I don’t know if I love that phrase’s use here as it sets up the government as some foreign entity that is stealing from you when, at least in theory, it should be the price you pay for your community’s betterment. Of course that’s not what it feels like in the US (maybe anywhere, maybe federal taxes feel bad always), but that’s an argument for redistributing power and fixing the underlying systems more so than it is to be upset that taxes are a thing (or paint them as… Evil or something which this phrase does).
“Reach into your pocket” makes it sound as if they’re stealing from you. Which, if you live in the USA, is mostly true.
In functioning democratic societies those taxes pay for things that benefit the citizens. At least that is the stated goal, and if they fuck it up, they get voted out.
I think you guys need to start voting with your bullets.
I am slowly loathing commenting on Lemmy, people here seem increasingly incapable of having a good conversation.
I’m explicitly saying framing it as “reaching into your pocket and taking your wages” is a negative light to cast taxes in. You don’t go to the bakery and buy bread and describe it as the baker reaching into your pocket and taking your wages. That would be insane. You pay the baker to provide you bread.
Society should, and I’m gonna emphasize this for the most common commentors, should as in theoretically in an ideal society taxes should feel like a person paying the city for good public transit, universal healthcare, UBI, minimally expensive maximally effective defense, a social safety net, regulatory bodies, public education, fire protection, wildlife preserves and parks, libraries, and public and enriching spaces.
It shouldn’t, ideally, feel like someone reaching into your pockets, it should feel like a valuable transaction. Taxes don’t have to be a negative thing, akin to someone stealing your money. They should be something people take pride in.
Of course the US is a falling state and so this hasn’t been the case for a long time (if ever), and most other countries despite providing better services still have to deal with the conservative propaganda that “welfare” and “healthcare” and “public transit” are wasteful. That’s not what I’m really here addressing. I’m just saying painting taxes as theft enables and supports conservative propaganda that disables or errodes community ownership and power - the very things that are synonomous with quality of life.
I mean I get your point, it’s easy to assume the consistent factor in the discussions is the problem and you might be right. Id argue the systems of Lemmy are producing, through a mechanism I don’t understand, worse conversations over time. It might not even be Lemmy but the rise of AI or bots, I don’t really know. But I’ve had a couple conversations now within a short period that it’s like talking to people with an axe to grind throwing a random dart at the comment section and having it out there under the guise of talking to me - a person. It’s infuriating.
You’ve not been that bad, but you did miss the entire point of what I was saying and didn’t really engage with the point of my comment. Maybe my comments aren’t as focused as I think they are, or maybe in online discourse the capacity to focus on the secondary threads (or maybe the inability to distinguish what the main topic is) is too hard. Idk.
I’m not trying to attack you, I’m venting my frustration for something you did but that isn’t your fault as I’m systemically seeing it on Lemmy as of late.
Like imagine replying to this comment with “ignoring what you wrote, when the government reaches into your pocket to take your money, shouldn’t we have a better say in where that money gets spent.” It’s like… Not engaging with the person’s comment in it’s entirety and focusing on the smallest secondary thread instead while reinforcing the reason why I brought up the primary thread.
Again, no shame or disdain or ill feelings towards you. I’m just trying to explain what happened from my perspective and now officially and publicly wondering why this keeps happening.
They’ve raised a valid criticism of our tax structure and we’re focused on wording. Governments are taking money from working class people, and the assertion that this is necessary for a healthy society is not true.
The OC did not raise a valid criticism of our tax structure, or calling their statement that is a stretch. They complained at where it went, but not how our taxes are structured. You brought up a tax structure complaint, specifically a land value tax. That’s not applicable to the primary thread although sure, I’m all for taxing landlords out of existence. Everyone should own the land they live on and part of the land they work on and part of the land their community is built on.
Now back to the primary thread, explain to me how the exchange of goods and services for money is taking money from working class people? Do you describe the baker as taking money from you? I know you don’t because you aren’t programmed to, so why not extend that same language to the government which (ideally) does the exact same thing.
