Death and Taxes

[Smiley]

Since I began to work back in 1978 full time out of college I have always dreaded my trip to see my accountant. Today's annual pilgramage was no different and the bad news was I needed to PAY UP. So we tap the bank to pay Uncle Sam and live for another year.

The alternative is its better than death and I am the middle class that everybody keeps refering too.

[rounder]

I am an accountant, so do my own taxes. I have begun working on my taxes but am not far enough along yet what it will show. But am pretty sure that i will need to PAY UP. Maybe the taxes will help to jump start the economy

[4Rings6Stars]

Just finished my 2013 estimated tax calc to adjust withholding since I am getting married this summer and to consider the new changes to the code. No reason you should be surprised by your tax return results, just spend the time to understand the basics (no need to memorize tax code) and make any necessary adjustments. Err on the side of being a little conservative and the worst case scenario is Uncle Sam gets to borrow some money from you interest free for a few months and you get a windfall just before riding season to buy more bike schwag.

[handsomerob]

The wife and I had a good year (still very middle class)... But I look at how much we are contributing to Uncle Sam and it really makes me angry that 30% of "tax payers" get back MORE than they contribute. And almost half of Americans pay no income tax at all.

I am ok with "progressive" taxes, but whatever they call our current system... It certainly doesn't feel progressive.

[93legendti]

"maybe the taxes will help to jump start the economy". That's a good one. :rolleyes:

[Llewellyn]

....that 30% of "tax payers" get back MORE than they contribute. And almost half of Americans pay no income tax at all.

That's the problem right there. The way the system is designed is at fault, not the people who use it. Nothing wrong with making use of what breaks the system offers


I am ok with "progressive" taxes, but whatever they call our current system... It certainly doesn't feel progressive.

Yep, the more you progress, the more you pay :mad:

[tuscanyswe]

What percentage does a middle class american pay of his salory in taxes approx? I always thought it was a quite small percentage.

[godfrey1112000]

My goal every year is to pay more taxes than last year, I hope some day to pay $1 million in taxes, and then you know what happened that year, we had a lot of fun:)

remember, if you pay no taxes you usually have no income

[handsomerob]

What percentage does a middle class american pay of his salory in taxes approx? I always thought it was a quite small percentage.

I'm married, both of us work full time and contribute to 401k's, we have 3 kids, mortgage, etc... and we are netting about 18% federal income tax after deductions. Add about 4% for SS Taxes and 1.5% for Medicare taxes. We don't have a state income tax in TN, but our sales tax is 9.25%. My property taxes work out to be about 2% of our income, (which I believe is probably pretty low compared to places with a higher cost of living).

So, not including any taxes on investments that we will have to pay down the road... we are paying close to 35% of our income in taxes.

[handsomerob]

My goal every year is to pay more taxes than last year, I hope some day to pay $1 million in taxes, and then you know what happened that year, we had a lot of fun:)

remember, if you pay no taxes you usually have no income

Although I appreciate your whimsical view of things.... people with no income often get thousands of dollars in tax return money that they NEVER paid in.

When it comes down to it, about 1/3 of us are bearing the tax burden for the other 2/3... and that really doesn't seem just to me.

At some point the amount you pay in taxes compared to the amount you took home may be a bit farcical... but I am not even close to there yet.

[Ahneida Ride]

1913 = creation of nations private central bank

1913 = creation of fed tax (to pay fed interest on frns)

[Kirk007]

people with no income often get thousands of dollars in tax return money that they NEVER paid in.



Really? Can you explain that to me? Now its been almost 30 years since my individual and corporate tax classes but I don't recall scenarios when you could get a payment from the IRS without having paid any taxes. Refunds; yes sometime of 100% of your tax paid? Sure Carryover losses? Yes in some situations. But honestly, can someone tell me the scenario of how, if I earn nothing, I get something back from the IRS? I've got a 20 year old son that I want to turn on to this trick!

[handsomerob]

Really? Can you explain that to me? Now its been almost 30 years since my individual and corporate tax classes but I don't recall scenarios when you could get a payment from the IRS without having paid any taxes. Refunds; yes sometime of 100% of your tax paid? Sure Carryover losses? Yes in some situations. But honestly, can someone tell me the scenario of how, if I earn nothing, I get something back from the IRS? I've got a 20 year old son that I want to turn on to this trick!

Most often through the EITC (earned income tax credit)...

http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/EITC,-Earned-Income-Tax-Credit,-Questions-and-Answers

2012 Tax Year
Earned Income and adjusted gross income (AGI) must each be less than:
$45,060 ($50,270 married filing jointly) with three or more qualifying children
$41,952 ($47,162 married filing jointly) with two qualifying children
$36,920 ($42,130 married filing jointly) with one qualifying child
$13,980 ($19,190 married filing jointly) with no qualifying children
Tax Year 2012 maximum credit:
$5,891 with three or more qualifying children
$5,236 with two qualifying children
$3,169 with one qualifying child
$475 with no qualifying children

If you really want an eye-opener as to how it works (and how it turns from improper to illegal)... look into the no-name tax return outfits that show up in the vacant strip malls in the seedier sides of town around January....

[Vientomas]

Earned Income Credit.

[rounder]

Really? Can you explain that to me? Now its been almost 30 years since my individual and corporate tax classes but I don't recall scenarios when you could get a payment from the IRS without having paid any taxes. Refunds; yes sometime of 100% of your tax paid? Sure Carryover losses? Yes in some situations. But honestly, can someone tell me the scenario of how, if I earn nothing, I get something back from the IRS? I've got a 20 year old son that I want to turn on to this trick!


I know someone who last year had about $19 in federal tax witheld during the year and received a federal refund of about $3,000 due to an earned income tax credit that she qualified for.

[Kirk007]

earned income tax credit. Hmmm; just seems wrong that's for sure. Lotsa problems in that code; wish we could get some good faith Congressional work on overhauling the whole enchilada.

[jbrainin]

Whadda bunch of whiners. :rolleyes:

[SamIAm]

I'm married, both of us work full time and contribute to 401k's, we have 3 kids, mortgage, etc... and we are netting about 18% federal income tax after deductions. Add about 4% for SS Taxes and 1.5% for Medicare taxes. We don't have a state income tax in TN, but our sales tax is 9.25%. My property taxes work out to be about 2% of our income, (which I believe is probably pretty low compared to places with a higher cost of living).

So, not including any taxes on investments that we will have to pay down the road... we are paying close to 35% of our income in taxes.

I don't think this really adds up to 35% unless you are spending everything you make and its subject to sales tax. Nevertheless it is still easy in this country to spend more than 50% on your combined tax bill and I think that is a damn shame.

[handsomerob]

I don't think this really adds up to 35% unless you are spending everything you make and its subject to sales tax. Nevertheless it is still easy in this country to spend more than 50% on your combined tax bill and I think that is a damn shame.

Agreed... that is why I said close to without putting a lot of thought in it. Actually, I just logged into www.Mint.com to get a sense on what we actually spend that is subject to sales tax and it would certainly net that 9.25% number down quite a bit.

I am still 20+ years from retirement, so I am not really sure what the actual tax rates/burden on my non-Roth investments will be... and I didn't include that in my estimates.

Whatever the actual number ends up being, I do not think it is appropriate.

[oldpotatoe]

Since I began to work back in 1978 full time out of college I have always dreaded my trip to see my accountant. Today's annual pilgramage was no different and the bad news was I needed to PAY UP. So we tap the bank to pay Uncle Sam and live for another year.

The alternative is its better than death and I am the middle class that everybody keeps refering too.

So is the issue your tax rate, you see it as too high? Or your tax rate is acceptable but you aren't with holding enough during the year and need to make that up at the end of the year?

I see taxes like I see collecting sales taxes in my business. It is not income, I just collect it. You have a certain tax burden each year, save for it, with hold for it...so it doesn't smack you on April 15th.

I get a USN pension, I with hold as if I was married qwith lots of dependents, so the tax with held is high, so I don't see a big bill at the end of the year.

May be more complicated than that for you.

Don't like paying income taxes but I know a guy in Europe who's tax burden each year is easily twice or more, as a percentage, than mine..plus he pays over $8 a gallon for gas.

[Ahneida Ride]

Who is the better Stewart of precious resources ?

the person who worked for them ?

or

a politician / bureaucrat ?


Our 16 Trillion frn debt answers that question.

[saab2000]

Don't like paying income taxes but I know a guy in Europe who's tax burden each year is easily twice or more, as a percentage, than mine..plus he pays over $8 a gallon for gas.

I'm certainly no expert on tax policy or anything else for that matter, but I did live in Europe for a long time and know something about that. They do pay a lot for gas there. It is not a direct apples-to-apples comparison though.

In most of Europe daily driving consists of much shorter trips and they use far more efficient vehicles than we use in the US. Additionally, there are mass transit options (paid in part by higher gas taxes I would guess) that are actually worthy of consideration. The Swiss train system is highly desirable to use, though it is not cheap. Same in other European countries. Finally, the gas tax also pays for roads that are generally superior to what we have in the US.

I certainly don't mind paying taxes if it brings us something. Unfortunately, all too often all I see during my time in the Washington area is a city of entitled folks who are often double and in some cases triple dippers, living on the taxpayer paid gravy train. This includes lots of white collar folks and large defense contractors with consultants and contract workers.

Our tax dollars often disappear rather than being used to improve things.

Also, I'm pretty middle of the road politically, but even I see that higher taxes will not give the economy a jumpstart. The 2% reduction in my take home pay is money I will not be able to spend within the economy. That money is gone from the economy.

[Black Dog]

No animosity towards the fact that the top earners pay proportionally less taxes than the middle class? How about low capital gains tax...shouldn't income be income? Why should a welder who earns 50k a year pay more in taxes than someone who earns 50k a year in capital gains and sits on his ass or for that matter works as hard as the welder? I know that I am using a bit of a straw man argument here but I think that the basic principle is real.

[Vientomas]

When comparing European tax rates and US tax rates, would you not have to include the cost of health insurance and health care in the equation? It would seem that for an "apples to apples" comparison I would have to include the cost of my health insurance premiums and uncovered health care costs to my tax burden here in the US, to make a fair comparison to the tax burden in European countries with "socialized medicine".

