OT: Fedex coming off the top rope
- Thread starter aTotal360
- Start date
I’ll answer for him and every other big government liberal. No, they don’t. They are only generous with other people’s money. Most don’t contribute to any charity, help the needy, etc. They complain about the Bush tax cuts and the Trump tax cuts, but they take full advantage of them. The next time you are in an argument with one, ask them if they have any savings or investment account. If they answer truthfully, and do, ask them why they are hoarding money that the government can better manage.
It is no difference than all of this about FedEx. FedEx charges way more than the USPS to deliver a package. Same as UPS. Neither one of those companies are hemorrhaging money. The USPS is drowning and would be out of business if not for tax payer bailouts every year. FedEx and UPS could merge, buy the USPS from the government and vow not to raise rates more than the historical amount. They would be making a profit in a few years and the government would want to split them up because they would have a monopoly.
I’m off my soapbox and going to bed now.
you better watch yourself pointing out facts ....don't you know corporations are evil?
1- I am not liberal. Yes yes, compared to many on here, I am more liberal than them. Thing is, the political identity spectrum has a **** ton of room to the left of me. Just because so many on here are comically far right doesnt make me a liberal, it just makes me not as extreme as them.
2- Demanding people who dont inherently hate taxation to either pay more than required or be viewed as hypocritical is absurd. Its a flawed argument, but it isnt surprising to see here.
3- Why is this discussion suddenly about personal income tax?
4- I do not expect anyone to pay more income tax than they are legally required to pay. I want this to be very clear since for some reason you two think I expect otherwise.
5- I am not going to get into stereotyping liberals and conservatives when it comes to charity, volunteering, helping in the community, etc. There is no benefit in stereotyping, especially when it doesnt align with actual statistics. I have no idea if what I do is a lot or not, but here ya go. We donate financially to multiple non-profit organizations. Furthermore, I am on the board of a local non-profit youth mentorship program that works with local at risk teens(12-18). We meet 3 times per week for 4-8 hours at a time. Last year I spent 20 hours on board planning and 150 hours of volunteering time with youth, and that is excluding the 10 full days we spend on trips too. Add that time in and its 390 hours of time. Added together with board planning, its over 400 hours last year.
A success by whose measure? I'm only an owner through index funds, but I don't think cutting the earnings in half would be particularly successful. And while I think corporate salaries are out of whack in general and a result more of agency problems than a fair reflection of worth, I also don't think they make a meaningful difference in my returns.
It's not people who don't inherently hate taxation, but people who complain about low tax rates, becauise people complaining about low tax rates are almost universally complaining about other people not paying enough taxes, even though they themselves are well off compared to most tax payers, and wealthy compared to all the people they presumably want to help.
Because they are both taxes on individual's income? If you are complaining about corporations not paying taxes, you are presumably complaining about individuals not paying those taxes, because legal fictions don't really pay taxes?
The stereotyping actually aligns with the statistics. People on the right give more by just about any measure (whether you are talking about amount or frequency of time, frequency of money, or amount of money as percentage of income or average total basis). It's mostly driven by the difference between religious and non-religious, which results in people on the right being bigger givers, since they are religious at a much higher rate.
I applaud you for your selflessness.
But you didn’t answer my questions. If you think the govt deserves more tax dollars and that they will use them responsibly, why wouldn’t you pay more? Why do you believe it is only others’ duty to do so?
Nothing personal, I have friends that feel the same way. I fundamentally can’t comprehend the utterly predictable viewpoint of “only people richer than ME should give more to .gov.”
Downvoters, let me know where I’m off base, or write the IRS a check, out of benevolence.
Last edited:
Again- I dont think the government 'deserves' more money. I dont think that individuals should just give money to the government in general. I have no idea where you came up with the idea that I do support such an approach, but let me again be clear- I dont think individuals should hand over money without reason.
