9 Things The Rich Don't Want You To Know About Taxes

[Red Arrow]

Then why are churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious entities specifically singled out?  Seems like a selective impingement on First Amendment rights to me.

Probably has something to do with separation of church and state.

[nathanm]

Here's some objectivity for you:



Blue line is federal receipts as a percentage of GDP. Red line is total state/local receipts as a percentage of GDP. Do keep in mind that the federal numbers include payroll tax.

[Conan71]

Probably has something to do with separation of church and state.

And yet, it's perfectly acceptable to have polling booths set up in churches.

Depends on how deep we think the FF's thought that separation was supposed to be.  Was the intention simply to keep us from winding up with a theocracy or barring the church from all aspects of governance?

[Red Arrow]

Here's some objectivity for you:

I can't get your graphic here at work.

What I had in mind was that the citizens of some countries are perfectly happy with a society/government that is a lot more socialistic than ours.  (I think the Scandinavian countries qualify.) They may or may not have a good standard of living.  I believe most Americans do not want that level of socialism.  Comparing our tax levels to those is not totally relevant.

[Red Arrow]

And yet, it's perfectly acceptable to have polling booths set up in churches.

Depends on how deep we think the FF's thought that separation was supposed to be.  Was the intention simply to keep us from winding up with a theocracy or barring the church from all aspects of governance?

I believe the FFs didn't want the Church as an organization to influence/run government and vs.  Remember reading about how the Church ruled Europe for many centuries?  Kings were subservient to the Pope.  Henry VIII took care of that and put himself in charge of the Church of England.  Then there was continuing troubles between the Catholics and Protestants.

As far as voting in a church, it's a building. Some older churches have very interesting architecture.  It gives me a chance to see something I would otherwise probably not see.  Many churches around here are just another steel fab structure but with pictures of Jesus.  I wouldn't mind voting in a mosque.  It's likely to be the only time I would ever be in one.

[nathanm]

I can't get your graphic here at work.

What I had in mind was that the citizens of some countries are perfectly happy with a society/government that is a lot more socialistic than ours.  (I think the Scandinavian countries qualify.) They may or may not have a good standard of living.  I believe most Americans do not want that level of socialism.  Comparing our tax levels to those is not totally relevant.

Sorry about that, it should work now.

I'm not terribly interested in comparing ourselves to Scandanavian countries, as you rightly point out nobody here would be comfortable with that level of taxation. CBPP has a nice chart that clearly shows we've got a long way to go before we get to scandanavia:



The irony of it all is that by all rights we should have higher taxes than a lot of those countries. Why? Infrastructure. We are more spread out than most countries. We have a road network connecting everything. In places like Australia or Canada, there is also large land area, but their populations are much more concentrated than our own and in both there are not maintained roads to a lot of settlements. (they're more like Alaska than the lower 48) It's cheaper to provide services to a bunch of people clustered in a small area, for obvious reasons.

[Conan71]

The irony of it all is that by all rights we should have higher taxes than a lot of those countries. Why? Infrastructure. We are more spread out than most countries. We have a road network connecting everything. In places like Australia or Canada, there is also large land area, but their populations are much more concentrated than our own and in both there are not maintained roads to a lot of settlements. (they're more like Alaska than the lower 48) It's cheaper to provide services to a bunch of people clustered in a small area, for obvious reasons.

Interesting point to touch on that I'd never really verbalized until now: We seem to equate liberty with our taxation level.  Low taxes means more liberty, higher taxes means the government is "coming after us".

[Red Arrow]

Sorry about that, it should work now.

The irony of it all is that by all rights we should have higher taxes than a lot of those countries. Why? Infrastructure. We are more spread out than most countries. We have a road network connecting everything.

The only other countries I have been to are Canada when I was a kid, Bimini, a short hop across the border to Mexico, and Germany.  Germany is well known for its great roads.  I saw a sign on one road, "Strasse Schade" meaning bad road. That road would have qualified for a new road in Oklahoma.  Perhaps one reason for your observation is the cheap way we build our infrastructure.  Then we build it again a few years later, just as cheap.  (Cheap being quality as well as intended price.)

Edit: Graphic came through on the second attempt.  Thanks.

