Jump to content

Taxation...


Externet
 Share

Recommended Posts

Do you work ? ---> Pay taxes

Do you study ? ---> Pay taxes

Did you inherit ? ---> Pay taxes

Do you need medicines ? ---> Pay taxes

Are you creative ?---> Pay taxes

Do you produce ? ---> Pay taxes

Do you purchase ? ---> Pay taxes

Do you sell ? ---> Pay taxes

Are you lazy ? --->  Get free assistance, aids, bonuses...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True market capitalism requires those who are more successful within that system to subsidize those who are less successful within that system through taxation. Everyone is needed, but not all are good at accumulating wealth, so we need taxes for programs that fill the gaps in a system of private ownership. The wealthy don't need libraries and museums and swimming pools and parks because their homes have all these things and more, so taxes are required to build facilities the rest of us can share.

I also think the depiction of social programs as free handouts for the lazy to be naive and small-minded, but to be fair, the right has been pushing this myth forever, or at least since Reagan and his Black Welfare Queen. FOX News famously pushes these myths and has since their beginning. More misinformation aimed at reducing much needed social spending, and a very sad perspective on modern life in large societies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Externet said:

Do you work ? ---> Pay taxes

Do you study ? ---> Pay taxes

Did you inherit ? ---> Pay taxes

Do you need medicines ? ---> Pay taxes

Are you creative ?---> Pay taxes

Do you produce ? ---> Pay taxes

Do you purchase ? ---> Pay taxes

Do you sell ? ---> Pay taxes

Are you lazy ? --->  Get free assistance, aids, bonuses...

 

 

Define lazy.

You pay taxes to support you, it's a societal insurance plan; just in case you inadvertently become a victim of lazy.

The more you can afford to pay, the better your chances of collecting a payout... 

The problem is, the wealthy think their immune to lazy and don't think they'll need to be fed, when the lazy catches up with them; apparent wealth is the price we pay for these 'horse' blinders...

 

now-selling-safe-spaces-get-it-before-the-world-ends.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Both could be part of the answer to each and every listed question

Very good point. I rather like walking on the sidewalks for a few dollars a year in taxes, as opposed to the monthly fee I'd be charged if they  were privately owned. 

And don't forget, when a group wants to reduce taxation for social spending, they're usually also aiming to reduce funding for regulation as well. Our taxes pay to keep our goods and services free from contamination and bad practices. I would venture to say that these groups cost taxpayers several times what the OP's "lazy" citizens cost us. These "greedy" folks waste far more taxes, and don't contribute as much to the economy overall. And when they use their wealth to lobby for less taxes for themselves, they compound the problem for the rest of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Very good point. I rather like walking on the sidewalks for a few dollars a year in taxes, as opposed to the monthly fee I'd be charged if they  were privately owned. 

And don't forget, when a group wants to reduce taxation for social spending, they're usually also aiming to reduce funding for regulation as well. Our taxes pay to keep our goods and services free from contamination and bad practices. I would venture to say that these groups cost taxpayers several times what the OP's "lazy" citizens cost us. These "greedy" folks waste far more taxes, and don't contribute as much to the economy overall. And when they use their wealth to lobby for less taxes for themselves, they compound the problem for the rest of us.

In the Lincolnshire-English vernacular, they are paying fuck all compared to Joe Normal. It amazes me.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

In the Lincolnshire-English vernacular, they are paying fuck all compared to Joe Normal. It amazes me.

Joe Normal voted for them, what amazes me is, how comfortable these blinker's are... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

The more you can afford to pay, the better your chances of collecting a payout... 

If this were true, I don't think the wealthy would have as many problems paying their taxes. What they forget is that paying their fair share of their success within the system allows those who aren't as successful to prosper and bring their gifts and skills to the economy, which often don't revolve around making a profit or accumulating wealth. When the wealthy get it in their heads that they shouldn't be subsidizing those who don't have their skills, that's when the common folks start talking about revolution. This is a recurring cycle, but in modern times, the density of the wealth coupled with technology that spreads their spin on society to the masses probably makes them feel like they can finally force the middle and working classes to pay ALL the taxes from now on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

If this were true, I don't think the wealthy would have as many problems paying their taxes. What they forget is that paying their fair share of their success within the system allows those who aren't as successful to prosper and bring their gifts and skills to the economy, which often don't revolve around making a profit or accumulating wealth. When the wealthy get it in their heads that they shouldn't be subsidizing those who don't have their skills, that's when the common folks start talking about revolution. This is a recurring cycle, but in modern times, the density of the wealth coupled with technology that spreads their spin on society to the masses probably makes them feel like they can finally force the middle and working classes to pay ALL the taxes for good.

When the cash-cow runs out of milk, it's forced to bite back...

