T or F: Is "it will raise taxes" a sufficient argument against the existence of a social program?

[delrem]

Of course, any argument regarding taxes is valid.

Even the argument "There should be no taxes."
The rich argue for a moderate middle ground, that of course there should be taxes since a bare minimum of gov't to ensure their rule is required and has to be paid by taxes. But the tax should be equitable, equally levied on citizens as equal individuals, so should be a flat tax.

So there's at least two arguments, in reality, since "it will raise taxes" in the "flat tax" sense, equally across the board, is different than "it will raise taxes in a progressive way", where a progressive tax is a tax in which the tax rate increases as the taxable amount increases.

This difference bears on the practicalities of the arguments.

How does this difference bear on the practicality of the argument AGAINST a universal single payer program, that "it will be necessary to raise taxes". I've read the argument, on DU, that it would be UNFAIR for folk to have to pay for the health care of the poor, the homeless, the desperate, and that anything in the way of a tax dedicated toward making such a thing possible is anathema.

[WillyT]

1. The Reason They Put It In As A payroll Tax Is...

That TPTB cannot claim it to be a welfare program.

If everybody pays into the insurance, nobody get to bitch they are being unfairly taxed.

That's why the rich get to collect their SS Benefits...

It's much easier to take down a program that looks like welfare.

It's been done before.

[delrem]

10. Yah, I was thinking about a VAT tax for the same reason.

According to a certain twisted meaning that I allude to in my last paragraph, with a payroll tax everyone ON A PAYROLL can feel righteous, perhaps righteous enough to deny benefits to the homeless. After all, if the homeless benefit THE SAME from what they get after a payroll tax, mightn't that tax be decreased if the "parasites" are, like, gotten rid of?

So to reduce it even further into "flat tax" territory, a VAT tax would be perfect. Especially if it didn't apply, at all, to the transactions of investment capital. Exempting those transactions as "special".

One thing for certain is that there will ALWAYS be very well-heeled forces whose interest it is to take social programs down. They are professional, they employ elite doctoral students in 24/7/52 think tanks, they buy up the media at every opportunity, they don't only work in election years.

[PowerToThePeople]

2. F

eom

[Warren Stupidity]

3. It is true if you are a republican.

[bunnies]

21. ^^^ THIS ^^^ nt

[Recursion]

4. Explicitly running on raising taxes is a dicey proposition. Even FDR didn't do that.

(For that matter in '32 he ran on cutting taxes and "eliminating burdensome regulations".)

Now, it's possible that This Time Is Different™, but I always get skeptical of that claim.

Taxes to pay for social programs are in general a very good idea; this is a weakness of American democracy.

[fredamae]

5. Only if you are FOR

all the money we Waste luxuriating the Wealthy with Kickbacks, Subsidies and MASSIVE tax breaks for Wall Street Big Banks, Big Oil, Big Corp, 1% and up etc, etc, etc, etc.
I'd like to see Them pay their fair share and stop being Takers.

[uponit7771]

6. Absolutely and it always should be. I don't want a social program for banks or doctors and raise my

...taxes so they wont by butt hurt.

[delrem]

11. I support progressive taxation.

So your complaint sinks to the bottom.

[uponit7771]

12. "progressive" is in the eye of the beholder, taxes for banks to the bankers might be progressive for

... them...

Same for greedy ass'd doctors, there's no doubt "it will raise taxes" should always be looked at in regards where its coming from and who's it going to

[delrem]

13. You're not making a lick of sense, my friend.

You don't understand the term "progressive" as used in this context, or much of anything at all, really, and it's painful to read your comments.

[uponit7771]

20. You're JUST NOW qualifying a term and talking about who is making sense?!? REALLY?! Your ignorance..

... on the titling of a "social program" needs to be updated also... republicans have a weird idea of what a social program is.

[delrem]

22. THE DISTINCTION WAS DEFINED IN MY OP!

The distinction between flat and progressive tax policies is BASIC.

It doesn't depend on what some twit on twitter means when they're expressing their hatred of "progressives". Really, it doesn't.

Google it, ffs. You have the time for talking smack, why not use some of it to learn about the terminology that you're debating about?

[Ferd Berfel]

7. Raise Taxes

[Rosa Luxemburg]

9. She's very rich and she would have to pay a lot of taxes - so she doesn't want them raised

[Rosa Luxemburg]

8. In the UK we paid a small tax for healthcare and social security

All social programs should be free at the point of use and the rich pay more.

In England I paid a small amount out of my salary some of it was for healthcare. I did not have to pay any huge insurance premiums, deductables, huge co-payments. I did not have to produce my insurance card at a ER so that they could save me. Prescriptions had a small fee but you you were covered for all drugs.

When the time comes we can make a huge bonfire of all the health insurance company bills!