[oldpotatoe]

When comparing European tax rates and US tax rates, would you not have to include the cost of health insurance and health care in the equation? It would seem that for an "apples to apples" comparison I would have to include the cost of my health insurance premiums and uncovered health care costs to my tax burden here in the US, to make a fair comparison to the tax burden in European countries with "socialized medicine".

Of course. I am on the government, single payer gig with health care, Tri-Care and to say it's a good deal really doesn't sum it up. The best part is not having to deal with any for profit, insurance company.

I think 'most' would opt to pay more taxes, get less expensive health care, where their 'net' paid would be less..just eliminate the ' for profits'.

OBTW- I am going to be a double dipper soon here but I don't apologize for it(SS and USN pension).

[saab2000]

OBTW- I am going to be a double dipper soon here but I don't apologize for it(SS and USN pension).

The double dippers I'm talking about are not you. I've met folks in Norfolk who retire at 20 years or so and the very next day come to work at the Navy base to do the same job but are now 'consultants' or contractors, basically receiving two salaries for the same job. There was even a story on the news there about Navy retirees getting three paychecks though I don't remember how they did it. But people with $300k+ incomes because they knew how to work the system.

That is the gravy train that bothers me to no end. And the ones I've talked are shameless and talk about government waste. We have one such at my job. I could barely contain myself as she talked of government waste one minute and then described how she and her husband receive this and that benefit, bringing their combined incomes into the $300k range or higher IIRC. And they have access to gov't subsidized shopping on base.

[DreaminJohn]

How about low capital gains tax...shouldn't income be income?

I'll just deal with this one since your other points will devolve quickly into a political discussion. This one might, too.

Let's say I'm paying 40% overall in taxes. So I take some of my 60% take-home and invest it something. I can't touch/use that money while it sits wherever it sits if I want to earn anything. This investment returns a minimal profit. The capital gains rate I pay on this minimal profit not only encourages me to invest further, it allows the institution with whom I invest to put my money "to work" and return a profit. I suspect it is the latter that most folks disagree with.

[djg]

I'm married, both of us work full time and contribute to 401k's, we have 3 kids, mortgage, etc... and we are netting about 18% federal income tax after deductions. Add about 4% for SS Taxes and 1.5% for Medicare taxes. We don't have a state income tax in TN, but our sales tax is 9.25%. My property taxes work out to be about 2% of our income, (which I believe is probably pretty low compared to places with a higher cost of living).

So, not including any taxes on investments that we will have to pay down the road... we are paying close to 35% of our income in taxes.

Well, your FICA has gone back up, has it not? That does bring us to another point. There's the federal income tax that's denominated "income" tax -- generally progressive in structure -- and there's the federal income tax that's denominated a "payroll" tax (your FICA, or SS plus Medicare, which is a percentage tax on what you are paid (making it seem kinda like an income tax) -- a flat percentage on most employees' wages, up to the cap, and then nothing extra after the cap, although something else kicks in much later . . . so, roughly, regressive rather than progressive).

That's not to argue that the various burdens are optimal, or close to it, much less that I've got any independent calculation determining what percentage of income you or I or somebody else ought to pay for the whole thing to be "fair." But wage earners generally pay something, even if they earn low wages.

On the getting end, there's the question who gets what, there are payments (such as the EITC) and the question of benefits, such as . . . well, everything, from Medicare to defense. On some of these, it's relatively straightforward, for somebody with the right information, to figure out what a person receives, with some it's really not. Again, that's not to say that the whole pile is sensible, much less optimal or fair.

[93legendti]

http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/EITC-Home-Page--It’s-easier-than-ever-to-find-out-if-you-qualify-for-EITC

"To qualify, you must meet certain requirements and file a tax return, even if you do not owe any tax or are not required to file."

Been around since '75 or so.

[tuscanyswe]

I'm married, both of us work full time and contribute to 401k's, we have 3 kids, mortgage, etc... and we are netting about 18% federal income tax after deductions. Add about 4% for SS Taxes and 1.5% for Medicare taxes. We don't have a state income tax in TN, but our sales tax is 9.25%. My property taxes work out to be about 2% of our income, (which I believe is probably pretty low compared to places with a higher cost of living).

So, not including any taxes on investments that we will have to pay down the road... we are paying close to 35% of our income in taxes.

Thanks.

Thats still pretty low. Think 33% is the lowest one can pay on income taxes here. Not including, property taxes etc etc.

[1centaur]

Almost every country in the world has a lower capital gains rate than the wage tax rate, even socialist countries. Those who think income earned on capital should be taxed the same as labor have generally lost the argument. Might be worth thinking why that is.

[texbike]

Given the derision often associated with different tax rates and their perceived "fairness", why have we (as a country) not embraced a flat tax structure?

Texbike

[1centaur]

All tax systems are unfair in some ways, including flat taxes. Tax arguments reflect the intersection of personal interest, societal responsibility and intellectual understanding, and that intersection is very dangerous to calm conversation.

[FlashUNC]

IMO, our personal tax rate systems in the U.S. are orders of magnitude less screwed up than our corporate tax structure.

When Facebook isn't paying any U.S. taxes -- despite earnings billions -- there's a problem.

[54ny77]

don't forget lobbyists influencing tax policy.

i've got an acquaintance who proverbially leg humps (with vigor) those clowns in washington (i mean that as a bipartisan insult, by the way) on behalf of a certain extraordinarily large industry. regulatory oversight, tax matters, you name it, and his firm bills at least a meivici frame an hour for it.

legislation is often written by lobbyists and subsequently rubber stamped by their paid for--woops, i mean popularly elected--officials. yeah there's an iteration or two when legislation is debated on the floor, but what that really means is another lobbying firm is providing comments on another lobbying firm's legislative draft. comical, really.

[DreaminJohn]

don't forget lobbyists influencing tax policy.

i've got an acquaintance who proverbially leg humps (with vigor) those clowns in washington (i mean that as a bipartisan insult, by the way) on behalf of a certain extraordinarily large industry. regulatory oversight, tax matters, you name it, and his firm bills at least a meivici frame an hour for it.

legislation is often written by lobbyists and subsequently rubber stamped by their paid for--woops, i mean popularly elected--officials. yeah there's an iteration or two when legislation is debated on the floor, but what that really means is another lobbying firm is providing comments on another lobbying firm's legislative draft. comical, really.

I hereby nominate this for POTD. :banana:

[1centaur]

Remember that lobbyist tax provisions are just one form of political payoff buried in the tax system rather than the budget, where it's more visible to criticism. A system for paying off targeted voters (the poor; the rich; unions; old people....the list is very long) is how many politicians view the tax system. There's a reasons the tax code is thousands of pages long - it is the accumulated history of political payoffs. To start fresh with something flatter and simpler would be great for regular people and the economy, but would not work for the people who actually do the negotiating on such matters, so it won't happen.

[Climb01742]

This is sort of a thread drift but not really...

The two nations with the highest educational scores in the world are Finland and South Korean. Yet they have two of the most diametrically opposed educational systems imaginable. They share almost nothing except quality of outcome.

My point...there's no such thing as a right or wrong tax system. The tax system reflects the priorities and power structure of a nation. European systems reflect one set of priorities. Ours another. We can't discuss one without the other.

Finland's education system reflects their culture and values as precisely as South Korean's does. And our tax system reflects a bias toward power and wealth we as a nation aren't willing to admit because it doesn't mesh with our national mythology.

[Ralph]

For anyone who thinks us retirees get a free ride with SS......almost all of my wife's and my SS is taxable income. I didn't pay taxes on the money before I paid the SS, and my employer paid the other half in leu of wages to me (and it was a deduction to him), so I am getting my own money back and it's taxable to me. Not complaining mind you, and it's not totally unfair.....but so many don't understand this. And until I collect about $1,000,000 or so, I'm getting none of your money either. I get that rough number by adding up what my wife and I paid in, what our employers paid in, and the value to the treasury, at a minimal rate of return, of not having to borrow that money....and to instead just use my SS payments for general purposes. The government has been using my money for a long time, it's not unfair I get some of it back. I really don't get this "the young folks are struggling to pay my SS and we get too much" argument. The gov't should have just segregated my payments, paid me the going treasury borrowing rate as a return, and then calculated my retirement income from that when I retired. That way no one would feel us old folks are a burden to them.

Medicare is a different story....that subject does need to be addressed. I am going to collect a lot more than I paid in under current system.

[goonster]

For anyone who thinks us retirees get a free ride with SS
Enjoy your Social Security. Your earned it. But:

- Your, and your employer's, contributions paid somebody else's benefits, way back when. What you are getting now is not your money, because it has not been squirreled away somewhere, earning interest.

- What resentment there is, however vague (and which I do not share), is rooted in the hazy suspicion that the same level of benefits will not be there for those contributing now to receive in the future. Many in my generation (i.e. "X") and younger, are therefore attempting to prepare for retirement without an iron-clad faith that the benefits promised in the annual Soc. Sec. letter will be there.

[93legendti]

"On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government."

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

Federal Income Tax rates are biased to the middle and lower classes who, when they pay federal income taxes, pay at lower rate, pay a lower amount and pay a lower percentage of all federal income tax as compared to the middle and upper classes. In fact, the top 5-10% are virtually carrying the entire country. This is well settled.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/story/2011-09-20/buffett-tax-millionaires/50480226/1

"The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shouldered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per*cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes."

In 2011, households making more than $1 million will paid an average 29.1% of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes.
Households earning $50-75,000 paid an average of 15% of their income in federal taxes.
Lower-income households paid even less. Households making $40-$50,000 paid an average of 12.5% of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 paid 5.7%.

[malcolm]

Enjoy your Social Security. Your earned it. But:

- Your, and your employer's, contributions paid somebody else's benefits, way back when. What you are getting now is not your money, because it has not been squirreled away somewhere, earning interest.

- What resentment there is, however vague (and which I do not share), is rooted in the hazy suspicion that the same level of benefits will not be there for those contributing now to receive in the future. Many in my generation (i.e. "X") and younger, are therefore attempting to prepare for retirement without an iron-clad faith that the benefits promised in the annual Soc. Sec. letter will be there.

Exactly, the money you paid in was long ago wasted, oh spent. It's true for most everyone that works a lifetime you'll probably never recoup what you paid in and the farther out your retirement the less you'll probably see. If you are expecting the government to provide for you, well good luck.

The one thing folks tend to forget is the government has nothing to give you that they didn't get from the taxpayers.

[Chance]

Well, your FICA has gone back up, has it not? That does bring us to another point. There's the federal income tax that's denominated "income" tax -- generally progressive in structure -- and there's the federal income tax that's denominated a "payroll" tax (your FICA, or SS plus Medicare, which is a percentage tax on what you are paid (making it seem kinda like an income tax) -- a flat percentage on most employees' wages, up to the cap, and then nothing extra after the cap, although something else kicks in much later . . . so, roughly, regressive rather than progressive).


Overall social security is an extremely progressive tax. Not because of the way the tax is collected as you correctly pointed out above, but because the benefits paid back to those who were taxed is extremely progressive. The amount of the collected tax that is credicted towards future benefits (PIA) falls off extremely fast as your income goes up. And to make matters more progressive still, higher earners who saved for retirement are often taxed on part of the Social Security benefits they receive.


http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/piaformula.html


PIA formula
For an individual who first becomes eligible for old-age insurance benefits or disability insurance benefits in 2013, or who dies in 2013 before becoming eligible for benefits, his/her PIA will be the sum of:

(a) 90 percent of the first $791 of his/her average indexed monthly earnings, plus
(b) 32 percent of his/her average indexed monthly earnings over $791 and through $4,768, plus
(c) 15 percent of his/her average indexed monthly earnings over $4,768.

[sjbraun]

93legendti wrote:

"In 2011, households making more than $1 million will paid an average 29.1% of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes.
Households earning $50-75,000 paid an average of 15% of their income in federal taxes.
Lower-income households paid even less. Households making $40-$50,000 paid an average of 12.5% of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 paid 5.7%."

But before one gets to feel too badly for those at the top of the wealth tower, there's this, from Forbes Magazine,(by way of Wikipedia.)

'In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%."

So yes, the wealthy pay more in taxes, but they also own most of the country's wealth. They also benefit from most everything that taxes provide: roads, schools (to educate the workforce necessary to support, maintain and create their wealth,) a military to defend us, cops, firefighters, etc, etc...

Why is it those who have always seem to complain the most. I mean really, if you're wealthy, why not just say, "life's good?"

[Llewellyn]

Almost every country in the world has a lower capital gains rate than the wage tax rate, even socialist countries. Those who think income earned on capital should be taxed the same as labor have generally lost the argument. Might be worth thinking why that is.

Here in Australia, nett capital gains are included in a persons individual income tax return and taxed at their marginal income tax rate

[Seott-e]

Of course. I am on the government, single payer gig with health care, Tri-Care and to say it's a good deal really doesn't sum it up. The best part is not having to deal with any for profit, insurance company.

I think 'most' would opt to pay more taxes, get less expensive health care, where their 'net' paid would be less..just eliminate the ' for profits'.

OBTW- I am going to be a double dipper soon here but I don't apologize for it(SS and USN pension).

So far we aren't getting the less expensive healthcare, $20,000.00 for the cheapest plan........

[Kirk007]

In 2011, households making more than $1 million will paid an average 29.1% of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes.
Households earning $50-75,000 paid an average of 15% of their income in federal taxes.
Lower-income households paid even less. Households making $40-$50,000 paid an average of 12.5% of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 paid 5.7%.

And the problem is, what? A millionaire nets around $700K, using your figures, and the family making 20 nets 19K. Whose shoes would you prefer to wear? Can even a large family really not have a decent life on $700K a year? My college roommate has netted around this much for years, and he's been able to send 6 kids through private high school, private college, law schools and grad schools, live in the burbs half an hour train ride from midtown Manhattan, belong to the country club, save for retirement, etc., etc. Not a bad life. He's worked hard; but his parents worked hard to put him into private school and a good college. He would be the last to suggest that he is completely self made and that he hasn't benefited from the social structure that governments have provided.

Used to be that that creeds along the line of to those who much have been given, much is expected, were viewed with honor. Now it seems like "I got mine, keep your hands off it and screw the little people" is more the norm in some segments of the 1% (or at least the vocal percent of the 1%). For wealthy folks perspective on taxes, I'll take Warren Buffet's over the whining I hear on Fox and in Congress.

But there's no doubt that 1Centaur is right, the code is all about political payback, and until we get the corporate money out of politics, that will likely never change. And the cynic (pragmatist?) in me believes it will be decades or lifetimes before our public servants serve the public rather than the pocketbook. It's easy to pick your pet special interest to rail against the unfairness of their tax breaks, we all do it. I rail about tax breaks to big oil, coal etc., others rail about tax breaks to the "takers." When folks start talking about taking away deductions for charitable gifts, I start to pucker up - my business, and thousands like it, would die in 3 months. When the discussion is about eliminating the home mortgage deduction, I get a bit queasy; in part because I don't see the whole package. When our own ass is on the line, we all tend to get a bit concerned. Human nature.

[RkyMtn]

I hate this time of year... And it doesn't help when we are trying to pay for taxes when Obama is playing golf on our dime with Tiger Woods.

Some of my observations:

- Washington needs to be playing by the same rules and laws as everyone else. Congressional members can do things that would put any business person in jail. Washington is a self-serving bureaucracy that manages to do just enough to get elected without solving problems, so that they can preach the same talking points over-and-over again. I think all the states need to secede from the Union, shut down Washington DC and open a common union somewhere and start all over.

- As for dividend taxes... Remember, that the person who puts their money in an investment security that pays a dividend already paid tax on that money as income. And, the 15% tax is a means of incentivizing people to invest their money into raising capital to expand businesses that creates more jobs. Investing in a security is a risk, so the reduced tax is to help offset that risk. Now, people like Warren Buffet who make hundreds of millions from dividend income could certainly contribute more to fund Obama's misguided idea of how an economy works. But what does Warren Buffet do with the money he made from the dividend income? He looks for new ways to invest it and hopefully it expands more businesses and helps create more new jobs, too.

- And for the bold statement of this thread, everyone should be neutered when born and have to apply to have children, showing the couple have the means to support their off-spring. (Yeah, I know, you are either offended or relieved to know that someone else also thinks no one else seems to give a crap that we have a population control problem. No, I don't have children, because I carry a genetic disposition for Type 1 diabetes (I am one) and I am doing my part to cure this disease.)

I think that is enough for now. Oh, it's late, too. I shouldn't be typing at this hour. There is no telling WHAT I might have said...

[Llewellyn]

Deleted

[saab2000]

I hate this time of year... And it doesn't help when we are trying to pay for taxes when Obama is playing golf on our dime with Tiger Woods.



Every president in recent years has played golf on our dime and every time it happens people of the opposite persuasion complain about the president playing golf on our dime. I never cease to get a laugh out of this! :banana:

I completed my tax return yesterday. My interest-free annual loan to the feds was pretty sizable. I'm going to NAHBS in a couple days. Maybe some of that refund will find it's way into the hands of bike people.

[93legendti]

And the problem is, what? A millionaire nets around $700K, using your figures, and the family making 20 nets 19K. Whose shoes would you prefer to wear? Can even a large family really not have a decent life on $700K a year? My college roommate has netted around this much for years, and he's been able to send 6 kids through private high school, private college, law schools and grad schools, live in the burbs half an hour train ride from midtown Manhattan, belong to the country club, save for retirement, etc., etc. Not a bad life. He's worked hard; but his parents worked hard to put him into private school and a good college. He would be the last to suggest that he is completely self made and that he hasn't benefited from the social structure that governments have provided.

Used to be that that creeds along the line of to those who much have been given, much is expected, were viewed with honor. Now it seems like "I got mine, keep your hands off it and screw the little people" is more the norm in some segments of the 1% (or at least the vocal percent of the 1%). For wealthy folks perspective on taxes, I'll take Warren Buffet's over the whining I hear on Fox and in Congress.

But there's no doubt that 1Centaur is right, the code is all about political payback, and until we get the corporate money out of politics, that will likely never change. And the cynic (pragmatist?) in me believes it will be decades or lifetimes before our public servants serve the public rather than the pocketbook. It's easy to pick your pet special interest to rail against the unfairness of their tax breaks, we all do it. I rail about tax breaks to big oil, coal etc., others rail about tax breaks to the "takers." When folks start talking about taking away deductions for charitable gifts, I start to pucker up - my business, and thousands like it, would die in 3 months. When the discussion is about eliminating the home mortgage deduction, I get a bit queasy; in part because I don't see the whole package. When our own ass is on the line, we all tend to get a bit concerned. Human nature.
Gave up on your last argument, I see.
Ah, Warren Buffet. Yes, let's rely on him for taxes. He has been fighting the government for ten years on a billion or so he refuses to pay. Let's quote him to enforce our false arguments in favor of increasing "bribes" (via increased taxes on working folk) to those citizens who don't pay income tax.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/warren-buffett-taxes-berkshire-hathaway_n_941099.html

Follow the money!
"Warren Buffett’s Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC is among U.S. and Canadian railroads that stand to benefit from the Obama administration’s decision to reject TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone XL oil pipeline permit."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-23/buffett-s-burlington-northern-among-winners-in-obama-rejection-of-pipeline.html

And let's let our WH staffers slide on taxes:

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/01/white-house-staffers-owe-more-than-in-back-taxes-112412.html

"A new report just out from the Internal Revenue Service reveals that 36 of President Obama's executive office staff owe the country $833,970 in back taxes. These people working for [Obama] apparently haven't paid any share, let alone their fair share.

Previous reports have shown how well-paid Obama's White House staff is, with 457 aides pulling down more than $37 million last year. That's up seven workers and nearly $4 million from the Bush administration's last year."

It used to be said, as Churchill noted, that: "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
Wise man.

[LesMiner]

It used to be said, as Churchill noted, that: "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
Wise man.

I think Churchill is more correctly quoted as:
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

Then he also said
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy."

[djg]

Overall social security is an extremely progressive tax. Not because of the way the tax is collected as you correctly pointed out above, but because the benefits paid back to those who were taxed is extremely progressive. The amount of the collected tax that is credicted towards future benefits (PIA) falls off extremely fast as your income goes up. And to make matters more progressive still, higher earners who saved for retirement are often taxed on part of the Social Security benefits they receive.

Ok. Looked at it that way, we could add that, for better-off retirees who still have considerable taxable income above and beyond SS, there's also a higher marginal rate (and at some point an extra Medicare kicker, etc.). We could view this as an integrated system -- plainly the SS Act contemplates, among other things, both inputs from payroll taxes and outputs, in the form of SS payments (plus this and that). We could do that year-by-year (where pluses and minuses are assigned chiefly to different persons) or, making various projections, including policy projections, going forward (or following historical individuals going backwards), we could do this across a person's (or across categories of persons') working life and retirement. It's not wrong, much less crazy, to try to see the whole picture, even if it gets complicated. Plainly, the whole ball of wax is the policy planning project.

I guess I'm inclined to distinguish between SS collections -- a large part of payroll taxes generally -- and SS payments. Given the initial post, and I hope I didn't seem wholly unsympathetic, I was trying to make the simple point -- maybe too limited -- that huge numbers of lower middle class and working class wage earners who do not pay any "income tax" nonetheless pay federal taxes based on their incomes (surely a form of income tax, even if we call it something else) and that, at least in a chunky form with a cap, that it's a roughly regressive tax. Which is, although long-winded, not to argue with your picture or your overall take on the balance of receipts and payments. And FWIW, as a 52 year-old, I anticipate various fiddling around the edges with SS by the time I retire, and maybe slightly more than that, but I don't foresee a fundamental trashing of the system (not least because retiring and soon-to-retire baby boomers make for very concentrated and well-represented political interests).

[Chance]

...........(cut)......... And FWIW, as a 52 year-old, I anticipate various fiddling around the edges with SS by the time I retire, and maybe slightly more than that, but I don't foresee a fundamental trashing of the system (not least because retiring and soon-to-retire baby boomers make for very concentrated and well-represented political interests).

Agree that some adjustments will be made in the near future but system will remain. How exactly that is handled is anyone’s guess. Social Security annual statements and other reports warn that they will only have between 70 and 80 percent of needed funds in the next 20 years (and that’s very optimistic in my opinion), so we should expect significant reductions for sure. My personal guess is that since the system is viewed as a safety net, they will find a way to cut benefits at the higher end even more so. That is, a guy who may be “entitled” to $2,000 to $3,000 a month will see a much larger percentage cut than a guy entitled to $1,000 a month. If (or when) that happens the system will become even more progressive.

In any case, agree with you that Social Security should be viewed as a tax on income rather than as a payment towards an insurance policy. Using terms like “Primary Insurance Amount” makes it sound more like savings and investment that it really is.

[malcolm]

It's funny to read some of this stuff. I grew up fairly poor, single parent family, mom with two jobs and so on. I've earned from well below 20k to just a shade over 7 figures and trust me I'll always choose the latter, although somewhere in between I actually had more available cash. I can remember in college thinking it was crazy hearing people who made 100k a year complain about taxes and I would think man I wish I paid 100k a year in taxes, could you imagine how much I would be making. Well many years later I pay well over 100k in taxes and it pisses me off.

I don't mind paying whatever we as a society deem is fair, I always have and always will. I don't have a bunch of deductions or loopholes, just a house and I used to deduct a boat as a second home years ago. I think it's just irritating to sit down and see what you've worked for and realize that 40 cents on the dollar just vanishes. I would feel the same way if it was 40% of 20k or 15 mil. It's human nature.

Just another thought for those working there way up. Most of the people I know in the 500k-1mil income ranges are not rolling in the cash money you may think they are. Most live comfortable lives and are glad for the lives and comfort it affords them as my family is but believe it or not I know many that couldn't last long without a paycheck coming in.

Also remember that rich is the guy making more money than you do.

[Kirk007]

Gave up on your last argument, I see.


Which argument was that? I'm genuinely confused.

And what the hell does socialism have to do with it? Was the tax code evidence of a socialist state under Kennedy, Nixon, Johnson, etc (hint, check the top marginal rates and see how that progression suits you; you know, the one during the glory years of capitalist growth in America)? When you let Obamahate cloud every single issue, well, it all gets lost in hyperbole.

And hence we have an illustration of the deadlock in Washington. There cannot be a serious discussion when both sides are titillated by they're own ability to make parodies of the other rather than engage in a meaningful discussion that could lead to an effective compromise that actually moves us forward. This was a discussion of tax rates and a tax code/approach long, long in the making; it was not a discussion of the devil Obama. Indeed, I can say that I'm frankly amazed that America is still standing after 4 years of Obama in the White House. I would have thought that we would have either: been turned into Sweden; taken over by Islamic fundamentalists and Shiria law; or burning in hell, lead there by a godless Demon himself. But wait, you mean all those things that were said about our President were exaggerated?? None of that has come to pass? There was no need for armed insurrection by Old Angry White Men? Oh I'm so gullible....

[zap]

Bloody hell, how can you blokes have taxes done already........all docs not due in my hands til end of March.....
....thats all im contributing to this thread.

Oh, but it is a pita

[Kirk007]

It used to be said, as Churchill noted, that: "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
Wise man.

You pick an interesting champion. From Wiki re Churchill:

In 1908, he introduced the Trade Boards Bill setting up the first minimum wages in Britain.[68] In 1909, he set up Labour Exchanges to help unemployed people find work.[69] He helped draft the first unemployment pension legislation, the National Insurance Act of 1911.[70

Churchill also assisted in passing the People's Budget,[72] becoming President of the Budget League, an organisation set up in response to the opposition's "Budget Protest League".[73] The budget included the introduction of new taxes on the wealthy to allow for the creation of new social welfare programmes.

[sjbraun]

Malcolm wrote:

"and realize that 40 cents on the dollar just vanishes."

But it doesn't vanish. It pays for schools and freeways and national parks and a military and air traffic control and food inspection and.....
You get my point.

[54ny77]

golf, and skiing, and....

Malcolm wrote:

"and realize that 40 cents on the dollar just vanishes."

But it doesn't vanish. It pays for schools and freeways and national parks and a military and air traffic control and food inspection and.....
You get my point.

[Kirk007]

golf, and skiing, and....

and cutting brush and riding mountain bikes with lance (needed to get a little bike related content here)....

[54ny77]

except that was done on land owned by the prez, not at the floridian along with 23 suites reserved for staffers, or...or...

this dialogue goes nowhere fast. i'm out. :bike:

and cutting brush and riding mountain bikes with lance (needed to get a little bike related content here)....

[malcolm]

Malcolm wrote:

"and realize that 40 cents on the dollar just vanishes."

But it doesn't vanish. It pays for schools and freeways and national parks and a military and air traffic control and food inspection and.....
You get my point.


I hope you are not under the impression that I don't know what taxes are for or where they supposedly go or more importantly come from.

I was just trying to express why people that others sometimes view as having such an abundance don't gleefully give up their income. I do it but I also reserve the right to be bitter about it. The more you make the more you pay also with the honor of doing so at a higher rate. I won't say it isn't fair because I'm not sure what would be fair and it's what we've agreed on as a society. It's just a little irksome that some folks will suggest just because you make above a certain figure if you complain about taxes you are somehow selfish or evil. If that is what I have to pay I'll pay it and trust me as someone that hasn't always had it to pay I understand what it meas to have and have not. It's just frustrating to see such a huge portion of your income taken and used so inefficiently.

[Kirk007]

I was just trying to express why people that others sometimes view as having such an abundance don't gleefully give up their income. I do it but I also reserve the right to be bitter about it. The more you make the more you pay also with the honor of doing so at a higher rate. I won't say it isn't fair because I'm not sure what would be fair and it's what we've agreed on as a society. It's just a little irksome that some folks will suggest just because you make above a certain figure if you complain about taxes you are somehow selfish or evil. If that is what I have to pay I'll pay it and trust me as someone that hasn't always had it to pay I understand what it meas to have and have not. It's just frustrating to see such a huge portion of your income taken and used so inefficiently.

I don't take that away from comments here at least. I personally do believe that our system is replete with problems; I don't see progressive rates such as existed under Clinton or earlier as part of the problem.

I think everyone is entitled to feel bitter and complain about their taxes particularly given the sad state of our federal government. In my former career I had more than a few years where I was paying close to 27-28% effective rate for federal income taxes alone, and much like you it was frustrating and unpleasant to pay more in taxes than I had made in gross income as a young lawyer, and much more than my father ever made in his lifetime, but I could afford it. Also agree that many of us have a propensity for allowing costs to rise to meet income, so a feeling of abundance, even at high incomes, can be fleeting at best. This is a personal spending problem though. And I agree about the huge inefficiencies in government.

My quarrel with many who are so anti-tax, anti-government is that the anti is so often so self servingly selective (and yes if the far left looks in the mirror the self serving image is much the same; I don't care much for their views either): cut funding for social programs but don't be bothered by the huge wastes in defense spending, the graft that results in ridiculous subsidies for coal, oil and natural gas industries, the complete and utter giveaway of our public natural resources - fossil fuel industries get our oil, our gas, our coal, our minerals for a song (but gut investments and tax breaks etc for renewable energy efforts at the same time). Some of these same folks love to lay the deficit on the Obama/social services/entitlement doorstep, completing and conveniently forgetting about Bush's follies 1 & 2 and the tremendous cost of those wars (aka how to go from a surplus to a deficit through one misguided policy decision). And the "we built it" mantra from last year's election - what a crock, as if the government support, the infrastructure that allows business to operate, the education system etc. etc, doesn't exist. Now when folks who want to cut preschool education, and social services for poor people, give us vouchers rather than medical coverage, yada yada also go after these giveaway entitlement programs, when they own up to all the factors contributing to the deficit, when they own the impacts that austerity will have on recovery and weigh that against a more drawn out approach, actually giving due consideration to our economy and our citizens rather than using it to bludgeon home their demand for a small and hobbled government, when everything is truly on the table (from all sides btw which means that the "knee-jerk liberals" need to look at their own sacred agendas as well), then I will respectfully listen and join that discussion.

