• A reminder that Forum Moderator applications are currently still open! If you're interested in joining an active team of moderators for one of the biggest Pokémon forums on the internet, click here for info.
  • Due to the recent changes with Twitter's API, it is no longer possible for Bulbagarden forum users to login via their Twitter account. If you signed up to Bulbagarden via Twitter and do not have another way to login, please contact us here with your Twitter username so that we can get you sorted.

Taxes: How much should they be? On what should they be?

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Eszett

Registered User
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
It's a fact of life that any healthy government needs an ample supply of money in order to have any power whatsoever, and taxing people is one of the most efficient ways to supply this money to the government, even though - regrettably - it is not very efficient as all. Either way, we are taxed whether we like it or not, from the taxes on our property to the taxes on the groceries we purchase.

However, the people cannot be deprived of a large chunk of their necessary income without the government giving just as much back to the people as it can. On the other hand, the government needs to establish a minimum standard to keep itself afloat amidst whatever might be going on in the world and within the nation at the time. In a similar regard, this areas of one's life where a tax should be required is a matter up for definition as well, with several contested proposals whirling into the mixture.

So I ask you: how much tax is enough tax? Should we err towards allowing the people more money or the government? Which aspects of a person's expenditures should be accountable for a tax? Personally, I feel that taxes should be kept on the low end of the spectrum (what percentage that is depends on the nation), but it should be able to be thriftily raised should the times call for it. As for which areas should be taxed, I would say almost everything except for medical expenses, where taxes should be levied considering how necessary that is for the well-being of that nation and the ability of the populus to work.
 
The federal government should not collect taxes from individuals. They should collect it from the states. 10% of income sounds about right :)
 
The Golden Wang of Justice said:
The federal government should not collect taxes from individuals. They should collect it from the states. 10% of income sounds about right :)
Click to expand...

10% of the overall income of the state? Or are you suggesting a flat tax rate? I suppose you would be the type to suggest that, but anyone can see that a flat tax would be horribly unfair. 10% of your income when you're in poverty obviously means a LOT more to you than 10% of your income when you're a millionaire, so it's really not equal at all. I also don't get why anyone who's not a millionaire supports the idea of millionaires barely having to pay any taxes.
 
You *do* realize that people who make millions of dollars are able to shelter their money, create false donation scams, spend money on "job expenses", etc. so they sometimes pay less of a % than say, me.
 
Of course they do, but that doesn't make it right. I mean what's the argument here, that since they're going to break the law anyways if we try to make them pay more, might as well change the law to fit them?
 
Not really, just that they pay much less now LEGALLY than you think they do.

Also, the government should cut down the services it provides, but that's been hashed and rehashed by me ^_^
 
Hmm, I was attempting to make this more generalized than specifically pertaining to the United States, but I suppose we could work within that context for now.

Anyway, while I like to sway to the side of low taxes, I still think that taxes should be proportional to income and derived from the individuals. Collecting it from the states would require that they spend money collecting taxes from their residents, which would merely make them a middleman in the overall scheme of collecting. The federal government might be a bit richer, but I don't feel it's worth making the states poorer to assist the national budget.

As for the services that the government provides, it can really only be proportional to the funds they receive. However, considering all of the spending that is going on in Washington right now, low taxes are about the worst thing to have at the moment. I realize this would be more feasible in smaller countries, but taxes could be lowered and the cash spent more wisely to reduce the burden upon everyone for money from other people. Sure, we make a few legislative blunders, but I tend to think that lower taxes would encourage more tenacious spending by astute representatives.
 
The Golden Wang of Justice said:
Also, the government should cut down the services it provides, but that's been hashed and rehashed by me ^_^
Click to expand...
Let's first cut the pork that's tied to each bill which wastes money on crap. Trim the fat before you cut into the muscle.
 
Does "fat" = Dept. of Education? :)
 
If the government could tax stupidity, they'd make a fortune.
 
The Golden Wang of Justice said:
Does "fat" = Dept. of Education? :)
Click to expand...
Fat = Statues of the Roman god Vulcan, Rainforests in Iowa, and other stupid crap that seems to sneak onto bills but does little for America as whole (they usually only benefit one state and should be state matters). An excellent example was a 700 million dollar project to move a railroad just rebuilt in Mississippi because a developer wants the land to build beachfront condos are some kind high income housing. You're the economist. Tell me what 700 million could do if it was used for more productive purposes.
 
On the subject of flat rate taxes; yes in theory, they are regressive, but they have worked strangely well in Eastern Europe... food for though =P
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom