# Taxes: Justifiable or Too Much?



## IncredulousP (Aug 19, 2019)

All right, let's have a *CIVIL *discussion about taxes. Opinions welcome, but please no name-calling, passing opinions as facts, or general assholery. Ad-hominems are to be kept to a minimum, ideally they shouldn't even be posted. _Claims should be backed by reputable sources._

Now Then.

What are *taxes*?
"a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc." - Dictionary.com, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/tax

Taxes are fees assigned to citizens/residents, collected by their governing bodies so they can be spent providing services, often for the benefit of the nation as a whole. While taxes are generally considered a standard practice in societies around the world, some believe that taxation is not justifiable. Others favor the idea of taxes, but among themselves disagree on how much taxation is fair. Furthermore, it is widely debated how an individual's taxes should scale with their accumulated wealth and/or income.

Are taxes justifiable? If so, how much taxation is reasonable and how should it scale (if it should) among members of a society?


----------



## morvoran (Aug 19, 2019)

Taxes are just a scheme created by the governments to steal money from it's people and force them to subsidize the needs/wants of others (when the money isn't being stuffed into the politicians own pockets).  In the USA, our founding fathers fought against the tyranny of the British crown to stop from being unnecessarily taxed for stuff the people at the time received no benefits from.   

Think of taxes as extortion (or "protection money") from the mafias/criminal empires.  If you doubt this, just try to stop paying taxes and see what happens to you.

I can understand that we need roads, hospitals, schools, police, firefighters, etc....  but why do I need to pay into a system that takes my money and gives it to other forms of "public services" that are of no benefit to me???  Explain this to me.  Why can't I donate voluntarily or pay a toll for the things that I use?  Why is my money being stolen from me? Why???


----------



## DSAndi (Aug 19, 2019)

Well in Germany we have very high tax and usually only low to medium income ppl pay them. Big income/ companys avoid them and politicans help em while doin nothing against it.
Taxes get thrown out of the window for nonsense while infrastructure is goin worse and more worse. Gov spend taxes on  NGOs and refugees even 23 or even more Bil a year only for refugess.
retired ppl that work for 50 years in job and retire have to live in poorness while big refugees familys get free house and 8-20k a month income free. They even spend up to 8k a month for youngstars without parents while retired ppl get only 500€ a month.

Usually you have 50% or more ducted for tax and social insurence from income every month, after that additional 19% tax on everything you buy. Some stuff is less tax some more so you pay tax on tax.

I can understand to pay tax for needed things but well 70% tax on the money i earn is way to much.

Corrupt gov here so this wont change and most ppl just dont realise.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 19, 2019)

You missed the "what should taxes be used on question?" (some would limit it to border security and not much else, others everything from welfare programs and healthcare right on through roads and whatever else).

Anyway I am quite OK with taxes. Tend not to minimise those I do pay by legal or illegal means, other than just by earning less. Most big countries/areas can pool resources, negotiate well and do things that no sane profit motivated types would do, could be trusted to do (private police is a fun one to consider, whether we do the full blown private security for the anarcho capitalist set or more generally) or seemingly what history shows happens when charities have to step in to fill the gaps. Don't mind scaling with income. How much is too much varies with what is provided, what remains from it to achieve other goals (if the taxes are the main thing stopping someone in a fairly normal job from being able to afford a normal house in an otherwise normal area one probably ought to reconsider it). How far we drill down into specifics here will vary but I will say I very much dislike the US' thing of basically charging everybody almost to live as it were -- UK wise if you earn under the limit (presently £11,850, about 14K USD at current rates but they are not great so probably want to pick a better conversion metric) then 0% income tax, and the only taxes you might pay are what are put on vehicles, fuel, items being sold and the like (many "essentials" not having it), you can probably also dodge some amount of national insurance as well (broadly similar to US social security).




morvoran said:


> I can understand that we need roads, hospitals, schools, police, firefighters, etc....  but why do I need to pay into a system that takes my money and gives it to other forms of "public services" that are of no benefit to me???  Explain this to me.  Why can't I donate voluntarily or pay a toll for the things that I use?


You would include hospitals on this list? Now I only skimmed the other thread in later pages but it seemed healthcare was a point for you.

Anyway same reason you pay for schools even if you have no kids -- the are generally supposed to make things better for society as a whole (I quite like it when a worker on the tills can do basic maths and think through an issue). Or why you might pay for health insurance even if you never use it (it is expensive, especially when you get old so generally best to frontload it). If you can relieve suffering then some would ask why wouldn't you, or possibly consider it a moral imperative to attempt it.


----------



## IncredulousP (Aug 19, 2019)

DSAndi said:


> Well in Germany we have very high tax and usually only low to medium income ppl pay them. Big income/ companys avoid them and politicans help em while doin nothing against it.
> Taxes get thrown out of the window for nonsense while infrastructure is goin worse and more worse. Gov spend taxes on  NGOs and refugees even 23 or even more Bil a year only for refugess.
> retired ppl that work for 50 years in job and retire have to live in poorness while big refugees familys get free house and 8-20k a month income free. They even spend up to 8k a month for youngstars without parents while retired ppl get only 500€ a month.
> 
> ...


Oof that sounds awful, certainly unsustainable. Hopefully you'll get to see some reforms and your living condition will improve. Best of luck to ya.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Aug 19, 2019)

DSAndi said:


> Well in Germany we have very high tax and usually only low to medium income ppl pay them. Big income/ companys avoid them and politicans help em while doin nothing against it.
> Taxes get thrown out of the window for nonsense while infrastructure is goin worse and more worse. Gov spend taxes on  NGOs and refugees even 23 or even more Bil a year only for refugess.
> retired ppl that work for 50 years in job and retire have to live in poorness while big refugees familys get free house and 8-20k a month income free. They even spend up to 8k a month for youngstars without parents while retired ppl get only 500€ a month.
> 
> ...



Hmmm... 70%? That is a bit of an exaggeration.
But sure taxes are high here...

Oh well, actually if I add the MwSt to the income taxes, it probably gets to around 70%...
Hmm, nah. Even if I include health insurance / Krankenkasse as a tax (but it is a service), and then add the MwSt afterwards it goes up to around 49%... where does the 70% come from?

PS: And that 49% also is including pension money already. So money that ~should~ come back after all (in some way I hope perhaps who knows I will die young anyway /s).

Well, perhaps Niedersachsen is a holy land of low taxes (I don't think so).


----------



## sarkwalvein (Aug 19, 2019)

To be honest, and in my humble opinion.
The amount of service, infrastructure, education and quality of life that the government provides you in Germany make me pay happy those taxes and I see them as a great investment, but of course I guess it is a matter of opinion and perspective.


----------



## IncredulousP (Aug 19, 2019)

sarkwalvein said:


> To be honest, and in my humble opinion.
> The amount of service, infrastructure, education and quality of life that the government provides you in Germany make me pay happy those taxes and I see them as a great investment, but of course I guess it is a matter of opinion and perspective.


I could agree that with a solid infrastructure and reasonable quality of living, taxes are justifiable. From there the logical progression of taxation debate would likely be fine-tuning how much each tier of wealth is taxed.


----------



## morvoran (Aug 19, 2019)

DSAndi said:


> Usually you have 50% or more ducted for tax and social isuries from income every month, after that additional 19% tax on everything you buy. Some stuff is less tax some more so you pay tax on tax.
> 
> I can understand to pay tax for needed things but well 70% tax on the money i earn is way to much.


It's a shame that people in the USA actually want themselves and others to be taxed this high and pay for the welfare of people from other countries that sneak into our borders by voting for people just like those who pretty much destroyed Germany's economy.


