economy. A best practice implemented at universities across North America is to require all students to buy a bus pass. There was some protest by students here in town who never intended to use their pass but it went through anyways.
Collectively the pass was deeply discounted. Transit ridership went up. Less use of vehicles/parking, and fewer emissions.
An enforced collectivism resulted in savings overall and an incentive to use a formerly underutilized service.
Social Security could not work based on an opt-in system.
If Social Security could not work based on an opt-in system, that indicates there is a major flaw in its structure. If something must be forced, then what is wrong with it that people would not freely choose it?
If you have to force someone to participate, then ask yourself what is so broken that it doesn't stand on the merits?
So why do we need police to enforce the law? Is that an indication that law is flawed?
No, you simply enforce the consequences.
The flaw isn't with the law, it's with those who choose to break it.
The way I view SS, it's little different from those who would break the law by robbing others.
We don't lock up the victims for what the criminals do. So why do we "lock up" taxpayers in a system that doesn't benefit them?
Social Security is the equivalent of locking up the victims of a robbery.8 -
johnslater461 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »Efficiency and Economy. A best practice implemented at universities across North America is to require all students to buy a bus pass. There was some protest by students here in town who never intended to use their pass but it went through anyways.
Collectively the pass was deeply discounted. Transit ridership went up. Less use of vehicles/parking, and fewer emissions.
An enforced collectivism resulted in savings overall and an incentive to use a formerly underutilized service.
Social Security could not work based on an opt-in system.
If Social Security could not work based on an opt-in system, that indicates there is a major flaw in its structure. If something must be forced, then what is wrong with it that people would not freely choose it?
If you have to force someone to participate, then ask yourself what is so broken that it doesn't stand on the merits?tbright1965 wrote: »Efficiency and Economy. A best practice implemented at universities across North America is to require all students to buy a bus pass. There was some protest by students here in town who never intended to use their pass but it went through anyways.
Collectively the pass was deeply discounted. Transit ridership went up. Less use of vehicles/parking, and fewer emissions.
An enforced collectivism resulted in savings overall and an incentive to use a formerly underutilized service.
Social Security could not work based on an opt-in system.
If Social Security could not work based on an opt-in system, that indicates there is a major flaw in its structure. If something must be forced, then what is wrong with it that people would not freely choose it?
If you have to force someone to participate, then ask yourself what is so broken that it doesn't stand on the merits?
By that rationale, all taxes should be voluntary.
Also car insurance, drivers licenses, etc
You are doing an apples to oranges comparison. In no way did I say I was against public works projects such as building roads, bridges, etc.
I can be in favor of that and be against the institutional theft known as Social Security.8 -
tbright1965 wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »Efficiency and Economy. A best practice implemented at universities across North America is to require all students to buy a bus pass. There was some protest by students here in town who never intended to use their pass but it went through anyways.
Collectively the pass was deeply discounted. Transit ridership went up. Less use of vehicles/parking, and fewer emissions.
An enforced collectivism resulted in savings overall and an incentive to use a formerly underutilized service.
Social Security could not work based on an opt-in system.
If Social Security could not work based on an opt-in system, that indicates there is a major flaw in its structure. If something must be forced, then what is wrong with it that people would not freely choose it?
If you have to force someone to participate, then ask yourself what is so broken that it doesn't stand on the merits?tbright1965 wrote: »Efficiency and Economy. A best practice implemented at universities across North America is to require all students to buy a bus pass. There was some protest by students here in town who never intended to use their pass but it went through anyways.
Collectively the pass was deeply discounted. Transit ridership went up. Less use of vehicles/parking, and fewer emissions.
An enforced collectivism resulted in savings overall and an incentive to use a formerly underutilized service.
Social Security could not work based on an opt-in system.
If Social Security could not work based on an opt-in system, that indicates there is a major flaw in its structure. If something must be forced, then what is wrong with it that people would not freely choose it?
If you have to force someone to participate, then ask yourself what is so broken that it doesn't stand on the merits?
By that rationale, all taxes should be voluntary.
Also car insurance, drivers licenses, etc
You are doing an apples to oranges comparison. In no way did I say I was against public works projects such as building roads, bridges, etc.
I can be in favor of that and be against the institutional theft known as Social Security.
