Taxes/Mandatory Fees - How much is enough?

Liberials seem to be always calling for tax increases to help fund some "progressive" project or another.

In my own experience, in one year, I generally pay about $25K in Federal Income tax, $3k in state income tax, $2k in property taxes, and another $1k in automobile registration fees (was paying a lot more, but I got rid of the Viper, just because I was tired of paying a grand a year to get it registered). I also pay yearly registration fees for a ATV, a trailer, and a boat and its trailer. Maybe another $1K.

With the money I have left, I pay between 7.5% and 9% sales tax on whatever I buy.

I pay state and federal taxes on every gallon of gas I buy. I pay fees and taxes on water, electricity, natural gas, and telephones. (When I bought my VIPER I had to pay $2K gas guzzler fee.)

If I buy a new car, I get hit with a "bus tax" so the poor people can ride the bus.

Per government laws, I am required to have auto insurance which costs me another $2K a year. To get a passport, drivers license, or vehicle emissions, etc, I have to pay fees.

With Obamacare, I will now have to pay for health insurance or pay another grand or so in fees.

So basically, I get raped by the government on the money I earn, the money I spend, and if I buy anything worth keeping (house, car, boat, etc), I wind up paying taxes and fees on these things for life.

With all the taxes I pay, and all the other middle-class and rich people, the US government still spends 3 or 4 dollars for every 2 dollars they bring in.

So when is enough, enough?

RickThai

look at what you are getting for your money though, the finest, most honest, efficient, intelligent elected officials, world class infrastructure, impeccable foreign policy, free press.....the list is endless, why are you complaining? i think you should be making voluntary contributions to the public purse considering such outstanding value for money!

Having once been told by a Tax Inspector that I was at liberty to make a voluntary payment to HM Government I would say you are one of the lucky guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickThai

Having worked in Boulder, CO for about 15 years

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickThai

I also pay yearly registration fees for a ATV, a trailer, and a boat and its trailer.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickThai

With Obamacare, I will now have to pay for health insurance or pay another grand or so in fees.

---

Do you see a problem here?

You live and work in the US. Grow the fuck up, become a responsible adult and purchase some health insurance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickThai

Having worked in Boulder, CO for about 15 years

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickThai

I also pay yearly registration fees for a ATV, a trailer, and a boat and its trailer.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickThai

With Obamacare, I will now have to pay for health insurance or pay another grand or so in fees.

---

Do you see a problem here?

You live and work in the US. Grow the fuck up, become a responsible adult and purchase some health insurance.

---

You seem to miss the point. For the record, I and my family have had health insurance ever since I turned 18 and went out into the world on my own. In a couple of months, I will start getting a pension that includes free healthcare for my wife and me for life (it is something I earned, not a freebee).

My problem is (which you obviously failed to see), is that as a "free" individual, the government has no business telling me what to spend my money on (especially after-tax dollares), including health insurance.

People who don't work, will not get "fined" thousands of dollars for not having health insurance (including illegals); they will get it "free" courtesy of the US government (i.e. paid for by yours truly).

Just one more instant of the US punishing the people who work and are responsible for themselves and their children, and rewarding the criminals (illegals) and the lazy.

If you can't see that, then you must be totally blinded by your filters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhOh

Having once been told by a Tax Inspector that I was at liberty to make a voluntary payment to HM Government I would say you are one of the lucky guys.

---

Oh we certainly have that "liberty" here. If you make a mistake on your tax returns that favor you, the government (if the lazy workers or the computers catch it) will certainly bring it to your attention and get the money. If you make a mistake that favors the government (pay more in taxes than you owe), the government will take the money -Thank You Very Much - and will never let on that they know you screwed up in their favor.

What I find funny is that demicrats are always calling for more taxes, but they usually pay only what they can get away with.

Let them donate 90% of their income if they feel that strongly about all their useless programs.

Regards,

RickThai

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by draco888

look at what you are getting for your money though, the finest, most honest, efficient, intelligent elected officials, world class infrastructure, impeccable foreign policy, free press.....the list is endless, why are you complaining? i think you should be making voluntary contributions to the public purse considering such outstanding value for money!

---

Ahh, yes. That's the only comfort I get, knowing my hard-earned money is being spent wisely.

Regards,

RickThai

Only two things are certainties, death and taxes. I don't think the USA is a high tax country. Longevity is high.

The issue shouldn't be the taxing, as such..
But, instead, how it is distributed/spent.

A romantic image of "taxes" being recycled into the general civil infrastructures towards the commons and the general well-being for the society.

This certainly doesn't included heavy subsidies on military, underwriting corporations, baling out failing financial institutions.

The historical premise of taxing a population has gotten out of hand...
Taxing for the betterment of of society is one thing, immoral and unethical justification to steal is another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

The issue shouldn't be the taxing, as such..
But, instead, how it is distributed/spent.

A romantic image of "taxes" being recycled into the general civil infrastructures towards the commons and the general well-being for the society.

This certainly doesn't included heavy subsidies on military, underwriting corporations, baling out failing financial institutions.

The historical premise of taxing a population has gotten out of hand...
Taxing for the betterment of of society is one thing, immoral and unethical justification to steal is another.

---

The issue is very much about taxing and the distortions it introduces into the economic system.

Regarding Financial institutions I think you really need to ask "Why the need to bail them out, rather than blame the act of doing it. That is, if you prefer not to have economic depression and its related high unemployment and hardship generally.

What I don't get is how the big earners in the USA- the already rich 1%, and corporations, are able to get away with paying less of their income in tax than the middle class- which is the bedrock of any advanced economy. That really sucks.

As far as 'how much is enough' goes, well it depends on what you want from your government. Want decent domestic security? Well, the cops, fire dept etc costs money. Want a strong Defence establishment? The Pentagon costs big bucks. Want the kids to be edumacated? That costs money. Decent roads to get the kids to school, and goods to market- more money.

A libertariam philosophy might dismantle many of these arms of central government, and have the services organised and provided on a decentralised rather than federalised basis- but you'd still have to pay for them, just to a different set of people.

I recall Rick opining that it is the 'Demicrats' that get most of the bounty from the federal government, and that just isn't true- the red states collectively receive more in entitlements from the Fed gov't than they pay in taxes, at the expense of the (mostly) more affluent blue states. At Local & State level though, wouldn't know.

Hers is a comparitive chart of government spending as a % of GDP for the 20 largest world economies, in 2010-

https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2012/11/4088.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:20...comparison.jpg


The US sits at the lower end, certainly among the advanced economies. Right now, I think your blossoming government debt is a considerably more pressing issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickThai

So basically, I get raped by the government on the money I earn, the money I spend, and if I buy anything worth keeping (house, car, boat, etc), I wind up paying taxes and fees on these things for life.

---

That's right - and let's not forget that you get absolutely NOTHING in return.

Nothing? What about all those tanks, missiles, submarines and planes? Someone has to pay Lockheed Martin for all the toys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anatidaephobia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickThai

So basically, I get raped by the government on the money I earn, the money I spend, and if I buy anything worth keeping (house, car, boat, etc), I wind up paying taxes and fees on these things for life.

---

That's right - and let's not forget that you get absolutely NOTHING in return.

---

In return? > FREEDOM:tosser1:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benbaaa

Nothing? What about all those tanks, missiles, submarines and planes? Someone has to pay Lockheed Martin for all the toys.

---

That's exactly my point - and not to mention interstates, air traffic control, usable waterways, protection of the borders, and a bunch of other benefits that short-sighted propagandists like to ignore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anatidaephobia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickThai

So basically, I get raped by the government on the money I earn, the money I spend, and if I buy anything worth keeping (house, car, boat, etc), I wind up paying taxes and fees on these things for life.

---

That's right - and let's not forget that you get absolutely NOTHING in return.

---

In return? > FREEDOM:tosser1:

---

Yeah, that too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anatidaephobia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickThai

So basically, I get raped by the government on the money I earn, the money I spend, and if I buy anything worth keeping (house, car, boat, etc), I wind up paying taxes and fees on these things for life.

---

That's right - and let's not forget that you get absolutely NOTHING in return.

---

In return? > FREEDOM:tosser1:

---

Thanks mate, that puts in all in perspective.

Cheers to All,

RickThai

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabang

The US sits at the lower end, certainly among the advanced economies.

---

Hey, whatta ya want? We're higher Expenditures per GDP than Russia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabang

What I don't get is how the big earners in the USA- the already rich 1%, and corporations, are able to get away with paying less of their income in tax than the middle class- which is the bedrock of any advanced economy. That really sucks.

As far as 'how much is enough' goes, well it depends on what you want from your government. Want decent domestic security? Well, the cops, fire dept etc costs money. Want a strong Defence establishment? The Pentagon costs big bucks. Want the kids to be edumacated? That costs money. Decent roads to get the kids to school, and goods to market- more money.