FAST6191 said:


> You missed the "what should taxes be used on question?" (


 you say this and then quote the part where I said what is necessary for us  to be taxed for.   Maybe you didn't comprehend what I said.  I said we need those services, but not a lot of other public services like welfare, planned parenthood, etc.

Schools are quickly becoming unnecessary since the way things are going, they are not helping society.  I don't need you to know geometry to be able to wash my car or mow my grass. *<snip> * The education system has already failed us.  Just look at any YouTube comment.  Most of those people couldn't spell to save their lives. If you correct someone's grammar, you're the bad person.


----------



## IncredulousP (Aug 19, 2019)

morvoran said:


> In the USA, our founding fathers fought against the tyranny of the British crown to stop from being unnecessarily taxed for stuff the people at the time received no benefits from.


More specifically, the British colonies were being assigned taxes without any say of their own. "No taxation without representation."



morvoran said:


> Think of taxes as extortion (or "protection money") from the mafias/criminal empires.  If you doubt this, just try to stop paying taxes and see what happens to you.
> 
> I can understand that we need roads, hospitals, schools, police, firefighters, etc....  but why do I need to pay into a system that takes my money and gives it to other forms of "public services" that are of no benefit to me???  Explain this to me.  Why can't I donate voluntarily or pay a toll for the things that I use?  Why is my money being stolen from me? Why???


I understand the frustration. Indeed, for most people, there is going to be some amount of cents being charged in taxes for a service that may never affect their lives, so it is understandable to see this as unfair. However, there is an aspect of "if one of us has fallen, we all fall." To elaborate, many of the services go toward people that may not directly affect others, but their prosperity would, down the line, greatly and positively affect all of the nation. E.g. Say you pay for a program that buys meals for the poor on the other side of the country. It doesn't seem to benefit you at first. But then suddenly a great war breaks out and you need all the healthy soldiers you can get. Now it makes sense to have kept them healthy, we're all allies in this great nation. This is but an abstract example to help demonstrate another view.

As for taxes going into the pockets of politicians, I absolutely agree that this is disgusting and that politics should not be practiced by those seeking to profit from it. Taxes are for the collective well-being, in my opinion, and should not be for profit.



morvoran said:


> Schools are quickly becoming unnecessary since the way things are going, they are not helping society. I don't need you to know geometry to be able to wash my car or mow my grass.



I disagree, school itself isn't becoming unnecessary. In fact, and I think you would agree with me here, it's what is being taught and how it's being taught that is becoming outdated.

People still need to be able to read, to understand how to seek out logic and information among a sea of bias and misinformation. How to form constructive arguments, how to interact with others optimally to get your point across without inciting violence. How taxes work, how income works, how APRs work, how advertisements are stretching the truth, what a service would really give you after the fine print, etc.

Personally, I also believe that everyone should learn higher levels of math, including trigonometry and above, _because the world around us is nothing but mathematical construct._ I understand that math isn't everybody's thing, though, but personally the more math I learned, the more that everything in life just made sense. From the more applicable like which car I should buy to minimize long-term costs (how the shape of the car matters, how the APRs inflate the price, how much MPG is optimal for the roads I'm going to drive on), Even knowing physical properties of matter and how they interact, like friction, helps out a lot. It helps to improve on-the-cuff driving decisions (how much should I slow down for the slippery road ahead, how much is reasonable to turn with a car of certain weight and height), or even simple things like how much lacquer to put on a table to achieve most shine without degrading color. Math can even help to see abstract patterns found in culture, family, and society, as well as patterns in human interaction.

Sure, most humans will never have to literally sit down, draw a triangle, and calculate the degrees yadda yadda. But having learned geometry, one would know things like "I shouldn't cross the street diagonally with cars coming because diagonals are longer than a straight line across, so I would be in the road longer" or "I shouldn't buy the soda shaped like a pyramid because a rectangular bottle of the same height/length/width has 3x more liquid." Things pop up in everyday life that one may not have expected to see before learning, and the more about those things that we understand, the more power we have in managing and controlling them.

Now, as for jobs like washing cars or mowing grass, these are the jobs that can be automated by technology. This means that_ there are going to be less and less of them_, so it makes sense that people who would have normally worked them would need to learn how to do something more skilled, something that can't be automated so easily. _Like repairing or managing those automated systems_. In the technological age, education is becoming increasingly needed and frankly needs complete overhauling to keep up with increasing societal demands and decreasing blue-collar jobs.

Plus, we need more education for more scientists so we can continue scientific research, for instance to understand why some people feel like they don't identity with the body they live in, and how to treat them in the best manner possible so everybody is happy


----------



## morvoran (Aug 19, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> As for taxes going into the pockets of politicians, I absolutely agree that this is disgusting and that politics should not be practiced by those seeking to profit from it. Taxes are for the collective well-being, in my opinion, and should not be for profit.


  Which is why we need term limits for Congress.  Unfortunately, Congress is who will have to pass that change, but this is like you voting on whether your boss should fire you or not.  



IncredulousP said:


> Say you pay for a program that buys meals for the poor on the other side of the country. It doesn't seem to benefit you at first. But then suddenly a great war breaks out and you need all the healthy soldiers you can get. Now it makes sense to have kept them healthy, we're all allies in this great nation


  This goes into the whole "welfare state" issue.  Poor people are substantially mostly mentally ill people who are unable to take care of themselves which is why they are living on the streets in the first place.  They do not have the mental capacity to be made combat ready.  Sure, some are mentally stable, but few and far between.  If they were able to be made combat ready, then we can prepare them when the time comes.  In the meantime, they should be fed, housed, and clothed by use of charitable funds.  Plenty of people are willing to donate to help others.  I donate myself, but I don't want to be robbed to take care of them.



IncredulousP said:


> People still need to be able to read, to understand how to seek out logic and information among a sea of bias and misinformation. How to form constructive arguments, how to interact with others optimally to get your point across without inciting violence. How taxes work, how income works, how APRs work, how advertisements are stretching the truth, what a service would really give you after the fine print, etc.


  Unfortunately, this means getting the left wing propagandists out of our schools, colleges, and uni's.  Then who is going to teach our future generations?  Robots?   If that happens, then we'll just have more mentally ill people living on the streets since they can't teach anymore.



IncredulousP said:


> Plus, we need more education for more scientists so we can continue scientific research, for instance to understand why some people feel like they don't identity with the body they live in, and how to treat them in the best manner possible so everybody is happy


  That will never happen since future scientists are now being taught that biology doesn't matter, a man is the same as a woman regardless of genitals and other obvious distinctions, there are 60+ genders, and that working hard to achieve a college degree won't matter since they should be paid the same as a fast food worker due to socialism.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 19, 2019)

Taxation is of course a balancing act.  An act which I think Scandinavian countries are a lot more efficient and proficient at than the US has ever been, as evidenced by their high global rankings in education, healthcare, overall happiness, basically every measurable metric.  The US is one of the wealthiest nations on Earth, but you certainly wouldn't guess that when walking down the streets of most big cities or small towns.  It's because we don't do nearly enough to reinvest in the working class, the people who are actually driving economic growth and prosperity.  The US chooses instead to give away most of its tax dollars to billionaires and corporations who horde that money in offshore tax havens and thus contribute to a never-ending cycle of economic recessions/depressions.  We also let the military run rampant with our tax dollars with little to no accountability for where they end up spending that money, while the rate of homelessness for our veterans continues to skyrocket.


----------



## Captain_N (Aug 19, 2019)

Just imagine the  tax rate if all the "free stuff" that one political side wants to implement. Id be willing to bet 60%. and that's not gonna be on the .1%. that's on the working class. Every country that has many socialized systems have very high tax rates. The one country that id say is an exception might be dubai. The shittiest car their is probably a high end bmw. oil money pays for their systems.

i dont think a tax rate of 60% or 50% in the usa is fair at all. The more money the government takes the more it wastes. if you made 100k in 1 year you would have to give half of it to the gov. how the hell is that fair? Take your current income and see how much you would keep. It aint right that the wealthy have to pay for everything. whats the point of a high paying job if your giving 60% to the government?