There are people who consider things like public roads (and things such as public schools) to be institutional theft as well. What argument would you make that we need roads in a way that entitles the government to use force (if necessary) to take money for them that wouldn't apply to a public good like, say, ensuring that children have food or learn to read?4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
There are people who consider things like public roads (and things such as public schools) to be institutional theft as well. What argument would you make that we need roads in a way that entitles the government to use force (if necessary) to take money for them that wouldn't apply to a public good like, say, ensuring that children have food or learn to read?
Why should government use force to build the roads?
Tax motor fuels (we do) and use those taxes only for building and maintaining the roads. If you drive more miles, or carry heavier loads, you'll use more fuel and pay more taxes.
Those using the roads the most pay the most. Those using the roads the least, either by fewer miles or lighter vehicles that do less damage, pay less.
If you want public transit, build the rails like you would the roads, and pay for the vehicles (buses and trains) and the staff the same way commuters pay for their cars, by charging enough to cover the costs of those aspects.
No special deals for large corporations, college students, seniors, or whomever. The infrastructure costs the same regardless your circumstance in life.
Ditto for things like the FAA (now we are at the federal level, most of the above can and is covered at the state and local level) pay for it with fees charged to users and airlines. Those who fly themselves or cargo are the ones paying for the necessary services. No need to tax grandma for an airport initiative. If she gets FedEx next day packages, the costs are baked into the price of the package shipping, not some special tax collection.
I say the same about local governments who want to use TIFs and public money to build a sports stadium or what not. If the stadium is such a great deal for the local economy, let the local business leaders and investors put up their treasure and reap the rewards for the project. No need for taxpayers to be placed on the hook for such a venture.
My view is that if you treat different people differently, such as taxing one group at a 10% marginal rate and another at 28% you are stealing from those who are asked to pay 3x as much. Likewise with Social Security, if you are giving one recipient 90% of his indexed income in retirement benefits, but only pay 15% on indexed wages earned by another, you are stealing from the person getting the 15% benefit.
Much like if you give one business a tax break, but not all of them, that too is theft from those not getting the break.4 -
tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
There are people who consider things like public roads (and things such as public schools) to be institutional theft as well. What argument would you make that we need roads in a way that entitles the government to use force (if necessary) to take money for them that wouldn't apply to a public good like, say, ensuring that children have food or learn to read?
Why should government use force to build the roads?
Tax motor fuels (we do) and use those taxes only for building and maintaining the roads. If you drive more miles, or carry heavier loads, you'll use more fuel and pay more taxes.
Those using the roads the most pay the most. Those using the roads the least, either by fewer miles or lighter vehicles that do less damage, pay less.
If you want public transit, build the rails like you would the roads, and pay for the vehicles (buses and trains) and the staff the same way commuters pay for their cars, by charging enough to cover the costs of those aspects.
No special deals for large corporations, college students, seniors, or whomever. The infrastructure costs the same regardless your circumstance in life.
Ditto for things like the FAA (now we are at the federal level, most of the above can and is covered at the state and local level) pay for it with fees charged to users and airlines. Those who fly themselves or cargo are the ones paying for the necessary services. No need to tax grandma for an airport initiative. If she gets FedEx next day packages, the costs are baked into the price of the package shipping, not some special tax collection.
I say the same about local governments who want to use TIFs and public money to build a sports stadium or what not. If the stadium is such a great deal for the local economy, let the local business leaders and investors put up their treasure and reap the rewards for the project. No need for taxpayers to be placed on the hook for such a venture.
My view is that if you treat different people differently, such as taxing one group at a 10% marginal rate and another at 28% you are stealing from those who are asked to pay 3x as much. Likewise with Social Security, if you are giving one recipient 90% of his indexed income in retirement benefits, but only pay 15% on indexed wages earned by another, you are stealing from the person getting the 15% benefit.
Much like if you give one business a tax break, but not all of them, that too is theft from those not getting the break.
So you would eliminate income taxes and pay for everything with fees on specific purchases (like fuel taxes, airline taxes, etc)?
2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »So you would eliminate income taxes and pay for everything with fees on specific purchases (like fuel taxes, airline taxes, etc)?
I would eliminate the so-called progressive taxes. A nation founded in freedom is not making progress if it taxes different citizens at differing rates.
Our Federal government spends roughly 20% of GDP, so no dollar earned should face more than 20% in Federal taxes when both payroll and income taxes are considered.
