What is level of taxation you're willing to bear?

[maxiep]

My answer is however much it costs. Saying I desire tons of services but I'm only willing to pay 5% is pretty silly. But if the services only cost 25%, it would also be pretty silly to be willing to pay 50%.

So if I'm king, I make the list of services that I want government to provide, add up the costs, and then tax the people and myself enough to pay for them.

barfo

Yep. Pretty typical. Trying to squirm out of giving an answer. It doesn't matter how much it costs, the question is what you're willing to pay to have the government you desire.

 

[barfo]

Yep. Pretty typical. Trying to squirm out of giving an answer. It doesn't matter how much it costs, the question is what you're willing to pay to have the government you desire.

I just don't think about the question the same way you do. The percentage of my income doesn't matter that much to me, what matters is what we get for the money.

Is 100% too much? Obviously. Is 80% too much? I could pay it, but it seems kind of high for what I want from government. Is 60% too high? No, if we actually got an effective government that did the things that I want it to do and not the things that I don't want it to do, then I'd be happy to pay 60%. I'd be even happier to pay 40% or 20% for that. My guess - and I haven't done the math carefully - is that the actual cost of what I'd like to see would be about 50% - a little more than what I pay now.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

I just don't think about the question the same way you do. The percentage of my income doesn't matter that much to me, what matters is what we get for the money.

Is 100% too much? Obviously. Is 80% too much? I could pay it, but it seems kind of high for what I want from government. Is 60% too high? No, if we actually got an effective government that did the things that I want it to do and not the things that I don't want it to do, then I'd be happy to pay 60%. I'd be even happier to pay 40% or 20% for that. My guess - and I haven't done the math carefully - is that the actual cost of what I'd like to see would be about 50% - a little more than what I pay now.

barfo

So, your answer is you're happy with the government you have now. No universal health care, no high speed rail. Good to know.

 

[barfo]

So, your answer is you're happy with the government you have now. No universal health care, no high speed rail. Good to know.

How in the world did you get that from my answer? It's wrong, in any case. I'm ok with the government we have now, but it certainly could be better.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

How in the world did you get that from my answer? It's wrong, in any case. I'm ok with the government we have now, but it certainly could be better.

barfo

If you're paying 50% right now and you think that's the appropriate level, then you're happy with the government we have. Asking the government to be efficient is like asking me to be a L*ker fan--it's fantasy. So, what's the maximum you're willing to pay to get the government you want?

 

[barfo]

If you're paying 50% right now and you think that's the appropriate level, then you're happy with the government we have.

You aren't paying attention.

Asking the government to be efficient is like asking me to be a L*ker fan--it's fantasy.

I agree with that. I didn't say anything about efficiency. I have very little patience with people who are going to "reduce government waste".

However - if I was king - I'd eliminate some programs, and put new ones in their place. It doesn't have anything to do with efficiency, it has to do with priorities.

So, what's the maximum you're willing to pay to get the government you want?

I think I already answered the question.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

You aren't paying attention.



I agree with that. I didn't say anything about efficiency. I have very little patience with people who are going to "reduce government waste".

However - if I was king - I'd eliminate some programs, and put new ones in their place. It doesn't have anything to do with efficiency, it has to do with priorities.



I think I already answered the question.

barfo

Which government programs would you eliminate? Also, did you post your answer in the poll? If so, what was it?

 

[barfo]

Which government programs would you eliminate? Also, did you post your answer in the poll? If so, what was it?

I didn't post my answer in the poll, but I guess it would be 41-60 as the most likely outcome. However to answer the question literally, I'd go over 60 in certain circumstances, not likely over 80. If universal health care were added, then I'd be saving what I/my employer pays in health insurance now, so that amount can be added to the tax bill and I'm not really counting that here (since it isn't additional out of pocket).