Taxes should be set to ensure stuff is paid for. Roads, security, schools, etc etc etc. The tax rate, as set, should meet the needs of those expenses. If it doesnt(and we all know it doesnt), then taxes should be adjusted. Unfortunately, we have one side that seems to want to spend without raising taxes and another side that seems to want to cut taxes without having a plan for how to fund vital parts of government. We dont even fully fund what is necessary as it is- its a **** show. Instead of fully funding, emergency services go underfunded and arent as effective. Instead of fully funding, infrastructure continues to crumble and become unsafe(roads, pipes, bridges, etc). Instead of fully funding, school programs continue to see vital resources consolidated at best and eliminated at worst.
I do support the idea of paying more than current taxes, when it makes sense and the spending is targeted. Recently my city passed a 1cent tax on goods and services that will go towards funding 3 or 4 outdoors initiatives. Once complete, the city will be an even better place for outdoor recreation(cycling, kayaking, fishing, hiking, running, walking) and entertainment(community amphitheater). I support paying more there. But ultimately that isnt me just writing a check for more than I owe. Its effectively the same thing though since if I were to write a check for more than I owe, it would be to give to targeted areas of government.
Another example is the school system we open enroll our kids into. We chose to send them to a neighboring city's school district, which is the largest in the state. It is, by all ratings, significantly worse than our city's school district, but we sent them there for a specific school that is an exception to the crap. Anyways, school funding is perpetually short of whats needed and we donate to the non-profit parent's group that is then able to target funding to different activities and initiatives within the school. This, again, is me paying more in a targeted manner. Instead of paying more in general income tax, I am able to specify the extra I would otherwise pay towards an area of government that affects me.
I mention these examples because unlike what you for some reason accuse me of, I dont have some blind faith that the government will always spend money responsibly or well. Hell, its proven over and again that the government in my state and at the federal level will just underfund what they already should be fully funding. I dont believe that my conservative and Republican state government will spend my money responsibly all the time(nor do I believe a liberal and Democrat state government would).
To clear up yet another misinterpretation- I also dont think that only others should pay more in taxes.
This has veered WAY off topic. At this point, you are just challenging me on why I personally dont pay extra in taxes and that has 0 to do with the topic or any of my initial posts.
Where do you live ? I suspect you haven't had the up-close-and-personal view of government waste many of us have.
The disagreement is about what is vital. I think any reasonable mathematician could get our budget balanced if we eliminated non-vital government services, of which I would argue there are MANY. The problem I have with the left side of the spectrum is they seem to think just about everything the government does is vital and they want to add more. I've seen nothing that indicates that's a good idea.
You should go find a single idiot that argues every person richer than them personally should pay more taxes while they shouldn't and argue with them. I suggest you begin your search somewhere that has an abundance of straw.
Well, that's not exactly an uncommon view. Most people arguing to raise taxes start at an income that is above where they see themselves in the immediate future. It's why after all the talk about repealing the "Bush tax cuts", they kept them in place for individuals making $400k and married couples making $450k. The reality is our lower and middle classes are lightly taxed compared to most countries high tax advocates claim to want to emulate, but even people making well above the 90th percentile in family income (and well above the 95th% for individuals) in the richest country in the history of the world generally thought it was other, "rich" people that should pay more in taxes.
You know, I actually agree with you here. Going back to your original point, which I think was that it's simply a bad look for high-paid executives to talk about taxes and the struggle therein, I think most people would agree with that.
I do think people probably attack you sometimes because you tend to come from a left-leaning perspective, and expect that. That's probably what happened here.
Funny enough I also agree about funding vital services. There's not much middle ground anymore. Super Republicans simply want to cut cut cut and I can't agree with that at all. At some point, it's not a spending problem, it's an income problem.
Last edited:
What are some examples that you've seen? The reason I ask, is that there is a wide spectrum. Curious where your view originates.
If this is such a straw man, as you suggest, why all the talk about millionaire and billionaire taxes? Why all the talk of the 1%?
It's funny Sanders was all about taxing millionaires until he became one. Now he's all about taxing billionaires. That sure seems like someone who wants to tax everyone who makes more than he does.
The most hilarious thing is that this ******** works on people. The thing about the paper was funny and a good slam, but it is all smoke and mirrors. The story was factually correct. FedEx paid zero in taxes due to the Trump tax cuts.
I have a serious question for the Republicans here, if you are for financial conservatism (which I am by the way) how are you ok with a massive tax cut for the rich without corresponding cuts in spending? How are you ok with just adding the cost of these tax cuts to the federal deficit?