So a worker paying 7.65% FICA taxes should never pay more than 12.35% income tax on those dollars earned.
Now, if we were really living my fantasy, we would not have the taxes deducted from our pay. Instead, you would have to pay your representative in Congress. After all, according to the Constitution, Congress has the power of the purse and makes the laws that result in both our taxation and spending. So instead of having the "painless" process of the IRS leaning on employers to pay up, those elected to Congress would be responsible for leaning on their constituents, collecting the money from them in a less automatic, more transparent way. Taxes would be paid little differently from paying rent, utilities, etc.
I suspect people would take a closer look at what their representatives in Congress were doing if they had to cut a check to their office every month.
But it will never happen. Politicians like to pit one group against another and they like to take money from one group and buy the votes of another.
Just look at the outcry during the last tax cuts. Some sold the notion that taxpayers would keep more of what they earned as stealing from other people.
How is keeping more of what you earn ever stealing from another? Yet we had politicians bleating such nonsense at a mere 3% cut in marginal rates.
5 -
tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »So you would eliminate income taxes and pay for everything with fees on specific purchases (like fuel taxes, airline taxes, etc)?
I would eliminate the so-called progressive taxes. A nation founded in freedom is not making progress if it taxes different citizens at differing rates.
Our Federal government spends roughly 20% of GDP, so no dollar earned should face more than 20% in Federal taxes when both payroll and income taxes are considered.
So a worker paying 7.65% FICA taxes should never pay more than 12.35% income tax on those dollars earned.
Now, if we were really living my fantasy, we would not have the taxes deducted from our pay. Instead, you would have to pay your representative in Congress. After all, according to the Constitution, Congress has the power of the purse and makes the laws that result in both our taxation and spending. So instead of having the "painless" process of the IRS leaning on employers to pay up, those elected to Congress would be responsible for leaning on their constituents, collecting the money from them in a less automatic, more transparent way. Taxes would be paid little differently from paying rent, utilities, etc.
I suspect people would take a closer look at what their representatives in Congress were doing if they had to cut a check to their office every month.
But it will never happen. Politicians like to pit one group against another and they like to take money from one group and buy the votes of another.
Just look at the outcry during the last tax cuts. Some sold the notion that taxpayers would keep more of what they earned as stealing from other people.
How is keeping more of what you earn ever stealing from another? Yet we had politicians bleating such nonsense at a mere 3% cut in marginal rates.
So taxes on income would still be collected, the force of law would still be behind them even if one was writing a check to a congressional representative rather than the Department of the Treasury, correct?
So if I considered those "institutional theft," what would you tell me?
(Do you think it might be possible to have this conversation without using terms like "bleating nonsense" to characterize the statements of those who hold different opinions? If not, that's fine, I just find it's not that conducive to serious discussion).
4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
So taxes on income would still be collected, the force of law would still be behind them even if one was writing a check to a congressional representative rather than the Department of the Treasury, correct?
So if I considered those "institutional theft," what would you tell me?
I thought I said this already, my view of the institutional theft is the different treatment. So if you are paying a marginal rate of 10% and I'm paying 28% marginal rates, the nearly 3x taxation on my marginal dollar is what I consider theft.
If we are both paying 10% we may have a debate about if its being used well, but I'm paying the same fair share as you, 1 out of every 10 dollars earned.
Ditto for the Social Security program. I believe I posted a link to the benefits formula. So the person getting 90% of his indexed income wasn't robbed. But those who reach the bend points of 32% and 15% benefits, but had to pay the same 6.2% FICA taxes plus either another 6.2% funded by self or the employer depending on how they earned their income, that person is being robbed when every dollar of indexed income does not result in the same 90% benefit.
That's the institutional robbery, treating one person differently than the other.
All should pay the same rate and get the same return. Do it differently and you have to rob one to pay the other a greater portion.3 -
tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
So taxes on income would still be collected, the force of law would still be behind them even if one was writing a check to a congressional representative rather than the Department of the Treasury, correct?
So if I considered those "institutional theft," what would you tell me?
I thought I said this already, my view of the institutional theft is the different treatment. So if you are paying a marginal rate of 10% and I'm paying 28% marginal rates, the nearly 3x taxation on my marginal dollar is what I consider theft.
If we are both paying 10% we may have a debate about if its being used well, but I'm paying the same fair share as you, 1 out of every 10 dollars earned.
Ditto for the Social Security program. I believe I posted a link to the benefits formula. So the person getting 90% of his indexed income wasn't robbed. But those who reach the bend points of 32% and 15% benefits, but had to pay the same 6.2% FICA taxes plus either another 6.2% funded by self or the employer depending on how they earned their income, that person is being robbed when every dollar of indexed income does not result in the same 90% benefit.
That's the institutional robbery, treating one person differently than the other.
All should pay the same rate and get the same return. Do it differently and you have to rob one to pay the other a greater portion.
I missed that when you wrote it earlier, thanks for clarifying.
So if everyone paid the same rate to fund social safety net programs, you would still have issues with it, but they would no longer be the "institutional theft" issues, but just a debate over whether it was being used well? That is, the decision of the government to spend it would be a legitimate decision, just one that you disagreed with?2 -
How about a person at the bottom edge of the wage scale, making just enough to cover the bills? Isn’t that 10% a greater contribution, say, than a nominal 10% tax on a Trump, Kardashian, or a Gates?7
-
How about a person at the bottom edge of the wage scale, making just enough to cover the bills? Isn’t that 10% a greater contribution, say, than a nominal 10% tax on a Trump, Kardashian, or a Gates?
It's vastly greater. It would be a system where lower income people bore the majority of the burden of actually funding the government.
6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »How about a person at the bottom edge of the wage scale, making just enough to cover the bills? Isn’t that 10% a greater contribution, say, than a nominal 10% tax on a Trump, Kardashian, or a Gates?
It's vastly greater. It would be a system where lower income people bore the majority of the burden of actually funding the government.
Ok, let's filter out the woo from the fact.
If someone is making a small percentage of all the income and is taxed at the same rate as those making a much larger rate, then the person making more will pay more.
I.E. if the bottom quintile makes 10% of the income, in a flat tax, everyone pays the same, they will pay 10% of the taxes. They can't pay more than their percentage of the income, and therefore cannot pay the majority of the funding burden.
Will it be a burden? Of course.
Why are we not worried about the burden placed on those asked to pay 3x or more as a portion of their income in taxes?
If you really want to even out the burden, you would not be in favor of taxing some more than others. By doing so, you are saying we want to burden one group more than another.
Now, if you feel you are not being taxed enough, there is a solution. Send what you consider to be your fair share, say 39.4% of your income to:
https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsfaq/fs_gifts_to_govt.htm
Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Funds Management Branch
P.O. Box 1328
Parkersburg, WV 26106-13289 -
tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »How about a person at the bottom edge of the wage scale, making just enough to cover the bills? Isn’t that 10% a greater contribution, say, than a nominal 10% tax on a Trump, Kardashian, or a Gates?
It's vastly greater. It would be a system where lower income people bore the majority of the burden of actually funding the government.
Ok, let's filter out the woo from the fact.
If someone is making a small percentage of all the income and is taxed at the same rate as those making a much larger rate, then the person making more will pay more.
I.E. if the bottom quintile makes 10% of the income, in a flat tax, everyone pays the same, they will pay 10% of the taxes. They can't pay more than their percentage of the income, and therefore cannot pay the majority of the funding burden.
Will it be a burden? Of course.
Why are we not worried about the burden placed on those asked to pay 3x or more as a portion of their income in taxes?
If you really want to even out the burden, you would not be in favor of taxing some more than others. By doing so, you are saying we want to burden one group more than another.
Now, if you feel you are not being taxed enough, there is a solution. Send what you consider to be your fair share, say 39.4% of your income to:
https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsfaq/fs_gifts_to_govt.htm
Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Funds Management Branch
P.O. Box 1328
Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328
For most households, sending 10% of, say, $55,000 is going to create more of a burden than sending 10% of $500,000. It's going to create more difficulties balancing things like paying for food and housing with saving for retirement and college education. It's going to impact things like child care choices. This isn't "woo" and if that's the way you see it, I'm not sure how to connect you to that.
You're talking about evening out the percentage of tax paid and I understand your argument. But the impact of doing this would create a disparity of *impact* that would be felt by many Americans. It may be that you acknowledge that and are fine with it, but let's not pretend that noticing it is "woo."
