AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Taxes?

19 5245
CrossViper
offline
CrossViper
481 posts
Nomad

Now, I am young, so I have yet to pay taxes, but do they seriously need to be lowered anymore? Doesn't there come a point where the government needs money? I'm all for less pointless government spending, but judging from the articles of confederation no taxes didn't turn out so well.

  • 19 Replies
thelistman
offline
thelistman
1,416 posts
Shepherd

OMG! Someone gets it! Government needs money to run. They also need money to build roads, sidewalks, bridges, public services, and provide research in technology and medicine among the millions of other things they need money for.

Though, it would be nice here in the US if there was a progressive tax system where the rich would pay the highest percentage. The poor are the hardest hit, while the middle class also suffers from high taxes. Even a flat tax would be fairer that what we will soon have. With the extension of the Bush tax cuts, the Middle class will be paying 35% of their income to taxes while the rich will pay 25%, and the super rich will pay 18%. How is that fair?

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,552 posts
Jester

Though, it would be nice here in the US if there was a progressive tax system where the rich would pay the highest percentage. The poor are the hardest hit, while the middle class also suffers from high taxes. Even a flat tax would be fairer that what we will soon have. With the extension of the Bush tax cuts, the Middle class will be paying 35% of their income to taxes while the rich will pay 25%, and the super rich will pay 18%. How is that fair?


You do know what a percentage is right? Yes, the middle class will be paying 35%, but the rich are paying 18%, and that's far more money than any middle class person paying 35%. The percentages I think could use some tweaking, but it makes sense that it's not a blanket rate.
Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

I'm all for less pointless government spending, but judging from the articles of confederation no taxes didn't turn out so well.


Yeah - that's like saying revolution didn't turn out so well for the French, so therefore revolution must be a bad thing.

Now, I am young, so I have yet to pay taxes, but do they seriously need to be lowered anymore?


It is not "do they need to be lowered anymore?" The question is - why can't they be lowered?

Doesn't there come a point where the government needs money?


Yes, but no form of government spending is justified.

As follows, my new (and improved) Moegreche-logic-based argument against government spending:

1. People will pursue what they pursue (basically, to say that people will do anything else, like &quoteople should buy healthcare" is false, OR, if it is true, then it confuses correlation with causation).
1A. People will not pursue that which they believe is bad for them - they choose what they want for their own lives out of their own choice.
2. Government spending requires money to have come from somewhere. Wherever this money originated, it would have been used for that personâs benefit the best way they saw it.
2A. Thus, government spending ignores that which is not seen, and it results in a net negative happiness.

Alternate ending:

3. Government spending requires coercion to achieve its end, as it is something people will not do voluntarily - otherwise, there would be no "need" for government intervention.
4. Thus, through coercion, you interfere with 1A. You interfere with a person pursuing what they want, and thus create negative happiness by forcing a particular government policy.
Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

Government needs money to run. They also need money to build roads, sidewalks, bridges, public services, and provide research in technology and medicine among the millions of other things they need money for.


I wish that I included my argument directly above as a refutation of this.

And I'm still angry at you, thelistman, for abandoning the thread about the Broken Window Fallacy. :P
dragonball05
offline
dragonball05
1,717 posts
Shepherd

The problem is the government is screwing up. Taxes are needed, and not just for public affairs like bridge building and healthcare, but rather to stabilize the economy. The "recession" we're in has been going on for a while and the only reason we're not calling it a depression is to avoid widespread panic, and "ethically" they can avoid the term depression because of the random spikes in the economy that they implement briefly to make sure the declining economy isn't constant. Now, I'm not saying raise the taxes super high, but we can't really afford to cut taxes. We need the government to have money and use it appropriately to help stabilize.

That's just my take on things, I'm open to flaws in my thinking, just try to be nice about it. :P

Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

The problem is the government is screwing up. Taxes are needed, and not just for public affairs like bridge building and healthcare, but rather to stabilize the economy


Wat? Did you even read my post?

Here it is - a logical proof that government spending is wrong. 1 and 1a are the premises:

1. People will pursue what they pursue (basically, to say that people will do anything else, like &quoteople should buy healthcare" is false, OR, if it is true, then it confuses correlation with causation).
1A. People will not pursue that which they believe is bad for them - they choose what they want for their own lives out of their own choice.
2. Government spending requires money to have come from somewhere. Wherever this money originated, it would have been used for that person's benefit the best way they saw it.
2A. Thus, government spending ignores that which is not seen, and it results in a net negative happiness.

Alternate ending:

3. Government spending requires coercion to achieve its end, as it is something people will not do voluntarily - otherwise, there would be no "need" for government intervention.
4. Thus, through coercion, you interfere with 1A. You interfere with a person pursuing what they want, and thus create negative happiness by forcing a particular government policy.

Now, I'm not saying raise the taxes super high, but we can't really afford to cut taxes.


You're ignoring that which is not seen - that taxes directly take away from the person's ability to stimulate the economy through other means, and in a more efficient way than government spending.

We need the government to have money and use it appropriately to help stabilize.


Another use of the Broken Window Fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
Moe
offline
Moe
1,714 posts
Blacksmith

You do know what a percentage is right? Yes, the middle class will be paying 35%, but the rich are paying 18%, and that's far more money than any middle class person paying 35%. The percentages I think could use some tweaking, but it makes sense that it's not a blanket rate.


