Taxes

[Dr Brain]

"This idea -- that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power -- is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves." -- Regan, 1964

 

Who among you believes that the tax money taken from you is better spent by the government than by yourself? Who among is so evil that you would steal my freedoms, take my livelihood, and destroy my future, and the future of my children to benefit yourself?

[Bak]

Why give the topic the same title as another one in recent history; that's just confusing.

 

There are things tax dollars can do that individuals couldn't or wouldn't, for example, an interconnected road system. They're probably not better spent, but they're spent on different things which wouldn't get done without central planning. I hope taxes aren't so overbearing that they're destroying your future, Brain.

[Dr Brain]

I don't cede the point about roads, since there are plenty of workable alternatives (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_roads), but lets talk about the things that individuals *would* do (better), like energy, health care, insurance, investing, manufacturing, agriculture, and of course charity work. Why do I have to pay for people I've never met to make bad decisions and waste my money? I can think of nothing that isn't done better by private industry. Contrarily, I can think of nothing that a government does better than a free market would.

 

Of course they are destroying my future. How could they not? I'm a highly skilled, educated, motivated individual in the prime of my life, yet I have no way to advance my station, since I'll be taxed right back to where I am because other people are envious. All I ask is freedom. I don't expect anyone else to pay for my mistakes, but I expect to not be forced pay for other's mistakes. When I want to help others, I can give to charity. I don't need someone taking my money and giving twenty cents on the dollar ($0.21 output for every $1.00 input was the last stat I heard on welfare).

 

My question is why? Why do you feel the need to tax me?

[Bak]

the government does not provide energy, health care, insurance, investing, manufacturing, or agriculture, unless you're referring to subsidies, which is a slightly different matter (let me know if that's the case as I'll happily talk about those).

 

The way the tax system works you never get taxed right back to where you are if you earn more. For example (the numbers are wrong but the idea will get across), for your first $20,000 you get taxed 15%, for your earnings from $20,000 to $40,000 you'll get taxed 20%, and for your earnings over $40,000 you'll get taxed 25%. The optimal strategy, in terms of taking in the most money, is always to have the most income. And that's only in theory. Warren Buffet regularly says he pays lower taxes than their secretaries and cleaning staff because of the current tax code.

[Dr Brain]

Is the money taken from me not going into those things (and going in badly)? Is the government not regulating and subsidizing them? Is there any reason for me to pay for that? No.

 

I understand how the progressive income tax works. Increased income is the way to get from poor to middle class, it isn't the way to get from middle class to rich.

 

I also understand that taxes are going up, that inflation from government spending is a hidden tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_tax), and that more and more things are becoming taxed. I don't believe that it can continue at its current level indefinitely, and I certainly don't believe that it can continue going up. I think I'm more in danger of going from middle class to poor under the current situation. Once China stops buying our debt, I certainly will be.

[»doc flabby]

Im just depressed, got a new job an increase in salary of 300/mo...after tax im only seeing an extra 50/mo hardly worth it... Edited January 4, 2010 by doc flabby

[Bak]

I don't think you're in the 83% tax bracket, you'll get the money back in a tax return if you're paying too much monthly.

 

For certain high-overhead kinds of investments, the government is better longer-term investmenting and working on larger projects. If individuals or even individual companies make investments they can't make much of a dent in some of the larger problems, whereas a government investment might make an impact.

 

For example, imagine if all the worst-case scenarios for global warming are real. Individual companies are not going to cut back on pollution as they will make less money in the short term.

 

Imagine if we are actually going to run low on oil in the near future. A private investment in green technology might pay off at some point in the future, but is a risky bet. A government subsidy to make Ethanol competitive right now will spur much more investment since the private-sector risk is lower (you can be profitable at a lower efficiency level). Then, as the process is perfected it may be profitable on its own, and we'll all be better off for it (since the alternative is a sudden spike in energy cost when the oil runs out).

[Dr Brain]

For certain high-overhead kinds of investments, the government is better longer-term investmenting and working on larger projects. If individuals or even individual companies make investments they can't make much of a dent in some of the larger problems, whereas a government investment might make an impact.

 

I can't think of any, besides war, I mean.

 

For example, imagine if all the worst-case scenarios for global warming are real. Individual companies are not going to cut back on pollution as they will make less money in the short term.

