5 ms·

These 20 % get a lot in return for the taxes they pay. In general taxes are good because the are dues we pay to enjoy the numerous vital benefits that governmen

These 20 % get a lot in return for the taxes they pay. In general taxes are good because the are dues we pay to enjoy the numerous vital benefits that government provides for our society.

ageek123 12y ago
So you are arguing that someone in the 39.6% tax bracket gets 164% more "in return for the taxes they pay" than someone in the 15% tax bracket? (Or infinitely more than someone who pays no income tax at all?)
- zanny 12y ago
  Now I'm not a supporter of calling taxes a good thing - they are violent theft after all - but for better or worse those 39.6%ers would have had 164% less of anything without the taxes in the first place. No society on the planet has organized without violent taxation, and there is no way those less fortunate could foot more of the bill. You can of course argue about reducing that bill - I am all for it - but arguing that the affluent are not benefiting their share from taxes is insane - they are only wealthy because those taxes exist.
- clusterbits 12y ago
  IMHO everybody has to contribute as much as he can. That's the only way a society can survive.
- Spooky23 12y ago
  Sure. The people getting taxed at 39.6% of income over net income over $430k are almost certainly in some sort of business, whose profitability almost certainly depends on the prosperity of the 99.5% of Americans making less money.
  - ageek123 12y ago
    That argument is absurd. It's like saying that an employee has some kind of moral obligation to their employer because without the employer, they wouldn't have a job. The reality is that in a market economy, people voluntarily exchange goods, services, labor, whatever, when the exchange is mutually beneficial. Nobody owes anyone anything in the sense you are talking about.
    - sudioStudio64 12y ago
      I'm not trying to be offensive, but that simplifies the human condition to an almost cartoon-ish degree. People aren't really the simple rational economic actors that are useful in theory. I know that sounds trite, but it is true.
- argumentum 12y ago
  Depends how you look at it. If it's a "survival of the fittest" state of nature, which is what humans emerged from, remember that those with a lot have a lot to lose, those with nothing have nothing to lose. We'd either fight it out, or come to an understanding about how to share limited resources while cooperating for the betterment of all. This is the social contract, google and wikipedia are your friends ;)
sudioStudio64 12y ago
You're right. Its weird how little people think that the infrastructure provided by government for civil society benefits them. Contract enforcement and property protection come to mind. The 20% in question benefit greatly from the taxes they pay.
- refurb 12y ago
  Contract enforcement and property protection? That accounts for what? Less than 1% of total government spending? Unless of course you consider the military "property protection".
  - sudioStudio64 12y ago
    The interventions in the Caribbean and Latin America were explicitly that. There's quite a bit more... roads, disease eradication, and research that is considered too financially risky for the private sector... it goes on.
- ageek123 12y ago
  About 2/3 of the federal budget goes to Social Security, Medicare, Medicare, military, and interest on the debt.

These 20 % get a lot in return for the taxes they pay. In general taxes are good because the are dues we pay to enjoy the numerous vital benefits that government provides for our society.

ageek123 12y ago

So you are arguing that someone in the 39.6% tax bracket gets 164% more "in return for the taxes they pay" than someone in the 15% tax bracket? (Or infinitely more than someone who pays no income tax at all?)

zanny 12y ago
Now I'm not a supporter of calling taxes a good thing - they are violent theft after all - but for better or worse those 39.6%ers would have had 164% less of anything without the taxes in the first place. No society on the planet has organized without violent taxation, and there is no way those less fortunate could foot more of the bill. You can of course argue about reducing that bill - I am all for it - but arguing that the affluent are not benefiting their share from taxes is insane - they are only wealthy because those taxes exist.
clusterbits 12y ago
IMHO everybody has to contribute as much as he can. That's the only way a society can survive.
Spooky23 12y ago
Sure. The people getting taxed at 39.6% of income over net income over $430k are almost certainly in some sort of business, whose profitability almost certainly depends on the prosperity of the 99.5% of Americans making less money.
- ageek123 12y ago
  That argument is absurd. It's like saying that an employee has some kind of moral obligation to their employer because without the employer, they wouldn't have a job. The reality is that in a market economy, people voluntarily exchange goods, services, labor, whatever, when the exchange is mutually beneficial. Nobody owes anyone anything in the sense you are talking about.
  - sudioStudio64 12y ago
    I'm not trying to be offensive, but that simplifies the human condition to an almost cartoon-ish degree. People aren't really the simple rational economic actors that are useful in theory. I know that sounds trite, but it is true.
argumentum 12y ago
Depends how you look at it. If it's a "survival of the fittest" state of nature, which is what humans emerged from, remember that those with a lot have a lot to lose, those with nothing have nothing to lose. We'd either fight it out, or come to an understanding about how to share limited resources while cooperating for the betterment of all. This is the social contract, google and wikipedia are your friends ;)

sudioStudio64 12y ago

You're right. Its weird how little people think that the infrastructure provided by government for civil society benefits them. Contract enforcement and property protection come to mind. The 20% in question benefit greatly from the taxes they pay.

refurb 12y ago
Contract enforcement and property protection? That accounts for what? Less than 1% of total government spending? Unless of course you consider the military "property protection".
- sudioStudio64 12y ago
  The interventions in the Caribbean and Latin America were explicitly that. There's quite a bit more... roads, disease eradication, and research that is considered too financially risky for the private sector... it goes on.
ageek123 12y ago
About 2/3 of the federal budget goes to Social Security, Medicare, Medicare, military, and interest on the debt.