I don't think there is a good argument for why you should get more of my money

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem, OP, is that no one needs a good argument. You have the money, others want to use it to benefit someone else, and they have the votes. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. The Democrats want you to be the dinner. As the economy worsens, more and more people are going to come around to that point of view. It really is about that simple, and there is not much to be done about it now. Too many people feel entitled to government benefits paid for by someone else, and we're past the point of no return on that issue, in my view.

Do you tell your parents to give back their Social Security?

Please, this person (and their parents) live on an island, where they have independently invented electricity, computers, and internet connectivity, without the help of any government infrastructure or investment. They clearly have never benefited from things like scientific grants, social security, mortgage deductions, or child credits. That would make them hypocrites!

If you have to distort other people's views in order to make yourself feel like you are right, perhaps you need to reconsider your position.

If people are oblivious to the hypocrisy of their statements, perhaps they need to reconsider their ability to perceive objective reality.

What is hypocritical about being willing to pay vastly more taxes than most people, while at the same time thinking at some level of taxation those payments become excessively burdensome? You may not agree, but it is hardly hypocritical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are lucky to be well off, so show some freaking noblesse oblige and pay your share! Ever hear the phrase "there but for the grace of god go I?" Even with your hard work, you could vary well have gotten a devastating illness or been in a tragic accident and lived your life as a poor or working-class person. You would probably have a more balanced, less self-centered attitude if you'd ever endured the suffering so many of the working class have!

Rant noted, but it doesn't really say very much. No one is talking about not paying taxes -- I do, lots and lots of them -- nor are they saying that people with more money should not pay more -- I agree with that, as well. There's an argument for a flat tax, of course, but I don't find progressive taxation in principle -- the question is one of degree.

Now that we've left those straw man aside, I simply believe that there is a limit, and enough is enough. Obviously you disagree. What I don't understand is why. You probably work, you get paid, you feel entitled to keep what you earn, subject to reasonable taxation to pay the bills of government. If you're making less than six-figures, your effective tax rate is probably in the 15-20% range. Why so quick not to extend the same consideration to others, just because they make more? Especially when those people are already paying far higher tax rates and vastly more money in absolute terms. Is there any limit at all?

Hi there, I am the PP you are responding to. My husband and I make mid 6 figures, so I suspect we are in the same bracket as you (I haven't been in the 25% bracket since putting myself through school -- ah, ramen noodle grad dinners!). However, my argument is precisely because we make more, our responsibility to society is greater. I don't think there are no limits to the amount that should be paid in taxes, but I am one of those turrrrible libruls that think that a wealthy society should ensure basic human needs (universal health care, education, food, shelter). If that means I pay a slight bit more of my already comfortable salary, and maybe I don't get to purchase that vacation home for a few more years (and believe me, I have the plot all picked out...), then I see that as my way of giving back to a country that has given my family so much. Taxes in general are now at such a historically low level that the middle class is starting to erode, upward mobility is stagnating, and investment in infrastructure is faltering. I think it's reasonable to pay more to assure these things continue to be a strong part of America's future.

For some background, my mother was a factory worker who put herself through school (her dad died in WWII, and money was tight). My dad was the son of immigrants who worked in steel mills. I put myself through undergrad and grad (as did DH, an immigrant himself), and we are very proud of where we've ended up (and hopefully where our kids will end up, better than us even!). But I never kid myself that, had I gotten cancer and lost all my savings to health care costs, or had my husband been incapacitated and unable to work, we would be living a much different life, through no fault or character deficit of our own. Maybe that makes me a bleeding heart, but I prefer to think it means I have a different perspective.

My sincere hope is that we can build a civic mindset where our well-off can see their taxes as a proud reinvestment into the country, the way our service men and women see risking their lives to defend her -- as an honor and a privilege.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Two things for the OP and the similar minded. First:

"Taxes are the price we pay for civilization." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Where exactly do you think you'd be without the civilization our taxes (and our forebears' taxes) built? Paving your own roads and building your own bridges, I'm sure. Good luck making a 6-figure income without the infrastructure others sacrificed for so you could build your personal fortune.

