4 ms·

What frustrates me about income taxes (and really taxes in general) is that proponents often automatically presume that a larger amount of money flowing into th

What frustrates me about income taxes (and really taxes in general) is that proponents often automatically presume that a larger amount of money flowing into the government is a wholly beneficial effect. I trust current US government officials to effectively use my tax dollars about as far as I can throw it. Entirely too much money is squandered on things that do no benefit whatsoever to those who pay into it, rich or poor. It's a deal-breaker for me, without even going into the problem of tax evasion available to the obscenely rich.

UncleMeat 8y ago
Proponents don't automatically presume this. It isn't axiomatic. We just look at the data and disagree with your assessment. Yes, there is a tremendous amount of inefficiency in the entire process. Some people look at this and think that taxes are therefore not a good plan. Other people look at this and think that despite the inefficiency taxes solve such an important need that it is worth it. The other problem with this sort of argument is that it works at literally every tax level. If federal income tax rates were 1% then your argument would work just as well at discouraging any tax hike. There is clearly an inflection point but it is worth examining where that point is.
- Rooster61 8y ago
  > Proponents don't automatically presume this I respectfully disagree. Dogmatic clinging to political and economic ideals is rampant in society. People do this all the time. That doesn't apply to EVERYONE who holds the opposed opinion, though. Nor was it my intention to imply that. > Yes, there is a tremendous amount of inefficiency in the entire process. It's not just a matter of inefficiency. Inefficiency is intrinsic to any economic system as large and complex as that of the US, and that's to be expected. What isn't to be expected, or at least condoned, is the ACTIVE measures taken by those in office/places of power to squander money that is not naturally misappropriated by that complexity. Our current political/economic client is rife with this. > The other problem with this sort of argument is that it works at literally every tax level. The fact that an argument is right at every level isn't a problem, nor does it make it invalid. I'm of the opinion that no tax is going to be truly utilized correctly until the underlying problem of corruption is fixed. And please don't take my tone as accusatory. I do appreciate people taking a critical look at an issue and still coming up with the opposite of my stance.
  - sharemywin 8y ago
    That's a very black and white way of thinking about it.
    - Rooster61 8y ago
      IMO, its very close to a black and white problem. Corruption is an extremely cancerous thing to a state, and I'm not convinced things will get better with the current level that's present.
- weberc2 8y ago
  I think this is a good way of looking at the problem but unfortunately it doesn’t resemble the public debate at all. It would be great if the conversation were about the inflection point and not ad hominems (“people who don’t want to raise taxes hate the poor!”).
superqd 8y ago
I imagine it like being in a boat. There are people in the boat running around drilling holes in the bottom and then there are those trying to cover the holes, the Leak Fixers, but they do this very poorly, and sometimes their efforts create just as much water leakage as the hole drillers. Then there are those who are bailing water out of the boat. Most of them have small cups, some have nothing but spoons, but some have enormous buckets, and all are bailing as much as they can. Then the Leak Fixers turn around and see that their efforts are not yielding the results they expected. Rather than stop the hole drillers, or improve their hole fixing, they turn to the Large Bucket Bailers, and demand that they double the hours they spend bailing water. If I was holding a large bucket when that happened, I would be very very angry.
- Rooster61 8y ago
  I'd add one more layer of abstraction. There are also people in the boat actively following Leak Fixers and taking their tools to plug the holes.
- sharemywin 8y ago
  And then there is Amazon selling all the buckets and the drills in a water proof bubble.
  - sharemywin 8y ago
    stop down voting me Jeff you got better things to do.
millstone 8y ago
Nobody holds the position that "more money flowing into the government is wholly beneficial." When Democrats argue for increased taxes it's not because they think it's good to have high taxes, but to fund particular programs: in this case, a Green New Deal to address climate change. As for "entirely too much money is squandered", what did you have in mind? The combination of defense, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security/SSI, and debt interest make up around 85% of the budget.
- Rooster61 8y ago
  > When Democrats argue for increased taxes it's not because they think it's good to have high taxes, but to fund particular programs What does the concept of the government having more taxpayer money have to do with thinking it's good to have high taxes? I made no such connection, you did. My concern is with the lack of accountability to actually use the funds gathered to put into effect the types of programs you mention. > 85% of the budget Sure, yeah. They do. A tremendous amount of money gets wasted/misappropriated in these sectors, much of which is manipulated back into the pockets of those in office, and those whose backs the people in office must scratch to keep the gravy train moving along. I'm not sure I see the argument you are trying to make, unless you were agreeing with me.