[CharlotteVale]

14. FALSE.

[Herman4747]

15. FALSE. FALSE. FALSE!!!

Damn, this is precisely what it means to be a liberal.

[Doctor_J]

16. absolutely. If you are a republican

[wildeyed]

17. T or F: False choice.

The correct answer is 'depends'.

"The rich argue for a moderate middle ground" False premise. Who are "the rich"? What constitutes "rich"? This doesn't even make sense. Because there are really, really rich people who advocate for progressive taxation, higher taxation on capital gains, single payer, you name it.

The argument against Bernie Sander's single payer is that even he does not know how the math works without the use of a magic asterisk.

If he won't be straight about the cost, how can we even begin to decide how to pay for it? I do support single payer, but I will not support a plan that is not very detailed in both cost and implementation. No f'ing asterisks allowed. That does not make me "the rich". It does not make me selfish. It does make me a grownup, IMO, but that is also debatable....

And if you have read arguments you disagree with on the DU, why don't you just go debate with those individuals instead of playing some weird game of telephone. It muddles up your logic when you do that, makes it hard to have an honest debate on the topic. Or maybe that was the point

You know what would also raise taxes? Paying reparations. It is the right thing to do, what with the genocide our country committed and all.....T or F: Is "it will raise taxes" a sufficient argument against the existence of a social program?

[delrem]

18. No, "you didn't define 'rich'" doesn't cut it.

Nor does your citing individual exceptions.
Why? Because a "flat tax" is a perennial favorite of the right wing.

And you know it.

Mendacity doesn't cut it, nor does changing the topic to "reparations".

[wildeyed]

19. Yes, it does.

You don't get away with pasting the fact that Bernie Sanders can't tell America how the math for his single payer system works on "the rich". That fact is not "mendacity" any more than "the rich" are responsible for Sanders problems with math.

And I didn't change any topics, just pointed out that there are many worthy social programs out there.

So answer your own question. When the social program is reparations, T or F: Is "it will raise taxes" a sufficient argument against the existence of a social program? You started with this line of reasoning, now finish.

[delrem]

24. Sanders has explained it sufficiently.

Nothing would be enough for YOU to even acknowledge.

As for "reparations", you do realize that NO CANDIDATE IS CALLING FOR REPARATIONS? Don't you?

My answer to your pressing that issue in specific regard to my question? Again, I agree with Sanders. His reason isn't "because it will raise taxes". That would be the lamest of all reasons. His reason is that building infrastructure in poorer communities, providing universal education and health standards, is a better and less controversial direction to go in at this time, at this moment. You may disagree, but if you do I think you'd be better off using your time to build up the movement for reparations, not just as a way to badger Sanders (but oddly, no other candidate) during the primaries, but as a groundwork for raising the issue in the next round, in 2020. But I doubt you care about reparations at all.

[wildeyed]

34. Oh but I do care about social justice and reparations.

Check my past posts if you want proof And something called proof and/or clarification for your statements WOULD be enough for me to acknowledge. If you do that, we can move this discussion forward. But so far, you are incapable....

Try again. You argued that "the rich" want flat tax. Define "rich" please. I need to know if you want me to understand what you said previously. The word is not interchangeable with "Republican" or "conservative". Susan Sarandon is worth $50 million. Robert Reich is worth $4 million. Killer Mike, $5 million. So they are "rich" right? But they don't support regressive tax structures. Or do they? WTF are you trying to say?

Sanders says that building infrastructure, etc. is more important that addressing the racial inequality in this country, but plenty of people disagree, me included. And not because we think the basic concepts are bad.

There will be no socialism in the US without social justice first. The very foundation of our country is built on racial inequality. That problem has not been addressed. Until we do, it is structurally impossible to adopt a political system based on egalitarianism (i.e. socialism, for those with limited verbal skills and/or political knowledge).

And don't try to change the topic by telling me that I am being SO MEAN to Bernie Sanders or pivoting to other candidates. You started this line of discussion, and then resurrected the thread three days later. Now finish.

[Yavin4]

26. The definition of rich is very fluid

Sure, there are really really rich people, but to someone in Columbus, OH, a person making $100K a year is rich. In NYC? You're barely middle class.

[delrem]

29. I don't think people making $100K a year makes them rich.

It does make them comfortably upper-middle class, so long as the going is good.

Someone making $20/hr is getting $38,400 gross income.

That doesn't leave a person all that much.

I think most people making $100K and above become in contact with different kinds of investment clubs and groups. They enter a different social strata.

Surprisingly to me, Sanders' plan for a more progressive tax doesn't really kick in to a much higher level than $100K (if I understand correctly), where I would definitely say that such high take home pay makes the person rich.

[Yavin4]

36. "It does make them comfortably upper-middle class"

You need to look at rents/mortgages in the NYC tri-state area. $100K a year aint going to get you upper middle class here. A single person making that only takes home, $62K a yr. That works out to a little over $5000 a month. Average rents here are around $2200 a month for a small studio apartment. That leaves you about $2800 for utilities, food, clothing, travel, etc.

