Taxes

[iris lilies]

Here we can talk about taxes—federal, state local, sales, etc.

Despite some of my posts, I don’t really mind the amount I am taxed right now by the feds or for local real estate. I am not sure if I mind about state taxes, but since we are considered a low tax state, the rate is probably ok. I dont have an opinion about sales tax.

I have a strong opinion about a “wealth” tax at the federal level where my assets are assessed and taxed each year. I hate the idea.

This money is an asset for me because I saved it. I didnt spend it on Nike tennis shoes or a boat. It has already been thru the federal tax system as part of the income tax structure. Earnings from investing this money has been through, or will be subject to, the feds’ tax system.

Elizabeth Warren and her merry band of money grabbing henchmen can go fck right off. For anyone who thinks it will stop with the top 1% ya’ll are pretty naive.

[Tybee]

This money is an asset for me because I saved it. I didnt spend it on Nike tennis shoes or a boat. It has already been thru the federal tax system as part of the income tax structure. Earnings from investing this money has been through, or will be subject to, the feds’ tax system.


I agree. I also disapprove of estate taxes, for the same reason.
I disapprove of others coming in and taking the money I have managed to save and hope to heck that does not happen in future with my IRA and 401k.

[Gardnr]

I also don't mind my tax rates. I do however mind that those who earn much more than I do, have so many loopholes that they pay a lower marginal rate.

My brother just sold his business (his lifes's hard work), for 25million. Not a single year has he ever paid the same marginal rate as we did. We argued about it every time taxes came up. I know he'll pay dearly now and frankly, I am happy about that. I'm sure his tax attorney and accountant will do an excellent job of coming up with loopholes to significantly decrease his capital gains tax, but it is time for him to pay!

However, his total still will not be as high as our long-term marginal tax rate so he still wins!

[Teacher Terry]

Our property taxes are super low because the tax formula includes the age of the home. So if you own a old mansion in a pricey part of town you pay much less. We benefit because our house was built in 1950. They still aren’t high if you buy a new home. It’s one reason the state is also lacking in human services. I am fine with taxing the top 1%. They employ experts to avoid paying their fair share. No I don’t think it will trickle down to the little guy.

[LDAHL]

After all the various machinations open to me, the feds get about 9-10% of my income and the State gets about 5%. The State also gets around 5% of what I spend through a sales tax, and various license and registration fees for various purposes. The city I live in collects about 2% of what they think my house is worth every year. I am collecting both a pension and earning a salary right now, so IÂ’m paying something under the 7.65% social security and Medicare haircut on my income. There are various other taxes on gas, utilities, air travel, hotel stays, etc. that IÂ’d be hard put to calculate. My guess would be that about a third of my income ends up in government hands. I donÂ’t know that that will change much when I go from partly to completely retired. I suspect that will almost certainly go up should the country veer left. How much will depend on what the voters can stomach.

I tend to think that Senator Warren’s “plans” to make my life better by only inconveniencing the very rich is about as believable as getting Mexico to pay for a wall.

[rutter]

I'm ok with increasing taxes on the 1 percent. Also ok with a limit to the amount, rich people can leave their heirs, say 20 million dollars per child. Outrageous amounts- hundreds of millions/ billions, foster aristocratic attitudes among these heirs that corrode democracy.

[flowerseverywhere]

Our current state of spending vs. taxes is unsustainable. What specific programs/spending would you be in favor of cutting?

not just “cut waste”. But what specific program would you cut?

ie. Eliminate federal flood insurance for a savings of $20-30 billion (depending on who is telling you)?
or no free school lunch and breakfasts . Around 15 billion
close army bases abroad?
no weekend trips to Mar A Lago? (That’ll get someone going)


what hard choices should our legislators make instead of raising taxes.

[iris lilies]

I also don't mind my tax rates. I do however mind that those who earn much more than I do, have so many loopholes that they pay a lower marginal rate.

My brother just sold his business (his lifes's hard work), for 25million. Not a single year has he ever paid the same marginal rate as we did. We argued about it every time taxes came up. I know he'll pay dearly now and frankly, I am happy about that. I'm sure his tax attorney and accountant will do an excellent job of coming up with loopholes to significantly decrease his capital gains tax, but it is time for him to pay!

