It would be nice if the government did not have a reason to promote inflation.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Taxation legalized robbery?
- Thread starter Twilight Hue
- Start date
PureX
Veteran Member
The problem with this question, and the thinking that generates it, is that it wants a single answer. "Taxes: good or bad?"
The answer is that there is nothing "bad" about taxation. Period. It's an absolutely necessary mechanism in any large society, that benefits that society as whole. It provides the essential services and institutions that any large society of humans must have in place if it is to survive and thrive.
The problem is not taxation. The problem is greed, and the corruption that greed generates within any system of government we devise to collect taxes and to decide how those taxes should be spent, and on what. And it's not just the greed of those in power that corrupts, it's the greed of those being taxed, not wanting to pay any taxes for anything, ever. Those people, and companies that are hiding their wealth off shore to avoid paying taxes are just greedy. And their greed is costing everyone else who does pay their taxes, because now they have to pay a greater share to make up for that loss.
We can always complain about where the taxes get spent, because they are always going to be spent on things we personally don't want or use. That's the whole reason we set up governments to collect taxes and decide where it's spent in the first place: because we will not do so on our own. Yet we still need these things for the well-being of us all. I don't want to pay for a bridge that I'll never need to travel cross. And so I won't, unless I am made to. Yet society as a whole benefits greatly by that bridge being there. And so I should be made to help pay for it, even if I don't ever use it myself. But of course, if I'm selfish, and childish, I'll whine and complain because the mean old government "stole my money" and wasted it on a bridge "we never needed or wanted" (really I never needed or wanted). And I hear this kind of selfish stupidity coming form people's mouths all the time in this country. Mostly republicans. And that's all it really is: just stupid and selfish whining.
On the other hand, if we allow our culture, and therefor ourselves and our politicians to become corrupted by greed, they may well begin over-taxing us, and funneling the money collected to their rich cronies for kickbacks and bribes for themselves. In which case we have only ourselves to blame. Because we chose to see greed as some sort of necessary virtue, when it's clearly not. Again, I'm seeing this in a lot of republicans.
Last edited:
exchemist
Veteran Member
No, unless you want to go back to the Stone Age. You get a huge number of services from the modern state, from defence, maintenance of order, transport, education, health (in most countries), unemployment benefit, enforcement of laws that stop other organisations from ripping you off or damaging you and your environment, and so on.
Your question about what is a "fair" amount is one of those "how long is a piece of string?" questions with no clear answer. It depends on what services you get. Your best bet is to look up statistics on what various First World countries spend per capita on the various services and compare that with your home country, to see if your government is efficient at what it provides, compared to others.
A handful of people pursue loopholes or leave the county because they are greedy and not content, for some reason, with only one luxury yacht. It tells you nothing, really.
We Never Know
No Slack
A good thought but more of a dream
I guess it would largely depend on one's perception of government. If we're a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then taxes would just be a matter of the people utilizing their own shared resources. Ideally, taxation is merely a mechanism to ensure that everyone pays their fair share.
Personally, I don't find taxes to be that debilitating. Sure, I could use the extra money that I pay in taxes, but the fact is, more of my money goes to paying private sector businesses for the necessities of life - far more than I pay to the government in taxes. So, if there's anybody robbing me, the first question I would ask is, who's taking most of my money? The government or the private sector?
Sales taxes might be a form of robbery, since they're regressive taxes and take a larger percentage of a poor person's income. Then there are various fees and fines that governments can impose, which might be a bigger problem than taxes. Jurisdictions which thrive on speed traps or nickel-and-diming people to death with excessive fines for piddly violations can cause a great deal of dissension and ill will within a community.
We Never Know
No Slack
Greed, the love of money is a evil thing.
People will....
Die for it
Kill for it
Steal it
Lie for it
Cheat for it
Lose family friends over it
Do most anything illegal for it
Destroy things for it
Pollute for it
Dump toxins for it
Etc..
The more people get, the more they want/need it. So the above will always happen.
But they often pay at a higher rate, or a higher percentage of total income. They have less access to expensive accountants who can set up financial loopholes, hide income, &c. They're also more sensitive to taxation. A thousand dollars to a working class person is a lot of money, and could make a difference in his life. A rich person could loose half his total income without affecting his lifestyle.
The rich are also frequently paid with non-taxable or low-rate "non-income," like stock options.
Last edited:
Certainly. I was simply responding to the statement, "When the poor pay more tax than the rich, there's something wrong.", which was factually inaccurate. And by doing so, it has offered a platform for you and others to actually hone in on what the actual problems are.
Suave
Simulated character
I'd consider our federal government collecting $4.7 trillion annually in revenue as being an appropriate amount of taxation in order to provide sufficient funding beyond the debt financing of all the federal spending I favor. Right now, I'd like there to be about a $700 billion a year federal tax hike in order to help pay for all the federal government spending I want.
Here's somewhat precisely how I'd like federal government spending to be allocated along with the progressive tax system implemented to collect revenues to fund all this government spending I favor:
1. Universal health insurance could affordably be implemented at tax-payer expense if there were also insured cost sharing of 40 percent co-insurance to the insured for covered Medicare expenses including prescription drug expenses. The government paying 60 percent of all U.S. residents' Medicare approved health care would cost tax-payers approximately 2.2 trillion dollars in the fiscal year 2024. Upgraded coverage insuring 80 percent of the insured's Medicare approved expenses and prescription drug costs could be purchased at cost by the insured at an annual premium price of $2,000.