Get rid of the tax deductions and then theres is no loop holes. everyone will have to pay some kind of tax if they have some kind of income. no marriage deductions no donation no child deductions. nothing.


----------



## morvoran (Aug 19, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Taxation is of course a balancing act. An act which I think Scandinavian countries are a lot more efficient and proficient at than the US has ever been, as evidenced by their high global rankings in education, healthcare, overall happiness, basically every measurable metric.


  The reason they are doing so much better is because they have 8 million people and we have 400 million people.  Of course, if you have less people, it's more likely you'll appear to do better.



Xzi said:


> The US is one of the wealthiest nations on Earth, but you certainly wouldn't guess that when walking down the streets of most big cities or small towns. It's because we don't do nearly enough to reinvest in the working class, the people who are actually driving economic growth and prosperity.


  Because of democrat policies have destroyed the american families by driving the father out of the home, invest more money in welfare than infrastructure and education, and worrying about illegal aliens rather than the people that live in their districts.



Xzi said:


> The US chooses instead to give away most of its tax dollars to billionaires and corporations who horde that money in offshore tax havens and thus contribute to a never-ending cycle of economic recessions/depressions.


  The US or consumers choose to give away most of our money to corporations.  If democrats weren't trying to steal money from companies, maybe they'd invest more in the country and communities.



Xzi said:


> We also let the military run rampant with our tax dollars with little to no accountability for where they end up spending that money, while the rate of homelessness for our veterans continues to skyrocket.


 While partially true as we pay for weapons, aircrafts, and tanks just to let them rust in a field, we do need to spend money to protect ourselves and other countries around the world.  

I'm not trying to personally attack you when I quote you, but I would prefer you to not try to influence people with untruths.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Aug 19, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> All right, let's have a *CIVIL *discussion about taxes. Opinions welcome, but please no name-calling, passing opinions as facts, or general assholery. Ad-hominems are to be kept to a minimum, ideally they shouldn't even be posted. _Claims should be backed by reputable sources._
> 
> Now Then.
> 
> ...


Perfectly justified IF all the money wasn't stolen. The problem is corruption, not taxes


----------



## IncredulousP (Aug 19, 2019)

Captain_N said:


> i dont think a tax rate of 60% or 50% in the usa is fair at all. The more money the government takes the more it wastes. if you made 100k in 1 year you would have to give half of it to the gov. how the hell is that fair?


Where are you getting 60% and 50% from? For 2019, Federal tax rate for individuals making $84,200 - $160,725 is $14,382.50 plus 24% of the money _over _$84,200. The rate in this bracket is 24%, but remember that this is a progressive scale. If you made exactly $84,200, then you are paying 14382.50/84200 * 100% = 17.08%.
For $100,000, you pay $18174.5, or 18.1745%
The top tax _bracket_ rate is 37%, so the richest people at the top are paying _less than 37% income_. That's pretty low.
https://taxfoundation.org/2019-tax-brackets

By the way, toward the end of WWII and decades after, or what's known as "the golden age of capitalism" in the US, America was booming with economic success. What was the federal tax rate for the top bracket? *94%. *The tax rate for the top bracket didn't even dip below 70 until 1981, around the end of the golden age of capitalism.
https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Income-Tax-Rates.aspx


----------



## Xzi (Aug 19, 2019)

morvoran said:


> The reason they are doing so much better is because they have 8 million people and we have 400 million people.  Of course, if you have less people, it's more likely you'll appear to do better.


We have an exponentially higher population, but conversely, we also have an exponentially higher GDP and collect an exponentially higher total amount of taxes, even at a lower tax rate.  Basically, there should be no issue scaling up effective education, healthcare, and government assistance programs, because everything else about America is already at a larger scale in line with population.



morvoran said:


> Because of democrat policies have destroyed the american families by driving the father out of the home, invest more money in welfare than infrastructure and education, and worrying about illegal aliens rather than the people that live in their districts.


If corporations paid living wages, people with full-time jobs wouldn't have to rely on welfare programs to care for their families.  Republicans are the ones keeping the minimum wage stagnant, which is the biggest contributor to this problem.



morvoran said:


> The US or consumers choose to give away most of our money to corporations.  If democrats weren't trying to steal money from companies, maybe they'd invest more in the country and communities.


We do not get to choose where our taxes go, nor which billionaires and corporations they subsidize.  I have no issue with standard consumerism, what I do find problematic is the upper class taking away buying power from the middle and lower class.  Neoliberals deserve their share of the blame for this practice, but unlike the Republican party, Democrats are certainly not monolithic in their support of it.

The private sector's only motive is the profit motive.  Corporations cannot be expected to effectively fulfill the role of government.  Oligarchy always results in authoritarianism and a total loss of freedom.


----------



## morvoran (Aug 19, 2019)

xzi, I know you're not making this personal as well, but your way of thinking is giving me a literal aneurysm.  Anymore of your propaganda, and I'll have to go have a hole drilled in my head to reduce the swelling you're causing.



Xzi said:


> We have an exponentially higher population, but conversely, we also have an exponentially higher GDP and collect an exponentially higher total amount of taxes, even at a lower tax rate.


This also means that we have more "public services" expenses such as police, firefighters, hospitals (including emergency rooms), etc that cost money.  You must include welfare for our citizens *and non-citizens*.  We are the world's police force that use our tax dollars to defend and rebuild other countries.  Scandinavian countries do not have a lot of these expenses, so they can afford to take care of their people better.  

When I worked in customer service for a large corporation, a customer complained about a mistake to his order we made and said that he never had these issues with smaller companies.  He asked why would such as big company make mistakes like this.  I explained to him that because we were such as large company handling much bigger quantity of orders, we were likely to make mistakes here and there, but at a much smaller percentage then the smaller companies.  He still didn't get it, but whatever.  Must have been a democrat.



Xzi said:


> Republicans are the ones keeping the minimum wage stagnant,


I don't have employees myself, but think about if I did.  I pay my employees the minimum wage now at $7.25 or whatever it is now.  I barely struggle to make it as it is.  The minimum wage is increased to $15.  Now my personnel expenses double, and I am unable to pay my employess unless I increase the price of my goods.  Customers don't want to pay new prices, so I lose sells.  Now I am forced to close my small business.  

Large corporations are able to absorb the cost by increasing their prices and cutting staff.  Now I'm out of a job, my employees are out of a job, the corps employees are out of a job. No more small businesses to take away customers from these corps so they get bigger and bigger.  Then we are in a worse situation than before.  That's why Republicans are stagnant to raise the minimum wage.



Xzi said:


> We do not get to choose where our taxes go, nor which billionaires and corporations they subsidize. I have no issue with standard consumerism, what I do find problematic is the upper class taking away buying power from the middle and lower class.


  This billionaires and corps are as big as they are because of consumerism, not taxes.  If you think a company is too big, then stop using their products/services and convince others to do the same.  Not by raising taxes and the minimum wage to destroy small business.

I mean, like, what ISP are you using?  What brand of shoes do you wear?  Where do you shop for your clothes and food?  Are these the big bad corporations that you are complaining about?  Why are you supporting them then?  Because there are no other options?  Hmm, maybe forcing smaller companies out of business isn't the best plan then, huh?


----------



## Xzi (Aug 19, 2019)

morvoran said:


> xzi, I know you're not making this personal as well, but your way of thinking is giving me a literal aneurysm.


