4 ms·

American's aren't patriotic about paying taxes because it doesn't feel like we're getting anything back for them. Let this be a marketing lesson, I suppose. I

by blhack 14y ago

American's aren't patriotic about paying taxes because it doesn't feel like we're getting anything back for them. Let this be a marketing lesson, I suppose. I know that I'm getting things for my tax dollars, but I don't see them. For instance, I want to go to Mexico right now, and getting a passport is ~$130. Why? Why am I paying money for something that feels like a "government thing that I have to have". Isn't this what taxes are for? -- We have public schools, sure, but they're awful. We have police...but the majority of people I know see them as predators, not protectors. We have awesome national forests, and state parks...but you have to pay every time you want to use them. Some of them are just plain closed. etc. America is an awesome, awesome place. But we're bad at marketing to our members.

chris11 14y ago
I'd say that it is also affected by our military spending. Wikipedia puts our military spending for 2012 at between 1 and 1.4 trillion dollars. When you are spending 20 to 30 times the amount of money for your military, you can't offer the same social benefits as other countries.
- clarky07 14y ago
  And yet we spent around 3 trillion. You'd think that other 2 trillion could do some good too. There have been several people in this thread suggest that the government has been largely responsible for their success so they should be happy to pay tons of taxes, and then given examples like roads and police as their reasoning. I really like having roads too. Guess what, roads and police are a tiny tiny portion of our current spending levels, so no I'm not happy to pay huge amounts of taxes (note i'm not in the top tax bracket and have no worries of my taxes going up further). If we stopped spending absurd amounts of money on so many ridiculous things we'd probably have more people not complain about their taxes. On the other hand, if we stopped spending the absurd amounts of money, our current tax revenues would be more than enough.
philjohn 14y ago
Don't know what the deal with passports is in the US, but if it's anything like the UK, the fee isn't profit making and covers the cost of running the passport service and a premium to cover the costs of providing consular assistance. In this way, it's the epitome of "getting value". You don't need a passport, and if you don't have one, you're not paying for people who do have one to receive consular assistance.
- blhack 14y ago
  The cost of running that passport service? Isn't this a federal agency? Why wouldn't this be covered by federal taxes? Likely import/export taxes.
  - freyr 14y ago
    Seriously? So when it's something you personally want, everyone's supposed to chip in and pay for you. But when it's something you don't personally want, the government is spending your tax dollars wastefully. Got it.
    - blhack 14y ago
      In case you don't understand the American tax system: In the US we pay income tax. That is, a percentage (a large percentage) of my income goes directly to the federal government. In addition to this, when goods I buy that are manufactured in other countries are imported, there is a tax levied against them. I was using the passport thing as an example of "poor marketing" on behalf of the US Federal government because my perception is that I already did pay for it.
    - clarky07 14y ago
      As opposed to your theory of he should pay for the thing he wants and also be happy about paying for what everyone else wants?
      - freyr 14y ago
        As opposed to my theory that he's going to end up paying for some things in addition to taxes, and his taxes are going towards some things he doesn't personally use, so he might as well get over it. What are the alternatives? 1) Everyone only pays only for what they personally use. Services utilized by a relatively small subset of the population become prohibitively expensive, such that only the wealthy can afford them, or they are discontinued entirely. 2) Everyone pays completely for every government expenditure and every transaction between the government and the public. Taxes go up because now everybody's paying more for a larger number of expenses they'll never use. 3) Taxes pay for the things almost everyone uses, plus they subsidize the essential things that many people use to the point where they're not cost-prohibitive to only the wealthy. Additional required operating costs for these select services can be paid for through fees to the people utilizing them. Yes, my theory is that the third option is the best.

by blhack 14y ago

chris11 14y ago

I'd say that it is also affected by our military spending. Wikipedia puts our military spending for 2012 at between 1 and 1.4 trillion dollars. When you are spending 20 to 30 times the amount of money for your military, you can't offer the same social benefits as other countries.

clarky07 14y ago
And yet we spent around 3 trillion. You'd think that other 2 trillion could do some good too. There have been several people in this thread suggest that the government has been largely responsible for their success so they should be happy to pay tons of taxes, and then given examples like roads and police as their reasoning. I really like having roads too. Guess what, roads and police are a tiny tiny portion of our current spending levels, so no I'm not happy to pay huge amounts of taxes (note i'm not in the top tax bracket and have no worries of my taxes going up further). If we stopped spending absurd amounts of money on so many ridiculous things we'd probably have more people not complain about their taxes. On the other hand, if we stopped spending the absurd amounts of money, our current tax revenues would be more than enough.

philjohn 14y ago

Don't know what the deal with passports is in the US, but if it's anything like the UK, the fee isn't profit making and covers the cost of running the passport service and a premium to cover the costs of providing consular assistance. In this way, it's the epitome of "getting value". You don't need a passport, and if you don't have one, you're not paying for people who do have one to receive consular assistance.

blhack 14y ago
The cost of running that passport service? Isn't this a federal agency? Why wouldn't this be covered by federal taxes? Likely import/export taxes.
- freyr 14y ago
  Seriously? So when it's something you personally want, everyone's supposed to chip in and pay for you. But when it's something you don't personally want, the government is spending your tax dollars wastefully. Got it.
  - blhack 14y ago
    In case you don't understand the American tax system: In the US we pay income tax. That is, a percentage (a large percentage) of my income goes directly to the federal government. In addition to this, when goods I buy that are manufactured in other countries are imported, there is a tax levied against them. I was using the passport thing as an example of "poor marketing" on behalf of the US Federal government because my perception is that I already did pay for it.
  - clarky07 14y ago
    As opposed to your theory of he should pay for the thing he wants and also be happy about paying for what everyone else wants?
    - freyr 14y ago
      As opposed to my theory that he's going to end up paying for some things in addition to taxes, and his taxes are going towards some things he doesn't personally use, so he might as well get over it. What are the alternatives? 1) Everyone only pays only for what they personally use. Services utilized by a relatively small subset of the population become prohibitively expensive, such that only the wealthy can afford them, or they are discontinued entirely. 2) Everyone pays completely for every government expenditure and every transaction between the government and the public. Taxes go up because now everybody's paying more for a larger number of expenses they'll never use. 3) Taxes pay for the things almost everyone uses, plus they subsidize the essential things that many people use to the point where they're not cost-prohibitive to only the wealthy. Additional required operating costs for these select services can be paid for through fees to the people utilizing them. Yes, my theory is that the third option is the best.