Taxes?

[bigus_D]

How is it morally right for the government to tax us to pay for healthcare?

I didn't say that it was.

What I said was that smokers cost tax payers money.

A. They should have to pay for that (via the "sinful" sin tax). <<-- the point I was making
B. The government shouldn't provide any assistance to smokers (i.e. if you smoke then you lose the ability to utilize any government funded health facility). <<-- an alterternative that will never happen

 

[Fletch]

I didn't say that it was.

What I said was that smokers cost tax payers money.

A. They should have to pay for that (via the sinful sin tax).
B. The government shouldn't provide any assistance to smokers (i.e. if you smoke then you lose the ability to utilize any government funded health facility).

But your assertion relies on the moral grounding of the initial act of taxation, otherwise it immediately runs counter to the "two wrongs don't make a right" rule. I can think of a lot of folks who "cost taxpayers money". People with children. Children themselves. Old folks. Retarded and disabled folks. Veterans. Soldiers who are not veterans. Police officers. Hospital workers. And so on.

Perhaps we should levy extra taxes on those people -- indeed, on everyone who costs taxpayers "extra", and make them pay to recoup the losses the taxpayers have suffered on their behalf.

Or we could recognize that taxation is, at its core, theft, and morally unsupportable. We don't tell the punk rolling drunks for beer money that the law-abiding gun owner who just shot him is "costing him money" and propose to steal from said gun owner on behalf of the punk. Similarly, we should not propose extra theft from X just because Y's stolen money isn't going as far as the thief would like.

 

[bigus_D]

But your assertion relies on the moral grounding of the initial act of taxation, otherwise it immediately runs counter to the "two wrongs don't make a right" rule.

Well... I agree with that. The fact that taxation is (and will be) a part of life in America was originally asserted by the OP, however. In addition, I believe it is a fair assertion to make... that doesn't make it fair/right/just/etc, but it is a fact of life.

So far as police/firefighters/etc costing taxpayers money, that is different than the smoker. These groups provide a service to the community. They are paid for providing that service. What service do smokers provide for the 'payment' they are receiving? I don't consider dirtying the air I breath a service worth paying for.

 

[Yeah]

It is a private hilarity that conversations such as these are facilitated by the Internet.

 

[level.eleven]

It is a private hilarity that conversations such as these are facilitated by the Internet.

Some bureaucrats are a step ahead of you. How about a blog/forum tax? These guys and gals calling themselves government like the idea.

Philadelphia Imposing “Blogger Tax” ?

 

[Fletch]

Well... I agree with that. The fact that taxation is (and will be) a part of life in America was originally asserted by the OP, however. In addition, I believe it is a fair assertion to make... that doesn't make it fair/right/just/etc, but it is a fact of life.

I don't see it as anything positive to compound the existing moral error by extending and perpetuating it through punitively punishing those we don't like. All we do is create the war of all against all that Hobbes claimed government was instituted to prevent.

So far as police/firefighters/etc costing taxpayers money, that is different than the smoker. These groups provide a service to the community. They are paid for providing that service.

The question is, do they have to be paid through the mechanism of taxation, or in some cases paid at all? I live in a state in which wildfires are a very real fact of life, yet a significant portion of our state is covered by volunteer fire departments. Even in situations where full-time fire departments are arguably needed, who is to say they must be paid for through taxation? There are easily imaginable free-market mechanisms by which this could be accomplished, and the same can be said for other public services.

 

[dross]

Whenever taxes are brought up, the first things someone wants to talk about are roads and bridges and infrastructure. Okay, let's say I conced that we can have taxes for that. (Down Fletch!) We can pay those taxes quite easily. That's not where all the money goes. First of all, we spend much more each year than we bring in with taxes. That's called the deficit. Polls show that most Americans think the deficit is the debt. It's not. The deficit is the amount we spend every year that is more than the taxes we collected. The deficit is the amount we add to the debt every year.

Putting that aside, the vast majority of our taxes doesn't go to roads or firemen, or even schools. It goes to pay for entitlement programs - retirement (SS), medical care, retirement for government workers (whose retirement programs are much more generous than are those who pay for them), AND for paying interest on the debt.

I, like Fletch, would love to see user fees pay for all that stuff. I don't think it will happen.

Two problems for me with taxes - I don't like paying so other people don't have to work (and I'm not talking about welfare) and I don't like that the tax burden sits mostly on about ten percent of the country.

 

[bigus_D]

Putting that aside, the vast majority of our taxes doesn't go to roads or firemen, or even schools. It goes to pay for THE MILITARY and entitlement programs - retirement (SS), medical care, retirement for government workers (whose retirement programs are much more generous than are those who pay for them), AND for paying interest on the debt.

Fixed that for you.

I also am completely in favor of the elimination of these entitlement programs in favor of private pay for use programs.

 

[Fletch]

Whitcam Research Federal Budget Pie Chart

 

[Lex Concord]

Or we could recognize that taxation is, at its core, theft, and morally unsupportable.

QFT and rep worthy but, alas, I have already repped ye.

 

[dross]

Fixed that for you.

I also am completely in favor of the elimination of these entitlement programs in favor of private pay for use programs.

Whitcam Research Federal Budget Pie Chart

You don't need to fix anything. 70% for the things I mentioned, 18% for operations, and 22% military. I stand by my original statement.

 

[dross]

Also, defense spending as a percentage of budget over the last ten years is very near the lowest it's been since WWII.

 

[dukeboy_318]

You guys should both take some deep breaths and step away for a second. You're both saying basically the same thing.

We want bridges, but we don't want expensive bridges. We just need a simple one that works. How do we get that simple cheap bridge? Sales tax. IndyMonkey is right, cut out all the fancy crap and sales tax alone will cover everything we need.

