5 ms·

> Why take your property taxes to educate our nation's children when you don't even have children? Am I unfairly framing your argument? I don't have property.

> Why take your property taxes to educate our nation's children when you don't even have children? Am I unfairly framing your argument? I don't have property. The whole thing that set this entire discussion off was the parent poster that stated everyone that implied the government was wasteful was a paid shill by billionaires. > The only real issue I see is how we balance the tax burden in a fair and equitable way that also benefits society Yeah this post is about some billionaire dodging taxes. Billionaires are the obvious scapegoat but the fact is tax increases on billionaires are not enough to fund the multi trillion dollar ambitions of the government. The real tax base of our society is generated by the middle and upper middle class and they will be the ones that will bear the largest brunt of tax increases.

JKCalhoun 3y ago
I didn't understand the OP to have said that all people that say that are paid shills. To be sure though, people who do complain about wasteful government spending are in fact playing into the interests of the wealthy who want to keep more of their billions. I know it sounds naive, but we are the government. Don't like what services are elected leaders are spending tax dollars on? Replace them. Bernie Sanders as you probably know requested a 10% cut in the military budget — elect more people like him if this is what you want. > The real tax base of our society is generated by the middle and upper middle class and they will be the ones that will bear the largest brunt of tax increases. I am much more sympathetic to people who call for, "Lower taxes for the working class!" When you include the billionaire-class as also-victims of high taxation (and they would of course disproportionately benefit from lower taxes) then it sounds to me like you're essentially carrying water for them to the detriment of society at large. It seems when most people I hear talk about cutting government "waste" they really mean cutting out government services they disagree with — not really streamlining those services.
thfuran 3y ago
>The whole thing that set this entire discussion off was the parent poster that stated everyone that implied the government was wasteful was a paid shill by billionaires. No, it wasn't.
- brigadier132 3y ago
  Someone made that claim and the original poster seems to believe that "government waste" is a myth.
  - larkost 3y ago
    No, please don't generalize like that. It is not clear which "original poster" you mean, but all of the ones in this chain seem to be arguing that there is waste, but that there is no evidence that the government is not inherently more wasteful in its spending than other large organizations. It is a common refrain in parts of the Republican Party that government spending is inherently wasteful, and we should make government more like companies, or alternately "small enough to drown in a bathtub". And this is the myth that is being addressed.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    Someone did make a claim approximately to that effect, but not a parent of this comment. It didn't start this discussion. And the you're mischaracterizing the comment about government waste as well.
camgunz 3y ago
Sure they are, we just need a wealth tax. Done and dusted.

JKCalhoun 3y ago

I didn't understand the OP to have said that all people that say that are paid shills. To be sure though, people who do complain about wasteful government spending are in fact playing into the interests of the wealthy who want to keep more of their billions. I know it sounds naive, but we are the government. Don't like what services are elected leaders are spending tax dollars on? Replace them. Bernie Sanders as you probably know requested a 10% cut in the military budget — elect more people like him if this is what you want. > The real tax base of our society is generated by the middle and upper middle class and they will be the ones that will bear the largest brunt of tax increases. I am much more sympathetic to people who call for, "Lower taxes for the working class!" When you include the billionaire-class as also-victims of high taxation (and they would of course disproportionately benefit from lower taxes) then it sounds to me like you're essentially carrying water for them to the detriment of society at large. It seems when most people I hear talk about cutting government "waste" they really mean cutting out government services they disagree with — not really streamlining those services.

thfuran 3y ago

>The whole thing that set this entire discussion off was the parent poster that stated everyone that implied the government was wasteful was a paid shill by billionaires. No, it wasn't.

brigadier132 3y ago
Someone made that claim and the original poster seems to believe that "government waste" is a myth.
- larkost 3y ago
  No, please don't generalize like that. It is not clear which "original poster" you mean, but all of the ones in this chain seem to be arguing that there is waste, but that there is no evidence that the government is not inherently more wasteful in its spending than other large organizations. It is a common refrain in parts of the Republican Party that government spending is inherently wasteful, and we should make government more like companies, or alternately "small enough to drown in a bathtub". And this is the myth that is being addressed.
- thfuran 3y ago
  Someone did make a claim approximately to that effect, but not a parent of this comment. It didn't start this discussion. And the you're mischaracterizing the comment about government waste as well.

camgunz 3y ago

Sure they are, we just need a wealth tax. Done and dusted.