who should pay taxes?

[Ladybug]

I think forced "volunteering" sounds good on paper, but the bureaucracy that would be necessary to conceptualize, build, train, enforce, transport volunteers, feed volunteers, insure volunteers while working, inevitable law suits, follow up, evaluate, create reports for government agencies and the public, modify tax codes, apply tax credits and audit for public PR would ultimately cost us waaaaaaaaaay more in taxes than we would ever gain in token volunteer services. There are good intentions behind these actions, but these actions would ultimately bring forth bad fruit. The completely opposite of their intentions. Some people cannot pay taxes, and that's just the bottom line. You can't squeeze water out of a rock. Unless you're Moses of course. I think our energy is better spent on thoughtfully finding ways to reduce spending and addressing the institutional barriers that inhibit people from becoming as productive as they can be.

[Pollyanna]

I think forced "volunteering" sounds good on paper, but the bureaucracy that would be necessary to conceptualize, build, train, enforce, transport volunteers, feed volunteers, insure volunteers while working, inevitable law suits, follow up, evaluate, create reports for government agencies and the public, modify tax codes, apply tax credits and audit for public PR would ultimately cost us waaaaaaaaaay more in taxes than we would ever gain in token volunteer services. There are good intentions behind these actions, but these actions would ultimately bring forth bad fruit. The completely opposite of their intentions. Some people cannot pay taxes, and that's just the bottom line. You can't squeeze water out of a rock. Unless you're Moses of course. I think our energy is better spent on thoughtfully finding ways to reduce spending and addressing the institutional barriers that inhibit people from becoming as productive as they can be.

Ditto!

[diggitydot]

Keep in mind that whether someone falls below the cutoff for paying federal taxes, they're still paying taxes in other forms that tend to be disproportionate to their income. Fuel taxes, licensing fees, sales taxes, etc.

[Sheherezade]

And SS and Medicare on all their income - which we in the upper brackets only pay on a portion of our income. The whole tax code is screwy. I used to like the flat tax proposal (in theory at least) but lately I've been thinking we'd do better with a V.A.T. I like the idea of NOT paying tax on savings and only paying tax on purchases of non-essential items.

I think it is also important to keep in mind that taxes have been around for a long, long time. I've been reading the Follet books that take place in 1100 and 1300 England and I have been struck by how many petty taxes the people paid to the king, the local lord, the church, etc. Some how, I have always thought that taxes are *worse* in the modern era. Now, I'm not so sure. I think the adage that "the only things certain in life are death and taxes" is probably very true.

[Ladybug]

I've been reading the Follet books that take place in 1100 and 1300 England and I have been struck by how many petty taxes the people paid to the king, the local lord, the church, etc. Some how, I have always thought that taxes are *worse* in the modern era. Now, I'm not so sure. I think the adage that "the only things certain in life are death and taxes" is probably very true.

So, so true. The tax debate goes back to biblical roman times, "Then give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." Perspective is everything, right?

[Ladybug]

I used to like the flat tax proposal (in theory at least) but lately I've been thinking we'd do better with a V.A.T. I like the idea of NOT paying tax on savings and only paying tax on purchases of non-essential items.

I agree. I think a flat tax is harmful. In reality it cannot be fairly applied. It's a difficult truth, but there is. The VAT is interesting and I admittedly don't know much about it. I have read some interesing blurbs. It would definitely be an effective means of directing people's spending, but I'm not sure how or who would control that fire hose. It seems like it would vary according to who ($$$$) was in control of it. It's definitely an interesting thought and mind twister...

[ladymoreta]

And SS and Medicare on all their income - which we in the upper brackets only pay on a portion of our income.

Very true, but in the very near future, they're going to have to cut SS and Medicare, and it will be the upper brackets who lose benefits first. I know that sounds kind of harsh, but I still think that people who benefit should be responsible for paying for at least some of it. Not that I will mind paying SS and Medicare after DH is finished - our parents, families, and friends will (hopefully) still qualify. But a portion of an upper bracket is still a lot larger amount than the amount that lower brackets pay on all of their income.

I've been reading the Follet books that take place in 1100 and 1300 England and I have been struck by how many petty taxes the people paid to the king, the local lord, the church, etc. Some how, I have always thought that taxes are *worse* in the modern era. Now, I'm not so sure. I think the adage that "the only things certain in life are death and taxes" is probably very true.

I love those books! As messed up as our tax system is today, at least it's a lot more fair than all the ridiculous taxes they came up with for their squabbling and whims.

[Ladybug]

but I still think that people who benefit should be responsible for paying for at least some of it.

But who benefits more? The people that succeed in a established social system by successfully avoiding it's riptides, or the people that fail, even drown, and come to rely upon the charity of those that *truly* benefitted? I realize that this is a hot topic, but we have to honestly examine who has benefitted and who has not. That said, I think it's *critical* how we spend our money. There is only so much to go around, so let's practice temperance and prudence. Generosity and prudence are not contradictory virtues.

