Biggest spending category - taxes!

[Monkey Uncle]

There are two ways to think about government in general: 1.)  Government exists to control you and dictate your life, or 2.) Government exists to serve you.  I tend to think the second way, so I vote in terms of which party provides the most to me.  That generally turns out to be the Democratic Party.  I'm sure multimillionaires feel differently, because cutting taxes will save them $50K, $100K, or more, but I haven't reached that level yet, so I like having subsidized healthcare and services.  When it comes down to it, I think people should vote for whatever benefits them the most.  Who cares if that "takes" from someone else?  Not my problem.

Thank you sir, you have succinctly confirmed my views. This is the opposite view of self-reliance and people who create value, providers.

There's self-reliance and then there is stupidity. I like to always start off any financial choice by assuming I am a business. My goal is to maximize my own profit (savings). Just as businesses lobby (vote) to change the rules in their favor (as it is their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to do so) that is how I must act in my own business for my shareholder (me). Therefore, if there is more benefit to "taking" tax money in the form of programs I use, I'll vote for that. If there is more benefit to reducing taxes, I'll vote for that. Just like any business.

Now, the argument can be made that "Hey, but you're not a business, you're taking from person X to enrich yourself!" True. But businesses do this all the time in the form of gaining government subsidies/preferential tax treatment.

This should not be a personal values discussion at all in my view. It doesn't matter if it's not self-reliant or I'm on the government dole or I'm begging on a street corner (if that's the best way to increase my profit). Who to vote for (for their fiscal platform - I'm purposefully ignoring social platforms) should be a cut and dry financial decision.

All for one and more for me?  This is exactly what is wrong with government: businesses (and other organizations and individuals) use the power of taxation to take from others and reward themselves.  It's precisely the reason both the Democratic and Republican parties are rotten to the core.  The only difference is who is making off with the booty.

[Capsu78]

I just get irritated with being pitched that "sustainability" (IE global warming/cooling/ climate change  making the polar bears cry)  is so, so important when actual tax policy sustainability is blown off.  What can't go on forever, won't.

[Gin1984]

I just get irritated with being pitched that "sustainability" (IE global warming/cooling/ climate change  making the polar bears cry)  is so, so important when actual tax policy sustainability is blown off.  What can't go on forever, won't.

Can you explain this?  Because we really don't pay that much in taxes (see the blogger who paid $150 in tax on $150,000).

[Capsu78]

You don't cut taxes when we have a deficit, you don't start a war we can't win with money we don't have.  I'd rather spend money at home than in a war and the Dems get that.

That must make the Biden and Hillary 2016 campaign teams very concerned since they both voted in favor of the "war(s) we can't win".  Who would ever vote for anyone so on the wrong side of history?

[Gin1984]

You don't cut taxes when we have a deficit, you don't start a war we can't win with money we don't have.  I'd rather spend money at home than in a war and the Dems get that.

That must make the Biden and Hillary 2016 campaign teams very concerned since they both voted in favor of the "war(s) we can't win".  Who would ever vote for anyone so on the wrong side of history?

I am not pleased with either one, nor am I pleased at our entire country/society in their behavior towards the Middle East and middle easterners since then, but there is a difference agreeing to it and starting it.  I'd much rather have Barbara Jean Lee run, she has morals, do you know she and her family were threatened for her vote?   That being said if you start a war, you increases taxes or cut other things to balance the budget.  The bush tax credits were never considered "on the table" so to speak during that time. 

[Capsu78]

I just get irritated with being pitched that "sustainability" (IE global warming/cooling/ climate change  making the polar bears cry)  is so, so important when actual tax policy sustainability is blown off.  What can't go on forever, won't.

Can you explain this?  Because we really don't pay that much in taxes (see the blogger who paid $150 in tax on $150,000).

I have no idea what your concept of "because we really don't pay that much in taxes" is.  Our household paid well more than $150 in just Federal taxes last year...every day last year.

[Gin1984]

I just get irritated with being pitched that "sustainability" (IE global warming/cooling/ climate change  making the polar bears cry)  is so, so important when actual tax policy sustainability is blown off.  What can't go on forever, won't.

Can you explain this?  Because we really don't pay that much in taxes (see the blogger who paid $150 in tax on $150,000).

I have no idea what your concept of "because we really don't pay that much in taxes" is.  Our household paid well more than $150 in just Federal taxes last year...every day last year.

The citizens in the US, in general, do not pay much in taxes compared even to our recent past but especially in comparison to other countries.   If you are saying you spent over $50,000 in taxes then you make many, many time over the household income (about $50,000) and have it pretty darn good.  If you don't want to pay that much, quit your job.  MMM did.

[Capsu78]

The bush tax credits were never considered "on the table" so to speak during that time.

What are the "bush tax credits"?  I did a bunch of new landscaping projects involving many new bushes and my tax preparer never mentioned I could get credits. 
Do the landscaping credits exist or was it a Shift error on your keyboard that only some Presidents get Caps as part of the prestige as being a POTUS?

[Capsu78]

The citizens in the US, in general, do not pay much in taxes compared even to our recent past but especially in comparison to other countries.   If you are saying you spent over $50,000 in taxes then you make many, many time over the household income (about $50,000) and have it pretty darn good.  If you don't want to pay that much, quit your job.  MMM did.

We make this income because we "sell stuff"... if we don't "sell stuff" we don't make this income.  If we don't sell stuff, we don't make "many, many times over the household income"... in fact we don't make squat. 

What prevents others from having it "pretty darn good" just by "selling stuff"?' Cars, furniture, software, insurance, rap music?'  Its a lot of work and worry, mind you.  We have never had a bad day "selling stuff".  Hint: The problems comes in when you are not selling stuff"... What exactly is our safety net from Uncle Sugar when we don't "sell enough stuff" (meet quotas) to cover the expenses? We get to not pay the taxes?  Everybody has that tax break!

[Gin1984]

The bush tax credits were never considered "on the table" so to speak during that time.

