|
Post by Neutral Guy on Apr 22, 2010 16:29:57 GMT -5
I did factor those things in. That includes sales/VAT tax, corporate tax, income tax, payroll tax, etc. Also keep in mind that unlike a lot of those other places, US citizens have to pay additional state taxes as well as their national ones. So the typical tax rate represented in the source I had presented under-represents how much the typical American actually pays in taxes, as well as in comparison to the rest of the world. Also, to back up Mira's point about the regressive tax system: There is way too much of a burden on the lower classes. But we are talking about Illinois, not Minnesota.
|
|
|
Post by Neutral Guy on Apr 22, 2010 16:42:51 GMT -5
Oh, and look who showed up: And guess where a lot of their paychecks come from? No wonder they want higher taxes (for other people of course, they will just use political connections to avoid them for themselves). You mean giving teachers and the like an adaquate wage is a...bad thing?. No, not at all. I would not suggest such a thing. In fact, teachers in Illinois get quite a comparatively decent salary right now: www.employmentspot.com/employment-articles/teacher-salaries-by-state/The fact is that most of them are making more money than a typical person in other jobs, for only 10 months of work. That in effect, raises their average hourly rate. A typical teacher may not make quite as much as a typical teacher in California or New York, but it seems as though at least half are well above 45k/year.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Apr 22, 2010 16:46:38 GMT -5
Illinois is worse than Minnesota. The study in the link has a ranking of the various states. Minnesota in number 11 for being the most progressive, Illinois is number 41 (page 84, table 4-13).
|
|
|
Post by Mira on Apr 22, 2010 16:48:51 GMT -5
What do you mean by that? Do you intend to lower those taxes targeted at goods which lower class and middle class people buy, or would you intend to increase them for those who earn more? Both. Taxes not only target products of the lower class like liquor and tobacco, lower classed people in general are hurt by flat taxes like sales tax. Since they use a higher percentage of their earnings expenses than well-off people, taxes that equally tax all earners are quite straining.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 22, 2010 17:02:58 GMT -5
You know, there's nothing stopping these people from simply sending more of their money to the state capital. That is by far the stupidest argument anyone has ever made about anything, ever. An advanced, capitalist economy cannot run on donations. That's the entire point. Tell you what, we'll make taxation voluntary. And then we'll make paying for goods and services voluntary, too.
|
|
|
Post by Neutral Guy on Apr 22, 2010 17:08:44 GMT -5
Illinois is worse than Minnesota. The study in the link has a ranking of the various states. Minnesota in number 11 for being the most progressive, Illinois is number 41 (page 84, table 4-13). Then why didn't you just show me an Illinois chart? Would have been more relevant. I am also kind of curious about the data on that chart on page 84 of that document. What is the criteria for "most progressive" and "least progressive"? Where does it pull these "effective tax rates" from anyway? For example, New Hampshire has neither an income tax nor a sales tax. All I was able to find about that state was quirky taxes like excise tax, inheritance tax, investment tax, etc. These sort of things are not known for being handled by the poor, especially not on a regular basis. www.nh.gov/revenue/faq/gti-rev.htm
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Apr 22, 2010 17:13:19 GMT -5
This reminds me of something Kerry Packer, a very rich dead australian and notorious tax cheat, once said: "I will start paying more when they start spending it better".
But despite this in death he was eulogised as a generous man rather than a bloated selfish fat cunt.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Apr 22, 2010 17:15:14 GMT -5
Illinois is worse than Minnesota. The study in the link has a ranking of the various states. Minnesota in number 11 for being the most progressive, Illinois is number 41 (page 84, table 4-13). Then why didn't you just show me an Illinois chart? Would have been more relevant. I am also kind of curious about the data on that chart on page 84 of that document. What is the criteria for "most progressive" and "least progressive"? Where does it pull these "effective tax rates" from anyway? For example, New Hampshire has neither an income tax nor a sales tax. All I was able to find about that state was quirky taxes like excise tax, inheritance tax, investment tax, etc. These sort of things are not known for being handled by the poor, especially not on a regular basis. www.nh.gov/revenue/faq/gti-rev.htmIf you're curious, just read the thing.
|
|
|
Post by Neutral Guy on Apr 22, 2010 17:16:36 GMT -5
What do you mean by that? Do you intend to lower those taxes targeted at goods which lower class and middle class people buy, or would you intend to increase them for those who earn more? Both. Taxes not only target products of the lower class like liquor and tobacco, lower classed people in general are hurt by flat taxes like sales tax. Since they use a higher percentage of their earnings expenses than well-off people, taxes that equally tax all earners are quite straining. That could work. Provided that the increase of taxation for upper brackets is not so much that it drives away those tax payers/businesses to other states/countries. You would have to keep an eye out for opportunistic politicians who see the increase of revenue (assuming that there is one) as a chance to increase spending for their own projects. Otherwise, you are right back where you started. Only this time, with higher taxes (along with fewer opportunities to increase revenue).
|
|
|
Post by Neutral Guy on Apr 22, 2010 17:25:19 GMT -5
You know, there's nothing stopping these people from simply sending more of their money to the state capital. That is by far the stupidest argument anyone has ever made about anything, ever. What? You mean that there is a law that says they can't? An advanced, capitalist economy cannot run on donations. That's the entire point. I never suggested one could. In fact, the vast majority of transactions in such an economy is mutual exchange. Tell you what, we'll make taxation voluntary. Then it ceases to be taxation. And then we'll make paying for goods and services voluntary, too. Humanity is already one step ahead of you on that. If by voluntary, you mean mutually agreed upon exchange.
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Apr 22, 2010 17:54:53 GMT -5
That's not what voluntary means. It means you don't have to do it. So what Fred is saying that paying for things would be optional. Which is like the exact opposite of mutually agreed upon.
If you're implying barter, that's still a form of payment.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 22, 2010 18:10:20 GMT -5
What? You mean that there is a law that says they can't? Second most stupidest argument anyone has ever made. Unless it's a joke. Please tell me it's a joke. In exactly the same way is taxation a mutual exchange. You chose to live in a developed, lawful and prosperous country with taxation, rather than a chaotic hell-hole like Somalia. In order to maintain it's prosperity, law and development, you have to pay for services rendered. In fact, government has much less coercive power than corporations. The idea that a single worker can negotiate with Wallmart to decide a wage fairly is surely a joke in bad taste. But with the government, there are all these concessions.
|
|
|
Post by Neutral Guy on Apr 22, 2010 18:21:50 GMT -5
That's not what voluntary means. It means you don't have to do it. So what Fred is saying that paying for things would be optional. Which is like the exact opposite of mutually agreed upon. If you're implying barter, that's still a form of payment. Well, the word 'voluntary' can actually have multiple connotations. Yes, there is the typical kind where you volunteer to make brownies for your school fair for free, but I have actually heard the word 'voluntary' to describe a mutually agreed upon exchange. If you look at the dictionary definition of the word, mutual exchange/bartership can be voluntary: This use of voluntary to include mutual exchange can fit under directly #1, 2 and 5. Giving away something for nothing CAN be voluntary, but that is not the only form of what voluntary can potentially be. If I still have not convinced you, take into consideration that all US soldiers who currently serve as classified as voluntary. That is because there is currently no draft. The US Military, however, still pays these soldiers, even though it still calls them voluntary. Back when there was a draft, those who joined the military because of a draft notice were not thought of as voluntary. Those who did enlist without being drafted were considered voluntary. The distinction between voluntary and non-voluntary should correctly be understood as the difference between not being forced to do something and being forced to do something.
|
|
|
Post by Neutral Guy on Apr 22, 2010 18:45:11 GMT -5
What? You mean that there is a law that says they can't? Second most stupidest argument anyone has ever made. Unless it's a joke. Please tell me it's a joke. It is all based upon my original point that virtually everyone who wants to raise taxes think that they are somehow going to escape it (LETS TAX THE WEALTHY!), (LETS TAX CIGARETTES!) by making groups they either do not like or groups that are unpopular pay more. Most people who support increased taxation and spending are those who think they are going to pretty much get something for nothing. In this case, the teachers/union workers/social workers/government contractors/other lobbyists proposed solution for Illinois to get its financial house in order while they don't suffer any job losses or pay cuts is for the state to increase taxes. Even from a purely selfish point of view (as one of these protesters) it makes complete sense. Who wants to suffer a pay cut or lose his or her job? I never suggested one could. In fact, the vast majority of transactions in such an economy is mutual exchange. In exactly the same way is taxation a mutual exchange. No, taxation is not mutual exchange. Not unless you count trading your money in exchange for not paying fines or going to jail. Mutual exchange is when I have something you want and you have something I want. We then both agree to trade with each other. You chose to live in a developed, lawful and prosperous country with taxation, rather than a chaotic hell-hole like Somalia. Actually, I never made such a choice. I was born here. Only immigrants make that choice. In order to maintain it's prosperity, law and development, you have to pay for services rendered. Sure In fact, government has much less coercive power than corporations. What? Can Walmart all of sudden decide to bomb Iran or throw you in prison? Or is that something the government can do? The most Walmart can do to you is run and cry to the government to throw in jail for shoplifting, sort of like how a bitchy girl gets her bully boyfriend to punch you in the face. The idea that a single worker can negotiate with Wallmart to decide a wage fairly is surely a joke in bad taste. But with the government, there are all these concessions. But that is not about coercion. Coercion is the use of force, not how well you can negotiate with an entity.
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Apr 22, 2010 19:25:35 GMT -5
That's not what voluntary means. It means you don't have to do it. So what Fred is saying that paying for things would be optional. Which is like the exact opposite of mutually agreed upon. If you're implying barter, that's still a form of payment. Well, the word 'voluntary' can actually have multiple connotations. Yes, there is the typical kind where you volunteer to make brownies for your school fair for free, but I have actually heard the word 'voluntary' to describe a mutually agreed upon exchange. If you look at the dictionary definition of the word, mutual exchange/bartership can be voluntary: This use of voluntary to include mutual exchange can fit under directly #1, 2 and 5. Giving away something for nothing CAN be voluntary, but that is not the only form of what voluntary can potentially be. If I still have not convinced you, take into consideration that all US soldiers who currently serve as classified as voluntary. That is because there is currently no draft. The US Military, however, still pays these soldiers, even though it still calls them voluntary. Back when there was a draft, those who joined the military because of a draft notice were not thought of as voluntary. Those who did enlist without being drafted were considered voluntary. The distinction between voluntary and non-voluntary should correctly be understood as the difference between not being forced to do something and being forced to do something. Paying for goods and services is forced, otherwise not paying for them wouldn't be classified as stealing.
|
|