Ditto.



morvoran said:


> This also means that we have more "public services" expenses such as police, firefighters, hospitals (including emergency rooms), etc that cost money.  You must include welfare for our citizens *and non-citizens*.  We are the world's police force that use our tax dollars to defend and rebuild other countries.  Scandinavian countries do not have a lot of these expenses, so they can afford to take care of their people better.


I don't know who told you that other countries don't have firefighters, police, and hospitals, but they were full of shit.  Additionally, the most recent numbers show that illegal immigrants contributed $11 billion in taxes during 2016.  Not that it would be a good excuse for failing to care for our citizenry anyway.



morvoran said:


> When I worked in customer service for a large corporation, a customer complained about a mistake to his order we made and said that he never had these issues with smaller companies.  He asked why would such as big company make mistakes like this.  I explained to him that because we were such as large company handling much bigger quantity of orders, we were likely to make mistakes here and there, but at a much smaller percentage then the smaller companies.  He still didn't get it, but whatever.  Must have been a democrat.


Seems anecdotal and irrelevant to a discussion on taxation.



morvoran said:


> I don't have employees myself, but think about if I did.  I pay my employees the minimum wage now at $7.25 or whatever it is now.  I barely struggle to make it as it is.  The minimum wage is increased to $15.  Now my personnel expenses double, and I am unable to pay my employess unless I increase the price of my goods.  Customers don't want to pay new prices, so I lose sells.  Now I am forced to close my small business.
> 
> Large corporations are able to absorb the cost by increasing their prices and cutting staff.  Now I'm out of a job, my employees are out of a job, the corps employees are out of a job. No more small businesses to take away customers from these corps so they get bigger and bigger.  Then we are in a worse situation than before.  That's why Republicans are stagnant to raise the minimum wage.


There are several factors you aren't accounting for here.  Your customers on average would have a lot more disposable income and be willing to part with more of it, especially since the cost of goods wouldn't rise the same amount as the cost of labor.  Turnover rate among employees would be reduced if they feel like they're being paid a decent wage, thus reducing how much you spend on training.

Seattle's increase to a $15 minimum wage has shown mostly positive results.  The only reason it's controversial at all is because minimum wage should've been increased bit by bit over the years, rather than remaining at an unsustainable low for so long and then suddenly being hiked up.  If minimum wage had kept pace with inflation and productivity over the years, it would be closer to $20/hour now.  Large corporations already rely on skeleton crews to maximize profits, and they're trending more and more toward automation.



morvoran said:


> This billionaires and corps are as big as they are because of consumerism, not taxes.  If you think a company is too big, then stop using their products/services and convince others to do the same.  Not by raising taxes and the minimum wage to destroy small business.


It's a mix of both, and certain industries have benefited from tax subsidies more than others.  Marginal tax rates are a thing, so small businesses aren't affected by tax increases on large corporations.



morvoran said:


> Hmm, maybe forcing smaller companies out of business isn't the best plan then, huh?


I never said it was.  Why would you be in support of handing corporations more free money which they can then use to forcibly buy out smaller businesses with?  Short-term greed blinds people to the reality that reinvesting tax dollars in the working class would mean more spending all around, thus more profits for everyone, small businesses and corporations both included.


----------



## erikas (Aug 19, 2019)

Taxes should be tied to voting. If you pay taxes you vote. If you don't pay taxes you don't vote. If you pay taxes, but also get wellfare, and the wellfare you get is more than the taxes you pay, you don't vote. This way you don't get useless slobs *ahem*singlemothers*ahem* leeching off the system and having others pay for them.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 19, 2019)

I can only talk about Belgium on this one. It's too much, but probably not in the way most would think. Lemme explain...

As one of the most taxed countries in the world, it would seem like a rational choice. However, I really don't mind taxes provided they're spent well. And I don't define "well" as "being in my own personal interest" but rather as "important for the well-being of the society in general". For example: I'm somewhere between agnostic and atheist, but I really don't mind that tax money is spent on maintaining the many churches in our country, as it gives others comfort, attributes to general ethics and so on.

My problem is probably (hopefully) unique in Belgium. You see, Belgium's split in a Flemish and a Wallonian part (with Brussels almost literally in the center). And in part because we (literally) speak different languages, we drift apart. When I was young, this was reflected in petty things that were regarded as "wafelijzer politiek". That term doesn't have a real translation - waffle iron politics? - but it comes down to "whenever one side gets funds for a project, the other side gets a project of equal value", that lead to some bizarre constructions on either side because there was an important project in another region.

...but then some geniusses decided to take things a step further and introduce multiple governments. So we have a federal government, a Dutch one and a Wallonian one. In theory, the tasks of government are split up (so we just have three small parts of governments instead of one large one), but in practice you can't have a government that works in solitude. And this results in lots of double bureaucracy, a government that acts too slow not because of cliché "lazy workers" but because sometimes politicians simply can't agree on who's responsible for certain situations.

The result: compared to e.g. the Netherlands, we pay (a bit) more taxes than them but get less of it in return. And the major factor is that ridiculous way the government is organised.


----------



## morvoran (Aug 19, 2019)

*<snip>*



Xzi said:


> I don't know who told you that other countries don't have firefighters, police, and hospitals, but they were full of shit.


 I was talking about the expenses from taking care of a higher number of people that don't/can't work, the tremendously high number of illegal aliens (we have more illegal aliens than the entire population of Sweden), and providing military/humanitarian support to multiple countries around the world with free money. 



Xzi said:


> Seems anecdotal and irrelevant to a discussion on taxation.


Ok, I'll give you that. My story wasn't clear and to the point I was wanting to make.  I blame it on the blood clot in my brain you caused  and a lack of sleep.  I was trying to imply that the larger a country is, the more problems (or mistakes it has) it has such as welfare recipients, illegal aliens, and other issues.  I must have forgotten my point while typing it.



Xzi said:


> Seattle's increase to a $15 minimum wage has shown mostly positive results.


  You should pick a less biased source than CNN or their affiliates.  They will cherry pick only the stuff that fits their narrative.  Several studies have found good and bad things with the increase.  Some low wage workers lost jobs, some actually made less money after the raise, and some companies started hiring skilled workers over no/low skilled workers forcing people out of the workforce.



Xzi said:


> Marginal tax rates are a thing, so small businesses aren't affected by tax increases on large corporations.


 Taxes on corporations means higher cost down the line.  If I buy a product from a corp that starts to pay 50+% on its earnings, then my prices will go up and my profits go down.  My tax bracket may not increase, but my losses will. 

Plus, increasing tax rates substantially on certain tax brackets will slow down innovation on smaller companies trying to succeed.  If my company makes 9 million dollars a year at a 24% tax rate, then if I make $10million/year and start to pay 50% tax rate, this stifles my company's growth if I start to bring in less money by making more money.  Then I won't be able to compete with the bigger corporations that can scheme their way around the tax codes without paying taxes at all.  Weren't you the one to say that big corps don't pay taxes anyways?



Xzi said:


> Why would you be in support of handing corporations more free money which they can then use to forcibly buy out smaller businesses with?


  I don't know where you get that corporations get "free money".  Pharmaceutical companies get grants to develop new drugs, I guess, but it's not just handing them money for nothing.  This has more to do with incompetent politicians and policies than taxes.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Aug 19, 2019)

Taxes are definitely a necessity for a well functioning government, but at some point it becomes so much that it feels unfair and I feel like we reached that point here in Norway a while back. Other countries seem to do just fine with much lower taxes so it doesn't make much sense.
It's just crazy to me how many times the same money is taxed in a short time span. When you get paid, when you pay for stuff, and then again when the employees at the place you paid for stuff get paid, nevermind all the other ways you're required to give money to the government, and that cycle repeats ad infinitum.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Aug 19, 2019)

I would gladly pay more taxes if It meant free school or decent healthcare, among other things.

