Totally agree. I don't want to pay taxes that go to social programs but the reality is if we don't find effective policies I end up paying more in taxes for emergency treatment and society take major economic hits for the other secondary problems, like crime, that homelessness causes. Of course the other argument for this is that society clearly has a hand in the path that took these people to where they are at now so society has some responsibility. Both are reasons to support well researched evidence based policy decisions to deal with the problem.
There are several reactions to the 'I don't want to pay taxes' so I'll pick this one and respond. I hope you read the rest of the comment. I don't want to pay taxes because who does? Ever? But we -need- to pay taxes for programs that work because the alternative, massive social costs and damage to society, are far worse. So, sure, I don't want to pay taxes for social programs but I admit the need to and therefore I want the most effective, evidence based programs we can find. We need value for the effort and that involves doing research to figure that value out. If a program like this efficiently reduces the problems associated with homelessness I am all for it.
As to what I would actually want to pay taxes for it is to build new things and achieve new things as a society. I never want to spend money on 'fixing', it is needed, it has to happen, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. Building new things however I am 100% for. Get us to space. Find new particles. Help foster the arts. That is what I want my taxes to go for. So, yes, fund things like this if it is effective because we have to but you won't get me to say I want to spend money one this.
I want to pay taxes. Just like I want to be paid for my work, and those who devote themselves to public service want to be paid for theirs.
Ideally government work would pay well enough there would be no temptation to accept bribes, or declare bribes legal through awkward loopholes like campaign financing.
You realize existing roads need maintenance, i.e. fixing, too, right? Your approach towards taxes is absurd and reflects a lack of understanding of how anything works. And why, of all things, should taxes send us to the moon? Subsidizing private enterprise is the worst use of taxes.
I'm not sure if you are intentionally missing the point or not. I'll try one last time. I have very clearly not said 'this shouldn't be done'. I haven't said 'we shouldn't pay for social services or roads'. In fact, I clearly said we should pay for social services, now twice. What I have clearly said is 'I don't want to', but I do a lot of things I don't want to because they have to be done. I don't want to go to work. I don't want to pay taxes. Most days I don't want to go to bed at a reasonable time, but I do it because the alternative is worse. We -should- do something doesn't me I -want- to do something. Yes. We will pay for roads because they are needed. Hopefully things are very clear now and if not, oh well.
I'd be happy to pay taxes going to social programs also for my own benefit: not only as a form of insurance, but for getting a more pleasant day to day experience - like not having to step over homeless, less insecurity in darker areas, not having to live imprisoned in gated communities, and so on. A man can dream...
The thing really irking me is seeing how I pay much more taxes than the megarich and their corporations. Don't get me wrong, I can understand why this happens: they don't give a rat's ass on my safety concerns because they are very happy to live on their gated islands or travel between expensive resorts. But that we, the people (ha, ha) construct our society basically for them also basically holds me back from even discussing those numbers you asked.
Corporations pay taxes on distributions. In fact, C Corporations pay double taxes: once for the profit and then again when those profits are distributed to shareholders. Every employee pays income taxes. Why on earth would we want to create greater economic drag by increasing their tax rate? All that does is reduce their ability to reward investors.
I don't want to pay taxes that go to social programs
This is such awild thing to say. What do you think the point of society is? Also, there is no way you "Totally agree" if at the same time you are saying this.
Also if you understand the cost of incarceration and the negative social ills of poverty, then being against social programs, broadly, makes no sense.
The proper method to administrate social benefits is via charity. In this way, there is no deadweight loss through unnecessary taxes.
We've tried this for years, it doesn't work at scale. And the end result is that you and I are still taxed, just more expensively and differently. We pay more for cops, prisons, healthcare etc because we're unwilling to solve it at scale.
When did we try this? I'd argue we haven't tried it since the 16th Ammendment went into effect.
This isn't a problem that needs solving at scale. It's a problem that needs local/hyperlocal solutions with very strict strings attached. If we're not able to monitor the outcomes of each participant and ensure not a single drop of benefits aren't spent on no essentials (self improvement allowable), then we are wasting dollars on lazy.
