4 ms·

Do you drive on a road? Does the USDA inspect your meat? Did you or any of your kids attend a public school? This demagoguing of taxes is getting a bit old. Re

Do you drive on a road? Does the USDA inspect your meat? Did you or any of your kids attend a public school? This demagoguing of taxes is getting a bit old. Reagan, Ike, and Nixon would all be chased out of the party at this point. Taxes are the price we pay for living in a society. Edit for clarification: Obviously not all taxes are good, similarly not all taxes are bad. That is my point. Life is rarely black and white. I also think tax laws should apply equally and Amazon shouldn't be given any breaks that others aren't.

daniel_solano 15y ago
This is a false dilemma. It's not a question of whether taxes can be justified at all, but more of a question of whether all taxes and government expenditures can be justified. Certainly, there are some things that governments that are essential. However, I think it is folly to believe that all government expenditures are prudent.
- sukuriant 15y ago
  "However, I think it is folly to believe that all government expenditures are prudent." Agreed; however, for things such as schools and roads and a police-force, this is part of how they earn their money, so when you say no to sales taxes, you're not only saying no to all of its abuses, but you're saying no to the things that actually need it. The problem isn't with the taxes, the problem is with where the taxes go; and if we don't like where taxes are going, then we need to vote with the mind to change it, and petition our elected officials to change their spending practices. Will it work? Probably not, sadly, and I don't know where that leaves us.
  - fleitz 15y ago
    End withholding taxes, just give people a big bill at the end of the year, and ensure that the names and faces of their elected representatives are on that bill, so they can be reminded of what magnificent service has been received that year. Maybe, change tax due dates from April to the 3rd week of October? Spending priorities will change rapidly.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - sukuriant 15y ago
      That is actually a splendid idea. A quick Google search revealed it to be very easy to find where the US Government spends most of its money, but more difficult to find where individual states put the money they get. This would be incredibly interesting to see.
  - oelewapperke 15y ago
    This is assuming that eliminating wasteful programs would actually reduce taxes. History proves that to be false. Taxes are set, and programs created or cut with the budgets they provide. So the republican way of doing things, cutting taxes and then organize a gunfight in congress to decide how to re-divide the pie, isn't such a bad principle at all. It is the only way taxes go down, and the only way waste gets eliminated.
mudil 15y ago
I, like most other working, educated people, pay every year more in taxes than I pay for food, clothing, vacations, gas and entertainment-- all combined. That's a big price to pay for driving on roads and inspecting my meat. You know why? B/c gov doesn't give a crap about efficiency or saving my money.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
DanielBMarkham 15y ago
The problem here is that your reply is also demagoguery: no amount of taxes would be too much. No matter what the tax rate was, you could ask if folks like living in a modern society. Very, very rarely do I find people who want no government or crippling taxes. The question, as you point out, becomes "how much is too much?" So can we please stop describing other people's opinions in extreme ways? (I mean that for both sides) I'm in favor of allocating a certain percentage of GDP to various governments. Say 15% to national, 5% to state, and 2% to local governments. Let the governments themselves decide how to collect it. This does two things: it gives a real number instead of a bunch of arm-waving, and it puts government on a budget. Historical records show us that you're not getting much more than 20% out of a population anyway (and that's forgetting the Laffer curve) You can always argue for more or less government and taxes. Both positions are perfectly fine. What's not fine is making this out to be socialism versus anarchy. It's really much more a conversation about finding compromise and being able to spend as much as you tax, instead of having politicians vote for programs nobody can afford and then pointing their fingers at the other guy when the bill comes due. As for your question about living in a modern society, I'd argue we're paying about 20x more than we need to for these services, mainly because there's no choice involved. As governments continue to clamp down with taxes and more "help", there will be less and less choice, thereby making the multiplier even higher. There's nothing wrong with believing that yes, we need these things, but no, this is not the way to have them. Doing the wrong thing with good intentions and a good goal is still the wrong thing. :)
gaustin 15y ago
> Does the USDA inspect your meat? Not like they used to. According to my grandfather (now 89 years old), who was a USDA inspector at a couple of meat processing plans from the end of WWII until he retired (in the late 1980s): There used to be an independent USDA inspector in virtually every processing plant. That inspector could shutdown the entire facility if he saw fit. Now most plants are self-regulating and only get pre-scheduled spot checks by the USDA. He was pretty upset by the change in the system and the associated decline in the safety and quality of meats.

