I'm pretty sure most Liberals would be fine with eliminating those taxes if the revenue instead was raised through a progressive state/local income tax. I think conservatives would have a cow and most likely that's what is preventing it. The county I live in is very liberal and they instead have support systems in place via county tax to support those that can't afford the taxes you mention.It should also be noted for our liberal friends that in many states you must renew your registration on your car every year and this can run easily up in the hundreds of dollars. Obviously, this can make it challenging for the poorer among us to pay such fees. Considering that they are supporters of the progressive tax system and enjoy the argument that the poor can not pay higher taxes when arguing for such a system it would make sense then to believe they would not be in support of this kind of tax.
Some good examples of this would be car registration and property taxes where you are charged to use your property, be it your car, or your home. When the government charges you for use they are in effect taking ownership of whatever it might be over, be it again, your car or your home and in effect making you a renter. It is clear this is a violation of property rights in on both front, but the question remains do we as a people agree with it? There is of course other examples of such taxes and my question does in fact include them as well.
It should also be noted for our liberal friends that in many states you must renew your registration on your car every year and this can run easily up in the hundreds of dollars. Obviously, this can make it challenging for the poorer among us to pay such fees. Considering that they are supporters of the progressive tax system and enjoy the argument that the poor can not pay higher taxes when arguing for such a system it would make sense then to believe they would not be in support of this kind of tax.
The point you are (perhaps inadvertently) making is that the accusation that the poor don't pay taxes is unfounded. Everyone pays taxes, lots and lots of them.
Your examples of car and property tax are good. Often, more money means a more expensive house and more taxes. Poor means renting or minmal housing so little if any tax. Same with cars. When I bought my car new, the tax was almost $400.00. Now, 5 years later, the tax is down to about $130.00. People who drive beaters probably just pay the $30 minimum.
The State needs to get taxes somewhere. Nobody likes to pay tax but without money, your State can not function.
I'm pretty sure most Liberals would be fine with eliminating those taxes if the revenue instead was raised through a progressive state/local income tax. I think conservatives would have a cow and most likely that's what is preventing it. The county I live in is very liberal and they instead have support systems in place via county tax to support those that can't afford the taxes you mention.
Only tax on property:
investment propertys
2nd homes
corp owned property
The point that is actually made there is that after everything is said and done they are left with more than they paid in taxes to begin with.
I went today to get my car registered and there was a woman talking about her troubles revolving around her living arrangements with her friends. When she got up to get her car registration renewed it turned out to cost her $220 dollars. I couldn't help to think how someone can afford to spend $220 dollars when they are having trouble finding a stable place to lay their heads at night.
In fact, I see many poor people driving around in newish cars but living in houses that were built back in the 1960's and probably cost in the low hundred range. In such neighborhoods its not rare to see pretty newish cars on regular basis in fact. I would imagine that many of these people never considered that on their first year owning the car it would cost them $500 bucks to just drive the car on the street.
Avenues are important and something people just carelessly forget. If I own my home or my car I should not lose it if I fail to pay the state as if they have some sort of claim to either my car or my home. If we are to believe that the state is the original owner (not saying I do but its an active argument) they would need to sell it to people for them to own and build whatever they wanted to build (which is actually another layer to the problem here since they actively control such things and once again asserting ownership of property) However, property taxes leads to you believe they never actually sold it at all and instead allowed people to simply build on their land and in turn they pay a fee for the continued use of it. When they in turn sell such property to another "user" this fee gets transfered to the new "user" as if it is simply rent and if this new "user" fails to pay such fee they are also up to losing such property as was the prior user when he used the property. This is in effect exactly how rental property works. If you fail to pay your rent you can be kicked out and lose access to the rental property. Do we as a people agree to only have the right to rent?
I went today to get my car registered and there was a woman talking about her troubles revolving around her living arrangements with her friends. When she got up to get her car registration renewed it turned out to cost her $220 dollars. I couldn't help to think how someone can afford to spend $220 dollars when they are having trouble finding a stable place to lay their heads at night.
Income taxes are even worse. In that case they are not only asserting ownership of property, but ownership of the fruits of your labor and anything they do not take is simply a gift from the real owner.
She was probably negligent in maintaining the car's registration. Now she better get that badboy legal, or her friends are gonna cut her off and kick her ass out of the crack-flophouse.
You do realize that you are quoting Henrin, not Specklebang? Right?
It looks like your post. You put the Henrin quote after. Anyway, I don't see how who posted it makes a difference; "noble savage" is what it is.
What is the "noble savage" thingy mean?
The term noble savage (French, bon sauvage), expresses the concept of an idealized indigene, outsider (or "other"), and refers to the literary stock character of the same...
The noble savage achieved prominence as an oxymoronic rhetorical device after 1851, when used sarcastically as the title for a satirical essay by English novelist Charles Dickens, who wished to disassociate himself from 18th and early 19th-century romantic primitivism.
She was probably negligent in maintaining the car's registration. Now she better get that badboy legal, or her friends are gonna cut her off and kick her ass out of the crack-flophouse.
I'm pretty sure most Liberals would be fine with eliminating those taxes if the revenue instead was raised through a progressive state/local income tax.
Noble savage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's a common problem with inexperienced cultural anthropology.
Interesting, so my problem is I believe in noble savage? Can you explain how you came to that conclusion?
Revenue isn't raised by the rates as much as it is by the strength (or rather I would even say bubbling) of the economy/financial/credit markets. What happens to revenue when you raise or lower taxes is dependent/dynamic thing. It is conceivable (though not a given) that revenue could increase concurrently with a tax cut OR a tax hike. We saw both of these phenomena during Clinton's term: he raised income taxes and revenue jumped, then he cut taxes (the capital gains) and it REALLY jumped.
Sure..the strength of the economy is a large determinant of how much revenue the government brings in. It defies math to believe that a lower tax rate will bring in more revenue unless you believe those tax rates are a major determinant of the strength of the economy.
That is not proven. It's repeated as gospel on the right but GDP growth rates over time are pretty constant....higher taxes or lower taxes.
You presumed that someone paying 220 for registration and living with friends is deserving of sympathy, and sought to use that narration as political rhetoric.
Nothing is universally proven, basically because we can't predict the future. Theoretically could lower taxes and completely reincentivize business growth in the US, and slow or reverse the flood of jobs out of the US. Or we could raise taxes and then see something trigger another massive recession, and what little money people are still making is being increasingly taxed, leaving them feeling much, much more conservative about spending, investing, expanding, etc.,
But don't fall for the fallacy that tax cuts OR hikes = economic growth or "economic justice." Tax rate hike is not the same as a tax revenue hike.
You can't predict the future but you can sure as hell look at the past. There's a long history of tax cuts and tax hikes to look at.
It is the same unless you honestly think a tax cut equals a large spur in economic growth to offset the lowering of rates.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?