Comments on: Unclear on the concept

By: Lean Left » Blog Archive » The Cognitive Dissonance of the Anti-Tax Crowd

Tue, 02 May 2006 19:24:13 +0000

[...] This past weekend, SayUncle was griping about us taking him to task over his near-universal opposition to all things tax related (and, in this particular case, the estate tax). Quote Uncle: See, when I express opposition to some random tax (of which there are thousands), I am also required by, err, I dunno what to come up with a way to pay for crap that might otherwise be funded by the taxes I oppose. In other words, I should be glad to be taxed and thankful for our infrastructure. Or damn the taxes and the infrastructure. What Kevin doesn’t seem to grasp is that I oppose taxes only slightly more than I oppose a bunch of crap the .gov wastes money on. [...]

By: Manish

Manish — Mon, 01 May 2006 23:45:53 +0000

Hey Kevin..I saw no links in your post other than to Uncle’s post earlier.

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Mon, 01 May 2006 22:59:15 +0000

kevin, if i make an assertion, it’s not a strawman. I said the death tax is bad. Period. No straw man, nothing. I even listed why. That does not require a dissertation on all things taxy. I don’t need to say shit about what I’m going to cut because i don’t decide what’s cut.

By: kevin

kevin — Mon, 01 May 2006 22:52:41 +0000

Uncle

First, you say that you will cut programs, but you never, ever say what. All you did was argue that the inheritence tax was babd, bad, bad and unfair to dead people, so if I was fighting straw, it was straw you left lying around all over your post. If you are going to argue that all taxes are bad, then you need to say upfront what you are going to cut to get rid to make the taxes unnecesary. I don’t see that — just the mantra that Taxes Are Bad with no discussion of the consequences. Now, if you wan tto start lisitng these things you would cut, I can demonstrate why you are killing civilization, but that’s another time.

As for the boner – -man, for the one undredth time, follow the bloody links The total tax burden among the income quintiles is essentially flat.

By: Manish

Manish — Mon, 01 May 2006 15:42:28 +0000

FL does have taxes..they are called sales tax which are regressive because the poor tend to spend a higher proportion of their income on stuff than the rich. In CA, you have a lot regressive stuff like sales tax, car tax, etc. Prop 13 ensures that people who could afford to buy a home early in life will pay less in property taxes than those who have to save up and wait to afford one.

By: beerslurpy

beerslurpy — Mon, 01 May 2006 07:19:05 +0000

I disagree with you on two counts:
1) There are states that have no local taxes. All we have is the ‘progressive’ federal tax here in FL.
2) Having lived in CA previously, I can tell you that the local taxes are not regressive. If you made above 40k a year, you were pretty much in the top state tax bracket. Taxation was even higher if you were wealthy enough to own property or an expensive car.

I am against the aforementioned government spending and against the taxation or the issuance of debt instruments that it requires. You ask for an alternative, my alternative is “no spending.” We need to flush the New Deal down the toilet.

The ballot initiative problem is self-solving once people refuse to buy your debt. Eventually you run out of money and the spending dies for lack of funding.

By: Manish

Manish — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 23:24:21 +0000

There was a study done which I can’t find again, that basically found that taxation as a whole between all 3 levels of government is flat. Federal taxes are generally progressive, while local taxes tend to be regressive. All of this balances out at different levels of income such that total taxes are flat.

As I see it, you can’t just be against something, you need to also be for something. An example is that some people that I know hate our local Supervisor and want him replaced. Only problem is no viable candidate has stepped forward to take him on. This hasn’t stopped calls to get rid of this guy. Same goes for arguments about taxes and government spending. Its easy to say that you are against a particular tax or in favour of certain spending, but the hard part is to say how you would put things back into balance. (Politicians have an easy answer to this, its called the national debt.)

This is also part of the problem with ballot initiatives (particularly here in California). All of them seem to either limit the ability of government to tax or enforce some form of spending on the government.

By: beerslurpy

beerslurpy — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 21:48:29 +0000

On the federal level, we need a military, customs and border people, post office and guys that can catch conterfeiters, spies and interstate criminals. Otherwise there should be not federal spending.

No SS.
No Medicare.
No Medicaid.
No Disability.
No federal EPA.
No income tax.

I have been a longtime hater of the Flat Tax because of its obvious unresolved problems, but I am begining to think it would be good if we could do it in a way that completely prevents “progressive” taxation. The poor and the rich alike should feel the full force of the fedgov’s thievery.

If someone could figure out a way to have FairTax in a way that doesnt result in me getting audited for having “untaxed possessions” open for confiscation, I would gladly sign on to it.