6 ms·

That's not true. Actual poor people pay very little, if any, income tax. As the article pointed out, this is most damaging to the upper-middle class.

taeric 9y ago
They would benefit from a funded government. Schools and other public services cost money.
- ChiliDogSwirl 9y ago
  Schools in the US are funded at the local county/township/municipal level, typically by property taxes or sales taxes, though it varies from state to state. Nothing really to do with income taxes, apart from the occasional grant.
  - taeric 9y ago
    I get that it is not the majority of funding. I don't know if it is a solid source, but http://www.data-first.org/data/how-much-money-does-our-school-district-receive-from-federal-state-and-local-sources/ http://www.data-first.org/data/how-much-money-does-our-schoo... has it at about 10%. 10% is not nothing. And, quite frankly, the places that need the most help probably don't have a lot of options at the local level.
- autokad 9y ago
  No. No. No. It is really hard to take someones money and claim you can do better with it than they can, especially if that: #1 you do not share their views #2 you have no obligation to spend the money on what you stole it for #3 you have a proven track record for inefficiency Want to help me out? let me keep my damn money, let me decide what is right for me. you got an agenda? spend your own money toward it. its also worth noting that almost all school funding does not come from these taxes. if you are so concerned about funding public services, demand Apple pay their taxes. they got 250 billion of the tax evaded stuff.
  - taeric 9y ago
    Using rhetoric like "stole it for" doesn't help your cause. Pretty much period. I'm interested in debating some of these points. (Honestly more interested in seeing others debate it.) However, if you are going to get emotional on points, realize that you are betraying that you likely haven't researched the points. As an example, the claim that "almost all school funding" does not come from these taxes is not as true as "almost none of these taxes go to school funding." More, this belies the idea that you would be willing to have these taxes exist, if they went to schools. I am guessing this was not your intent. Though, I am also guessing you use this rhetoric to your advantage.
    - autokad 9y ago
      you are the one pushing rhetoric, and taking my money is not a point for debate. I experienced this first hand with Philadelphia's soda tax (to fund universal preschool), which has been a spectacular yet tragic failure thus far. at least with the tax, it was 'said' to have been appropriated for it, but capitals gains simply do not go for schooling children. those are funded mostly local, please play your 'ALL'/'NONE' lawyer ball somewhere else.
      - taeric 9y ago
        Are you actually interested in debating? If so, I am still interested in seeing that happen. Pulling nominally related stories up, and then referring to them as a "spectacular yet tragic failure" without citations does little to make me believe you. What makes it a spectacular failure? What makes it a tragic failure? Quickly scanning headlines, it looks like it isn't raising as much as some predictions, but 40 million is not nothing. Nor is a marked reduction in sugary soda consumption. I'd be curious to know if any health benefits can be seen in the city. And again with the rhetoric. Telling me to take my "lawyer ball" elsewhere is showing that you don't intend on having conversation. So, are you?
  - aylmao 9y ago
    Claiming it's better to abolish public spending due to inefficiencies is like claiming we should disband all police force due to the terrible incidents that occur against civilians. Should we have everyone fend for themselves because they know what's better? No. People like to screw each other up and prefer to avoid problems that don't concern them. We should fix the inefficiencies. Individuals have little over-arching notion or interest in what's best for a nation beyond their community or past their lifetimes.
- fortythirteen 9y ago
  Our government is more funded than any other government on the face of the planet. It's that they're unbelievably terrible at prioritizing and budgeting.
  - taeric 9y ago
    Cites? I mean, at heart this is easy to agree with. We all want to think that there is waste. And there probably is a ton of it. The problem I have is the cost of fighting some waste is more expensive than it is worth. I realize this is about charity, but https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_abou... is one of the few TED talks I actually still like. I'd be very interested in seeing rebuttals. There is also the argument that corruption follows money. And that is certainly true. Doesn't do a lot to help the many people in underfunded locations of our nation.
  - mrguyorama 9y ago
    Better funded per capita? Scaled by GDP? By square mile? You can't just throw a claim out there and provide no details

taeric 9y ago

They would benefit from a funded government. Schools and other public services cost money.