What are the "bush tax credits"?  I did a bunch of new landscaping projects involving many new bushes and my tax preparer never mentioned I could get credits. 
Do the landscaping credits exist or was it a Shift error on your keyboard that only some Presidents get Caps as part of the prestige as being a POTUS?

I'm on an iPad so yes, I was lazy and did not go back and correct the lack of capitalization.  But can we get back to the matter at hand?  We do not pay that much, as a percent of our income.  If you want to pay less, earn less, it is really easy.  And frankly, yes those who think I get less bodily autonomy because of my gender or those who think that certain people should have less rights because of their sexual orientation does not have my respect.  That has nothing to do with my laziness on fixing the iPad.  Get over it.

[Capsu78]

And frankly, yes those who think I get less bodily autonomy because of my gender or those who think that certain people should have less rights because of their sexual orientation does not have my respect.  That has nothing to do with my laziness on fixing the iPad.  Get over it.

What???

[dividendman]

There are two ways to think about government in general: 1.)  Government exists to control you and dictate your life, or 2.) Government exists to serve you.  I tend to think the second way, so I vote in terms of which party provides the most to me.  That generally turns out to be the Democratic Party.  I'm sure multimillionaires feel differently, because cutting taxes will save them $50K, $100K, or more, but I haven't reached that level yet, so I like having subsidized healthcare and services.  When it comes down to it, I think people should vote for whatever benefits them the most.  Who cares if that "takes" from someone else?  Not my problem.

Thank you sir, you have succinctly confirmed my views. This is the opposite view of self-reliance and people who create value, providers.

There's self-reliance and then there is stupidity. I like to always start off any financial choice by assuming I am a business. My goal is to maximize my own profit (savings). Just as businesses lobby (vote) to change the rules in their favor (as it is their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to do so) that is how I must act in my own business for my shareholder (me). Therefore, if there is more benefit to "taking" tax money in the form of programs I use, I'll vote for that. If there is more benefit to reducing taxes, I'll vote for that. Just like any business.

Now, the argument can be made that "Hey, but you're not a business, you're taking from person X to enrich yourself!" True. But businesses do this all the time in the form of gaining government subsidies/preferential tax treatment.

This should not be a personal values discussion at all in my view. It doesn't matter if it's not self-reliant or I'm on the government dole or I'm begging on a street corner (if that's the best way to increase my profit). Who to vote for (for their fiscal platform - I'm purposefully ignoring social platforms) should be a cut and dry financial decision.

All for one and more for me?  This is exactly what is wrong with government: businesses (and other organizations and individuals) use the power of taxation to take from others and reward themselves.  It's precisely the reason both the Democratic and Republican parties are rotten to the core.  The only difference is who is making off with the booty.

All I am saying is the choice is clear. We can whine and complain about how unjust the system is, but one guy is going to give you $10 and the other guy $12. I don't see where any value judgements come into play. Just imagine an item at a store that you want to buy is listed at two different prices. You have a choice to pay the higher price or the lower price. Of course you pick the lower price.

Why voting for your economic best interest is different from buying the cheaper item at the store escapes me (it is a clear dollars and cents decision in both cases).

[Monkey Uncle]

There are two ways to think about government in general: 1.)  Government exists to control you and dictate your life, or 2.) Government exists to serve you.  I tend to think the second way, so I vote in terms of which party provides the most to me.  That generally turns out to be the Democratic Party.  I'm sure multimillionaires feel differently, because cutting taxes will save them $50K, $100K, or more, but I haven't reached that level yet, so I like having subsidized healthcare and services.  When it comes down to it, I think people should vote for whatever benefits them the most.  Who cares if that "takes" from someone else?  Not my problem.

Thank you sir, you have succinctly confirmed my views. This is the opposite view of self-reliance and people who create value, providers.

There's self-reliance and then there is stupidity. I like to always start off any financial choice by assuming I am a business. My goal is to maximize my own profit (savings). Just as businesses lobby (vote) to change the rules in their favor (as it is their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to do so) that is how I must act in my own business for my shareholder (me). Therefore, if there is more benefit to "taking" tax money in the form of programs I use, I'll vote for that. If there is more benefit to reducing taxes, I'll vote for that. Just like any business.

Now, the argument can be made that "Hey, but you're not a business, you're taking from person X to enrich yourself!" True. But businesses do this all the time in the form of gaining government subsidies/preferential tax treatment.

This should not be a personal values discussion at all in my view. It doesn't matter if it's not self-reliant or I'm on the government dole or I'm begging on a street corner (if that's the best way to increase my profit). Who to vote for (for their fiscal platform - I'm purposefully ignoring social platforms) should be a cut and dry financial decision.

All for one and more for me?  This is exactly what is wrong with government: businesses (and other organizations and individuals) use the power of taxation to take from others and reward themselves.  It's precisely the reason both the Democratic and Republican parties are rotten to the core.  The only difference is who is making off with the booty.

All I am saying is the choice is clear. We can whine and complain about how unjust the system is, but one guy is going to give you $10 and the other guy $12. I don't see where any value judgements come into play. Just imagine an item at a store that you want to buy is listed at two different prices. You have a choice to pay the higher price or the lower price. Of course you pick the lower price.

Why voting for your economic best interest is different from buying the cheaper item at the store escapes me (it is a clear dollars and cents decision in both cases).

Fairness?  A basic sense of right and wrong?  The knowledge that you're bankrupting the country in the long term?  When you buy an item at the store, you and the merchant have agreed on a price.  When you vote for a politician who uses the power of government to rig the system in your favor to the detriment of someone else, the other party to that transaction most likely did not agree to it.  It's more like shoplifting than making a consensual purchase.

Now, in reality I don't blame the individual voter nearly as much as I blame the big money kingmakers who buy politicians and orchestrate their every move.  But still, one needs to think about the long-term consequences of who they elect, even if the choice is between bad and worse.

[Tabaxus]

There are two ways to think about government in general: 1.)  Government exists to control you and dictate your life, or 2.) Government exists to serve you.  I tend to think the second way, so I vote in terms of which party provides the most to me.  That generally turns out to be the Democratic Party.  I'm sure multimillionaires feel differently, because cutting taxes will save them $50K, $100K, or more, but I haven't reached that level yet, so I like having subsidized healthcare and services.  When it comes down to it, I think people should vote for whatever benefits them the most.  Who cares if that "takes" from someone else?  Not my problem.