We don't need to have our roads repaved every year, but it's nice...at a large cost to tax payers. I think what we're "bytching" about is that we're sick of being taxed so much money and we'll happily take the crappy road for four years before it's repaved, because that's all we need.

It would be nice to have a 60" plasma in every room of my house, but it's expensive and I don't need it, so I am not willing to rack up the massive debt it would take to do that. That's how people feeling about our massively-in-debt government (Federal) right now. Our state is doing fine, but we can always have lower taxes and less services.

very very well said. although i will grant that as much as im for driving on the crappy road, i do have to extend my thanks to my county for finally paving the road that runs in front of me (i live in BFE) for the first time since 1976. There were holes over a foot deep in spots. But yes, we do need to reign in spending, not only on an individual basis but on a local, state and federal level. Also, we dont need to cut income taxes only to raise taxes on commodies such as oil and tires. im sorry but by the end of next year, we will be paying a 90 percent federal sales tax on tires, at least according to several of the tires shops ive been to from indy south pricing new tires. All i can say is good luck USA

 

[308jake]

Well at least 31 is coming along nicely.....over budget, over time and overly ornate.

 

[dross]

Fixed that for you.

I also am completely in favor of the elimination of these entitlement programs in favor of private pay for use programs.

C'mon, you made your point, now answer mine.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I didn't say that it was.

What I said was that smokers cost tax payers money.

A. They should have to pay for that (via the "sinful" sin tax). <<-- the point I was making
B. The government shouldn't provide any assistance to smokers (i.e. if you smoke then you lose the ability to utilize any government funded health facility). <<-- an alterternative that will never happen

The simplest solution would be for the taxpayers to stop allowing the expenditures for those who choose to smoke. I.e. If you choose to smoke, that's your option, but when you get sick because of it, it's not our responsibility to pay for the result of your choices.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Suprtek]

The simplest solution would be for the taxpayers to stop allowing the expenditures for those who choose to smoke. I.e. If you choose to smoke, that's your option, but when you get sick because of it, it's not our responsibility to pay for the result of your choices.

Blessings,
Bill

This is exactly why we should move away from health insurance being provided by employers or government. Like car insurance, higher risk = higher premiums. Health insurance should work the same way.

The argument many have against this approach talks about how many will choose not to have health insurance. Therefore there will be many who are unable to pay for necessary care. They want to know how these people will be cared for. The answer is ,without charity, many will not be cared for. I still believe that any emergency room should be required by law to provide emergency care. However, if this were the only burden left to taxpayers, there would be no "crisis". Some believe this approach is not acceptable in a "civilized" society because it would lead to suffering for those unable to pay. I submit that it is just as "uncivilized" to steal from me in order to provide for someone else who likely is suffering from the results of their own poor decisions.

Personal accountability cannot be legislated. The only things that create personal accountability are morality or consequences. Also, human nature dictates that the lack of morality or consequences creates the lack of accountability.

This brings us back to one of the core differences between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives generally believe people should be allowed to suffer the consequences of their own actions. Liberals believe there are many circumstances that should require all of us to help pay for the lack of accountability in others.

I firmly believe that if health insurance were handled in this manner, even a high risk premium would be affordable compared to today's costs. Personal accountability would foster less abuse of resources. Competition would foster more efficiencies to be created. More cash in the hands of the public would allow for more charity.

My apologies for somewhat throwing this thread off track from the original topic. Just had to throw in my .

 

[dross]

The simplest solution would be for the taxpayers to stop allowing the expenditures for those who choose to smoke. I.e. If you choose to smoke, that's your option, but when you get sick because of it, it's not our responsibility to pay for the result of your choices.

Blessings,
Bill

I always love that reasoning - just because we've already violated your rights by taking your money at the point of a gun to give to people who smoke - now we'll use that for justification to take the money by force from people who smoke.

The logic:

Because we already stole someone else's rights that gives us the right to steal yours.

What a beautiful principle from the totalitarian's viewpoint! We steal, therefore we can steal some more!

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

Whenever taxes are brought up, the first things someone wants to talk about are roads and bridges and infrastructure. Okay, let's say I conced that we can have taxes for that. (Down Fletch!) We can pay those taxes quite easily.

...

I, like Fletch, would love to see user fees pay for all that stuff. I don't think it will happen.

We are homeschooling our early-teenage son this year so I am confronted each day with what he does or does not know about general life. Yesterday we started reading through and discussing the Constitution.

In discussing the purpose of the framers writing in the Constitution about how taxes have to be uniform, I mentioned reapportionment of tax funds using the gas tax as an example for him. He started asking about who paid for the bridge two blocks down the street from us that leads to ~10 houses that are just outside of town limits. I told him that it was built by the County, paid for by County and Town funds. My son said, "So, ~10 houses got a bridge built for their use instead of them having to drive three miles (a mile north, a mile east and then back a mile south)?

"Yep."

"But, that's not fair to the ~10,000 people in town that don't use that bridge."

"Yep."

I started explaining to him how, in some cases, for every dollar we send to D.C., we get less than a dollar back in most cases because we don't have need or have not built similar infrastructure to larger cities that "need" the money to maintain that infrastructure. He didn't like that one bit. It pains him to learn how far askew the system currently is.

 

[bigus_D]

You don't need to fix anything. 70% for the things I mentioned, 18% for operations, and 22% military. I stand by my original statement.

OK... you skipped the single largest bucket, but that's fine... I didn't need to fix it, but did anyway.

So we agree... great.

C'mon, you made your point, now answer mine.

OK. I made my point. Now you want me to answer your point... ?

What does that even mean?