 

Perfect example. Global warming has been debunked so many times, yet why are we still funding efforts to "stop" it? Also, most companies aren't as short sighted as you make out.

 

Imagine if we are actually going to run low on oil in the near future. A private investment in green technology might pay off at some point in the future, but is a risky bet. A government subsidy to make Ethanol competitive right now will spur much more investment since the private-sector risk is lower (you can be profitable at a lower efficiency level). Then, as the process is perfected it may be profitable on its own, and we'll all be better off for it (since the alternative is a sudden spike in energy cost when the oil runs out).

 

Supply and demand will would make those energy technologies profitable far before any shortage of oil. It could also produce technologies that weren't imagined by the politicians. Not that there is a shortage of oil, mind you. The shortage is the product of the government ban on all things oil.

[Bak]

Supply and demand will would make those energy technologies profitable far before any shortage of oil.

How so?

[Dr Brain]

If oil were to "run out" (something that seems geologically unlikely), then the supply would slowly decrease to zero as oil became harder to find (there would be no sudden jump). Since demand is presumably staying constant, there would come a point where the supply of oil based energy drops enough to make alternate energy viable enough to bridge the gap. There would never be a point where it's unprofitable, since there's no such thing (at the high level) in a free market. It would be the difference between existing and not existing. Shale oil, for example, is unprofitable to extract given the current price of oil. If supply were to drop, then the price difference would make it profitable at a certain point. This point would be before the oil ran out, for *any* viable energy system.

 

You might argue that the price jump is worse than the government deciding, but that research money has to come out as taxes, and even a perfectly allocated taxation system (which the US federal government does not approach) introduces deadweight inefficiency: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax#Deadweight_costs_of_taxation

 

Industry is perfectly capable of doing research and development. There's risk in any R&D, but there's also reward. These risks and rewards are figured into the prices of goods sold by the companies. And you'd better believe people betting with their own money will make better choices than people betting with taxpayer money.

[Anonymous]

Logic dictates that American Government simply sucks.

Take out our freedoms and our rights (which are infringed on a daily basis may I remind you) and what do we have left?

A bunch of old men, dictating to all of us how much money to give them for them to waste and add further to the over 3 trillion deficit.

Why should my hard earned money travel to a war that noone is even interested in fighting anymore? When's the last time you saw morale about this war beyond "I hope they stop this soon" ?

Why should that money go so we can build another nuclear bomb even after we have signed treaties not to fire them.

Bush even stated about the constitution "It's just a goddamn piece of paper"

(Sources: http://www.rense.com/general69/paper.htm

 

http://digg.com/politics/Bush_on_the_Constitution_It_s_just_a_goddamned_piece_of_paper

 

http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2005/12/09/bush-constitution-just-a-goddamned-piece-of-paper/)

 

Why should that money travel to people who "need it" simply because they did not go to school and get an education and job as they should have?

You may call me heartless, and I am indeed saddened by the state of the poor class in America.

However you'd be foolish to believe that most of that money went to those people.

It travels right into the Government pockets.

 

I agree with taxes as they are required to make a country run, however I tire of handing my money over to a bunch of prats using the money for no one's benefit but their own. Where is the freedom in that?

Edited January 13, 2010 by Anonymous

[Bak]

Perfect example. Global warming has been debunked so many times, yet why are we still funding efforts to "stop" it?

You misunderstood what I was saying (I'm not trying to debate if global warming at the moment, even though I disagree with you). Imagine global warming was real, though. The free market would not coordinate to stop it, as it's always more profitable for each company to pollute more rather than taking steps to reduce it. For scenarios like this, and other "Tragedy of the commons" situations, a more central, organized approach is superior (not every distributed algorithm can perform as well as a global algorithm[/nerd]). Governments provide a mechanism to enforce a central approach.

 

 

 

Logic dictates that American Government simply sucks.

...

blahblahblah

You're an idiot. The world is not black and white, stop making such grandiose statements.

[Dr Brain]

Companies are not run open-loop as you seem to imply. Their actions have consequences feeding back through customer approval, and having an effect on their bottom line. Yes, polluting might save them a buck today, but if people started taking their business elsewhere then they'd shape up or go bankrupt. And there'd always be a company not polluting, unless you've got a monopolistic or highly regulated market (which is a bad thing, for exactly this reason).

 

Just like in basic controls theory, negative feedback keeps the whole system stable and responsive.