Taxes are a necessity, not everything can be regulated by the market. For profit hospitals or prisons are a good example of its perverse effects.


----------



## Youkai (Aug 19, 2019)

sarkwalvein said:


> Hmmm... 70%? That is a bit of an exaggeration.
> But sure taxes are high here...
> 
> Oh well, actually if I add the MwSt to the income taxes, it probably gets to around 70%...
> ...




Well as far as I know the maximum is 47% plus 19% consumers tax would be 66% as if you round it you would add it up from 5 so ~70% is actually not completely wrong though but not very accurate.

When I was in Japan I had to pay highest tax which was about 20% + 8% consumers tax ... at first I thought "damn those companys don't pay proper money" but after my first paycheck I was surprised as I still got so much money compared to what I would have gotten in Germany if earning the same hourly wage.


I think taxes are important and correct to pay but the problem is that they are not allways used well (in Germany we have a group of people making a book out of the biggest tax wasting every year and even a TV show that showed some of these like bridges you can not use because there is no street going to them or bicycle ways you can not reach and so on ...)

I doubt the ammounts DSAndi wrote there about the 8-20k for each refugee is correct at least I doubt that is how much they actually get while it is possible that they cost this ammound as there needs to be healthcare, a place to life, furniture, food and water and whatever the daily needs are plus at least jobless people get a TV and even a Computer for free as this is supposed to be "necessary" and the minimum you should have nowadays ... so if they also all get a nice big flat tv and a medicore computer including a monitor and internet connection as well as a smartphone it might be possible to be that expensive.



P.S. If I would be a politician I would try to stop tax wasting as much as possible and maybe even higher the tax for a short while till most if not all debts are repaid and after that I would lower the taxes to a minimum and have everyone life in prosperity .... sadly it won't happen and our children will have to pay the debt that we and our parents made


----------



## ut2k4master (Aug 19, 2019)

Youkai said:


> Well as far as I know the maximum is 47% plus 19% consumers tax would be 66% as if you round it you would add it up from 5 so ~70% is actually not completely wrong though but not very accurate.



the 19% would be of the remaining 53%, not of the total 100%, so its nowhere near 70%


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 19, 2019)

morvoran said:


> It's a shame that people in the USA actually want themselves and others to be taxed this high and pay for the welfare of people from other countries that sneak into our borders by voting for people just like those who pretty much destroyed Germany's economy.
> you say this and then quote the part where I said what is necessary for us  to be taxed for.   Maybe you didn't comprehend what I said.  I said we need those services, but not a lot of other public services like welfare, planned parenthood, etc.
> 
> Schools are quickly becoming unnecessary since the way things are going, they are not helping society.  I don't need you to know geometry to be able to wash my car or mow my grass. *<snip> * The education system has already failed us.  Just look at any YouTube comment.  Most of those people couldn't spell to save their lives. If you correct someone's grammar, you're the bad person.



Other than a few wackaloon types do people want to pay for people that snuck in?

I said that in response to the OP, hence why it came before the quoted part of your post.

Why don't people need welfare or planned parenthood? Not starving or becoming homeless should you not be able to find a job in short order or otherwise be unable to work and being able to control when you have kids (a rather expensive, energy and time consuming hobby, and if you get landed with one at the wrong time then it tends to mess up or seriously delay abilities to later do the education or saving bit) seem like reasonable things to have.

There are certain fields where geometry is less applicable but it does help if my plumber, builder and carpenter (trades are in don't you know?) know such things, and also helps their customers know when they are ripping them off or more able to ask. Similarly I would have thought area covered or amount of border trim needed is a fairly useful skill when assessing a grass cutting job, or planning flower beds.
With regards to being unable to spell or utilise proper grammar that sounds more like a failure of implementation than concept.


----------



## Youkai (Aug 19, 2019)

ut2k4master said:


> the 19% would be of the remaining 53%, not of the total 100%, so its nowhere near 70%



huh ? I think you are making a mistake here ... you are paying 19% from what is left for everything you buy so it does actually stack ... it is only "less" if you save the money instead of spending it as well as if you buy stuff which has the consumers tax excemption ... I think meat only has 9% same as Water if I am not mistaken.

To make it easy lets say its 20 instead of 19 and 50 instead of 47

you earn 1000€ and they take 20% income tax you have 800€ left - 50% of the other taxes you have 400€ left
other way araound you have 1000€ they take 50% you have 500 left then deduche another 20% and you still have 400€ left ... no difference.

If you don't use the whole rest to buy stuff you don't pay consumers tax BUT nowadays lots of Banks like the "sparkasse" want money to savely store your money which sucks so bad (punitive interest) instead of getting an Interest of 3-4% from them you have to pay them if you put money on your bank account -.-V

okay looks like I made a mistake here oO


----------



## WeedZ (Aug 19, 2019)

Youkai said:


> huh ? I think you are making a mistake here ... you are paying 19% from what is left for everything you buy so it does actually stack ... it is only "less" if you save the money instead of spending it as well as if you buy stuff which has the consumers tax excemption ... I think meat only has 9% same as Water if I am not mistaken.
> 
> To make it easy lets say its 20 instead of 19 and 50 instead of 47
> 
> ...


Hes saying it's not 70% (20+50), which taken from 1000 leaves only 300


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 19, 2019)

.


----------



## brickmii82 (Aug 19, 2019)

I feel there's over-taxation in this country (USA) and a lot of wasteful spending. I wouldn't even mind a flat 25-40% income tax, but don't tax sales and services at 10-20% on top of that. You have such a large amount of money that gets thrown at trivialities, doomed ideas, and buddy politics. There's room to improve and become substantially more cost-effective in our use of tax revenue.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Aug 19, 2019)

Youkai said:


> huh ? I think you are making a mistake here ... you are paying 19% from what is left for everything you buy so it does actually stack ... it is only "less" if you save the money instead of spending it as well as if you buy stuff which has the consumers tax excemption ... I think meat only has 9% same as Water if I am not mistaken.
> 
> To make it easy lets say its 20 instead of 19 and 50 instead of 47
> 
> ...


He is right.
If you earn net A€, and take x% of taxes,  then you get B€ left.
Then, if you spend all B€ with a y% MwSt tax, then you're wasting and additional B€*y% in taxes.

In short, the total taxes you pay are:
A€* x% + B€*y% =
A€* x% + (A€-A€*x%)*y% =
A€* (x% + (100% - x%)*y%)

So, if you have x% = 47% and y% = 19%
Then the total tax is not 66% (x%+y%)
But 57%, i.e. (x% + (100% - x%)*y%)


----------



## Xzi (Aug 19, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I was talking about the expenses from taking care of a higher number of people that don't/can't work, the tremendously high number of illegal aliens (we have more illegal aliens than the entire population of Sweden), and providing military/humanitarian support to multiple countries around the world with free money


Other countries also deal with disabled workers and people that refuse to work, and do a much better job of caring for both.  I already gave you data showing that illegal immigrants pay a lot in taxes.



morvoran said:


> You should pick a less biased source than CNN or their affiliates.  They will cherry pick only the stuff that fits their narrative.  Several studies have found good and bad things with the increase.  Some low wage workers lost jobs, some actually made less money after the raise, and some companies started hiring skilled workers over no/low skilled workers forcing people out of the workforce.


That's a local Fox affiliate, and they link to several different sources throughout the article, not just CNN.  Like I said, the only reason this type of increase is controversial is because minimum wage hasn't been keeping pace with productivity and inflation over the years.  Keeping it at an unsustainable low level is not an option, since we're stuck with full-time workers who also have to rely on welfare as things stand now.



morvoran said:


> Taxes on corporations means higher cost down the line.  If I buy a product from a corp that starts to pay 50+% on its earnings, then my prices will go up and my profits go down.  My tax bracket may not increase, but my losses will.


