this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2024
600 points (99.0% liked)
AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND
813 readers
599 users here now
This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
♦ ♦ ♦
RULES
① Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.
② Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
③ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.
④ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.
⑤ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.
Please also abide by the instance rules.
♦ ♦ ♦
Can't get enough? Visit my blog.
♦ ♦ ♦
Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.
$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I want to believe that people will eventually realize that cutting taxes is bad but every generation is different and COVID showed that anyone can act like an idiot despite overwhelming evidence for reality. Each generation will have some idiot who idolizes the most selfish ideals and has the charisma to spread that madness. Things won't improve until we cull selfishness.
It doesn't have to be. Harris' tax plan cut taxes on every bracket except the richest, and we still ended up with more income than we started. The top 1% really are earning way more than anyone would ever need.
Woah slow down there partner, I believe you are giving a bit too much credit there
Receiving is neutral and still points out they are not working for that money.
Shit, you right. Wrong word.
Could you cite a source for that claim?
https://itep.org/a-distributional-analysis-of-kamala-harris-tax-plan/
I may just be blind — apologies if that turns out to be the case — but I can't find where your source claims that net tax revenue would be higher under Harris's tax plan.
I looked too; it doesn't have that stated. Looks more like the plan was more of a rework of current taxes than a tax increase. I feel that my point is still made regardless though.
Hm, well, the following point from your comment is currently conjecture, as you've provided no source for it:
My point being that taxes and the system in general are so messed up that we could acheive a lot of our other goals by rearranging the current tax mess into something less awful.
We don't have to start with 'more taxes' in order to accomplish a reasonably run welfare system.
I'm inclined to agree, though there may certainly be facets that I haven't considered.
What I've learned for the last 20 years:
Rinse and repeat.
Somehow people hated the guts of Nixon, yet they voted Reagan. (And now they adore him) Somehow people hated the guts of Reagan, yet they voted Bush. Somehow people hated the guts of Bush, yet they voted W.
Rinse and repeat.
I blame media though, I blame hypernormalization: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr7T07WfIhM
just watch all the southern states with the absolute worst educational outcomes continue to cut education funding. it doesnt matter how bad it gets, they dont seem to want it to exist at all.
its devolving into a world of the rich having their private neighborhoods and private schools and the poor who have been convinced to vote against their own best interests. with the government now completely compromised by the rich, there is no way out.
good luck everyone.
Those who actually benefit from tax cuts can spend as much money as the tax cut would yield them in conning people that it is a good idea when it would actually be a net negative outcome for them.
What makes you argue this universally (if I understand you correctly)? For example, if the cost efficiency of a service is increased, then it would be able to provide the same quality of service at a reduced cost. In that case, would it not make sense to reduce taxes?
If you make the gigantic assumptions that the population doesn't change, the use of services doesn't change, the price of services only goes down, and the quality of services doesn't change, then yeah, your very narrow scenario would result in reduced taxes.
But taxes going down year over year is a bad thing. Taxation is giving back to the community that enables you to gain so much. Giving less and less means others have to work harder. Selfishness is a key component of every civilization's fall throughout history. Don't be a petulant child. Pay your fucking taxes.
That depends on how the taxes are being used by the government. For example, if taxes are used to bail out corporations, is that giving back to the community?
Why? What would be the alternative that you would prefer? I would think that the only preferable alternative would be taxes staying the same YoY (which, imo, is only viable in an ideal context), as the alternative to static taxation rates would be an increase, and an increase in taxation is, imo, far more divisive.
I think it's important for me to clarify the way that I'm viewing (ie my opinion) some of the things that you said: If the population changes, then the demand on the service could change — eg if the population increases, then the demand on the service could also increase by some factor which would also increase the service's cost by some factor (not necessarily assuming a linear relationship). A change in population could also create a change in tax revenue in the same fashion. What's important here is how I'm viewing the interaction between those 3 things: subject to real world conditions, I don't think it's entirely out of the realm of usefulness to analyze a scenario in which the increase in population could cause a balanced effect on the service — ie the net increase in revenue will perfectly cover the cost of the increase in demand of the service. So, to put all that together, if one is to make that assumption of balanced response, it doesn't matter how the population changes; if the services operating efficiency increases, then the service's cost-per-person will decrease. Essentially what I'm trying to say is that the meme is possibly a faulty generalization.
By "work harder" do you mean others pay more in tax, or do you mean that the providers of the service have to increase their productivity?