One of these things is not like the other.
Why not do away with the military? It’s incredibly expensive and requires that you start wars to justify having it.
Also, I’ve never worked out* why stridently anti-taxation conservatives insist on funneling trillions to their buddies in the military-industrial complex.
*okay, that’s not true.
Having lower tax rates on money invested in relative safety in the various markets is a DIS-incentive to risk and innovation. Why would anyone sink significant time, money, and effort for a higher tax burden as well as the risk of bankruptcy rather than simply parking the same amount of capital in secondary market offerings?
Smart wealthy people are not starting new businesses or hiring more employees to expand their businesses, unless they are specifically looking for losses to write off to compensate for other gains.
Virtually all new businesses are started by non-1%ers. That’s where the majority of new jobs comes from.
If you want to see innovation and entrepreneurship, double the tax rate on passive investments and cut a tax deal for company founders when they reap the reward for their hard work. Make it more costly to hang onto capital instead of investing it in new products, services, and jobs.
Sure, I could be persuaded to agree about that, but my point was less about debates about what we spend our tax dollars on and more on that we have collective set of resources, that in theory benefit us as a people. What is beneficial, is, I think you’ll agree totally up for debate.
Because Uncle Milty’s prescriptions were intended from the get-go to promote feudalism wealth creation while selling it to the suckers masses, and, if you’re going to go that route, you need a strong army to fight those wars that will distract the suckers must be fought to Protect Democracy (because They Hate your Freedom, you understand), and should that fail, to make an attempt to put down the inevitable revolution ensure that Undesirable Elements of un-American origin do not sully your Fair Democracy, maybe? (Of course, there’s the added bonus that you can co-opt a sh*tload of young people who might otherwise cause trouble by promising them a leg up through the armed forces. If they break while pursuing foreign adventures Defending Democracy, well, that’s tough you’ll honour them. And, of course, you can help your friends in the military-industrial complex in return for future considerations to Keep the State Nation Strong. Bonus!)
“Childish magical thinking” is believing this is still a world where you can live off the grid and not be a part of the larger human community. If you’re going to reap the benefits of public roads, public utilities, public police and fire departments, environmental regulations that protect your water and air, government agencies that make sure you aren’t getting poison in your food and medicine, then you gotta play along. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
If you really want to live off the grid then you have to find land somewhere that isn’t controlled by any government. That’s not gonna happen, this isn’t 1800 with a continent for settlers to run and grab and fence off and claim as their own.
And anyway, “the basic absolutely necessary common activities that are enjoyed EQUALLY by all citizens” is another thing we would end up debating. The GOP and Libertarians have become known for opposing the EPA, but should I have the freedom to import wood from overseas if the wood carries parasites that end up ruining the maple syrup industry for Vermont and New Hampshire? Does my freedom trump their freedom and livelihood? Are environmental regulations something we all enjoy equally, or are they just a burden on free enterprise? I’m not defending government waste, I’m just saying how one defines “waste” is another long tedious debate.
Yes, you want to pay less in taxes, but have you really calculated the value of what you are already paying for?
BTW-- you know what else is childish? Claiming anyone who defends the graduated income tax does so out of “envy.” Do you defend the flat tax because of greed?
yes, let’s do away with public roadways, public utilities, the military, any public funding for education or the arts, any social safety net, etc, because it’s all just straight up communism.
Those streets that go in front of your house? Likely they were built by the developer who built your house or apartment. I’ll bet many of the things that you think would not exist with confiscatory tax and spending were built by private investors and private initiative
Here’s the problem with neo-liberalism (new branding on 200 year old socialism): He has this idea that he will just cut a little bit off of the bone for the noble projects he likes. Unfortunately, he doesn’t appreciate that everyone else has the same idea. So, instead of Stalinism where one guy is cutting all the meat off the bone, you have 300 million individuals nibbling the meat off the bone. This leads to a cognitive dissonance where each person thinks that someone else has gotten all the good meat because he certainly didn’t get much. That’s how the US ends up with the highest corporate tax in the WORLD–higher than France or Sweden-- but the neo-liberals think the corporations are running things and free to do as they please in a Hobbesean state of nature.
…and it’s not the road to communism. It’s the road to serfdom.
That’s your oversimplification again. Comparing a percentage on wildly different income is apples and oranges when comparing fairness, it makes no sense. Don’t do it, it leads you astray.
Wait… “Confiscatory tax”?! That’s beyond astray. So, nevermind.
They very certainly were not. And if they had been, it would have been at the behest of the municipal government in exchange for other considerations.
You are talking out of your ass.
Wait, what?
No. It ends up being a higher percentage on total income. That’s math.
That’s your oversimplification again. Comparing a percentage on wildly different income is apples and oranges when comparing fairness, it makes no sense. Don’t do it, it leads you astray.
It’s only different in that it is more. Higher taxes on increased productive activity has the same effect as taxes on tobacco products. If you want less of something, you tax it more. If your desire is to have less productive activity crank up the taxes when people do it too much.
Thanks for your bold assertion that cannot be supported or disproved by fact and that essentially no one would agree with. That’s the standard for truth.