Thank you sir, you have succinctly confirmed my views. This is the opposite view of self-reliance and people who create value, providers.

There's self-reliance and then there is stupidity. I like to always start off any financial choice by assuming I am a business. My goal is to maximize my own profit (savings). Just as businesses lobby (vote) to change the rules in their favor (as it is their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to do so) that is how I must act in my own business for my shareholder (me). Therefore, if there is more benefit to "taking" tax money in the form of programs I use, I'll vote for that. If there is more benefit to reducing taxes, I'll vote for that. Just like any business.

Now, the argument can be made that "Hey, but you're not a business, you're taking from person X to enrich yourself!" True. But businesses do this all the time in the form of gaining government subsidies/preferential tax treatment.

This should not be a personal values discussion at all in my view. It doesn't matter if it's not self-reliant or I'm on the government dole or I'm begging on a street corner (if that's the best way to increase my profit). Who to vote for (for their fiscal platform - I'm purposefully ignoring social platforms) should be a cut and dry financial decision.

All for one and more for me?  This is exactly what is wrong with government: businesses (and other organizations and individuals) use the power of taxation to take from others and reward themselves.  It's precisely the reason both the Democratic and Republican parties are rotten to the core.  The only difference is who is making off with the booty.

All I am saying is the choice is clear. We can whine and complain about how unjust the system is, but one guy is going to give you $10 and the other guy $12. I don't see where any value judgements come into play. Just imagine an item at a store that you want to buy is listed at two different prices. You have a choice to pay the higher price or the lower price. Of course you pick the lower price.

Why voting for your economic best interest is different from buying the cheaper item at the store escapes me (it is a clear dollars and cents decision in both cases).

Regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum, you apparently are (a) unaware of the Tragedy of the Commons and (b) having a difficult time grasping the fact that you should not always do the thing that is in your own best interest.  You can obviously take this to an extreme--if you could murder a millionaire and take his money and you had 100% certainty that you wouldn't be caught, would you do it?  Less extreme--if you could defraud people with 100% certainty that you wouldn't be caught, would you do it?  Obviously, voting based solely on your narrow economic interest is different than those things because the system is set up to allow people to vote for whatever reason they want, but it's just a difference of degree.

Personally, I consistently vote for people who would raise my taxes--probably significantly--if they could push it through.  Three reasons:  (a)  It's the right thing to do because it's the right economic policy for the country as a whole.  (b)  There are social issues that I believe are very important, and the Dems tend to line up more directly with my views on those things, even though--get this--none of those social issues will ever be an issue for me personally. (c)  I believe foreign policy is very important to the country as a whole, and the Dems tend to line up better with my views in that arena, as well.

Your worldview here is... self-centric, to say the least.  That's your right, but don't try to diminish how self-centered it is and claim that it is "clear" that everyone should act similarly, or even that it would be rational for everyone to act similarly.

[dividendman]

All I am saying is the choice is clear. We can whine and complain about how unjust the system is, but one guy is going to give you $10 and the other guy $12. I don't see where any value judgements come into play. Just imagine an item at a store that you want to buy is listed at two different prices. You have a choice to pay the higher price or the lower price. Of course you pick the lower price.

Why voting for your economic best interest is different from buying the cheaper item at the store escapes me (it is a clear dollars and cents decision in both cases).

Regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum, you apparently are (a) unaware of the Tragedy of the Commons and (b) having a difficult time grasping the fact that you should not always do the thing that is in your own best interest.  You can obviously take this to an extreme--if you could murder a millionaire and take his money and you had 100% certainty that you wouldn't be caught, would you do it?  Less extreme--if you could defraud people with 100% certainty that you wouldn't be caught, would you do it?  Obviously, voting based solely on your narrow economic interest is different than those things because the system is set up to allow people to vote for whatever reason they want, but it's just a difference of degree.

Personally, I consistently vote for people who would raise my taxes--probably significantly--if they could push it through.  Three reasons:  (a)  It's the right thing to do because it's the right economic policy for the country as a whole.  (b)  There are social issues that I believe are very important, and the Dems tend to line up more directly with my views on those things, even though--get this--none of those social issues will ever be an issue for me personally. (c)  I believe foreign policy is very important to the country as a whole, and the Dems tend to line up better with my views in that arena, as well.

Your worldview here is... self-centric, to say the least.  That's your right, but don't try to diminish how self-centered it is and claim that it is "clear" that everyone should act similarly, or even that it would be rational for everyone to act similarly.

I'm not diminishing it. I agree it is a self-centric business approach. I said that I was explicitly ignoring the social platforms of each party for this particular discussion. I am aware of the tragedy of the commons. However, I think it is better to operate with an explicit goal in mind.

In the wealth accumulation phase the goal should be to operate like a business. I do not begrudge businesses doing what they can to maximize profit and I expect to be treated similarly i.e. people not lambasting me for trying to maximize my savings (profit).

Fairness, a basic sense of right and wrong, and the other things Monkey Uncle has mentioned are very subjective noble ideas but from a practical perspective they shouldn't enter into basic financial decisions that will benefit you (even if it is at the expense of others). The decisions we have today need to be made the way the game and rules are today - not what I wished they would be in some imaginary utopia.

Note that I am not saying that *every* decision is cut and dry in taking the financial benefit. Obviously killing someone without getting caught to make a shitload of cash is one such decision. Having kids may be another. But my contention is that voting for the fiscal platform of whichever party will benefit me the most is a clear decision to me.

When I do accumulate enough I will switch to a philanthropic goal being my highest priority. At that point my goal will be in how to best give away my accumulated wealth for the good of humanity.

[CDP45]

41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.

43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”

[waltworks]

I don't understand - regardless of where your income comes from (I sell stuff too) if you are paying $50k+ in taxes a year, you are making a freaking fortune and/or doing a bad job mitigating your tax bill with the various tools available to you.