What would I eliminate.
To start with, I'm fine with Brian's suggestion of not giving SS (or medicare, for that matter) to the rich (rich defined as you, me, and everyone above us). I'd implement it differently than Brian, I think, but the concept is fine. Weaning the future elderly off SS is also fine, although I don't favor eliminating it entirely as Brian does. We need to get SS to a point where it is not spending more than it is taking in on a long-term basis, and with more and more old farts coming down the pike, we have to adjust.
I'd eliminate a lot of the defense budget. We could spend 1/2 as much or even less and be just as secure, assuming that the cuts were made rationally rather than irrationally. Again, I'm assuming I'm king here, so congresspeople don't get to spend money on stupid projects that the pentagon doesn't want just because they are built in their district. But we'd have to cut things the pentagon does want as well. We don't need to be spending 10x as much as any other country.
On the local level, I'd (being king) eliminate at least one layer of government and maybe more. For example, county governments could be dissolved . Advances in travel and communication have removed the justification for county governments. Not really sure how much that would save but it would be something.
For that matter many state government functions could be handled better at the federal level. Do we really need 50 different sets of motor vehicle laws? Why not just have a federal drivers license? Where there are actual differences between states, such as green energy programs or education, the states should continue to control, but where things have standardized, like driving, let the feds do it, and have one bureaucracy instead of 50.
Ok, I guess now I am talking about efficiency...
Naturally, I realize that none of these things has any hope in hell of being implemented. But you asked.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

barfo,

If you were taxed 100%, you'd be a slave (literally and figuratively).

If you were taxed 60%, you'd be 60% a slave.

I have no beef with you wanting to pay 60%. Just keep your (and govt's) hands off my wallet.

Anyhow...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9GGCVE00&show_article=1

Hoyer: Permanent middle class tax cuts too costly

WASHINGTON (AP) - House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Tuesday that tax increases will eventually be necessary to address the nation's mounting debt, raising a difficult election-year issue as Democrats fight retain control of Congress.
In the shorter term, Hoyer raised the possibility that Congress will only temporarily extend middle-class tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year. He pointedly suggested that making them permanent would be too costly.

Tax cuts enacted under former President George W. Bush are scheduled to expire at the end of the year, affecting taxpayers at every income level. President Barack Obama proposes to permanently extend them for individuals making less than $200,000 a year and families making less than $250,000—at a cost of about $2.5 trillion over the next decade.

"As the House and Senate debate what to do with the expiring Bush tax cuts in the coming weeks, we need to have a serious discussion about their implications for our fiscal outlook, including whether we can afford to permanently extend them before we have a real plan for long-term deficit reduction," said Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat.

The tax cuts will be a big political issue in many congressional elections this fall, providing potential fodder for both political parties. Democratic leaders have yet to lay out a schedule for dealing with the tax cuts, but many rank-and-file Democrats want to extend them before the elections, so they can campaign on passing tax cuts for the middle class.

 

[barfo]

barfo,

If you were taxed 100%, you'd be a slave (literally and figuratively).

No, I don't think so. I have zero desire to be taxed at 100%, but if I was I wouldn't be a slave, because I'd still be free to change employers when I wanted. Slaves don't get that choice. Further, my spouse and offspring would not belong to my employer.

Slavery and taxes aren't the same thing (literally or figuratively). That's just libertarian poppycock.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery

Similarities between wage labor and slavery were noted at least as early as Cicero [10] and Aristotle.[11] A line in the original Star-Spangled Banner categorizes "hirelings" as being in the same category as slaves; i.e. people who weren't considered free.[12] With the advent of the industrial revolution, thinkers such as Proudhon and Marx elaborated these comparisons in the context of a critique of property not intended for active personal use.[13][14] Before the American Civil War, Southern defenders of African American slavery also invoked the concept of wage slavery to favorably compare the condition of their slaves to workers in the North.[15][16]

 

[barfo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery

Similarities between wage labor and slavery were noted at least as early as Cicero [10] and Aristotle.[11] A line in the original Star-Spangled Banner categorizes "hirelings" as being in the same category as slaves; i.e. people who weren't considered free.[12] With the advent of the industrial revolution, thinkers such as Proudhon and Marx elaborated these comparisons in the context of a critique of property not intended for active personal use.[13][14] Before the American Civil War, Southern defenders of African American slavery also invoked the concept of wage slavery to favorably compare the condition of their slaves to workers in the North.[15][16]