As I said, the cost of goods is not tied to the cost of labor, especially considering we get a lot of our goods from overseas.  If you have to raise your prices slightly, that's a price most customers will be happy to pay if their wages go up and we're investing tax dollars back into education, healthcare, etc for the working class.



morvoran said:


> Plus, increasing tax rates substantially on certain tax brackets will slow down innovation on smaller companies trying to succeed.  If my company makes 9 million dollars a year at a 24% tax rate, then if I make $10million/year and start to pay 50% tax rate, this stifles my company's growth if I start to bring in less money by making more money.  Then I won't be able to compete with the bigger corporations that can scheme their way around the tax codes without paying taxes at all.  Weren't you the one to say that big corps don't pay taxes anyways?


They cannot avoid a capital gains tax.  It's impossible to forecast an economic model if we're starting with the assumption that everybody in America is a grifter who will find a way to avoid paying all taxes, so it's best not to go down that rabbit hole.



morvoran said:


> I don't know where you get that corporations get "free money".  Pharmaceutical companies get grants to develop new drugs, I guess, but it's not just handing them money for nothing.  This has more to do with incompetent politicians and policies than taxes.


We subsidize sugar, corn, and big oil among several other industries.  None of these corporations are in any danger of going bankrupt, so it's absolutely asinine to continue giving away our tax dollars to them.

As for the politicians and policies, it's less about incompetence and more about the system of quid pro quo among neoconservatives/neoliberals and their lobbyist donors.  They still require ignorant voters to support them in order to retain office, however.  The entire scam relies upon people in the middle/lower class believing themselves to be "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" rather than accepting their actual station in life.  In the modern day, there's a lot more upward mobility in Canada and elsewhere than there is in the US.


----------



## chrisrlink (Aug 19, 2019)

it sortta has to do with income tax but basicly people can't work on SSI if you make over $63/month you get your check slashed (and by a big amount) how are you suppose to get off SSI with no room to make money I thought SSI was to be an assist to not using it eventually not a pacifier you can instantly take away with how rent/food/utilities are basicly your screwed if you work part time even meanwhile that damn 1% rich assholes (our fat ass in chief included) pay virtually nothing while low income are scared they'll starve next week and it's funny how most middle class republicans are morons thinking they'll help the middle class? next time check your tax returns and you'll see the truth


----------



## morvoran (Aug 20, 2019)

Xzi said:


> That's a local Fox affiliate, and they link to several different sources throughout the article, not just CNN.


  It may be a local Fox affiliate, but that means nothing as Fox affiliates are not strictly biased to one side.  The "different sources" include websites from berkeley, democrats, and Seattle's own website.  Not exactly moderate sources. 



Xzi said:


> Like I said, the only reason this type of increase is controversial is because minimum wage hasn't been keeping pace with productivity and inflation over the years. Keeping it at an unsustainable low level is not an option, since we're stuck with full-time workers who also have to rely on welfare as things stand now.


  Try taking a couple accounting and macroeconomic courses and maybe a business course, then get back to me on this.  
Those people who have jobs and rely on welfare need to look at their personal spending and where they live. If they can't afford the way of life they choose, maybe they need to change things in their life or get a second job.  Even I have had to get temp jobs every once in a while to keep up with my current lifestyle since the revenue from my business fluctuates throughout the year.



Xzi said:


> As I said, the cost of goods is not tied to the cost of labor, especially considering we get a lot of our goods from overseas.


 Thanks to democrat tax policies forcing all our manufacturing to move to other countries.  Fortunately, our great President is bringing those jobs back.  Cost of labor does affect the price of goods.  If a company's expenses go up, such as labor costs, where are they going to get the money to cover those new expenses?  From food stamps?  No, they have to eventually raise the price of their goods to cover the cost.  A lot of bigger companies can sustain an increase in costs for a small time, but they will always end up hurting them in the long run. The bigger the company, the longer they can withstand the raised costs.



Xzi said:


> If you have to raise your prices slightly, that's a price most customers will be happy to pay if their wages go up and we're investing tax dollars back into education, healthcare, etc for the working class.


 Not if they eventually end up being in the same hole they were in before the price increase.  You're talking about inflation, which is not good.  Then you will have people asking for $30/hr, then $40, then $50.  Why not just start paying everybody $100/hr?  I bet that sounds good to you, right?  

Tax dollars invested into education, healthcare, etc won't matter if there is no longer a working class since robots will eventually be a whole lot cheaper than humans.



Xzi said:


> Other countries also deal with disabled workers and people that refuse to work, and do a much better job of caring for both. I already gave you data showing that illegal immigrants pay a lot in taxes.


  They don't have to deal with as many burdens on their taxes like we do.  Illegal immigrants aliens pay sales taxes, but not nearly enough to pay for the "subsidies" or welfare we provide them to break our laws. We can't tax their incomes if they are paid under the table.  More taxes out then taxes brought in.



Xzi said:


> We subsidize sugar, corn, and big oil among several other industries. None of these corporations are in any danger of going bankrupt, so it's absolutely asinine to continue giving away our tax dollars to them.
> 
> As for the politicians and policies, it's less about incompetence and more about the system of quid pro quo among neoconservatives/neoliberals and their lobbyist donors. They still require ignorant voters to support them in order to retain office, however.


  This is mostly a bipartisan issue on how our taxes are spent. Funny, you didn't include "neoleftists" or "neodemocrats" in your post.  I wonder why that is, hmmm?


----------



## Xzi (Aug 20, 2019)

morvoran said:


> It may be a local Fox affiliate, but that means nothing as Fox affiliates are not strictly biased to one side.  The "different sources" include websites from berkeley, democrats, and Seattle's own website.  Not exactly moderate sources.


There are no sources on this topic which are right-wing enough to satisfy you.  I can't change that, but the numbers are what they are regardless.



morvoran said:


> Try taking a couple accounting and macroeconomic courses and maybe a business course, then get back to me on this.
> Those people who have jobs and rely on welfare need to look at their personal spending and where they live. If they can't afford the way of life they choose, maybe they need to change things in their life or get a second job.  Even I have had to get temp jobs every once in a while to keep up with my current lifestyle since the revenue from my business fluctuates throughout the year.


A full-time job at $7.25/hour is not enough to support a family no matter how frugal you might be.  This is simply shifting the blame away from where it rightly belongs.  If you're going to complain about people receiving welfare, then you shouldn't be in support of giving tax dollars to corporations who underpay their employees.



morvoran said:


> Thanks to democrat tax policies forcing all our manufacturing to move to other countries.  Fortunately, our great President is bringing those jobs back.


This is unfiltered bullshit.  Corporations will always choose the cheapest option when it comes to manufacturing, it doesn't matter who controls the presidency or congress.



morvoran said:


> Cost of labor does affect the price of goods.  If a company's expenses go up, such as labor costs, where are they going to get the money to cover those new expenses?  From food stamps?  No, they have to eventually raise the price of their goods to cover the cost.  A lot of bigger companies can sustain an increase in costs for a small time, but they will always end up hurting them in the long run. The bigger the company, the longer they can withstand the raised costs.


I didn't say the cost of goods would be completely unaffected, I said it doesn't go up at the same rate as the cost of labor.  If your average worker has 2x the amount of disposable income, and the cost of goods is raised by 1.25x, spending will still increase and profits will still increase.  Like I said though, a lot of goods come from overseas, and the price of those doesn't need to go up at all.  Not to mention corporations have been posting record profits for several years consecutively, it's clear that they aren't paying employees anything close to wages commensurable with their productivity.



morvoran said:


> Not if they eventually end up being in the same hole they were in before the price increase.  You're talking about inflation, which is not good.  Then you will have people asking for $30/hr, then $40, then $50.  Why not just start paying everybody $100/hr?  I bet that sounds good to you, right?


