Taxes: should they be higher or lower

[HalfThere]

In general, do you support higher taxes and more government programs or lower taxes and fewer government programs.

I'm more towards the former side, since I think that a lot of things are best done by the government (federal, not those crazy locals), but I'm not so much for government control that I would support super-high taxes. I think taxes are just about right now. A small increase for businesses and a larger increase for wealthy individuals might serve well, however.

Whenever somebody comes with the arguement that "it's the individual's money", it can be easily rebutted. While it is indeed money owned by the individual, and very possibly earned by them, it is society that facilitated all that in the first place. If you work as a trucker, for instance, then griping about taxes that support the road system is downright foolish. Almost every other profession is the same: you couldn't drive your import car or buy your import videogames without international trade agreements. You could not look at the moon in the sky and say "meh, it's been done" since no space program would ever have run. Libertarianism conveniently ignores this. Even less radical small government proponents forget about things like social programs. How will the elderly survive if they fall upon hard times, if not without a little government assistance?

So, yeah, I won't grunt or groan when I get a 10-40, I'll just remember how it's all being pretty well spent.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Thats a good argument, but I have to side with the Libs on this one. Not the women's lib, mind.

Anyway, personally I think the taxes could be rising a bit too high (in UK). In your example, the road facilitates the trucker. I'm betting the government makes a large profit from each car that rides the road, and the road would not have cost the millions of pounds in taxes it receives.

[alman9898]

How will the elderly survive if they fall upon hard times, if not without a little government assistance?

Private charity, family, retirement plans, life savings. Oh right, it's not their responsibility to manage their own money - it's obviously the government's.

[Big War Bird]

I have a proposal to make to any American who feels undertaxed. I am in the top tax bracket, so let me pay your taxes. Here's how it will work.

1. Send me whatever amount of money you would like right now.
2. I will keep your money in trust until April 15, 2007.
3. I will dutifully report your money as income so that it may be taxes at 35% federal, 6.2% Social security, 1.45% Medicare and 6% state.
4. On april 16, 2007 I will return your original investment minus 48.65%.

Any takers?

[Sétanta]

what country are we talking about...america i suppose but there are other ones out there that do ocasionally show up

[Fenris]

Here, I will have to pay near 50%, and you know what? I will gladly pay it. But it will be gladly depending on what the government uses it, if military funds were as high here as in the US, I would oppose. So basically, I don't mind paying a high amount of taxes, but as long as the government doesn't use it for his own agenda (liberal party in Canada is an extreme example of it).

Private charity, family, retirement plans, life savings. Oh right, it's not their responsibility to manage their own money - it's obviously the government's.

You think all elderly have a famly wealthy to back them up? As for life savings and retirement plans, it's not as easy as you put it.

Try to put yourself in the situation of a family who barely has the money to buy the food for their children, do you think they have the possibility to save any money?

Your view of the world is a) very egocentric or b) very naive and utopist

[internationalist]

I have a proposal to make to any American who feels undertaxed. I am in the top tax bracket, so let me pay your taxes. Here's how it will work.

1. Send me whatever amount of money you would like right now.
2. I will keep your money in trust until April 15, 2007.
3. I will dutifully report your money as income so that it may be taxes at 35% federal, 6.2% Social security, 1.45% Medicare and 6% state.
4. On april 16, 2007 I will return your original investment minus 48.65%.

Any takers?

My family makes enough to put us in the 97th percentile of incomes, yet my parents pay their taxes without complaint every year, and vote democratic every year (not as though there is a good alternative).

[Big War Bird]

My family makes enough to put us in the 97th percentile of incomes, yet my parents pay their taxes without complaint every year, and vote democratic every year (not as though there is a good alternative).

Well ask your parents if they would send me some money so they have it taxed twice!

[Darth Wong]

The only scientific way to determine whether taxes should be higher or lower is to generate an acceptable weighted metric of economic performance and government revenues and then experiment by raising and lowering them to see what difference it makes. Theories on the matter must incorporate countless factors which defy quantification such as public perception and psychology, so a theoretical projection of the ideal tax rate is not realistically possible.

[Tom Paine]

Whereas here its approximately 25%-33% of taxes in the UK, the top tax bracket being a little over 33%, mybe nearer 40%.

[the Black Prince]

well, i think generally everyone whats lower taxes. realistically though, i know the government can't deliever on what i want them too if we don't give some more of our money to support national iniatives (like policing education and healthcare)

i think the top tax brackets should pay more, and that corporation tax should also be graded and be much higher too.


the US uses a very small percentage of its GDP for military use... bear in mind that a big country can afford to have a big military without its general citizens paying anymore toward the military than dutch or danish people might pay

[Big War Bird]

@tBP

Do you beleive your government wastes money? If so you should insist that current funds be responsibly spent before allowing your taxes to be raised.

