Draginol Draginol

A conversation about taxes

▼

A conversation about taxes

from JoeUser Forums

For most people, discussing politics is like discussing football. Sure, it's interesting but it has very little actual affect on their lives at first glance.

But in reality, people rarely recognize the unintended consequences of their beliefs.

For instance, nearly every conversation with a tax hike supporter inevitably goes something like this:

Me: I'm against raising the taxes on anyone, including the top 5%.

Tax Supporter: Why? You can afford to pay more in taxes. You've got a big house and a fancy car, etc.  You got way more than you need.

Me: Yes, but I'm still one person, one vote. At some point don't you consider the equality there? That is, I use the same services as you do. I'm not suggesting no taxes or equal taxes but if my tax bill this year is >$1 million and your total tax hit is less than $3k how can you seriously argue that your opinion is the opinion of someone who's compassionate or concerned when all you're doing is arguing for me to pay for your beliefs?

Tax Supporter: But the money taken from you helps all of us because that money can then be given to people who need it more. You can live with less.

Me: Are you sure of that? When I pay taxes, it's just another expense. My lifestyle is unaffected. When taxes go up, I hire fewer people or am forced to lay people off.

Tax Supporter: Well then you're just being greedy. You should take a cut before laying people off.

Me: But I'm not the one causing it. It's the government's taxation -- supported by you. Do you live for your job? Is your job the ends unto itself of a means to an end?

Tax Supporter: I work so I can buy food, clothing, shelter.

Me: Same here. Working is a means to an end. I work so that I can have the big house and the fancy car. I don't exist as a public asset to be used by the "body politic".

Tax Supporter: I'm not saying you should.

Me: Sure you are. You support higher taxes on me. You expect me to continue to do what I do best - create jobs and employ people but at a lower salary. You unconsciously see me as something that is expected to work to create jobs as a higher priority than work as a means to an end. You expect my motivation to work to be singularly unique amongst mankind - you work so you can buy stuff, you expect me to work to provide you and yours a job.

Tax Supporter: I just don't think it's fair you should have so much while others have so little

Me: Nothing's stopping someone else from trying to do what I do. I got no special breaks. I worked hard, took calculated risks, stuck to it and built over time a successful business. It's just that not too many people are willing to do that. There's a lot of risk involved in starting a business after all.

Tax Supporter: Yea but now you make more than you need.

Me: Who decides "need"? You? You who has the latest iPod, latest-gen video games and other consumer goods. Putting that aside, concepts like fairness or need are in the realm of philosophy, not reality. The fact is, when you raise taxes, you are having the government take from those who are the best at taking money and creating more money with it that inevitably gets spread out one way or the other. 

In short, your beliefs do have consequences whether you realize it or not.

36,911 views 61 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top

Income is relative. If a house cost you a thousand dollars, an annual income of 200 is more than enough to live comfortably.
Wow, talk about the past! Have fun chomping on your nickel candy bar.

Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top

Wow, talk about the past! Have fun chomping on your nickel candy bar.

Are you saying I am old because I bought some for a nickle once?

Damn!  I guess I am old! ;)

Fences - Organize your desktop icons today!
Reply #53 from Stardock Forums Top

I think the "taxation supporter" in your dialogue up there is a bit of a straw man. They say that you should pay more tax because you're better off and they make some pretty silly and emotive assertions. Do you think that every person who "supports taxation" does so for the reasons you put into their mouth?

Actually, what I'd really like to know is, do you support any level of taxation at all? Would you prefer a tax level of 0%? Lots of different countries seem to manage to get by on quite different rates of tax - and there isn't, as far as I'm aware, a conclusive or clear correlation between higher rates and lower wealth.

So, yes, the "taxation supporter" who thinks that you should pay more because they're jealous of your nice car is obviously silly and wrong. But aren't there better arguments than that that you could work to knock down? ;)

Reply #54 from PolMach Forums Top

I think the "taxation supporter" in your dialogue up there is a bit of a straw man.

I think it's a bit of a given that in this case it is a straw man but it is used correctly in that he said that in general his conversations with tax supporters generally boil down to the conversation provided.

do you support any level of taxation at all?

From what I've been reading on the various posts here it sounds like few if any have a problem with paying taxes for general purpose items (police, fire fighters, roads, etc.) what they, and I, have a problem with is raising taxes on a select few for the express reason of redistributing that money to other people.

and there isn't, as far as I'm aware, a conclusive or clear correlation between higher rates and lower wealth.

Whether you deem it conclusive or clear there is at least the example of what happened to wealth in America when tax rate on the rich was dropped from 70% down to 28%, there was a wealth explosion.

But aren't there better arguments than that that you could work to knock down?

How about you attempt to provide some and see if anyone can knock them down?  Why should people against higher taxes have to do your job for you?

Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top

Damn! I guess I am old!
Not necessarily, I believe to continue the "integrity" of the nickel, candy men first stripped the bar of a few ounces; they were massive in my day. Cheer up.

Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top

I think the "taxation supporter" in your dialogue up there is a bit of a straw man.
Excellent comment.

America when tax rate on the rich was dropped from 70% down to 28%, there was a wealth explosion.
Indeed! But not as implied a redistribution--trickle down didn't work.:andrew:

Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top

Indeed! But not as implied a redistribution--trickle down didn't work.

really?  What was the poverty rate then?  What is it now?  Can you point to any single indice (other than how much the richest have) that indicates no one improved since that time?

Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top

indicates no one improved since that time?
Depends on what you mean by improved. Yes the Mexican immigrants and Cuban Americans but statistics show that the very wealthy have since Reagan increased their wealth fourfold as opposed to the rest whose improvement was nil. Go Google; I still have dial-up.

Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top

statistics show that the very wealthy have since Reagan increased their wealth fourfold as opposed to the rest whose improvement was nil

What about incomes? I'm far more interested in how incomes have changed than wealth, since for example someone who earns a fortune and splashes out on short-term benefits is going to have no wealth, even though they are living a much nicer life than someone who earns a modest amount and again spends it on non-wealth items.

Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top

Go Google; I still have dial-up.

2 tin cans and a string? ;)

I guess I am wealthy.  My income has actually gone up about 10 fold since then.

Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top

What about incomes?
Is there a difference? Wealth is determined by earnings, investments and assets. The wise never lose their wealth cushion regardless of spending.

2 tin cans and a string?
Love it!