That's it not upper middle class by far.

[delrem]

40. Oh, I was talking about from my humble experience.

I'm totally out of my depth talking about the class differentiations of the NYC district.
I only ever even saw New York city once, in a weird encounter driving through, puzzled by a view of so many dark buildings with glassless windows, abandoned cars on the sides of the freeway, thinking "I can't stay here long, I'd be sucked right up and could never leave." Developing car trouble at the bottom of some ramp, the third I'd tried, which left me somewhere I think was downtown. Getting out and opening up a map, thinking I've gotta get out of this place to fix this. Within 30 seconds a passing car stopped and I was given help. Now that, I liked. I followed the directions through the tunnel and landed up on I think Jersey side, where I was met with the most incredible hospitality as I've ever received in my life. I got everything fixed up and new tires and went on my way, driving through the beautiful country. I was impressed for life.

[wildeyed]

35. And the statement

that "the rich" all support flat tax that is weird. They seem to be using it as a pejorative that refers to conservatives. But it doesn't mean that. Many people who are certifiably, extravagantly, obscenely wealthy think flat tax is stupid.

And as you point out, they also need to define at what level someone is considered "rich" to move the discussion forward.

[Yavin4]

23. A national sales tax is the key to building and maintaining social spending

Everyone pays in, so everyone has a stake in keeping it going. As soon as anyone gets benefits without paying into the system, political support for it falls.

This is how Europe funds their social programs and keep them popular.

[delrem]

25. That would be fair, so long as the tax applied to investment transactions,

which strangely enough always seem to be exempt.

[Yavin4]

37. It should be applied for all transactions excluding food (with some exceptions e.g. alcohol)

clothing (with some exceptions, e.g. over a certain amount), healthcare, housing, and education.

This would make it easier on the poor because basic necessities would be exempt. This would perform another social good by encouraging savings.

Everyone pays in. Everyone benefits.

[delrem]

39. So you propose that a VAT tax on sale of luxury goods

is sufficient to fund a universal single-payer health care system.

I don't think so! Not that it isn't a good idea, but it isn't enough of a guarantee of anything.

You see this as a way to "encourage savings". Fine, but do you include capital investments as "savings"? Are you against transactional taxes on Wall St. trading? As explained here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/22/opinion/the-case-for-a-tax-on-financial-transactions.html?_r=0

"Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president, has done just that, by proposing a financial transaction tax: a small excise tax, typically a few hundredths of a percent, on trades of stocks, bonds, derivatives and other securities. An itty-bitty, one-basis-point transaction tax (a basis point is one-hundredth of a percentage point, or 0.01 percent) would raise $185 billion over 10 years, according to new estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. That would be enough to finance an ambitious expansion of prekindergarten programs for 3- and 4-year-olds and restore funding of college assistance for low-income students."

[Yavin4]

41. The VAT would be on non-luxury goods including a transactional tax

as well as other goods and services like alcohol, gas, cell phones, cell phone usage, haircuts, airline travel, etc., etc., etc.

But if your position is that all we have to do is tax rich people and Wall Street to pay for everything, then you're wrong, and you won't win long term political support for it.

[delrem]

42. Accusing me of asserting that "all we have to do is tax rich people" is

barely above the level of slander.
None of my many posts discussing my OP says anything whatsoever that could be construed as even implying that.

So: end of discussion. Bye.

[mythology]

27. It depends

What is the goal of the social program, is it a proper and sustainable funding level, what are the actual expected future costs (no proposing to reap savings of over 100% of current spending to make the math work), how will it be enacted (block grants to states are generally a bad idea given Republican governors being less than concerned with effective government).

If the tax imposed can't possibly meet the stated goal and actual sustainable funding, then yes, it would be enough to say that taxes shouldn't be raised for that. If the program isn't popular enough to sustain public support, then yes spending political capital on raising taxes to pay for something that will have a larger cost is a bad idea.

Nothing exists in a vacuum.

[delrem]

28. Watch this.

[Agony]

30. We don't "need" taxes to fund social programs It is a political problem not an economic one.

At the federal level, you aren't even asking the right question.

[delrem]

32. Myself, I'd love to fund them to hell and gone right of my ass!

At a universal level, I do think I'm providing the right answer.

[Recursion]

33. This is a very good point. The US government by definition can't "need" a dollar

or any given amount of dollars.

[restorefreedom]

31. of course not. if it it was, how would anything we have be funded? nt

[Live and Learn]

38. Unarguably false! Taxes that benefit society are unarguably good.

The problem people have with taxes is that they don't see enough benefits for what they are paying in the US. In other countries with higher taxes but big benefits, the populace doesn't see taxation as a bad thing.