11 ms·

I've never understood how people view paying high taxes as a point of pride. Pay your taxes so violent men with guns don't throw you in a cage, sure. But to vie

I've never understood how people view paying high taxes as a point of pride. Pay your taxes so violent men with guns don't throw you in a cage, sure. But to view it as a badge of honor when that money is half getting totally wasted and half very efficiently being used to kill people abroad...no, I'm not gonna applaud someone for pushing for more taxes.

MereInterest 6y ago
Pay your taxes so that society can afford infrastructure that benefits everybody?
- refurb 6y ago
  If it was being spent well I think a lot fewer people would complain. A small fraction is spent on infrastructure.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    The more we remove supermajority protections, the closer we move to 50% of the people thinking it isn't used well. Not sure why you're being downvoted.
    - covidthrow 6y ago
      I think they're being downvoted, in part, because a lot of people here either assume it is being spent well, or justify it as a necessary evil. What might be valuable would be for someone to whip up an app that allows you to input the taxes you paid and breaks it down by the federal budget. Kinda like a receipt, but for government. I did it with a few odd items, once, and it was pretty interesting. For example, I found that I paid $7/mo for each of our aircraft carriers and $0.02/mo for the president's salary and secret service protection. It might help people gain better perspective where their money goes. I'm not quite sure why this kind of thing isn't mandatory, frankly. An itemized "bill" may change people's opinions on taxes, especially the most favorable.
      - whakim 5y ago
        I mean, this already exists - there are tons of sites that slice and dice US spending with nice visuals etc. etc. Sure, I didn't see an itemized "bill" on page 1 of Google, but such a thing would be insanely incomprehensible for most people given that if you itemized the budget down to the level of the president's secret service protection, you'd end up with millions of line items.
        covidthrow 5y ago
        It doesn't have to be incomprehensible. Just diggable. Click through to finer and finer granularity. Searchable. It's just ("just") a data vis problem. I'd work on it but too busy. Maybe for the future. Could be fun.
        whakim 5y ago
        This is literally the first search result on DDG: https://www.usaspending.gov https://www.usaspending.gov
    - peteretep 5y ago
      > The more we remove supermajority protections, the closer we move to 50% of the people thinking it isn't used well I assume you're talking -- primarily -- about the Senate and the filibuster? If so, you'll be pleased to hear the UK has managed OK for the last 400-500 years in having a parliament that can do _literally anything_ it wants with a majority of 1 person[0] including deciding to pick on a single person individually without trial and subject them to whatever it pleases[1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder
      - giantg2 5y ago
        Not just the filibuster. The senate has eroded 60 vote rules on other things like confirmations. I think this is detrimental to the integrity of the system - how can a vote of less than 60 be used to ammend a rule requiring 60 or more? It's definitely a violation of the spirit of the law. It might work for the UK, but the UK is quite different from the US. For one, the house of lords was supposed to represent the wealthy whereas the Senate is supposed to represent the states. Secondly, there are far greater geographic distances and differences between the members of the country. This usually means there are great differences in needs and priorities. This was kind of the point of reserving most rights for the states. If using simple majority, the smaller and more rural states will eventually get tired of things being crammed down their throats. We are starting to see this already with an increasing number of sanctuary city/states and multiple topics. Lastly, does it actually work well? It seems that almost 2/3rds of people in the UK think the rural areas are neglected. http://www.thecommentator.com/article/7587/government_neglecting_rural_communities_say_two_thirds_of_brits http://www.thecommentator.com/article/7587/government_neglec...
      - refurb 5y ago
        Poor reasoning since the systems are so different, and intentionally so.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
baby 6y ago
You need to see taxes as a monthly subscription that makes everything around you better. Unfortunately some of that stuff is bad investment, but you get to actually have a say in how that big pool of money is being spent, and it’s very transparent.
- thorwasdfasdf 6y ago
  I agree that it's transparent. But, do you know anyone who believes they have any say in how that money gets spent? do votes matter in any way whatsoever? most of the money is spent at the federal level. is anyone happy with political outcomes? even the winning party? (even a house/senate controlled by the democrats or all republican, have a hard time passing the bills they want). 40% of GDP seems like a pretty large subscription charge. 40% of the avg person's salary would be over 20K per year. I could see this model working better if all the states were individual countries that can tax and spend the way they want. but the system as set up in the US just doesn't seem to make anyone happy because there's way too many diverse opinions on what to spend it on and how much to tax.
  - zamfi 5y ago
    I mean, yes? Do you believe that if there was no voting that the money would get spent in better ways? 40% is a lot, but also the vast majority of federal spending goes to the safety net: unemployment insurance, social security, Medicare, health services — these categories are each more than spending on defense. Personally, though I’ve never had to rely on unemployment insurance, I’m definitely glad it exists! The political arguments about spending are basically noise at the margins by comparison.
    - thorwasdfasdf 5y ago
      Defenese spending is much more than you think: it's not just the "defense" category, it's also department of energy, dept of veteran affairs, dept of homeland security, and there's other sections where defense spending comes from. All together it's a sizable chunk. Social security (20%), medicare and medicaide (20%). unemployment is a very small part as far as i know.
IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
If half is wasted and half is used to kill people abroad, how are they building roads, schooling children, and killing people domestically? As soon as you get over that sort of hyperbolic cynicism, you may recognize that communities, through democracy, provide for such services as are necessary for a functioning society using taxes. No, there’s no opt-out, as it’s impossible to stop you from ever using any of the amenities that come with the package that is “living in society”. If you are American, there are dozens of countries that will allow you to immigrate with relative ease if you believe they provide a better deal or have limited government in the way you envision. If there are none to your liking, that’s maybe a clue that yours isn’t all that bad. There are many comparisons, across industries and countries, that allow you us to come up with a reasonable floor for the costs of providing some specific service. And western democratic governments, contrary to popular and tired complaints, do rather well.
- covidthrow 6y ago
  Less than 15% goes to roads, schools, and (I assume you refer to when you sardonically say "killing people domestically) law enforcement. You appear to have a high view of government spending, and that also seems to be because you're unaware of how it's spent and how it's wasted. Yes, parent was being hyperbolic when they suggested 50% is wasted and 50% to kill people abroad. But I think you're serious that you believe the US government apparatus is somehow responsible with all of our money. Sure, the government may waste "only" $500 of my dollars a year on asinine programs (like seeing if zebra fish get addicted to nicotine), but there is tremendous waste in how money is allocated, budgeted for, paid out to contractors, and used for assistance. If you think we run a tight ship (we don't) or have no room for very serious improvement (we do), then I think maybe you're not aware of what's going on. Please study this more.
  - Varriount 5y ago
    I think you might have responded to the wrong comment - the one you responded to never claimed that there wasn't waste in government spending, nor did they claim that the government was a shining beacon of efficiency. On a different note, something like "Please study this more" as an ending statement adds nothing constructive to a comment. It just comes off as smug and passive aggressive.