[Last Roman]

well the way the US government is spending now, I would say higher. I've been told that the average US taxpayer pays about 20% after deductions (correct me if I'm wrong). I think we need a flat tax at around 15%-18% and stop irresponsible government spending (im sure many here have heard about the government funded study on why prisoners want to escape...)

[Farnan]

Or the Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska...

[Last Roman]

Or the Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska...

dont even get me started on Ted Stevens

[the Black Prince]

well... i don;t know about the UK government wasting money... but i do know that because of budgetry overhauls to cut expenses the defence budget and as such the naval budget has been slashed yet again

wasting money? the MoD cut a research program nearly completion after it had cost several billion, and the firm involved then sold the project onto the USN as well, the navy we sold off 3 frigates, non of them over 15yrs old, 1 of them under 10, so that we can afford 2 carriers the government hasn't even agreed to start building yet, whose construction is already about 2 years overdue...

the trouble isn't that the governments wasting money, the trouble is that we have politicians and lawyers running the education dept, the health service, the MoD, when really we should have businessmen/managers and professionals in charge. who knows better about how to run the military than a professional soldier and former Chief of Staff in one of the services?

yes, the government wastes money, because it also wastes time pandering to the public and making themselves look good than actually running the country, and diverts money from things that matter to things that look good as well.

[Darth Wong]

Saying that the government should "stop wasting money" is a non-answer unless one attaches specific, realistic plans for doing so, ie- where to cut, which jobs to cut, how to assess the short-term and long-term costs of these cuts with respect to labour contracts and early termination agreements, bureaucratic costs of the resultant re-organizations, etc.

Anybody can just wave a hand and say "eliminate the waste". In fact, every politician does just that. But since there isn't a "waste" item on the Accounts Payable ledger that can be easily checked off, it's not quite that simple. In many cases it would require forcible renegotiation of many longstanding labour contracts and massive organizational upheaval which would actually cost more money short-term.

[Erik]

I don't know if taxes should be raised or lowered, but I think some things are better financed trough taxes while other things are better financed privately.

HalfThere alreade mentioned roads.
Sure we can cut taxes and have private companies finance and build roads.
But then those roads wil be payed for by it's users trough toll.
And the road building company isn't trying to break even, they are trying to make a nice profit, so in the end the road is going to cost 5 times more than it would have costed with tax.

My government has gone on a privatising-spree in the last few years.
In their efford to cut taxes they have privatised the railroads, healthcare, and energy companies.
Now my train ticket costs wtice as much, the trains are never on time, and there are big accidents because the now private company doesn't want to invest in safety equipment.
Healthcare has gotten much more expensive too, and much more bureaucratic..but at least my mom, who is a doctor, gets much more money.
And private energy companies suck too, they are just not interested in having back-up supplies, so if something goes wrong your going to freeze to death..plus is has gotten more expensive.

OK, we pay a little less tax now, but in the end life has gotten much more expensive than it would be if our government didn't abolish those programmes.

Of course the government shouldn't controll everything, some things can be done more efficient by private companies.
For example: tele-communication did get cheaper when it got privatised.

The government isn't 100% efficient, that's for sure.
But what company is?
Companies waste money too, and they have to pay for advertising and of course make profits.
Private companies aren't always more efficient than the government, sometimes they are, but not always.

In the end I don't care how high the taxes are, as long as cost of living is as low as possible.

[Big War Bird]

Saying that the government should "stop wasting money" is a non-answer unless one attaches specific, realistic plans for doing so, ie- where to cut, which jobs to cut, how to assess the short-term and long-term costs of these cuts with respect to labour contracts and early termination agreements, bureaucratic costs of the resultant re-organizations, etc.

Anybody can just wave a hand and say "eliminate the waste". In fact, every politician does just that. But since there isn't a "waste" item on the Accounts Payable ledger that can be easily checked off, it's not quite that simple. In many cases it would require forcible renegotiation of many longstanding labour contracts and massive organizational upheaval which would actually cost more money short-term.

As someone pointed out the bridge to nowhere and the inmate study are reasonable places to begin. While it may be a matter of opinion on whether these items are ill advised or not, I'm fairly confident a majority of a well informed public would agree.

