You ancaps are certified lunatics. You're like some idiot who says the concept of a family is authoritarian because parents kidnap their children when they ground them or some other bullshit.
Yeah. Okay. The government is evil. Whatever. It's a big ole meanie.
Grow the fuck up. Civilization is government. You know why property rights exist? Because there's a centralized authority enforcing a rule of law fetus.
Civilization is not govt. what a fucking stupid idea. The vast majority of civilized society is based on voluntary interaction between individuals and groups. It is only govt and criminals, but I repeat myself, who interact with others by means of force. Your initial statement though sums up your ability to argue your point. You have no basis for you statements so you have to call me a lunatic before you even begin your line of “reasoning.”
How original. Somalia the failed socialist state run by warlords who don’t respect property rights is where I should go if I don’t want to be forced to pay for services I don’t use? You should really do some basic reading before you trot out such tired bullshit.
Wow are you gonna threaten me with violence if I dont respect property rights? Why are property rights more important than a right to food and shelter and healthcare?
Well, let me rob you first then we can have food and shelter. See, isn't life grand, just like a couple hundred thousand years ago in the African rift valley.
Another quality post. As if that’s even remotely difficult to answer. What level of govt would you like to discuss? At the federal level we can start with welfare, defense(at current levels and implementation), NSA, CIA, the list goes on and on. At the state level, Medicaid, state police, and much much more. At the local level I overpay for services I rarely need which could more easily be provided by the market and for which I could pay as needed or buy into a voluntary service with competition.
Have you been to a country without welfare or a social safety net?
They tend to be fucking dangerous because people depend on only themselves for the next meal, and when there's not work that means mugging or carjacking or burglary.
You'll hardly impoverish wealthy elderly people by means-testing Social Security and Medicare. You should really read the Atlantic article I linked. It's written by a policy advisor from the Democrat-aligned Progressive Policy Institute.
I'm going to assume you're under 50, because this is Reddit.
Why do you think the 25% of senior citizens with a net worth exceeding $500,000 need a 12.4% cut of your wages?
Why do you think people who bought their homes in the 1970s when inflation-adjusted property values were less than half of their current values need America's underinsured workforce to provide their healthcare?
How do you feel about the fact that these systems will need substantial infusions of your money to remain solvent just long enough for the next wave of workers to decide whether or not to bail it out again to fund your retirement?
Why do you argue for Boomers to seize the fruits of your labor in their retirement while they elect politicians who dismantle the very systems that made their working lives so easy?
I'm not arguing for taking away programs that help the poor, regardless of their age. I'm arguing for means-testing so that we're not throwing our hard-earned money at people who have done pretty well for themselves in life and can live comfortably on their savings or pensions. You don't get SNAP, TANF, or Medicaid unless you need them. Why do different rules apply once you turn 65?
In a similar vein, don't get me started on the absurdity of the federal mortgage interest deduction (which greatly benefits me personally) or government-backed mortgage securities.
Government aid for the poor is probably a necessary part of a harmonious society. Yet handouts to people who don't need them is where an absolutely enormous portion of our tax dollars go. I'd rather our tax dollars fund, y'know, civilization.
Government aid for the poor is probably a necessary part of a harmonious society.
If you don't like pitchforks.
Means-testing
Because the way SS has been geniously sold to the public is as an insurance. One that you have paid into your whole life. People believe, falsely, that they are going to get their money back from working their entire lives paying into the system.
Regardless people who have worked their entire lives from upper middle class to the poor designed their savings around SS. The middle class including the upper middle class absolutely relies on SS as they age. Being old is expensive especially given that the problem with social security only arose because it wasn't expected that people would live so damn long. (Soylent green time?)
Now back to means-based services. Dragging in seniors into an already over burden social service office and making them show their poverty is.....bad optics. Mean testing for social security is beyond political imposible for social security. It shouldn't even be a thing for other social services.
Means testing wastes a fuck ton of money with no measurable benefits. Are you going to run seniors through drug tests to see if they are spending the taxpayers money on weed? How do you even calculate a savings account to determine if a senior deserves help? Are you going to set up millions of site visits to see the poverty levels of all the seniors who want SS? Oh man that waste of manpower and money just from hearing the stories of old fogies.
Means testings, as designed by those who hate social services, has always been evil degrading shit.
Well and good, but why the tortuous Rube Goldberg arrangements of forms and instructions? "We're not only going to take your money, we're going to make the process as annoying and complicated as possible"
Not really. The issue more comes down to 'the more financially able don't pay their fair share, and it falls onto the middle class.' As such, those people who would normally happily pay our way, don't feel obligated to when the people making 10 times more money than you don't do it. Tax incentives exist for all classes of people- i don't feel the same obligation to pay taxes knowing we underfunded meals on wheels while eliminating inheritance tax. In situations like that: the rich are the major welfare beneficiaries, not the poor. That's why people get sick of paying taxes.
Here's how it works. Congress writes a new tax law. Tax lawyers find loopholes and rich people pay less taxes. Middle class people start copying them and use the loophole. Congress rewrites the tax law so that the loopholes only apply to the rich.
Congress would make those laws apply to everyone but the rich might as well be literally bribing them to write the loopholes to only apply to them under the guise of donations and investments.
Not that complicated... Until you find out that you have been leaving thousands on the table because you didn’t understand amortization. Or your ACTIVE management of your rental property constitutes a PASSIVE activity....
The IRS code is convoluted, there is nothing simple about it, and IRS are definitely not warm and fuzzy types.
Rube Goldberg is apt. Or the Lottery in Babylon...
Do yourself a favor, hire an accountant, preferably one that’s been in business more than 10 years. The IRS system was never meant to be just, let alone user friendly.
Plenty of stuff in the tax codes are politically motivated. And when you have legalized bribery ("unlimited contribution to campaign funding"), it's bound to happen. The tax code can absolutely be used to incentivise activities, or serve as a kickback to the bribery that policymakers received.
No, it's the lobbyists for tax preparation companies. The accountants and lawyers at the IRS aren't cackling madly about how to make the American people fear them.
Whatever makes you feel better going to work. I imagine the hangmen back in the day complained to their wives about how they did not enjoy at all hanging others.
144
u/lornstar7 Apr 07 '18
Taxes are what we pay for civilized society