-W

The citizens in the US, in general, do not pay much in taxes compared even to our recent past but especially in comparison to other countries.   If you are saying you spent over $50,000 in taxes then you make many, many time over the household income (about $50,000) and have it pretty darn good.  If you don't want to pay that much, quit your job.  MMM did.

We make this income because we "sell stuff"... if we don't "sell stuff" we don't make this income.  If we don't sell stuff, we don't make "many, many times over the household income"... in fact we don't make squat. 

What prevents others from having it "pretty darn good" just by "selling stuff"?' Cars, furniture, software, insurance, rap music?'  Its a lot of work and worry, mind you.  We have never had a bad day "selling stuff".  Hint: The problems comes in when you are not selling stuff"... What exactly is our safety net from Uncle Sugar when we don't "sell enough stuff" (meet quotas) to cover the expenses? We get to not pay the taxes?  Everybody has that tax break!

[dividendman]

41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.

43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”

Jesus is a dumbass here. $1M will do more good than $1, regardless of the relative wealth of the giver.

EDIT: the widow is also a dumbass - giving all you have isn't smart, you need to live too!

[TheNewNormal2015]

I just get irritated with being pitched that "sustainability" (IE global warming/cooling/ climate change  making the polar bears cry)  is so, so important when actual tax policy sustainability is blown off.  What can't go on forever, won't.

Can you explain this?  Because we really don't pay that much in taxes (see the blogger who paid $150 in tax on $150,000).

I have no idea what your concept of "because we really don't pay that much in taxes" is.  Our household paid well more than $150 in just Federal taxes last year...every day last year.

The citizens in the US, in general, do not pay much in taxes compared even to our recent past but especially in comparison to other countries.   If you are saying you spent over $50,000 in taxes then you make many, many time over the household income (about $50,000) and have it pretty darn good.  If you don't want to pay that much, quit your job.  MMM did.

This is incorrect

As mentioned in my previous post (with substantiated link to Washington Post) the US tax system is the most progressive in the world due to lack of VAT.  Most people who think taxes are low compared to other industrialized countries don't include state/local/sales tax burdens as well.

Prior to Reagan, the last time the highest marginal tax rate was changed was 1965 when it was 70% on income above $200k.  Adjusted for today's dollars that is more than $1.5mm, or less than 0.2% of the population that paid such ridiculously punitive rates.  Prior to that the highest marginal rates were higher but the cutoff to qualify paying such usurious rates was astronomically high as well: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

[Bob W]

Don't ever forget the  "inflation tax.".  MMM pays well over 100% of his income in inflation taxes each year.   That is in every year whether stocks and real estate go down or not.

[mom2_3Hs]

We must be doing something right, because despite being solidly upper middle class (~$120K wages + some rental income), our federal income tax rate has been between 10-15% for the last several years.  Itemize and donate strategically, I guess...

[PatStab]

We never have anything to deduct.  Paid our houses off quickly or paid cash, pretty much did the same
with rentals.  That's why we can weather downturns with no hurt to our finances.

[prof61820]

41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.

43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”

Jesus is a dumbass here. $1M will do more good than $1, regardless of the relative wealth of the giver.

EDIT: the widow is also a dumbass - giving all you have isn't smart, you need to live too!

Jesus is trying to teach his followers how a just and humane society looks and works in this parable. 

You will learn this lesson if you ever need assistance...and, Let he who has not sinned, cast the first stone.

[2lazy2retire]

 "I also look at the third category and note that a lot of that goes to providing security for western Europe, the middle east, and other allies around the world who don't care to pay for their own security"

You could call that payment for cheap oil for the last 50 years or so ;)

[dividendman]

41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.

43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”

Jesus is a dumbass here. $1M will do more good than $1, regardless of the relative wealth of the giver.

EDIT: the widow is also a dumbass - giving all you have isn't smart, you need to live too!

Jesus is trying to teach his followers how a just and humane society looks and works in this parable. 

You will learn this lesson if you ever need assistance...and, Let he who has not sinned, cast the first stone.

Bwa? I see him praising an old widow for giving away everything she has instead of what is affordable to give. How is that just and humane? Give the widow her money back - she's the one that needs the charity!

I'm not saying don't give to charity or don't fund social programs, what I am saying is that if dude X has 10 million and gives away 9 million he's doing more good than dude Y who has 9 million and gives away 8 million. Dude Z who has $5 bucks and needs it for food shouldn't give away anything.

Also... I haven't sinned so I'm A-OK to throw the first stone. Thanks for worrying about me though!

[Gin1984]

41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.

43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”

Jesus is a dumbass here. $1M will do more good than $1, regardless of the relative wealth of the giver.

EDIT: the widow is also a dumbass - giving all you have isn't smart, you need to live too!

Jesus is trying to teach his followers how a just and humane society looks and works in this parable. 

You will learn this lesson if you ever need assistance...and, Let he who has not sinned, cast the first stone.

Bwa? I see him praising an old widow for giving away everything she has instead of what is affordable to give. How is that just and humane? Give the widow her money back - she's the one that needs the charity!

I'm not saying don't give to charity or don't fund social programs, what I am saying is that if dude X has 10 million and gives away 9 million he's doing more good than dude Y who has 9 million and gives away 8 million. Dude Z who has $5 bucks and needs it for food shouldn't give away anything.

Also... I haven't sinned so I'm A-OK to throw the first stone. Thanks for worrying about me though!

Now I'm impressed!  The amount of "sins" in the bible and you were able to avoid them all, I sure as hell can't.  I'm going to hell in a hand basket though, I have just accepted it.  :D

[Monkey Uncle]

41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.

43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”

Jesus is a dumbass here. $1M will do more good than $1, regardless of the relative wealth of the giver.

EDIT: the widow is also a dumbass - giving all you have isn't smart, you need to live too!

Jesus is trying to teach his followers how a just and humane society looks and works in this parable. 

You will learn this lesson if you ever need assistance...and, Let he who has not sinned, cast the first stone.

