3 ms·

Taken to the logical extreme, we'll have privatized road services, privatized police and firefighters, and privatized postal services. This is an even worse rac

by xmprt 6y ago

Taken to the logical extreme, we'll have privatized road services, privatized police and firefighters, and privatized postal services. This is an even worse race to the bottom where some areas just don't get served at all because it's no longer lucrative. Or people who live in areas that were previously served but no longer maintained have nothing to do because the company that was handling the roads is cutting costs. Their only option is to move but that's not easy. Some things just have to be handled by the government and I'd argue the US does a horrible job at this. USPS funding is going down and healthcare and insurance sucks. The IRS isn't collecting more taxes. Even a kid would know they aren't even allowed to do that. They're just collecting taxes that are already owed. If the government wanted to increase taxes then they could already do that right now but they aren't because no one would vote for them. Increasing IRS funding would help the government collect taxes from the people who owe them which would lower the overall tax burden of the average tax payer (assuming they actually pay taxes). If it costs the IRS $100 to collect $1000 then that means that's $900 less that everyone else needs to pay.

jb775 6y ago
I'm by no means against taxes, I completely agree they're rightfully used to fund roads/police/fire/etc. My primary argument is that the richest government in the history of the world has more important things to prioritize than making the IRS more ruthless against the middle class. And I'm saying that if they end up collecting more tax money, it doesn't necessarily mean it's a net positive for society as a whole. Most of those tax benefits are reaped by big business, so in other words those benefits are reaped by the owners of those big businesses. The low vs high tax debate is kind of a moot argument anyways since the US govt can pretty much print money as needed...which ends up being an indirect tax on the general public via inflation.
- vinay427 6y ago
  > And I'm saying that if they end up collecting more tax money, it doesn't necessarily mean it's a net positive for society as a whole. Most of those tax benefits are reaped by big business, so in other words those benefits are reaped by the owners of those big businesses. This seems to indicate that it is a net positive for everyone else. If they don't collect tax money from those owners, all of the benefits of that money goes to those owners and none of it goes to anyone else. > The low vs high tax debate is kind of a moot argument anyways since the US govt can pretty much print money as needed...which ends up being an indirect tax on the general public via inflation. So... it's not a moot point? One group, through taxation policies, is asked to pay a larger share of what would have been an indirect tax on the general public.
aww_dang 6y ago
>The IRS isn't collecting more taxes. Even a kid would know they aren't even allowed to do that. With a sufficiently complex tax code, bureaucrats can selectively enforce or interpret it as they choose. It wouldn't be unreasonable to expect abuse if there is an incentive for agents to collect more.

by xmprt 6y ago

jb775 6y ago

I'm by no means against taxes, I completely agree they're rightfully used to fund roads/police/fire/etc. My primary argument is that the richest government in the history of the world has more important things to prioritize than making the IRS more ruthless against the middle class. And I'm saying that if they end up collecting more tax money, it doesn't necessarily mean it's a net positive for society as a whole. Most of those tax benefits are reaped by big business, so in other words those benefits are reaped by the owners of those big businesses. The low vs high tax debate is kind of a moot argument anyways since the US govt can pretty much print money as needed...which ends up being an indirect tax on the general public via inflation.

vinay427 6y ago
> And I'm saying that if they end up collecting more tax money, it doesn't necessarily mean it's a net positive for society as a whole. Most of those tax benefits are reaped by big business, so in other words those benefits are reaped by the owners of those big businesses. This seems to indicate that it is a net positive for everyone else. If they don't collect tax money from those owners, all of the benefits of that money goes to those owners and none of it goes to anyone else. > The low vs high tax debate is kind of a moot argument anyways since the US govt can pretty much print money as needed...which ends up being an indirect tax on the general public via inflation. So... it's not a moot point? One group, through taxation policies, is asked to pay a larger share of what would have been an indirect tax on the general public.

aww_dang 6y ago

>The IRS isn't collecting more taxes. Even a kid would know they aren't even allowed to do that. With a sufficiently complex tax code, bureaucrats can selectively enforce or interpret it as they choose. It wouldn't be unreasonable to expect abuse if there is an incentive for agents to collect more.