I’m having trouble getting my mind around the “You’re unemployed: you have nothing to tell me about taxes argument.” Unemployed people vote. They set tax policy. Every time their municipality issues bonds, they cast avote exclusively on the tax. Are you saying they shouldn’t be allowed to do this? Or that they can determine tax policy, but are not allowed to have opinions about tax policy?
-saoirse, who lives in a village, in a town, in a county, with a school district that covers a village and two towns, and a water district that covers a village and one town. Got a fuckin’ tax? saoirse’ll pay it.
They shouldn’t be allowed to tell us that the taxes that the rest of us already pay aren’t all that bad and mock us because we think that we’re paying too much when they don’t have the first fucking idea what it’s like.
I’m sure they would rather be employed and paying taxes. And if someone gave you $100 to buy anything, the sales tax still reduces your purchasing power. So if I was broke and my mother gave me some cash, she isn’t really thinking about the tax and she probably wants the full ammount to go to helping me.
I understand your view that an unemployed person shouldn’t talk about taxes. But it seems like it the unemployed person agreed with you, then you would be OK with it. Disenfranchising the poor is not something I can agree with.
Pshaw - Leeroy’s Wholesale Canvas Outlet. As if Lane Bryant could cover my mammoth derriere.
Back on topic…
Well, but with any purchase there’s going to be tax figured in. Even if Mom doesn’t consciously think, “I hope that’s enough to cover taxes on Zebra’s purchase,” subconsciously the sales tax on whatever you buy is kind of a given.
When you aren’t accustomed to earning a regular paycheck and watching taxes come inexorably out of what you’ve worked for, week after month after year, you just can’t have the same perspective on how taxes are used or whether or not they’re reasonable.
Society existed before this “temporary” tax was enacted. Ergo, it will continue to exist if the promise of repeal is (belatedly) kept. Ergo, it is not the “price” for “living in a society”.
One of the reforms I’d enact would be to randomly assign individual taxpayers to individual programs, and send them letters explaining the wonderful good they’ve accomplished.
For example, if the government spends $500,000 to build a Lawrence Welk museum, a couple dozen average middle-class taxpayers are informed that that’s where a chunk of their paycheck for the year went.
Again, I do not think that the unemployed should not have an opinion. I certainly do not think that the poor shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Please show me where I said anything even close to wanting to disenfranshise the poor.
What I don’t want it to be lectured about the effect taxes have from someone who doesn’t pay them and pretty much hasn’t in years if at all. You keep wanting to read something that isn’t there.
hajario, I do see where you’re coming from here but as I mentioned earlier, does this line of reasoning mean that someone who pays more tax than you has the right to say that they don’t want to be lectured by someone who only pays a measely x% tax?
‘measely’ added as a descriptor…not suggesting you do pay a measely amount
I just see this as an slippery slope, if you are willing to dismiss or not take as seriously someone elses arguement based on their contribution (or lack thereof) to the tax fund, it suggests that someone in a higher tax band could do the same to you.
You could also say, though, that taxes affect the rich person less even if the percentage is higher, simply because they have more money. A billionaire may have to pay a 50% tax rate, but you can live quite comfortably on $500 million. VERY comfortably, in fact. Whereas someone making $15,000 a year who pays a tax rate of 20% (that would work out to be $3000) suffers a lot more because of taxes than a rich person. They pay much less tax, but the “bite” is bigger for them. Under that logic, poor taxpayers have more right to complain about taxes than rich taxpayers, especially when you consider that the rich have access to lawyers and tax preparers that the poor don’t have, so don’t even pay their fair share of taxes most of the time. No billionaire would actually fork over 50% of his pay. To tell you the truth, I have just as much contempt for insanely rich people who tell me “taxes don’t matter” as I do for non-taxpayers who say the same thing. Once you get to a certain point of wealth, money becomes a theoretical concept. I think only those people who have to deal with economic issues on a daily basis, who have to interact with money and worry about money and work for their money instead of just having it handed to them (whether it be by parents or a trust fund) can truly judge which taxes are fair and which are not. Again, anyone can SAY whatever he wants, I’m just saying which opinions register higher with me personally.
(P.S. These are not real numbers/tax rates, just hypothetical ones.)
Oh I agree with a number of points you raise, I am voluntarily living in one of the highest taxed countries that there are afterall. But I enjoy living here and I feel I get what I pay for in terms of the society I live in (but that’s a whole different discussion).
My point is that I don’t think we (on the SDMB or anywhere) should have to justify what we earn and what we are taxed before we can have a discussion on the topic of taxation. I realise we have moved a long way from the original discussion on temporary taxes and onto taxation in general here but free discussion regardless of personal situation is, I believe, important. Afterall, I might have my view on taxation but I wouldn’t want an accountant who deals with taxation to wander in and tell me that just because he/she works with it all day that my views are not important. Technical clarifications or pointing out errors in fact that I may have made are fine, but telling me that I can’t have an opinion because I am not as well versed in it as he/she is would lead to a rather abrupt end to a lot of discussions here.
I hope that makes sense, I think it’s more of a feeling about the openness of discussions rather than anything else.
You must have missed where I allowed that this particular tax should be retired. Nevertheless, I (more or less) cheerfully pay my taxes as part of my duty as a member of my society.
I’m having a problem with the attitude here that people without jobs cannot have a valid opinion on taxes and should shut up. I don’t have kids, does that mean that I cannot have a valid opinion on how public schools are operated? I don’t work for the state department, does that mean I cannot have a valid opinion of foreign policy? It’s a free country, we’re all allowed to yammer away all we like about anything we like.
Of course. But since it’s a free country, we’re also allowed to disregard any opinion we feel is ill-informed. That’s also part of freedom–the freedom to take or leave whatever anyone has to say.
In fact, I have very strong opinions about a recent school budget, even though my children live in another school district. I think the most ill-informed thing is to say:
"Don’t give me ‘If a thousand men were not to pay their tax-bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood. This is, in fact, the definition of a peaceable revolution, if any such is possible’;
you don’t have any income, or any job, and any taxes paid on your behalf are paid by your friends."
I am obviously not being clear. The chronically jobless have a right, as a member of society, to have an opinion on taxes. They should not lecture about what it’s like to pay taxes or about the effect on ones life paying taxes has because they don’t have a clue about that. Similarly, I have a right to have an opinion on how public money should be spent on schools. I should not lecture people with children about how having children affects ones lifestyle, particularly if I tell them that it really no big deal, because I have never raised a child.
Haj, You are not saying those things, I’m sorry but I’m kind of blurring you with the others that are saying it. Most of those have been drive-bys or catsix.
The thing is, unless the state has a budget surplus, you have to replace this tax with other revenues. The proposal says that it will be made up by increased sales of booze. Does that sound like a solid idea to you? It sure doesn’t sound like one to me.
You mean you actually want me to comment on the content of the OP?
No, I don’t think that the numbers work. If they reduce the tax now they will probably have to make it up later somehow but at least they’ll do so in a more honest way. It would be nice if they could reduce waste and cut out a couple of useless programs to make up for it but that’s way too much to expect from a politician. I don’t know about the specifics of the PA budget but if it’s like the ones I do know about, they could figure out a way to cut spending a lot if they were really motivated.