[Bak]

Some consumers may switch to non-polluting companies and be willing to pay more. However, others will not, and the polluting will still occur, which may still cause global warming. The only way to prevent this in a distributed, free-market approach would be if enough people becomes convinced that polluting is bad so that polluting companies would stop making money. Practically speaking, there are numerous challenges for this to happen, since companies have a disincentive to tell you if they pollute, and you don't see the pollution along the entire supply chain when making purchases, only a dollar amount which abstracts away the work involved in producing the product. Additionally, it's in these companies interest to spread misinformation about such pollution. For example, for decades cigarette companies produced (unethical) research concluding cigarettes were not harmful. If people are confused as to whether global warming is real, harmful, or man-made, they might not weigh its effects when making decisions about purchasing products from known polluters. An organized, central approach, however, has the possibility to solve the problem (in addition to the possibility to screw things up badly if not done correctly).

 

A feedback loop may be one way to provide stability for certain systems, but it certainly does not guarantee stability. If not enough people are aboard, over-consuming companies will exhaust shared resource X at everyone's demise.

[whalz]

you know dr. brains freemarket works. But there has to be something regulating the free market, making sure so and so isnt selling something with too high of a carbon footprint..

 

basicly a freemarket with a government. lol you guys are both right on either sides.. but if there was a concensus between the two, it would go a lot further

 

 

---

besides in the next 50 years id immagine we will all go green anyway... there bringing those nano cars into canada, so its probly just a matter of time before the 'muscle car, smoking industrial, and generaly wasteful ways of man are gone... one can hope anyway.. thats pretty much what our whole time erra is.. going from new technologies, to refining them in a more efficient way (late 1800s car --- 2010 green car) so clearly were working in a propper direction. If we keep all doing what were doing, things will change for the better.. and if they go worse we will all be smart enough to recognize it and wont let it happen

Edited January 15, 2010 by Whal the 2nd

[Dr Brain]

Some consumers may switch to non-polluting companies and be willing to pay more. However, others will not, and the polluting will still occur, which may still cause global warming.

 

Global warming is a bad example, since it's not actually happening.

 

The only way to prevent this in a distributed, free-market approach would be if enough people becomes convinced that polluting is bad so that polluting companies would stop making money.

 

Which would happen if it were true. It happens all the time with food products. People learn that X is bad, and stop buying products with X in them. Before long, companies stop using X altogether.

 

Practically speaking, there are numerous challenges for this to happen, since companies have a disincentive to tell you if they pollute, and you don't see the pollution along the entire supply chain when making purchases, only a dollar amount which abstracts away the work involved in producing the product. Additionally, it's in these companies interest to spread misinformation about such pollution. For example, for decades cigarette companies produced (unethical) research concluding cigarettes were not harmful.

 

And companies that don't pollute would have just as much of an incentive to tell you that they don't pollute. You can't turn on the TV without seeing an ad for a "green product".

 

If people are confused as to whether global warming is real, harmful, or man-made, they might not weigh its effects when making decisions about purchasing products from known polluters.

 

Or, since it's not an issue, maybe people have been smart all along? The only reason the green movement is taking off is because an artificial market of tax incentives has been created, not because there is an actual issue.

 

An organized, central approach, however, has the possibility to solve the problem (in addition to the possibility to screw things up badly if not done correctly).

 

Yes, like the 2.3 billion dollar green jobs stimulus? The idea was to create 17,000 green jobs, which is about $135,000 per job. I'm glad we have a government to waste our money, aren't you?

 

A feedback loop may be one way to provide stability for certain systems, but it certainly does not guarantee stability. If not enough people are aboard, over-consuming companies will exhaust shared resource X at everyone's demise.

 

Of course it doesn't guarantee stability. You need to oversee the market to prevent barriers to entry and monopolies.

[Bak]

It happens all the time with food products. People learn that X is bad, and stop buying products with X in them. Before long, companies stop using X altogether.

When has this happened without government involvement, for example?

 

Food is a slightly different issue because your choices on food only affect you. Some resources, such as the atmosphere, or maybe rivers, or grazing fields, or public roads are shared resources, where one person's decisions may affect everyone else. For such shared resources government involvement may be necessary.

[kid]

Global warming is a bad example, since it's not actually happening.

Do you agree that the greenhouse effect exists?

 

Do you know what greenhouse gases are?