However, his total still will not be as high as our long-term marginal tax rate so he still wins!


Our current state of spending vs. taxes is unsustainable. What specific programs/spending would you be in favor of cutting?

not just “cut waste”. But what specific program would you cut?

ie. Eliminate federal flood insurance for a savings of $20-30 billion (depending on who is telling you)?
or no free school lunch and breakfasts . Around 15 billion
close army bases abroad?
no weekend trips to Mar A Lago? (That’ll get someone going)


what hard choices should our legislators make instead of raising taxes.

Cut 10% across-the-board. Let the bureaucrats decide within their own areas it gets cut.


Although I know that leads to all kinds of blow back, having been part of those discussions at the government level for years, one trick is to cut something that is very popular and obvious so that the public season and screams about it.

[catherine]

I pay a decent amount in taxes and I would pay more if it meant universal healthcare.

I disagree that increasing taxes on the top 1% is going to be a slippery slope that is going to hit IL's and Alan's stashes.

There are a number of billionaires that feel they should pay more taxes in order to improve life for everyone.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/25/warren-buffett-and-bill-gates-the-rich-should-pay-higher-taxes.html

Warren Buffett: "The wealthy are definitely undertaxed relative to the general population."

Bill Gates: “I need to pay higher taxes. I’ve paid more taxes, over $10 billion, than anyone else, but the government should require people in my position to pay significantly higher taxes.”

I do agree with IL that when you work hard you should keep what you earned. IL worked very hard for every penny, as did probably everyone on this board. I don't know any slackers on this board. So it's a philosophical argument. I feel that capitalism is a Monopoly game--eventually all the money winds up in the hands of the "winner." That's just how the system works. Just like your printer or your carburetor, sometimes the Machine needs a little calibration to keep everything running smoothly. And I truly don't think asking a billionaire for a little bit extra is going to deprive them in any way.

[Alan]

I pay a decent amount in taxes and I would pay more if it meant universal healthcare.

I disagree that increasing taxes on the top 1% is going to be a slippery slope that is going to hit IL's and Alan's stashes.

Oh I think it's definitely a slippery slope, there's not enough money among the top 1% to pay for everything most of you want. I think it will take the placement of a significant burden on at least the top 50% to come close, but they won't tell us that until it's too late to prevent them coming to power.

And it's almost bound to happen, the number of people looking jealously at IL's stash outnumbers IL and her beneficiaries. That's the danger of our version of democracy, it allows a mob to take whatever they want from others as long as it's not constitutionally forbidden, and modern jurists have decided that the government has an unlimited interest in our personal finances through taxation. It's just a matter of time before the mob takes over.

[flowerseverywhere]

Oh I think it's definitely a slippery slope, there's not enough money among the top 1% to pay for everything most of you want. I think it will take the placement of a significant burden on at least the top 50% to come close, but they won't tell us that until it's too late to prevent them coming to power.

And it's almost bound to happen, the number of people looking jealously at IL's stash outnumbers IL and her beneficiaries. That's the danger of our version of democracy, it allows a mob to take whatever they want from others as long as it's not constitutionally forbidden, and modern jurists have decided that the government has an unlimited interest in our personal finances through taxation. It's just a matter of time.
you could bury all your music net in coffee cans in the yard. Only kidding. Many people do hide wealth through the barter/cash economy. Actually, I’m mixed on this, just looking for further explanation for the call for even lower, or no increases in taxes. Somethings gotta give.

[flowerseverywhere]

Cut 10% across-the-board. Let the bureaucrats decide within their own areas it gets cut.


Although I know that leads to all kinds of blow back, having been part of those discussions at the government level for years, one trick is to cut something that is very popular and obvious so that the public season and screams about it.

interesting proposition. So what if 10% across the board was put into place. What is to prevent the commander in Chief from making changes, like for funding a border wall? Or a military parade? Or a White House garden? Or new drapes for the White House?

I find all of this so perplexing. Should the NIH get 10% as well as defense? Since defense accounts for 45% that might be a good place to look. Or maybe not.