Why does it matter how much money you pay? The middle and lower classes need that money to live. The rich do not need all that money because they have so much they can't even spend it all. Then again many politicians are the rich ones and like giving themselves tax cuts.
Squidbears
offline
Squidbears
626 posts
Nomad

I think there should be a flat tax rate, the rich will still pay more than the poor... and on the whole government spending is wrong issue... are you expecting citizens to fund the military? or build roads? taxes are needed

Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

and on the whole government spending is wrong issue... are you expecting citizens to fund the military? or build roads? taxes are needed


I never said taxes are unnecessary; however, I did make the claim that there is no reason that taxes should be raised, because government spending with the intent of "stimulating the economy" should be cut altogether, because it ignores that which is not unseen, and thus would have gone to a better use had it been in the hands of the citizens.
CrossViper
offline
CrossViper
481 posts
Nomad

1. People will pursue what they pursue (basically, to say that people will do anything else, like &quoteople should buy healthcare" is false, OR, if it is true, then it confuses correlation with causation).
1A. People will not pursue that which they believe is bad for them - they choose what they want for their own lives out of their own choice.
2. Government spending requires money to have come from somewhere. Wherever this money originated, it would have been used for that person�s benefit the best way they saw it.
2A. Thus, government spending ignores that which is not seen, and it results in a net negative happiness.

Alternate ending:

3. Government spending requires coercion to achieve its end, as it is something people will not do voluntarily - otherwise, there would be no "need" for government intervention.
4. Thus, through coercion, you interfere with 1A. You interfere with a person pursuing what they want, and thus create negative happiness by forcing a particular government policy.


I'm sorry man, I really want to understand what you're saying, but I'm a bit of an idiot, and tired too. Is there anyway you can break it down simpler for me, or do I just need to go to sleep?
Squidbears
offline
Squidbears
626 posts
Nomad

I misunderstood, It's definitely not the governments job to stimulate the economy, i agree with you

Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

Is there anyway you can break it down simpler for me, or do I just need to go to sleep?


If I knew a way, I would have posted that instead, because the simplest solution that accounts for all the information is the best one (Occam's Razor).
CrossViper
offline
CrossViper
481 posts
Nomad

If I knew a way, I would have posted that instead, because the simplest solution that accounts for all the information is the best one (Occam's Razor).


I'll probably get it tomorrow.
aknerd
offline
aknerd
1,416 posts
Peasant

1. People will pursue what they pursue (basically, to say that people will do anything else, like &quoteople should buy healthcare" is false, OR, if it is true, then it confuses correlation with causation).
1A. People will not pursue that which they believe is bad for them - they choose what they want for their own lives out of their own choice.
2. Government spending requires money to have come from somewhere. Wherever this money originated, it would have been used for that person�s benefit the best way they saw it.
2A. Thus, government spending ignores that which is not seen, and it results in a net negative happiness.


Okay, I have many problems with your argument here. But, in the spirit of being concise and understandable, I'm just going to point out a few flaws.

You're trying to write a logical proof that states all government spending is unjustified. You make logical points, so good job there. BUT you don't prove anything, ironically for the very same reasons that you critique the government for. You "ignore that which is not seen".

The jump from &quoteople will act in their best interest" to "government spending gets in the way of this action" is a leap of faith.

Because, while it is logical that people want to act in their best interest, you never prove that people are capable of these actions.

Furthermore, you never never prove that people are capable of knowing what they want.

You never prove that the government can't act in someone's self interest better than that person can.

In order to prove that government spending ALWAYS results in net negative happiness, you must prove all of these things. I'm not saying one can't prove them, just that you definitely have not.

NoName started a very interesting thread on a few of these subjects a while back, you should check it out if you want to improve your &quotroof".

(You'll have to find the thread yourself...)

ps: before you start arguing with me personally on these issues, I'm just pointing out holes in your argument, not stating my position on these issues.
Maverick4
offline
Maverick4
6,800 posts
Peasant

The jump from &quoteople will act in their best interest" to "government spending gets in the way of this action" is a leap of faith.


Its actually flawed. People will act in their best interest, and it is in a persons best interest to be safe. And in the US, Government is of the people, by the people, for the people. So, if the Government is in charge, and is elected by the people, and the people want safety, than the US Government must give the people what they want. But if ALL Government Spending is unjustified, than that means that spending money on the Police Force, or the Military, is unjustified. But to not give the people what they want most, safety, is also wrong.

I think I can figure out which side would win in a practical setting. Your logic is good, it just needs to be refined.

Moving on to the OP, I think that lower taxes are good.

Lower taxes = More Money in your Pocket -> Spending the money in the economy -> Better economy.

Essentially, people will make the same value amount, regardless of what taxes are. And people like to hang on to their money; they won't spend it irrationally.

Lets say you make 1000 USD a year. You spend 700 on that on nessities, utilities, bills, mortgage, etc. Then, the government comes for taxes.

You have 300 USD left. IF the Gov takes too much, say 200 dollars, than you're going to want to save the remaining 100, incase of rainy days. But, if the government takes only 125, and you still save that 100, than you've got 75 USD for anything.

And what ever you spend it on goes into the economy, and if this happens enough, the economy goes up. The economy would get better because a business would make more money, because people are spending more in it. More money could lead to several things. Expansion, hiring, etc. If the business expands, it would hire more to fill up the new store, meaning that more people are being payed.

More people getting payed, is more people getting money, is more people to be taxed, and the cycle repeats.

What you lose in lower taxes, you make up for when the quantaty increases. However, the danger of lowering taxes is that if you lower them TOO much, than the government can't sustain itself.
Showing 1-15 of 19