If it's a problem across the US, in multiple states then yes. It's a problem that needs to be solved at scale, because it's a problem innate to the US.
It's a problem that needs local/hyperlocal solutions with very strict strings attached.
Means-testing doesn't work either. It's been tried. It usually means 'convert to our religion or you get no benefits' or 'gays do not apply'. See: Salvation Army.
If we're not able to monitor the outcomes of each participant and ensure not a single drop of benefits aren't spent on no essentials (self improvement allowable), then we are wasting dollars on lazy.
This is just the usual 'lazy poor' rhetoric. It's out of date by about 15 years.
It usually means 'convert to our religion or you get no benefits' or 'gays do not apply'. See: Salvation Army.
I fail to see how this is a problem. Beggers can't be choosers. If you need help, it may not be the worst thing to follow some guidance from folks that have figured things out. Note: Christian faiths would likely preach against queerness but not use it as a disqualifying event. At most they would state that the lifestyle isn't consistent with scripture. (of course extremes exist).
I'll have to look up on literature about means testing. I still fail to see how some person's poor decisions across the country should affect me. It should be a local issue to resolve governmentally. I'm sure the country would open their arms voluntarily if prompted. See Grover Cleveland and the farm disaster.
I fail to see how this is a problem. Beggers can't be choosers. If you need help, it may not be the worst thing to follow some guidance from folks that have figured things out. Note: Christian faiths would likely preach against queerness but not use it as a disqualifying event. At most they would state that the lifestyle isn't consistent with scripture. (of course extremes exist).
No, but charities can be choosers and beggers don't get a choice. I literally just pointed out a charity which does exactly what I said, one of the biggest charities in the US and the greatest example of how just relying on charity doesn't work, especially as they behave contrary to the literal scripture.
I'll have to look up on literature about means testing. I still fail to see how some person's poor decisions across the country should affect me.
It will always affect you. Who do you think pays for when people have to go to the hospital and seek aid? Or when our 'charity' fails and people that would otherwise be fine with things like unemployment aid end up homeless? Or when we need more police because people who need medication or food can't afford it? It's you and me.
Fair enough. I would concede that universal programs with progressive taxation is probably the best solution if we ignore the deadweight loss.
Providing universal food, healthcare means the gov increases demand. This leads to higher prices. Maybe more producers jump in to drive supply up and the equilibrium neutralizes back at the initial level. Suddenly the capital that was redirected to increase that supply reduces supply in other markets and drives up costs. The gov has manipulated the market, and they have the power to continue doing so on a whim. Consumers, especially those who are taxed at much higher progressive levels, lose purchasing power and those markets must adjust.
Maybe this is better than the outcome where we do the same thing but force cops to lock up everyone that is stealing for free food. After all, when everyone is in jail you have the same problem of gov interference in food, healthcare, and housing markets. But the additional overhead of law enforcement administration. Plus the total loss of economic contribution from those imprisoned.
But those dollars redistributed from the wealthy hurt. They really do. Especially since the progressive taxation hits middle income earners so fiercely. For example, I pay a little over $50k/year for two kids in daycare. The state wants to tax 1% of my (married) income above $200k to let other people send their kids to daycare for free. So suddenly demand increases, raising the $50k price I already pay, and now I lose $x dollars a year from my ability to spend freely. Why? So somebody can enter the labor market and drag down wages?
Maybe it's better. It probably is. It sounds a lot nicer. I don't think I earn enough to feel good about it though. I feel like it's throwing money into the pit of dispair as my ability to pursue my life's passions slips further away from the present (e.g., fire).
But maybe society will be nicer.
Edit: I forgot to mention that the 1% tax doesn't provide free daycare to all. It's really quite selective. So a universal program would be orders of magnitude more expensive, and taxation rates would be tremendous.
I already pay a little over 30% effective rate. It's demoralizing that, of the annual income, I don't get to keep it until approximately Easter. Society would have to be much, much nicer for me to work for free until June or July without being permanently grouchy. Plus wealth taxes, apart from being bad policy, are not federally legal because wealth isn't income, so the state would have to implement it, and we all know some states wouldn't so they could attract the wealthy, which means that those low wealth, medium to high earners would be paying even more.
