Yeah. I was in the "my political beliefs are whatever my parent's are" phase. I was also pretty racist. Not proud of either.
Yes, assuming your income bracket is above mine. That is the explicit definition of a progressive tax rate. As I said before:
A government needs money to function. Setting aside for a moment whether they actually "need" it or not, they raise some of it through income taxes. But they can't just grab a napkin and write "AmtNeeded/TotalPop=TaxPerPerson" and call it good because all that would do is create millions of people who can't pay their taxes (even if they paid 100% of their income!), get jailed for doing so, and be a drain on the State. That's called debt slavery/tyranny/usury, and it's unpopular and might accidentally cause a bona fide revolution. So instead they make a series of tiers based on income, and you pay the amount that corresponds to your tier. If your tier is higher, then you pay more tax. Full stop. They get to do this. It is the codified law. If you do not like it, you only have two options: 1) Work to change the law(s). 2) Emigrate. There are no other alternatives.
Now, if you are attempting to engage with me about whether the practice of progressive tax rates is justified, and whether any other alternative would be more fair, then that is another discussion, as is the whole "Do we need Government in our funds at all?" question you seem to be raising. However, I will tell you up front that I will be 100% against any plan that does not work to reserve/exclude an amount from taxation sufficient for its subjects to meet their basic needs, and an unavoidable side effect of doing so WILL mean that the richer people will end up paying a larger percentage of their income than poorer people, because (TotalIncome - Necessities)/TotalIncome will always be smaller for people with smaller incomes...except for those people where it actually turns out negative, which is a completely different discussion, and is a situation I hope you never have to face, because it sounds like you wouldn't be able to process it.
I...actually said that.
And let me explicitly state this sentiment in case it is not clear. I do not expect Government to solve (all) my problems, no matter how much money I were to throw at it. I do, however, expect it to solve more problems than it creates. That is its price of existence. If I am compelled to allow it into my house/life/finances, then it had better earn its keep.
--Patrick
You posit that it is INCOME that is taxed. I axed part of your comment here, but we at least agree that there are alternatives NOT based around the idea of discouraging people to earn more money. Discouraging people to spend more? Who knows, but remember, Income Tax is a 20th century concept. Most (all?) governments didn't have it until relatively recently. It could be straight-out a BAD idea.
You have NO CHOICE but to leave if it doesn't "earn its keep" for you. As individuals, if it is doing a bad job, your potential to change such is so small as to not be worth mentioning. To many, feeding it money IS the core of the problem, and it would do better on the cost/benefit curve with LESS money and LESS interventions in nearly every aspect of life.
The main place IMO it's FAILING to do an interventionist job IMO is breaking up monopolies and encouraging an environment conducive to even more competition. More often than not, the cry is "regulate" which IMO just means "we'll entrench all existing monopolies with so much regulation that it'd be impossible for any newcomers to come in, cementing existing monopolies, and amplifying their influence with lawmakers." The cry should be "break up" much more often. But government likes to remain in control, so they regulate, rather than break up and watch what happens. A good example of this would be the "too big to fail" thing with banks. IMO if any one institution is "too big to fail" it's also "too big to exist" IMO, and should be broken up, and the remnants forced to compete with each other (the opposite of what happened with Bell).
Oh for... you still get to keep more money. Even when the marginal tax rate was 95%, the 5% left that would still be more money then you where making before...
I don't know about YOU, but if it was "overtime, but you only get to keep 5% of it" versus "go home and see my wife, have fun, etc" overtime would not be a thing for me.
Yes, taxing income is relatively new. It could be bad, but it is what exists now, and again, the only two real options are 1) Change the law or 2) Emigrate. The only third option I can think of (willfully generate no income) is one I have immediately discarded as irresponsible.
Countries have consistently made it more difficult to immigrate* to prevent this "border-hopping" behavior (just look at the hoops you have to jump through for New Zealand! And you can just forget about Finland. If the bureaucratic pressure doesn't dissuade you, the social pressure will), and it would be prohibitively expensive (in money AND time) for my family to emigrate. Funny thing about enacting change where you live, though...if people want a thing, the more of them that leave, the less likely that change will ever come to pass.
And as far as entrenching monopolies goes, they most often do this at the behest of the monopolies themselves, which is merely a symptom of the actual disease, which is that governments are made of people, and many of those people are putting their own agenda ahead of those of their constituency or at best selectively choosing what to promote because it happens to match their agenda.
To speak to what @@Li3n is saying, with a progressive tax rate, if you make more money, you will always take home more money. There is never a point where you would take home less. It is mathematically impossible.
Also, I've already said what I think about how important it is for there to be spending, and what I think happens when people don't spend (or invest, or donate, or what have you--basically about why it's bad to stockpile).
--Patrick
*Getting a work visa is one thing. Getting a permanent visa/resident alien status is another. Besides, why would I want to give up what influence I have, no matter how small? Most countries don't allow non-citizens to vote, y'know.
Last edited:
Oh, *I* get that taxes (or at least some form of "dues") are necessary (for government* to survive), but if anyone else has any ideas about how to open someone's eyes to their hypocrisy, I'm all for it. I mean, I'm just one guy, and therefore my ability to effect change is limited, and all that.
--Patrick
*If you, as an individual, are abdicating responsibility to another entity to make decisions about something for you, then that entity is some form of "government," whether you label it as such or not.
Yeah, and that's why it's only taxed so high at levels of income that are 99,99% not made by putting in extra effort, but by keeping more of your profits instead of investing them back in the company.