daniel_solano 15y ago

This is a false dilemma. It's not a question of whether taxes can be justified at all, but more of a question of whether all taxes and government expenditures can be justified. Certainly, there are some things that governments that are essential. However, I think it is folly to believe that all government expenditures are prudent.

sukuriant 15y ago
"However, I think it is folly to believe that all government expenditures are prudent." Agreed; however, for things such as schools and roads and a police-force, this is part of how they earn their money, so when you say no to sales taxes, you're not only saying no to all of its abuses, but you're saying no to the things that actually need it. The problem isn't with the taxes, the problem is with where the taxes go; and if we don't like where taxes are going, then we need to vote with the mind to change it, and petition our elected officials to change their spending practices. Will it work? Probably not, sadly, and I don't know where that leaves us.
- fleitz 15y ago
  End withholding taxes, just give people a big bill at the end of the year, and ensure that the names and faces of their elected representatives are on that bill, so they can be reminded of what magnificent service has been received that year. Maybe, change tax due dates from April to the 3rd week of October? Spending priorities will change rapidly.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - sukuriant 15y ago
    That is actually a splendid idea. A quick Google search revealed it to be very easy to find where the US Government spends most of its money, but more difficult to find where individual states put the money they get. This would be incredibly interesting to see.
- oelewapperke 15y ago
  This is assuming that eliminating wasteful programs would actually reduce taxes. History proves that to be false. Taxes are set, and programs created or cut with the budgets they provide. So the republican way of doing things, cutting taxes and then organize a gunfight in congress to decide how to re-divide the pie, isn't such a bad principle at all. It is the only way taxes go down, and the only way waste gets eliminated.

mudil 15y ago

I, like most other working, educated people, pay every year more in taxes than I pay for food, clothing, vacations, gas and entertainment-- all combined. That's a big price to pay for driving on roads and inspecting my meat. You know why? B/c gov doesn't give a crap about efficiency or saving my money.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

DanielBMarkham 15y ago

The problem here is that your reply is also demagoguery: no amount of taxes would be too much. No matter what the tax rate was, you could ask if folks like living in a modern society. Very, very rarely do I find people who want no government or crippling taxes. The question, as you point out, becomes "how much is too much?" So can we please stop describing other people's opinions in extreme ways? (I mean that for both sides) I'm in favor of allocating a certain percentage of GDP to various governments. Say 15% to national, 5% to state, and 2% to local governments. Let the governments themselves decide how to collect it. This does two things: it gives a real number instead of a bunch of arm-waving, and it puts government on a budget. Historical records show us that you're not getting much more than 20% out of a population anyway (and that's forgetting the Laffer curve) You can always argue for more or less government and taxes. Both positions are perfectly fine. What's not fine is making this out to be socialism versus anarchy. It's really much more a conversation about finding compromise and being able to spend as much as you tax, instead of having politicians vote for programs nobody can afford and then pointing their fingers at the other guy when the bill comes due. As for your question about living in a modern society, I'd argue we're paying about 20x more than we need to for these services, mainly because there's no choice involved. As governments continue to clamp down with taxes and more "help", there will be less and less choice, thereby making the multiplier even higher. There's nothing wrong with believing that yes, we need these things, but no, this is not the way to have them. Doing the wrong thing with good intentions and a good goal is still the wrong thing. :)

gaustin 15y ago

> Does the USDA inspect your meat? Not like they used to. According to my grandfather (now 89 years old), who was a USDA inspector at a couple of meat processing plans from the end of WWII until he retired (in the late 1980s): There used to be an independent USDA inspector in virtually every processing plant. That inspector could shutdown the entire facility if he saw fit. Now most plants are self-regulating and only get pre-scheduled spot checks by the USDA. He was pretty upset by the change in the system and the associated decline in the safety and quality of meats.