I think you are reaching. That's got nothing to do with taxes, that's equating working for a living with slavery.

barfo

 

[MikeDC]

No, I don't think so. I have zero desire to be taxed at 100%, but if I was I wouldn't be a slave, because I'd still be free to change employers when I wanted. Slaves don't get that choice. Further, my spouse and offspring would not belong to my employer.

Slavery and taxes aren't the same thing (literally or figuratively). That's just libertarian poppycock.

barfo

That pretty much depends on your putting forth an arbitrary definition of slavery, which is just as much "poppycock" as anything else mentioned here

Who cares whether your definition of slavery contains five intolerable notions in one, or just two or three.

 

[barfo]

That pretty much depends on your putting forth an arbitrary definition of slavery, which is just as much "poppycock" as anything else mentioned here

Who cares whether your definition of slavery contains five intolerable notions in one, or just two or three.

I think there is a pretty commonly understood definition of slavery; I was using that one. If you want to redefine it to mean something else, go ahead, but that makes it pretty hard to communicate.

Posting here is slavery! Drinking beer is slavery! The NBA draft? Slavery! Sleeping is slavery. Sex is slavery. Food is slavery. Living is slavery. Dying is slavery.

barfo

 

[MikeDC]

I think it's pretty commonly understood definition of slavery to be unable to enjoy any of the rewards of your labor. I suppose that sort of condition could be described as some sort of absurd nihilism if it were not much easier to call it slavery, but it's six of one and half a dozen of another.

 

[barfo]

I think it's pretty commonly understood definition of slavery to be unable to enjoy any of the rewards of your labor. I suppose that sort of condition could be described as some sort of absurd nihilism if it were not much easier to call it slavery, but it's six of one and half a dozen of another.

But that isn't the situation we are discussing. Unless of course you take the extremist view that *nothing* that government does with your tax dollars benefits you in any way. Only then would a 100% tax rate equate to being unable to enjoy any of the rewards of your labor.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

But that isn't the situation we are discussing. Unless of course you take the extremist view that *nothing* that government does with your tax dollars benefits you in any way. Only then would a 100% tax rate equate to being unable to enjoy any of the rewards of your labor.

barfo

Slavery is the Taking of the Fruit of someone else's Labor. That's in economic terms, and the actual definition of slavery.

Your master will give you the same benefits govt. does in your mind. A roof over your head, food, rudimentary medical care.

I brought up slave wages because you seem to think people have the kind of mobility to just switch jobs anytime they want. Tell that to an auto worker.

 

[barfo]

Slavery is the Taking of the Fruit of someone else's Labor. That's in economic terms, and the actual definition of slavery.

Under that definition, every employer is enslaving its employees. It's true in a certain sense, but not a very meaningful sense, since we all accept that form of slavery. Indeed, if I understand your political beliefs, you think that form of slavery is a good and wonderful thing. At least for the employer.

Your master will give you the same benefits govt. does in your mind. A roof over your head, food, rudimentary medical care.

As will the money the employer pays you. There's not a big difference, except in one case the money passes through your hands.

I brought up slave wages because you seem to think people have the kind of mobility to just switch jobs anytime they want. Tell that to an auto worker.

Auto workers are rather scarce in Portland, so I am unable to carry out your directive. Should I find myself in Detroit, I will try to remember to do so.
However, I will point out that auto workers do still have a choice. They may not have any good choices, but presumably they can, at worst, get a job flipping burgers in some other city.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Under that definition, every employer is enslaving its employees. It's true in a certain sense, but not a very meaningful sense, since we all accept that form of slavery. Indeed, if I understand your political beliefs, you think that form of slavery is a good and wonderful thing. At least for the employer.

Take.

Keyword is Take.