I don’t know how a society gets high quality public healthcare, research, transit, welfare, regulations, or defense without taxes. I think that’s naieve given the current state of the world showing that when you remove or corrupt government from/in things like healthcare (for example in the US) you get a terrible healthcare system. Same with every other category. There is no country with strong defense that doesn’t have a government and taxes, same with every other category I provided. Not to say what exists today bounds what can exist tomorrow but still.
“It sucks that they’re taking our money by force, but at least it’s going to something good.”
“That’s not taking your money by force because it’s necessary! Why, it’s basically the same thing as choosing to hire a baker.”
“It’s not necessary to take poor people’s money by force.”
“What are you even blathering about? Wow, people here are getting worse. No offense.”
Nobody here is suggesting we get public healthcare, research, transit, or welfare without taxes. I’m suggesting that tax incidence is why the initial comment had to even qualify it. The lady doth protest too much.
They are going to reach into your pocket no matter what.
They aren’t even in your pocket, relatively speaking. At the local level, you’re a drop in the bucket beside the big land owners and corporate industries. At the state level, you’re even less relevant. At the federal level, between intentional trade and deficit spending, you might as well not exist.
The joke of modern taxation is how it’s largely unnecessary at the individual level. If the state simply planned it’s economy and managed it’s natural resources, everyone could do the Alaska thing where they pay you to live there.
California hosts multiple trillionaires, ffs. Nobody with an income under seven figures needs to pay a dime to support that state’s spending plan.
The phrase “at no cost to the city” is a red flag.
It either means someone is lying, or that there’s some kind of “public-private partnership” which are frequently handouts to corporations or rich people.
Maybe this is the rare case when the government will properly supervise the private side, and hold them to account.
And as usual I don’t know if I should be outraged that a private company is involve that may lead to questionable practices or happy that at least they are 1000 affordable units available. Both maybe? I guess I’m cautiously optimistic.
Yep.
They are going to reach into your pocket no matter what. The only question is if your money goes to a bunch of rich guys or back to people like you.
I don’t know if I love that phrase’s use here as it sets up the government as some foreign entity that is stealing from you when, at least in theory, it should be the price you pay for your community’s betterment. Of course that’s not what it feels like in the US (maybe anywhere, maybe federal taxes feel bad always), but that’s an argument for redistributing power and fixing the underlying systems more so than it is to be upset that taxes are a thing (or paint them as… Evil or something which this phrase does).
That is the point. The taxes are reality, you are going to pay them. Whether they are evil or not depends on what that money is used for.
“Reach into your pocket” makes it sound as if they’re stealing from you. Which, if you live in the USA, is mostly true.
In functioning democratic societies those taxes pay for things that benefit the citizens. At least that is the stated goal, and if they fuck it up, they get voted out.
I think you guys need to start voting with your bullets.
Even if it’s for something good, they’re still reaching into your pocket and taking wages you earned by working.
It would be more progressive if taxes were raised from the unearned rents of the wealthy, with land value taxes.
I am slowly loathing commenting on Lemmy, people here seem increasingly incapable of having a good conversation.
I’m explicitly saying framing it as “reaching into your pocket and taking your wages” is a negative light to cast taxes in. You don’t go to the bakery and buy bread and describe it as the baker reaching into your pocket and taking your wages. That would be insane. You pay the baker to provide you bread.
Society should, and I’m gonna emphasize this for the most common commentors, should as in theoretically in an ideal society taxes should feel like a person paying the city for good public transit, universal healthcare, UBI, minimally expensive maximally effective defense, a social safety net, regulatory bodies, public education, fire protection, wildlife preserves and parks, libraries, and public and enriching spaces.
It shouldn’t, ideally, feel like someone reaching into your pockets, it should feel like a valuable transaction. Taxes don’t have to be a negative thing, akin to someone stealing your money. They should be something people take pride in.
Of course the US is a falling state and so this hasn’t been the case for a long time (if ever), and most other countries despite providing better services still have to deal with the conservative propaganda that “welfare” and “healthcare” and “public transit” are wasteful. That’s not what I’m really here addressing. I’m just saying painting taxes as theft enables and supports conservative propaganda that disables or errodes community ownership and power - the very things that are synonomous with quality of life.
Pausing the discussion about progressive taxation for a second.
