Author
|
Topic: What do you guys think about these tax percentages? (Read 9295 times)
|
|
|
|
|
Julie.chan
*Many bubbles*
 Offline
Posts: 130
Sharing is good.
|
So you think it is better that Donald Trump decides what your taxes should be invested in?
Surely you must be joking. The President has basically zero authority on how money is spent. That's up to Congress to decide.
I think similar concerns were raised when women's right to vote was introduced. People probably generalized women (like you generalize rich people) into something ill-intentioned.
You're comparing apples to oranges (genders are not classes, levels of wealth are), and voting is not the same as restricting what your share of tax can be used for at all.
Not all tax payers are complete retards. If the roads and infrastructure in a society is very bad, lots of people will probably realize that their taxes should be invested in roads and infrastructure. Similarly, if the education is very bad in a society, lots of people probably realize that their taxes should be used on education.
Yes, but the wealthy have an option that is much better for them: just spend the money directly on private improvements, e.g. private roads and private schools. From their own perspective, the money is much better spent this way because it's necessarily going toward the improvements they need.
I think this is the biggest point you're missing. No, rich people are not idiots. That's why if they have a choice for where their taxes go, they will direct their taxes to whatever benefits them the most, and use private spending for anything else. Or, as they do today, they would simply use loopholes to avoid paying taxes altogether.
healthy food, investigative journalism, and environmental-friendly technologies.
That's not at all what I thought you meant. When I see "subsidies", I think of things like the corn subsidy that currently exists, basically paying farmers to grow corn so that corn can be cheaper. This is a trick to boost certain sectors of the economy.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Scalare
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 245
|
Subsidy means a different thing to each and every one of us. Since we do have different subsidies in each country  .
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
Surely you must be joking. The President has basically zero authority on how money is spent. That's up to Congress to decide.
But how much power the president has over the congress, doesn't that depend on the majority party affiliation in the congress? Now that you have a republican president and a republican majority in the congress, isn't it likely that the president will have much more power over the congress?
I am also somewhat confused why you think this congress is better suited to decide which sectors should get funding, than the tax payers themselves. Many of these congress-members are surely just as despicable as the rich guys you dislike so much. The group of tax payers is also much larger than the group of congress-members, so it is probably much easier to lobby the group of congress-members than to lobby the group of all tax payers. I do however agree that the tax payers shouldn't be allowed to decide what 100% of their taxes should be used for. Maybe the president/congress should be allowed to decide 50%, while the tax payers should be allowed to decide 50%...
Yes, but the wealthy have an option that is much better for them: just spend the money directly on private improvements, e.g. private roads and private schools. From their own perspective, the money is much better spent this way because it's necessarily going toward the improvements they need.
I think you misunderstand a bit. I don't want the tax payers to be allowed to use their taxes on private roads for themselves and guards for themselves. The tax money has to be spent on public sectors...
Edit: Based on your comments I have rewritten parts of this section, and included a better description of what the subsidies include.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 26, 2016, 12:26:16 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Julie.chan
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 130
Sharing is good.
|
But how much power the president has over the congress, doesn't that depend on the majority party affiliation in the congress?
No, the President just doesn't have any power over them. Only influence by way of having a voice that lots of people pay attention to. If the President had actual power over Congress, that would completely destroy the separation of powers in the government.
Now that you have a republican president and a republican majority in the congress, isn't it likely that the president will have much more power over the congress?
No. The only thing it means is that since the President is a Republican, bills the Republicans want that get passed through Congress are basically guaranteed to get signed into law.
I am also somewhat confused why you think this congress is better suited to decide which sectors should get funding, than the tax payers themselves.
If you think that Congress is unfit for this task, then you should be advocating for no taxes at all so that individuals can donate or invest their money where they want. The whole point of taxes is to fund the activities of the government, and the activities of the government are controlled by Congress. It makes no sense to give the government money, but then require it to use that money for a particular purpose.
Many of these congress-members are surely just as despicable as the rich guys you dislike so much.
