Why do Republicans perceive every tax as "punishing" something?

[bripat9643]

A VAT is just a way to slip tax increases under the door without anyone noticing them. A national sales tax would be preferable because then you'd see what you were paying int taxes every time you made a purchase.

I wouldn't approve of either unless the 16th Amendment was repealed first.

If you are a wage or salary earner then the 16th Amendment is irrelevant. Those forms of "income" were subjected to DIRECT TAXATION in 1944.

The FDR administration levied a direct tax on property pursuant to the Victory Tax - a war tax - that they can levied for two years. The welfare/warfare state "forgot" to remove it after the two years lapsed.

Too bad, if you try now, they will declare you a "tax protestor" , an enemy of the state which allows then to fuck in the ass in the name of "national security".

.

The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913, so it's highly relevant. FDR couldn't have passed any of those taxes without the 16th.

 

[dblack]

Why do Republicans perceive every tax as "punishing" something?

I can't speak for Republicans, and I'm not interested in the idiotic partisan pissing match you all are obsessed with, but ...

The reason so many people perceive taxation to be punishment is because so much of our tax code is designed be just that. The tax-penalty of the individual mandate made this crystal clear, and should give us pause to recognize that the taxation power has become widely co-opted as a tool to dictate behavior, rather than simply a means of raising revenue for government.

 

[bripat9643]

Why do Republicans perceive every tax as "punishing" something?

I can't speak for Republicans, and I'm not interested in the idiotic partisan pissing match you all are obsessed with, but ...

The reason so many people perceive taxation to be punishment is because so much of our tax code is designed be just that. The tax-penalty of the individual mandate made this crystal clear, and should give us pause to recognize that the taxation power has become widely co-opted as a tool to dictate behavior, rather than simply a means of raising revenue for government.

All taxes are punishment. They sure as hell aren't a benefit.

 

[g5000]

Why do Republicans perceive every tax as "punishing" something? Except of course the few taxes they actually support.


If taxes "punish" people then so do stop signs.

The aim of punishment is to stop a certain behavior.

Liberals have no problem comprehending a "sin tax" (aka Pigovian tax), and often use them to stop a behavior. Taxes on cigarettes, liquor, pollution.

But what special unicorn power do "sin taxes" have which other taxes do not? If one tax stops a behavior, how does another tax NOT stop a behavior?

Every economist will tell you, the more you tax something, the less of it you get. So taxes achieve the same ends as any "punishment".

There is no difference between a Pigovian tax or an income tax.

This is why we need to get as much away from taxes on production (e.g., income taxes) and move more towards taxes on consumption (e.g., sales taxes). Would you rather punish production or consumption?

The answer is obvious.

 

[dblack]

Why do Republicans perceive every tax as "punishing" something?

I can't speak for Republicans, and I'm not interested in the idiotic partisan pissing match you all are obsessed with, but ...

The reason so many people perceive taxation to be punishment is because so much of our tax code is designed be just that. The tax-penalty of the individual mandate made this crystal clear, and should give us pause to recognize that the taxation power has become widely co-opted as a tool to dictate behavior, rather than simply a means of raising revenue for government.

All taxes are punishment. They sure as hell aren't a benefit.

I disagree. Taxation may not be, strictly speaking, 'voluntary' - but when equally applied it's not punitive. Not unless it's targeted at people specifically for their actions. When it is, even when the targeting is framed as 'incentives', then it becomes no different that punitive fines.

 

[JoeNormal]

I waited one week to have surgery on my arms. Most of that time was waiting for an appointment with my orthopedist. When I ruptured my Achilles tendon, the doctor wanted to schedule me for surgery the same day.

And how much do you spend on medical insurance in a year?

Less than $100/month comes out of my paycheck. My employer pays the rest. I don't know how much they pay. I had to pay $2600 in deductibles this year as well. Normally I have no medical issues other than my diabetes medication which costs me something like $10/month, so my deductible is normally close to zero. However, this year I broke both my forearms and I've had over $40,000 in medical bills as a result. The insurance company paid for everything aside from the $2600 deductible.

Congratulations on having good health care. I have it too. But have you ever considered that this is just one more way for the corporate world to 'own' you? If you struck out on your own, you'd have to deal with the pre-existing condition issues. Your out of pocket and/or premiums would almost certainly by higher. And if you couldn't afford them, the alternatives could lead to bankruptcy.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Why do Republicans perceive every tax as "punishing" something?

I can't speak for Republicans, and I'm not interested in the idiotic partisan pissing match you all are obsessed with, but ...

The reason so many people perceive taxation to be punishment is because so much of our tax code is designed be just that. The tax-penalty of the individual mandate made this crystal clear, and should give us pause to recognize that the taxation power has become widely co-opted as a tool to dictate behavior, rather than simply a means of raising revenue for government.

All taxes are punishment. They sure as hell aren't a benefit.

When taxes are administered for the sole purpose of funding the things government should be doing, infrastructure, Navy and Air force (not ground forces), paying the salaries (which should be modest with no benefits or public unions), Taxes actually become a "right." Taxes are the only way to maintain a government at all.