We're not talking about my tax rate and whether or not I'm feeling taxed enough or too much. Let's keep this on the ideas, we don't have to make it personal.7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
For most households, sending 10% of, say, $55,000 is going to create more of a burden than sending 10% of $500,000. It's going to create more difficulties balancing things like paying for food and housing with saving for retirement and college education. It's going to impact things like child care choices. This isn't "woo" and if that's the way you see it, I'm not sure how to connect you to that.
You're talking about evening out the percentage of tax paid and I understand your argument. But the impact of doing this would create a disparity of *impact* that would be felt by many Americans. It may be that you acknowledge that and are fine with it, but let's not pretend that noticing it is "woo."
We're not talking about my tax rate and whether or not I'm feeling taxed enough or too much. Let's keep this on the ideas, we don't have to make it personal.
Calling it paying the majority of the taxes is the woo. That simply isn't true. To suggest that those making the least are paying the most is the same sort of woo as is the notion being pitched that allowing people to keep more of what they are earning is stealing from others.
Perhaps I should have said, "If one feels they are not paying enough...."
But frankly, there are those who have no problem calling for me to pay more than others, so I really don't feel guilty suggesting anyone start cutting checks so that their deeds match their words. It's no less offensive to hear all those suggesting that it's wrong for taxpayers who face marginal rates approaching 40% are greedy for wanting to keep the fruits of their labor.
Like I said, politicians sowing division and getting praise for taxing those evil rich dudes and handing out the free goodies...
5 -
tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
For most households, sending 10% of, say, $55,000 is going to create more of a burden than sending 10% of $500,000. It's going to create more difficulties balancing things like paying for food and housing with saving for retirement and college education. It's going to impact things like child care choices. This isn't "woo" and if that's the way you see it, I'm not sure how to connect you to that.
You're talking about evening out the percentage of tax paid and I understand your argument. But the impact of doing this would create a disparity of *impact* that would be felt by many Americans. It may be that you acknowledge that and are fine with it, but let's not pretend that noticing it is "woo."
We're not talking about my tax rate and whether or not I'm feeling taxed enough or too much. Let's keep this on the ideas, we don't have to make it personal.
Calling it paying the majority of the taxes is the woo. That simply isn't true. To suggest that those making the least are paying the most is the same sort of woo as is the notion being pitched that allowing people to keep more of what they are earning is stealing from others.
Perhaps I should have said, "If one feels they are not paying enough...."
But frankly, there are those who have no problem calling for me to pay more than others, so I really don't feel guilty suggesting anyone start cutting checks so that their deeds match their words. It's no less offensive to hear all those suggesting that it's wrong for taxpayers who face marginal rates approaching 40% are greedy for wanting to keep the fruits of their labor.
Like I said, politicians sowing division and getting praise for taxing those evil rich dudes and handing out the free goodies...
I never wrote they would pay the majority of the taxes. I wrote: " It would be a system where lower income people bore the majority of the burden . . . " I do consider the disproportion of the impact to create a higher burden. Is there a way you would prefer I phrase that same idea?
I'm not asking you to feel guilty for asking people to send checks to the government, I'm just expressing my opinion that rhetorical flourishes like that aren't too useful for thoughtful debate. If you feel differently, feel free to continue. Same thing with the talk about the "evil rich dudes." Is anybody here making that argument? It's like you're debating with people who aren't even here.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
For most households, sending 10% of, say, $55,000 is going to create more of a burden than sending 10% of $500,000. It's going to create more difficulties balancing things like paying for food and housing with saving for retirement and college education. It's going to impact things like child care choices. This isn't "woo" and if that's the way you see it, I'm not sure how to connect you to that.
You're talking about evening out the percentage of tax paid and I understand your argument. But the impact of doing this would create a disparity of *impact* that would be felt by many Americans. It may be that you acknowledge that and are fine with it, but let's not pretend that noticing it is "woo."
We're not talking about my tax rate and whether or not I'm feeling taxed enough or too much. Let's keep this on the ideas, we don't have to make it personal.
Calling it paying the majority of the taxes is the woo. That simply isn't true. To suggest that those making the least are paying the most is the same sort of woo as is the notion being pitched that allowing people to keep more of what they are earning is stealing from others.
Perhaps I should have said, "If one feels they are not paying enough...."
But frankly, there are those who have no problem calling for me to pay more than others, so I really don't feel guilty suggesting anyone start cutting checks so that their deeds match their words. It's no less offensive to hear all those suggesting that it's wrong for taxpayers who face marginal rates approaching 40% are greedy for wanting to keep the fruits of their labor.