Sequester is coming - what a shame. But at least it has the dubious virtue of being a pox on all houses, albeit regardless of merit. I actually think most of the problem is a couple hundred folks inside the Beltway. I think most Americans understand the need for sober and rationale discussion and consequent measures that address the whole rather than select parts, but until you get the money out of the political system it will continue to be the same as it ever was. And with Citizens United and potential progeny, well the Supreme Court is now Supreme Enabler of Government Disfunction. Rant over.

[PQJ]

Very well said, Kirk007.

[1centaur]

I could quibble with most of that, but then we'd be discussing politics, but I guess I get to say, not very well said, just to even things out.

[Kirk007]

I could quibble with most of that, but then we'd be discussing politics, but I guess I get to say, not very well said, just to even things out.

yes and you'd probably get the better of the argument, as these economic issues are much more your realm than mine. But I believe that we would/could have a discussion in the old fashion sense of the word, that might lead to potential solutions to a problem. Or at a minimum better understanding. That exchange seems impossible in way too many venues these days.

[likebikes]

I don't mind taxes one bit.

I've always had a small income (probably a fraction of the OP's and many others posting in this thread)

[djg]

Every president in recent years has played golf on our dime and every time it happens people of the opposite persuasion complain about the president playing golf on our dime. I never cease to get a laugh out of this! :banana:

. . .

Independent of partisan or sectarian allegiances -- democrat, republican, green tea party -- there's always the question, playing golf as opposed to what? I understand that we, the people, pay a certain salary and might have certain expectations. But why would anybody assume that playing an afternoon of golf takes the place of solving all of the world's problems . . . or even any of them?

[Climb01742]

a few, somewhat random thoughts...

i've never minded paying taxes, and there were many years when i paid the highest tax rate. i see my taxes as what i contribute to have a civil society, to have educational and transportation systems, police, fire and national defense, to help the unfortunate and the elderly, to support research and the arts, and on and on it goes. without the society i am lucky enough to live in, i wouldn't have the life i do or the opportunities i have. yes, i 'made' by life, but countless others, and other generations, made our nation and our society. i benefit greatly from that. my taxes are a way to say, thank you, i'm lucky.

what i do wish were different is that we, as individual citizens, how more say in how our taxes were spent. personally, i'd like to see defense spending cut dramatically. i'm sure there are others here would who like very different cuts. but regardless of our spending likes and dislikes, i'd bet we'd all share this feeling: that the true, final choices of where our tax dollars go is a by-product of the influence of big-money lobbying. the voices of special interests, all of stripes, are heard loudly. our voices? whispers easy to ignore. the answer? almost a complete overhaul of campaign financing, congressional jerrymandering of districts, and transparency of voting. none of which will probably ever happen.

still, given all that, a civil society costs money to create and maintain. i don't see taxes as something 'taken' from me. i'm just balancing the ledger sheet for what i've been given.

[saab2000]

Independent of partisan or sectarian allegiances -- democrat, republican, green tea party -- there's always the question, playing golf as opposed to what? I understand that we, the people, pay a certain salary and might have certain expectations. But why would anybody assume that playing an afternoon of golf takes the place of solving all of the world's problems . . . or even any of them?


I just wonder how I'm going to get to keep cycling when I become president. Road riding, not mountain biking on my ranch either. Maybe have a velodrome installed at the White House.... :D

[oldpotatoe]

I just wonder how I'm going to get to keep cycling when I become president. Road riding, not mountain biking on my ranch either. Maybe have a velodrome installed at the White House.... :D

Your staff will be behind you, in a long line of black SUVs, the gent with the 'football', the closest.

For those that think the Pres is somehow, 'out of touch and contact' when he is playing a round of golf on a closed golf course, open just for him, is being way to partisan.

His staff is close by, with laptops and cell phones a-workin', while he makes those 3 putts. Ain't like the movies when the Pres sneaks out and wanders around by himself to get the 'pulse of America', alone..that's poppycock.

Besides, watch how every president ages while in office. Obama looks 10 years older than he is. Why anybody would want that job is a mystery to me.

Let the guy, any President, play some golf or basketball or shoot a clay pigeon or clear brush or ride a MTB or whatever...

Ya gonna sneak around and see which tanning salon The Speaker goes to next?

[saab2000]

Ya gonna sneak around and see which tanning salon The Speaker goes to next?

I just want to know which brand of cigarettes he smokes. And what the president smokes. They're both smokers though the president claims to have kicked the habit. The speaker of the house defends his right to smoke, which is fine.

Just bizarre political minutiae.....

You're right about wanting that job. It is a bizarre quest. Very few 'win' situations and lots of lose/lose. You pretty much piss everyone off virtually every day in that job and have to deal with hostilities abroad which affect us only because the lunatics in charge (North Korea and Iran are a couple examples) love being a thorn in the side of civilized nations.

[oldpotatoe]

I just want to know which brand of cigarettes he smokes. And what the president smokes. They're both smokers though the president claims to have kicked the habit. The speaker of the house defends his right to smoke, which is fine.

Just bizarre political minutiae.....

You're right about wanting that job. It is a bizarre quest. Very few 'win' situations and lots of lose/lose. You pretty much piss everyone off virtually every day in that job and have to deal with hostilities abroad which affect us only because the lunatics in charge (North Korea and Iran are a couple examples) love being a thorn in the side of civilized nations.

yep, retail is tough enough but we all retire..soon?

[skijoring]

Which argument was that? I'm genuinely confused.

And what the hell does socialism have to do with it? Was the tax code evidence of a socialist state under Kennedy, Nixon, Johnson, etc (hint, check the top marginal rates and see how that progression suits you; you know, the one during the glory years of capitalist growth in America)? When you let Obamahate cloud every single issue, well, it all gets lost in hyperbole.

And hence we have an illustration of the deadlock in Washington. There cannot be a serious discussion when both sides are titillated by they're own ability to make parodies of the other rather than engage in a meaningful discussion that could lead to an effective compromise that actually moves us forward. This was a discussion of tax rates and a tax code/approach long, long in the making; it was not a discussion of the devil Obama. Indeed, I can say that I'm frankly amazed that America is still standing after 4 years of Obama in the White House. I would have thought that we would have either: been turned into Sweden; taken over by Islamic fundamentalists and Shiria law; or burning in hell, lead there by a godless Demon himself. But wait, you mean all those things that were said about our President were exaggerated?? None of that has come to pass? There was no need for armed insurrection by Old Angry White Men? Oh I'm so gullible....

Hey, I wanna live under Shania Law.

[soulspinner]

Which argument was that? I'm genuinely confused.

And what the hell does socialism have to do with it? Was the tax code evidence of a socialist state under Kennedy, Nixon, Johnson, etc (hint, check the top marginal rates and see how that progression suits you; you know, the one during the glory years of capitalist growth in America)? When you let Obamahate cloud every single issue, well, it all gets lost in hyperbole.

And hence we have an illustration of the deadlock in Washington. There cannot be a serious discussion when both sides are titillated by they're own ability to make parodies of the other rather than engage in a meaningful discussion that could lead to an effective compromise that actually moves us forward. This was a discussion of tax rates and a tax code/approach long, long in the making; it was not a discussion of the devil Obama. Indeed, I can say that I'm frankly amazed that America is still standing after 4 years of Obama in the White House. I would have thought that we would have either: been turned into Sweden; taken over by Islamic fundamentalists and Shiria law; or burning in hell, lead there by a godless Demon himself. But wait, you mean all those things that were said about our President were exaggerated?? None of that has come to pass? There was no need for armed insurrection by Old Angry White Men? Oh I'm so gullible....

Wow. The expression "rings true" fits..............

[malcolm]

I don't take that away from comments here at least. I personally do believe that our system is replete with problems; I don't see progressive rates such as existed under Clinton or earlier as part of the problem.

I think everyone is entitled to feel bitter and complain about their taxes particularly given the sad state of our federal government. In my former career I had more than a few years where I was paying close to 27-28% effective rate for federal income taxes alone, and much like you it was frustrating and unpleasant to pay more in taxes than I had made in gross income as a young lawyer, and much more than my father ever made in his lifetime, but I could afford it. Also agree that many of us have a propensity for allowing costs to rise to meet income, so a feeling of abundance, even at high incomes, can be fleeting at best. This is a personal spending problem though. And I agree about the huge inefficiencies in government.

My quarrel with many who are so anti-tax, anti-government is that the anti is so often so self servingly selective (and yes if the far left looks in the mirror the self serving image is much the same; I don't care much for their views either): cut funding for social programs but don't be bothered by the huge wastes in defense spending, the graft that results in ridiculous subsidies for coal, oil and natural gas industries, the complete and utter giveaway of our public natural resources - fossil fuel industries get our oil, our gas, our coal, our minerals for a song (but gut investments and tax breaks etc for renewable energy efforts at the same time). Some of these same folks love to lay the deficit on the Obama/social services/entitlement doorstep, completing and conveniently forgetting about Bush's follies 1 & 2 and the tremendous cost of those wars (aka how to go from a surplus to a deficit through one misguided policy decision). And the "we built it" mantra from last year's election - what a crock, as if the government support, the infrastructure that allows business to operate, the education system etc. etc, doesn't exist. Now when folks who want to cut preschool education, and social services for poor people, give us vouchers rather than medical coverage, yada yada also go after these giveaway entitlement programs, when they own up to all the factors contributing to the deficit, when they own the impacts that austerity will have on recovery and weigh that against a more drawn out approach, actually giving due consideration to our economy and our citizens rather than using it to bludgeon home their demand for a small and hobbled government, when everything is truly on the table (from all sides btw which means that the "knee-jerk liberals" need to look at their own sacred agendas as well), then I will respectfully listen and join that discussion.

