The U.S. is already further along that path than any other industrial democracy, and the results are not encouraging. You want to take us still further?!
Well, I disagree, but really your not arguing against progressive taxation here, your arguing against taxation in general. Wether we like it or not, the gov’t of Florida isn’t going to pay for itself on positive thoughts and magic, it’s going to need X amount of dollars. And the only way to get that is to take however much money from its citizens, the only question is how the taking of that money is distributed.
Eh, I think of it as more of a practical consideration then “assignment of shame”. Florida needs money, it makes more sense to take it from the people that have a lot of cash, since there isn’t that much to take from the poor. If you take 15% of the paycheck of restraunt servers, they likely won’t be able to support themselves and their families. Take 30% from the (thinks of random well paid profession) baseball player, and he’ll have to cut back on the number of homes he owns.
Regarding that, see “The American Paradox,” an article by Ted Halstead, in the February 1, 2003, edition of The Atlantic Monthly:
Each approach to the social contract has its pluses and minuses, but on balance America has made a very bad bargain for itself.
In your OP, you mention “cutting public services to the bone”, as if that were a bad thing. Here, you state that people have grown accustomed to a higher level of public services. People will become unaccustomed to them, when they are cut. Why not just do that?
Because it takes us in exactly the wrong direction, as argued in my post immediately preceding yours.
What on earth are you talking about? The only thing I can think of is that you don’t understand marginal tax rates. Those who earn $350,000 or more are taxed at 35% on each dollar above that amount, whereas the average American is taxed at 25% on each dollar above $31 grand. How you could think of a ten percent tax on the very wealthiest among us as forcing them to “overcome” that tax burden with “vast” amounts of money is bizarre.
If it weren’t for taxpayer funded programs like, say, the GI Bill, we’d have a lot more people who wouldn’t have the skills to do anything but serve hamburgers.
This country has got to stop equating success with income. Who among us would trade the things in life that really make us consider ourselves successful – good homes, happy families, smart children, cute dogs, intellectual stimulation, personal accomplishments – for more money? I doubt anyone. So why does it make sense to abstractly assign more success to those with more money? I’m not suggesting we tax success, I’m saying we should tax money so government can do important things with it that people cannot efficiently do on their own.
And I’ve got to ask Carol Stream: Have you ever been to other countries which did not have the type of public services that we do here in the US? Can you name any of these places that do not provide basic health, education, and social services to its people, and are actually preferable places to live? Where are the role models for cutting public services to the bone?
Aside from the fact the you haen’t really put forth any substantial point except to constantly reiterate your demand for all America to simply abandon everything which ever made it great or good or even decent, your link is trivial and pointless. His little list is an excercise in mindless unargued points. He simply asserts those are the case, while ignoring any real evidence, including per capita measures where inconvenient to him or what “health care” actually means. I would certainly diasagree with his putting us in the “worst health care” column. Leftists often assert that health care is worse in America, but I disagree; it’s different. It could be better, but you can onyl assert it is worse by simply ignoring its advantages, which leftits ofdten do (you yourself have done so a time or three, BG). And in fact, the U.S. is constantly improving in most of those areas good and bad on his list. I don’t know of any other country which can say that. And some of his list items aren’t bad things. They’re just ones he finds objectionable because of his personal politics.
Now, as to the OP, Income taxes are abominable. Not because they are income taxes or too high (though I agree they are, at least on a Federal level). But the point is that they permit legislatures to cheat far too much. No government EVER thinks it has enough revenue, and they will lie, cheat, and steal to get it - literally. Income taxes inevitably get pushed up year after year, just as expenditures do.
Now, this creep effect is always a slippery slope. No matter how good it may seem in one given year, it creates a bad precedent. Every year has “good projects.” Mankind does not lack for good things to do, never has, and never will. But governments are notoriously poor at doing them, and notoriously poor at ceasing to do them once finished. Governments handle best the obvious, the large-scale, and that which features the Tragedy of the Commons. But, for numerous reasons I won’t go into, legislators inevitably stick their noses into things they can’t handle, either in ignorance or sheer political bravado. Thus, we get the Education department, which doesn’t seem to actually handle any serious educational needs (which are and should be local matters) yet is a Cabinet-level position.