Like I said, politicians sowing division and getting praise for taxing those evil rich dudes and handing out the free goodies...
I never wrote they would pay the majority of the taxes. I wrote: " It would be a system where lower income people bore the majority of the burden . . . " I do consider the disproportion of the impact to create a higher burden. Is there a way you would prefer I phrase that same idea?
I'm not asking you to feel guilty for asking people to send checks to the government, I'm just expressing my opinion that rhetorical flourishes like that aren't too useful for thoughtful debate. If you feel differently, feel free to continue. Same thing with the talk about the "evil rich dudes." Is anybody here making that argument? It's like you're debating with people who aren't even here.
OK, so if they are earning 20% of the income, but only paying 10% of the taxes, they are coming no where close to the majority of the burden.
The burden is $4T/year. If the bottom quintile is paying 10% of that, or $400B, there is still $3.6T to be paid by the rest.
The burden is the total spending, as it must be borne by all taxpayers. Suggesting that those paying a lesser percentage are bearing the majority of the burden doesn't pass muster.
It simply isn't true. It's woo.3 -
And, even if they are earning 20% of the income and paying 20% of the taxes, under a flat tax scheme, they will be bearing, as a group, 20% of the burden.
In no way, shape or form will they be bearing the majority of a $4T burden under a flat tax scheme.1 -
tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
For most households, sending 10% of, say, $55,000 is going to create more of a burden than sending 10% of $500,000. It's going to create more difficulties balancing things like paying for food and housing with saving for retirement and college education. It's going to impact things like child care choices. This isn't "woo" and if that's the way you see it, I'm not sure how to connect you to that.
You're talking about evening out the percentage of tax paid and I understand your argument. But the impact of doing this would create a disparity of *impact* that would be felt by many Americans. It may be that you acknowledge that and are fine with it, but let's not pretend that noticing it is "woo."
We're not talking about my tax rate and whether or not I'm feeling taxed enough or too much. Let's keep this on the ideas, we don't have to make it personal.
Calling it paying the majority of the taxes is the woo. That simply isn't true. To suggest that those making the least are paying the most is the same sort of woo as is the notion being pitched that allowing people to keep more of what they are earning is stealing from others.
Perhaps I should have said, "If one feels they are not paying enough...."
But frankly, there are those who have no problem calling for me to pay more than others, so I really don't feel guilty suggesting anyone start cutting checks so that their deeds match their words. It's no less offensive to hear all those suggesting that it's wrong for taxpayers who face marginal rates approaching 40% are greedy for wanting to keep the fruits of their labor.
Like I said, politicians sowing division and getting praise for taxing those evil rich dudes and handing out the free goodies...
I never wrote they would pay the majority of the taxes. I wrote: " It would be a system where lower income people bore the majority of the burden . . . " I do consider the disproportion of the impact to create a higher burden. Is there a way you would prefer I phrase that same idea?
I'm not asking you to feel guilty for asking people to send checks to the government, I'm just expressing my opinion that rhetorical flourishes like that aren't too useful for thoughtful debate. If you feel differently, feel free to continue. Same thing with the talk about the "evil rich dudes." Is anybody here making that argument? It's like you're debating with people who aren't even here.
OK, so if they are earning 20% of the income, but only paying 10% of the taxes, they are coming no where close to the majority of the burden.
The burden is $4T/year. If the bottom quintile is paying 10% of that, or $400B, there is still $3.6T to be paid by the rest.
The burden is the total spending, as it must be borne by all taxpayers. Suggesting that those paying a lesser percentage are bearing the majority of the burden doesn't pass muster.
It simply isn't true. It's woo.
I think what @janejellyroll is referring to by burden is what is left for people to try to survive on once the taxes are taken. The overall burden on their remaining wages and what they have left to survive on each month becomes disproportionate and increases their risk of not being able to cover their basic bills compared to someone who has a much higher income and paying a higher tax rate. Jane, please correct me if I'm misinterpreting what you are saying here.
I currently am paying more in taxes each year than I used to make in a year. My take home pay allows for a lot more wiggle room than when I was bringing home considerably less. So while it sucks to be paying so much in taxes, I consider myself fortunate to have a decent income.7
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions