I like taxes

[Endus]

15% should be more than enough imo

I'd love to see the careful and detailed analysis you've invested to arrive at that particular number.

Because I'm sure you didn't just pull it out of your ass, right?

[Super Kami Dende]

I'm fine with Taxes. I just think it needs to be uniform across the board.

Everyone pays the same %, No Tax Breaks/Cuts. I've never understood people that demand that because someone makes more money than them that they should be forced to pay a higher %. They are already paying more tax than you even at the same percentage.

When I hear someone that I know has paid at MOST like $20k in tax in the last 5 years, complain that some guy only had to pay $5 million dollars tax because he's Rich I just roll my eyes at them.

[Deathcries]

Blind faith in one particular 19th Century thinker is a pretty ridiculous thing to bear. I didn't say anything about Bastiat. You were making claims that are objectively false.

In your opinion.

Frederic Bastiat was just one of the first people to realize the problem with socialism as it was creeping up in France after the French revolutionary war. There are plenty economists that agree with bastiat more so than people like Keynes who you probably worship.

[Deathcries]

I'd love to see the careful and detailed analysis you've invested to arrive at that particular number.

Because I'm sure you didn't just pull it out of your ass, right?

Cuts. Lots of cuts. Getting rid of SS and Medicaid would be a great start.

[Endus]

I'm fine with Taxes. I just think it needs to be uniform across the board.

Everyone pays the same %. I've never understood people that demand that because someone makes more money than them that they should be forced to pay a higher %.
They are already paying more tax than you even at the same percentage.

Because a flat tax takes someone who's barely making it, and forces them into homelessness and hunger. Because the effect of tax burdens is far more heavily felt by those who have less to begin with.

[cuafpr]

I've worked for government in various roles, across multiple departments, both as a government employee and as a private contractor working for government.



You literally just contradicted your own point before you even finished your own sentence.



Blame voters for the choices they make, then. That's not an issue with government, it's an issue with people.



Yeah, this really isn't the case. Worked with plenty of governments that were relying on outdated stuff regularly because they didn't have the budget for upgrades.



In a lot of cases where people have brought up stuff like "why does this toilet seat cost $500?", it's because it's a custom-fit toilet seat made in a small run for a particular piece of equipment, and they need that custom item for it to work.

so you undertand PPB&E and all that jazz and don't see a major issue with how gov't spending is... not sure how i contridicted myself there if a DoD member can do the job cheaper you don't the federal employee, keep the DoD member doing it, if the retire they are done and promote someone to that roll. worst case allow them to come back as a civilan but forgo retirement checks till they are done with federal civilian jobs, to make up for it add in civil service to time on active duty for a larger retirement check later.

why blame the voters when term limits could and should be a thing. and yes it really is the case, i've seen it for almost 20 years in federal state offices, while some struggle for money, others are getting these new items yearly due to how screwed up the system is. And this doesn't even touch on pet projects and congress forcing the DoD to buy equipment they dont want or need.

and i'm talking about CoS products not custom ones.

[God Save The King]

Math is set in fact. You cannot change 2 + 2. Government can change its set of rules.

You can change the rules of math and say 2 + 2 is 11. Pretty straightforward. Easiest way is to change the base, like I did with 2+2=11, in base3

[Super Kami Dende]

The definition of "theft" is also set. And taxation doesn't fit it. That's the underlying problem with your fantasy.

Jeez, agreeing with Endus on something, first for everything.

[Endus]

In your opinion.

Frederic Bastiat was just one of the first people to realize the problem with socialism as it was creeping up in France after the French revolutionary war. There are plenty economists that agree with bastiat more so than people like Keynes who you probably worship.

There's no problem with socialism. Bastiat was just wrong about a whole lot of stuff, and resorted to polemic hyperbole and bombast because his arguments weren't that strong.

I don't "worship" Keynes, but he certainly got a heck of a lot more about economics right than Bastiat did. Proven out by history.

Cuts. Lots of cuts. Getting rid of SS and Medicaid would be a great start.

Did you miss where I said "careful and detailed"?

[Deathcries]

Jeez, agreeing with Endus on something, first for everything.

Sweet. So if the government taxed everyone 90% of their income you'd be good with it?

[Priestiality]

I'm fine with Taxes. I just think it needs to be uniform across the board.

Everyone pays the same %, No Tax Breaks/Cuts. I've never understood people that demand that because someone makes more money than them that they should be forced to pay a higher %. They are already paying more tax than you even at the same percentage.

Because the average person doesn't get things like the alternative minimum, capital gains write-offs, and etc. Some corporations in the US have negative tax rates due to loopholes and government subsidy (GE for example), those savings don't get re-invested or passed on to workers, they go to shareholders, who then use their own loopholes to ultimately pay a lower percentage than someone making minimum wage. The rich are able to buy favorable legislation. The average person doesn't have tens or hundreds of thousands dollars to throw at legislators. Mitch McConnell even admitted that Republican donors are threatening to pull funding if it doesn't pass with huge cuts for corporations and the wealthy.

When I hear someone that I know has paid at MOST like $20k in tax in the last 5 years, complain that some guy only had to pay $5 million dollars tax because he's Rich I just roll my eyes at them.

Why do people focus on the amount and not the percent? Losing 4k on minimum wage hurts a hell of a lot more than losing 5 million when you made 25 million.

[Super Kami Dende]

Because a flat tax takes someone who's barely making it, and forces them into homelessness and hunger. Because the effect of tax burdens is far more heavily felt by those who have less to begin with.

That doesn't answer why someone with more money should be required to pay way more percentage. When even at a low % still pays far more regardless.

Tax-free Thresholds are ok, but someone Earning 50k a year paying 10k tax, complaining that someone earning 150k a year isn't paying more than 30k is just ridiculous.

[Endus]

not sure how i contridicted myself there if a DoD member can do the job cheaper you don't the federal employee, keep the DoD member doing it, if the retire they are done and promote someone to that roll. worst case allow them to come back as a civilan but forgo retirement checks till they are done with federal civilian jobs, to make up for it add in civil service to time on active duty for a larger retirement check later.

You said a DoD member could retire from the service and get a comparable job in the private sector for more pay. That contradicted your claim that government salaries are "inflated", directly.

And now, you seem to be suggesting that DoD members AREN'T government employees, which is just wrong.

[Deathcries]

There's no problem with socialism. Bastiat was just wrong about a whole lot of stuff, and resorted to polemic hyperbole and bombast because his arguments weren't that strong.

I don't "worship" Keynes, but he certainly got a heck of a lot more about economics right than Bastiat did. Proven out by history.



Did you miss where I said "careful and detailed"?

Proven by history? We're so far in debt it's not even fucking funny. However I'm sure you're about to raise government handed out bible and preach to me why being in extreme debt is a good thing.

[Endus]

That doesn't answer why someone with more money should be required to pay way more percentage. When even at a low % still pays far more regardless.

Tax-free Thresholds are ok, but someone Earning 50k a year paying 10k tax, complaining that someone earning 150k a year isn't paying more than 30k is just ridiculous.

Once you've acknowledged that "tax-free thresholds are ok", you've admitted that flat taxes are a stupid idea, and progressive tax brackets are better.

[Super Kami Dende]

Because the average person doesn't get things like the alternative minimum, capital gains write-offs, and etc. Some corporations in the US have negative tax rates due to loopholes and government subsidy (GE for example), those savings don't get re-invested or passed on to workers, they go to shareholders, who then use their own loopholes to ultimately pay a lower percentage than someone making minimum wage. The rich are able to buy favorable legislation. The average person doesn't have tens or hundreds of thousands dollars to throw at legislators. Mitch McConnell even admitted that Republican donors are threatening to pull funding if it doesn't pass with huge cuts for corporations and the wealthy.

Pssst. Hence why I said No taxbreaks/cuts as an alternative. Even then, someone that is worth Billions, even if they only pay 1% in Tax still pays more that 500 "average" people.

[Endus]

Proven by history? We're so far in debt it's not even fucking funny.

Which has what, exactly, to do with what we're talking about? Keynes' writing was more about the health of the economy and such.

However I'm sure you're about to raise government handed out bible and preach to me why being in extreme debt is a good thing.

Again, you're projecting your blind faith onto me, because you can't accept that there's anything position but two extremes. Which admits that you're at one extreme. I'm not at the other. There's a ton of space between those extremes.

[Super Kami Dende]

Once you've acknowledged that "tax-free thresholds are ok", you've admitted that flat taxes are a stupid idea, and progressive tax brackets are better.

I mean, I don't really give a shit about Tax-free Thresholdd, since I tend not to care about other peoples financial failures. Flat Tax always seemed much fairer, progressive always seemed like the Rich supporting the hopeless.

[Endus]

I mean, I don't really give a shit about Tax-free Thresholdd, since I tend not to care about other peoples financial failures. Flat Tax always seemed much fairer, progressive always seemed like the Rich supporting the hopeless.

The problem is that your "fairer" option requires forcing people into homelessness and hunger, because you want rich people to be even more rich.

And you think that's "fairer", somehow.

You're confusing "wildly simplistic and reductive" with "fair".

"Equal" and "equitable" are not synonyms. Equitability is about fairness, not ensuring everything is equal.

[Super Kami Dende]

The problem is that your "fairer" option requires forcing people into homelessness and hunger, because you want rich people to be even more rich.

I want people to be able to keep the same percentage of what they work for. People earning 150k aren't people sitting in Mansions living off Daddies Trustfund. These people generally work extremely hard. To say they should have to then pay even more money after working hard for it at a higher percentage than someone else is just disgusting.