Bwa? I see him praising an old widow for giving away everything she has instead of what is affordable to give. How is that just and humane? Give the widow her money back - she's the one that needs the charity!

I'm not saying don't give to charity or don't fund social programs, what I am saying is that if dude X has 10 million and gives away 9 million he's doing more good than dude Y who has 9 million and gives away 8 million. Dude Z who has $5 bucks and needs it for food shouldn't give away anything.

Also... I haven't sinned so I'm A-OK to throw the first stone. Thanks for worrying about me though!

One has to consider not just the good that dude X does with his 9 million donation, but also all the consequences of his wealth accumulation along the way.  Did he have such a stranglehold on the labor market that he was able to underpay all his employees such that they had to rely on public assistance?  Did he destroy the environment for future generations? Would he have been able to accumulate his 10 million without doing these things?  Do the consequences outweigh the good he did with the 9 million donation?

[mrshudson]

Taxes are the largest category followed closely by rent.

+1

Not counting savings (~54% of gross pay) this is where's where my money went, mostly - 16% taxes, 5% rent, the rest under 5%. I'm totally OK with my taxes going toward social welfare, public education, low income assistance, social healthcare, NASA (bring the space programs back), NSF, public transportation, etc.but not OK with having to pay lame congressmen/congresswomen pension/salary.

[agent13x]

Perhaps because their morals are more important to them than use of their money?  I value my bodily autonomy more than I value some cash.  In addition I find it morally reprehensible not to aid the weakest among us, like children who did not ask to be born into poverty.  I also believe that people should have equal rights and liberals are "less" sexist, racist and homophobic, at least on average.

Now we're arguing that paying taxes is a moral issue? I firmly disagree.

Taxes are not meant to be donations to the poor. If you want to donate, then donate.

[agent13x]

O.K., time to cut through the bullshit.  Although the U.S. is a low tax country compared to most other developed nations, I think most of us can agree that paying 20-25% of gross income in payroll and income taxes is a pretty sizable chunk.

Indeed it is, 25% of your working life stolen. 25% slavery essentially, for everyone not on the government dole with their hand out.

This is what I find objectionable--the idea that paying taxes is the same thing as theft and slavery. As if roads and sewage systems built themselves. As if it's morally OK to deny poor people medical care. As if you should get all the benefits of living in this society for free. GMAFB.

Roads, sewage, bridges, infrastructure. All of those are such an extremely small portion of the government budget that you usually don't even see them in their own separate categories during government spending reports. Our taxes could be 1% a year and likely cover these.

[beltim]

O.K., time to cut through the bullshit.  Although the U.S. is a low tax country compared to most other developed nations, I think most of us can agree that paying 20-25% of gross income in payroll and income taxes is a pretty sizable chunk.

Indeed it is, 25% of your working life stolen. 25% slavery essentially, for everyone not on the government dole with their hand out.

This is what I find objectionable--the idea that paying taxes is the same thing as theft and slavery. As if roads and sewage systems built themselves. As if it's morally OK to deny poor people medical care. As if you should get all the benefits of living in this society for free. GMAFB.

Roads, sewage, bridges, infrastructure. All of those are such an extremely small portion of the government budget that you usually don't even see them in their own separate categories during government spending reports. Our taxes could be 1% a year and likely cover these.

Nope. Total government spending on transportation alone is about 10% of all tax revenue.  https://www.cbo.gov/publication/21902

[agent13x]

General comment/question - where the poster's country can be identified, those of us from Canada/Aus//NZ/EU seem to be relatively OK with our taxes and value the services they provide, whereas those in the US are much more divided in their comments, and the big unhappiness seems to be in the US.  Yet people in the US generally pay much less income tax, so they are complaining more about less.  I don't understand this.  Does anyone have any insights/explanation for this dichotomy?

The USA was born out of a battle about taxes. Distrust of government is in our blood and our founding documents.

[Scandium]

I've held generally left-leaning political views for most of my adult life, so I usually scoff when I hear conservative politicians and pundits complaining about income taxes in the US.  Taxes in the US are considerably lower than in most of the rest of the civilized world, so I tend to think that those of us who are fortunate enough to not need any kind of public assistance have it pretty good.  However, the way I've adjusted my expense tracking for 2015 lets me clearly compare expenditures across all major categories, including taxes.  Imagine my surprise to find out that income and payroll taxes constitute my single largest expense category!

Income and payroll taxes = 33%
Food = 18%
Housing = 15%
Health insurance = 7%
Utilities = 7%
College expenses = 6%
Everything else = 14%

These are percentages of a total of about $6,100 spending so far in 2015.  That's a pretty short sample period, so things are likely to move around some as the year progresses.  I'm expecting about $2k back from Uncle when I file my taxes, but over the course of the year, taxes likely will remain the top category.

My annual salary is about 86k, so I am solidly middle class.  Just goes to show how heavily work is taxed vs. passive income.  When I FIRE (hopefully in about 4 years), my tax bill will go down to essentially zero, and total spending should drop from 64k to 45k.

I'm not looking for any specific advice here; just wanted to share this realization.

I wouldn't consider you "solidly" middle class. A single filer income of $86k puts you in the 94th percentile, or "the privileged 6% percent" if you will.
http://www.whatsmypercent.com/

Now if that's household income you're in the 57%, so I would call that middle class.

[DoubleDown]

I have never heard the Parable of the Poor Widow (a profound lesson in giving, compassion, and eternal rewards) related and then a response given of, "Jesus and the widow are dumbasses." That's the saddest thing I've heard all month (unless the Jordanian pilot was burned alive this month, then it's a close second to the saddest thing I've heard).

[dividendman]

I have never heard the Parable of the Poor Widow (a profound lesson in giving, compassion, and eternal rewards) related and then a response given of, "Jesus and the widow are dumbasses." That's the saddest thing I've heard all month (unless the Jordanian pilot was burned alive this month, then it's a close second to the saddest thing I've heard).

I see no profound lessons or eternal rewards here.