[Alan]

you could bury all your music net in coffee cans in the yard.Music net?


​Actually, I’m mixed on this, just looking for further explanation for the call for even lower, or no increases in taxes. Somethings gotta give. I still think spending is a perfectly viable option.

[Gardnr]

Our current state of spending vs. taxes is unsustainable. What specific programs/spending would you be in favor of cutting?

ie. Eliminate federal flood insurance for a savings of $20-30 billion (depending on who is telling you)?
or no free school lunch and breakfasts . Around 15 billion
close army bases abroad?
no weekend trips to Mar A Lago? (That’ll get someone going)
what hard choices should our legislators make instead of raising taxes.

It will never be easy choices. I truly struggle with the constant rebuilding of homes/business is locations that are repeatedly devastated. Floods, hurricanes, earthquakes.....yet where do those folks go to rebuild a life? How much of our population lives in these locations?

I am one of those crazy people that believes children are the future. (I don't have children so I don't have skin in that game). They NEED nourishment to learn and grow. Do we take food away from our future?

The expensive travel of our leaders? I'm all for cutting that bigtime. Camp David is the presidential relaxation escape funded by the taxpayer. So if you want to go elsewhere? The costs in excess of taking you there are a personal expense. I am sick to death of the taxpayer cost for this President's "outings".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Presidential_vacations

In 8 years Barack Obama only spent 96 million.

In just 28 months in office Mr Trump: golf trips having cost taxpayers at least $102 million in extra travel and security expenses, trips to Florida having cost $81 million, his trips to New Jersey costing $17 million, his 2018 two days in Scotland costing at least $3 million, and $1 million for a trip to his resort in Los Angeles.[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Presidential_vacations#cite_note-8)[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Presidential_vacations#cite_note-9)

And this is ONLY VACATIONS!


Meanwhile, the infrastructure of our country is crumbling. More than 47,000 bridges in the United States are in crucial need of repairs, says the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, or ARTBA. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/02/us/deficient-bridge-report-2019-trnd/index.html
A bridge in my rural hometown crumbled one day. So now folks are driving much further to get where they need to go. It is still not under construction. No $.

Crap like this needs to stop: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-nov-24-na-spend24-story.html
I've been to a few of these places and they are awesome. But does the federal pocketbook need to fund them? I have mixed feelings about these.

And this year: https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2019/june/this-is-crazy-2019-pig-book-shows-your-tax-dollars-wasted-on-outrageous-pet-projects

https://americansforprosperity.org/five-outrageous-ways-the-federal-government-has-wasted-your-money-pt-ii/

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/462334-instead-of-raising-the-gas-tax-stop-wasting-money-on

That said, I keep voting to fire long-term Congress peeps. But I am not among the majority in my state. Until a big change happens in DC, there will be no change in behavior.

[Teacher Terry]

We definitely need universal health care. As for the other things being tossed around not so much.

[LDAHL]

interesting proposition. So what if 10% across the board was put into place. What is to prevent the commander in Chief from making changes, like for funding a border wall? Or a military parade? Or a White House garden? Or new drapes for the White House?

I find all of this so perplexing. Should the NIH get 10% as well as defense? Since defense accounts for 45% that might be a good place to look. Or maybe not.

Defense accounts for 15%. Social Security is 24%. Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP and Obamacare subsidies are 26%.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go

[Gardnr]

Defense accounts for 15%. Social Security is 24%. Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP and Obamacare subsidies are 26%.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go

Social security source:

In 2018, $885.1 billion (88.2 percent) of total Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance income came from payroll taxes. The remainder was provided by interest earnings ($83.3 billion or 8.3 percent) and revenue from taxation of OASDI benefits ($35 billion or 3.4 percent), and less than $50 million in reimbursements from the General Fund of the Treasury.