If someone said they were going to remove all taxes and every tax, I would say I have a right to be taxed, but only for those things delegated to the federal government and no more.

However, we're living under ... Communism and Fascism aren't the proper words, I believe Corporate Oligarchies is the most accurate representation. They are the kings of the Earth, and even Jesus spoke of them (below).

24When they came to Capernaum, those who collected the two-drachma tax came to Peter and said, “Does your teacher not pay the two-drachma tax?”25He said, “Yes.” And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs or poll-tax, from their sons or from strangers?”26When Peter said, “From strangers,” Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are exempt.27“However, so that we do not offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for you and Me.”

 

[dblack]

And how much do you spend on medical insurance in a year?

Less than $100/month comes out of my paycheck. My employer pays the rest. I don't know how much they pay. I had to pay $2600 in deductibles this year as well. Normally I have no medical issues other than my diabetes medication which costs me something like $10/month, so my deductible is normally close to zero. However, this year I broke both my forearms and I've had over $40,000 in medical bills as a result. The insurance company paid for everything aside from the $2600 deductible.

Congratulations on having good health care. I have it too. But have you ever considered that this is just one more way for the corporate world to 'own' you? If you struck out on your own, you'd have to deal with the pre-existing condition issues. Your out of pocket and/or premiums would almost certainly by higher. And if you couldn't afford them, the alternatives could lead to bankruptcy.

That's not being 'owned', because when push comes to shove you can say 'no'. The alternatives to corporate insurance might not be desirable - it depends on how much it costs and the services the given insurance company offers - but you're not required to do business with them (or, rather, we weren't until PPACA came along)

It's important for the ACA defense to present this false dichotomy: that we are all faced with a choice between being 'owned' by corporations or by government. But in the end, it is false. We can say no to corporations. Only government is authorized to force compliance.

 

[JoeNormal]

Less than $100/month comes out of my paycheck. My employer pays the rest. I don't know how much they pay. I had to pay $2600 in deductibles this year as well. Normally I have no medical issues other than my diabetes medication which costs me something like $10/month, so my deductible is normally close to zero. However, this year I broke both my forearms and I've had over $40,000 in medical bills as a result. The insurance company paid for everything aside from the $2600 deductible.

Congratulations on having good health care. I have it too. But have you ever considered that this is just one more way for the corporate world to 'own' you? If you struck out on your own, you'd have to deal with the pre-existing condition issues. Your out of pocket and/or premiums would almost certainly by higher. And if you couldn't afford them, the alternatives could lead to bankruptcy.

That's not being 'owned', because when push comes to shove you can say 'no'. The alternatives to corporate insurance might not be desirable - it depends on how much it costs and the services the given insurance company offers - but you're not required to do business with them (or, rather, we weren't until PPACA came along)

It's important for the ACA defense to present this false dichotomy: that we are all faced with a choice between being 'owned' by corporations or by government. But in the end, it is false. We can say no to corporations. Only government is authorized to force compliance.

Meh, you can say no to almost any situation unless you're a bona fide prisoner. It's still an effective tool of persuasion/extortion.

 

[dblack]

Congratulations on having good health care. I have it too. But have you ever considered that this is just one more way for the corporate world to 'own' you? If you struck out on your own, you'd have to deal with the pre-existing condition issues. Your out of pocket and/or premiums would almost certainly by higher. And if you couldn't afford them, the alternatives could lead to bankruptcy.

That's not being 'owned', because when push comes to shove you can say 'no'. The alternatives to corporate insurance might not be desirable - it depends on how much it costs and the services the given insurance company offers - but you're not required to do business with them (or, rather, we weren't until PPACA came along)

It's important for the ACA defense to present this false dichotomy: that we are all faced with a choice between being 'owned' by corporations or by government. But in the end, it is false. We can say no to corporations. Only government is authorized to force compliance.

Meh, you can say no to almost any situation unless you're a bona fide prisoner. It's still an effective tool of persuasion/extortion.

Well, persuasion is fine. I doubt we want to outlaw that. As far as 'extortion' goes, it depends on how wishy-washy you want to get with your definition. Long-story short - you want get beat up or thrown in jail for defying an insurance company or an employer. On the other hand, that's the 'hole-card' for government.

 

[JoeNormal]

That's not being 'owned', because when push comes to shove you can say 'no'. The alternatives to corporate insurance might not be desirable - it depends on how much it costs and the services the given insurance company offers - but you're not required to do business with them (or, rather, we weren't until PPACA came along)

It's important for the ACA defense to present this false dichotomy: that we are all faced with a choice between being 'owned' by corporations or by government. But in the end, it is false. We can say no to corporations. Only government is authorized to force compliance.

Meh, you can say no to almost any situation unless you're a bona fide prisoner. It's still an effective tool of persuasion/extortion.

Well, persuasion is fine. I doubt we want to outlaw that. As far as 'extortion' goes, it depends on how wishy-washy you want to get with your definition. Long-story short - you want get beat up or thrown in jail for defying an insurance company or an employer. On the other hand, that's the 'hole-card' for government.