I'm talking about wages keeping pace with inflation and productivity, which they haven't been for 30-40 years now.  Without a strong working class, the economy remains unstable, to say the least.  Which is why we're due for another recession soon.



morvoran said:


> Tax dollars invested into education, healthcare, etc won't matter if there is no longer a working class since robots will eventually be a whole lot cheaper than humans.


At which point we'll have to have a different discussion about UBI, because a consumer economy collapses if the consumers no longer have any income.



morvoran said:


> They don't have to deal with as many burdens on their taxes like we do.  Illegal immigrants aliens pay sales taxes, but not nearly enough to pay for the "subsidies" or welfare we provide them to break our laws. We can't tax their incomes if they are paid under the table.  More taxes out then taxes brought in.


The estimates of the cost of government assistance used by illegal immigrants vary wildly.  If we want concrete numbers on how much they contribute vs how much they consume, we'll have to overhaul the immigration system and provide a path to citizenship.  Or otherwise at least make it easier immigrate legally.



morvoran said:


> This is mostly a bipartisan issue on how our taxes are spent. Funny, you didn't include "neoleftists" or "neodemocrats" in your post.  I wonder why that is, hmmm?


Umm, neoliberals almost all vote Democrat, just as neoconservatives almost all vote Republican.  I didn't use the term "neorightist" either, because I don't think that's really a thing.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Aug 21, 2019)

sarkwalvein said:


> He is right.
> If you earn net A€, and take x% of taxes,  then you get B€ left.
> Then, if you spend all B€ with a y% MwSt tax, then you're wasting and additional B€*y% in taxes.
> 
> ...


 
Your hypothetical well earning homeless person that doesn’t ever buy food but spends all their money amuses me.
There’s no VAT on rent and basic necessities are taxed at a reduced rate of 7%.

Generally speaking I would say taxes should be as minimal as possible, however, I would include welfare and education into the bare necessities.
One problem I see here is that the welfare payments equate to a very different standard of living depending on region, while you would be living in poverty in the south, you would be able to make ends meet in Berlin for example (Berlin is by far the cheapest capitol in the EU to live in).
We're also offereing training for long term unemployed people and one thing I've seen happen over and over is that the people who sign up for the training just don't show up and don't give a shit and the private companies who offer the training are basically allowing the trainees to have other trainees sign in for presence so they can cash the government check for the people who sign up and stop showing up after a while. For Perspective: the training I'm talking about is a Microsoft training where the courses total over 15,000€ for a regular person and it's a 5 week course, unemployed people get this course paid for and get trained for 9 months instead of 5 weeks, so I assume it's much more expensive as well.

I don't subscribe to the notion that people on welfare are just lazy, I have seen way too many people that I wouldn't trust to operate a broom, people that for some reason can't grow up and take responsibility, people whose highest priorities are their hobbies instead of families or work and they like to convince themselves that something is wrong with them and that it's not themselves who are holding them back. Overall I believe these people will often cause more issues in the workforce for everyone involved and in my experience these kind people often feel like they're getting bullied at work because their colleagues are fed up with their incompetence and will let them know. I don't have a problem with them living on welfare if they so chose. A regular person will want to have purpose in life and would rather work a low skill, low paying job than sitting around home doing nothing at all.

With regards to spending there’s a lot of things to consider when comparing the US to any EU country. As far as I’m aware France is the only country that meets the NATO requirements of spending 2% of the GDP, Sweden is only paying 1%, I wouldn’t blame anyone who said we’re freeloading off of the US‘ military spending.


----------



## morvoran (Aug 21, 2019)

Xzi said:


> There are no sources on this topic which are right-wing enough to satisfy you. I can't change that, but the numbers are what they are regardless.


I would prefer sources that are independent and do not lean extremely to the left or right.  What would you think if I sent you a news story from Breitbart News?  Would you agree with what they claim?  Of course not.  CNN and Breightbart are not "reliable" sources because they lean too far both ways and will only cherry pick the parts of reports that fit their narrative.

To summarize this whole "Taxes: justifiable or not", it all depends on your ideology.  If you are democrat, you feel that they are justified as long as they take care of the needy and keep them needy.  To republicans, taxes are necessary for infrastructure and security.

To break it down further----

Democrats: Throw money at problems without actually fixing the issues.  Politicians will pocket the rest.
Democratic Socialist: Everyone needs to pay most of their money into taxes because you didn't earn that money fairly if one person earns less than you.  Spread it out among the poor and illegals.  Politicians will pocket the rest.
Libertarians:  Taxes are not fair and nobody should pay into them.  Just give the money to me.
Republicans: Take taxes to (re)build infrastructure and secure the nation.  Police the world to spread democracy to keep our country safe from others.  Help people out in hard times, but not forever.  Politicians will keep the rest.

That should sum things up for everyone.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 25, 2019)

,


----------



## Lacius (Aug 25, 2019)

I can't think of a functional system of government that can exist without some form of what's effectively taxation. That alone justifies the use of taxes, as long as citizens have some sort of say.


----------



## IncredulousP (Aug 25, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I can't think of a functional system of government that can exist without some form of what's effectively taxation. That alone justifies the use of taxes, as long as citizens have some sort of say.


A post-scarcity, money-free society wouldn't need taxes.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 25, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> A post-scarcity, money-free society wouldn't need taxes.


I thought of mentioning a society living in a state of abundance a la Star Trek where money doesn't exist, let alone taxes, but I didn't think it needed to be addressed.

Even in a state of abundance though, taxes are going to exist in one form or another if currency still exists among the people. We'd have to eliminate currency entirely, which isn't realistic anytime soon.


----------



## PerfectB (Aug 25, 2019)

The biggest issue at hand is that, as the US (where I live) faces down late-stage capitalism, one party is heavily criticized as fascist while the other is criticized as socialist.  I prefer not to align myself with any party lines...they mostly deal in social issues when campaigning (where I have opinions on both sides of the spectrum) while the fiscal issues are largely ignored (other than using the vague phrase 'The Economy' as if it were some entity which we can directly control via a singular law or something).  My preference is to consider myself a realist--and I think personally that the biggest issue is that capitalism, fascism, socialism etc all really look the same as you approach the endgame because they all have the same endgame.  The few profit and hold power over the many.  The mechanism of action is different, yes, but a lever-action rifle and a bolt-action rifle both are rifles are they not?

But I'm far from an anarchist.  Uncontrolled chaos vs controlled chaos is based on what the majority of humans would prefer.  Many people point to the taxation systems of other countries, and how they have universal healthcare or this that and the other without a significant percentage increase in taxes over what we (the US) currently pay.  They also use a different currency than the USD, with different exchange rates, inflation, interest rates, and average incomes.  Percentages can be weighted percentages and are not apples to apples comparisons, which is difficult to communicate in a country where the majority didn't pass their high school Algebra courses.  It also stands to reason that a country's tax system working effectively could be attributed somewhat to the fact that said country has a geographic size and population that doesn't even rival the size of an average state in the US.

Diatribe aside, the issue that the corporate tax rate is too low or that the mega-wealthy need to pay their fair share, as it were, is flawed fundamentally.  The dirty secret, and the issue with the shrinking middle class, is that the people in the middle have always held the burden.  Once a certain income level is reached, there is little sympathy for the fact that the government 'asks' for your contributions, as you can afford to pay far more easily than those living in poverty.  Yet, the middle class lacks the means of the corporations, wherein the amount of tax owed vs. the ways to avoid those taxes is both a feasible compromise as well as a business decision.  The middle class cannot actually afford to dodge their taxes in any realistic way that doesn't result in getting caught, and therefore _must_ pay them.  Increase the corporate tax rate all you'd like, it just makes their decisions of how to dodge that rate effectively an easier line item to reconcile.