2. Universal health insurance in the U.S could be funded as follows: this being funded in large part by over half the revenues collected from personal income taxes (est. $1.05 trillion), in part by a ten percent value-added-tax less less monthly rebates of $180 to each U.S. resident age 18 or over, this would net approximately $550 billion of revenue in the year 2024; Universal health care also being funded in part by an increase in the corporate income tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent resulting in corporations paying U.S. corporate income taxes of nearly 500 billion dollars in 2024,, and also U.H.I. being funded in small part by alcohol, cannabis and tobacco excise taxes generating ca. $80 billion of funding towards U.S. Universal Health insurance in year 2024.
3. Social security spending of $1.3 trillion in 2024 would be funded in large part by the status-quo system of payroll taxes, this would generate $1.1 trillion during 2024. This $200 billion annual shortfall of funding to social security by payroll taxes would be covered by the withdrawal of excess funds in the social security trust fund.
4. U.S. military spending of 950 billion dollars in 2024 could then be funded with nearly half the revenue from the following simplified income tax system, just a few income tax brackets beginning in year 2024, zero percent on the initial $20,000 of personal individual annual income, 18 percent on $20,001 to $60,000 of personal individual annual income, 29.8 percent on individual personal annual earnings in excess of $60,000. Capital gains taxed at same rate as ordinary income. No tax credits, save for a refundable $2,000 child tax credit as well as a (edit) **$4,000** refundable tax credit for each adult American legal resident. In 2024, this would result in total personal federal income taxes amounting to an estimated two trillion dollars.
5.. The imposition of financial transaction taxes ( remittance taxes and stock/bond trade taxes) generating ca. $200 billion, the implementation of tariffs resulting in ca. $100 billion of revenue in 2024 and federal estate taxes generating an additional ca. $35 billion in revenue would mostly fund spending for the following federal agencies:: ( est. $63 billion ) spending on the Department of Agriculture, ( est. $46 billion) to the State Department, ( est. $42 billion ) towards Housing and Urban Development, ( est. $33 billion ), by the Department of Energy, ( est. $30 billion ) to the Department of Justice, ( est. $26 billion) for N.A.S.A., ( est. 24 billion ) into the Department of Treasury, (est. $23 billion ) towards the Department of Interior, ( est. $14 billion ) by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, ( est. $10 billion ) for the Department of Commerce, ( est. $10 billion ) by the Department of Labor, ( est. $9 billion ) for the Environmental Protection Agency, and ( est. $5 billion ) for the Food and Drug Administration.
6. The implementation of excise taxes on railways, fuel, airports and aviation collectively adding up to $160 billion, would fund the Department of Transportation and Homeland Security.
7. Approved federal spending in 2024 at an estimated $2.2 trillion for universal health care ( U.H.I. ) $1.3 trillion for Social Security, ( no change from status-quo on S.S. retirement benefits ), an estimated 950 billion dollars towards the military and veteran services or veteran benefits, $600 billion on debt interest payments, ( est. $63 billion ) spending on the Department of Agriculture, ( est. $46 billion) to the State Department, ( est. $42 billion ) towards Housing and Urban Development, ( est. $33 billion ), by the Department of Energy, ( est. $30 billion ) to the Department of Justice, ( est. $26 billion) for N.A.S.A., ( est. 24 billion ) into the Department of Treasury, (est. $23 billion ) towards the Department of Interior, ( est. $14 billion ) by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, ( est. $10 billion ) for the Department of Commerce, ( est. $10 billion ) by the Department of Labor, ( est. $9 billion ) for the Environmental Protection Agency, and ( est. $5 billion ) for the Food and Drug Administration. ( est. $50 billion) for the Department of Homeland Security, ( est. $110 billion) for the Department of Transportation; the above proposed federal spending resulting in total federal annual spending to be ca. $5.545 trillion..
8. The above approved fiscal year 2024 federal spending being at $5.545 trillion and $4.725 trillion of tax revenue would result in a federal deficit of ca. $820 billion for Fiscal Year 2024.
Last edited:
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I still can't believe a fair number of fortune 500 companies have paid 0, zilch, na da in taxes.
Guess who the IRS goes after the majority of time?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It becomes different when taxes are compounded into state tax, local tax, city tax , town tax on top of federal tax already collected.
It suddenly becomes a whole new ballgame.
That is another layer of tax burden which is not uniformly levied across the country. I agree.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
The country that wanted to get away from King George, has now become King George.
That couldn't be. King George was insane. Americans on the other hand...oh wait, nevermind.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Lol, I think your on the right track.
"Now"?
I remember thinking during the American occupation of Iraq, when they were trying to recoup the cost of the Iraq War from Iraqi resources, that the American decision-makers were displaying a profound ignorance of their own history... specifically how the British decision to recoup the cost to defend the American colonies in the Seven Years' War from the American colonies was a major cause of the American Revolution.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
That's an interesting analogy.
rocala
Well-Known Member
Maybe where you come from.
rocala
Well-Known Member
Why is this in general debates? It is quite specifically about one particular nation?
Do some of our less worldly RF members not realize that there are others on the WORLD wide web?