A libertariam philosophy might dismantle many of these arms of central government, and have the services organised and provided on a decentralised rather than federalised basis- but you'd still have to pay for them, just to a different set of people.

I recall Rick opining that it is the 'Demicrats' that get most of the bounty from the federal government, and that just isn't true- the red states collectively receive more in entitlements from the Fed gov't than they pay in taxes, at the expense of the (mostly) more affluent blue states. At Local & State level though, wouldn't know.

Hers is a comparitive chart of government spending as a % of GDP for the 20 largest world economies, in 2010-

https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2012/11/4088.jpg
File:2010 National Spending per GDP comparison.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The US sits at the lower end, certainly among the advanced economies. Right now, I think your blossoming government debt is a considerably more pressing issue.

---

That's a very interesting scatter plot. So if we look at Sweden and Germany, whose governments spend 2/3rd of the GDP, what are their citizens getting for their hard work?

Are they generally happy with the way the money is spent? I think Germany is particularly interesting as they are now "throwing money" at Greece (an economically "failed" country) in order to prop it up.

Maybe a better question is why is Germany's ecomony strong and Greece's so weak?

Should the US be like Germany or Greece? You figure it out.

Regards,

RickThai

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickThai

Should the US be like Germany or Greece?

---

No way- although you (and we) could learn a fair bit from Germany. I think government revenues in Norway & Sweden are ridiculously high btw. Sure, they get a great and well funded social welfare net etc, but at too high a cost if you ask me.

The role and scope of government is a worthy ongoing debate. Both Chomsky and the Republican party agree that the attitude of citizens towards government authority should be 'justify yourself'. But at the end of the day, who is actually talking about expanding government services? Not the Democrats- and Obama has the best record of controlling growth in government expenditure since Eisenhower, although I attribute that considerably more to necessity than Obama. The immediate problem is not ideologocal, it is that government revenues are too low to meet government expenditures, this has been the case for many years and has deteriorated since the GFC. US government debt is already too high, and it threatens the financial solidarity and blue chip reputation of the nation. Positions like ending the temporary tax cuts for the rich, given that US government debt has spiralled since this temporary legislation was enacted, are hardly extreme- au contraire, the opposite position of 'starve the beast' with respect to government revenue are extreme, given that your countries still premier financial rating depends on the government being able to balance it's income and expenditure. A fair amount of taxpayers revenue now does not go to government spending at all- it goes to debt servicing. And you are borrowing more daily.

On a quasi moral note, this is debt that 'we' incurred, and we should not kick the can down the road for the kids to deal with- be that thru' crippling debt repayments or worse still financial collapse, or from slashing the same government services we benefited from, such as education.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickThai

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by draco888

look at what you are getting for your money though, the finest, most honest, efficient, intelligent elected officials, world class infrastructure, impeccable foreign policy, free press.....the list is endless, why are you complaining? i think you should be making voluntary contributions to the public purse considering such outstanding value for money!

---

Ahh, yes. That's the only comfort I get, knowing my hard-earned money is being spent wisely.

Regards,

RickThai

---

The price of invading countries to infest them with your right wing BS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabang

On a quasi moral note, this is debt that 'we' incurred, and we should not kick the can down the road for the kids to deal with- be that thru' crippling debt repayments or worse still financial collapse, or from slashing the same government services we benefited from, such as education.

---

What % of you wealth would you be prepared to hand back because of the privileges handed to you during your wealth creation phase?

Unless the US introduces a wealth tax, based on assets- and there is no proposal I am aware of for this, you don't actually hand back any wealth as taxation. It is levied on earnings and capital gains only, and capital losses when incurred are deducted from profits made elsewhere. Being from Australia, I paid a good deal more tax on my earnings than a US citizen actually- at least until I moved to HK. Basically, tax from all sectors has got to meet government expenditure, plus in the US and several other countries pay down existing debt. Economic recovery and, longer term, the AHC should help address the deficit but at the end of the day the US citizenry, who at the high earning end benefit from an internationally very low rate of tax, need to do their bit too. A 5% hike in the tax rate for individuals earning over 250K is hardly crippling, and neither is a modest tax hike in corporate taxation. Given the massive wealth inequality in the USD, the temporary exemption from Inheritance tax on ultra wealthy estates should (and will) be dropped too. It is just sensible economic housekeeping.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabang

On a quasi moral note, this is debt that 'we' incurred, and we should not kick the can down the road for the kids to deal with- be that thru' crippling debt repayments or worse still financial collapse, or from slashing the same government services we benefited from, such as education.