Comments
Totally agree. I don't want to pay taxes that go to social programs but the reality is if we don't find effective policies I end up paying more in taxes for emergency treatment and society take major economic hits for the other secondary problems, like crime, that homelessness causes. Of course the other argument for this is that society clearly has a hand in the path that took these people to where they are at now so society has some responsibility. Both are reasons to support well researched evidence based policy decisions to deal with the problem.
You don't want to pay taxes for social programs as opposed to...what? Military and defense spending? What is there better than a social program?
There are several reactions to the 'I don't want to pay taxes' so I'll pick this one and respond. I hope you read the rest of the comment. I don't want to pay taxes because who does? Ever? But we -need- to pay taxes for programs that work because the alternative, massive social costs and damage to society, are far worse. So, sure, I don't want to pay taxes for social programs but I admit the need to and therefore I want the most effective, evidence based programs we can find. We need value for the effort and that involves doing research to figure that value out. If a program like this efficiently reduces the problems associated with homelessness I am all for it.
As to what I would actually want to pay taxes for it is to build new things and achieve new things as a society. I never want to spend money on 'fixing', it is needed, it has to happen, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. Building new things however I am 100% for. Get us to space. Find new particles. Help foster the arts. That is what I want my taxes to go for. So, yes, fund things like this if it is effective because we have to but you won't get me to say I want to spend money one this.
I want to pay taxes. Just like I want to be paid for my work, and those who devote themselves to public service want to be paid for theirs.
Ideally government work would pay well enough there would be no temptation to accept bribes, or declare bribes legal through awkward loopholes like campaign financing.
You realize existing roads need maintenance, i.e. fixing, too, right? Your approach towards taxes is absurd and reflects a lack of understanding of how anything works. And why, of all things, should taxes send us to the moon? Subsidizing private enterprise is the worst use of taxes.
I'm not sure if you are intentionally missing the point or not. I'll try one last time. I have very clearly not said 'this shouldn't be done'. I haven't said 'we shouldn't pay for social services or roads'. In fact, I clearly said we should pay for social services, now twice. What I have clearly said is 'I don't want to', but I do a lot of things I don't want to because they have to be done. I don't want to go to work. I don't want to pay taxes. Most days I don't want to go to bed at a reasonable time, but I do it because the alternative is worse. We -should- do something doesn't me I -want- to do something. Yes. We will pay for roads because they are needed. Hopefully things are very clear now and if not, oh well.
The the whole thing can be summed up as "Paying taxes sucks, but if paying the taxes saves more money down then line, then we should do it"
I'd be happy to pay taxes going to social programs also for my own benefit: not only as a form of insurance, but for getting a more pleasant day to day experience - like not having to step over homeless, less insecurity in darker areas, not having to live imprisoned in gated communities, and so on. A man can dream...
How much would you have to pay to no longer enjoy the benefit? I think that's the major question.
I wouldn't much mind 1% in income tax for that, for example, but when you start pushing 10% it's an entirely different story.
The thing really irking me is seeing how I pay much more taxes than the megarich and their corporations. Don't get me wrong, I can understand why this happens: they don't give a rat's ass on my safety concerns because they are very happy to live on their gated islands or travel between expensive resorts. But that we, the people (ha, ha) construct our society basically for them also basically holds me back from even discussing those numbers you asked.
Corporations pay taxes on distributions. In fact, C Corporations pay double taxes: once for the profit and then again when those profits are distributed to shareholders. Every employee pays income taxes. Why on earth would we want to create greater economic drag by increasing their tax rate? All that does is reduce their ability to reward investors.
This is such awild thing to say. What do you think the point of society is? Also, there is no way you "Totally agree" if at the same time you are saying this.
Also if you understand the cost of incarceration and the negative social ills of poverty, then being against social programs, broadly, makes no sense.
Social programs are definitionaly nonpublic. That is, they do not provide nonrivalous and nonexcludable benefits.
The proper method to administrate social benefits is via charity. In this way, there is no deadweight loss through unnecessary taxes.
