Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
why do people consider "taxes" as a form of "taking"? Why not consider it as a "payment" of security... as in you live in a "safe" country... if you lived in Somalia... you would spend more money than you pay in taxes to keep yourself safe...
or why not just hire your own firefighters/teachers/mailman/police/etc as well. Just consider the "tax" as the govt's bill to you for its services. then you have the options of choosing to do business with another government by emigrating out
That depends on if the people who are being given the tax breaks are even using whatever it is that the tax payer in question is funding. Do you think rich people care about using public services instead of the million times better private ones? They are basically funding the services others use even though they don't benefit from them very much. And then there is also the fact that higher earners pay more to society then what they take.
If Bob makes 3 grand a month and David makes a million and both pay 30%, then David is paying way more money than Bob. And yet, David doesn't benefit more from public services than Bob and in fact actually benefits less. Meaning, that even if David's taxes were literally cut into half David would still probably be a more valuable tax payer than Bob and still give more than what he gives.
I thus consider the premise of your argument to be false, because it is only actually correct if if the person getting the tax cut is making less then someone who makes more. Otherwise, the person getting the cut is still contributing more than they are consuming from the state.
??? ???
Consider homestead exemptions.
In Michigan, an owner-occupied primary residence qualifies for a homestead exemption, while a rental property does not (even if it is the tenant's primary residence) The school property tax rate without a homestead exemption is 4x the rate with a homestead exemption; this works out to a tax break for a homestead exemption in the neighborhood of $1,500 per year. (You can also think of it as an extra $125/mo on a rental house.)
FWIW, according to the National Multi Housing Council, a nationwide organization of large apartment owners and managers, single-family homes generate school kids at twice the rate of apartments.
A homeowner with a $200K home and a homestead exemption pays $600/yr in school property tax, regardless of income. Oh, if the homeowner is poor they qualify for a deferral of property taxes until they sell, move, or die. If a renter is poor there is no property tax deferral and the renter probably ends up homeless.
The US is suffering from too little wealth redistribution rather than too much. [/b]
Wow. i have never posted on here before today but i had to laugh at this.... I would like for you to show me some sort of statistic to support this ridiculous claim?
Wow. i have never posted on here before today but i had to laugh at this.... I would like for you to show me some sort of statistic to support this ridiculous claim?
rruff is god-awful wrong about many things, but this isn't one of them. Two of the basic reasons why human beings form societies at all are risk-sharing and redistribution of wealth and income. We don't do anywhere near enough of either one of those things in this country today and it shows glaringly in our welfare and happiness data.
I am all for having low taxes. I also believe that while having some kind of progressive elements in the tax system may in some cases be needed, that higher earners should in the end not be brutally punished for making lots of money. However, when I listen to fiscal liberals and people who want higher taxes on higher income earners one thing I often hear them say which makes me want to kill myself is: "Why should the state give the rich more money by lowering taxes on them?".
Ok, for starters everybody knows that not only the rich get to pay higher taxes in the leftist world. Just look at the Scandinavian nations where even normal people are by no means paying low taxes. But what I find to be much more insulting is this notion that lowering taxes is "giving people money".
OK, let's get something straight here. The state DOESN'T OWN ANYTHING that you earn. Every single piece of money that a person earns is that person's money. The fact that the state then takes some of this money, does not change this. If I earn 10 dollars and then the state takes 3 of these dollars via tax, then that doesn't mean the state now owns these 3 dollars. It just means that I have to give 3 of MY dollars to the state. You fallow me so far? Good.
Now, if the state then decides to lower my tax so that I am now only giving 2 dollars away and not 3, then that is not a extra dollar that the state has somehow given me, but a dollar that I already owned but now no longer have to give away against my will. The state hasn't given me anything, it just took less of what I already owned.
It's like fiscal liberals are of the view that people don't actually own anything. That everything people make belongs to the state, and that it's actually the state that is giving money to the tax payer by leaving something left instead of taking all of it.
Well I got news for you, things don't work that way.
Can arguments be given in favor of taxing some people differently than others? Perhaps. But please for the love of god, stop this bull**** about how taxing people less is giving them more money. It's not.
End of rant.
i've never heard someone say "give the rich more money by lowering taxes on them". do you have an example of someone saying that? i've heard things more along the lines about loopholes in the tax code being referred to as "giving" money. which, i sort of agree with it in that context.
in reality though, i think your rant is mostly based on putting words into people's mouths. not what they're actually saying.
If you give a company a break to move to your area they would be getting revenue from others sources that would have otherwise been zero. In that case it's not redistributing because of the breaks
In that case, instead of picking and choosing who gets the breaks, why not simply lower the entire overall tax environment to make your entire area (state, municipality, etc) more business friendly, resulting in a longer term influx of business into the area? A tax of 25% on a full tax base is better than 35% on a tax base at half capacity, right? Cities, towns and states don't take in much tax revenue on empty buildings.
That depends on if the people who are being given the tax breaks are even using whatever it is that the tax payer in question is funding. Do you think rich people care about using public services instead of the million times better private ones? They are basically funding the services others use even though they don't benefit from them very much. And then there is also the fact that higher earners pay more to society then what they take.
If Bob makes 3 grand a month and David makes a million and both pay 30%, then David is paying way more money than Bob. And yet, David doesn't benefit more from public services than Bob and in fact actually benefits less. Meaning, that even if David's taxes were literally cut into half David would still probably be a more valuable tax payer than Bob and still give more than what he gives.
I thus consider the premise of your argument to be false, because it is only actually correct if if the person getting the tax cut is making less then someone who makes more. Otherwise, the person getting the cut is still contributing more than they are consuming from the state.
can you give some examples of the private services that are a million times better than the public one? like - a fire department, police department, or road maintenance department?
[QUOTEwhy do people consider "taxes" as a form of "taking"? Why not consider it as a "payment" of security... as in you live in a "safe" country[/QUOTE]
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
You appear to believe that the "getting of money" in a legal way is somehow holy and righteous and perfect. In truth it is an artifact of our laws, customs, and regulations.
You sound like King George telling the peasants they can't hunt the Kings deer to feed themselves, except for those favored by the crown. The money all belongs to the government, so the keeping of money that you've earned is harmful to the government, unless done in a way and an amount in which the government approves? I doubt that many of us would debate the need for the government to levy taxes for the maintenance of the nation, but most of us would agree that the government today uses tax policy in ways never intended by the founders or the constitution.
can you give some examples of the private services that are a million times better than the public one? like - a fire department, police department, or road maintenance department?
Healthcare. Universal healthcare costs MASSIVE amounts in the countries that have it, and yet those with the money would rather use the private option whenever possible. If they can't get it in their own country, they would rather go to someplace else to take care of their medical needs. There also exists examples of good privately owned roads and infrastructure. Private security exists as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