I personally have no problem with cutting taxes as long as you first cut spending, and I personally believe that we should not tax corporations at all but that means removing the "personhood" theory of corporations which should just be devices to handle liability.
I don't want Bernie to be president, I would never vote for him. But, he is probably the least hypocritical person in politics and acting like he changed his stance because of his book sales is a flat out lie. The guy has held to his beliefs, which again aren't my beliefs, his entire life through a career the usually corrupts people. I never want him to win but I have to respect his character and what you said is just a load of crap.
I think his point is that this is an oft-repeated sentiment, but like most political generalizations from both sides, it's not based in reality.
I'm not a Bernie supporter, and I do not / have not followed what his stances used to be versus what they are now, but this also seems like a generic talking point that's also probably not based in reality. Are there speeches or interviews he gave, statements or campaign promises he made before becoming a millionaire that can verify this claim?
I didn’t say “every.” I said “only.” Since you don’t understand the distinction, I’ll just leave this one alone.
Last edited:
Watch the video I posted below. Then tell me who's lying or what's a load of crap. You should do your research before you mouth off about things of which you have no clue. The adults are talking. The kids table is over there.
It's oft-repeated because it is a fairly accurate stereotype. Again, the Bush tax cuts didn't stay in place for people making less than $400k/450k because they pulled a number out of thin air. It's because they lost political support of rich people when they thought they were going to be taxed themselves.
You can also confirm its accuracy by looking at self reported numbers on who is in the middle class. Spoiler, basically everybody but the richest of the rich think of themselves as middle class. https://www.vox.com/2015/3/12/8193113/middle-class-rich-poor
Because it was mostly good policy and it could get passed, and just because there is not a political coalition that is for responsible spending doesn't mean you don't improve policy in other areas when you can. You can quibble with some of the mechanics, but other than the ridiculous give away to non-c corp business entities, pretty much everything was sound policy. SALT deductions were a ludicrous feature of the tax code that benefitted primarily the rich and was viewed to be practically politically untouchable, so getting a cap on that was incredible even if everything else gets rolled back.
Also, it wasn't a taxcut for the rich. It was a tax cut for basically everybody. The people that didn't get sizable tax cuts that were paying taxes were upper middle class people already itemizing deductions and rich people that got hit by the SALT cap.
It would certainly be better to reduce spending to where we could talk about Congress spending like drunken sailors without it being an insult to drunken sailors. But you improve policy when you have the opportunity. There's not a political coalition that wants to restrain spending at all unfortunately. That's bad and is going to cause some problems if it doesn't change, but not being able to do anything about that doesn't seem to be a reason to not improve policy elsewhere when you can.
This is very true- there is a disagreement about what is vital.
Schools are continually underfunded.
Roads, bridges, and city infrastructure is continually underfunded.
Public pensions are underfunded.
Those 3 issues shouldn't be up for debate because they are so clearly obvious that if anyone disagrees, they are simply either not wanting to fund the programs or they have an agenda.
**** is literally crumbling around us(schools, bridges, pipes, etc).
You know what is debatable with regard to funding, yet also isnt because its toxic? Defense. Yeah- support cutting the overall defense budget and get labeled as unpatriotic or as someone who doesnt support the troops. Thata a hell of a position to take and a hell of an accusation to throw at the person.
Let's look at what really costs this country so much right now and cut where it isnt necessary. Well then bases close, military complex suffers, and politicians get voted out of office.
I dont think everything the government spends money on is vital.
I am also not here to defend the stereotypical liberal position. I am not an apologist for the left no matter how many morons on here accuse me of being a leftist. I am left handed though...
Why is allowing 529 plans to be used on K-12 bad? The federal tax breaks are only on the growth, which unless somebody pays into it right after birth and use it for middle school or later, presumably won't be that much. I can see an argument of why the federal tax code shouldn't concern itself with education spending, but the horses have already left the barn on that one. If the federal code is going to bother itself with education expenses, it seems like pretty good policy to make it easier for parents to choose the education that is the best fit for their kids, especially since they are presumably paying for public schools through state and local taxes.