UncleMeat 8y ago

Proponents don't automatically presume this. It isn't axiomatic. We just look at the data and disagree with your assessment. Yes, there is a tremendous amount of inefficiency in the entire process. Some people look at this and think that taxes are therefore not a good plan. Other people look at this and think that despite the inefficiency taxes solve such an important need that it is worth it. The other problem with this sort of argument is that it works at literally every tax level. If federal income tax rates were 1% then your argument would work just as well at discouraging any tax hike. There is clearly an inflection point but it is worth examining where that point is.

Rooster61 8y ago
> Proponents don't automatically presume this I respectfully disagree. Dogmatic clinging to political and economic ideals is rampant in society. People do this all the time. That doesn't apply to EVERYONE who holds the opposed opinion, though. Nor was it my intention to imply that. > Yes, there is a tremendous amount of inefficiency in the entire process. It's not just a matter of inefficiency. Inefficiency is intrinsic to any economic system as large and complex as that of the US, and that's to be expected. What isn't to be expected, or at least condoned, is the ACTIVE measures taken by those in office/places of power to squander money that is not naturally misappropriated by that complexity. Our current political/economic client is rife with this. > The other problem with this sort of argument is that it works at literally every tax level. The fact that an argument is right at every level isn't a problem, nor does it make it invalid. I'm of the opinion that no tax is going to be truly utilized correctly until the underlying problem of corruption is fixed. And please don't take my tone as accusatory. I do appreciate people taking a critical look at an issue and still coming up with the opposite of my stance.
- sharemywin 8y ago
  That's a very black and white way of thinking about it.
  - Rooster61 8y ago
    IMO, its very close to a black and white problem. Corruption is an extremely cancerous thing to a state, and I'm not convinced things will get better with the current level that's present.
weberc2 8y ago
I think this is a good way of looking at the problem but unfortunately it doesn’t resemble the public debate at all. It would be great if the conversation were about the inflection point and not ad hominems (“people who don’t want to raise taxes hate the poor!”).

superqd 8y ago

I imagine it like being in a boat. There are people in the boat running around drilling holes in the bottom and then there are those trying to cover the holes, the Leak Fixers, but they do this very poorly, and sometimes their efforts create just as much water leakage as the hole drillers. Then there are those who are bailing water out of the boat. Most of them have small cups, some have nothing but spoons, but some have enormous buckets, and all are bailing as much as they can. Then the Leak Fixers turn around and see that their efforts are not yielding the results they expected. Rather than stop the hole drillers, or improve their hole fixing, they turn to the Large Bucket Bailers, and demand that they double the hours they spend bailing water. If I was holding a large bucket when that happened, I would be very very angry.

Rooster61 8y ago
I'd add one more layer of abstraction. There are also people in the boat actively following Leak Fixers and taking their tools to plug the holes.
sharemywin 8y ago
And then there is Amazon selling all the buckets and the drills in a water proof bubble.
- sharemywin 8y ago
  stop down voting me Jeff you got better things to do.

millstone 8y ago

Nobody holds the position that "more money flowing into the government is wholly beneficial." When Democrats argue for increased taxes it's not because they think it's good to have high taxes, but to fund particular programs: in this case, a Green New Deal to address climate change. As for "entirely too much money is squandered", what did you have in mind? The combination of defense, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security/SSI, and debt interest make up around 85% of the budget.

Rooster61 8y ago
> When Democrats argue for increased taxes it's not because they think it's good to have high taxes, but to fund particular programs What does the concept of the government having more taxpayer money have to do with thinking it's good to have high taxes? I made no such connection, you did. My concern is with the lack of accountability to actually use the funds gathered to put into effect the types of programs you mention. > 85% of the budget Sure, yeah. They do. A tremendous amount of money gets wasted/misappropriated in these sectors, much of which is manipulated back into the pockets of those in office, and those whose backs the people in office must scratch to keep the gravy train moving along. I'm not sure I see the argument you are trying to make, unless you were agreeing with me.