You’re the one making this assertion. You answer it.
Who is not being taxed?! You need to start providing actual information instead of repeatedly harping these same (as of yet)baseless points.
Please enlighten me: Why are you pissed about the American troops overseas you pay for and the Americans who don’t pay taxes when you have to when you claim to hail from Canada?
I just wanted to repeat that for everyone to see.
Number of Americans Paying Zero Federal Income Tax Grows to 43.4 Million
I apologize, I thought that was common knowledge.
So what-you are Canadian.
Right?
Yes, because it’s inefficient to make every single person take into account every single possible factor. If you believe that you are living your life taking into account every single contingent possibility, you’re wrong. Spreading risk relieves individuals from the burden of benefits everyone because it reduces transaction costs and it frees people to take risks that benefits everyone overall.
If you want every single person to be subject to every single possible risk, then everything will become more expensive for you, far exceeding what you will save in taxes. You keep saying that you are willing to “pay for what you use.” But you keep ignoring the fact that the things you think you will want to pay for will either not be available at all for you to buy or they will become far too expensive for you to buy.
Lack of perfection does not equal “worse.” If you really think things are worse now than they were in 1931, then you (1) have no sense of perspective regarding relative benefits and burdens to individuals and society as a whole, (2) are seriously misinformed about how bad things used to be, or (3) have no conception about what people other than you might be experiencing.
Yes, this latest economic catastrophe has been bad, but your conception of what the problem was, how bad it was, and what the solutions are all out of proportion.
Your solutions would subject all of society, including you, to much worse swings in economic cycles and you, personally along with everyone else would be subject to far greater uncertainty and expense.
You think you’ll be protecting yourself from the “irresponsibility” of others, but really you would be exposing yourself to greater risks from a less stable society and you will be making yourself, individually poorer, as a result of living in a society with fewer resources that can be put at risk to innovate and engage in profitable activity.
By the way, I must’ve been pretty sleepy to miss that “$10 a gallon ($40 per liter)” thing. It actually works out to around $2.50 a litre, which is still pretty damn nasty since it peaked at around $1.50 in my area a little while back and is currently holding at around $1.10.
It’s this “figure out the cost” thing that remains mysterious. Should the cost of some useful local infrastructure or government service be equally divided among all citizens, regardless of income? That’ll only ensure that the lower-income folk get quickly driven away, which in the long run benefits nobody since your “share” will go up accordingly and your income and standard of living will go down because the workers/customers who provide or buy whatever you earn your money on will have left. There’s no bleeding-heart element to this, nor any particular desire to ennoble the working poor, just simple selfish economics. If all the minimum-wage people around me had to move somewhere else, I’d either have to do those jobs myself, or pay more to have them done.
Plus there’s the added complexity of calculating how much “use” each citizen is getting from the infrastructure or services. How much “use” does a person who has never had reason to call 911 derive from fire and police services? How much should a man have to kick in when he calls to report the murder of his wife? That case could end up using up more police resources than a hundred families who never call, or who never call with anything more serious than a noise complaint.
So let’s say… charge on a sliding scale, where the higher-income people pay more than the lower-income people. That way, everyone can afford to live in the area, even though their use of infrastructure or services may vary.
They are taxed, though, just not on income. Are they paying sales taxes, excise taxes, property taxes…? If they rent their homes, they may not seem to be paying that last one, though in reality the landlord charges them rent (in part) to cover his property taxes, so they pay indirectly.
How often does that actually happen? Personally, I don’t care if you feel guilty or not, and I encourage you to employ whatever legal strategies you can to reduce your personal tax burden (I do, after all).
This is not how insurance works.
Insurance is shared-risk endeavor. Everyone pays into a pool, and those who make claims take money from the pool for their usage, no matter how much or how little they may have already paid into the pool. Those monthly premiums you pay don’t go into a shoebox with your name on it for your exclusive personal use later on; if it worked that way there wouldn’t be any point to having insurance. The system is predicated on the likelihood that not everyone paying into the pool is going to make a claim at the same time, or possibly ever.
In this way, yes taxes are exactly like insurance. The company you pay your premiums to decides how that money is spent, not you. Sometimes you will reap the benefits, most of the time other people will reap those benefits. Yet you don’t seem to have any problem with that?
Why do you care and why does it matter who or what I am?
Because you’re complaining that everyone else gets benefits from your taxes, when the cites you are providing are for people that don’t benefit from your taxes.
Was post #202 unclear to you? Why are you complaining about American troops you don’t pay for and American millionaires who cannot affect what you pay for taxes?
You need to read that post again, you missed 90% of it. I can wait.
What about sales tax? What about property tax? What about payroll tax? There is no one who is paying no tax.
