Best idea ever.

[Art]

Though there is no law on state or federal books to say a person who wants to pay higher taxes can't do so, Wisconsin has taken the next step in what is the best damn idea I've ever heard. They are setting up a "Pay more taxes" fund and they are allowing anyone who's calling for more taxes to send their money in.

We must all press our legislators to do the same on both the state and federal level. This could solve everything .

[Blade]

Amen! This is outstanding!

I wonder what the over/under is on just how much this fund will collect?

If I were a gambler, my money would say its probably less than the avg. NBA over/under

[fansince62]

I agree Art. but, of course, we all know that the real agenda is to take money, correction take a lot of money, from those who have it to give to those who don't have it; all in the name of fairness....of course.

[mardi gras skin]

:notworthy

[PCS]

Sort of if you're going to talk the talk, then walk the walk type thing. Any bets on how fast the "No wait! We meant the other guys, (or gals), not us!" crowd jumps in?

[Art]

Such a fund would be devestating to the left because you are right. The left doesn't simply want more government funding. It wants to take money from you and give it to them with you being someone they think has enough and them being someone who they think doesn't. If this thing goes through in Wisconsin we need to pay very close attention to it.

It could backfire on us. If this fund is just humming along and has incredible cash flow and the state still can't support 15 percent growth year after year, which, of course it can't, but that's another thread, then the left will say we're doing our part and it'll hurt the right.

But, this type of fund could wind up completely silencing the left in this country because if it is established and doesn't bring in that much money, the right can simply say, "Hey, if you want to give more, give it." .

[tex]

Wonder if the extra payments are tax deductible?

[Nerm]

I always thought there should be an extra line on the tax form for voluntary payments. If people do not think that they are paying enough then just pay more.

Whenever I talk to someone who thinks taxes should be raised I ask them if they take deductions on their returns. I have never heard anyone say that they give up their deductions so they could pay more. The typical respose is that someone else should pay more not them. Usually greedy buisness owners. The kind of scum who put in 70 hour weeks, employ the majority of Americans, and (unfourtunately) get paid well for it. In the eyes of some, these people are what is wrong with America.

[Ignatius J.]

art,

while I agree that this is real funny, I don't think it undermines the lefts position at all.

Raising taxes means more money for important programs. An individual chipping in extra money does not mean that. The reason that this will fail has nothing to do with the fact that no one wants to pay more money and everything to do with nash equilibrium. In fact the failure to use the fund indicates that the left realizes that capitolism is the way this nation works. If they want results they have to change the game. (by passing laws to alter tax rules)

Now, if you ask a left leaning person if he would be okay with a tax law forcing him to pay more in exchange for better schools, you might have something.

-DB

[Art]

DB,

We already pay more tax dollars for better schools and have worse schools. In Minnesota, it's interesting, the governor has agreed to increase the state government's budget by six full points. This has been met with screams of cuts because the left wants a 14 percent increase over last year.

Their solution is to tax the richest 1 percent more. In such a circumstance, it is ideal to set up a fund in which the left can contribute as much as they'd like. That they won't essentially ends the left's calls for a tax increase on anyone beceause they won't have one on themselves.

It is a tipping point for the left this idea in Wisconsin. Here is the left's chance to prove that they want to pay for someone else's kid to go to school. If they don't step up to the plate this type of thing will end calls for tax increases quickly. Of course, if they DO step up, then the right is left to argue whether government should reasonably increase at a rate greater than inflation plus population growth, and, well, we still win .

[Ignatius J.]

False.

I can as a rational agent want to pay more for someone else's kid to go to a better school and still not want to contribute to this fund. The failure of this fund is thus irrelevant.

The real question, and that is to say the real problem with the left, is that they would oppose a tax increase on thier tax bracket. That's where the left is being duplicitious. The fact that they won't contribute to this fund has NOTHING to do with that.

I agree that a statement to tax the richest more is completely self serving when you're not in the %1 tax bracket, but the fund is strictly irrelevant.

As for already paying more for worse schools, I'm not sure what you're talking about. We pay more than who? We're worse than who?