MereInterest 6y ago

Pay your taxes so that society can afford infrastructure that benefits everybody?

refurb 6y ago
If it was being spent well I think a lot fewer people would complain. A small fraction is spent on infrastructure.
- giantg2 6y ago
  The more we remove supermajority protections, the closer we move to 50% of the people thinking it isn't used well. Not sure why you're being downvoted.
  - covidthrow 6y ago
    I think they're being downvoted, in part, because a lot of people here either assume it is being spent well, or justify it as a necessary evil. What might be valuable would be for someone to whip up an app that allows you to input the taxes you paid and breaks it down by the federal budget. Kinda like a receipt, but for government. I did it with a few odd items, once, and it was pretty interesting. For example, I found that I paid $7/mo for each of our aircraft carriers and $0.02/mo for the president's salary and secret service protection. It might help people gain better perspective where their money goes. I'm not quite sure why this kind of thing isn't mandatory, frankly. An itemized "bill" may change people's opinions on taxes, especially the most favorable.
    - whakim 5y ago
      I mean, this already exists - there are tons of sites that slice and dice US spending with nice visuals etc. etc. Sure, I didn't see an itemized "bill" on page 1 of Google, but such a thing would be insanely incomprehensible for most people given that if you itemized the budget down to the level of the president's secret service protection, you'd end up with millions of line items.
      - covidthrow 5y ago
        It doesn't have to be incomprehensible. Just diggable. Click through to finer and finer granularity. Searchable. It's just ("just") a data vis problem. I'd work on it but too busy. Maybe for the future. Could be fun.
        whakim 5y ago
        This is literally the first search result on DDG: https://www.usaspending.gov https://www.usaspending.gov
  - peteretep 5y ago
    > The more we remove supermajority protections, the closer we move to 50% of the people thinking it isn't used well I assume you're talking -- primarily -- about the Senate and the filibuster? If so, you'll be pleased to hear the UK has managed OK for the last 400-500 years in having a parliament that can do _literally anything_ it wants with a majority of 1 person[0] including deciding to pick on a single person individually without trial and subject them to whatever it pleases[1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder
    - giantg2 5y ago
      Not just the filibuster. The senate has eroded 60 vote rules on other things like confirmations. I think this is detrimental to the integrity of the system - how can a vote of less than 60 be used to ammend a rule requiring 60 or more? It's definitely a violation of the spirit of the law. It might work for the UK, but the UK is quite different from the US. For one, the house of lords was supposed to represent the wealthy whereas the Senate is supposed to represent the states. Secondly, there are far greater geographic distances and differences between the members of the country. This usually means there are great differences in needs and priorities. This was kind of the point of reserving most rights for the states. If using simple majority, the smaller and more rural states will eventually get tired of things being crammed down their throats. We are starting to see this already with an increasing number of sanctuary city/states and multiple topics. Lastly, does it actually work well? It seems that almost 2/3rds of people in the UK think the rural areas are neglected. http://www.thecommentator.com/article/7587/government_neglecting_rural_communities_say_two_thirds_of_brits http://www.thecommentator.com/article/7587/government_neglec...
    - refurb 5y ago
      Poor reasoning since the systems are so different, and intentionally so.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

