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.
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.
I want to believe that people will eventually realize that cutting taxes is bad
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.
earning
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.
Harris’ tax plan cut taxes on every bracket except the richest, and we still ended up with more income than we started.
Could you cite a source for that claim?
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.
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:
Harris’ tax plan cut taxes on every bracket except the richest, and we still ended up with more income than we started.
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.
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.
I want to believe that people will eventually realize that cutting taxes is bad […]
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.
Taxation is giving back to the community that enables you to gain so much.
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?
But taxes going down year over year is a bad thing.
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.
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.
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.
Giving less and less means others have to work harder.
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?
I dont blame the guy. People will be happy to pay taxes when they reap the reward of taxes paid. Despite America being the richest country, we dont have free health care, public infrastructure is abysmal, having to interact with any government entity is a blood boiling experience amongst a myriad of other things. All we see is record breaking bailouts, and a rapidly growing military that hasn't passed a spending audit ever since we started tracking it. We dont even know where the funds are going, yet their funding balloons every year in every administration. Oh and every year the IRS is coming up with new and novel ways to squeeze more money out of us.
Until my taxes start benefitting me, I will never be happy paying them. If I lived in a saner and civilized country, I would then happily pay them.
It takes critical thinking to see how taxes help already. For example, you won't notice NOW the impacts of massive reduction in early education or school lunches. It just seems like "responsible cost management". But the reality is when you are 20 years older, the younger generation around you is less educated, less ready to handle complicated issues, etc. And you are older and less independently resilient and are at the whim of your community. Oops. Your tax opinions 20 years ago are here to fight.
But if we've been paying the same amount of taxes, and our services keep degrading is the best solution to keep shoveling our money into this fire pit?
I know greater funding will improve many programs, but who says higher taxes will increase funding for the programs in need?
Ive developed a large amount of apathy due to the mismanagement of tax payers funds and until it's rebuilt from the ground up I have no reason to trust the system to use my funds in good faith.
Bring critical, even venomously so if government spending is not the same as saying taxes should be reduced/removed, or government programs reduced.
Put differently: I'm critical of how school lunch money is spent, but I sure as shit don't want to reduce school lunch funding.
A common problem is republicans get in office, claim to be draining the swamp, funnel tax finding to their buddy's private company, get a trust fund for when they retire, then turn around the next election cycle and say the public program is broken. That deserves venom.
still just makes me so mad when I see the top tax bracket start at 626,350. If we have billionaires the top tax rate should be at a billion and it should cover all forms of income. fuck capital gains.
Cutting tax for the rich or who?
Funny thing about political promises. They don't even make decent toilet paper
Is this meme under the assumption that the quantity of services provided remains static despite the reduction in tax revenue? If so, it would make sense to me that their quality of service would dip if they are receiving a decrease in funding, unless there's some concurrent change in operating conditions that would increase the service's cost efficiency. As a counter to that, I would argue that the service in question itself determines its burden of tax to justify its existence, so if there is to be a decrease in taxes, there should also be services cut and replaced by something private (presumably, unless there's some other alternative). I think it would be difficult to conclusively argue, without a faulty generalization, that the overall quality of any given service would decrease under such circumstances of privatization.