We've tried this for years, it doesn't work at scale. And the end result is that you and I are still taxed, just more expensively and differently. We pay more for cops, prisons, healthcare etc because we're unwilling to solve it at scale.
When did we try this? I'd argue we haven't tried it since the 16th Ammendment went into effect.
This isn't a problem that needs solving at scale. It's a problem that needs local/hyperlocal solutions with very strict strings attached. If we're not able to monitor the outcomes of each participant and ensure not a single drop of benefits aren't spent on no essentials (self improvement allowable), then we are wasting dollars on lazy.
If it's a problem across the US, in multiple states then yes. It's a problem that needs to be solved at scale, because it's a problem innate to the US.
Means-testing doesn't work either. It's been tried. It usually means 'convert to our religion or you get no benefits' or 'gays do not apply'. See: Salvation Army.
This is just the usual 'lazy poor' rhetoric. It's out of date by about 15 years.
I fail to see how this is a problem. Beggers can't be choosers. If you need help, it may not be the worst thing to follow some guidance from folks that have figured things out. Note: Christian faiths would likely preach against queerness but not use it as a disqualifying event. At most they would state that the lifestyle isn't consistent with scripture. (of course extremes exist).
I'll have to look up on literature about means testing. I still fail to see how some person's poor decisions across the country should affect me. It should be a local issue to resolve governmentally. I'm sure the country would open their arms voluntarily if prompted. See Grover Cleveland and the farm disaster.
No, but charities can be choosers and beggers don't get a choice. I literally just pointed out a charity which does exactly what I said, one of the biggest charities in the US and the greatest example of how just relying on charity doesn't work, especially as they behave contrary to the literal scripture.
It will always affect you. Who do you think pays for when people have to go to the hospital and seek aid? Or when our 'charity' fails and people that would otherwise be fine with things like unemployment aid end up homeless? Or when we need more police because people who need medication or food can't afford it? It's you and me.
Fair enough. I would concede that universal programs with progressive taxation is probably the best solution if we ignore the deadweight loss.
Providing universal food, healthcare means the gov increases demand. This leads to higher prices. Maybe more producers jump in to drive supply up and the equilibrium neutralizes back at the initial level. Suddenly the capital that was redirected to increase that supply reduces supply in other markets and drives up costs. The gov has manipulated the market, and they have the power to continue doing so on a whim. Consumers, especially those who are taxed at much higher progressive levels, lose purchasing power and those markets must adjust.
Maybe this is better than the outcome where we do the same thing but force cops to lock up everyone that is stealing for free food. After all, when everyone is in jail you have the same problem of gov interference in food, healthcare, and housing markets. But the additional overhead of law enforcement administration. Plus the total loss of economic contribution from those imprisoned.
But those dollars redistributed from the wealthy hurt. They really do. Especially since the progressive taxation hits middle income earners so fiercely. For example, I pay a little over $50k/year for two kids in daycare. The state wants to tax 1% of my (married) income above $200k to let other people send their kids to daycare for free. So suddenly demand increases, raising the $50k price I already pay, and now I lose $x dollars a year from my ability to spend freely. Why? So somebody can enter the labor market and drag down wages?
Maybe it's better. It probably is. It sounds a lot nicer. I don't think I earn enough to feel good about it though. I feel like it's throwing money into the pit of dispair as my ability to pursue my life's passions slips further away from the present (e.g., fire).
But maybe society will be nicer.
Edit: I forgot to mention that the 1% tax doesn't provide free daycare to all. It's really quite selective. So a universal program would be orders of magnitude more expensive, and taxation rates would be tremendous.
I already pay a little over 30% effective rate. It's demoralizing that, of the annual income, I don't get to keep it until approximately Easter. Society would have to be much, much nicer for me to work for free until June or July without being permanently grouchy. Plus wealth taxes, apart from being bad policy, are not federally legal because wealth isn't income, so the state would have to implement it, and we all know some states wouldn't so they could attract the wealthy, which means that those low wealth, medium to high earners would be paying even more.
Don’t worry. If the “right” people get their hands on it, you won’t have to cover the cost of their emergency treatment either!
(/s because poes law)