---

I would like to think so, but with this festering issue, global warming, infrastructure, I think the nation's "kids"--roughly speaking, those recently born and those born in the next few years--will hate us.
Our own kids may try to understand, if they love us. But, Jesus, talk about a generation that dropped the ball on the basics.

Where were you during the fall, Dad?

Vote with you're feet Rick. Simple, I did. Solved everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ltnt

Vote with you're feet Rick. Simple, I did. Solved everything.

---

Actually I am trying to convince the wife of that very thing.

Rick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trotsky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickThai

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by draco888

look at what you are getting for your money though, the finest, most honest, efficient, intelligent elected officials, world class infrastructure, impeccable foreign policy, free press.....the list is endless, why are you complaining? i think you should be making voluntary contributions to the public purse considering such outstanding value for money!

---

Ahh, yes. That's the only comfort I get, knowing my hard-earned money is being spent wisely.

Regards,

RickThai

---

The price of invading countries to infest them with your right wing BS

---

I try not to attack posters at a personal level, but I have to ask, "Is this the best comment you can contribute to this topic????"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabang

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickThai

Should the US be like Germany or Greece?

---

No way- although you (and we) could learn a fair bit from Germany. I think government revenues in Norway & Sweden are ridiculously high btw. Sure, they get a great and well funded social welfare net etc, but at too high a cost if you ask me.

The role and scope of government is a worthy ongoing debate. Both Chomsky and the Republican party agree that the attitude of citizens towards government authority should be 'justify yourself'. But at the end of the day, who is actually talking about expanding government services? Not the Democrats- and Obama has the best record of controlling growth in government expenditure since Eisenhower, although I attribute that considerably more to necessity than Obama. The immediate problem is not ideologocal, it is that government revenues are too low to meet government expenditures, this has been the case for many years and has deteriorated since the GFC. US government debt is already too high, and it threatens the financial solidarity and blue chip reputation of the nation. Positions like ending the temporary tax cuts for the rich, given that US government debt has spiralled since this temporary legislation was enacted, are hardly extreme- au contraire, the opposite position of 'starve the beast' with respect to government revenue are extreme, given that your countries still premier financial rating depends on the government being able to balance it's income and expenditure. A fair amount of taxpayers revenue now does not go to government spending at all- it goes to debt servicing. And you are borrowing more daily.

On a quasi moral note, this is debt that 'we' incurred, and we should not kick the can down the road for the kids to deal with- be that thru' crippling debt repayments or worse still financial collapse, or from slashing the same government services we benefited from, such as education.

---

Although I see the value in many of your comments, every analysis I have seen indicates that increasing the income taxes for the rich will have almost no effect on the national debt.

I also understand the very rich already pay around 80% or so of all the income tax revenues.

So it would seem that the US just has to stop spending so much period. For example, the President of the US can serve one term and get $450,000.00 pension for life.

Is that reasonable? I don't think so. Presidents (and I think Obama is probably the worst to date), take trips all over the world at an astronomical cost to the taxpayers.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Obamas haven't spent over a billion dollars (maybe two or three times that) in his first term.

Anyone think the US has gotten its moneys worth on these trips?

I would like to see a taxpayers group have veto authority on all of the governments expenditures.

RickThai

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabang

Unless the US introduces a wealth tax, based on assets- and there is no proposal I am aware of for this, you don't actually hand back any wealth as taxation. It is levied on earnings and capital gains only, and capital losses when incurred are deducted from profits made elsewhere. Being from Australia, I paid a good deal more tax on my earnings than a US citizen actually- at least until I moved to HK. Basically, tax from all sectors has got to meet government expenditure, plus in the US and several other countries pay down existing debt. Economic recovery and, longer term, the AHC should help address the deficit but at the end of the day the US citizenry, who at the high earning end benefit from an internationally very low rate of tax, need to do their bit too. A 5% hike in the tax rate for individuals earning over 250K is hardly crippling, and neither is a modest tax hike in corporate taxation. Given the massive wealth inequality in the USD, the temporary exemption from Inheritance tax on ultra wealthy estates should (and will) be dropped too. It is just sensible economic housekeeping.

---

high marginal rate increases on high earners usually decreasing the tax take.