Sequester is coming - what a shame. But at least it has the dubious virtue of being a pox on all houses, albeit regardless of merit. I actually think most of the problem is a couple hundred folks inside the Beltway. I think most Americans understand the need for sober and rationale discussion and consequent measures that address the whole rather than select parts, but until you get the money out of the political system it will continue to be the same as it ever was. And with Citizens United and potential progeny, well the Supreme Court is now Supreme Enabler of Government Disfunction. Rant over.

Fully agree. My issue and I think many folks issue with paying taxes is the perceived value. Whether real or imagined you can't help but feel your money is wasted or at least spent with little respect for where it came.

Don't misunderstand, I've traveled extensively and fully appreciate the standard of living we/I have and unlike many I also realize it has to be paid for by the countries citizens, so on one level I completely understand, but on the other when I see the amount taken from the citizens it just seems it could be used considerably more effectively.

[DreaminJohn]

I always loved this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=716qbOv3a4M


It really captures my opinion well.

[Kirk007]

a few, somewhat random thoughts...

i've never minded paying taxes, and there were many years when i paid the highest tax rate. i see my taxes as what i contribute to have a civil society, to have educational and transportation systems, police, fire and national defense, to help the unfortunate and the elderly, to support research and the arts, and on and on it goes. without the society i am lucky enough to live in, i wouldn't have the life i do or the opportunities i have. yes, i 'made' by life, but countless others, and other generations, made our nation and our society. i benefit greatly from that. my taxes are a way to say, thank you, i'm lucky.

what i do wish were different is that we, as individual citizens, how more say in how our taxes were spent. personally, i'd like to see defense spending cut dramatically. i'm sure there are others here would who like very different cuts. but regardless of our spending likes and dislikes, i'd bet we'd all share this feeling: that the true, final choices of where our tax dollars go is a by-product of the influence of big-money lobbying. the voices of special interests, all of stripes, are heard loudly. our voices? whispers easy to ignore. the answer? almost a complete overhaul of campaign financing, congressional jerrymandering of districts, and transparency of voting. none of which will probably ever happen.

still, given all that, a civil society costs money to create and maintain. i don't see taxes as something 'taken' from me. i'm just balancing the ledger sheet for what i've been given.

Now that is well said.

[1centaur]

I am struggling with the word "given" in climb's description. I am open to illumination, not saying I have a hardened position, just don't quite get it.

To give, one must possess. Society as it has developed just is, it is not owned. It is the cumulative effect of politics and luck, human nature, good intentions and bad, indifference, the passage of time itself. The social compact is in a continuous state of renegotiation, it is not a package of awesome each new baby gets to enjoy as a right of citizenship. The power structure of the moment forces some people to pay to maintain and change the social compact at, effectively, gunpoint. Those payments are redistributed in ways wise and wasteful, cynically selfish on the part of the distributors in many cases. We hear today that we must certainly pay for the promises we already made. Well making promises is easy and selfish, when getting elected is the immediate consequence. Must we stop promising stuff until we know we can afford it? Or do we need to understand that even promises made with the best intentions may need to be broken to keep the societal aggregate at optimum levels, a reality that may not be evident for many years after a promise is made?

I simply don't understand how parachuting in to any given moment in American history implies "giving" back. Whatever has developed was paid for by others before you, forced to pay. Are future generations giving back to you for what you pay now? I see it more as giving to the pot for a communal lunch, and somebody likes Brussels sprouts and somebody else is loading up a doggy bag to enjoy for the next 3 days. It's not objectionable to pay for lunch per se, but wouldn't it be nice not to pay for such bitter vegetables and isn't the meal planner taking advantage of you? Can't contributing to a civilized society and railing at waste, payoffs, failed pre-K experiments, hand-out leaches and social engineering coexist in one mind without that person being viewed as greedy?

[Climb01742]

I am struggling with the word "given" in climb's description. I am open to illumination, not saying I have a hardened position, just don't quite get it.

To give, one must possess. Society as it has developed just is, it is not owned. It is the cumulative effect of politics and luck, human nature, good intentions and bad, indifference, the passage of time itself. The social compact is in a continuous state of renegotiation, it is not a package of awesome each new baby gets to enjoy as a right of citizenship. The power structure of the moment forces some people to pay to maintain and change the social compact at, effectively, gunpoint. Those payments are redistributed in ways wise and wasteful, cynically selfish on the part of the distributors in many cases. We hear today that we must certainly pay for the promises we already made. Well making promises is easy and selfish, when getting elected is the immediate consequence. Must we stop promising stuff until we know we can afford it? Or do we need to understand that even promises made with the best intentions may need to be broken to keep the societal aggregate at optimum levels, a reality that may not be evident for many years after a promise is made?

I simply don't understand how parachuting in to any given moment in American history implies "giving" back. Whatever has developed was paid for by others before you, forced to pay. Are future generations giving back to you for what you pay now? I see it more as giving to the pot for a communal lunch, and somebody likes Brussels sprouts and somebody else is loading up a doggy bag to enjoy for the next 3 days. It's not objectionable to pay for lunch per se, but wouldn't it be nice not to pay for such bitter vegetables and isn't the meal planner taking advantage of you? Can't contributing to a civilized society and railing at waste, payoffs, failed pre-K experiments, hand-out leaches and social engineering coexist in one mind without that person being viewed as greedy?

a long ride together may be needed to more fully hash this out, 1centaur, but i truly don't feel anything is being 'taken' from me at all. i feel a sense of obligation to our communal well being. as to what i've been given? on the day i was born, without me so much as drawing a breath or lifting a finger, here's what i was given:

a publicly funded hospital.

roads my parents drove on to get me there and home.

a safe town, state and nation in which to grow up.

publicly funded schools.

lights, water, a legal system.

a set of rights.

a home the police protected but were not allowed to enter without cause.

the list goes on and on.

i did nothing to create those, nor pay for them until i got my first job. so yes, i see it as i was given those by the work, sacrifices, foresight, battles fought, and taxes borne by others. i see all of us as having an almost unpayable debt to the citizens who came before us...and an almost sacred responsibility to make sure future citizens have at least what i was given. but that's my outlook. i don't demonize a disagreement with that. but i do feel something fundamental has shifted in the american psyche, and not for the better.

i don't believe americans have ever been as self-centered or whiny as we are now (speaking in broad terms here, not to or about anyone in this thread). the u.s. constitution begins with the word 'we', not i. yet i think many people would, if they could rewrite it today, begin the constitution with 'me' or 'my'. not a step forward.

[Chance]

Which argument was that? I'm genuinely confused.

And what the hell does socialism have to do with it? Was the tax code evidence of a socialist state under Kennedy, Nixon, Johnson, etc (hint, check the top marginal rates and see how that progression suits you; you know, the one during the glory years of capitalist growth in America)? When you let Obamahate cloud every single issue, well, it all gets lost in hyperbole.

And hence we have an illustration of the deadlock in Washington. There cannot be a serious discussion when both sides are titillated by they're own ability to make parodies of the other rather than engage in a meaningful discussion that could lead to an effective compromise that actually moves us forward. This was a discussion of tax rates and a tax code/approach long, long in the making; it was not a discussion of the devil Obama. Indeed, I can say that I'm frankly amazed that America is still standing after 4 years of Obama in the White House. I would have thought that we would have either: been turned into Sweden; taken over by Islamic fundamentalists and Shiria law; or burning in hell, lead there by a godless Demon himself. But wait, you mean all those things that were said about our President were exaggerated?? None of that has come to pass? There was no need for armed insurrection by Old Angry White Men? Oh I'm so gullible....

Who is to say that deadlock is not better in some cases than compromise? Don’t personally subscribe to the concept that compromise is necessarily good. Or that moving ahead is necessarily good either.

From my perspective when one side is 100 percent right and the other is 100 percent wrong, compromising is still moving in the wrong direction. Granted politics isn’t this black and white, but you get the idea. We need to think beyond compromise in my opinion.

Also think we need to be very careful defining what is “moving forward”. Lots of people think moving forward is merely making change. But not all change is good, right? In my experience moving forward to achieve a short-term reward often comes at too high a long-term cost.

Not taking sides either way. Just wishing we would stop using words like compromise as if it has inherent value (in general, not referring to you). Would prefer getting back to doing what is right. Not what is popular to get reelected, but what is right. That’s what we need in my opinion.

[Ralph]

[QUOTE= here's what i was given:

a publicly funded hospital.

roads my parents drove on to get me there and home.

a safe town, state and nation in which to grow up.

publicly funded schools.

lights, water, a legal system.

a set of rights.

a home the police protected but were not allowed to enter without cause.

the list goes on and on.[/QUOTE]

I would add the opportunity to be or do all that you can or want bad enough. Your future success, however you define that, is pretty much in your hands when you are born in the US. It's about taking advantage of all offered to you by those who paved (paid for) the way. That's what Obama did.

I really don't get the idea of folks saying their success was totally the result of their own efforts. Even Warren Buffit knows better. Some folks are reading too much Ayn Rand. "Atlas Shrugged" was fiction....no matter how inspirational it was to me and others.

[Kirk007]

Can't contributing to a civilized society and railing at waste, payoffs, failed pre-K experiments, hand-out leaches and social engineering coexist in one mind without that person being viewed as greedy?


Of course. But it helps if the railing is constructive and if solutions to the problems are posed, and if other citizens, who have a different view of what is waste, what is failure, what is a leach or whether a social engineering effort is good or bad be considered in a respectful, an open and honest way. The problem is we do not have a Supreme Arbitrator of what is, as Chance states, "right." Views obviously differ dramatically and often unreconcilably.

A long time ago (circa 1978) as an undergraduate in an Evolutionary Ecology class we debated at length concepts like selfishness and altruism (and whether such a concept even exists; indeed a compelling argument can be made that altruism is a fiction, that all actions are ultimately selfish). I think it is nigh impossible for us to get away from the selfish conduct that infects us, particularly our politics. If you removed the power and money and prestige from serving as an elected representative, perhaps we might see less selfish conduct, and more actions that were truly good for the citizenry and the commons, but I suspect very few folks would take those thankless jobs - sort of like force feeding children poor tasting medicine for a living.

