5 ms·

Totally agree. I don't want to pay taxes that go to social programs but the reality is if we don't find effective policies I end up paying more in taxes for eme

Totally agree. I don't want to pay taxes that go to social programs but the reality is if we don't find effective policies I end up paying more in taxes for emergency treatment and society take major economic hits for the other secondary problems, like crime, that homelessness causes. Of course the other argument for this is that society clearly has a hand in the path that took these people to where they are at now so society has some responsibility. Both are reasons to support well researched evidence based policy decisions to deal with the problem.

yunnpp 9mo ago
You don't want to pay taxes for social programs as opposed to...what? Military and defense spending? What is there better than a social program?
- jmward01 9mo ago
  There are several reactions to the 'I don't want to pay taxes' so I'll pick this one and respond. I hope you read the rest of the comment. I don't want to pay taxes because who does? Ever? But we -need- to pay taxes for programs that work because the alternative, massive social costs and damage to society, are far worse. So, sure, I don't want to pay taxes for social programs but I admit the need to and therefore I want the most effective, evidence based programs we can find. We need value for the effort and that involves doing research to figure that value out. If a program like this efficiently reduces the problems associated with homelessness I am all for it. As to what I would actually want to pay taxes for it is to build new things and achieve new things as a society. I never want to spend money on 'fixing', it is needed, it has to happen, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. Building new things however I am 100% for. Get us to space. Find new particles. Help foster the arts. That is what I want my taxes to go for. So, yes, fund things like this if it is effective because we have to but you won't get me to say I want to spend money one this.
  - paulryanrogers 9mo ago
    I want to pay taxes. Just like I want to be paid for my work, and those who devote themselves to public service want to be paid for theirs. Ideally government work would pay well enough there would be no temptation to accept bribes, or declare bribes legal through awkward loopholes like campaign financing.
  - yunnpp 9mo ago
    You realize existing roads need maintenance, i.e. fixing, too, right? Your approach towards taxes is absurd and reflects a lack of understanding of how anything works. And why, of all things, should taxes send us to the moon? Subsidizing private enterprise is the worst use of taxes.
    - jmward01 9mo ago
      I'm not sure if you are intentionally missing the point or not. I'll try one last time. I have very clearly not said 'this shouldn't be done'. I haven't said 'we shouldn't pay for social services or roads'. In fact, I clearly said we should pay for social services, now twice. What I have clearly said is 'I don't want to', but I do a lot of things I don't want to because they have to be done. I don't want to go to work. I don't want to pay taxes. Most days I don't want to go to bed at a reasonable time, but I do it because the alternative is worse. We -should- do something doesn't me I -want- to do something. Yes. We will pay for roads because they are needed. Hopefully things are very clear now and if not, oh well.
- johnny22 9mo ago
  The the whole thing can be summed up as "Paying taxes sucks, but if paying the taxes saves more money down then line, then we should do it"
iamrobertismo 9mo ago
> I don't want to pay taxes that go to social programs This is such awild thing to say. What do you think the point of society is? Also, there is no way you "Totally agree" if at the same time you are saying this. Also if you understand the cost of incarceration and the negative social ills of poverty, then being against social programs, broadly, makes no sense.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- hellojesus 9mo ago
  Social programs are definitionaly nonpublic. That is, they do not provide nonrivalous and nonexcludable benefits. The proper method to administrate social benefits is via charity. In this way, there is no deadweight loss through unnecessary taxes.
  - fzeroracer 9mo ago
    > The proper method to administrate social benefits is via charity. In this way, there is no deadweight loss through unnecessary taxes. We've tried this for years, it doesn't work at scale. And the end result is that you and I are still taxed, just more expensively and differently. We pay more for cops, prisons, healthcare etc because we're unwilling to solve it at scale.
    - hellojesus 9mo ago
      When did we try this? I'd argue we haven't tried it since the 16th Ammendment went into effect. This isn't a problem that needs solving at scale. It's a problem that needs local/hyperlocal solutions with very strict strings attached. If we're not able to monitor the outcomes of each participant and ensure not a single drop of benefits aren't spent on no essentials (self improvement allowable), then we are wasting dollars on lazy.
      - fzeroracer 9mo ago
soco 9mo ago
I'd be happy to pay taxes going to social programs also for my own benefit: not only as a form of insurance, but for getting a more pleasant day to day experience - like not having to step over homeless, less insecurity in darker areas, not having to live imprisoned in gated communities, and so on. A man can dream...
- hellojesus 9mo ago
  How much would you have to pay to no longer enjoy the benefit? I think that's the major question. I wouldn't much mind 1% in income tax for that, for example, but when you start pushing 10% it's an entirely different story.
  - soco 9mo ago
    The thing really irking me is seeing how I pay much more taxes than the megarich and their corporations. Don't get me wrong, I can understand why this happens: they don't give a rat's ass on my safety concerns because they are very happy to live on their gated islands or travel between expensive resorts. But that we, the people (ha, ha) construct our society basically for them also basically holds me back from even discussing those numbers you asked.
    - hellojesus 9mo ago
      Corporations pay taxes on distributions. In fact, C Corporations pay double taxes: once for the profit and then again when those profits are distributed to shareholders. Every employee pays income taxes. Why on earth would we want to create greater economic drag by increasing their tax rate? All that does is reduce their ability to reward investors.
apothegm 9mo ago
Don’t worry. If the “right” people get their hands on it, you won’t have to cover the cost of their emergency treatment either! (/s because poes law)

yunnpp 9mo ago

You don't want to pay taxes for social programs as opposed to...what? Military and defense spending? What is there better than a social program?

