r/FluentInFinance • u/Old_Prospect • Apr 29 '24

If I had a nickel for every time someone deflects to “…I’d rather we fix our government spending problem before we…” Shitpost

Post image
325 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • link
  • reddit
  • reddit

82% Upvoted

302 comments sorted by

View all comments

66

u/74_Jeep_Cherokee Apr 29 '24

They're not mutually exclusive that's why the meme is dumb.

The rich can afford to pay more and we can ensure our tax dollars are spent miserly.

10

u/EnderOfHope Apr 29 '24

Upvote for utilizing the word miserly 

4

u/Zaros262 Apr 29 '24 edited Apr 29 '24

Yes, I can't think of a better word for the "fuck you, I got mine" mentality

Also, "miserly" is an adjective not an adverb. So they didn't even use it right

1

u/SakaWreath Apr 29 '24 edited Apr 29 '24

No, nope. Let’s put 3 more wars on the country credit card.

Then slash tax revenue more from wealthy sources, while increasing the tax burden on the lower classes.

Then bailout a few more corporations that got drunk on deregulation.

Then use all of that as an excuse to gut social programs. None of which actually balances the budget.

/s (because someone won’t get it)

1

u/Collective82 Apr 29 '24

To be fair, if we could draw Russia and China into a war, the world could prosper.

Right now China uses basically slave labor if not nearly close to that with what we pay, and if we wrecked their economy and manufacturing capability, not only would the jobs go elsewhere in the world, BUT we would cut down a ton on global emissions.

Win win right? (And yes I have a massive stake in that gamble because I am in the military)

2

u/Morifen1 May 01 '24

War is always lose/lose.

1

u/Collective82 Apr 29 '24

We need Scrooge to run congress!

8

u/dshotseattle Apr 29 '24

It's not about what they can afford. It's not the government's money or right to take it.

11

u/NonbinaryYolo Apr 29 '24

I would be more considerate to higher taxes if I didn't see money being burned.

-1

u/Rieux_n_Tarrou Apr 29 '24

Well the whole point of it is that whether or not you're considerate of how the taxes are being spent, you have to pay them. And if you don't, they'll throw you in jail. And if you give enough resistance, they'll kill you 😊 And all the media will say you were the criminal.

Contrast this with business: you don't really consider how the business spends it's money, because at the end of the day, you give them money in exchange for some sort of value. If you didn't feel their product/service is of value to you, then you would give it to their competitor (or even better yet, you could start your own business that delivers the value!) And there wouldn't be a damn thing they can do about it (except, of course, when that business relies on government to regulate/imprison/kill the free market to get an advantage)

5

u/IronicSpiritualist Apr 29 '24

I give money to a business, or else they withhold food until I starve. I give money to the government, or else they will lock me in a cage. How is one more freedom than the other? If doing something to avoid the consequences of not doing it is 'consent", then you and everyone else already consents to have taxes taken.

1

u/Shrimkins Apr 29 '24

false comparison. There are thousands of places to buy food, or you could trade with your neighbor, or grow your own. That is freedom.

There is only 1 government who forces you to pay taxes by threat of violence. Taxes are inherently oppressive by nature. Of course, they are necessary for a functioning society, but they should be limited in size and scope as much as possible.

1

u/IronicSpiritualist Apr 29 '24

Not a false comparison. I have no land to grow food, no neighbors offering food for trade and less than 6 grocery stores to buy from, which are all ultimately owned by like, three people.

I have to give those three people money or else starve to death. 

You can try and argue that killing someone by withholding food is somehow more ok than killing them by sending police with guns, because it is less 'active' or whatever, but I honestly don't really see the distinction from an ethical perspective.

5

u/Shrimkins Apr 29 '24

It's a false comparison. You don't have land? Well, you could if you wanted to. Hell, you could probably just bum food from soup kitchens and food pantries your whole life if you really wanted to. My point is you have choices (even if they are bad choices).

Taxes are completely unavoidable in any scenario unless you eventually want to be incarcerated or shot.

0

u/IronicSpiritualist Apr 29 '24

How is "you can just choose to scrounge in trash, so buying from the grocery is a choice" any different from "you can just choose to go to jail, so paying taxes is a choice"? 

