[quote name='mykevermin']Point accepted. should we lower the tax threshold or raise it, then? Since I assume you want to raise it (so as to have more of your income), where do you want to raise it to? Do you have an ideal in mind, or as long as you're under the cut mark, you're okay with whatever?
We're all hedonists, so we all want as much as we can, sure. I see your point. But as members of a nation, our individual desires don't trump the good of the country - and it's dishonest to portend that the nation should suffer or grow debt because I want my tax revenue. That's the thing about cuts - we all want them, but we want to be hurt the least. Cuts for thee, but not for me. I get it.
That said, we need to recognize that spending some money here saves potential spending later. Spending on preventative medical care saves money because treatment can be assessed at an earlier stage of an illness/ailment. Spending on education can save money by making American workers attractive to employers, so they get hired and not left to hustle on the streets, inevitably getting caught up in our prison system.
There's no evidence, for instance, that extending unemployment assistance makes people lazy or give up searching for work until the very last opportunity. Extending it keeps people healthy, keeps them from hustling, keeps them spending money. Maybe I'd rather it was shorter, but the economic recovery is still lagging in terms of jobs recovered and grown.
As members of American society, we're expected to contribute to maintaining it. If that means some Americans might have to cut their au pair's hours, well, so be it. Personally, I'd like to see lawyers and doctors get paid what teachers do; when you earn $60K per year, you can have your tax cuts and I won't argue one bit. Deal?
[/QUOTE]
I agree pretty much with everything you said here (except paying doctors and lawyers the same as teachers - unless I can get in on the sweet pension and health plans). I don't have the answers but I would just like the tax system to be applied evenly across the board and in order to accomplish that I think you have to take cost of living into consideration.
So there's no magical threshold I'm thinking of. I'm actually not opposed to paying a little bit more if the "penalties" were applied evenly so the guy in OK making $100k has to pay a similar proportion in earnings as the guy making $250k in NYC - this would keep everyone on the same economic footing so in theory if my spending power is reduced equally with everyone else no one is really at a disadvantage. However, since the system is currently set up as every man for himself, my position is that I do not want to pay more taxes if I don't have to.
I'm also not opposed to the tiered system we have but there needs to be a ton more tiers. Everyone making $250k or more is not in the same economic boat. Obviously a perfect system would be impossible but the random thresholds being thrown around make zero sense.
Another thing that I'd like to see is a 1:1 return on my tax dollars on a state by state basis (or per capita or something like that). I think for every $1 paid by people in NJ we only get $0.75 back. I'm not saying my town needs anything in particular because it's really nice here but Newark is close and pretty much a shit hole and could use a lot of help.
We're all hedonists, so we all want as much as we can, sure. I see your point. But as members of a nation, our individual desires don't trump the good of the country - and it's dishonest to portend that the nation should suffer or grow debt because I want my tax revenue. That's the thing about cuts - we all want them, but we want to be hurt the least. Cuts for thee, but not for me. I get it.
That said, we need to recognize that spending some money here saves potential spending later. Spending on preventative medical care saves money because treatment can be assessed at an earlier stage of an illness/ailment. Spending on education can save money by making American workers attractive to employers, so they get hired and not left to hustle on the streets, inevitably getting caught up in our prison system.
There's no evidence, for instance, that extending unemployment assistance makes people lazy or give up searching for work until the very last opportunity. Extending it keeps people healthy, keeps them from hustling, keeps them spending money. Maybe I'd rather it was shorter, but the economic recovery is still lagging in terms of jobs recovered and grown.
As members of American society, we're expected to contribute to maintaining it. If that means some Americans might have to cut their au pair's hours, well, so be it. Personally, I'd like to see lawyers and doctors get paid what teachers do; when you earn $60K per year, you can have your tax cuts and I won't argue one bit. Deal?
[/QUOTE]I agree pretty much with everything you said here (except paying doctors and lawyers the same as teachers - unless I can get in on the sweet pension and health plans
). I don't have the answers but I would just like the tax system to be applied evenly across the board and in order to accomplish that I think you have to take cost of living into consideration. So there's no magical threshold I'm thinking of. I'm actually not opposed to paying a little bit more if the "penalties" were applied evenly so the guy in OK making $100k has to pay a similar proportion in earnings as the guy making $250k in NYC - this would keep everyone on the same economic footing so in theory if my spending power is reduced equally with everyone else no one is really at a disadvantage. However, since the system is currently set up as every man for himself, my position is that I do not want to pay more taxes if I don't have to.
I'm also not opposed to the tiered system we have but there needs to be a ton more tiers. Everyone making $250k or more is not in the same economic boat. Obviously a perfect system would be impossible but the random thresholds being thrown around make zero sense.
Another thing that I'd like to see is a 1:1 return on my tax dollars on a state by state basis (or per capita or something like that). I think for every $1 paid by people in NJ we only get $0.75 back. I'm not saying my town needs anything in particular because it's really nice here but Newark is close and pretty much a shit hole and could use a lot of help.