jmward01 9mo ago
There are several reactions to the 'I don't want to pay taxes' so I'll pick this one and respond. I hope you read the rest of the comment. I don't want to pay taxes because who does? Ever? But we -need- to pay taxes for programs that work because the alternative, massive social costs and damage to society, are far worse. So, sure, I don't want to pay taxes for social programs but I admit the need to and therefore I want the most effective, evidence based programs we can find. We need value for the effort and that involves doing research to figure that value out. If a program like this efficiently reduces the problems associated with homelessness I am all for it. As to what I would actually want to pay taxes for it is to build new things and achieve new things as a society. I never want to spend money on 'fixing', it is needed, it has to happen, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. Building new things however I am 100% for. Get us to space. Find new particles. Help foster the arts. That is what I want my taxes to go for. So, yes, fund things like this if it is effective because we have to but you won't get me to say I want to spend money one this.
- paulryanrogers 9mo ago
  I want to pay taxes. Just like I want to be paid for my work, and those who devote themselves to public service want to be paid for theirs. Ideally government work would pay well enough there would be no temptation to accept bribes, or declare bribes legal through awkward loopholes like campaign financing.
- yunnpp 9mo ago
  You realize existing roads need maintenance, i.e. fixing, too, right? Your approach towards taxes is absurd and reflects a lack of understanding of how anything works. And why, of all things, should taxes send us to the moon? Subsidizing private enterprise is the worst use of taxes.
  - jmward01 9mo ago
    I'm not sure if you are intentionally missing the point or not. I'll try one last time. I have very clearly not said 'this shouldn't be done'. I haven't said 'we shouldn't pay for social services or roads'. In fact, I clearly said we should pay for social services, now twice. What I have clearly said is 'I don't want to', but I do a lot of things I don't want to because they have to be done. I don't want to go to work. I don't want to pay taxes. Most days I don't want to go to bed at a reasonable time, but I do it because the alternative is worse. We -should- do something doesn't me I -want- to do something. Yes. We will pay for roads because they are needed. Hopefully things are very clear now and if not, oh well.
johnny22 9mo ago
The the whole thing can be summed up as "Paying taxes sucks, but if paying the taxes saves more money down then line, then we should do it"

iamrobertismo 9mo ago

> I don't want to pay taxes that go to social programs This is such awild thing to say. What do you think the point of society is? Also, there is no way you "Totally agree" if at the same time you are saying this. Also if you understand the cost of incarceration and the negative social ills of poverty, then being against social programs, broadly, makes no sense.

deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
hellojesus 9mo ago
Social programs are definitionaly nonpublic. That is, they do not provide nonrivalous and nonexcludable benefits. The proper method to administrate social benefits is via charity. In this way, there is no deadweight loss through unnecessary taxes.
- fzeroracer 9mo ago
  > The proper method to administrate social benefits is via charity. In this way, there is no deadweight loss through unnecessary taxes. We've tried this for years, it doesn't work at scale. And the end result is that you and I are still taxed, just more expensively and differently. We pay more for cops, prisons, healthcare etc because we're unwilling to solve it at scale.
  - hellojesus 9mo ago
    When did we try this? I'd argue we haven't tried it since the 16th Ammendment went into effect. This isn't a problem that needs solving at scale. It's a problem that needs local/hyperlocal solutions with very strict strings attached. If we're not able to monitor the outcomes of each participant and ensure not a single drop of benefits aren't spent on no essentials (self improvement allowable), then we are wasting dollars on lazy.
    - fzeroracer 9mo ago

soco 9mo ago

I'd be happy to pay taxes going to social programs also for my own benefit: not only as a form of insurance, but for getting a more pleasant day to day experience - like not having to step over homeless, less insecurity in darker areas, not having to live imprisoned in gated communities, and so on. A man can dream...

hellojesus 9mo ago
How much would you have to pay to no longer enjoy the benefit? I think that's the major question. I wouldn't much mind 1% in income tax for that, for example, but when you start pushing 10% it's an entirely different story.
- soco 9mo ago
  The thing really irking me is seeing how I pay much more taxes than the megarich and their corporations. Don't get me wrong, I can understand why this happens: they don't give a rat's ass on my safety concerns because they are very happy to live on their gated islands or travel between expensive resorts. But that we, the people (ha, ha) construct our society basically for them also basically holds me back from even discussing those numbers you asked.
  - hellojesus 9mo ago
    Corporations pay taxes on distributions. In fact, C Corporations pay double taxes: once for the profit and then again when those profits are distributed to shareholders. Every employee pays income taxes. Why on earth would we want to create greater economic drag by increasing their tax rate? All that does is reduce their ability to reward investors.

apothegm 9mo ago

Don’t worry. If the “right” people get their hands on it, you won’t have to cover the cost of their emergency treatment either! (/s because poes law)