In what country are you paying taxes? And is your tax rate above or below 30%?
Based on anecdotal evidence, I think that people paying more than 30% rarely ever "love" paying taxes. Below that, it seems to feel much more ok (I'm also below 30% and - while I'm not enthusiastic about paying taxes - it feels like a fair deal).
Let me add another anecdote here. I live in Denmark, which together with Sweden has some of the highest marginal tax rates. I am certainly in the high end of income, and i am happy to pay my taxes.
First of all, it means supporting a robust social system, that have provided treatment for my family member's cancer for free. Something that would likely have resulted in bankruptcy in the US, prior to ACA.
Secondly, being in the high end of the tax rate, means i have a high income as well - and it seems only fair that i pay more in taxes than people who make very little to begin with. Society has to function, and let's make the broadest shoulders bear the largest burden.
40-45% combined rate here. I'm thrilled to be privileged enough to be in this tax rate, and while I disagree on some of where my taxes go to, I'm upset with that distribution more than I am the rate. I do not want my taxes to be lowered.
Tax rate above 30% here. Considering I just finished a master degree education that was virtually free, with even living costs heavily subsidized (both stipend and ridiculously low student loan interest), I pay my taxes gladly. I'm not sure I will be a net positive for the government for another decade at least.
I think free higher education is one thing that really help sell higher taxes to high income earners. Free(ish) healthcare is awesome, but you get the feeling that it mostly benefits poorer and older people. Free higher education is comparatively cheap, but it makes our lives simpler and stress free.
I'm from Sweden, way above 30%, still love to pay taxes. Countries where they avoid to pay taxes at all cost like Greece is usually a reminder of why it is important that the government really enforces tax paying and that the taxes are high.
Actually, Greece doesn't remind us about why high taxes are good. Their taxes are high. The problem is corruption; the money is squandered, and the economy is choked by taxes, favouritism, corruption and nepotism.
Thus, Greece is an example of why we need to remember to keep our politicians at check.
US worker here with taxes above 40% (if you include state). My taxes are not high enough. We run a deficit. Schools don't get enough money. Roads have potholes. We have poor and homeless people who don't get enough to eat. Etc.
What a sophomoric, bad faith quip. What agent of common infrastructure do you prefer? How many dams have they fixed and how much diplomacy do they engage in?
If people in general "loved" paying taxes, then taxation could be replaced with a voluntary system. It is precisely the fact that the people who love paying taxes are a minority that coercion has to be used.
I don't think that's a fair assessment. Time and time again voters approve plans to increase spending on things they want to have. If the people generally really wanted to drastically reduce government spending and reduce their tax burden they could vote for it, but they don't as long as they think they're getting a fair enough share of benefits from it.
Yes, funding a $600 billion military industrial complex [0]. Just think, your complete yearly taxes were probably almost enough for a single JDAM [1] which was then dropped on Iraq, in a war where 13% of all civilians were killed directly by US-led forces [2], and many more in the chaos that ensued from the invasion.
The problem with that isn't taxation, it's voting in people who approve that spending.
UK tax payer here, so the specifics are different, but I have no problem paying my taxes. We have decent free health care, a capable and I think 'right sized' armed forces for our needs, competent policing and security services and my children get free education. If any of those things were not true I wouldn't necessarily want my taxes to be reduced, I'd want the problems with those services to be fixed.
Right-sized? You have almost no tanks anymore, and the ones you do are 80's era. The Royal Navy is a shadow of a shadow navy. The RAF is woefully under-equipped to protect against Russian incursions.
Its called "chain of numbness". Chasing doesn't murder innocent Iraq children; he is far from it but by aiding financially the army that does murder, are his hands truly clean?
The $600 billion figure is misleading when compared to other countries, as it's not adjusted for cost of living, cost of countries we trust (and therefore buy arms from) also having a higher cost of living, etc.
