What is lacking here is the question how much would you pay for things like just to take on example, a working police and judicial system? Or put it another way, how much ought to be paid for you to move to Mexico or Honduras where basically the legal system doesn't work? Tax rates are lower in both countries, so I guess you wouldn't have to be paid much.That’s not what I said, but I doubt accuracy is paramount here. It’s my money; I earned it; I know best what to do with it. It’s really that simple. If you cannot explain how that is irrational or don’t want to answer or cannot say how that is against my best interest, that’s fine, but just know that I was genuinely curious. — NOS4A2
What is lacking here is the question how much would you pay for things like just to take on example, a working police and judicial system? Or put it another way, how much ought to be paid for you to move to Mexico or Honduras where basically the legal system doesn't work? Tax rates are lower in both countries, so I guess you wouldn't have to be paid much.
OK. I'm curious so I'll try to play devil's advocate to the best of my ability — Benkei
Let's say I think lower corporate taxes will benefit the economy because it will mean shareholders will invest profits to increase productivity and therefore employment. I also think lower income taxes should be passed. I don't really care how that's financed. As far as I'm concerned those can be financed through debt, printing money, slashing healthcare or lowering defense spending. My personal situation can be assumed to be as follows: I have a mortgage on my house with a fixed rate for the next 5 years that my wife and I can easily pay for an amount of about 65% of the value of my house, 100k USD income, a decent pension scheme, 8000 USD in savings and health insurance. — Benkei
This may be true but I doubt you can track your own dollars to their final destination, for instance whether you are funding healthcare or the droning of children oversees. — NOS4A2
Theoretically, it would matter to someone who wants to know what sorts of things her hard-earned dollars are funding. — NOS4A2
2. Your scenario sounds cushy on the face of it. But bam, your wife gets pregnant with a special needs child and/or you get a permanent, costly, and disabling disease and/or the market crashes and/or you simply get fired because of down-sizing/you were replaced by a robot/you were replaced by someone younger.... Etc etc etc. None of these things are entirely in your control, and all of them mean you're just one step away from financial hardship or even ruin. The social safety net is there to make sure that even if tragedy happens to you, you won't become destitute. Only if you're so rich that you can afford any and all of those disasters, would it make sense to say taxes aren't in your interest. — Artemis
1. If the trickle-down effect worked at all (which is what I think your first idea there is alluding to) then America would already have solved poverty and have a flourishing middle class, because we do have most of the money globally. While wages have gone up for the 1% however and they have received countless tax cuts, for decades the wages of workers have been stagnant and their costs of living have gone up. — Artemis
But then there's also just the average day math. You have health insurance, but how much does it cost you over a year or a lifetime? How much would you have to pay in taxes for the same thing but better (because you'd be guaranteed coverage)? You'll pay less overall with universal healthcare, because you're not paying the salaries of millionaire and billionaire corporate execs. — Artemis
...those who throw food away as soon as it reaches the "best by" date...
— ZhouBoTong
So people who like higher quality foods?
:rofl: — creativesoul
So what kind of personality profile is this? — schopenhauer1
Is there a difference between this kind of willful manipulation and the plain old self-imposed limitations of what sources and opinions we wish to follow? — schopenhauer1
If its the former, are these subtle lies or outeageous ones? — schopenhauer1
If its outrageous ones, I ask again, what is the personality profile of this hapless non critically discerning person? — schopenhauer1
I don't think that you understand the question. The question isn't not just about audits, tax payer money being poorly handled or somebody stealing the money. The question is if the judicial system exists at all, if there is a justice state. Or if there are just a bunch of competing gangs pretending to be the "government institutions".Certainly as little as is required. But absent any sort of audit of where the tax money goes I fear that the question of how much tax money is required for a working police and judicial system is a difficult one. — NOS4A2
These are all insurable events that don't require government involvement. I've got insurance except for becoming jobless but with my skill set that will be when hell freezes over. Why should I pay taxes for those people who go destitute because they failed to take out insurance? Where's the fairness in that?
1. If the trickle-down effect worked at all (which is what I think your first idea there is alluding to) then America would already have solved poverty and have a flourishing middle class, because we do have most of the money globally. While wages have gone up for the 1% however and they have received countless tax cuts, for decades the wages of workers have been stagnant and their costs of living have gone up.
— Artemis
Imagine how much worse things would be if a lot of money would've been wasted on taxes and ineffectual government programs? That wages are stagnant are a reality of supply and demand. With the loose immigration, sanctuary cities and whatnot it is no wonder that workers wages are stagnating as supply continues to increase. Close the borders, stop doling out green cards and this will solve itself.
But then there's also just the average day math. You have health insurance, but how much does it cost you over a year or a lifetime? How much would you have to pay in taxes for the same thing but better (because you'd be guaranteed coverage)? You'll pay less overall with universal healthcare, because you're not paying the salaries of millionaire and billionaire corporate execs.
— Artemis
No country covers all types of care, or care at any price. So guaranteed coverage is really a lie. Government tends to be far less efficient in allocating resources and the US litigious society makes healthcare expensive due to insurance cost and administrative overhead.
Furthermore, the best healthcare in the world is available in the US, because hospitals compete with each other driving up quality. Countries with universal healthcare have fixed maximum rates for medical personnel because otherwise their system would be as expensive as the USA and this stifles innovation. — Benkei
Set some time aside to read the comments on the Trump Facebook page. They believe anything they want to believe. Anything. — ZzzoneiroCosm
So in the end your saying voters are voters are voting against their interests and say about the reasons that "most of it is complete nonsense". Couldn't be more condescending, because I assume you don't think that you yourself are voting like this. — ssu
That may look like voting against your own interests to some, but that's because they are projecting their own "big issues" on those that voted differently. — Benkei
Obviously, if you are more community-minded and think social justice is very important, it looks like Trump voters voted against their own interests. And they did by that specific standard but it would be wrong to think they voted irrationally. They still voted in favour of other personal interests. — Benkei
So don't blame the voters, blame the system. — Benkei
If people vote on single issues then a two-party system will inevatibly cause them to vote against some of their interests because two parties can never align their policies in such a way as to cater to a majority of individual interests. Only a multi-party system would be able to do that. — Benkei
This means voters do not vote against their interest, but that they prioritise their interests and vote accordingly. What you do is project your own priorities on them and then don't understand their voting behaviour (how can they not see that lower taxes and no universal healthcare is bad for them!). Answer: they don't think it's as important as wanting to overturn Roe vs. Wade. It's not ignorant, stupid or irrational to do so. — Benkei
They precisely did vote irrationally. They vote against their interests (irrationally) when one person's policies would have had an empirically demonstrable positive effect on your community and the other exactly the opposite, yet you vote for him or her anyway. I'm talking about specific communities, but the argument can be made nationally as well.
There are a lot of assumptions underlying your conclusion it is irrational to believe lower taxes are better. You can disagree with these people, but you cannot claim someone holding that position is irrational. — Benkei
That’s not what I said, but I doubt accuracy is paramount here. It’s my money; I earned it; I know best what to do with it. It’s really that simple. If you cannot explain how that is irrational or don’t want to answer or cannot say how that is against my best interest, that’s fine, but just know that I was genuinely curious. — NOS4A2
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.