Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the News

[Green Monstah]

If I had a tenth of that figure I'd probably never be heard from again.

if I had a tenth of your tenth, you’d never hear from me again.

[Moliere]

That is correct. It should be a guiding light for governments



I am not. And I'm fully aware of the relative hypocrisy of my position. Still, I can say without hypocrisy that we can absolutely have a more progressive tax system. Most developed countries have a more progressive system. I think we can do similarly, and the benefits to society would outweigh the damage to our economy.

A more progressive system should be our guiding light. We can argue about income levels later.



I'm not so sure about that. I mean I hear that all the time but it's not convincing. Let's say progressives get their wish, most Trump and Bush era tax cuts are repealed, and we bump up marginal tax rates, and maybe some other policies except for wealth tax (I'm still intrigued by this idea but I know it'll never fly). How is the middle class going to be squeezed? I just googled the median middle class income; it's 62K. Without researching it, I assume some of those tax cuts affected the upper middle class: which by Google was 370K. Still, the majority of the middle class is not going to be 'squeezed' by a more progressive tax rate that targets the upper class.

I'm exposing my ignorance here. Have at it and prove me wrong. Just remember, I'm more of a gestalt rather than a numbers kind of guy

Is your goal behind taxation to balance the budget? If so, you aren’t even close to balancing it and will never get there without increasing taxes on the average American. The money and/or wealth just doesn’t exist to pay for the desired welfare state and not tax the average American family. if we keep printing money to pay for things, inflation will strain middle America.

A comparison to Europe would show the average citizens are taxed much more in Europe. I’d wager that an American household making $62k/year pays little to no income taxes if they have 2-3 kids. I didn’t pay income tax until I made six figures because I had more than the average amount of kids and stuck money I to my 401k and owned a home and paid tithing.

so if paying for social programs is the goal, taxing the middle class is desperately needed in the long run.

[clackamascoug]

Not to stir the pot - anybody else heard the rumbling of a coming "global tax."

I'm predicting within 30 years - a singular crypto coin/token - will be the global transactional currency - distributed by Visa/MC/AMEX/Sears Card - this coin will be next gen crypto yet to be invented - this coin will have a local/state tax - a US/nations tax - and a 5% world tax - equaling 45% of your incoming receipts.

Who ends up with the 5% - and what they do with it will be up for grabs. I'm thinking it will be green energy based.

[Applejack]

Not to stir the pot - anybody else heard the rumbling of a coming "global tax."

I'm predicting within 30 years - a singular crypto coin/token - will be the global transactional currency - distributed by Visa/MC/AMEX/Sears Card - this coin will be next gen crypto yet to be invented - this coin will have a local/state tax - a US/nations tax - and a 5% world tax - equaling 45% of your incoming receipts.

Who ends up with the 5% - and what they do with it will be up for grabs. I'm thinking it will be green energy based.

Where has this Clack been? Welcome home.

[Northwestcoug]

Is your goal behind taxation to balance the budget? If so, you aren’t even close to balancing it and will never get there without increasing taxes on the average American. The money and/or wealth just doesn’t exist to pay for the desired welfare state and not tax the average American family. if we keep printing money to pay for things, inflation will strain middle America.

A comparison to Europe would show the average citizens are taxed much more in Europe. I’d wager that an American household making $62k/year pays little to no income taxes if they have 2-3 kids. I didn’t pay income tax until I made six figures because I had more than the average amount of kids and stuck money I to my 401k and owned a home and paid tithing.

so if paying for social programs is the goal, taxing the middle class is desperately needed in the long run.

I have no allusions that one program will do anything like balance the budget. We'll never see another balanced budget anyways. Crunch time may come and the middle class might have to pay more in taxes, but it would have to be pretty bad to see that happening in the US. I'm just looking for changes to help around the edges, but also to fix what I think are moral failures. We can and should do more to help a lot of people. Higher taxation for the upper class is an easy and right way to start, so long as that money goes to where it's needed most (dubious proposition I know).

[clackamascoug]

Where has this Clack been? Welcome home.

I've always been home - you just never looked under the sofa cushions and noticed me.

[old_gregg]

I have no allusions that one program will do anything like balance the budget. We'll never see another balanced budget anyways. Crunch time may come and the middle class might have to pay more in taxes, but it would have to be pretty bad to see that happening in the US. I'm just looking for changes to help around the edges, but also to fix what I think are moral failures. We can and should do more to help a lot of people. Higher taxation for the upper class is an easy and right way to start, so long as that money goes to where it's needed most (dubious proposition I know).

how about any similes or metaphors?

[Northwestcoug]

how about any similes or metaphors?

Ha ha. Thanks DH.

[BigFatMeanie]

I have no allusions that one program will do anything like balance the budget. We'll never see another balanced budget anyways. Crunch time may come and the middle class might have to pay more in taxes, but it would have to be pretty bad to see that happening in the US. I'm just looking for changes to help around the edges, but also to fix what I think are moral failures. We can and should do more to help a lot of people. Higher taxation for the upper class is an easy and right way to start, so long as that money goes to where it's needed most (dubious proposition I know).

Let's be honest here, you really mean "someone else can and should do more..."

When you cloak the forced taking from one and distribution to another in the language of "morality", it is clear to me that you and I have very different views on what is "moral".

[old_gregg]

When you cloak the forced taking from one and distribution to another in the language of "morality", it is clear to me that you and I have very different views on what is "moral".

that is a stupid thing to say

[Northwestcoug]

Let's be honest here, you really mean "someone else can and should do more..."

