Fine, allow me to clarify: those making $251K a year.
OK, well if we continue with the assumption that taxes would be increased 3% on people earning more than $250K, then a person earning $251K would see their tax bill increase a whopping $30. That hikes their effective tax rate by 0.012%.
Ethereal said:
Explain. Not being obtuse; genuinely curious.
A person earning $500K (continuing with the same assumptions) would see their income in excess of $250K increase by 3%, for a total tax increase of $7,500. That hikes their effective tax rate by 1.5%.
Ethereal said:
In effect they are spending it on themselves. They enact class-specific welfare programs, programs from which my dad will derive no conceivable benefit yet is expected to fund, and use them as leverage to garner political support.
If those programs are used only to garner political support then I would agree they should be eliminated. But it's good for the economy to have an educated, healthy population that can use a functional infrastructure system.
Ethereal said:
I'm not taking issue with government programs from which Americans derive a comprehensive benefit. I'm speaking to programs that confer benefits onto a select demographic and the idea that people have an obligation to subsidize the cost of these benefits.
Depends on the demographic. If the demographic is based on race or age, then I agree with you. If it's open to everyone and/or the demographic is based on poverty and/or inability to afford necessities such as education or health care, then I disagree.
I don't see why you should expect for your father to benefit from every single dollar he spends on taxes. That isn't the idea of government spending. If the government worked like that, then we wouldn't need it at all.
Ethereal said:
I'm aware but I fail to see the connection between our current economic status and those of the 80s and 90s.
Do you mean our current short-term economic status (i.e. a severe recession), or are you speaking more generally about our long-term economic status (i.e. an advanced information economy that is more integrated with the rest of the world than it was in the 80s and 90s)?
If you're talking about the current recession, there is no guarantee that it will still be going on when the tax cuts expire in 2011. If it is, it can be renewed for another year or two if necessary. If not, it can expire as planned.
If you're talking more long-term, it's true that our economy has changed, but I see no logical reason to assume that those changes mean that we need a much lower top tax rate today for the same amount of economic growth compared to what we had in the 90s.
Ethereal said:
Also, as much as you would like to confine this debate to matters of practicality there is still a moral issue at the center of this issue. Why must people like my dad be forcibly compelled to fund class-specific welfare programs? That he is able to is not a sufficient justification.
If the people decide they want the government to fund certain programs, someone will have to pay for them. Who would you recommend, if not the people who have the ability to pay for them?
Ethereal said:
Of course it seems like a good justification to you, you're arguing for higher taxes. But racking up debt is not the only alternative despite you preemptive effort to dismiss spending cuts as a viable option.
The annual budget has not decreased since 1965. If the American people were alarmed by this, one would expect them to have elected budget-cutters at least once since then. I'd welcome efforts to trim a lot of the wasteful spending out of the budget, but history is not on your side on this one. Even if you cut wasteful spending, the overall level of spending is likely to continue to increase.
Ethereal said:
There are a multitude of government programs that have absolutely no basis for their existence except as a medium for garnering political support and maintaining dependence upon a bloated government.
One such example is Social security. SS is broken and people of our generation should not expect the government to support them in their old age. A sunset clause needs to be added to Social Security and Americans should be encouraged to privatize their retirement options. I certainly won't be counting on my SS check when I get old and neither should anyone else. It's outlived its usefulness and only those people who are currently dependent upon it or are on the cusp of dependence should be allowed to retain the benefits.
This is only ONE thing I can think of that should either be phased out or totally restructured. Your unwillingness to accept these ideas as viable is not evidence of their impracticality.
I have no problem with that. In fact, I'd welcome social security reform. Let's make it means-tested as it originally should have been, and let's gradually phase out the benefits and raise the retirement age. Eventually I'd like to see the government assist people based on their poverty rather than their age.
With that said, social security reform would not cut costs anytime soon. In fact, it would dramatically INCREASE costs in the short term, so it isn't really a basis to justify tax cuts.
Ethereal said:
This all rests upon your first point. Our political framework was never meant to be used a medium for accommodating popular sentiment. We are supposed to be a Republic of laws, not a direct democracy where the whims of the people dictate the manner in which we run our country.
Let's suspend disbelief for a second and assume I agree with your assessment of the government's present role in the economy. Do you really believe that there is any going back to the way things were 200 years ago? That the American people are about to rise up, dump all the Washington politicians, forsake all wealth-transfer programs, and never do it again? I see a lot of evidence to the contrary, in fact.
Whether or not you believe that "accommodating popular sentiment" is a change for the worse, the situation is what it is. Would you rather pay for it now, or have future generations pay for it?
Ethereal said:
The government has a legitimate role in taxing its citizens but only insofar as it uses the revenue to fund institutions of necessity. Simply because the people want something does not mean they have a right to it. No one should be given access to my belongings by mere virtue of their desire.
"Institutions of necessity" is subjective. I consider public health care, public education, poverty reduction programs, and a highway system to be institutions of necessity. I favor these things not just because 51% of people might want them, but because I believe they are economically sound policies.
Ethereal said:
Not everyone who adheres to their principles is a "moralizing ideologue." My argument has a legitimate basis in legal theory and history and your fixation on matters of practicality is not reason enough to disregard the principles upon which this country was founded.
If you want to protest the evolution of our government from 1789 to 2009, you're a little late. After the current recession ends, a small tax hike will almost certainly be necessary to pay for our government. Especially if we add on universal health care in addition to what we already have.