Not all taxes are income tax, of course. Even the poorest Americans pay things like sales tax, car registration fees, etc.
Is the 90% about how insurance rates go up if you engage in risky behaviour? Well, there’s a slight analogy to taxation in that you may end up paying more governmental service fees if you demand more of certain governmental services, i.e. there’s no flat “car registration fee” that covers all your vehicles. If you buy more cars, you’ll pay more in fees than someone who has one (or none).
As I understand it, though, you want taxation to be more punitive and a greater instrument of social engineering, while simultaneously feeling that since you personally are law-abiding and healthy, your burden should go down, or at least adjusted to some mythical “fair” level that covers only the services and infrastructure you personally use, though how this should be calculated remains unclear at best.
By the way, I just assumed you were American because trying to tease out your actual nationality seemed like a waste of time.
Well then you advocating the state using force to take money away from people. Are you’re quibbling about now is what to spend it on.
Income tax is not the only tax. Everybody pays payroll taxes and sales taxes, many also have to pay property taxes. And just because a given individual may not make enough money to pay into the federal income tax doesn’t mean they aren’t paying into their state income taxes.
Everybody is taxed. The more you take from your community, your state, your country, the more you have to give back. That’s how it works. Whatever wealth you have, you have only because the state allows you to have it. Your sense of entitlement is erroneous. Your income is one of the services you receive from the state, therefore you need to pay for that service. Don’t complain about having to pay extra for the apartment with the fireplace and the balcony on the grounds that teneants who don’t have those things don’t have to pay for them. Why should other people have to pay for your amenities?
Wasn’t that hard, actually. He had earlier said he was in Canada, and he posted Toronto, Canada as his location.
I thought you said taxes were theft. Is insurance theft?
At the extreme end of things, yes. But on a more practical level, should someone drinking have to take into account how that will factor into his driving ability?
When a person takes out a mortgage and buys a house, shouldn’t they have to include at least SOME factors? We live in a free society, so each of us gets to choose the career path we’d like. When making that decision, shouldn’t people factor wage and benefits? So that if a person has a medical condition requiring constant attention, they probably shouldn’t choose a career path that is unlikely to provide them health insurance.
Okay, and the point I’m trying to make is that I believe you are fundamentally wrong. Spreading the risk has not benefited us. Spreading the risk made us worse off. And as a result our transaction costs have gone up. 3 years ago I would have believed you. But now with a trillion added to the deficit, ALL of our transaction fees have (or will) go up as a result of risk being spread out.
This has been said before in other ways, and it sounds like it’s meant to scare me. What you don’t realize is that I’m okay with that. I would be free to choose if that item is important enough to me to pay for. There are all kinds of thing right now that I can’t afford. If they are not available, then chances are they SHOULDN’T be available.
Think about recycling. Right now I pay a tax for the city deal with recycling for. So an item like a battery looks cheap, but that’s because the cost of recycling is hidden in my taxes. And the people using the mots batteries aren’t paying for most of the recycling. The real cost of recycling the battery has been removed from the user, and passed off to everyone else. As a result, no one cares how much it costs to recycle a battery.
That last swing was pretty bad.
This point is also going to rely a lot more on personal opinion. I think when the cost of an item more accurately reflects it’s risk, people will make better choices.
What’s that expression people keep using? Privatize the gains, socialized the loses?
I love to play the stock market, and I am well aware of the risks. If I was content to sit back and get 1.5% I could put it all in ING without any risk what so ever (noting that the FDIC fee is in there). If I put all my money into Nortel, who’s fault is it when I lose all my money? Should that risk be spread out, or should I have been aware of the factors involved?
If you’ve ever played roulette, every possible bet has a different risk/reward ratio. You can’t expect to get the same reward as me if you risk less, and I can’t expect to be covered by you if I risk more. If we take away the individual risk, and spread it out over all the players, why wouldn’t I take more risks?
You are trying to claim that other people being risky benefits me. I am pointing to areas where it clearly does not. Those that take risks do so for an increased benefit to themselves, and should know that it also comes with the potential for personal loss.
I’m okay being individually poorer. I also disagree that we’d end up with a less stable society. The global credit crisis has disproved your thesis. And the Great Depression before that also disproved your thesis. I know there is a lot of debate over the Great Depression, but a big chunk of the problem was people buying on margin (ie using credit to invest). That was a stupid risky behaviour that crippled our society. As a result there are now limits to how much margin a person can use to invest. We have had to legislate responsibility, because without it people would still borrow money they don’t have to invest in things they shouldn’t.
Yeah, but this country is lousy with ex-pats. Lots of people come here.
People like us.
This was discussed upthread. Income taxes are not the only taxes.