Second:

Wealthy people MUST pay a higher share of the tax burden because it is fair for them to do so. Certain government services, like the SEC, for example, serve almost exclusively the interests of the wealthy and upper-middle classes. I can guarantee you that a poor working class family does not rely on the regulation of their securities. Same goes for other examples -- wealthy people have a bigger footprint and consume more resources than poor people (fuel oil, heating oil, electricity, road wear and tear, land, etc). Not to mention that your [b]net pay, even after your tax burden, far exceeds the per capita GDP (by about six times). Part of the reason we have taxes is to avert the establishment of a perpetual, moneyed aristocracy (because aristocracies are -- you guessed it! -- bad for capitalistic growth, upward mobility, bad for stable democracies, and therefore bad for our future). Rich people keeping a larger portion of the pie and keeping it all is just bad news bears.[/b]
You are lucky to be well off, so show some freaking noblesse oblige and pay your share! Ever hear the phrase "there but for the grace of god go I?" Even with your hard work, you could vary well have gotten a devastating illness or been in a tragic accident and lived your life as a poor or working-class person. You would probably have a more balanced, less self-centered attitude if you'd ever endured the suffering so many of the working class have!

I don't understand the "fairness" part of your argument. It seems to boil down to -- you have more money than others, so you must pay more. Okay, but what's the limit?

As for your other point about certain government services being aimed at the rich, in "fairness," you would need to note the government services going to those less well off. As for the bigger footprint, I'll all for taxing those items, though I disagree with you that the rich necessarily consume more of those items you've listed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are lucky to be well off, so show some freaking noblesse oblige and pay your share! Ever hear the phrase "there but for the grace of god go I?" Even with your hard work, you could vary well have gotten a devastating illness or been in a tragic accident and lived your life as a poor or working-class person. You would probably have a more balanced, less self-centered attitude if you'd ever endured the suffering so many of the working class have!

Rant noted, but it doesn't really say very much. No one is talking about not paying taxes -- I do, lots and lots of them -- nor are they saying that people with more money should not pay more -- I agree with that, as well. There's an argument for a flat tax, of course, but I don't find progressive taxation in principle -- the question is one of degree.

Now that we've left those straw man aside, I simply believe that there is a limit, and enough is enough. Obviously you disagree. What I don't understand is why. You probably work, you get paid, you feel entitled to keep what you earn, subject to reasonable taxation to pay the bills of government. If you're making less than six-figures, your effective tax rate is probably in the 15-20% range. Why so quick not to extend the same consideration to others, just because they make more? Especially when those people are already paying far higher tax rates and vastly more money in absolute terms. Is there any limit at all?

Hi there, I am the PP you are responding to. My husband and I make mid 6 figures, so I suspect we are in the same bracket as you (I haven't been in the 25% bracket since putting myself through school -- ah, ramen noodle grad dinners!). However, my argument is precisely because we make more, our responsibility to society is greater. I don't think there are no limits to the amount that should be paid in taxes, but I am one of those turrrrible libruls that think that a wealthy society should ensure basic human needs (universal health care, education, food, shelter). If that means I pay a slight bit more of my already comfortable salary, and maybe I don't get to purchase that vacation home for a few more years (and believe me, I have the plot all picked out...), then I see that as my way of giving back to a country that has given my family so much. Taxes in general are now at such a historically low level that the middle class is starting to erode, upward mobility is stagnating, and investment in infrastructure is faltering. I think it's reasonable to pay more to assure these things continue to be a strong part of America's future.