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Externet said:

Do you work ? ---> Pay taxes

Do you study ? ---> Pay taxes

Did you inherit ? ---> Pay taxes

Do you need medicines ? ---> Pay taxes

Are you creative ?---> Pay taxes

Do you produce ? ---> Pay taxes

Do you purchase ? ---> Pay taxes

Do you sell ? ---> Pay taxes

Are you lazy ? --->  Get free assistance, aids, bonuses...

You seem to have forgotten some 

Did you, through no fault of your own, hit a rough patch? --->  Get assistance while paying (or having paid) taxes

Do you have to overcome bias within the system? ---> Get assistance while paying (or having paid) taxes

Are you wealthy?  --->  get boatloads of assistance, aid, bonuses, and loopholes that are not available to people of lesser means

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

If this were true, I don't think the wealthy would have as many problems paying their taxes.

But they can rig the system so they don't have to pay, and still get the benefits

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

What they forget is that paying their fair share of their success within the system allows those who aren't as successful to prosper and bring their gifts and skills to the economy, which often don't revolve around making a profit or accumulating wealth. When the wealthy get it in their heads that they shouldn't be subsidizing those who don't have their skills, that's when the common folks start talking about revolution.

A lot of times their "skills" are luck and sociopathy

 

It's been implied already, but I would like an explicit clarification/defense by the OP of "Are you lazy ? --->  Get free assistance, aids, bonuses..."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, swansont said:

It's been implied already, but I would like an explicit clarification/defense by the OP of "Are you lazy ? --->  Get free assistance, aids, bonuses..."

I think it means, "Are you lazy? ---> Blame those less fortunate than you because it's easier than actually addressing the problem..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I think it means, "Are you lazy? ---> Blame those less fortunate than you because it's easier than actually addressing the problem..."

To me it sounds like a deflection. You don't have to defend fleecing the system as long as you can blame someone else by portraying them as lazy and therefore undeserving. It makes the middle class jealous of the poor for "getting free stuff" when nobody would actually trade places with them, least of all the well-off. It also suggests that the poor like being poor because of "getting free stuff" 

Plus there is rampant use of outliers being presented as if they were typical (as you highlighted with the welfare queen example), which is dishonest. 

The narrative is that these people are somehow cheating the system, but when the wealthy take advantage, they're just being shrewd. Poor people deserve to be poor, and rich people deserve to be rich. It plays well, but doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus one on the "rampant use of outliers."  Sounds like the guiding editorial principle of Newsmax and Fox News.

It's funny that when you drive on a road or eat safe food, no one complains that the government took "other people's money" and used it to build the roads and inspect the food.  But when the government makes direct payments to people who can't afford rent or food (often a result simply of being born in the wrong womb -- see John Rawls, the ethicist on this risky misstep), it's characterized as theft and the recipients as lazy. 

"You revolution is over, Lebowski!  The bums lost!" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swansont said:

To me it sounds like a deflection. You don't have to defend fleecing the system as long as you can blame someone else by portraying them as lazy and therefore undeserving. It makes the middle class jealous of the poor for "getting free stuff" when nobody would actually trade places with them, least of all the well-off. It also suggests that the poor like being poor because of "getting free stuff" 

Plus there is rampant use of outliers being presented as if they were typical (as you highlighted with the welfare queen example), which is dishonest. 

The narrative is that these people are somehow cheating the system, but when the wealthy take advantage, they're just being shrewd. Poor people deserve to be poor, and rich people deserve to be rich. It plays well, but doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

"Undeserving" plays well with the average confirmation bias too. "I know I'm a good person who works hard, so I deserve whatever good thing comes my way, but when I hear about something good happening to others, I'm not so sure they deserve it."

We do seem to worship the concept of rich, ruthless, shrewd businesspeople who will trample over everybody (except you & me, obviously) to get what they want. That kind of wealth seems to buy MUCH more than its dollar value; our ethics, our honor, our compassion, and our sympathy are for sale because of this jealous outlook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

"Undeserving" plays well with the average confirmation bias too. "I know I'm a good person who works hard, so I deserve whatever good thing comes my way, but when I hear about something good happening to others, I'm not so sure they deserve it."

Studies have also been shown that if you present folks with images of folks looking like themselves, they are more willing to assume that they need support because they had a stroke of bad luck, whereas if you show images of folks different from them they are more likely to assume that they are underserving.

22 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

We do seem to worship the concept of rich, ruthless, shrewd businesspeople who will trample over everybody (except you & me, obviously) to get what they want. That kind of wealth seems to buy MUCH more than its dollar value; our ethics, our honor, our compassion, and our sympathy are for sale because of this jealous outlook.

Well and some of them pay a whooping $750 in income taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/5/2021 at 6:32 AM, Externet said:

Are you lazy ? --->  Get free assistance, aids, bonuses...

Not everyone who gets assistance, aids, bonuses etc are lazy. Many through no fault of their own have simply falled on bad times, are incapacitated to some degree, or are too old to work. Are you questioning, and also lumping in old age pensioner payments in your lazy group?