baby 6y ago

You need to see taxes as a monthly subscription that makes everything around you better. Unfortunately some of that stuff is bad investment, but you get to actually have a say in how that big pool of money is being spent, and it’s very transparent.

thorwasdfasdf 6y ago
I agree that it's transparent. But, do you know anyone who believes they have any say in how that money gets spent? do votes matter in any way whatsoever? most of the money is spent at the federal level. is anyone happy with political outcomes? even the winning party? (even a house/senate controlled by the democrats or all republican, have a hard time passing the bills they want). 40% of GDP seems like a pretty large subscription charge. 40% of the avg person's salary would be over 20K per year. I could see this model working better if all the states were individual countries that can tax and spend the way they want. but the system as set up in the US just doesn't seem to make anyone happy because there's way too many diverse opinions on what to spend it on and how much to tax.
- zamfi 5y ago
  I mean, yes? Do you believe that if there was no voting that the money would get spent in better ways? 40% is a lot, but also the vast majority of federal spending goes to the safety net: unemployment insurance, social security, Medicare, health services — these categories are each more than spending on defense. Personally, though I’ve never had to rely on unemployment insurance, I’m definitely glad it exists! The political arguments about spending are basically noise at the margins by comparison.
  - thorwasdfasdf 5y ago
    Defenese spending is much more than you think: it's not just the "defense" category, it's also department of energy, dept of veteran affairs, dept of homeland security, and there's other sections where defense spending comes from. All together it's a sizable chunk. Social security (20%), medicare and medicaide (20%). unemployment is a very small part as far as i know.

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago

If half is wasted and half is used to kill people abroad, how are they building roads, schooling children, and killing people domestically? As soon as you get over that sort of hyperbolic cynicism, you may recognize that communities, through democracy, provide for such services as are necessary for a functioning society using taxes. No, there’s no opt-out, as it’s impossible to stop you from ever using any of the amenities that come with the package that is “living in society”. If you are American, there are dozens of countries that will allow you to immigrate with relative ease if you believe they provide a better deal or have limited government in the way you envision. If there are none to your liking, that’s maybe a clue that yours isn’t all that bad. There are many comparisons, across industries and countries, that allow you us to come up with a reasonable floor for the costs of providing some specific service. And western democratic governments, contrary to popular and tired complaints, do rather well.

covidthrow 6y ago
Less than 15% goes to roads, schools, and (I assume you refer to when you sardonically say "killing people domestically) law enforcement. You appear to have a high view of government spending, and that also seems to be because you're unaware of how it's spent and how it's wasted. Yes, parent was being hyperbolic when they suggested 50% is wasted and 50% to kill people abroad. But I think you're serious that you believe the US government apparatus is somehow responsible with all of our money. Sure, the government may waste "only" $500 of my dollars a year on asinine programs (like seeing if zebra fish get addicted to nicotine), but there is tremendous waste in how money is allocated, budgeted for, paid out to contractors, and used for assistance. If you think we run a tight ship (we don't) or have no room for very serious improvement (we do), then I think maybe you're not aware of what's going on. Please study this more.
- Varriount 5y ago
  I think you might have responded to the wrong comment - the one you responded to never claimed that there wasn't waste in government spending, nor did they claim that the government was a shining beacon of efficiency. On a different note, something like "Please study this more" as an ending statement adds nothing constructive to a comment. It just comes off as smug and passive aggressive.