-DB

[The Wicked Wop]

Very interestin idea.....I think though it should be taken one step further. I think that the tax payer should be given the choice of what internal government department the addition funds should go to (ie...schools, transportation...etc). This would allow tax payers the opportunity to help state programs they specifically would like to see get the extra funds. The only down side it that it may actually hurt government efficency......by state agencies getting use to the fact that they get extra funds. This could be overcome though with certain requirements needing to be met by the agency before the funds can be released to them (ie, meeting their budgets). If not the money should be required by law to be put in a suspense account till they meet the required conditions. The fact is that most state agencies are poorly manages and often employ more peronsel then necessary.....thus my fear is that by throwing extra money their way they won't correct these problems.

[Burgold]

It is an interesting idea, MD already does it and has done it for years. In our case, at the end of the tax form they ask if you would like to spend more to clean the Chesapeake Bay. I think you would be surprised how many people do try to support that.

rdogblue, your idea might make this a more interesting or real examination. The problem I see with this as a "test" of liberal hypocrisy is that it doesn't measure what is already being done and to what extent. For example, what if I donate twenty hours a week to help seniors or in a reading program? Certainly that time is valuable and is used to hopefully increase the quality of life for others, but I get no tax benefit or debit from it that I am aware of. What if I have targeted a large portion of my income and already donate it to the areas where I believe there is a need and that money can most immediately be targeted and applied? Does that money suddenly not count? The government can be a powerful tool to provide help and begin change, but it often takes a very long time before government measures are felt in a real way. To say to the left or right just put your extra donations in a pot versus a targeted area is less interesting. Perhaps, that is your general point about all taxation, but a generl pool is useful to fund services that people would be less than likely to pencil in as their catagory.

If you had to slot all of your tax money, how would you partition it? How much for defense? How much for scientific development? How much for education? How much for health care? Long term care? How much for garbage disposal? Foreign Aid? Police? Legal defense? Justice? Farm aid? Bail out of failing industries like the airlines? A pure capitolist would let them just fail, no? There are too many unsexy, but probably useful categories for us to target all of our taxes and proportion them.

[Art]

DB,

We, as Americans, spend more money than we, as Americans, have ever spent to educate our children. That's what the statement was that we spend more money for weaker school systems was meant to relay.

I disagree with your opening line, though tend to find the rest agreeable. You can't, as a rational agent want to pay for someone else's kid to go to school and then not throw in more money if given the chance. That's precisely what you can't do. You also can't do a lot of other things.

Like:

Buy a big TV.

Own too big a home.

Have too nice a car.

Etc.

Etc.

Etc.

Afterall, if, as a true lefty, you are true to your beliefs, you would not allow yourself to have more and better than others, and you would save as much as you can for the betterment of your fellow man. But, this comes to the point of how the left doesn't really live by its own belief systems and has been spoken about before, with some in agreement and others thinking it's untrue.

I actually kind of don't disagree with you as to what the left really wants. I don't think the left really is aiming at avoiding taxes on themselves. Hell, I know dozens of them at my wife's work who would vote for the tax on the top 1 percent, which is THEM, but they wouldn't for a pay more tax fund. Why? Because in the end they think those who have less should have some of what those who have more have. They believe, deep down, in a social redistrubution of wealth from all people, even when that includes themselves.

Now, they also have very powerful attorneys and they pay MUCH less in tax than their generic bracket would suggest, but, that's a different story .

[codeorama]

I say do away with income tax, have a national sales tax. You only are taxed for what you pay for, therefore you choose where all of your money goes.

Drug dealers would now be paying taxes as well as construction workers and any other profession that gets paid under the table. Tourists would also be contributing to our taxes.

I know a guy that works for Coke, he was telling me how he has so many clients that are foriegn that own businesses and do not pay taxes. How fair is that?

[The Wicked Wop]

I know a guy that works for Coke, he was telling me how he has so many clients that are foriegn that own businesses and do not pay taxes. How fair is that?

It's taxes, its not supose to be fair. I think its easy to get sucked into taxes however and lump them altogether when its actually the states having the problems with deficits rather than the federal government (though the Fed does have a deficit, but its no where near previous budget deficits). However this leads me back to my point about state governemt inefficency and waste of resources. Take for instance our winter here in MD. Now the state government year after year hires hundreds if not thousands to take care of snow removal. Why not a better option is to put to work school bus drivers to do snow removal. Im sure retrofitting a bus to carry a plow is not overly expensive and complicted. Nope instead the state and local government hire contractors to do the work while thousands of school bus drivers collect their salary and sit a home for a few days. And this is just one example. Hell alot of people take state government positions because they are considered cushy jobs.....I know of examples like this where people making between 30-40K a year basically do nothing all day long other than sit at a desk and pick up their paycheck every 2 weeks. I know their are departments that are overloaded and do have hard working employess, but I bet if you assessed each department individually you would find most of them being very overstaffed. I have family members in county goernment and I know this to be fact.