Please explain what is sad about it? I still see no good refutation of the facts that:
1) Someone poor giving away all of their money isn't a good idea - assuming they need to actually... I don't know... eat and live?
2) A few cents of giving is worth less than large amounts to those recieving the chairty

Jesus should have said "Hey poor widow, nice gesture but you can't help others (for long) if you can't even feed yourself." and "Hey rich guys, thanks for helping out! Try to help out more!"

Then I would have no problem with the parable.

Instead he is chastising the people giving away significant quantities because he apparently can't compute that lots of money > little money. The relative amount given compared to the wealth of the giver means nothing to those receiving the aid - the people receiving the charity is who Jesus should care about the most.

I tend to always look at results.

e.g. Let's say you're starving and some other starving person gives you 2 pennies - all that they had, you are still starving and they are still starving. Are you better off with that or better off with a rich dude dropping $1k in your lap even though it's 0.001% of his wealth? Now you can eat and you can get the 2 penny guy some food too - a much better result. That's how I look at it.

So yes, if someone poor (i.e. can't make ends meet) gives away all of their money, I consider them a dumbass.
If someone encourages poor people to give away all their money I consider them a dumbass as well.

[Vertical Mode]

General comment/question - where the poster's country can be identified, those of us from Canada/Aus//NZ/EU seem to be relatively OK with our taxes and value the services they provide, whereas those in the US are much more divided in their comments, and the big unhappiness seems to be in the US.  Yet people in the US generally pay much less income tax, so they are complaining more about less.  I don't understand this.  Does anyone have any insights/explanation for this dichotomy?

The USA was born out of a battle about taxes. Distrust of government is in our blood and our founding documents.

+1, it seems a lot of people forget this point, that it is wired into our DNA as a nation (even here in Boston - we HOSTED the Tea Party!).

A guest poster on ERE a while back posted an article about voting with one's tax dollars. I found it an interesting read:

http://earlyretirementextreme.com/guest-post-war-resitance-and-frugality.html

Speaking for myself, I don't have a problem paying taxes in principle, because I recognize the need to invest in common infrastructure, defense, and to support the administrative functions that keep things ticking along smoothly. Nor do I have too much of an issue with the rates at which I am taxed, or the tax incentives available to me. I do have difficulty accepting systemic inefficiency and waste, however, and it causes me heartburn to think about how some of the money I pay to the government is in my opinion being poorly utilized. Here's an example: I think it is abundantly clear that we need to invest on a national scale in our infrastructure. But what, exactly, does that mean? Projects like this one?

http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/2/19/8d14j69a8bijdipjex7x6oicvzkbeu

I try not to sound to complainy, since we're clearly discussing "first-world problems", but there seems to be room for improvement in how we allocate our resources.

Back OT - My own griping aside, taxes are actually not my largest aggregate expense, rent is (Boston ain't cheap). Maximizing tax-advantaged accounts helps tremendously in this regard.

[CDP45]

O.K., time to cut through the bullshit.  Although the U.S. is a low tax country compared to most other developed nations, I think most of us can agree that paying 20-25% of gross income in payroll and income taxes is a pretty sizable chunk.

Indeed it is, 25% of your working life stolen. 25% slavery essentially, for everyone not on the government dole with their hand out.

This is what I find objectionable--the idea that paying taxes is the same thing as theft and slavery. As if roads and sewage systems built themselves. As if it's morally OK to deny poor people medical care. As if you should get all the benefits of living in this society for free. GMAFB.

Roads, sewage, bridges, infrastructure. All of those are such an extremely small portion of the government budget that you usually don't even see them in their own separate categories during government spending reports. Our taxes could be 1% a year and likely cover these.

Nope. Total government spending on transportation alone is about 10% of all tax revenue.  https://www.cbo.gov/publication/21902

Nope, the link says $356B spent at local, state, and federal spending in transportation and Water/sewer....so where did you get that 10% from??

How about answering: of the roughly $4,000,000,000,000,000 federal budget, what percent of that is spent on road, water, sewage, bridges? (Hint, definitely less than 10%).

[beltim]

O.K., time to cut through the bullshit.  Although the U.S. is a low tax country compared to most other developed nations, I think most of us can agree that paying 20-25% of gross income in payroll and income taxes is a pretty sizable chunk.

Indeed it is, 25% of your working life stolen. 25% slavery essentially, for everyone not on the government dole with their hand out.

This is what I find objectionable--the idea that paying taxes is the same thing as theft and slavery. As if roads and sewage systems built themselves. As if it's morally OK to deny poor people medical care. As if you should get all the benefits of living in this society for free. GMAFB.

Roads, sewage, bridges, infrastructure. All of those are such an extremely small portion of the government budget that you usually don't even see them in their own separate categories during government spending reports. Our taxes could be 1% a year and likely cover these.

Nope. Total government spending on transportation alone is about 10% of all tax revenue.  https://www.cbo.gov/publication/21902

Nope, the link says $356B spent at local, state, and federal spending in transportation and Water/sewer....so where did you get that 10% from??

How about answering: of the roughly $4,000,000,000,000,000 federal budget, what percent of that is spent on road, water, sewage, bridges? (Hint, definitely less than 10%).

You're right, I used a number from my head that didn't include as much local and state spending as there is.  In fiscal 2007, total spending was $356 billion.  Total government spending was $4.9 trillion, so it was actually 7.3%.  Still way more than the 1% that agent13x suggested.

[Monkey Uncle]

I've held generally left-leaning political views for most of my adult life, so I usually scoff when I hear conservative politicians and pundits complaining about income taxes in the US.  Taxes in the US are considerably lower than in most of the rest of the civilized world, so I tend to think that those of us who are fortunate enough to not need any kind of public assistance have it pretty good.  However, the way I've adjusted my expense tracking for 2015 lets me clearly compare expenditures across all major categories, including taxes.  Imagine my surprise to find out that income and payroll taxes constitute my single largest expense category!

Income and payroll taxes = 33%
Food = 18%
Housing = 15%
Health insurance = 7%
Utilities = 7%
College expenses = 6%
Everything else = 14%

These are percentages of a total of about $6,100 spending so far in 2015.  That's a pretty short sample period, so things are likely to move around some as the year progresses.  I'm expecting about $2k back from Uncle when I file my taxes, but over the course of the year, taxes likely will remain the top category.

