6 ms·

Well that's a bigoted attitude. As long as we acknowledge that taxes are necessary for the functioning of a country, I'd rather our tax agency be calm, profess

Well that's a bigoted attitude. As long as we acknowledge that taxes are necessary for the functioning of a country, I'd rather our tax agency be calm, professional, and boring.

mansion7 4y ago
Bigotry against tax collectors is a new one. Are tax enforcers an oppressed or marginalized community?
- knodi123 4y ago
  > Are tax enforcers an oppressed or marginalized community? Well, historically, yes. But in my dictionary, bigoted means "obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group". So you can certainly be bigoted against the IRS and its employees. No need for the "oppressed or marginalized" part.
  - komali2 4y ago
    > Well, historically, yes. Are we talking about the same people here? Cause when I hear tax collector I think sheriff of Nottingham lol. I feel like something has gone way off the rails here.
    - knodi123 4y ago
      The "well historically, yes" was a silly quip, but I was thinking about the story of Saul in the bible, who was despised and endangered due to his career as a tax collector.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- lmm 4y ago
  I met a guy in Cornwall who told me there are locals who won't drink in the same pub as him because his grandfather was the local customs man.
  - cultureswitch 4y ago
    That's them deciding for themselves not to associate with him on a personal basis. Though personally I wouldn't blame the kid for the sins of the father or grandfather.
jMyles 4y ago
I'm not sure if you mean it this way, but your comment reads as if you presume that taxes on income are the only way the provide for "the functioning of a country". I prefer wholesale deprecation of the state - also to advance functioning of the country - but even during the time period where the state continues to exist, I think that income tax is specifically unjust (compared to taxes on gains and consumption, for example).
- forgetfreeman 4y ago
  If that's your jam why wait, book your flight to Somalia today and start living the dream.
  - komali2 4y ago
    Arguably the various insurgencies and federal government of somalia all form a state. The communities over which they rule have little say in the governance. If the OP is arguing for anarchy or communism, Somalia isn't a good example.
  - IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
    The country ran just fine with 0% income taxes until 1913. We were almost 150 old as a nation then. We had already become a superpower, as WW1 and WW2 would shortly confirm.
    - culturestate 4y ago
      > The country ran just fine with 0% income taxes until 1913. Sure, apart from that whole Civil War fracas in the mid-1800s and the ensuing decades of reconstruction.
      - brigandish 4y ago
        The Civil War was a fight over the efficiency and ability of the country to run itself via taxes or not?
somenameforme 4y ago
I think there are kind of two sides barking at each other when both largely agree on the same things. While there are a handful of people on some extreme of anti/pro tax stuff - perhaps anarcho-libertarians or communists - nearly everybody falls somewhere in the moderate middle. And here I think everybody would obviously agree that some taxation is necessary for the functioning of a country. The question is how much? Federal revenue in 2022 was $4.9 trillion. That's more than $37,000 per household in America. The median household income in the US is $71,000. [1] So I think these sort of data are what "really" draws the dividing line. Is $37,000 per household enough to ensure the functioning of a country? Is the problem more with a lack of money, or more with how that money is being spent? [1] - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
- brewdad 4y ago
  Your figures are meaningless in a world where the top 1 percent of households control half the wealth. The median household is not paying anywhere near $37,000 in federal taxes. My household is in the top 5-8 percent and didn't pay that much.
- samus 4y ago
  Splitting the federal revenue across household doesn't make sense since a lot of these taxes are collected from companies as well. Also, in the presence of a progressive taxation rates splitting it across the number of households makes it even worse.
  - somenameforme 4y ago
    You're misunderstanding the point. When the government collects an average of $37,000 per household, that means they are also spending an average of $37,000 per household (actually substantially more, but let's stick to ideal scenarios for now). Ought that be enough money ensure the functioning of a country?
    - samus 4y ago
      That's hard to tell without comparisons to other countries. Also, my gut feeling is that most of that spending trickles down back to those households. A lot goes into social security, healthcare, and defense, which drive huge part of the US economy and maintain competitive advantages for it across the world. My point still stands that the $37k per household are just an illustration, as the tax base are not just households, and that a lot of what US foreign policy achieves is to the benefit of a very few of those households.
dctoedt 4y ago
Rob? Is that you?