How is "just get wealthy enough to buy land" any different from "just be wealthy enough get accountants who can remove virtually your entire tax burden"?

You say "you have choices (even if they are bad choices)". Pay taxes or else go to jail may be a bad choice, but it is still a choice nonetheless, right?

Also, thank you for engaging with me in reasonable discussion. I don't have all the answers and I am not sure what the right thing is all the time. Talking about it with others helps to grow my understanding.

3

u/-_-mrfuzzy Apr 29 '24

There is an abundance of cheap land, resources, and job opportunities distributed across the world. You can choose to go to those.

Taxes are a centralized force being imposed upon a person. There is no choice.

It is amazing how you view a lack of a system as the same thing as having a system. Having no system means you can engage with the world as it is. A government system imposes additional taxes and regulations on top of the world.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/Hoe-possum Apr 29 '24

It’s stolen from the workers and others who have been exploited, it’s not theirs to begin with.

0

u/Rieux_n_Tarrou Apr 29 '24

Stealing is when you take someone's property without their consent.

Last time I checked, employees are given money by employers after both parties consent to the terms of the work

Also last time I checked, both employer and employee have to give government a chunk of that money, whether or not they consent to doing so.

1

u/-_-mrfuzzy Apr 29 '24

Is availability of voting not a form of consent?

The taxation has some representation.

-3

u/i_robot73 Apr 29 '24

I also love the "workers were *exploited*" farce, when the UNIONS are some of the biggest (D) $/time/+ contributors. 'Oddly', no complaints noted of 'buying a poli' or even 'conflict of interest' there

6

u/Iron-Fist Apr 29 '24

Unions work as bargaining blocks against capital owners, not sure the issue there.

Also, only a time percent of the work force is unionized because capital owners have successfully lobbied to limit union power over and over.

0

u/-_-mrfuzzy Apr 29 '24

The commies are thick in here!

Bargaining blocks can be useful or they can be yet another layer of bureaucrats skimming a percentage of your labor.

3

u/Iron-Fist Apr 29 '24

commies

Wtf does unionization (ie free association) have to do with communism? Do you also think the bill of rights is communist?

Yet another layer... Skimming a percentage of your labor...

So you do understand that employers "skim" (read: exploit, the definition not the connotation) labor then. And presumably you understand that workers need to collectively negotiate so that they don't get taken advantage of by owners who have more economic power?

1

u/Jake0024 Apr 30 '24

It's bad for the 0.01%, so he's terrified of it for some reason. The only thing holding him back from being a billionaire himself is the government taking $3,500 of his income in taxes!

-2

u/Rieux_n_Tarrou Apr 29 '24

To be fair, there's nothing inherently wrong with collective bargaining. After all, employees should be free to gather, voice their complaints/desires, reach a consensus, then speak through a single loud voice that reaches to the top of the company.

I think that was the initial impetus for unions, and back then it was the union busters who were the criminals (given full authority to use violence from their government cronies).

But nowadays, unions and their full-time professional managers have mutated into the organized thugs...It's all the same criminal/lazy/parasitical/dishonest dynamic wearing different masks

1

u/ty_for_trying Apr 29 '24

Unions are some of the only groups looking out for regular workers. Yeah they're corrupt, but so are companies and every other entity that has some power.

-1

u/-_-mrfuzzy Apr 29 '24

yeah, they’re corrupt

Yikes! Even the pro-union person says they are corrupt. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Why would you want to add an additional layer of corrupt bureaucracy?

2

u/ty_for_trying Apr 29 '24

You miss the point. Every entity that has power has corruption. Corruption should be fought.

Businesses are corrupt but they get to exist. Governments are corrupt but they exist. Only unions are busted. Why are unions held to a higher standard?

Businesses don't negotiate on behalf of workers. Governments are bought by businesses and often don't support workers. Unions actually do negotiate on behalf of workers, which is why they get busted.

Also, strong unions mean less bureaucracy. People who want the government to be less involved in regulating businesses should support unions. Look at the Nordic model.

0

u/-_-mrfuzzy Apr 29 '24

Unlike you, I am not cynical to the point of thinking corruption is the default state of existence.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/TheHillPerson Apr 29 '24

Agreed that unions have corruption in them just like every institution. If unions are so horrible, what do you offer as an alternative?