Gettng beaten up is mild compared to some of the consequences of not having health insurance and if you really think the government has become that punitive, it's still legal to leave.

 

[healthmyths]

Why do Republicans perceive every tax as "punishing" something? Except of course the few taxes they actually support.


If taxes "punish" people then so do stop signs.

Obamacare regulations are forcing employers to cut employee hours at Indiana schools, according to the Courier-Journal.

“Schools across Indiana are cutting back the hours of teacher assistants, bus drivers, cafeteria workers and other aides to avoid having to offer them health insurance under the federal health care employer mandate that begins next year,” reports the paper.
Obamacare Forces Employee Hours to Be Cut at Indiana Schools | The Weekly Standard

 

[g5000]

We need to tax the rich more. Because...they are rich.

Roads-n-bridges! Roads-n-bridges! Rah-rah-rah!


I see no punishment here!

 

[Little-Acorn]

Why do Republicans perceive every tax as "punishing" something? Except of course the few taxes they actually support.


If taxes "punish" people then so do stop signs.

Glad you don't think taxes are punishing.

You can pay mine.

 

[g5000]

That rich fat bastard over there, he took roads and bridges to get his limo to his capitalist corporation so he could exploit workers and stuff!

The 47% who pay no federal income taxes? They crawled to work through glass and nails. They didn't use no roads or bridges. They didn't go to no schools and get no book learnin' growing up. They didn't use a penny's worth of government services. Ever.

We must tax the rich more!

 

[dblack]

Meh, you can say no to almost any situation unless you're a bona fide prisoner. It's still an effective tool of persuasion/extortion.

Well, persuasion is fine. I doubt we want to outlaw that. As far as 'extortion' goes, it depends on how wishy-washy you want to get with your definition. Long-story short - you want get beat up or thrown in jail for defying an insurance company or an employer. On the other hand, that's the 'hole-card' for government.

Gettng beaten up is mild compared to some of the consequences of not having health insurance ...

Certainly not if you die from your beating. Seriously, if this is all you got ....

and if you really think the government has become that punitive, it's still legal to leave.

Yes... the fallback position of authoritarians everywhere. Love it or leave it.

 

[bripat9643]

I can't speak for Republicans, and I'm not interested in the idiotic partisan pissing match you all are obsessed with, but ...

The reason so many people perceive taxation to be punishment is because so much of our tax code is designed be just that. The tax-penalty of the individual mandate made this crystal clear, and should give us pause to recognize that the taxation power has become widely co-opted as a tool to dictate behavior, rather than simply a means of raising revenue for government.

All taxes are punishment. They sure as hell aren't a benefit.

I disagree. Taxation may not be, strictly speaking, 'voluntary' - but when equally applied it's not punitive. Not unless it's targeted at people specifically for their actions. When it is, even when the targeting is framed as 'incentives', then it becomes no different that punitive fines.

Whether it's punitive isn't the issue. It harms you. Therefore it punishes you.

 

[dblack]

All taxes are punishment. They sure as hell aren't a benefit.

I disagree. Taxation may not be, strictly speaking, 'voluntary' - but when equally applied it's not punitive. Not unless it's targeted at people specifically for their actions. When it is, even when the targeting is framed as 'incentives', then it becomes no different that punitive fines.

Whether it's punitive isn't the issue. It harms you. Therefore it punishes you.

I just don't see much point in the 'all taxation is theft' (or punishment) debate as a going concern. Discriminatory taxation, on the other hand, where government actively uses its power to tax to target people for punishment and reward, is the real problem. if we have flat taxes and no loopholes, most of what we despise about the current tax code would go away. Then we can talk about how to get rid of taxation together.

 

[bripat9643]

I disagree. Taxation may not be, strictly speaking, 'voluntary' - but when equally applied it's not punitive. Not unless it's targeted at people specifically for their actions. When it is, even when the targeting is framed as 'incentives', then it becomes no different that punitive fines.

Whether it's punitive isn't the issue. It harms you. Therefore it punishes you.

I just don't see much point in the 'all taxation is theft' (or punishment) debate as a going concern. Discriminatory taxation, on the other hand, where government actively uses its power to tax to target people for punishment and reward, is the real problem. if we have flat taxes and no loopholes, most of what we despise about the current tax code would go away. Then we can talk about how to get rid of taxation together.

wrong. Taxes, period, are the problem. Some are worse than others, but all taxes are a problem. They all harm the people who have to pay them, and the proceeds are invariably put to nefarious purposes.

 

[JoeNormal]

Well, persuasion is fine. I doubt we want to outlaw that. As far as 'extortion' goes, it depends on how wishy-washy you want to get with your definition. Long-story short - you want get beat up or thrown in jail for defying an insurance company or an employer. On the other hand, that's the 'hole-card' for government.

Gettng beaten up is mild compared to some of the consequences of not having health insurance ...

Certainly not if you die from your beating. Seriously, if this is all you got ....

and if you really think the government has become that punitive, it's still legal to leave.

Yes... the fallback position of authoritarians everywhere. Love it or leave it.

Seems to me that's exactly what you're saying about corporations.