 

Did you know that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have gone up by 36% since before the industrial revolution? (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac.html)

 

I am getting kind of tired of the issue of global warming becoming an ideology based discussion as opposed to, you know, evidence.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Courage

[Simulacrum]

Anyway, it's not like global warming is the only form of pollution, which is really the relevant category concerning regulation.

 

Actually, taxes aren't regulation, so what does any of this have to do with the topic?

[Dr Brain]

Trans-fats springs to mind as a recent example. The govt. got involved after the fact, but it doesn't alter the fact that it would have been expunged from the market eventually. It's hard to name any aspect of life where the government doesn't step in at some point, though. There are surely better examples if you go back to when the government was smaller and less involved in day to day life.

 

Shared resources aren't usually shared resources. Rivers for example, run through owned property. There are, however, laws that prevent the owner of an affected property from seeking reparations from a polluting company. Seems like a failure of the government, rather than the market. Public property in general is fraught with inconsistencies, and any environmental problems should be lumped in with the all other reasons not to have the concept of public property.

 

Air is something that's not easily regulated by private entities, because of its scope. In most cases, it would be up to the town/city/state govt. to make the appropriate laws to prevent air pollution. I'm not entirely convinced this would be necessary, though, since the only cases you'd have to worry about would be individuals taking it upon themselves to pollute. Companies wouldn't tend toward this problem for the reasons already mentioned.

[Dr Brain]

Do you agree that the greenhouse effect exists?

 

No. The evidence shows that it doesn't.

 

Do you know what greenhouse gases are?

 

Yes.

 

Did you know that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have gone up by 36% since before the industrial revolution? (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac.html)

 

Yes, I've heard that quoted before. I don't see how it's any more relevant than plotting temperatures vs. pirate population.

 

I am getting kind of tired of the issue of global warming becoming an ideology based discussion as opposed to, you know, evidence.

 

As am I.

 

Pick any study at random that advocates that global warming is happening written more than 5-10 years ago. Now look at their plot about what would happen to temperatures? Do they match up with what actually happened? Nope. Why is this considered science? The facts should support the hypothesis, not the other way around.

 

Why is mars warming at the same rate as the Earth? Couldn't be that the Sun has anything to do with it, right?

 

Why has it been getting colder for the last 10+ years? Why was 1998 the hottest year on record (I've heard challenges that it was actually 1934 that was the hottest) if the globe is getting hotter?

 

And finally, why am I expected to pay for it when people don't have a clue what's going on? Want to put your money toward stopping global warming? Fine with me. Just don't take my money to pay.

[Simulacrum]

Do you agree that the greenhouse effect exists?

 

No. The evidence shows that it doesn't.

What the hell?

 

Have you heard of Venus?

Edited January 15, 2010 by Simulacrum

[NBVegita]

Do you agree that the greenhouse effect exists?

 

Yes depending on your definition

 

Do you know what greenhouse gases are?

 

Yes but do you. 90-95% of the 'greenhouse effect' is water vapor and clouds. The other 5-10% is a mixture of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone.

 

Did you know that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have gone up by 36% since before the industrial revolution? (http://www.epa.gov/c...e/recentac.html)

 

Did you know that throughout the history of the planet the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased in accordance to temperature increases? Did you also know that we were in a 'mini-ice age' until the 1800's? Did you know that we are on a natural cycle to be increasing temperatures?

 

I am getting kind of tired of the issue of global warming becoming an ideology based discussion as opposed to, you know, evidence.

 

The only way you can support an argument for global warming is by ignoring the climate studies beyond 150 years ago. If you account for all of the planets past climate and co2 history we are in perfect cycle with the historic climate cycles of the planet.

 

Back on topic to taxes.

[Dr Brain]

Do you agree that the greenhouse effect exists?

 

No. The evidence shows that it doesn't.

What the hell?

 

Have you heard of Venus?

I do believe that its proximity to the sun has more to do with its temperature than its atmosphere does. In all likelihood, it's atmosphere actually keeps it from absorbing more solar radiation. Also, if you're comparing a 36% increase of C02 on Earth to the atmosphere of Venus, you've got something else coming.

 

As NBVegita says, back to taxes: why do I have to pay for this?

[Simulacrum]

Might I suggest that all these long posts about not-taxes that say "now let's talk about taxes" at the end do precisely dick to move the discussion back to taxes?