I think the same logic applies to states considering k-12 expenses qualified 529 expenses, but if they don't want to do that, they certainly don't have to and many do not.
Also while I like the incentive for charitable giving and wish the threshold for itemizing had been kept around the same, there are reasonable arguments on both side as far as whether the tax code should incentivize it, and all the tax law did to my knowledge was "disincentivize" it by raising the standard deduction, correct?
We will disagree. I think the government should support public schools if nothing more than policy. And the 529 is now a tax free savings account for people as a reward for not using public schools Good for me but i think its a bad policy
And yes it disincentivizes giving to charity. That is a terrible policy
And yes it disincentivizes giving to charity. That is a terrible policy
Public pensions are underfunded because public employees saw it as a way to negotiate for more pay than taxpayers would be willing to shell out for and politicians were happy to accommodate them because the bill wouldn't be due while they were in office. Mississippi actually does more or less fund its pension obligations as it incurs them now (it stupidly doesn't calculate pension contributions on an actuarial basis but just a straight 25% of payroll funds a pretty generous pension if you require 30 years of service to retire early). The problem is nobody ever did anything to address past underfundings, so there is a massive $17B liability that keeps growing. I think this is more or less true of a lot of states.
Defense is one of the purest public goods. It is non-excludable and non-rivalrous. It is certainly inefficient b/c there is not a normal market.
But while Defense spending is certainly a problem, it is not defense that keeps things like schools and infrastructure from being funded. It's sort of a washington monument strategy writ large, where big spending politicians (also known more or less as "politicians" with a few exceptions) like to fund the fluff first so that they can then complain that basics aren't being sufficiently funded, when the reason the money isn't there for the basics is that they committed it to the fluff first.
Last edited:
It's not tax free. It's non-deductible at the federal level and only the growth is shielded from taxes. State policy differs, but you're usually talking about a 5-10% tax rate, so it's not a huge incentive regardless. And the government should support educating its citizens. If that happens in public schools, that's fine and good, but we have spent **** tons of money as a nation not educating people because we are more worried about buildings and teachers than giving children an opportunity to get an education.
Explain again how it disincentivizes giving to charity? Charitable donations are still deductible. Yes, fewer people are itemizing, but if you are not itemizing, what is your marginal federal tax rate, probably tops out at 22%? Maybe 24%? I don't doubt people have overreacted to the fact that they are no longer itemizing (just like people overreacted to the MID in figuring out how much house they wanted), but it's not huge deal and giving will probably creep up again over time. And that tradeoff was probably necessary to make the limit on SALT palatable, as it reduced the number of people relying on it.
It is a absolutely tax free on the gains and the income. And now im incented to put a lot more in there because it can be used more. So thats investment dollars no longer being taxed at the federal level
and yes as people who no longer itemize realize their gift to charities does them no good on taxes they can be disincented to give. That seems pretty logical from a behavioral standpoint.
and yes as people who no longer itemize realize their gift to charities does them no good on taxes they can be disincented to give. That seems pretty logical from a behavioral standpoint.
The earnings from the 529 are tax free at the federal level. The contributions are not deductible.
That's the entire point of the account, is to shield some taxes to incentivize certain behavior. Between encouraging good primary and secondary education and encouraging college education, it seems like the former is just as important if not more important. Andn probably more equitable too since everybody pretty much pays for public schools and universities, but while pretty much every state has a public university that you can get a decent education at, lots of places do not have decent public elementary schools or high schools.
I don't think offering an incentive that a lot of pepole can no longer take advantage of because they've gotten more favorable tax breaks qualifies as disincentivizing charitable giving.
Latest
-
01
Maroon and White Basketball Recruiting
2027 four-star wing Jalen White recaps Mississippi State official visit
-
02
Rivals Basketball Recruiting
Top-10 Prospect Will Conroy Jr. Recruiting Breakdown: USC, Washington, Kansas & what matters most
-
03
Maroon and White Football
Mississippi State PFF Grades from 23-15 loss against Oklahoma
-
04
Maroon and White
Standout Stats: Oklahoma 23-15 Mississippi State
-
05
Maroon and White
Big plays kill Mississippi State defense again in Oklahoma loss