But members of Congress are accountable, because allocating the budget is actually their job. By the way, I never said that I dislike rich people. I've only been describing how they can be expected to act.
The group of tax payers is also much larger than the group of congress-members, so it is probably much easier to lobby the group of congress-members than to lobby the group of all tax payers.
So what? The whole problem with having tax payers decide where their taxes go is that it completely defeats the purpose of taxes.
I do however agree that the tax payers shouldn't be allowed to decide what 100% of their taxes should be used for. Maybe the president/congress should be allowed to decide 50%, while the tax payers should be allowed to decide 50%...
Then here's a novel idea: just cut taxes by 50%. Or rather, don't raise them to 90% in the first place. If you're paying 10% of your income in tax, that remaining 90% is what you can use to allocate to causes you want to support.
I think you misunderstand a bit. I don't want the tax payers to be allowed to use their taxes on private roads for themselves and guards for themselves. The tax money has to be spent on public sectors...
No, I don't misunderstand. If the rich can choose where to spend their taxes, it's in their interest to choose to have their taxes spent wherever it will benefit them most. So they will not choose to have it spent on infrastructure if there is an option that benefits them personally more, because they have the capability to make private improvements where they need it. Actually, given how you define subsidies, I think that "infrastructure" would be the most likely thing that the rich would choose out of your categories, so it's police, health care, education, and welfare that would be neglected.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 26, 2016, 03:41:56 pm by onpon666 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
Then here's a novel idea: just cut taxes by 50%. Or rather, don't raise them to 90% in the first place. If you're paying 10% of your income in tax, that remaining 90% is what you can use to allocate to causes you want to support.
That sounds like a horrible idea, because that would continue to increase the wealth gap between the rich and the poor. It is a big difference, because if you invest your money in buying something, you own that then. Like for example if I invest my money in a private health care company, I earn money from them in the future. On the other hand, if I use my tax money to invest in public health care, I do not own anything in the public health care sector, and I don't earn anything from that in the future, except for the benefit of having a better health care system in my society.
No, I don't misunderstand. If the rich can choose where to spend their taxes, it's in their interest to choose to have their taxes spent wherever it will benefit them most. So they will not choose to have it spent on infrastructure if there is an option that benefits them personally more, because they have the capability to make private improvements where they need it. Actually, given how you define subsidies, I think that "infrastructure" would be the most likely thing that the rich would choose out of your categories, so it's police, health care, education, and welfare that would be neglected.
You seem to think that people are like simple computer algorithms that always do the same under the same conditions. But people are huge neuronal networks that often behave differently under the same conditions, and are largely controlled by emotions, not logic. If the infrastructure in a country is bad, lots of people will invest their taxes in it, for sure. But if the infrastructure is very good, I would be much more scared that it will get underfunded. And that is one of the reasons why I don't want people to be allowed to decide what 100% of their taxes are used for.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julie.chan
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 130
Sharing is good.
|
If a rich person has a say over what his $2,000,000 go toward, and a poor person has a say over what his $0 go toward, then the rich person has more say. That's not democracy. The way we are supposed to influence the government is by voting, not by telling the representatives we voted for what they are allowed to do with the tax dollars we sent them.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
If a rich person has a say over what his $2,000,000 go toward, and a poor person has a say over what his $0 go toward, then the rich person has more say. That's not democracy. The way we are supposed to influence the government is by voting, not by telling the representatives we voted for what they are allowed to do with the tax dollars we sent them.
Ok. But if I am paying a ginormous amount of taxes, and I know that a lot of it is going to something I am against (for example the military, and a war in Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan), then I won't be very happy either.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 26, 2016, 06:03:51 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scalare
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 245
|
not just weapon manufacturers, oil companies too. and banks financing it all. the rabbit hole is much deeper than you think.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Julie.chan
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 130
Sharing is good.
|
People in general don't want to pay taxes period. It has little to do with being against what the government is spending it for and no one is going to be happy to pay higher taxes based on the fact that they can dictate where they get spent.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