Medicare $ sources:
Part A's inpatient (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inpatient_care) admitted hospital and skilled nursing coverage is largely funded by revenue from a 2.9% payroll tax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax) levied on employers and workers (each pay 1.45%).
Parts B and D are partially funded by premiums paid by Medicare enrollees and general U.S. Treasury revenue (to which Medicare beneficiaries contributed and may still contribute). In 2006, a surtax was added to Part B premium for higher-income seniors to partially fund Part D. In the Affordable Care Act legislation of 2010, another surtax was then added to Part D premium for higher-income seniors to partially fund the Affordable Care Act and the number of Part B beneficiaries subject to the 2006 surtax was doubled, also partially to fund PPACA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)#Effects_of_the_Patient_Pr otection_and_Affordable_Care_Act).

[flowerseverywhere]

Music net?

I still think spending is a perfectly viable option.[/COLOR]

I think I meant money. I could be president!

[flowerseverywhere]

Defense accounts for 15%. Social Security is 24%. Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP and Obamacare subsidies are 26%.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go

Very interesting. I’ve seen other sites that say it’s 45%. I truly have a tough time deciphering all these web sites and finding the truth. I’m looking for further explanations as to why some say 45%. If we have learned everything’s, facts can be bent to fit the personal bias of the writer.

26% is a really lot of money for the government to be kicking in for healthcare when we are all kicking in a bunch as well.

[Yppej]

We spend much more per person on healthcare than other countries. We should go single payer with a payroll tax like Social Security but without a cap on the earnings taxed. Taxes will go up but almost everyone's costs will go down.

Other expenditures should be offset by cuts elsewhere, starting with endless wars.

[Gardnr]

Very interesting. I’ve seen other sites that say it’s 45%. I truly have a tough time deciphering all these web sites and finding the truth. I’m looking for further explanations as to why some say 45%. If we have learned everything’s, facts can be bent to fit the personal bias of the writer.

26% is a really lot of money for the government to be kicking in for healthcare when we are all kicking in a bunch as well.

I posted the sources in an earlier message. 26% does not come from additional taxation but the FED takes credit for all of it even though this comes from trust funds that yes, we all pay into.

[LDAHL]

I posted the sources in an earlier message. 26% does not come from additional taxation but the FED takes credit for all of it even though this comes from trust funds that yes, we all pay into.

It accounts for 26% of federal spending. Federal spending comes from taxes and debt that will ultimately need to be serviced from taxes. The Medicare tax is just another tax. Surpluses and deficits in the Medicare “trust fund” are merely IOUs the government writes to itself and funds with taxes. Calling different taxes by different names does not mean that the 26% those programs represent of federal spending isn’t funded by federal taxes.

[iris lilies]

I also don't mind my tax rates. I do however mind that those who earn much more than I do, have so many loopholes that they pay a lower marginal rate.

My brother just sold his business (his lifes's hard work), for 25million. Not a single year has he ever paid the same marginal rate as we did. We argued about it every time taxes came up. I know he'll pay dearly now and frankly, I am happy about that. I'm sure his tax attorney and accountant will do an excellent job of coming up with loopholes to significantly decrease his capital gains tax, but it is time for him to pay!

However, his total still will not be as high as our long-term marginal tax rate so he still wins!

your brother—was his income lower than yours?

[catherine]

We spend much more per person on healthcare than other countries. We should go single payer with a payroll tax like Social Security but without a cap on the earnings taxed. Taxes will go up but almost everyone's costs will go down.

Other expenditures should be offset by cuts elsewhere, starting with endless wars.

+1 on every point made here.

[LDAHL]

We spend much more per person on healthcare than other countries. We should go single payer with a payroll tax like Social Security but without a cap on the earnings taxed. Taxes will go up but almost everyone's costs will go down.

Other expenditures should be offset by cuts elsewhere, starting with endless wars.

If you first eliminate employer-subsidized insurance, and then fund trillions of single payer costs solely with a tax on currently working people, I would expect a significant political reaction from the employed segment of the population.

[catherine]

If you first eliminate employer-subsidized insurance, and then fund trillions of single payer costs solely with a tax on currently working people, I would expect a significant political reaction from the employed segment of the population.

That depends. If the out-of-pocket costs remain roughly the same, I don't see any uprising. In fact, if OOP premiums and deductibles are the same, I see great benefit for the employed people: a) they are free to follow dreams of entrepreneurship without being handcuffed to their jobs for healthcare security and b) they don't have to go through quagmires of red tape choosing one plan over another, and then having restrictions when traveling/moving to other states.

