> Did you know that more than 40% of the country DOES NOT pay taxes?
Did you know that everyone who complains about that is ignorant and selfish and should have their taxes doubled for even trying to make the poor poorer?
By the way, it's a lie, everyone pays taxes, 40% just don't pay income taxes which is but one of many taxes we're all required to pay. Implying that they don't pay taxes is despicably intellectually dishonest.
I don't think I am selfish and ignorant for worrying about the incentive effects involved when a majority of the voting public do not pay anything for the programs they vote for.
Of course, I am pretty poor right now myself (Grad school), so your suggestion that my taxes should be doubled doesn't really do a lot.
> I am worried about the incentive effects involved when a majority of the voting public do not pay anything for the programs they vote for.
Don't, the wealthy don't need you to worry about them, they have paid lobbyists to do that for them and they're well taken care of already. You need not fear for the wealthy, they'll be just fine, they always are.
> I can't figure out how that is ignorant or selfish.
It's ignorant because you're concerned about those who need your concern the least, because they've brainwashed you into it by making you think you'll be one of them one day.
It's selfish because you've directed your anger at the poor, those who need help the most, you're complaining about it as if they're the ones who write the rules or control the system; they don't.
Look, there's absolutely nothing wrong with being rich, or wanting to be rich. But it's fucking selfish to point fingers at the poor and say they aren't paying enough.
Frankly, you don't know what poor is, you're in Grad school for Christ's sake, that's not poor.
Poor is shopping in dumpsters for clothes and food because you have no money and no hope of attaining money.
Poor kids don't go to college, many don't finish high school, staying alive is too pressing a concern to be off "wasting time learning" when you're little brother is starving and you could be bouncing store to store buying 1 cent gum with food stamps so you can get 99 cents change to eventually collect up enough to pay the rent so you're not all homeless tomorrow morning.
Poor is collecting rain water in a big tub on the back porch so you can take a bath, and then sharing the water with your siblings one after the next because you don't have indoor plumbing and you've never seen a shower.
Poor is walking 200 feet in snow to go to the bathroom, again because you don't have indoor plumbing and you built an outhouse near the edge of the woods and the distance in necessary to keep the stink away.
This shit happens, here, in America, daily. Poor is an economic status most are born into and never get enough education to realize ways out even exist. You don't fucking know poor, point your accusatory finger elsewhere.
> you're selfish because you've directed your anger at the poor
Who said I'm angry at the poor? I'm not. I just think there is a certain intelligent logic in how taxation and representation are rhetorically linked. I also think a majority-rules democratic system where a majority pay $0 in taxes in unsustainable. I think the decisions made in such a system will be stupid and short-sighted, leading to massive deficits, economic collapse, and maybe even political instability in the long run.
Leave your emotions aside for a moment. I am simply trying to discuss what is wise. I am not advocating eating the poor. However, I see that you already have your mind made up and have no desire for discussion.
In addition, you're imputing a ton of motives and positions to me that I did not state. You're in attack dog mode for no reason, and there is no way that I can intelligently engage you if you've already painted me as an evil misanthrope.
The number of people who pay no net taxes in this country is much larger than the number that get their clothes from dumpsters. You're painting a dishonest scenario and smearing me with dishonest motives.
In general I don't enjoy talking to people who think that those who disagree with them are evil. I can say that I didn't enjoy this conversation.
You did when you brought up the "40% don't pay taxes" b.s. line that I'm beyond tired of hearing from conservatives. I've heard it a hundred times and it's always from an angry conservative blaming poor lazy people for stealing their money with tax credits. After you hear a lie enough times you start to get annoyed with the people perpetuating it.
> I also think a majority-rules democratic system where a majority pay $0 in taxes in unsustainable.
Straw man, we have no such system.
> Leave your emotions aside for a moment. I am simply trying to discuss what is wise.
Easily done, what is wise to look not at the poor, but at the well off when looking for sources of revenue. The poor need sympathy, not scorn.