[Kilmer17]

Code, I've been on the sales tax bandwagon for a long time now. The problem is people in the US think that they only deserve 2/3 of each paycheck. If we gave them all of it and then charged 20 percent at the register they wouldnt undersatnd. It will be a slow process, but one I hope can happen.

On a tangent, there is also nothing in the Constitution that says we have to pay taxes at all. But I think the people tha refuse end up in a lonely cell somewhere.

[Art]

Kilmer,

Not only is there nothing in the Constitution about income taxes whatsoever, but until WWI it was considered radical to suggest a citizen give a dime of his personal income to the government in the form of a tax. Times have changed .

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Code, I've been on the sales tax bandwagon for a long time now. The problem is people in the US think that they only deserve 2/3 of each paycheck. If we gave them all of it and then charged 20 percent at the register they wouldnt undersatnd. It will be a slow process, but one I hope can happen.

On a tangent, there is also nothing in the Constitution that says we have to pay taxes at all. But I think the people tha refuse end up in a lonely cell somewhere.

Cool....

I think it's a great idea. I don't want to pay for some of the ridiculous programs that are out there. We pay too much as it is. I think the main reason that a national sales tax/irs elimination won't happen is because of the IRS.... think of all those people that would become jobless...(I don't have a problem with it, they are milking the system anyway).

Our whole tax system sucks anyway, you can't even understand the majority of it... that's sad.

[Art]

The only problem I can see with a national sales tax is that Democrats would have a say in it, therefore, it'd be screwed up. Liberals would decide that an electric car will be a tax free purchase, but a 27-foot Pontoon should be taxed at twice the price of the boat itself. There wouldn't be a straight sales tax. If there was, that'd be great and I think many would go for it. But, if this idea were to gain any traction, liberals would find ways to gut entire industries in forms of social engineering. In Minnesota, for example, there's a MINIMUM price set by the state for cigarettes because the state wants to make it harder for people to smoke. The Berlin Wall fell and was relocated around Saint Paul it appears.

As good as a flat tax could be like that, it could never happen that liberals wouldn't screw it up by overtaxing many industries and that's too big a downer to consider.

[codeorama]

I'm no expert, but I would be ok with a smaller tax for groceries and things like that, but other wise, it shoud be straight across the board.

[Kilmer17]

The only way it would work would be for EVERYTHING to be taxed. No exceptions. Otherwise loopholes get created.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

The only way it would work would be for EVERYTHING to be taxed. No exceptions. Otherwise loopholes get created.

I would have no problem with that what so ever...

There should not be exemptions for foreigners too...

[The Wicked Wop]

The only way it would work would be for EVERYTHING to be taxed. No exceptions. Otherwise loopholes get created.

Absolutely, otherwise Lobbyists would have a field day.

[Ignatius J.]

Okay Art,

Now we get down to a disagreement. In some ways I am a fairly left leaning individual, yet I would not contribute a dime towards the fund. And my reasons are simple. I would like to see better classrooms, but If I donate to the fund, I boost education by such a small amount even if I give up my whole income, that it is not worth it.

As a liberal my goals are the following:

1.) ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity from birth to reach any position in the U.S.

2.) ensure that no one goes without neccesary health care.

3.) Get rid of some laws. (Republicans like this one, smaller government!) really. ending bans on abortions, drugs, giving gays rights. (I don't care if you won't call it marriage, but give them the same tax exemptions)

Okay, so we can debate all the above until the cows come home as to thier legitimacy, but I think One could argue that the above represents the platform of the moderate liberal. Not the socialist mind you, but the moderate. No where is the thought that giving up more money alone will do anything to increase my utility.

To be more specific, you're right I can't want to spend money to send someone else to go to school and then not do it, but the point is that getting someone else to go to scholl has benefits for me. First I like seeing other people do well. Second, It is good for the economy. Capitolism is driven by competition, and the more we can get people to compete for jupbs the better off we'll be. Now, I as a rational agent would want to raise taxes but would not want to contribute to this fund, because it takes away other things that I like at such a cost with almost no return.

-DB