you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 26 points 1 day ago (12 children)

Yep.

They are going to reach into your pocket no matter what. The only question is if your money goes to a bunch of rich guys or back to people like you.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago

    They are going to reach into your pocket no matter what.

    They aren't even in your pocket, relatively speaking. At the local level, you're a drop in the bucket beside the big land owners and corporate industries. At the state level, you're even less relevant. At the federal level, between intentional trade and deficit spending, you might as well not exist.

    The joke of modern taxation is how it's largely unnecessary at the individual level. If the state simply planned it's economy and managed it's natural resources, everyone could do the Alaska thing where they pay you to live there.

    California hosts multiple trillionaires, ffs. Nobody with an income under seven figures needs to pay a dime to support that state's spending plan.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago (7 children)

    I don't know if I love that phrase's use here as it sets up the government as some foreign entity that is stealing from you when, at least in theory, it should be the price you pay for your community's betterment. Of course that's not what it feels like in the US (maybe anywhere, maybe federal taxes feel bad always), but that's an argument for redistributing power and fixing the underlying systems more so than it is to be upset that taxes are a thing (or paint them as... Evil or something which this phrase does).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 13 hours ago (4 children)

    Even if it's for something good, they're still reaching into your pocket and taking wages you earned by working.

    It would be more progressive if taxes were raised from the unearned rents of the wealthy, with land value taxes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 12 hours ago (3 children)

    I am slowly loathing commenting on Lemmy, people here seem increasingly incapable of having a good conversation.

    I'm explicitly saying framing it as "reaching into your pocket and taking your wages" is a negative light to cast taxes in. You don't go to the bakery and buy bread and describe it as the baker reaching into your pocket and taking your wages. That would be insane. You pay the baker to provide you bread.

    Society should, and I'm gonna emphasize this for the most common commentors, should as in theoretically in an ideal society taxes should feel like a person paying the city for good public transit, universal healthcare, UBI, minimally expensive maximally effective defense, a social safety net, regulatory bodies, public education, fire protection, wildlife preserves and parks, libraries, and public and enriching spaces.

    It shouldn't, ideally, feel like someone reaching into your pockets, it should feel like a valuable transaction. Taxes don't have to be a negative thing, akin to someone stealing your money. They should be something people take pride in.

    Of course the US is a falling state and so this hasn't been the case for a long time (if ever), and most other countries despite providing better services still have to deal with the conservative propaganda that "welfare" and "healthcare" and "public transit" are wasteful. That's not what I'm really here addressing. I'm just saying painting taxes as theft enables and supports conservative propaganda that disables or errodes community ownership and power - the very things that are synonomous with quality of life.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 12 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (2 children)

    Pausing the discussion about progressive taxation for a second.

    If people on Lemmy seem increasingly incapable of having a good conversation, then who do you think is the most likely person to have changed?

    We should be able to discuss this subject without personal attacks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 hours ago (1 child)

    I mean I get your point, it's easy to assume the consistent factor in the discussions is the problem and you might be right. Id argue the systems of Lemmy are producing, through a mechanism I don't understand, worse conversations over time. It might not even be Lemmy but the rise of AI or bots, I don't really know. But I've had a couple conversations now within a short period that it's like talking to people with an axe to grind throwing a random dart at the comment section and having it out there under the guise of talking to me - a person. It's infuriating.

    You've not been that bad, but you did miss the entire point of what I was saying and didn't really engage with the point of my comment. Maybe my comments aren't as focused as I think they are, or maybe in online discourse the capacity to focus on the secondary threads (or maybe the inability to distinguish what the main topic is) is too hard. Idk.

    I'm not trying to attack you, I'm venting my frustration for something you did but that isn't your fault as I'm systemically seeing it on Lemmy as of late.

    Like imagine replying to this comment with "ignoring what you wrote, when the government reaches into your pocket to take your money, shouldn't we have a better say in where that money gets spent." It's like... Not engaging with the person's comment in it's entirety and focusing on the smallest secondary thread instead while reinforcing the reason why I brought up the primary thread.

    Again, no shame or disdain or ill feelings towards you. I'm just trying to explain what happened from my perspective and now officially and publicly wondering why this keeps happening.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 hours ago

    They've raised a valid criticism of our tax structure and we're focused on wording. Governments are taking money from working class people, and the assertion that this is necessary for a healthy society is not true.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    That is the point. The taxes are reality, you are going to pay them. Whether they are evil or not depends on what that money is used for.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago*

    "Reach into your pocket" makes it sound as if they're stealing from you. Which, if you live in the USA, is mostly true.

    In functioning democratic societies those taxes pay for things that benefit the citizens. At least that is the stated goal, and if they fuck it up, they get voted out.

    I think you guys need to start voting with your bullets.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    Sounds like here it's letting a private company spend the money to get access to 3,000 residences in exchange for 1,000 affordable ones.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago

    The phrase "at no cost to the city" is a red flag.

    It either means someone is lying, or that there's some kind of "public-private partnership" which are frequently handouts to corporations or rich people.

    Maybe this is the rare case when the government will properly supervise the private side, and hold them to account.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago

    And as usual I don't know if I should be outraged that a private company is involve that may lead to questionable practices or happy that at least they are 1000 affordable units available. Both maybe? I guess I'm cautiously optimistic.

  • source
  • parent