[ladymoreta]

But who benefits more? The people that succeed in a established social system by successfully avoiding it's riptides, or the people that fail, even drown, and come to rely upon the charity of those that *truly* benefitted? I realize that this is a hot topic, but we have to honestly examine who has benefitted and who has not. That said, I think it's *critical* how we spend our money. There is only so much to go around, so let's practice temperance and prudence. Generosity and prudence are not contradictory virtues.

Hmm, I'm not sure I understand the question. I think that the people who benefit from SS and Medicare are anyone who receives it. If they remove SS payments and Medicare coverage from a specific group, then that group no longer benefits directly from it.

I don't have a problem with paying SS, even though I've known since first grade that my generation would never see a cent of it. I'm prepared for that, but I feel like I benefit from it because my parents will (hopefully) be covered. If they are not, I will need to provide for them. If I need to provide for my parents, I will not give as much to charity - I will consider their expenses as part of my charitable giving.

Some people do have a much more difficult lot in life. But some of those problems come from their own personal decisions. While I would like to see them making better decisions and leading happier, healthier lives, they are free to make whatever decisions they like, and we do shelter them from a lot of the consequences of those decisions with our tax money, and it benefits society to do so.

[Ladybug]

Fair question. In the long-lived spirit of this debate forum I'll take your debate torch and carry it onto the next post...or at least until they take my mike away.

I think welfare benefits are the final outcomes of an entrenched social system. On the surface it might seem like they are the primary beneficiaries from these welfare systems because they are receiving monies and we're paying, but if we look deeper we find social structures typically beyond the control of the individuals that contributes to these poor choices and outcomes.

I'll share a personal example. My cousin (product of divorce, disinterested, addict parents) has now abandoned her three children after her husband was incarcerated for drugs. I'm in no way condoning any of their choices, but what about these three young children who have been abandoned? My grandmother is manipulatively isolating these children from their mother because she wants to receive the $$ welfare benefits of being their legal guardian. She is exposing them to my uncle's drug habits, abuses and whatever else he brings through that house. They are the same age as my own children. They will not give DH and I the children because of the $$ they get from the state.

Have these children made any different choices than my own children? No. But will the system fail them? Absolutely. Are there social structures that set people up for failure? Are there entrenched social prejudices that make failure more likely for some people? If they end up on welfare have my cousins "benefitted" from our social system?

My husband struggles with this a lot. He feels that all of his accomplishments are his own. He fails to see how his parents and society have enabled his good choices and brought them to fruition. He doesn't always see the blessings that they are, and the responsiblity that comes with those blessings. I see it. We (he and I) have benefitted from society. Yes, we have absolutely made good choices and worked hard, but we were also nurtured to make those choices from the day we were born and it was beyond our control or choice.

[DCJenn]

I see it every day- people making really, really stupid decisions that on the surface seem so obvious to everyone else.

BUT for the most part, they've been given the Toolbox of Life with 3/4 of the tools missing. Illiteracy, Poverty, Abuse, Addiction, Family Instability- any one of those can break a person. My clients have all of it-

When they DO manage to break out of the cycle, it's usually because we've been successful in locating all of the services that they needed, when they needed them. You can't be worried about getting your GED so you can get a real job when you're prostituting yourself to get your heroin. You can't get your ID to get your benefits if you don't have any money in the first place. You can't worry about getting your TB/Hep C/HIV managed when you don't have any food.

It's a mess.

It has been demonstrated though, that with addiction, the brain chemistry and structures change so they REALLY are incapable of thinking like a non-addicted person. Doesn't excuse it but at least it makes it easier to understand.

So, yes, my clients are a HUGE drain on the system. But they're a lot less of a drag on society when given the tools for their toolbox and not thrown in jail. Incarceration is expensive and doesn't work to change behaviors of addicts or the mentally ill.

Jenn

[ladymoreta]

I think that in a roundabout way, we're agreeing with each other. While the upper tax brackets don't directly benefit from paying taxes for services they don't consume, they are benefitting by not paying more in taxes for things like incarceration and by having more productive citizens, as DCJenn pointed out. (Not to say that higher income earners don't end up in prison - just using that as an example...)

I don't see a problem, though, with asking everyone with an income to contribute some of that income to taxes. I strongly disagree with progressive income taxes because I see them as a means to income redistribution. I'm not sure what would be more fair - flat tax, V.A.T, or something else. But along with trying to protect the less fortunate, we should also be careful not to discourage people from taking the risks needed to rise up in society. Not trying to get off-topic, but it reminds me of the debate of whether schools should focus more on honors programs or remedial programs. There has to be a balance, and I don't think we're there yet.