Why precisely is having the worlds largest military bad? Do you think it doesnt add any value? It seems theres a lot of people outside of America who'd like to see it shrunk for very bad reasons.
Why not keep the military and solve our problems without it? We need it to be safe now, and until we've already solved our problems, we'll still need it.
Obviously it doesn't always work well and it definitely causes problems, doesn't mean we should get rid of or even reduce it.
The bad is there is an opportunity cost of dollars spent. And the US could likely still dominate global firepower rankings at half the current spend, meanwhile this saving could significantly improve the education or health system with that money. Or reduce the tax burden on people. Or simply bank it to reduce the debt and burden of repayment for future years. Lots you could do with hundreds of billions.
"the US could likely still dominate global firepower rankings at half the current spend"
True, but just winning a war or conflict is not an ideal outcome. Overwhelming advantage not only prevents conflict from occurring, it also assures that casualties are low in even low intensity / regional conflicts.
The US operates on the principle that it must outspend the next 2 countries in military spending. It's an insurance policy in case say, Russia and China team up against the US.
Which is madness, of course. Because spending twice as much doesn't necessarily mean Americans see twice the value. I can easily spend twice as much on a worse car than my neighbor owns.
Some people would disagree with you. I believe military and defense spending should actually be one of the only role of governments. Leave healthcare and education to industry. Let the free market decide the curriculum, teachers salaries, and come up with innovative ways of teaching. I see no reason Khan academy shouldn't be allowed to teach our children. Since when did it become common place to allow a government to come up with a path of study, and make it mandatory to send your kid to for 13 years? As governments slowly accept more and more social programs, the government balloons. Value produced slowly stops representing capital. In germany, where social programs are abundant you get a lot of leeches on the economy. Very long unemployment timeframes, with reltively good pay, Full health coverage, unlimited sick time if you have a doctors note. In a system that can be "gamed", there will be a large amount of people who do so.
I don't believe there are systems that can't be gamed. Given that assumption it's probably better to decide policy based on actual results. In places where social programs are abundant you have fewer suffering individuals, it seems healthier to count that as a win and not get hung up on the (truly rather small) percentage of people potentially gaming the system.
Seems like the comment you're replying to is fine with our system that can be gamed by those at the top but is afraid of gaming by those at the bottom.
A large military "in reserve" becomes stagnant, and unable to operate in new real world conflicts. Look at the Vietnam war, or the current conflict in the Ukraine. Tactics change, and large militaries bent on keeping their swollen budgets in tact are poor at responding to emerging threats.
My point is that these smaller conflicts (albeit mostly misguided) are useful to guide and reform strategy, tactics and spending.
So we should kill a couple of hundred thousand people every decade or so to keep our game up? Seems pretty indefensible. I'd rather invest a much smaller amount of money into honest red team war gaming.
I said they're useful, I don't agree or advocate the strategy. Like it or not (I do not) small regional conflicts teach valuable lessons that cannot be learned in training, or during "war gaming". When the enemy possess weapons or tactics that you have not seen used, or demonstrated they cannot be integrated into a war game. Look at the upgraded armor, drone usage, IED detection/suppression, sniper detection developed for and used in the middle east. This barely existed (maybe in concept) before the conflicts of the 00's. Similar lessons are being learned in the Ukraine right now (counter drone operations, active tank armor, electronic warfare/signal jamming etc.)
I think people argue not with having the largest military, but with having military expenses which are 3 times those of China and 10 times those of Russia, and with the rest of the big countries being US allies.
I agree with you completely. There are so many unknown benefits that we gain with having such a large military that its very hard to calculate. Also, one of the worst things that could ever possibly happen in a war is being evenly matched. If one country (or group) isn't completely superior in every way, the war becomes a meat grinder and lasts longer than it should have.
Would you like to pay more? Because that is an option.
edit: OK, I understand the sentiment of being happy to contribute to society, but no-one assumes a perfect equation of their taxes to the appropriate and desired government spending thereof.