For some background, my mother was a factory worker who put herself through school (her dad died in WWII, and money was tight). My dad was the son of immigrants who worked in steel mills. I put myself through undergrad and grad (as did DH, an immigrant himself), and we are very proud of where we've ended up (and hopefully where our kids will end up, better than us even!). But I never kid myself that, had I gotten cancer and lost all my savings to health care costs, or had my husband been incapacitated and unable to work, we would be living a much different life, through no fault or character deficit of our own. Maybe that makes me a bleeding heart, but I prefer to think it means I have a different perspective.

My sincere hope is that we can build a civic mindset where our well-off can see their taxes as a proud reinvestment into the country, the way our service men and women see risking their lives to defend her -- as an honor and a privilege.

The problem with your argument is that you act as though this is about a summer house. It's about paying for kids' colleges and retirement -- so we won't need to rely on government benefits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are lucky to be well off, so show some freaking noblesse oblige and pay your share! Ever hear the phrase "there but for the grace of god go I?" Even with your hard work, you could vary well have gotten a devastating illness or been in a tragic accident and lived your life as a poor or working-class person. You would probably have a more balanced, less self-centered attitude if you'd ever endured the suffering so many of the working class have!

Rant noted, but it doesn't really say very much. No one is talking about not paying taxes -- I do, lots and lots of them -- nor are they saying that people with more money should not pay more -- I agree with that, as well. There's an argument for a flat tax, of course, but I don't find progressive taxation in principle -- the question is one of degree.

Now that we've left those straw man aside, I simply believe that there is a limit, and enough is enough. Obviously you disagree. What I don't understand is why. You probably work, you get paid, you feel entitled to keep what you earn, subject to reasonable taxation to pay the bills of government. If you're making less than six-figures, your effective tax rate is probably in the 15-20% range. Why so quick not to extend the same consideration to others, just because they make more? Especially when those people are already paying far higher tax rates and vastly more money in absolute terms. Is there any limit at all?

Hi there, I am the PP you are responding to. My husband and I make mid 6 figures, so I suspect we are in the same bracket as you (I haven't been in the 25% bracket since putting myself through school -- ah, ramen noodle grad dinners!). However, my argument is precisely because we make more, our responsibility to society is greater. I don't think there are no limits to the amount that should be paid in taxes, but I am one of those turrrrible libruls that think that a wealthy society should ensure basic human needs (universal health care, education, food, shelter). If that means I pay a slight bit more of my already comfortable salary, and maybe I don't get to purchase that vacation home for a few more years (and believe me, I have the plot all picked out...), then I see that as my way of giving back to a country that has given my family so much. Taxes in general are now at such a historically low level that the middle class is starting to erode, upward mobility is stagnating, and investment in infrastructure is faltering. I think it's reasonable to pay more to assure these things continue to be a strong part of America's future.

For some background, my mother was a factory worker who put herself through school (her dad died in WWII, and money was tight). My dad was the son of immigrants who worked in steel mills. I put myself through undergrad and grad (as did DH, an immigrant himself), and we are very proud of where we've ended up (and hopefully where our kids will end up, better than us even!). But I never kid myself that, had I gotten cancer and lost all my savings to health care costs, or had my husband been incapacitated and unable to work, we would be living a much different life, through no fault or character deficit of our own. Maybe that makes me a bleeding heart, but I prefer to think it means I have a different perspective.

My sincere hope is that we can build a civic mindset where our well-off can see their taxes as a proud reinvestment into the country, the way our service men and women see risking their lives to defend her -- as an honor and a privilege.

The problem with your argument is that you act as though this is about a summer house. It's about paying for kids' colleges and retirement -- so we won't need to rely on government benefits.

I'm sorry you see it that way. My argument is about ensuring the stability and continued awesomeness of our country. If you're in my tax bracket, I think you can pay for college and retirement without relying on tax cuts (and hey, maybe a summer house) with some careful planning.

But let's face it, if you feel pinched at your HHI level, how do you think someone making much less feels? They can't pay the tuition to send their kids to private schools and can't retire without help from SS. Are you saying that we need to cut those programs because then your well-off family can have more money? If so, I doubt we will find any common ground to discuss, because I think that's sad.