> In addition, you're imputing a ton of motives and positions to me that I did not state.
Then don't use the arguments primarily shared by people that hold those positions.
> there is no way that I can intelligently engage you if you've already painted me as an evil misanthrope
I don't think you're evil; engage me with logic and questions that don't imply blame on the poorest among us.
> The number of people who pay no net taxes in this country is much larger than the number that get their clothes from dumpsters.
I agree, and I didn't claim otherwise. I was disputing your claim that you were somewhat poor, you aren't.
I don't enjoy people attacking people who don't make enough money to pay taxes under our current system. Those people are not the problem with our system and any attempt to put the focus there seems to me a shallow attempt to deny that simple fact.
Pretty soon, half of all voters won't be paying a dime to fund the spending programs they vote for. That sounds dangerous.
In Singapore, which has a large number of social programs, many programs have a copay to counter the "buffet mentality" that comes from handing out lots of free goods. Consumption is subsidized, but it is not free. I'd like to see us take a similar approach.
The problem is that is the 40% of the country with hardly any money, so there's not much revenue to be gotten from them, anyway. They also still pay a fair amount of more regressive taxes like social security, sales taxes, etc.
> They also still pay a fair amount of more regressive taxes like social security
Social security for low-income folks isn't so much a tax as a forced savings plan. For low-income folks, the return is pretty good. For higher-income folks, the return is lousy. For the rich, it's simply not a factor.
Note that the "regression" comes from capping the amount taxed, but the benefits are capped too. If you uncap the amount taxed and uncap the benefits, Ross Perot will be getting >$100k benefits and the system will have even more economic trouble. If you uncap the amount taxed and keep the benefits cap, it becomes yet another welfare program and folks are going to start caring about the 15%.
In the past, SS advocates have argued vehemently against turning it into yet another welfare program and have also opposed uncapped benefits. They argue that both will lead to decreased support for SS.
Comments
Did you know that more than 40% of the country DOES NOT pay taxes?
Someone should be taxing that 40%...
> Did you know that more than 40% of the country DOES NOT pay taxes?
Did you know that everyone who complains about that is ignorant and selfish and should have their taxes doubled for even trying to make the poor poorer?
By the way, it's a lie, everyone pays taxes, 40% just don't pay income taxes which is but one of many taxes we're all required to pay. Implying that they don't pay taxes is despicably intellectually dishonest.
Note: This was originally a little more harsh.
I don't think I am selfish and ignorant for worrying about the incentive effects involved when a majority of the voting public do not pay anything for the programs they vote for.
Of course, I am pretty poor right now myself (Grad school), so your suggestion that my taxes should be doubled doesn't really do a lot.
> I am worried about the incentive effects involved when a majority of the voting public do not pay anything for the programs they vote for.
Don't, the wealthy don't need you to worry about them, they have paid lobbyists to do that for them and they're well taken care of already. You need not fear for the wealthy, they'll be just fine, they always are.
> I can't figure out how that is ignorant or selfish.
It's ignorant because you're concerned about those who need your concern the least, because they've brainwashed you into it by making you think you'll be one of them one day.
It's selfish because you've directed your anger at the poor, those who need help the most, you're complaining about it as if they're the ones who write the rules or control the system; they don't.
Look, there's absolutely nothing wrong with being rich, or wanting to be rich. But it's fucking selfish to point fingers at the poor and say they aren't paying enough.
Frankly, you don't know what poor is, you're in Grad school for Christ's sake, that's not poor.
Poor is shopping in dumpsters for clothes and food because you have no money and no hope of attaining money.
Poor kids don't go to college, many don't finish high school, staying alive is too pressing a concern to be off "wasting time learning" when you're little brother is starving and you could be bouncing store to store buying 1 cent gum with food stamps so you can get 99 cents change to eventually collect up enough to pay the rent so you're not all homeless tomorrow morning.
Poor is collecting rain water in a big tub on the back porch so you can take a bath, and then sharing the water with your siblings one after the next because you don't have indoor plumbing and you've never seen a shower.