You’ve studied economics, right?
They very certainly were not. And if they had been, it would have been at the behest of the municipal government in exchange for other considerations.
You have no idea what you’re talking about. When a developer builds a bunch of houses, he builds the roads, the sidewalks, and the sewer lines. Who wants to buy a house without sewage? In my own neighborhood, the developer formed a Municipal Utility District to pay for those things from the sales of the houses and owner fees. When they were completely paid off 25 years later, the MUD had $9 million in the bank and the adjacent town annexed us to get our property taxes without having to assume any debt. Guess what? Every “service” got worse and taxes went up.
Thanks for your bold assertion that cannot be supported or disproved by fact and that essentially no one would agree with. That’s the standard for truth. You’ve studied economics, right?
Yep. You? Everyone pays the same - that’s the most “fair” system which is why they use it at the grocery store, the car dealership, and movie theater. However, my point is that “fairness” is childish, illusory goal.
I just guessed you’d studied economics based on you challenging the notion of fairness. It’s comical that you put scare quotes around the word fair every time you use it. The fact that you don’t know what the word "fair’ means doesn’t make it illusory, it makes it beyond your grasp.
I notice you quoting JFK saying that life is unfair above. As it is, so it should be, right?
'If you’re going to reap the benefits of public roads, public utilities, public police and fire departments, environmental regulations that protect your water and air, government agencies that make sure you aren’t getting poison in your food and medicine, then you gotta play along. You can’t have your cake and eat it too."
Umm…plenty of people who enjoy the benefits of all those wonderful things do it without paying any net taxes. Maybe MOST people do. They have their cake and eat it too. That’s the point of a progressive tax and the welfare state.
If you really want to live off the grid then you have to find land somewhere that isn’t controlled by any government. That’s not gonna happen, this isn’t 1800 with a continent for settlers to run and grab and fence off and claim as their own.
I assure you that there are lots of hippy-dippy people who probably agree with you in every political point who live off the grid.
The GOP and Libertarians have become known for opposing the EPA, but should I have the freedom to import wood from overseas if the wood carries parasites that end up ruining the maple syrup industry for Vermont and New Hampshire?
That’s not an EPA job. And the problem with the EPA is that it sees no practical limit to its mandate. Which is the problem with public entities. They constantly seek to expand their market just like any private corporation. But their customers have no real personal choice in whether they patronize them or not. Look up “Public Choice Theory”.
You are listing a bunch of things governments do (mostly state and municipal governments not the Federal government) that no one has a problem with. I noticed you didn’t mention the vital role of government in subsidizing the cowboy poetry festival. The commenter I was responding to referred to support for “the arts”.
That’s the problem with “neo-liberalism”. Everyone has a few things that are sooooo good, well of course the government can find the money to do that too. My house is worth less than I owe. Of course the government can afford to buy me out. It’s called the tragedy of the commons.
Yes, you want to pay less in taxes, but have you really calculated the value of what you are already paying for?
The Federal government is borrowing/printing 35 cents of every dollar they spend. I’m sure we are getting more in collective services than we are paying. Have you calculated the cost in THAT?
BTW-- you know what else is childish? Claiming anyone who defends the graduated income tax does so out of “envy.” Do you defend the flat tax because of greed?
Hmm…So a desire that others pay more for services that I use equally is born out of envy in the same way that a desire for all to pay the same rate for services that we use equally is a born out of greed. Well that isn’t a mind twister at all. /snark
The reason I put quotes around “fair” is because it it an impossible illusory goal. That’s what JFK was explaining. “Fair” is a chimera that morphs depending who looks at it. To the extent that fairness could be achieved (everyone pays the same dollar amount in taxes every year) it is impractical and contrary to a society founded on individual liberty.
What do you think happens to capital when someone “parks” it secondary market offerings? It eventually flows to labor, services, and risk based on what consumers demonstrate that really want because they willingly pay for it.
Smart wealthy people are not starting new businesses or hiring more employees to expand their businesses, unless they are specifically looking for losses to write off to compensate for other gains.
Actually, many very smart wealthy people “park” their money in tax free municipal bonds in order to gain low-risk, tax free annuities. But that is a creature created by our deficit spending which in turn is caused by “neo-liberal” political mechanics as I have described.
Virtually all new businesses are started by non-1%ers. That’s where the majority of new jobs comes from.
Where do you think the credit comes from for the 1%ers to do that? This is a perfect example of the economic ignorance of neo-liberalism. They think the 1%ers have all this capital in the form of gold coins in vault somewhere and swim in it in the afternoon. If the capital “owned” by a 1%er is invested in a company, who “owns” it? Can the 1%er dismantle a piece of that company to buy a fancy car?
If you want to see innovation and entrepreneurship, double the tax rate on passive investments and cut a tax deal for company founders when they reap the reward for their hard work.
Uh huh. Why not go all the way and make Interest on debt illegal? That would stop all that “passive investment”, right? That is a way to create a permanent Great Depression. Good thing the working class doesn’t get hurt by things like that.