[Anonymous]

"Taxes are the price we pay for civilization." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Thanks for this. I put it as my FB status today! Funny, nobody "likes' it yet

[Anonymous]

New poster here. Then we should just limit them to what they pay plus a rate of return. It seems fair, and that will make the entire system solvent.

NP: The system isn't solvent because Congress, in its infinite wisdom, put SS payments into general funds when these funds should have put into a separate fund when SS was instituted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm sorry you see it that way. My argument is about ensuring the stability and continued awesomeness of our country. If you're in my tax bracket, I think you can pay for college and retirement without relying on tax cuts (and hey, maybe a summer house) with some careful planning.

But let's face it, if you feel pinched at your HHI level, how do you think someone making much less feels? They can't pay the tuition to send their kids to private schools and can't retire without help from SS. Are you saying that we need to cut those programs because then your well-off family can have more money? If so, I doubt we will find any common ground to discuss, because I think that's sad.

You still won't state how far you think it is legitimate for the government to go in taking money from some people to give it to others -- and that is what the fight is really about. It's not about funding public goods, which most people accept as necessary, nor is it about providing a minimum social safety net, because no one serious is arguing for getting rid of food stamps or unemployment insurance. And almost everyone accepts that, to provide for those things, some level of progressivity in the tax structure is appropriate. The real fight is about economic redistribution, which most people seem to be in favor of. I'm ok with some level of that myself. The question is, how much, and the unspoken consensus here seems to be "lots and lots." Do you agree? Disagree?

You also imply that the issue is really about the government allowing "well-off" people to "have more money." That framing biases the discussion, because what really happens is that the government takes money, through taxes, from people who have earned it directly (via working or investing) or have received it from those who earned it (via gift or inheritance). It is the government taking that requires justification, in my view, and I think that requires some justification more principled than "because 50%+1 voted for it."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The real fight is about economic redistribution, which most people seem to be in favor of.

I meant to say most people here seem to be in favor of. That is my sense from discussions on this board, anyway.

[Anonymous]

Someone tell me what "industrialized, first world country" had a lower tax rate than ours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone tell me what "industrialized, first world country" had a lower tax rate than ours.

I mean has not had.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Personally, I'd like to chip a chunk off the defense total. For a country that has been attacked only a few times in its entire history, it seems a tad excessive to spend nearly a fifth of our budget on it.

OK, I'm a dem, and a hippie, and a dove..... but maybe nobody attacks us because we have such a big defense budget?

We were attacked in 1941 and 2001

Ever hear this old adage: The best offense is a good defense. This is even truer for national security than as a sports analogy. The Defense budger is never cut because there are ways of hiding some of its budget. As for the PP who wants to chip off a chunk of the defense budget, if there were another attack, you would probably be the first to start ranting and raving.

[Anonymous]

defense "budget" not budger.

[Anonymous]

OP, it simply doesn't matter what you think because you aren't a member of Congress. Shut up, pay your taxes, and be grateful you don't have to pay 60% of you HHI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Personally, I'd like to chip a chunk off the defense total. For a country that has been attacked only a few times in its entire history, it seems a tad excessive to spend nearly a fifth of our budget on it.

OK, I'm a dem, and a hippie, and a dove..... but maybe nobody attacks us because we have such a big defense budget?

We were attacked in 1941 and 2001

Ever hear this old adage: The best offense is a good defense. This is even truer for national security than as a sports analogy. The Defense budger is never cut because there are ways of hiding some of its budget. As for the PP who wants to chip off a chunk of the defense budget, if there were another attack, you would probably be the first to start ranting and raving.

No. I think we were safe enough with the 80's and 90's budgets. Did you think that Reagan was playing fast and loose with our security? If not, we should go back to that.

Any budgeting logic that says that more is better is fundamentally flawed.