like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization

...or the king of England until there is a revolution.

 

not really.

anybody who talks about a 100% tax rate doesn't understand the purpose of taxation.

 

The average annual income of a citizen of Tanzania is $720

How can you even pay someone to collect taxes from citizens who make $2 a day?

Hey bud... I know you make $2 a day... I'm here to shake you down for 50 cents.

 

You obviously have no knowledge of just about anything, Cassandra. Two can play your puerile game.

Any simpleton understands that eliminating a Government program once it is established is extremely unlikely. That's how the Government continues to grow.

Any simpleton can see that.

Any simpleton can see that Government providing all that you wish it to provide is spending too much money. And not getting good results.

Oh, I'm sure your as-yet-unnamed little Utopia doesn't fare well, either. Are you afraid to tell us where you live? ETA: and you're from Australia. You should wake up to the problems that I'm discussing. Abandon giant Nanny-Statism.

No, I don't. You need to stop rationalizing that taking more from people simply because they have accumulated more is a moral stance.

Why are you so clueless? Still playing your puerile game...

Not one of any size, and your comment is non-sequitur. Why pay more than needed? Unless you're really unable to deliver personal charity due to some sort of personal flaw?

And yet, you defend a Nanny State. Australia is in worse shape than the US!

Being large adds a layer of complexity that virtually guarantees the failure of Nanny Statism. As evidence, I offer you the fact that there is no case of a Nanny State without financial duress.

Higher taxes, or more? Since I looked up what Australians pay, I'm not sure. Do you pay income taxes beyond the overall Federal?

I pay the highest rate in the US, and - on top of it - I pay business tax, huge property taxes, and an 11% State tax. I pay far too much in taxes.

What do you pay?

 

I think God asks for 10%. Leviticus 27:30–32

However Jesus said Render unto Caeser... but didn't specify what is Caeser's

 

educate yourself.

go and look at the history of the poor laws.

black and white thinking is simple - but shows a lack of capacity to adapt to new situations and new information.

that seems to be your problem, not mine.

where did I say that government should provide all that I wish?

so basically, you don't have an argument?

why are you so angry?

why are you so angry?

why are you so afraid ?

not really.

the reason the US is different from other nations - and that this mindset is so common in the US - is historical, not due to the size.

not income taxes, but other taxes


I pay the highest rate in the US, and - on top of it - I pay business tax, huge property taxes, and an 11% State tax. I pay far too much in taxes.

What do you pay?[/QUOTE]

I am surprised that you feel so vulnerable then.

Maybe our system is better for business than yours - although there is certainly room for improvement in how it is administered. I can claim a number of business deductions which offset business taxes to a significant extent, and property (land) taxes can also be offset on investments.

Can't you do that in the US?

 

The state of mind that is required to achieve a measure of wealth of such proportion as to be determined by reasonable people to be obscene, is the same state of mind that would justify increasing taxation upon the lesser members of society, while reducing taxation on the more prominent afluent members to 0%. However, the afluent know that the general population would never accept such a proposal stated in such terms, so they generalize by rephrasing the argument to suggest "Lower Taxes", as if that will be applied to the whole of the society, when, in fact, we know from experience, this is not the reality. "Lower Taxes" always translates as Lower taxation for Large Business, while Higher Taxes, fees, and regulations are imposed upon the Smaller Business Owners, the Middleclass. And those new regulations are written by lobbyists for those Large Businesses, designed explicitily for the purpose of destroying the Small Business, thus destroying the last element of society, the MiddleClass, that is, the "competition" that precludes a total Corporate Oligarchy.

So I think I agree with Cassandrabra. Those who have an attitude that they are being responsible in paying a higher Tax, because they are much more affluent, are the true Patriots in society, and should not be confused with more obscene Corporate opportunists, who have no allegiance to USA, nor any moral compass, and the acquistion of wealth by any means necessary, is the prime directive.

 

thank you.

and here is an interesting article that demonstrates what has happened WRT taxation in the US in the lat 50 years.

http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.21.1.3

maybe this is the kind of thing that people should be thinking about when discussing taxation issues in the US.

and maybe, rather than whining about cutting spending, they might like to think about how a proportionate decline in revenue from the top 1% might impact on other americans.

 

I'm as educated as about anyone. Your statement is meaningless.

You're the one operating under the presumption that Government does the right thing when a program doesn't work. That's your problem; not mine.

When you said what things you want in your society, and didn't ascribe an entity other than Government to provide them.

Not one you'll even acknowledge, but I knew that lefties play that game.

None of these are arguments. Why do you not think?

We call it a Constitution. The reference to size is meant to have you understand that large countries have a much harder time masking the shortcomings of Socialism, as you can see in your own country.

Like? If you wish to compare, I'm game.

I have a lovely entity called AMT. Do you?

 

Taxes pay for Section 8 housing subsidies for gangbangers. That's not civilization.

 

What about that long piece are we supposed to acknowledge? Does it acknowledge the our historical punitive top marginal rates were never actually paid by anyone?

Does it acknowledge that - now - the lower rates (by historical shallow comparison only) actually impact a far higher percentage of our population, and that AMT ensures that these same people do not escape paying high rates regardless?

 

Both Cassandrabandra and Oliver Wendell-Holmes are correct in regarding taxation as the price we pay for civilisation (i.e. an organised, efficient, and socially just society).

There are two problem areas which appear to have surfaced in the course of this discussion, and they are -

a matter of degree - what level of taxation is regarded as sufficient for what level of services

and

varying national values - Americans and Scandinavians, for example, obviously have different expectation of what level of services and social justice their respective governments should provide.

But the basic premise is unaffected. Without any taxation whatsoever, both governance, and the provision of the most elementary services - roads, sanitation, water, power, education and defence - are impossible. Without these services, no society could be considered a civilisation.

 

No new taxes for Obama and his leftist vigilantes. Not now. Not ever.

 

I agree with your statement.

 

and @ ZSwierczynski,

I guess there is a very important point here, and that is that we have varying standards as to what we consider civilised.

at times when I come to these forums I am quite shocked at what I see as virulent contempt for the less fortunate.

to me, the perspective that allows that to be acceptable is also the same perspective that worships wastefulness and over the top conspicuous consumption, and regards what I call the "social wage" as nannystatism.

to me, blatant wastefulness while others are wanting is uncivilised, while considerations for one's fellow humans is.

others see things differently.

 

One question does he live with family ? I have no problem with the government aiding him with meds but when the subsidize the rent pay the heat and all medical I ask what did this person do to help themselves , if the answer is nothing then I say provide the minimum , if the person was disabled then yes we must care for them . My own example is my sister , she has Downs , my Mom put her in a grouphome which the government pays for even after I offered to have her live with me?? My Mom is a liberal who thinks she would be better cared for there than with family , I don't get it ?!

 

not caring for your relatives is not a liberal trait, or a conservative trait.

my elderly (extremely leftist) aunt cared for her disabled son until he died, and her daughter has now taken on that role.

he gets a disability pension, and there is a small carer's allowance but neither of them would be happy to see him in a home (although maybe when he was younger he might have liked to be in a group home - who knows)?

meanwhile another group of very conservative cousins (I learnt from a young age there was no point in discussing politics with them) put their elderly mother in a nursing home for the last four years of her life because they couldn't be bothered caring for her, and hardly bothered to visit her because she had "lost her marbles" (which she hadn't done until near the very end - although she was seriously depressed).

I have never figured that how we care for our family has anything to do with our politics, more likely it depends on the example our parents set us.