My annual salary is about 86k, so I am solidly middle class.  Just goes to show how heavily work is taxed vs. passive income.  When I FIRE (hopefully in about 4 years), my tax bill will go down to essentially zero, and total spending should drop from 64k to 45k.

I'm not looking for any specific advice here; just wanted to share this realization.

I wouldn't consider you "solidly" middle class. A single filer income of $86k puts you in the 94th percentile, or "the privileged 6% percent" if you will.
http://www.whatsmypercent.com/

Now if that's household income you're in the 57%, so I would call that middle class.

Married filing jointly, so yes, very much middle class.

[Pooperman]

Earn 71.5k as a household. Pay 4k in taxes. Slightly above food 3.5k, and not even close to housing (11k).

Politically, left-libertarian. Basically, all for social freedoms (I.e do what you want so long as you aren't harming anyone), and do not trust corporations to do the morally correct thing. As for taxes, I feel we can do better with how we use them, but we don't pay enough to really do what we should. I would like to see basic income and universal healthcare happen. I care about the environment since we can't live without a good one.

(I'm going to get flamed for this, but:)There are billions of people on this planet. You do not get the privilege of being a self-centered jackass when it comes to things that affect more than just you (taxes, environment, etc).

[GetItRight]

Earn 71.5k as a household. Pay 4k in taxes. Slightly above food 3.5k, and not even close to housing (11k).

Politically, left-libertarian. Basically, all for social freedoms (I.e do what you want so long as you aren't harming anyone), and do not trust corporations to do the morally correct thing. As for taxes, I feel we can do better with how we use them, but we don't pay enough to really do what we should. I would like to see basic income and universal healthcare happen. I care about the environment since we can't live without a good one.

(I'm going to get flamed for this, but:)There are billions of people on this planet. You do not get the privilege of being a self-centered jackass when it comes to things that affect more than just you (taxes, environment, etc).

You claim to be a libertarian and value moral actions, yet you seem to be saying stealing money at gunpoint as in compulsory taxation (income, property) is alright. Perhaps you advocate a change in the way taxes are collected?

As for the environment, the government has a terrible track record of doing anything for the environment and of course since it's the government forcing whatever alleged environmental action it's all with the threat of violence, and typically amounts to corporate welfare. i.e. Must use product x to reduce pollutants, which company z has patented, instead of PPM or total pollutants per unit on production must be below y value with no criteria for how to reach the measure. There are many ways to keeping environment quality satisfactory, but the only government method is violence.

Corporations and individuals will tend to do what is in their own best interest. Government has a nasty way of using the threat of violence (laws, taxes, etc.) to encourage people to do things they would not ordinarily do, things which may result in less than morally optimal actions to either comply with the law or avoid the law. You cannot morally or ethically fault the individual for any decisions made under duress, which is to say with the looming threat of violence. Without the threat of violence from a third party it wouldn't matter what companies do so long as it follows the non aggression principle.

A criminal holds a gun to both the head of your wife and daughter and says pick which one lives or they both die. Morally it doesn't matter what you do, whatever the outcome is the doing of the entity that has initiated the violence. Government, in its current form, is the criminal with the gun. If you find yourself in a situation where the government forces you to choose, the government is morally and ethically responsible for the outcome.

Basic income if funded with taxes as currently collected violates the non aggression principle by any measure. Universal healthcare amounts to slavery of medical professionals, clearly a violation of the non aggression principle. Positive rights do not exist.

[Pooperman]

Earn 71.5k as a household. Pay 4k in taxes. Slightly above food 3.5k, and not even close to housing (11k).

Politically, left-libertarian. Basically, all for social freedoms (I.e do what you want so long as you aren't harming anyone), and do not trust corporations to do the morally correct thing. As for taxes, I feel we can do better with how we use them, but we don't pay enough to really do what we should. I would like to see basic income and universal healthcare happen. I care about the environment since we can't live without a good one.

(I'm going to get flamed for this, but:)There are billions of people on this planet. You do not get the privilege of being a self-centered jackass when it comes to things that affect more than just you (taxes, environment, etc).

You claim to be a libertarian and value moral actions, yet you seem to be saying stealing money at gunpoint as in compulsory taxation (income, property) is alright. Perhaps you advocate a change in the way taxes are collected?

As for the environment, the government has a terrible track record of doing anything for the environment and of course since it's the government forcing whatever alleged environmental action it's all with the threat of violence, and typically amounts to corporate welfare. i.e. Must use product x to reduce pollutants, which company z has patented, instead of PPM or total pollutants per unit on production must be below y value with no criteria for how to reach the measure. There are many ways to keeping environment quality satisfactory, but the only government method is violence.

Corporations and individuals will tend to do what is in their own best interest. Government has a nasty way of using the threat of violence (laws, taxes, etc.) to encourage people to do things they would not ordinarily do, things which may result in less than morally optimal actions to either comply with the law or avoid the law. You cannot morally or ethically fault the individual for any decisions made under duress, which is to say with the looming threat of violence. Without the threat of violence from a third party it wouldn't matter what companies do so long as it follows the non aggression principle.

A criminal holds a gun to both the head of your wife and daughter and says pick which one lives or they both die. Morally it doesn't matter what you do, whatever the outcome is the doing of the entity that has initiated the violence. Government, in its current form, is the criminal with the gun. If you find yourself in a situation where the government forces you to choose, the government is morally and ethically responsible for the outcome.

Basic income if funded with taxes as currently collected violates the non aggression principle by any measure. Universal healthcare amounts to slavery of medical professionals, clearly a violation of the non aggression principle. Positive rights do not exist.