If people on Lemmy seem increasingly incapable of having a good conversation, then who do you think is the most likely person to have changed?
We should be able to discuss this subject without personal attacks.
I mean I get your point, it’s easy to assume the consistent factor in the discussions is the problem and you might be right. Id argue the systems of Lemmy are producing, through a mechanism I don’t understand, worse conversations over time. It might not even be Lemmy but the rise of AI or bots, I don’t really know. But I’ve had a couple conversations now within a short period that it’s like talking to people with an axe to grind throwing a random dart at the comment section and having it out there under the guise of talking to me - a person. It’s infuriating.
You’ve not been that bad, but you did miss the entire point of what I was saying and didn’t really engage with the point of my comment. Maybe my comments aren’t as focused as I think they are, or maybe in online discourse the capacity to focus on the secondary threads (or maybe the inability to distinguish what the main topic is) is too hard. Idk.
I’m not trying to attack you, I’m venting my frustration for something you did but that isn’t your fault as I’m systemically seeing it on Lemmy as of late.
Like imagine replying to this comment with “ignoring what you wrote, when the government reaches into your pocket to take your money, shouldn’t we have a better say in where that money gets spent.” It’s like… Not engaging with the person’s comment in it’s entirety and focusing on the smallest secondary thread instead while reinforcing the reason why I brought up the primary thread.
Again, no shame or disdain or ill feelings towards you. I’m just trying to explain what happened from my perspective and now officially and publicly wondering why this keeps happening.
They’ve raised a valid criticism of our tax structure and we’re focused on wording. Governments are taking money from working class people, and the assertion that this is necessary for a healthy society is not true.
The OC did not raise a valid criticism of our tax structure, or calling their statement that is a stretch. They complained at where it went, but not how our taxes are structured. You brought up a tax structure complaint, specifically a land value tax. That’s not applicable to the primary thread although sure, I’m all for taxing landlords out of existence. Everyone should own the land they live on and part of the land they work on and part of the land their community is built on.
Now back to the primary thread, explain to me how the exchange of goods and services for money is taking money from working class people? Do you describe the baker as taking money from you? I know you don’t because you aren’t programmed to, so why not extend that same language to the government which (ideally) does the exact same thing.
I don’t know how a society gets high quality public healthcare, research, transit, welfare, regulations, or defense without taxes. I think that’s naieve given the current state of the world showing that when you remove or corrupt government from/in things like healthcare (for example in the US) you get a terrible healthcare system. Same with every other category. There is no country with strong defense that doesn’t have a government and taxes, same with every other category I provided. Not to say what exists today bounds what can exist tomorrow but still.
“It sucks that they’re taking our money by force, but at least it’s going to something good.”
“That’s not taking your money by force because it’s necessary! Why, it’s basically the same thing as choosing to hire a baker.”
“It’s not necessary to take poor people’s money by force.”
“What are you even blathering about? Wow, people here are getting worse. No offense.”
Nobody here is suggesting we get public healthcare, research, transit, or welfare without taxes. I’m suggesting that tax incidence is why the initial comment had to even qualify it. The lady doth protest too much.
They aren’t even in your pocket, relatively speaking. At the local level, you’re a drop in the bucket beside the big land owners and corporate industries. At the state level, you’re even less relevant. At the federal level, between intentional trade and deficit spending, you might as well not exist.
The joke of modern taxation is how it’s largely unnecessary at the individual level. If the state simply planned it’s economy and managed it’s natural resources, everyone could do the Alaska thing where they pay you to live there.
California hosts multiple trillionaires, ffs. Nobody with an income under seven figures needs to pay a dime to support that state’s spending plan.
Sounds like here it’s letting a private company spend the money to get access to 3,000 residences in exchange for 1,000 affordable ones.
The phrase “at no cost to the city” is a red flag.
It either means someone is lying, or that there’s some kind of “public-private partnership” which are frequently handouts to corporations or rich people.
Maybe this is the rare case when the government will properly supervise the private side, and hold them to account.
And as usual I don’t know if I should be outraged that a private company is involve that may lead to questionable practices or happy that at least they are 1000 affordable units available. Both maybe? I guess I’m cautiously optimistic.