We pay taxes to fund services in its many forms to the community in general, and to assist those that are less fortunate and of course our retirees. In some advanced countries, those taxes also are subsidised with a small percentage annual payment to fund a comprehensive all purpose health/hospital and medical scheme, which can be exhorbantly expensive. 

If there is a fault in any particular tax system, it is often seen with regards to loop holes, allowances, and other schemes for the filthy rich. Not that I am in any way envious of that group, but there are examples where these loop holes and allownaces mean that total tax by this group is negligable and not a fair representation of what such individuals, companies and orginizations should rightfully be contributing to society. 

The dregs and hangers on of society certainly exist in some that you call lazy, but it also exists at the top echalons also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Very good point. I rather like walking on the sidewalks for a few dollars a year in taxes, as opposed to the monthly fee I'd be charged if they  were privately owned. 

And don't forget, when a group wants to reduce taxation for social spending, they're usually also aiming to reduce funding for regulation as well. Our taxes pay to keep our goods and services free from contamination and bad practices. I would venture to say that these groups cost taxpayers several times what the OP's "lazy" citizens cost us. These "greedy" folks waste far more taxes, and don't contribute as much to the economy overall. And when they use their wealth to lobby for less taxes for themselves, they compound the problem for the rest of us.

...encourage competitive bids from multiple Municipalities, States, Provinces, and even Countries... for decreased regulations, tax reductions, and even outright subsidies...well beyond those offered to small and medium sized businesses in the same areas....all in the name of their version of "free enterprise"....or as David Lewis called it back in 1972..."Corporate Welfare bums".

Or as I like to put it...taxing mobile capital is like trying to tackle a greased pig.

.

Where truly free enterprise is supported to work though, you often get by far your best value and return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

...encourage competitive bids from multiple Municipalities, States, Provinces, and even Countries... for decreased regulations, tax reductions, and even outright subsidies...well beyond those offered to small and medium sized businesses in the same areas....all in the name of their version of "free enterprise"....or as David Lewis called it back in 1972..."Corporate Welfare bums".

Or as I like to put it...taxing mobile capital is like trying to tackle a greased pig.

.

Where truly free enterprise is supported to work though, you often get by far your best value and return.

How does that manifest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A disappointing OP. Seriously? Do you use roads? Water supply? Have you or your family received taxpayer funded education? Health services? Do you receive benefits from taxpayer funded Defense services? Law and order? Financial systems that protect property rights and investments?

Even if you feel confident you can afford to pay for all the services you need yourself you are doing so in a nation with a functioning government; all that confidence won't do you any good in a nation without one.

I am constantly amazed that people cannot see the advantages to them of other people - neighbors, fellow workers, employees for example - being educated and healthy or of having their basic needs met. Don't you want others to avoid dire poverty and desperation and prevent entrenched social inequalities that are breeding grounds for crime, militant protest and revolution? Can't you see any value to you from social stability that basic welfare to others provides. Even the lazy opportunists ultimately aren't winners, even where welfare programs give them some benefit of doubt. Their children, if not them, need basic needs met - and it is worthwhile to offer education, to provide as much opportunity for as many as possible to become productive, with wider benefits than to them alone.

I think it is wrong to conclude that free enterprise competition always does things best - or that governments would be better run by successful business people, like a business. A nation is not a business and even the standout business successes don't represent the totality of business efficiency; whilst the inefficient and failed companies and the human toll of their failures don't appear on a winning company's books they are on the nation's books. There is no 'firing' the unproductive citizens to make the nation's books look better. Surely the economic framework that makes such business success possible at all are in large part down to taxpayer funded governments programs and services.

The reality is that many nations do many important and essential services better than competitive private enterprise can eg the UK and many other nations do health care using taxation much more cost effectively than US commercial medicine and insurance does it. Their successes should be appreciated more. It is always a case of vigilance and to do government better and to prevent or eliminate corruption - but there are places in the world where you won't have to pay taxes for anything and governments are powerless to make you. They are as far from utopias as it is possible to imagine.

Edited by Ken Fabian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

How does that manifest?

In general, if any branch of trade, or any division of labour, be advantageous to the public, the freer and more general the competition, it will always be the more so.
Adam Smith (bold emphasis mine), circa 1776

The Wealth Of Nations, Book II, Chapter II, p.329, para. 106.

But note also that I had said "often get by far your best value and return"...prudent and efficient regulation is required to get the best of free enterprise.

Edited by J.C.MacSwell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:
In general, if any branch of trade, or any division of labour, be advantageous to the public, the freer and more general the competition, it will always be the more so.
Adam Smith (bold emphasis mine), circa 1776

The Wealth Of Nations, Book II, Chapter II, p.329, para. 106.

Will that result in a happier country, after all, money is only a means to an end?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I don't claim some things aren't better left to government directly.

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Will that result in a happier country, after all, money is only a means to an end?

It's a tool...you still need to use it properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.