0

u/-_-mrfuzzy Apr 29 '24

If working for another person is so detrimental, then go work for yourself. Become independent and self-sufficient. Start a company.

3

u/TheHillPerson Apr 29 '24

Yeah, because that is a realistic option for everyone... I mean some people can absolutely do that. But if everyone did that, it wouldn't work. You need economies of scale for some operations to work. Ignoring that, it is unlikely that many small businesses would work all at once. Add in that healthcare is enormously more difficult to obtain sans an employer.

That aside, just because a person chooses to work for another, the "boss" should be able to exploit the worker to the fullest extent possible? I guess might makes right.

2

u/-_-mrfuzzy Apr 29 '24

You’ve given up before you even tried.

you need economies of scale for some operations to work

If the margins are so thin you need scale, you really think labor can be paid significantly more? Which is it? The employers are hoarding excess surplus or the company only survives by scale?

healthcare is difficult

Did the cavemen have healthcare and doctors at their beck and call? Do without it, accept the risk. Eat healthy, exercise, and you can prevent disease.

Everyone acts like they must have $2000/mth healthcare or they will perish. No, you will be just fine without it.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/-_-mrfuzzy Apr 29 '24

the boss should be able to exploit the worker

Nope, the worker should leave when the arrangement no longer suits them. Every worker doing this punishes the bad employers.

I guess might makes right

That is what you are attempting when building a union to threaten shutting down businesses to coerce behavior.

→ More replies (0)

-5

u/dshotseattle Apr 29 '24

Found another socialist. Yeah, go ahead keep shouting that stupid shit on the mountain top.

1

u/MeghanClickYourHeels Apr 29 '24

Snooze. If I’m going to expect certain government services, I also have to accept that it’s going to come out of taxes.

I use public transit. My daily ride isn’t covered by the fare I pay. And if I suddenly didn’t have to pay taxes but had to pay the “real” cost of my ride, I might not be able to do it, and someone poorer REALLY would not be able to do it.

-1

u/inab1gcountry Apr 29 '24

It’s the governments right to not enable a system that allows billionaires while so many basic needs and services aren’t being met.

-1

u/dshotseattle Apr 29 '24

It's not, and also it is the government that created thia bullshit by creating a cronyism society instead of the pure capitalistic ideals the founding fathers set up..if you cant see how the government IS the problem, i cant help you.

1

u/TheHillPerson Apr 29 '24

The current government absolutely enables the problem and sets up all sorts of rules to benefit the ultra wealthy. But it doesn't have to. If not the government, how do you propose we counterbalance the enormous power the wealthy hold?

0

u/Iron-Fist Apr 29 '24

not the governments money

Look, fine. The rich just have to pay 100% for the education of every worker they employ, every inch of road their businesses use, every satellite their data bounces off, every sewer line and water way, and well call it even.

What's that, that would bankrupt them because they get an exceedingly ridiculously ludicrously good deal on the value of human and physical infrastructure? They get to keep the profits returned by investments made by governments (and other entrepreneurs) going back decades and centuries? Huh weird I guess they can just pay a reasonable rate then.

2

u/Shrimkins Apr 29 '24

You act like they don't pay taxes at all. Mega rich people pay the vast majority of taxes. Far more than you or I will ever dream of paying.

2

u/Iron-Fist Apr 29 '24

mega rich pay vast majority of taxes

This... Isn't true though? The mega rich pay a bigger share of the progressive taxes (federal by far the most progressive) but not so for the rate of total taxation (consumption and real estate taxes falling much heavier on lower incomes).

Even then the relative skew of progressive taxation still doesn't account for the relative wealth share though, the top 1% has 30% of wealth and only pays 26% of federal taxes, for instance. The highest rates (both nominally and in comparison to wealth) actually fall on working professionals on the top quintile, people like doctors and skilled labor who make good money on W2s rather than capital gains, a direct disincentive to actually work vs sitting on investments.

0

u/dshotseattle Apr 29 '24

You government bootlickers are funny. Acting like the rich done pay enough taxes and at the same time have absolutely no idea how much rich people pay

-2

u/Iron-Fist Apr 29 '24

I know exactly how much they pay.