[Ray]

Who is to say that deadlock is not better in some cases than compromise? Don’t personally subscribe to the concept that compromise is necessarily good. Or that moving ahead is necessarily good either.

From my perspective when one side is 100 percent right and the other is 100 percent wrong, compromising is still moving in the wrong direction. Granted politics isn’t this black and white, but you get the idea. We need to think beyond compromise in my opinion.

Also think we need to be very careful defining what is “moving forward”. Lots of people think moving forward is merely making change. But not all change is good, right? In my experience moving forward to achieve a short-term reward often comes at too high a long-term cost.

Not taking sides either way. Just wishing we would stop using words like compromise as if it has inherent value (in general, not referring to you). Would prefer getting back to doing what is right. Not what is popular to get reelected, but what is right. That’s what we need in my opinion.
One side might be 100% right for you, but the government has to serve ALL of us, not just you, and the only way they can do that is through compromise, so nobody gets all they want, but everyone gets something they want.

As for doing "what is right", how do we determine what that is - just use your version of it? No, determining "what is right" is 90% of the exercise of democracy - the execution is relatively easy once you get past that part. You and I may have vastly different ideas off"what is right" - if your view is adopted 100%, I get screwed. If my view is adopted 100%, you get screwed. Neither outcome is "right". So we compromise.

Your attitude is the most frightening thing I've seen in this thread.

-Ray

[Chance]

One side might be 100% right for you, but the government has to serve ALL of us, not just you, and the only way they can do that is through compromise, so nobody gets all they want, but everyone gets something they want.

As for doing "what is right", how do we determine what that is - just use your version of it? No, determining "what is right" is 90% of the exercise of democracy - the execution is relatively easy once you get past that part. You and I may have vastly different ideas off"what is right" - if your view is adopted 100%, I get screwed. If my view is adopted 100%, you get screwed. Neither outcome is "right". So we compromise.

Your attitude is the most frightening thing I've seen in this thread.

-Ray


Well thanks Ray. Prefer to think for myself than follow the crowd.:rolleyes:

Let me give you an easy and “completely hypothetical” BLACK and WHITE example to demonstrate my view on why compromise is not always the right answer. The example is over the top but needed to make the point without getting into specific political views.

Say a brother asks his sibling to help him murder their parents to collect on their life insurance and inheritance. For the help he’ll split the proceeds. Clearly that’s wrong, right? Let’s hope we can all agree on that. This misguided brother has special interests that override any thoughts regarding what is right and wrong. Or he just doesn’t care who he hurts as long as he gets what he wants. It’s common selfish behavior on a super-sized scale.

After being told there is absolutely no way he’s going to get his sibling’s cooperation, he counters with murdering just one of them and collect a smaller payoff. A compromise in his eyes. He’s willing to split the difference between murdering two people and zero people. Granted this is an absurd example to make a point clearer, but is doing half of something really stupid or wrong any better than nothing at all? Not in this case.

To me, agreeing to half of something that is clearly wrong is still wrong. Spinning political views won’t change that for me. Period. Compromise is clearly the right answer some of the time, but often it’s just half of being stupid. And on both sides if they compromise.

Positive connotations typically associated with the word “compromise” are not deserved in my opinion.

[goonster]

this is an absurd example
Yes, it is.

[Chance]

Yes, it is.

Indeed. But it makes the point that half of wrong is still wrong. Sorry but our hands are tied to discuss real issues in real terms. Pointing out the stupidity of splitting the difference between opposite views and thinking you are doing something worthwhile is the best we can hope for.

[rugbysecondrow]

So, what did I miss?

[Vientomas]

Indeed. But it makes the point that half of wrong is still wrong. Sorry but our hands are tied to discuss real issues in real terms. Pointing out the stupidity of splitting the difference between opposite views and thinking you are doing something worthwhile is the best we can hope for.

Your example is absurd and not representative of political issues to be decided by a legislative body.

The real stupidity is that demonstrated by a legislator holding so tightly to their position, that they fail to recognize any merit in a divergent view solely because that divergent view is expressed by the opposition.

[Rueda Tropical]

I am struggling with the word "given" in climb's description. I am open to illumination, not saying I have a hardened position, just don't quite get it.

To give, one must possess. Society as it has developed just is, it is not owned. It is the cumulative effect of politics and luck, human nature, good intentions and bad, indifference, the passage of time itself. The social compact is in a continuous state of renegotiation, it is not a package of awesome each new baby gets to enjoy as a right of citizenship. The power structure of the moment forces some people to pay to maintain and change the social compact at, effectively, gunpoint. Those payments are redistributed in ways wise and wasteful, cynically selfish on the part of the distributors in many cases. We hear today that we must certainly pay for the promises we already made. Well making promises is easy and selfish, when getting elected is the immediate consequence. Must we stop promising stuff until we know we can afford it? Or do we need to understand that even promises made with the best intentions may need to be broken to keep the societal aggregate at optimum levels, a reality that may not be evident for many years after a promise is made?

I simply don't understand how parachuting in to any given moment in American history implies "giving" back. Whatever has developed was paid for by others before you, forced to pay. Are future generations giving back to you for what you pay now? I see it more as giving to the pot for a communal lunch, and somebody likes Brussels sprouts and somebody else is loading up a doggy bag to enjoy for the next 3 days. It's not objectionable to pay for lunch per se, but wouldn't it be nice not to pay for such bitter vegetables and isn't the meal planner taking advantage of you? Can't contributing to a civilized society and railing at waste, payoffs, failed pre-K experiments, hand-out leaches and social engineering coexist in one mind without that person being viewed as greedy?


Whether you are talking about car insurance or your condo community or a society. There is coercion in the levels of contribution and enforcement of regulation in order to make the whole work. There is a certain level of sacrifice of self interest for the greater good because long term it is in each individuals own self-interest to do that.

Rights are mutually defined by the society not doled out by nature or god. Whether it's a right to freedom of religion, property rights, owning weapons or education or healthcare or whatever. Those rights should align with a societies goals and vision of itself.

A stable, transparent, democratic, educated, healthy society where incomes are high and there are not 3rd world gulfs between the few and the many is a great place to do business. Whatever the costs are to achieve that would be more then made up for in the profits and benefits it provides.

[malcolm]

Well thanks Ray. Prefer to think for myself than follow the crowd.:rolleyes:

Let me give you an easy and “completely hypothetical” BLACK and WHITE example to demonstrate my view on why compromise is not always the right answer. The example is over the top but needed to make the point without getting into specific political views.

Say a brother asks his sibling to help him murder their parents to collect on their life insurance and inheritance. For the help he’ll split the proceeds. Clearly that’s wrong, right? Let’s hope we can all agree on that. This misguided brother has special interests that override any thoughts regarding what is right and wrong. Or he just doesn’t care who he hurts as long as he gets what he wants. It’s common selfish behavior on a super-sized scale.

After being told there is absolutely no way he’s going to get his sibling’s cooperation, he counters with murdering just one of them and collect a smaller payoff. A compromise in his eyes. He’s willing to split the difference between murdering two people and zero people. Granted this is an absurd example to make a point clearer, but is doing half of something really stupid or wrong any better than nothing at all? Not in this case.

To me, agreeing to half of something that is clearly wrong is still wrong. Spinning political views won’t change that for me. Period. Compromise is clearly the right answer some of the time, but often it’s just half of being stupid. And on both sides if they compromise.

Positive connotations typically associated with the word “compromise” are not deserved in my opinion.


Your example is such an over simplification as to be meaningless. Maybe without meaning to your original post read like if you don't agree with it then it must be 100% wrong.

I would argue that every meaningful change we have ever made came as a result of compromise. Even things that through the lens of history seem like they should have been obvious all had detractors.

I'll agree that not all compromise works out for the best but the alternative is completely contrary to democracy.

[zap]

And what the hell does socialism have to do with it? Was the tax code evidence of a socialist state under Kennedy, Nixon, Johnson, etc (hint, check the top marginal rates and see how that progression suits you; you know, the one during the glory years of capitalist growth in America)?

Ok, violating my earlier post.

Compliance was very poor back then so it matters not what the top rate was on paper but what was actually paid. I've seen studies that the actual rate was around 25-28%.

Anyhow, the focus should not be just on federal taxes but state and local. Actual rates for me have gone up as much as 100% in the last 10 years. With recent changes in Maryland (one example, shifting pension obligations), I fully expect to see the trend continue.

[rugbysecondrow]

Whether you are talking about car insurance or your condo community or a society. There is coercion in the levels of contribution and enforcement of regulation in order to make the whole work. There is a certain level of sacrifice of self interest for the greater good because long term it is in each individuals own self-interest to do that.

Rights are mutually defined by the society not doled out by nature or god. Whether it's a right to freedom of religion, property rights, owning weapons or education or healthcare or whatever. Those rights should align with a societies goals and vision of itself.

A stable, transparent, democratic, educated, healthy society where incomes are high and there are not 3rd world gulfs between the few and the many is a great place to do business. Whatever the costs are to achieve that would be more then made up for in the profits and benefits it provides.


So, do you not think there are human rights? Issues such as Rwandan genocide, Jewish genocide in WWII Germany...its fine so long as aligns with a societies goals and vision of itself?

Whether one recognizes it as God, Nature or basic humanity, certainly there are basic rights human rights which are greater than any one society or government.

[goonster]

it makes the point that half of wrong is still wrong
Some of us have chosen to accept that not every ethical consideration can be reduced to binary outcomes. We seek the least possible wrongness on a continuum.

[Chance]

Your example is absurd and not representative of political issues to be decided by a legislative body.

The real stupidity is that demonstrated by a legislator holding so tightly to their position, that they fail to recognize any merit in a divergent view solely because that divergent view is expressed by the opposition.

You guys just don’t see how compromise really gets out of hand quickly, do you?

The real danger in compromise is when both sides agree to bad ideas by reciprocating. Say Republicans agree to a bad Democratic idea and in return Democrats agree to a bad Republican idea. By compromising on both issues we end up with two bad ideas.