Doctors will save money by being able to reduce staff size. Most practices have at least FTE JUST for sorting through insurance paperwork, getting prior authorizations for every darn medicine they prescribe, etc.

[ApatheticNoMore]

If you first eliminate employer-subsidized insurance, and then fund trillions of single payer costs solely with a tax on currently working people, I would expect a significant political reaction from the employed segment of the population.

it's not a bad plan, but income taxes might be better, or a combination of both.

[LDAHL]

That depends. If the out-of-pocket costs remain roughly the same, I don't see any uprising. In fact, if OOP premiums and deductibles are the same, I see great benefit for the employed people: a) they are free to follow dreams of entrepreneurship without being handcuffed to their jobs for healthcare security and b) they don't have to go through quagmires of red tape choosing one plan over another, and then having restrictions when traveling/moving to other states.

Doctors will save money by being able to reduce staff size. Most practices have at least FTE JUST for sorting through insurance paperwork, getting prior authorizations for every darn medicine they prescribe, etc.

Something like 60% of the population is employed. Paying for a single payer system by putting the entire burden on a payroll tax while at the same time eliminating any subsidies they get though employers would almost certainly increase their combined out of pocket and tax burden substantially; although I would think the non-working population would be very satisfied with the situation.

It’s hard for me to believe the difference for working people would be made up by a series of managerial miracles. Rationing healthcare, increased wait times, etc. more stringently than people with employer-provided care are used to will also provoke a reaction.

[flowerseverywhere]

That depends. If the out-of-pocket costs remain roughly the same, I don't see any uprising. In fact, if OOP premiums and deductibles are the same, I see great benefit for the employed people: a) they are free to follow dreams of entrepreneurship without being handcuffed to their jobs for healthcare security and b) they don't have to go through quagmires of red tape choosing one plan over another, and then having restrictions when traveling/moving to other states.

Doctors will save money by being able to reduce staff size. Most practices have at least FTE JUST for sorting through insurance paperwork, getting prior authorizations for every darn medicine they prescribe, etc.

however think of all the people employed by BCBS, Aetna and so on. From CEO’s to office cleaners, hospital reviewers to adjusters to bill payers. They will be unemployed. Think of all the politicians who accept money from various health and pharmaceutical companies through direct donations, pacs, individual donations and so on. The spin and fallout by eliminating the health insurance business involves a great deal of upheaval in our country.
It’s all about the money, the people be damned.

For perspective, BCBS employs more than 17 million unionized employees, retirees and their families.

https://www.bcbs.com/about-us/the-blue-cross-blue-shield-system

united healthcare over 260,000

aetna over 50,000

[catherine]

however think of all the people employed by BCBS, Aetna and so on. From CEO’s to office cleaners, hospital reviewers to adjusters to bill payers. They will be unemployed. Think of all the politicians who accept money from various health and pharmaceutical companies through direct donations, pacs, individual donations and so on. The spin and fallout by eliminating the health insurance business involves a great deal of upheaval in our country.
It’s all about the money, the people be damned.

For perspective, BCBS employs more than 17 million unionized employees, retirees and their families.

https://www.bcbs.com/about-us/the-blue-cross-blue-shield-system

united healthcare over 260,000

aetna over 50,000

Well, as they say, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. This is the argument they raise about moving away from fossil fuels--"but where would all the gas station attendants go?"

I'm not suggesting that on January 21, 2021, if the electorate wisely votes in Bernie or Elizabeth, millions of health insurance employees would be out of work. Believe me, if it took Obama moving heaven and earth and making tough deals to get Obamacare done, I don't expect that Rome will be built in a day.

I just feel that no matter what, we need to move toward universal health care. For-profit healthcare insurance has ONLY been around for 70 years, and it has not served us well, as evidenced by the fact that we spend the most and get far less bang for the buck than countries with universal health care.