[Gaspar]

The Tax Compliance Industry employs more workers than Wal-Mart, UPS, McDonald's, IBM and Citigroup combined.  They preside over 72,536 pages of federal tax code rules, & regulations.

"TAX" should not be the largest industry in a free republic.  Our tax code is so complex that most of us don't know what we're paying, and our government has to operate on estimates of what it is actually taking in in receipts until billions of dollars in analysis is completed.

It is an embarrassment.

Weather you are a liberal who demands higher taxes, a conservative who wants lower taxes, or a libertarian who wants fair taxes, we can all agree that the current system is broken beyond repair.

We need a new way to collect taxes that is fair, simple and transparent.  This would be the most painful political decision ever made, but it would also make the leader willing to take it on, a hero!

A simplified tax system would cause millions, employed in the tax industry, to lose their jobs, however it would cause such a boon to the economy that far better opportunities would present themselves to these talented individuals.

[nathanm]

Perhaps one reason for your observation is the cheap way we build our infrastructure.  Then we build it again a few years later, just as cheap.  (Cheap being quality as well as intended price.)

It's not so much that we build things cheaply, but that we expect them to get by with little to no maintenance. For example, if you build a concrete road of reasonable quality and put a wear layer of asphalt on top which you mill down and replace every 5 years or so, the road will last essentially forever without complete reconstruction.

Similarly, if you maintain the deck of a bridge in good condition and repaint it regularly, that will prevent most problems that bridges have.

We don't really do any of that here. We just lay down a road or build a bridge and leave it be with minimal maintenance until it's falling apart. Only then do we apply stopgap measures to keep it functional until we have the funds to completely replace the road or bridge.

Gaspar, you got a cite for that?

[guido911]

And for those who forget quickly the Heritage Foundation are bad corporate shills and worse righteous fakes.

Here you go. http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/27128

For those that can't freakin read like aox, Heritage relied on Politifact as its source. Politifact isn't exactly right wing.  And "the smoking chimp" is your source? Man you suck.

[Red Arrow]

It's not so much that we build things cheaply, but that we expect them to get by with little to no maintenance. ...

I'll agree with the minimal or poor maintenance issues.  I disagree that we build quality roads.  I saw (somewhere) a cross section comparison of German Autobahn structure vs. our typical Interstate.  We don't even come close to the Germans. 

Have you driven on Memorial between the Creek Turnpike and 111th ?  The new lanes have a terrible surface.  How about the Creek Turnpike bridges over the 111th and Garnett area?  It's enough to make even Oklahoma drivers believe in seat belts and Dramamine (sp?).

Asphalt moves around too much under concentrated loads for any heavy duty highway.  It makes a good base for concrete though.  This is what I saw when AR was replacing the entire structure of portions of I-40 about 10 years ago.  I haven't driven it lately so I don't know how it is holding up. 

In the 70s, Oklahoma had a standard for asphalt that was required to be used .  It was below nation wide  industry standards and "better" asphalt was not allowed to be used.  I don't have any current information regarding this.

[Red Arrow]

We need a new way to collect taxes that is fair, simple and transparent.  

[nathanm]

Asphalt moves around too much under concentrated loads for any heavy duty highway.  It makes a good base for concrete though.  This is what I saw when AR was replacing the entire structure of portions of I-40 about 10 years ago.  I haven't driven it lately so I don't know how it is holding up. 

Asphalt works very well as a wear layer on top of something more substantial. It works less well as the sole surface portion of the road. Even if you make it two feet thick, it gets too gooey in hot weather and develops ruts from the heavy vehicles. A 2-3 inch layer on top of concrete, on the other hand, works much better and serves to protect the concrete. without having enough substance to get too out of shape.

They use this method a lot in Arizona and some other states I consider to generally have good roads.

[Conan71]

Asphalt works very well as a wear layer on top of something more substantial. It works less well as the sole surface portion of the road. Even if you make it two feet thick, it gets too gooey in hot weather and develops ruts from the heavy vehicles. A 2-3 inch layer on top of concrete, on the other hand, works much better and serves to protect the concrete. without having enough substance to get too out of shape.

They use this method a lot in Arizona and some other states I consider to generally have good roads.

Except it requires more maintenance when it's on top of the concrete instead of under it, ergo higher maintenance costs and deferred/neglected maintenance.