The question in the end is: "would society be better off with basic income and universal healthcare over the systems in place today?" That is the only question. How you and I view taxes are very different. You view it as an act of violence, I view it as a levy for the privilege of living in the societies we choose to. If I was so against this society, I'd move or campaign to change it. On the other hand, the rules of this society will allow me, and many others here, to live a life of easy after putting in a few years of hard work. Government is more accountable (through elections, mandatory review, campaigning, etc) than corporations are. Some corporations are situated in such a way that their image doesn't matter (i.e. Comcast), and tarnishing it will do nothing to change their practices. Government is the collective will of the active majority, constrained by the limits imposed upon it (constitution) to protect the minorities.

There are things I disagree with, but my action can change that. The US political system is incredibly slow to react to change and that is a good thing. That means inherent stability in governance. The US has enjoyed ~240 years of stability (civil war being the exception). Other countries that have had such stability have done well for themselves. Slow to change means no revolutions, which means people work with the system to change it, not against it. that is better for everyone. Eventually, progressives will push the country where it needs to be.

[CDP45]

Society would be better off if a government employee would wipe my ass with a hot cotton wash cloth after every dump I took and gave everyone a happy ending after they voted, but that wouldn't be a wise use of resources.

[CDP45]

O.K., time to cut through the bullshit.  Although the U.S. is a low tax country compared to most other developed nations, I think most of us can agree that paying 20-25% of gross income in payroll and income taxes is a pretty sizable chunk.

Indeed it is, 25% of your working life stolen. 25% slavery essentially, for everyone not on the government dole with their hand out.

This is what I find objectionable--the idea that paying taxes is the same thing as theft and slavery. As if roads and sewage systems built themselves. As if it's morally OK to deny poor people medical care. As if you should get all the benefits of living in this society for free. GMAFB.

Roads, sewage, bridges, infrastructure. All of those are such an extremely small portion of the government budget that you usually don't even see them in their own separate categories during government spending reports. Our taxes could be 1% a year and likely cover these.

Nope. Total government spending on transportation alone is about 10% of all tax revenue.  https://www.cbo.gov/publication/21902

Nope, the link says $356B spent at local, state, and federal spending in transportation and Water/sewer....so where did you get that 10% from??

How about answering: of the roughly $4,000,000,000,000,000 federal budget, what percent of that is spent on road, water, sewage, bridges? (Hint, definitely less than 10%).

You're right, I used a number from my head that didn't include as much local and state spending as there is.  In fiscal 2007, total spending was $356 billion.  Total government spending was $4.9 trillion, so it was actually 7.3%.  Still way more than the 1% that agent13x suggested.

You are headed in the right direction, but still off a trillion: $5,900,000,000,000,000.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/W068RCQ027SBEA


Still not enough to achieve utopia...maybe another trillion will do the trick!

[Capsu78]

Well maybe another 2 Trillion- 1 to reach utopia and another to feed the cronies who helped us get there.

[beltim]

You're right, I used a number from my head that didn't include as much local and state spending as there is.  In fiscal 2007, total spending was $356 billion.  Total government spending was $4.9 trillion, so it was actually 7.3%.  Still way more than the 1% that agent13x suggested.

You are headed in the right direction, but still off a trillion: $5,900,000,000,000,000.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/W068RCQ027SBEA


Still not enough to achieve utopia...maybe another trillion will do the trick!

Please read my links before you respond with irrelevant ones.  The spending data I gave was from 2007, and so I used the 2007 government spending.

[tracylayton]

If your biggest spending category is taxes, I think you've pretty much won life. Either you earn normal amounts and spend very little, or you earn large amounts; in either case, go you!

Taxes are also my biggest spending category (roughly equal to all my other spending combined) so I'm sitting pretty.

Just got my taxes back from the CPA...$8,800 in income tax plus $18,200 in property taxes (5 properties) for a total of $27,000. Definitely the biggest piece of my pie, but you're right...I am fortunate!

Yup Im here at MMM learning to question every cent I spend, motivated to change the course of my life to find true freedom from work, and I'll just throw my hands up and say how lucky I am to have so much of my hard earned money confiscated to be tossed into the exploding volcano of waste!

There are hundreds of pages on this forum on how to lower spending by mere hundreds of dollars annually, the premise of this blog is to separate spending from happiness by examining the happiness gained from spending on different things, yet there can be no discussion beyond "I'm happy therefore no need to examine taxes, back to cutting cable tv and restaurants." Even worse are those under the false assumption government has provided this wealth and lifestyle too us.

Here's the argument:
I'm happy therefore it doesn't matter I spent $15,000 on XXXX even though there is no evidence that spending had much if anything to bring be happiness.

MMM says, you don't need the Hummer because you'll be just as happy with a Honda CRV or Fit. He is correct. Can this same reasoning apply to government?

There's more here as most mustachian are happy to reduce their tax burden, but then never question if the spending was fruitful or wasteful. Gee, everything else I buy I'm happy to purchase more of, restaurants, cars, housing, yet nobody pays more voluntarily to the government...hmmm....they won't pay more taxes but they will vote for more.

Incredible, never underestimate the power of denial.

I'm actually a 50 year old Republican that feels the $8,800 I paid in federal income tax (11.7%) was my fair share. The $18,200 in property tax is just one of the costs I incur for owning 4 rental properties that all cash flow well.

[CDP45]

Code: [Select]

I'm actually a 50 year old Republican that feels the $8,800 I paid in federal income tax (11.7%) was my fair share. The $18,200 in property tax is just one of the costs I incur for owning 4 rental properties that all cash flow well.

Wow $8,800 was your fair share and not a penny more? The IRS really has it exact with you, are you sure your fair share isn't a little more? How can I know if I'm paying my fair share?

Is it fair that you own 4 rentals and people can barely afford their rent?

[CDP45]

Here's the facts: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-simple-math-behind-early-retirement/

Using the table, someone going from 5% to 10% savings rate shaves 14 YEARS of working. 10% to 15% shaves AN ADDITIONAL 8 years. How does this compare to a 6.2% soc security tax that is mostly squandered?

[GuitarStv]

Society would be better off if a government employee would wipe my ass with a hot cotton wash cloth after every dump I took and gave everyone a happy ending after they voted, but that wouldn't be a wise use of resources.

[[Citation Needed]]