The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Politics

Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-20-2009, 05:14 PM   #1
lookout123
changed his status to single
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Right behind you. No, the other side.
Posts: 10,308
What is the purpose for income tax?

This has been bugging me for a little while. The argument over who should pay what percentage of their income to the government goes back and forth. I hear that the wealthy should pay more. I hear the working class should get more breaks. I hear each person should pay his fair share.Most people have only arbitrary answers when asked to define wealthy, working class, and fair share. The strawmen get dragged out. Warren Buffett pays less tax than his secretary is a popular if misleading one. What bothers me is that people don't seem to stop and think why those taxes are collected or how we came to accept the numbers we currently use.

My understanding is that income taxes are collected from the people of the United States to fund the activities of the United States government. It would seem to me that the idea of having a budget that is anything other than balanced is just plain idiotic. Our government is a non-profit organization so it should collect only what it needs to run the programs and possibly a little extra for a rainy day fund. When receipts go down either expenses have to go down or income tax rates must increase. That is just basic common sense, but we don't give it much consideration.

It seems that we have come to accept a budgetary process that is completely disjointed. The government spends whatever it wants in ever increasing amounts without any real consideration of where the money comes from. Programs are started and empires are expanded as the political figures do their dance with each side giving misleading soundbytes to garner support. Then to actually fund the budget the government establishes arbitrary tax rates that aren't based on anything other than gaining votes. When is the last time someone actually divided the total expenses and divided that number up to match up against available taxpayers?

I hear that our goal is fairness in the tax system. Is taking a disproportionately large percentage of money from a disproportionately small number of people really fair or does it just feel good? Does it really make sense to have a progressive tax system that comes packed with loopholes to allow the people we say we want to pay more to actually pay less? Are the tax tables really designed to offset government expenses or merely to take money from the rich and give it to the poor? It doesn't really succeed at either.

The question in all of this is simply, are taxes a means to fund necessary functions of government or are they just a way to play Robin Hood?
__________________
Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin

Last edited by lookout123; 03-20-2009 at 05:21 PM.
lookout123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2009, 05:59 PM   #2
Beestie
-◊|≡·∙■·∙≡|◊-
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Parts unknown.
Posts: 4,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by lookout123 View Post
The question in all of this is simply, are taxes a means to fund necessary functions of government or are they just a way to play Robin Hood?
The government has no conscience. Just an appetite and the will to survive.

Its never been about fairness or wealth redistribution. Its allways been about hunger and preserving one's political future. Nothing more, nothing less.
__________________
Beestie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2009, 06:01 PM   #3
Bullitt
This is a fully functional babe lair
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Akron, OH
Posts: 2,324
I'm right with you lookout. It bothers me when people want the government to solve all of their problems and think nothing of the fact that the government is so inefficient with our tax dollars it's absurd. For example, lets compare the government with Habitat for Humanity (personal bias, one of my favorite NGO's). According to the BBB website, Habitat "Uses of Funds as a % of Total Expenses:
Programs: 81% Fund Raising: 15% Administrative: 4%". That's 81% of all $$ given to them that goes directly into the work they offer as an organization. Granted the workers who help build the houses are volunteers which helps maintain these percentages, but lets be real who do you think is doing a better job per $ given to help the genuinely needy have quality shelter and dignity?
__________________
Kiss my white Irish ass.
Bullitt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2009, 06:04 PM   #4
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
I'll take Robin Hood for 50 LO.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2009, 12:59 AM   #5
TGRR
Horrible Bastard
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: High Desert, Arizona
Posts: 1,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by lookout123 View Post

My understanding is that income taxes are collected from the people of the United States to fund the activities of the United States government.
And the purpose of the government is to hand no-bid contracts to people like Halliburton, and to give no-strings bailouts to failures.
__________________
What can we do to help you stop screaming?
TGRR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2009, 01:00 AM   #6
TGRR
Horrible Bastard
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: High Desert, Arizona
Posts: 1,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beestie View Post
The government has no conscience. Just an appetite and the will to survive.
Oddly enough, you can say the same thing about a corporation.
__________________
What can we do to help you stop screaming?
TGRR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2009, 02:19 AM   #7
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by TGRR View Post
And the purpose of the government is to hand no-bid contracts to people like Halliburton,
There actually was no problem with this at the beginning of the war. Later it was a problem.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2009, 03:26 AM   #8
xoxoxoBruce
The future is unwritten
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
Personal Income tax is only half the picture.
Quote:
2008 projections
1,146 billion - individual income taxes
275 billion - corporate income taxes
906 billion - social security taxes
81 billion - excise taxes
25 billion - estate and gift taxes
25 billion - customs duties
47 billion - miscellaneous receipts
TOTAL - 2,506 billion
But personal income tax rates are subject to checks and balances.

The poor ain't got no money - moot

The middle class have lots of votes - check

The rich kick in more campaign funds - balance

Ain't easy being a politician.
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.
xoxoxoBruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2009, 10:29 AM   #9
Beestie
-◊|≡·∙■·∙≡|◊-
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Parts unknown.
Posts: 4,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by TGRR View Post
Oddly enough, you can say the same thing about a corporation.
True, but a corporation doesn't have police power.
__________________
Beestie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2009, 10:41 AM   #10
Pico and ME
Are you knock-kneed?
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Middle Hoosierland
Posts: 3,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beestie View Post
True, but a corporation doesn't have police power.
Yes they do...they borrow the governments.
Pico and ME is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2009, 06:50 PM   #11
DanaC
We have to go back, Kate!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pico and ME View Post
Yes they do...they borrow the governments.

Ftw.
DanaC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2009, 08:28 PM   #12
TGRR
Horrible Bastard
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: High Desert, Arizona
Posts: 1,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary View Post
There actually was no problem with this at the beginning of the war. Later it was a problem.
No bid contracts are ALWAYS a problem.
__________________
What can we do to help you stop screaming?
TGRR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2009, 01:29 AM   #13
xoxoxoBruce
The future is unwritten
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
Usually, but sometimes no-bid follow on contracts are practical and expedient.
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.
xoxoxoBruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2009, 08:36 AM   #14
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce View Post
Usually, but sometimes no-bid follow on contracts are practical and expedient.
Which is exactly what they were in the case of Haliburton at the time. Same for another independent contracting organizations and companies that had been in the business of supplying services to the military for years. There is a lot of ignorance and parroting of complaints about how this system works and how these companies, smartly, positioned themselves to do the good work that they did. The abuses cannot be ignored and neither can the good.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2009, 09:48 AM   #15
Redux
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary View Post
Which is exactly what they were in the case of Haliburton at the time. Same for another independent contracting organizations and companies that had been in the business of supplying services to the military for years. There is a lot of ignorance and parroting of complaints about how this system works and how these companies, smartly, positioned themselves to do the good work that they did. The abuses cannot be ignored and neither can the good.
Which is why it was unfortunate that several Republican Senators blocked the passage of the Contractors and Federal Spending Accountability Act last year....it passed in the House on a bi-partisan voice vote.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:19 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.