But the oligarchy will fight a good fight to be sure. This article (https://www.truthdig.com/articles/billionaires-have-declared-all-out-war-on-sanders-and-warren/) talks about the money billionaires are getting ready to spend to keep Sanders and Warren out of the White House.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Something like 60% of the population is employed. Paying for a single payer system by putting the entire burden on a payroll tax while at the same time eliminating any subsidies they get though employers would almost certainly increase their combined out of pocket and tax burden substantially; although I would think the non-working population would be very satisfied with the situation.

of course being that the working and non-working population are probably overwhelmingly the EXACT SAME people at different times in life (sure there are exceptions, grown kids that never leave the basement, kept women that never do a days paid labor, well at least their hard-working benefactors will breath a much welcome sign of relief - and they deserve it! But *overwhelmingly* they are the exact same people). So, I guess we will have to go with people will be very satisfied with the situation or at least neutral being that the working population IS the non-working population.

P.S. what does 60% of the population is employed even mean? In jobs with health insurance, or gig and contract work without it? What does working actually mean?

[Gardnr]

your brother—was his income lower than yours?

Hardly. He wrote a check for a $70k pickup, as an example. Self-employed farmers have a knack for 100% writeoffs and "losses". Tax attorney and accountant team kept his tax rate nominal or non-existent some years.

[Gardnr]

It accounts for 26% of federal spending. Federal spending comes from taxes and debt that will ultimately need to be serviced from taxes. The Medicare tax is just another tax. Surpluses and deficits in the Medicare “trust fund” are merely IOUs the government writes to itself and funds with taxes. Calling different taxes by different names does not mean that the 26% those programs represent of federal spending isn’t funded by federal taxes.

My point is that the primary source for these programs is NOT federal income tax we pay. They are separate payroll taxes paid by the worker and the employer.

[Yppej]

Something like 60% of the population is employed. Paying for a single payer system by putting the entire burden on a payroll tax while at the same time eliminating any subsidies they get though employers would almost certainly increase their combined out of pocket and tax burden substantially; although I would think the non-working population would be very satisfied with the situation.

It’s hard for me to believe the difference for working people would be made up by a series of managerial miracles. Rationing healthcare, increased wait times, etc. more stringently than people with employer-provided care are used to will also provoke a reaction.

Most people under 65 get their insurance through employer plans. A large portion of the 40% not working get their coverage through employer provided family plans, for which the worker is already paying. Will children be "very satisfied" with a payroll tax funding mechanism? I don't think your typical 3 year old will care.

[iris lilies]

Hardly. He wrote a check for a $70k pickup, as an example. Self-employed farmers have a knack for 100% writeoffs and "losses". Tax attorney and accountant team kept his tax rate nominal or non-existent some years.
I dont really understand all of the perks of business writeoffs, but DH had a sole propietorship business and I didnt see the cash roll in from that. In my gubmnt job I usually made 1.5 to 3 times his money.

He “wrote off” mileage on his modest pickup truck. One time he “Wrote off” the cost of a point and shoot camera because he had a rash of building Permits to file with the city and they require photos.

I think it is great that your brother built a business of that magnitude and he can retire based on those fruits of his labor.

[Yppej]

IL were you a head librarian? You seem to have done very well for yourself, and most librarians I know do not make a lot.

[iris lilies]

IL were you a head librarian? You seem to have done very well for yourself, and most librarians I know do not make a lot.
Not head. A managerial job.

[LDAHL]

My point is that the primary source for these programs is NOT federal income tax we pay. They are separate payroll taxes paid by the worker and the employer.

And imposed by the federal government. I think it’s legitimate to include them in the federal spending total.

[catherine]

When it comes to the perceived outlandishness of the THOUGHT of taxing extremely wealthy people a SMALL FRACTION in addition to what they are paying, here's a calculator that puts dollars and cents to what the extremely wealthy would have to pay under Warren's plan.

https://elizabethwarren.com/calculator/ultra-millionaire-tax?source=soc-WB-ew-tw

This is nothing more than a small tax adjustment. This is not the proletariate seizing the homes of the bourgouisie. And what it would do for good is to even out the playing field for people who, in their humanity, are no better or worse than people who happen to have billions of dollars. Is Jeff Bezos a qualitatively better person than Teacher Terry? Is Bill Gates a qualitatively better person than Alan? These people made their money on the backs of people like Alan. And jp1. And bae. And me. This is not a big ask. We are all in this together. If a tiny increase in taxes from a tiny % of the population will prevent people from dying, why not?