ChiliDogSwirl 9y ago
Schools in the US are funded at the local county/township/municipal level, typically by property taxes or sales taxes, though it varies from state to state. Nothing really to do with income taxes, apart from the occasional grant.
- taeric 9y ago
  I get that it is not the majority of funding. I don't know if it is a solid source, but http://www.data-first.org/data/how-much-money-does-our-school-district-receive-from-federal-state-and-local-sources/ http://www.data-first.org/data/how-much-money-does-our-schoo... has it at about 10%. 10% is not nothing. And, quite frankly, the places that need the most help probably don't have a lot of options at the local level.
autokad 9y ago
No. No. No. It is really hard to take someones money and claim you can do better with it than they can, especially if that: #1 you do not share their views #2 you have no obligation to spend the money on what you stole it for #3 you have a proven track record for inefficiency Want to help me out? let me keep my damn money, let me decide what is right for me. you got an agenda? spend your own money toward it. its also worth noting that almost all school funding does not come from these taxes. if you are so concerned about funding public services, demand Apple pay their taxes. they got 250 billion of the tax evaded stuff.
- taeric 9y ago
  Using rhetoric like "stole it for" doesn't help your cause. Pretty much period. I'm interested in debating some of these points. (Honestly more interested in seeing others debate it.) However, if you are going to get emotional on points, realize that you are betraying that you likely haven't researched the points. As an example, the claim that "almost all school funding" does not come from these taxes is not as true as "almost none of these taxes go to school funding." More, this belies the idea that you would be willing to have these taxes exist, if they went to schools. I am guessing this was not your intent. Though, I am also guessing you use this rhetoric to your advantage.
  - autokad 9y ago
    you are the one pushing rhetoric, and taking my money is not a point for debate. I experienced this first hand with Philadelphia's soda tax (to fund universal preschool), which has been a spectacular yet tragic failure thus far. at least with the tax, it was 'said' to have been appropriated for it, but capitals gains simply do not go for schooling children. those are funded mostly local, please play your 'ALL'/'NONE' lawyer ball somewhere else.
    - taeric 9y ago
      Are you actually interested in debating? If so, I am still interested in seeing that happen. Pulling nominally related stories up, and then referring to them as a "spectacular yet tragic failure" without citations does little to make me believe you. What makes it a spectacular failure? What makes it a tragic failure? Quickly scanning headlines, it looks like it isn't raising as much as some predictions, but 40 million is not nothing. Nor is a marked reduction in sugary soda consumption. I'd be curious to know if any health benefits can be seen in the city. And again with the rhetoric. Telling me to take my "lawyer ball" elsewhere is showing that you don't intend on having conversation. So, are you?
- aylmao 9y ago
  Claiming it's better to abolish public spending due to inefficiencies is like claiming we should disband all police force due to the terrible incidents that occur against civilians. Should we have everyone fend for themselves because they know what's better? No. People like to screw each other up and prefer to avoid problems that don't concern them. We should fix the inefficiencies. Individuals have little over-arching notion or interest in what's best for a nation beyond their community or past their lifetimes.
fortythirteen 9y ago
Our government is more funded than any other government on the face of the planet. It's that they're unbelievably terrible at prioritizing and budgeting.
- taeric 9y ago
  Cites? I mean, at heart this is easy to agree with. We all want to think that there is waste. And there probably is a ton of it. The problem I have is the cost of fighting some waste is more expensive than it is worth. I realize this is about charity, but https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_abou... is one of the few TED talks I actually still like. I'd be very interested in seeing rebuttals. There is also the argument that corruption follows money. And that is certainly true. Doesn't do a lot to help the many people in underfunded locations of our nation.
- mrguyorama 9y ago
  Better funded per capita? Scaled by GDP? By square mile? You can't just throw a claim out there and provide no details