<p>Oh my, there’s some serious snark going on here!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The taxpayer’s voice is heard (in theory) through the elected officials who represent us. And (also in theory) they are supposed to work together to determine how we manage competing priorities.</p>
<p>There is no way your idea would work. As ucb points out, everyone would vote to spend on things that affect them personally. No one would vote for the unglamorous stuff. And we’d get into even more debates over the way people live. For instance, why should people who live economically in a city subsidize those who live out in McMansionville, where it is less efficient to provide utilities and other municipal services? Not only that, but if you were running things could you imagine trying to plan without a somewhat stable budget? </p>
<p>dstark: Ah, why thank you kindly!!! We all need a place to practice new skills, preferably in an online anonymous setting. It gets harder and harder the older one gets to add new skills, much less to become proficient. So when someone smart and knowledgeable notices and encourages ones’ efforts, it gives one the energy and umph to move forward. :)) </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think this is generally true, and the logical thinking behind it is why I’m not long term optimistic with a tax system that exempts 47% of people from the costs of the programs they vote for. </p>
<p>
?? 
</p>
<p>But the question, obversely posed as it is, raises the legitimate issue of why should government take money from any person to give it to another? You seldom see much discussion of this rather fundamental issue these days. Most of the inequality debate/discussion centers around the fundamental principle of “Say, you’ve done pretty well…I’d like to have some of that”. Its the Little Red Hen story writ large into national discourse. </p>
<p>I think there is another belief that has become engrained in our national psyche.
has a subtitle which reads ‘if you have done well you have done so on the backs of and by the oppression of and with the misuse of someone(s) who are not able to stand up for themselves’. You are the beneficiary of ill gotten gains, it is the moral obligation of those that see this to make sure it is corrected’.</p>
<p>Well then let’s make it more fair. No tax breaks for anyone. Yes, that means you, big business. No more tax loopholes. No more business subsidies, no more buying politicians, no more pork…need I go on?</p>
<p>No more loaning billions to banks who screw the entire nation with their greed…and then make billions off that while I wait for my messily 401 k to look better.</p>
<p>No. All you rich guys have to pay taxes on every darn dime you make. And oh, hey, No more moving your business headquarters out of the country so your taxes are drastically reduced.</p>
<p>Careful what you wish for.</p>
<p>
Well, the general answer to this general question is a “because it can help both people”, but that may not be adequate for your purposes. You can’t really answer questions this general, because it is not really one question - it is a set of related questions about a variety of programs with a common characteristic. You see, the government doesn’t just take money from any person to give it to another, it takes money from specific people to give it to other specific people, usually under constraints that limit the manner in which it is used. It does this through specific programs which can (and should) be individually evaluated.</p>
<p>sigh… Here we go again. How about taxation as pooling the resources together? Roads, airports, utility networks etc have to be built. Everyone could build their own tiny roads or people can get together build community roads that go everywhere and share the cost with better planning for future needs that may not benefit everyone directly at the moment but it will bring everyone’s living standards up in the long run. In the community, there may be a few who really can’t afford to chip in with their share of cost. You can give up the plan and stay where you are or you can talk to a few wealthy individuals to chip in with a little more. Wealthy individuals may end up benefitting more than anyone else with increased commercial activities brought on by better infrastructure recouping that extra they paid in. Win-win, don’t you think?</p>
<p>Now that is the “good”. The bad that brings on current class warfare 1% vs 99% is, I think, that the wealthy who got the contract to build the roads for the community cheated on them and overprice the project to enrich themselves breeding mistrust.</p>
<p>Tax-wise, wealthy individuals w passive income are making out like bandits. Meanwhile, upper-middle class professionals w earned income are the ones really getting nailed.</p>
<p>Warren Buffet commented that it’s messed up that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary.