Given that a majority of people might see an item as waste (with fair consideration of the issues that you brought up) it logically follows that one should demand all wasteful spending be eliminated before consent to having taxes raised, to the extent that savings from waste could cover nonwasteful spending

[Aristophanes]

Random thoughts:

Privatization:
One isn't 'privatizing' anything when one simply moves from one type of monopoly to another. Erik decries the train system in Netherlands as accident-prone, expensive, and not on time: he suggests that it is that way because the sector has been privatized. What he fails to mention is that no real privatization actually occurred: the market has not been opened up to any venture capital, and the government had simply transferred its monopoly to a private company. If you 'privatize' anything like that, you're going to find gratuitous abuse.
Privatization Successes[Transportation]:[off the dome]

• Air Travel:
  A good example of how well private companies can do transportation is AIRLINES. Air travel is safer than any other form of travel, and the real-dollar[inflation-adjusted] cost to consumers has fallen over several decades.[well, that is, it has in North America]
• Subways:
  Another good example is the New York subway system which was built by several different private companies, and charged lower fares in real-dollars[inflation adjusted] than does the now public system. In contrast, the MOSCOW subway system was built by the government, wasn't finished on schedule, and COST the lives of THOUSANDS OF WORKERS. Most people would rather take the NYC subway to this day, than risk the Moscow subway.
• CNR Canada: This one-time government entity has drastically reduced the cost of moving freight, increased the efficiency of break-of-bulk and accelerated speed of delivery. CNR has been so successful that it now operates in the United States as well, where it is in competition with several other rail lines.

ERGO: privatization is useless without competition, which, of course, is the ONLY redeeming feature of the private sector over the public sector.

Toll roads:
Many people would argue that toll roads are actually a good thing because they make the people who incur the costs of services[motorists] pay them, rather than people who bike or walk or take public transporation. Toll roads are environmentally friendly because they discourage excessive driving. Many people drive irresponsibly because they don't pay the true costs of driving.

Disposable Income:
Who cares what you get before taxes? The important segment of income is that which remains after taxes are paid, and it alone determines whether the cost of living is affordable.



Taxation: Taxes reduce the competitiveness of any industry they are imposed upon based upon two criteria:

• External Tax Regimes:
  If your taxes are lower than those of your neighbours, and if there are no unreasonable barriers to movement between states, people are likely to gradually gravitate towards your nation should this condition be fulfilled: the costs associated with doing business[legal, demographic, geographic] are not considerably greater than elsewhere such that there is a pecuniary advantage to doing business in your region.
  
• Severity:
  At some level, taxation dissuades any capital or other investment. Under these conditions, whether the taxes in your nation are higher or lower than your neighbours is immaterial to wealth creation.

It is important to note that international politics,geography and demographics play a huge part in determining the actual effect of any taxes on economic growth. Urban environments are the most heavily affected by changes in taxation levels.

Taxation and Personal Freedom
Taxation reminds us of the roots of government and the very slippery distinction we make between criminality and government actions: the law gives government monopoly powers to do that which, when done by a private citizen, would be illegal. Government, at its most basic, is simply a protection racket.
Other negative effects taxation produces include the sense of entitlement the unproductive members of society gain, entitlement to the intellectual and physical means of the gainfully employed. When we see a marriage or partnership like this, we call it 'abusive': when it concerns political relationships, we call it 'helping the needy.' In other words, taxation erodes moral understanding between people because it implies, especially where different levels are applied to different people, that some people are more or less entitled to the fruits of their own labours or to those of others. People feel less and less responsible for their lives, and act accordingly.
Taxation may discourage gainful employment or entrepreneurialism:
Why would someone work if he believed he could get as much doing nothing but accepting government cheques. People who would like to start their own businesses may find that the higher levels of taxation on business[than on personal income] ensure that they would make more working for others: this discourages competition and innovation, and is a form of subsidy to corporations who have been in the business a long time.
Welfare and other hand-outs are inflationary pressures which hit the lowest-paid workers in society hardest. Infation is taxation; ergo, taxation, when used to sustain the jobless population, increases taxation proportionately not only to itself, but to the degree of infation produced by policies it fuels.

Taxation and governmental self-perpetuation:
Taxation protects a government in two ways:
To begin with, higher taxation allows governments to hire more civil-servants who will be naturally sympathetic to them, and who will recognize that protecting that government is mutual self-interest. This erodes democracy because 'civil servants' [I use the term loosely] vote for their own interests, and those interests generally include the perpetuation of the present system or elected government. In other words, taxation provides governments the means to legally buy votes by hiring civil servants. In this respect, modern Western goverments quite ressemble feudal societies where civil servants are analogous to vassals. This process naturally skews public debate by increasing the voice for larger and larger government.
It also protects governments by reducing the capital of private citizens, and lets face it, change can not be brought about without money and resources. Governments can strangle dissent merely by taxing the means of dissent away. There are actually many good examples of this across the Third World, and Communism is probably the ultimate example of vitiating means to dissent by removing any right to private property, placing all property in the hands of government.