Poor is walking 200 feet in snow to go to the bathroom, again because you don't have indoor plumbing and you built an outhouse near the edge of the woods and the distance in necessary to keep the stink away.
This shit happens, here, in America, daily. Poor is an economic status most are born into and never get enough education to realize ways out even exist. You don't fucking know poor, point your accusatory finger elsewhere.
> you're selfish because you've directed your anger at the poor
Who said I'm angry at the poor? I'm not. I just think there is a certain intelligent logic in how taxation and representation are rhetorically linked. I also think a majority-rules democratic system where a majority pay $0 in taxes in unsustainable. I think the decisions made in such a system will be stupid and short-sighted, leading to massive deficits, economic collapse, and maybe even political instability in the long run.
Leave your emotions aside for a moment. I am simply trying to discuss what is wise. I am not advocating eating the poor. However, I see that you already have your mind made up and have no desire for discussion.
In addition, you're imputing a ton of motives and positions to me that I did not state. You're in attack dog mode for no reason, and there is no way that I can intelligently engage you if you've already painted me as an evil misanthrope.
The number of people who pay no net taxes in this country is much larger than the number that get their clothes from dumpsters. You're painting a dishonest scenario and smearing me with dishonest motives.
In general I don't enjoy talking to people who think that those who disagree with them are evil. I can say that I didn't enjoy this conversation.
> Who said I'm angry at the poor?
You did when you brought up the "40% don't pay taxes" b.s. line that I'm beyond tired of hearing from conservatives. I've heard it a hundred times and it's always from an angry conservative blaming poor lazy people for stealing their money with tax credits. After you hear a lie enough times you start to get annoyed with the people perpetuating it.
> I also think a majority-rules democratic system where a majority pay $0 in taxes in unsustainable.
Straw man, we have no such system.
> Leave your emotions aside for a moment. I am simply trying to discuss what is wise.
Easily done, what is wise to look not at the poor, but at the well off when looking for sources of revenue. The poor need sympathy, not scorn.
> In addition, you're imputing a ton of motives and positions to me that I did not state.
Then don't use the arguments primarily shared by people that hold those positions.
> there is no way that I can intelligently engage you if you've already painted me as an evil misanthrope
I don't think you're evil; engage me with logic and questions that don't imply blame on the poorest among us.
> The number of people who pay no net taxes in this country is much larger than the number that get their clothes from dumpsters.
I agree, and I didn't claim otherwise. I was disputing your claim that you were somewhat poor, you aren't.
I don't enjoy people attacking people who don't make enough money to pay taxes under our current system. Those people are not the problem with our system and any attempt to put the focus there seems to me a shallow attempt to deny that simple fact.
Pretty soon, half of all voters won't be paying a dime to fund the spending programs they vote for. That sounds dangerous.
In Singapore, which has a large number of social programs, many programs have a copay to counter the "buffet mentality" that comes from handing out lots of free goods. Consumption is subsidized, but it is not free. I'd like to see us take a similar approach.
The problem is that is the 40% of the country with hardly any money, so there's not much revenue to be gotten from them, anyway. They also still pay a fair amount of more regressive taxes like social security, sales taxes, etc.
> They also still pay a fair amount of more regressive taxes like social security
Social security for low-income folks isn't so much a tax as a forced savings plan. For low-income folks, the return is pretty good. For higher-income folks, the return is lousy. For the rich, it's simply not a factor.
Note that the "regression" comes from capping the amount taxed, but the benefits are capped too. If you uncap the amount taxed and uncap the benefits, Ross Perot will be getting >$100k benefits and the system will have even more economic trouble. If you uncap the amount taxed and keep the benefits cap, it becomes yet another welfare program and folks are going to start caring about the 15%.
In the past, SS advocates have argued vehemently against turning it into yet another welfare program and have also opposed uncapped benefits. They argue that both will lead to decreased support for SS.
Are they wrong?
We are...it's called the lottery.