When you cloak the forced taking from one and distribution to another in the language of "morality", it is clear to me that you and I have very different views on what is "moral".

I knew you had a conservative bent but didn't peg you as a 'all taxation is theft' kind of guy.

But let's be honest. I assume you're OK with some level of taxation and some level of forced taking and distribution. And by extension, you're fine with the government telling someone else can and should and pay more. I'm fine with doing that also.

We are on the same spectrum, just a difference of degrees.

[BigFatMeanie]

I knew you had a conservative bent but didn't peg you as a 'all taxation is theft' kind of guy.

But let's be honest. I assume you're OK with some level of taxation and some level of forced taking and distribution. And by extension, you're fine with the government telling someone else can and should and pay more. I'm fine with doing that also.

We are on the same spectrum, just a difference of degrees.

<sigh> I'll give you my best attempt at a thought-out response:

You are correct that I have a conservative bent. You would be incorrect if you put me as an 'all taxation is theft' kind of guy. You are correct that I am OK with some level of taxation (forced taking) but my acceptance of that level, and of the form of distribution, varies greatly depending on the level of government that we're talking about. I would much prefer taxation and decisions about the purpose of tax money be made at the smallest levels of government when possible.

But none of that is really my beef with what you posted in this little "sub-thread". My beef is how you couch your position as a moral one, and is what I originally engaged you on:

The presence of billionaires is a moral failing of society.

However, until wealth is more evenly distributed (hasten the day), the church shouldn't punish Stevenson for the success of his business.

You then repeated your assertions about morality at least twice more after your original statement. When you couch your public policy position in terms of morality, the implication is that anyone who disagrees with you is either amoral or somehow less moral than you. Your assertions about morality are a form of argumentum ad populum (because nobody wants to be painted as less moral) and a form of argumentum ad vericundiam (in this case the authority you are pointing to is "moral authority").

It's also a very divisive stance.The tactic of "cloaking with morality" used by churches and other groups taking positions on various social issues is what ticks off many progressives and makes their heads explode. Frankly, from my perspective, those who try to make a moral argument about their preferred tax policies are simply the other side of the same coin as the phony bible-thumper Trumper.

So if you want to discuss aspects of public policy and taxation and what makes the most economic sense and what the most appropriate levels and purposes of taxation are, then great. But when you immediately make the claim that your position is the moral position then you essentially shut down most prospects for any discussion.

Best,

BFM

[falafel]

[Northwestcoug]

<sigh> I'll give you my best attempt at a thought-out response:

You are correct that I have a conservative bent. You would be incorrect if you put me as an 'all taxation is theft' kind of guy. You are correct that I am OK with some level of taxation (forced taking) but my acceptance of that level, and of the form of distribution, varies greatly depending on the level of government that we're talking about. I would much prefer taxation and decisions about the purpose of tax money be made at the smallest levels of government when possible.

But none of that is really my beef with what you posted in this little "sub-thread". My beef is how you couch your position as a moral one, and is what I originally engaged you on:



You then repeated your assertions about morality at least twice more after your original statement. When you couch your public policy position in terms of morality, the implication is that anyone who disagrees with you is either amoral or somehow less moral than you. Your assertions about morality are a form of argumentum ad populum (because nobody wants to be painted as less moral) and a form of argumentum ad vericundiam (in this case the authority you are pointing to is "moral authority").

It's also a very divisive stance.The tactic of "cloaking with morality" used by churches and other groups taking positions on various social issues is what ticks off many progressives and makes their heads explode. Frankly, from my perspective, those who try to make a moral argument about their preferred tax policies are simply the other side of the same coin as the phony bible-thumper Trumper.

So if you want to discuss aspects of public policy and taxation and what makes the most economic sense and what the most appropriate levels and purposes of taxation are, then great. But when you immediately make the claim that your position is the moral position then you essentially shut down most prospects for any discussion.

Best,

BFM

I appreciate your thoughtful response. But I'll not apologize about what is a moral issue for me, which is the extreme inequality of wealth in our society. To be clear, I am not claiming a preferred tax policy is 'righteous', but I feel that a more progressive tax policy would help alleviate what I think is a clear moral failing in today's society. I realize that wealth inequality in and of itself isn't a moral failure for some. In our age of moral relativism, you nor no one else should not take offense if your view is different than mine. If we end up debating tax policy, I'll try to keep my taxing opinions and larger sense of societal morality separate. One is a means to an end.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I appreciate your thoughtful response. But I'll not apologize about what is a moral issue for me, which is the extreme inequality of wealth in our society. To be clear, I am not claiming a preferred tax policy is 'righteous', but I feel that a more progressive tax policy would help alleviate what I think is a clear moral failing in today's society. I realize that wealth inequality in and of itself isn't a moral failure for some. In our age of moral relativism, you nor no one else should not take offense if your view is different than mine. If we end up debating tax policy, I'll try to keep my taxing opinions and larger sense of societal morality separate. One is a means to an end.

This is an interesting philosophical debate. I think everyone would agree that we need to have equal opportunity for all and that everyone benefits from a robust economy. So if some people take those circumstances and succeed to a very high degree, is that a moral failing of society? Or should we say that everyone has a right to succeed, as long as you don't succeed too much? Pithy statements like "The presence of billionaires is a moral failing of society" might resonate with many people, but putting that in practice is problematic. Is our economy really a zero sum game?