Income taxes are enablers. Every year the government pretty much will try to jack them up a seemingly tiny bit. And every year, they’ll trot out the old lies about “termporary increases,” “fixing the loopholes,” and my personal favorite “making the wealthy pay their fair share.” Only, the wealthy are always us. But you can NEVER tax your way to fiscal security. You may destroy your economy. But it is in the nature of governments to spend everything they get and constantly beg for more. I don’t think America has had a financially sound administration since the old-line Republicans in the 1920’s, and not many before that.
Again, this just seems to be an argument against taxes in general. What about the income tax makes it easier to raise then other taxes? States I’ve lived in certainly haven’t been shy about raising property taxes, so apparently that’s vulnerable to tax increases as well.
Inevitably? No government has ever cut income taxes? Like in all history? Didn’t the Bush administration cut income taxes?
This is no more nor less true of income taxes than of other taxes, as Malodorous pointed out, and raising any kind of taxes always has a political cost whenever siginificant numbers of the people come to feel they are overburdened – as is now happening in Florida, and has happened countless times when candidates were elected on tax-reduction platforms, promises sometimes kept in full. Both the tendency of government to find new things to spend money on and raise taxes to pay for them, and the occasional resistance of voters to same, are features, not bugs, of a democratic system. They do not constitute nor support an argument against income tax as such.
That’s as much as to say the other industrialized democracies, with their welfare states, are not great or good or decent. You do not really mean to suggest that, I hope.
Read it more carefully. Halstead asserts only that the U.S. is the “worst” among industrialized democracies in health care coverage. I think it’s fairly obvious we have the most uninsured and underinsured persons; which is not inconsistent with the “advantages” you speak of (I presume you mean superior quality and accessibility for those who can afford to pay for it), and that dichotomy is, in fact, central to the point Halstead is making about the American “Janus”.
The witness’ answer is non-responsive. Motion to strike. Why not cut the services, first?
Because they’re good to have, of course, and they’re not the sort of thing the private sector can or will provide to everyone. I can make a more specific response if you ask a more specific question. What particular services do you think we’d be better off, or no worse off, without?
A high speed train to anywhere, as you suggested earlier. No.
Because they’re good to have? That’s your argument? I want a pony.
High-speed rail is a more energy-efficient and less environmentally damaging and less petroleum-dependent mode of transportation than automobiles, and can carry more passengers than airplanes, and almost as fast. (See this site.) We really need a national HSR network (combined with local light-rail and streetcar networks), but a one-state system would be a good start. At this point, anything that gives us an alternative to cars is worth doing. HSR has worked very well in Europe and Japan – but only with government funding. The private sector won’t provide it. (Yes, HSR uses energy – which can be provided by nuclear power plants; I have no problem with building more nuke plants, the technology is much safer now than it was in the '70s. But we can’t run cars or airplanes on nuclear power.)
But, that was an aside, anyway, a wish-list sort of thing. I was thinking of a state income tax as something that would enable Florida local governments to continue providing the services they already provide, without reduction, and without the strain that property tax creep is arguably putting on the state economy.
It’s a perfectly appropriate response to so vague a question as “Why not cut services?” We have made collective political decisions that certain public services are good to have, and worth paying for, and worth paying taxes for. If you are proposing to reverse all that, the burden is on you to justify it.
You’re still avoiding the question. Why not reduce the services?
See post #36.
The consumption side of the government is no different then your average citizen that has a latte factor problem. What is Florida’s latte factor? What are they spending money on that has little value to the public as a whole? Is it the park that .002 percent of the area public utilizes? Is it the $140MM bridge that fattened the pockets of your senators, but only connects towns that average 2,000 people in population? Just because the government implemented something and labeled it “public”, doesn’t make it a good thing to keep around. They need to look at their balance sheet and cut the fat. And if that means Floridians need to accept that they cannot drink lattes anymore, so be it.
That sailed over my head – it seems to assume that “latte factor” is a familiar cultural meme, but I’ve never heard/read the phrase before. Cite? Backstory? Explanation?