4 ms·

>If you believe that instead of giving to charity or something that the best use of your money is taxes, why would it matter if there was an official change to

>If you believe that instead of giving to charity or something that the best use of your money is taxes, why would it matter if there was an official change to the tax code or not? They're talking about solving problems on a scale of a country the size of the US. A few extra bucks from some small number of wealthy people is meaningless.

ameister14 7y ago
So you are against raising taxes on them?
- EpicEng 7y ago
  Not sure how you came up with that. No, I'm for significant tax increases on extremely high income. What I was saying is that change to the tax code is needed because depending on the good will of the rich is just about the most naive idea ever.
  - ameister14 7y ago
    Well, I got it from you saying that you think that a few extra bucks from a small group of people won't make a difference in response to someone suggesting the amount the rich spent on charity could be given to the government instead. That implies that the tens of billions of dollars spent by the rich on charitable donations wouldn't make an impact if given to the government, doesn't it? If that's the case, why tax them for that amount?
    - EpicEng 7y ago
      Tens of billions? No, it wouldn't make a difference, and I think it's highly debatable that those tens of billions would be better off in the hands of the fed. I imagine the people actually giving away billions of dollars don't feel that it would be. The 2019 federal budget was $4.407 trillion. let's say we're talking about $20B in voluntary tax overpayment (good luck with that!), which would represent .004914% of the budget. That would pay about 3% of the interest on US debt in the last year. It would change nothing. However, increase the marginal tax rate and you're talking about real money. Maybe in the meantime we can spend a little less on the military, but that's a tough sell too.
      - throwaway100773 7y ago
        This argument is downright silly. 20bln can do a lot of stuff. You’re conflating reckless spending and the amount of utility 20bln has.
        EpicEng 7y ago
        Go look say the budget breakdown. 20B can't "do a lot of stuff" in a country this size.
        ameister14 7y ago
        Just want to point out, the annual budget for national parks is 2.7 billion and TANF is under 17, so you could pay for both every national park and 3.1 million needy families with that

ameister14 7y ago

So you are against raising taxes on them?

EpicEng 7y ago
Not sure how you came up with that. No, I'm for significant tax increases on extremely high income. What I was saying is that change to the tax code is needed because depending on the good will of the rich is just about the most naive idea ever.
- ameister14 7y ago
  Well, I got it from you saying that you think that a few extra bucks from a small group of people won't make a difference in response to someone suggesting the amount the rich spent on charity could be given to the government instead. That implies that the tens of billions of dollars spent by the rich on charitable donations wouldn't make an impact if given to the government, doesn't it? If that's the case, why tax them for that amount?
  - EpicEng 7y ago
    Tens of billions? No, it wouldn't make a difference, and I think it's highly debatable that those tens of billions would be better off in the hands of the fed. I imagine the people actually giving away billions of dollars don't feel that it would be. The 2019 federal budget was $4.407 trillion. let's say we're talking about $20B in voluntary tax overpayment (good luck with that!), which would represent .004914% of the budget. That would pay about 3% of the interest on US debt in the last year. It would change nothing. However, increase the marginal tax rate and you're talking about real money. Maybe in the meantime we can spend a little less on the military, but that's a tough sell too.
    - throwaway100773 7y ago
      This argument is downright silly. 20bln can do a lot of stuff. You’re conflating reckless spending and the amount of utility 20bln has.
      - EpicEng 7y ago
        Go look say the budget breakdown. 20B can't "do a lot of stuff" in a country this size.
        ameister14 7y ago
        Just want to point out, the annual budget for national parks is 2.7 billion and TANF is under 17, so you could pay for both every national park and 3.1 million needy families with that