Well that's a bigoted attitude. As long as we acknowledge that taxes are necessary for the functioning of a country, I'd rather our tax agency be calm, professional, and boring.

mansion7 4y ago

Bigotry against tax collectors is a new one. Are tax enforcers an oppressed or marginalized community?

knodi123 4y ago
> Are tax enforcers an oppressed or marginalized community? Well, historically, yes. But in my dictionary, bigoted means "obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group". So you can certainly be bigoted against the IRS and its employees. No need for the "oppressed or marginalized" part.
- komali2 4y ago
  > Well, historically, yes. Are we talking about the same people here? Cause when I hear tax collector I think sheriff of Nottingham lol. I feel like something has gone way off the rails here.
  - knodi123 4y ago
    The "well historically, yes" was a silly quip, but I was thinking about the story of Saul in the bible, who was despised and endangered due to his career as a tax collector.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lmm 4y ago
I met a guy in Cornwall who told me there are locals who won't drink in the same pub as him because his grandfather was the local customs man.
- cultureswitch 4y ago
  That's them deciding for themselves not to associate with him on a personal basis. Though personally I wouldn't blame the kid for the sins of the father or grandfather.

jMyles 4y ago

I'm not sure if you mean it this way, but your comment reads as if you presume that taxes on income are the only way the provide for "the functioning of a country". I prefer wholesale deprecation of the state - also to advance functioning of the country - but even during the time period where the state continues to exist, I think that income tax is specifically unjust (compared to taxes on gains and consumption, for example).

forgetfreeman 4y ago
If that's your jam why wait, book your flight to Somalia today and start living the dream.
- komali2 4y ago
  Arguably the various insurgencies and federal government of somalia all form a state. The communities over which they rule have little say in the governance. If the OP is arguing for anarchy or communism, Somalia isn't a good example.
- IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
  The country ran just fine with 0% income taxes until 1913. We were almost 150 old as a nation then. We had already become a superpower, as WW1 and WW2 would shortly confirm.
  - culturestate 4y ago
    > The country ran just fine with 0% income taxes until 1913. Sure, apart from that whole Civil War fracas in the mid-1800s and the ensuing decades of reconstruction.
    - brigandish 4y ago
      The Civil War was a fight over the efficiency and ability of the country to run itself via taxes or not?

somenameforme 4y ago

I think there are kind of two sides barking at each other when both largely agree on the same things. While there are a handful of people on some extreme of anti/pro tax stuff - perhaps anarcho-libertarians or communists - nearly everybody falls somewhere in the moderate middle. And here I think everybody would obviously agree that some taxation is necessary for the functioning of a country. The question is how much? Federal revenue in 2022 was $4.9 trillion. That's more than $37,000 per household in America. The median household income in the US is $71,000. [1] So I think these sort of data are what "really" draws the dividing line. Is $37,000 per household enough to ensure the functioning of a country? Is the problem more with a lack of money, or more with how that money is being spent? [1] - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N

brewdad 4y ago
Your figures are meaningless in a world where the top 1 percent of households control half the wealth. The median household is not paying anywhere near $37,000 in federal taxes. My household is in the top 5-8 percent and didn't pay that much.
samus 4y ago
Splitting the federal revenue across household doesn't make sense since a lot of these taxes are collected from companies as well. Also, in the presence of a progressive taxation rates splitting it across the number of households makes it even worse.
- somenameforme 4y ago
  You're misunderstanding the point. When the government collects an average of $37,000 per household, that means they are also spending an average of $37,000 per household (actually substantially more, but let's stick to ideal scenarios for now). Ought that be enough money ensure the functioning of a country?
  - samus 4y ago
    That's hard to tell without comparisons to other countries. Also, my gut feeling is that most of that spending trickles down back to those households. A lot goes into social security, healthcare, and defense, which drive huge part of the US economy and maintain competitive advantages for it across the world. My point still stands that the $37k per household are just an illustration, as the tax base are not just households, and that a lot of what US foreign policy achieves is to the benefit of a very few of those households.

dctoedt 4y ago

Rob? Is that you?