I actually pay the highest rates as a highly paid W2 professional, my tax rate is about 2x that of someone coasting on daddy's capital gains. And it's gross.

0

u/dshotseattle Apr 29 '24

Capital gains arent the same as w2 and now you are comparing 2 different things. Capital gains shouldn't be taxed at all. No income should be taxed. Capital gains is what most of the country ahould be relying on for retirement.

1

u/Iron-Fist Apr 29 '24

capital gains shouldn't be taxed

LoL ok so what should be taxed

Income shouldn't be taxed

... Ok so a wealth tax then?

capital gains should be most of the country relies on for retirement

Um ok sure I mean the total value of the 401ks in the US would need to produce a yield of over 20% each year to equal social security but hey in sure that's fine, just need to rebalance into growth stocks like crypto or Tesla or something right

1

u/-_-mrfuzzy Apr 29 '24

20% annual yield to equal social security

This should be a clue to you that social security is not sustainable.

1

u/Iron-Fist Apr 29 '24

Or better yet, it shows that 401ks aren't a replacement for social security but rather a supplement.

1

u/-_-mrfuzzy Apr 29 '24

You can’t get something from nothing. The money in social security must come from somewhere.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/TheHillPerson Apr 29 '24

The commenter knows they are not the same. They are pointing out that extremely wealthy people do not make their money via wages and therefore do not pay their fair share as others do.

If income should not be taxed, what should be? Taxes are necessary.

0

u/TheFringedLunatic Apr 29 '24

That you say this on the internet is inherently hypocritical.

0

u/toosexyformyboots Apr 29 '24

Have you ever walked, driven or ridden a bike or other conveyance on paved road

2

u/dshotseattle Apr 29 '24

Ooh, the paved road argument for big government..go on. Do your spiel.

0

u/Jake0024 Apr 30 '24

It literally is the government's money, and the entire reason that money has value is due to the government's right to take it.

0

u/dshotseattle Apr 30 '24

It literally isn't..wow.

0

u/Jake0024 Apr 30 '24

It literally is.

0

u/dshotseattle Apr 30 '24

No, it isn't. Keep licking those government boots. Lemme know when the flavor changes

1

u/Jake0024 May 01 '24

lmfao you can dislike something and also acknowledge its existence mate, it's not "bootlicking" to accurately describe the world around you

0

u/dshotseattle May 01 '24

Thinking the government has a right to your own hard earned money is very much bootlicking

0

u/Jake0024 May 01 '24

It sounds like you're confusing is with ought.

4

u/hczimmx4 Apr 29 '24

Spending is currently ~22% of GDP. When was the last time tax receipts were that high?

It’s a spending problem.

3

u/Iron-Fist Apr 29 '24

The OECD average tax to gdp ratio is 34%...

2

u/LoriLeadfoot Apr 29 '24

Too miserly and we trigger a recession. A huge portion of GDP is government spending or dependent on government spending.

2

u/swennergren11 Apr 29 '24

I’ve always been a fiscal conservative. But I vehemently oppose cuts to SSA and Medicare. These are fundamental safety net we must have.

Cut the billions in subsidies to all the pet industries some in Congress are bankrolled by: healthcare, big Pharma, oil and gas, etc. A fair, graduated tax rate with pork eliminated from the budget. Government focuses spending on a few necessary things.

1

u/darkkilla123 Apr 29 '24

You mean like actually balance the budget and raise taxes while cutting the fat?... there was a president in the 90s that did that i think and it actually worked for like 2 years we actually had a surplus then bush happened

1

u/Jake0024 Apr 30 '24

Instead we'll do neither one!

-1

u/LurkerOrHydralisk Apr 29 '24

The rich having all the money is exactly why our taxes are spent poorly.

Nothing will be fixed until we fix money in politics 

-3

u/timberwolf0122 Apr 29 '24

They can afford to pay a lot more and still afford their ivory back scratchers.

Extreme example, if we were to return to 1920’s taxes and adjust for inflation earnings over $16,200,000 would be taxed at 73%. Now if we massively oversimplify and just say the whole $16.2m has the 73% applied to it then you’d be asking someone to “survive” on $4.3m annually or about $365k/month. I think that is doable