As far as what the taxes actually go towards, my girlfriend and I do not want children, so why should we pay for schools?  Many argue we will change our minds, but in our 30s I doubt we will soon; we've had time and anecdotal experience to realize it doesn't interest us.  Regardless, it's been shown that should we not pay into the educational system at all, the only thing we've really accomplished is creating a bunch of uneducated and unqualified young people who quickly realize that crime is profitable.  It's ultimately cheaper to pay educational taxes for a school we won't utilize than it is to deal with break-ins and theft.  It would be great if I could only pay for the roads I drive on regularly, until I need to travel for work and utilize a state road that could not be possibly funded or maintained by the small towns nearby.  Unfortunately, when speaking of things like that then yes, you do need to pay some taxes against things you don't use, because the outcome of not paying would be more costly for you in the end.

All that said, am I happy to pay taxes?  Not particularly.  I stopped looking at the gross/net income on my paystubs long ago, as it's practically stomach turning to think of how much energy you expended to finance things that at times you disagree with.  Tax season is equally as disturbing to me, as my social media feed becomes populated with many receiving large checks from the government, while my refund check barely covers the effort of delivering it to me.  I mean, in a sense all that means is that my day-to-day existence is likely far more comfortable than theirs, but human nature prevents me from seeing that at that particular time. Which brings me to my overall point:  I think that, if people really saw a better return on investment of paying taxes in their lives, they'd feel more compelled to be comfortable with it.

The things people can see mean a lot more than the intangible things they can't.  The county finally fixed the pothole on my street that I've been driving around for five years a few weeks ago.  We'll call that my return on investment


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 25, 2019)

PerfectB said:


> Tax season is equally as disturbing to me, as my social media feed becomes populated with many receiving large checks from the government, while my refund check barely covers the effort of delivering it to me.



Can you not view it as you are filing your taxes properly so that you don't give the government an interest free loan every year?


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 24, 2021)

-there shouldnt be both income tax and property tax, it should be one or the other, property tax is a relic of feudalism where you could argue someone's income was more or less directly proportional to the land they had
-stuff that can be privatized should be privatized, healthcare is a limited resource and should be treated as such, same as education
-politicians should earn only a liveable wage, not as much as they do (i'd say minimum, but imo minimum wage does not have to be livable)
-if taxes are "temporarily" increased for a specific project (such as building a school) there should be safeguards in place to make sure they return to the original rates once said project is finished
-customs shouldnt have been a thing in the first place

these are just my personal views


----------



## notimp (Jan 25, 2021)

PerfectB said:


> The biggest issue at hand is that, as the US (where I live) faces down late-stage capitalism, one party is heavily criticized as fascist while the other is criticized as socialist.


99% of americans will never be able to discuss on this level - theres your problem.


Not saying that the people in the video are especially bright - or happening, its just, that they arent limited by holding fake fascism vs socialism debates.

Oh, and btw - Chomsky is correct, the left is now also the party of globalists and industry - so not necessarily sure, how you'd be able to call that 'socialism'.

Get STEM, get reschooled, get UBI and shut up. What party? Faces, US citizens vote for faces. And if one of the faces is a hyper motivated narcissist - US can drift into fascism, no problem - none of them is ever confronted with real political issues - so what would they know. They hear at a rally - now we march, and if thats enough to bring more people on our side, we end democracy - and they march.

You dont fix that. You just ignore. Censor. And carry on - apparently.


edit: US people are so dumb, that when FED has to print money to keep the economy afloat, because they have no social security systems - they start calling that socialism.

US people are so dumb, that politicians can openly say 'people liked that 2000 USD for free' idea, we should campaign more on that - thats popular! So dumb they just found out, that people would vote if you give everyone 2000 USD checks.

US people are so dumb, that in the middle of a recession, they'd want industry to start paying for universal health care.

Oh - and if you let them, they'd prop up polls, if texes are justifiable, or too much. How do you feel about it?

Oh, I so long for the time, when the US cant print themselves out of every crisis, and actually have to resort to real income taxes like other countries. Only 20 more years..


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jan 25, 2021)

just dont pay taxes lol


----------



## SG854 (Jan 25, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> just dont pay taxes lol


There's ways to avoid taxes as an an American citizen which of course I don't do because I'm a good little boy who pays my taxes.


----------



## notimp (Jan 25, 2021)

IncredulousP said:


> Are taxes justifiable? If so, how much taxation is reasonable and how should it scale (if it should) among members of a society?


Theory crafting:

What are taxes (the part thats not already spent because of outstanding obligations):
- The ability to sustain 'shocks' (economic, natural, healthcare)
- The ability to 'guarantee' payback on national debt (If no growth f.e.)

Why is not demanding high taxes good?
- More incentive to innovate
- Keep people focused on the day to day job market and not thinking about anything else.

When can you afford not to demand high taxes?
- If you are a tax heaven (think switzerland)
- If you can absorb shocks, by printing the worlds currency and never go bankrupt.
- If you are a developing nation, so high risk is ok, because if you loose - people wont revolt, because 'having nothing' also is a lifestyle.


Bonus: Keep your people actually so dumb, that they think that 'societal debate' about 'should individuals pay more or less taxes' is something that affected by decisions (/preferences) on the individual level ("but I'm super entrepreneur, if I make party so more people think like me, society will be better..." morons - morons, because you can install progressive taxrates, foster innovation and tax high income earners at the same time) - and not about raising innovation, or balancing your debt risk.

So basically - you can afford low taxes - if you can balance 'risk' in a way that most countries cant. By doing that - and having an infrastructure thats not crumbling - you create an innovation friendly environment.

If you actually have to count on your society to actually not storm the Capitol, because they are bored and stupid one afternoon, you might have to invest more into society as well. (Sustained high tax output.) But as long as you dont have to - by all means, keep the tax heaven model. If sh*t goes wrong the whole world pays for the US anyhow.


edit: And all you need to do to find that out is to go onto this Wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates

And sort by Income tax, then look at the countries before and after the US. Do it for both brackets (lowest marginal rate and highest marginal rate).

edit2: And if you think - right about now would be a good time to increase income tax (i.e. universal health care) - think again. Or get a brain, or...
Which is why even thinking about the 'does the left want socialism'? Debate in the US makes me want to slap myself. Proposal is that stupid currently. (If this ends up putting more risk on SMEs and middle classes... In a recession...)




Youkai said:


> When I was in Japan I had to pay highest tax which was about 20% + 8% consumers tax ... at first I thought "damn those companys don't pay proper money" but after my first paycheck I was surprised as I still got so much money compared to what I would have gotten in Germany if earning the same hourly wage.
> 
> 
> I think taxes are important and correct to pay but the problem is that they are not allways used well (in Germany we have a group of people making a book out of the biggest tax wasting every year and even a TV show that showed some of these like bridges you can not use because there is no street going to them or bicycle ways you can not reach and so on ...)
> ...


Nonsense:







First column is avg corporate tax rate, second column is lowest median income tax, third column, is highest median income tax, fourth column is consumption tax.



> Taxation of an individual's income in Japan is progressive.
> In other words, the higher the income, the higher the rate of tax payable.
> The tax rate for an individual in 2020 is between 5% - 45% There are reduced rates of tax for certain income earners.


http://www.worldwide-tax.com/japan/japan_tax.asp


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 30, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> just dont pay taxes lol


Well if your a rich person or own a massive company. you can likely get away with that. (tax havens, pulling legal loopholes. change the law through lobbying)
Be a poor person?
Oh I'm sorry the IRS wants to see you personally.


----------