Without getting into politics and taking sides as to avoid getting this thread locked, say a wife wants a fur coat she doesn’t really need or can afford. Her husband doesn’t feel the same about the coat, but does about a new motorcycle. So they compromise on each purchase in trade and end up with a mink coat and a Ducati. Two things they neither really need or can afford. That’s how DC really works. And how we end up with a government so large we can’t afford.

[goonster]

certainly there are basic rights human rights which are greater than any one society or government.
Of course there are, but:

- this is a relatively modern notion
- they continue to evolve (100 years ago there would not have been a consensus on women's suffrage)
- we still define them collectively, via international treaties e.g. UN, ICC, etc.

[rugbysecondrow]

Some of us have chosen to accept that not every ethical consideration can be reduced to binary outcomes. We seek the least possible wrongness on a continuum.


+!, but I would like to add that it is easy to accept this so long as the people vested with making the decisions are doing so in an effort to be solutions oriented. Who has faith that either side in Congress is actually doing that? Is there even a discussion about addressing the debt? About addressing the deficit? Nope. Folks bicker about 1 billion here, 200M there...that is like saying you are going to clean the table after dinner, but all you do is pick up one piece of rice...ineffective.

If the Dems actually put forward a plan which would solve the problem, I would be for that, same for the Republicans. Truthfully though, they rely on the fighting and bickering for reelections, for donations. They have no vested interest in coming to a solution.

[goonster]

say a wife wants a fur coat she doesn’t really need or can afford. Her husband doesn’t feel the same about the coat, but does about a new motorcycle.

Find a way to pay for an affordable coat and a pre-owned Yamaha.

Compromise achieved, marriage saved. You're welcome.

[rugbysecondrow]

Of course there are, but:

- this is a relatively modern notion
- they continue to evolve (100 years ago there would not have been a consensus on women's suffrage)
- we still define them collectively, via international treaties e.g. UN, ICC, etc.


Certainly we redefine policy or implementation, but the policy is not the originator of them. This is not to make a religious statement, but just use an example everybody knows of. In the bible, when Jesus is crucified, it is something of value, something of sacrifice, something of great worth being taken away. Life has a value which society alone ought not be able to control. Isn't that the argument against the death penalty.

Regardless of what society decides to do or how they act, whatever hypocrisy they decide to participate in, it doesn't change the value.

Anyway, likely way off topic. Time to retreat to my coffee.

Cheers

[Vientomas]

So they compromise on each purchase in trade..."

What does that mean?

I gotta go with Goonster's solution, or perhaps: New fur coat now and save money for the motorcycle purchase next year. Or what about: Sell something they currently own to fund new purchases? There are a myriad of solutions to any political problem. However, problems won't be solved when folks on both sides are entrenched in ideological principles to the point of being unable to engage in rational discussion.

[malcolm]

You guys just don’t see how compromise really gets out of hand quickly, do you?

The real danger in compromise is when both sides agree to bad ideas by reciprocating. Say Republicans agree to a bad Democratic idea and in return Democrats agree to a bad Republican idea. By compromising on both issues we end up with two bad ideas.

Without getting into politics and taking sides as to avoid getting this thread locked, say a wife wants a fur coat she doesn’t really need or can afford. Her husband doesn’t feel the same about the coat, but does about a new motorcycle. So they compromise on each purchase in trade and end up with a mink coat and a Ducati. Two things they neither really need or can afford. That’s how DC really works. And how we end up with a government so large we can’t afford.

I think you are confusing complexity and compromise. Compromise has always been an integral part of the legislative process. In your example above that isn't compromise that is both sides giving up and doing what they wanted.

I would agree with you about complexity and it's added costs in society. It takes a fleet of lawyers and more documents than any one person could read in a lifetime much less understand to do the simplest of things, but it's a separate issue from compromise.

[Ray]

You guys just don’t see how compromise really gets out of hand quickly, do you?

The real danger in compromise is when both sides agree to bad ideas by reciprocating. Say Republicans agree to a bad Democratic idea and in return Democrats agree to a bad Republican idea. By compromising on both issues we end up with two bad ideas.

Without getting into politics and taking sides as to avoid getting this thread locked, say a wife wants a fur coat she doesn’t really need or can afford. Her husband doesn’t feel the same about the coat, but does about a new motorcycle. So they compromise on each purchase in trade and end up with a mink coat and a Ducati. Two things they neither really need or can afford. That’s how DC really works. And how we end up with a government so large we can’t afford.

Very bad compromises can and have been made, no question. But very good compromises have also been made. But in the absence of compromise, nothing good ever gets done. So you can try to work out good compromises understanding sometimes you'll succeed and sometimes you'll fail. Or you can refuse to compromise and guarantee failure. That's not a tough call for me.

-Ray

[Kirk007]

I'm generally a half the loaf is better than none guy, but I think Chance has a point in some circumstances currently confronting us. Without trying to get into a discussion of the substance or get this tread locked I would offer as an example climate change as a binary decision (if one accepts the prevailing science). Climate change is also the mother of complexity given its global nature but again, if the science is right, a half assed compromise on measures to be taken will be largely a waste of time (although that train may have already left the station).

[Chance]

Very bad compromises can and have been made, no question. But very good compromises have also been made. But in the absence of compromise, nothing good ever gets done. So you can try to work out good compromises understanding sometimes you'll succeed and sometimes you'll fail. Or you can refuse to compromise and guarantee failure. That's not a tough call for me.

-Ray

Thank you. That was my one and only point all along. That compromise is not necessarily a good thing. Don’t know why you found my view the most scary thought on this thread as you first noted. Just personally hate it when people pin a halo on that word as if it were motherhood or apple pie. It’s almost as if questioning compromises makes one un-American.


By the way, don’t personally agree with your premise that refusing to compromise guarantees failure; not in an absolute sense. Hence not as easy a call for me because we may be avoiding making an even bigger mistake. Your argument disregards the possibility that compromising will lead to an even greater failure. As stated previously, compromise can be good, but sometimes being uncompromising is the better choice.

[malcolm]

I'm generally a half the loaf is better than none guy, but I think Chance has a point in some circumstances currently confronting us. Without trying to get into a discussion of the substance or get this tread locked I would offer as an example climate change as a binary decision (if one accepts the prevailing science). Climate change is also the mother of complexity given its global nature but again, if the science is right, a half assed compromise on measures to be taken will be largely a waste of time (although that train may have already left the station).

Take segregation, looking back how could anyone think that was a good idea, yet for whatever reason we had politicians fighting for it.

Climate change is the same sort of thing, most reasonable people even the ones that may debate how much the human population is to blame believe it's real. You have to compromise with the ones that believe otherwise with the goal of eventually getting where you want to be. Ray said it all with the without compromise you just stagnate.

I agree on climate change the train may have pulled out, but you still have to work toward addressing the issue. As a populace humans tend not to do the right thing or fix things until they become overwhelmingly problematic.

[Kirk007]

As a populace humans tend not to do the right thing or fix things until they become overwhelmingly problematic.

Which is why we should all be on on our bikes enjoying the ride while we can instead of on the computer! (I've become a pessimist on some of these issues; not that I'll give up the good fight but....). Oh well, cold and rainy in Seattle ....

[cdimattio]

Take segregation, looking back how could anyone think that was a good idea, yet for whatever reason we had politicians fighting for it.

Climate change is the same sort of thing, most reasonable people even the ones that may debate how much the human population is to blame believe it's real. You have to compromise with the ones that believe otherwise with the goal of eventually getting where you want to be. Ray said it all with the without compromise you just stagnate.

I agree on climate change the train may have pulled out, but you still have to work toward addressing the issue. As a populace humans tend not to do the right thing or fix things until they become overwhelmingly problematic.

A bit of drift, but climate change is a tough analogy. There is a huge consensus opinion on the subject because there is no longer room for scientific debate when grants, research funds and even scientific careers can be impacted by a contrarian view. One can measure change much easier than causation.

We forget that the Vikings settled now inhospitable swaths of Greenland during the Medieval warm period.

[jblande]

A bit of drift, but climate change is a tough analogy. There is a huge consensus opinion on the subject because there is no longer room for scientific debate when grants, research funds and even scientific careers can be impacted by a contrarian view. One can measure change much easier than causation.

We forget that the Vikings settled now inhospitable swaths of Greenland during the Medieval warm period.

I call BS. The science pertains the effects of green house gasses on our atmosphere not on the possibility of natural variation in temperature within the earth's atmosphere over large periods of time.

[1centaur]

Took a day off and all sorts of good stuff got said. Wish I could debate it all.

To Climb, I guess I'd say if you were given a hospital, then you were given the universe. I think we differ not on feeling a desire to continue something good that exists and took effort to create, but on whether what exists was given. Semantics, not substance.

Rueda - I agree that rights are not universal but a construct of power and culture. Shoulds and oughts are emotions, not realities until codified and enforced.

Chance - totally agree that compromise is not an inherent good. Sometimes compromises are changes that can't be undone down a slippery slope. Just because the other side does not see that does not mean that taking the step is good. Note that the coat/motorcycle debate assumes good will between the parties and common interest. They have a real incentive to get it right. Politicians insisting on changes or no changes that will hurt millions down the road because they get short term gain personally from their voting base do not have a common interest that should be met part way. Better to hold fast where you are and work on the people to change their voting then give away something precious forever.

[Ray]

Chance - totally agree that compromise is not an inherent good. Sometimes compromises are changes that can't be undone down a slippery slope. Just because the other side does not see that does not mean that taking the step is good. Note that the coat/motorcycle debate assumes good will between the parties and common interest. They have a real incentive to get it right. Politicians insisting on changes or no changes that will hurt millions down the road because they get short term gain personally from their voting base do not have a common interest that should be met part way. Better to hold fast where you are and work on the people to change their voting then give away something precious forever.

Well, that seems to be the current governing approach of at least one side in DC - hope you like the outcomes...

If not, there are always counter-factual arguments to be made to explain why it coulda been worse.

-Ray