wifeisafurd said:
concordtom said:
SFBear92 said:
bearister said:
SFBear92 said:
bearister said:
I wish I had the choice of not being on the hook for the healthcare cost of anyone that chooses to smoke, eat themselves into obesity and abuse drugs. Other than that, knock yourself out with your lifestyle choices.
So you're saying you don't drink alcohol or use marijuana?
Moderate drinker, the consequences of which will cost society nothing. Stopped smoking weed at Cal in 1973. It was not helping me get where I wanted to go.
Everybody thinks they're a moderate drinker. Except me, because I don't drink alcohol.
So why should I be on the hook for any health consequences you have later from the "moderate" drinking you've done. It's not like it's a healthy product. There's literally no health benefit to it at all and there are some health consequences form using it.
In other words, don't cast stones unless you're a vegan, non-alcohol drinking, non-drugging vision of perfection. i.e. the kind of people no one likes.
You are changing the subject.
But if you wanted to go full monty, exercise would be mandated.
If is impossible to only pay taxes on the things you support. Per Gallup, 57 percent of Americans polled told Gallup they pay "too much" in federal income taxes; note, though, that 45 percent of Americans pay no federal income taxes at all. Think about that, people who don't pay income taxes are complaining. An astonishing number don't even realize there are tax breaks for many things they may not support, or do support vehemently. In fact most people pay don't even realize they probably pay more in non-income taxes or equivalents, such as payroll, sales, property, governmental fees, etc. Like it or not, we all pay taxes and fees for things we don't like whether it be pork projects or what we think is bad public policy. Being part of a democracy means you get to exercise your right to vote and make changes, including how and where your tax money is being spent, but that is the best most of us get in our form of government.
Yeah, no argument here. I agree with what you said.
The sad thing, to me, is that
people really
do not understand the government system in which we live - as your point out.
The whole MAGA thing, to me, is a harken back to an envisioned idyllic time in this country. I think the movie Pleasantville is a good compare here. The movie had the same nostalgic sense for the past: a simpler time when everything was happy and pure. Of course, the movie ultimately shows how that was not the case at all. And I would have liked to expose that the MAGA crowd's yearning for the same Pleasantville era was doomed because it was merely an imagined era of goodness which didn't actually exist. I'll explain:
- Top marginable tax rate now is 38%. In 1953, it was 92%.
- Blacks were DEFINITELY not living the dream in the 50's, especially in the segregated south. That's 20%+ of the pop in the south (10% overall). Hello Rosa Parks.
- And this chart is interesting. It does show that Real Median Incomes were on a 30 year growth rate from early 40's to early 70's, so maybe there is something to be MAGA nostalgic about there. But it also shows a theme which Cal professor Gabriel Zucman speaks of, which is how the tax burden has shifted - as you mentioned, Wife. Here's his chart below:
I suppose people will NEVER say they are paying too little tx, no matter whether Rich or Poor. (Hell, Donald Trump think he pays too much and he doesn't pay any at all - because he cheats, which will all be shown clearly soon.) But the point is, people don't even understand that chart above, or this one below, and so the Gallup poll about what people believe means little when you are trying to figure out what the best tax policy should be.
It's like, asking a bunch of non-farmers what the best way to farm is.
The problem is, those non-farmers are ultimately the ones who decide.
SO, if you are an economist, or an elected congressman, it seems the best thing to do is not to let the uninformed voters tell you what tax policy should be! Instead, you should figure it out yourselves, and then use propaganda and/or
education to INFORM the electorate why your plan is the best. Neither party does this well, but the GOP has gone full capitol storming Q nonsense in their efforts, while the Dems actually have some rationality behind their visions. (Zucman, as was told to me here on BI, is apparently the basis for the Warren wealth tax - see, SHE is thinking, and I like that!)
Basically, in answer to this topic we were discussing, about whether we should tax bad behavior and subsidize good behavior, I reject your entire introduction of Gallup polls. Those people are entirely uninformed, and so that would be the tail waging the dog. What I was introducing was IDEAL tax policy. That would be:
Tax Meat and Dairy.
Tax Oil and other global warming industries.
Subsidize vegetables.
Subsidize exercise and healthy living.
And yes, Mike Bloomberg, tax soda.
(the list of things could be endless and plenty debatable.)
If only we could educate people to make healthy and informed decisions.
Now excuse me while I go eat my bacon and egg breakfast, then drive my gas guzzler SUV to work as I leave my 5000 SF house!