[Alan]

This is not the proletariate seizing the homes of the bourgouisie. No but it's similar and I'm glad to see an example of someone's possessions rather than just money being used as an example, even though they're the same. It's more like deciding that someone has a bigger garden than you so you'll vote yourself a greater share of theirs, or someone has an extra bedroom so you'd like the government to force them to allow you to move in or their car has a comfortable back seat so you'd like to legislate a ride to work from them. If I run into a billionaire in a movie theater how much of their popcorn am I entitled to?


Is Jeff Bezos a qualitatively better person than Teacher Terry? Is Bill Gates a qualitatively better person than Alan? I don't get the whole 'better person' thing. In my mind the better person is the one unconcerned with the possessions of others.


These people made their money on the backs of people like Alan. And jp1. And bae. And me. I don't think it was on my back, those two made their money from my voluntary participation in their endeavors. I consider myself a beneficiary of their efforts, not a victim.

[JaneV2.0]

If you think of taxes as the government stealing from you, you're probably not comfortable living in a civilized country, since taxes are what such places run on.

[LDAHL]

If you think of taxes as the government stealing from you, you're probably not comfortable living in a civilized country, since taxes are what such places run on.

Yes, but it’s possible to take that thinking too far if you begin to think civilization and government are synonymous. If a third of my income gets me roads and the Coast Guard, it doesn’t mean I’m eager to give up the rest for even more goodies. Nor does it mean that anything I keep for myself is robbing “civilization”. Good government is the froth on top of a civilization that produces the wealth that it feeds on, not the underlying bedrock.

I would go so far as to say that civilized countries don’t run on taxes. Civilized countries run on the productivity of their economies, the creative thinking of their citizens and the capacity for informed risk-taking of their organizations.

[Yppej]

Civilized countries run on a sense of community and common purpose.

[LDAHL]

Civilized countries run on a sense of community and common purpose.

I’m not sure that’s necessarily the case. I think civilization advances in large part through competition, conflict and “creative destruction” more so than a sort ok lockstep common purpose.

[catherine]

I’m not sure that’s necessarily the case. I think civilization advances in large part through competition, conflict and “creative destruction” more so than a sort ok lockstep common purpose.

I understand creative chaos, but I don't understand when you have small farmers competing against huge corporate entities like chemical companies moving into industrial farming; when citizens are competing against dirty industries for clean air and water, and when you have pharmaceutical companies competing to see how much they money they can from layers of middlemen who have no skin in the game except for a vested interest in keeping their members from getting treatment. That's competition, but not the kind of competition that serves the common good.

[Teacher Terry]

Wisconsin farmers are going out of business at a high rate. Really sad.

[catherine]

Wisconsin farmers are going out of business at a high rate. Really sad.

This was in the Washington Post this week, and I bookmarked it. Many farmers are committing suicide. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/11/09/im-gonna-lose-everything/?arc404=true

[Yppej]

I’m not sure that’s necessarily the case. I think civilization advances in large part through competition, conflict and “creative destruction” more so than a sort ok lockstep common purpose.

Conflicts work when they are against external threats. For example, the US pulled together and formed a community fighting against the Axis Powers in the Greatest Generation, putting aside the former divisiveness between isolationists and interventionists.

[LDAHL]

Conflicts work when they are against external threats. For example, the US pulled together and formed a community fighting against the Axis Powers in the Greatest Generation, putting aside the former divisiveness between isolationists and interventionists.

I suppose that’s why certain people are always trying to make their projects the moral equivalent of war. Generate enough fear and resentment to shut the dissenters up and discipline the general population to obedience.

[frugal-one]

Wisconsin farmers are going out of business at a high rate. Really sad.

I read it recently 600 or 800 (don't remember which) small farms THIS YEAR alone. We know who to blame for that. What benefit was the trade war with China? Now trump is getting rid of tariffs he said would be so great.