I mean, if you're making 500k+ a year, why would you bother with overtime to make more money? And if you're not getting it for overtime, then you're getting the 5% left for what you're already doing, so there's no motivation to refuse it (unless you don't want to give money to the government on principle, or you think you make enough).
He's already stated that he would rather give an appropriate amount of his own volition to a non-governmental entity rather than have it "taken" by government, because he believes government to be less accountable than his chosen charity.
--Patrick
I'm staying out of this discussion atm since I'm a) a European with WILDLY different opinions on taxation and b) way too over-stressed to engage now.
That aside, income tax is literally as old as the Roman empire, and tithing - you know, give 10% old your income - had been around nearly as long. No, tithing was not, originally, about charity works.
That aside, income tax is literally as old as the Roman empire, and tithing - you know, give 10% old your income - had been around nearly as long. No, tithing was not, originally, about charity works.
Who do you think i was thinking of when i wrote that?
Also, charity clearly doesn't work to fix a whole society, ask Africa.[DOUBLEPOST=1513959379,1513959293][/DOUBLEPOST]
Tehre's a reason why religious leaders use to be the richest people around...
I honestly thought you were directly asking him, not merely indirectly musing.
--Patrick
I’m just going to leave this here. Merry fucking Christmas.
If you got yours, good for you. A lot of us didn’t.
And don’t bother to nitpick the numbers. I don’t wanna hear it. I know when I’m being shit on without someone telling me it’s not as bad because it’s the less smelly brand of shit.
If you got yours, good for you. A lot of us didn’t.
And don’t bother to nitpick the numbers. I don’t wanna hear it. I know when I’m being shit on without someone telling me it’s not as bad because it’s the less smelly brand of shit.
WV trumpkins still think he's going to bring coal back, even after he's stabbed folks like Bob Murray in the back REPEATEDLY. More proof that this truly is the stupidest state in the union. (Alabama gave them a run for their money this year, though.)
Wisconsin gave 4 Billion dollars to Foxconn, so stupid is relative.
The $83 billion gas deal with China seems to be already falling apart.
figmentPez
Staff member
I don't even know where to begin.
Quintessential 2017.
I don't even know where to begin.
Dave
Staff member
The guy in charge of the 2020 census? Yeah, he believes in racial segregation and partisan gerrymandering. This should turn out well.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics...al-gerrymandering-and-voter-suppression-laws/
Someone posted that "everything Trump is doing can be undone". I disagree. He's going to be fucking up the political landscape for decades based on the census fuckery and stacking the courts with hyper-partisan right wing idiots. You know, those seats that SHOULD have been filled under Obama but weren't because the right wouldn't do their fucking jobs? Party over country every time with these guys.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics...al-gerrymandering-and-voter-suppression-laws/
Someone posted that "everything Trump is doing can be undone". I disagree. He's going to be fucking up the political landscape for decades based on the census fuckery and stacking the courts with hyper-partisan right wing idiots. You know, those seats that SHOULD have been filled under Obama but weren't because the right wouldn't do their fucking jobs? Party over country every time with these guys.
GasBandit
Staff member
I always feel compelled to point out when such things as the above are said, that they consider blocking such things to *be* their "fucking jobs," and that opposing democrat control/operations (by their reckoning) is good for both country *and* party.
To simply say they are "not doing their jobs" would indicate sloth or ineptitude. No, what they have been doing is both deliberate and strenuous.
To whit, if democrats were in control of congress, you would consider it to be *their jobs* to stop the Trump agenda at all costs, even if it meant bringing the hill to a standstill, wouldn't you?
Dave
Staff member
Depends on the issue. But there's a difference between being a check or balance to the legislative branch and being obstructionist for the sake of obstructionism, which is precisely what they have done and are doing. It's been said before, but if Obama had cured cancer, the right would be doing everything in their power right now to give everyone tumors.
GasBandit
Staff member
I'd be surprised if you needed more than one hand to count the number of Trump initiatives you'd not want opposed. I know I wouldn't.
Sometimes, no, there isn't. And that's precisely how the federal government was designed to work - or rather, to intentionally not work. There are often times when it is better to not allow a bad action to be taken, even if it means no action is taken at all.
And let's not pretend the Democrats are even the slightest bit less "party over country" than the Republicans. Both major parties believe they first must gain and retain control in order to be able to do what they think is best for the country. Nobody's fallen on their sword for the good of the country in DC in my lifetime, anyway.
I would be pretty irritated if the Democrats obstructed a Trump appointment in the same way the Republicans did with Obama's perfectly reasonable appointment. If the process doesn't work for confirming appointments, then look at the process. Don't hijack it like that, no matter your affiliation. I do not consider myself a Democrat, though. I despise the football flag waving tribalism we have in both parties right now.
Yes.
No.
It’s one thing to argue, rewrite, educate, investigate, compromise, vote, veto, campaign, interview, sue, shout, stonewall or even filibuster. It’s quite another to just flat out ignore the things you don’t like and actively suppress bringing them up for public debate. It’s like withholding evidence or lying by omission.
—Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
And yet we've been doing it since the 18th century.
http://www.sparknotes.com/us-government-and-politics/glossary/terms.html#pigeonholing
More evidence that I am not being represented in a manner consistent with my actual stance.
We used to have institutionalized slavery in the 18th century, too. So I guess there's hope.
--Patrick
figmentPez
Staff member
I think I have this figured out. As time passes the morality of actions fade away but the Remembrance of the actions remain. People remember Attila and Napoleon, but only schoars study the details. trump is trying to craft a legacy that will endure through time. No one will remember his business dealings or him as a man as it stands, but if he nukes some one, his name will live on forever.