<a href=“Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary”>http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secretary-taxes/</a></p>
<p>How about waste of tax payers money?</p>
<p><a href=“L.A. launches investigation of street crews reportedly idle on job”>http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-street-services-workers-20140523-story.html</a></p>
<p>I kind of think that tax breaks and loopholes for the wealthiest people on the planet are a waste of other taxpayers money. </p>
<p>If Warren Buffett doesnt have to come up with the money, then a lot of other people are going to have to come up with the money. A lot of other people.</p>
<p>6 members of the Walton clan have the same net worth as 90 million Americans. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Except that it’s a simplistic application of the lessons in the story. It has only become national “discourse” (to use the term loosely) because it pushes so many hot buttons (“Ms. Smith the schoolteacher has the best garden because she has summers off…I’d like to have some of that” or “Nice to see Carl have money for a bass boat on his cushy sanitation worker’s salary…I’d like to have some of that”). People who begrudge others the choices they have made have no one to blame but themselves for not taking a different path themselves. We all could have become teachers or garbage men/women when we were starting our careers, but of course those jobs were never appealing to many of us until the whole makers vs. takers dialogue got stirred up by politicians with divisive agendas. </p>
<p>If people are sincere about objecting to redistribution of wealth, they need to look at the biggest beneficiaries of policies that shift burdens from one group to another. We should all be outraged that we have millions of working poor who are on public assistance because the companies that employ them (i.e., WalMart) refuse to pay a living wage.</p>
<p>It gets tiring. It’s not that you’ve done well and I’d like to have some. I’d tell people who says it’s my money, I worked hard…… to go to a deserted island and make money. No one there will ask for your money. You can’t make money in a vacuum. You made the big money thanks in no small part to the infrastructure tax money built. So pay up and it will benefit you more in the long run.</p>
<p>"Well then let’s make it more fair. No tax breaks for anyone. Yes, that means you, big business. No more tax loopholes. No more business subsidies, no more buying politicians, no more pork…need I go on?</p>
<p>No more loaning billions to banks who screw the entire nation with their greed…and then make billions off that while I wait for my messily 401 k to look better.</p>
<p>No. All you rich guys have to pay taxes on every darn dime you make. And oh, hey, No more moving your business headquarters out of the country so your taxes are drastically reduced"</p>
<p>I like it. But then again, the “no more buying politicians” will not fly with all the bought politicians.</p>
<p>And Warren Buffett and his whining about taxes, is still getting his tax lawyers to ensure he isn’t paying much in taxes, and he makes sure that is “salary” is only 100K/yr. This dude should put his money where his mouth is. </p>
<p>
Which, ironically, is the opposite of the “everybody should have skin in the game” argument. You want one person (or group of people) to pay in to a system beyond what their peers pay, despite all receiving the same benefits (literally).</p>
<p>I have never met a self sufficient person. </p>
<p>There may a few living in the woods.</p>
<p>Dadx, I try to give posters the benefit of the doubt.</p>
<p>“But the question, obversely posed as it is, raises the legitimate issue of why should government take money from any person to give it to another”</p>
<p>Really? You dont know? :)</p>
<p>Gorillas know. Makes me wonder about evolution. :)</p>
<p>Dadx, you dont own any property? You dont breathe air? Drink water? Use the medical system? Own any financial assets? Your kids were self taught? Any employees? You own a car?</p>
<p>I think this thread should be shut down because it’s a political thread.</p>
<p>Perfect. Lets talk about universities with their billion dollar endowments that are tax exempt. </p>
<p>“Perfect. Lets talk about universities with their billion dollar endowments that are tax exempt.”
:)</p>
<p>Plus how much do the top research schools receive from government sources?
All these top schools arent self sufficient…we should close these schools down…</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/27/universities-government-money_n_3165186.html”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost;
<p>"The same schools consistently receive the most money every year, said Ronda Britt, a survey statistician with the National Science Foundation who oversaw the study. The universities “have big research programs that receive a lot of support year after year, and have a lot of infrastructure that helps them keep the money stable,” Britt said.</p>
<p>In addition to federal funding, the schools on this list also tend to have large endowments that support prestigious research facilities. All but one university on this list has an endowment of at least $1 billion, and five of them had among the 15 largest endowments as of 2012. Stanford University’s endowment of more than $17 billion is the fourth largest in the United States, while the University of Michigan’s is nearly $7.7 billion and is the seventh highest.</p>
<p>While the schools on this list rely on massive endowments, the federal government comprised the majority of funding for R&D in all cases. At John Hopkins, 88% of the research budget came from federal funds. At the University of Pennsylvania, 80% of all R&D money came from federal funds"</p>
<p>Harvard…Stanford…Johns Hopkins…Penn…See ya… :)</p>
<p>Maybe the middle Class can wake up and vote for new leadership.
<a href=“Right and left finally agree: Obama has checked out - MarketWatch”>Right and left finally agree: Obama has checked out - MarketWatch;