Leftists and Taxes

[ysabetwordsmith]

wenchpixie wrote this for the snowflake_challenge  on Day 3:

I am fiercer now than I was, and more determinedly left wing - it's easy to say you want equitable taxation when you don't earn much, but I do still believe in solid taxation now that I pay more.

This suddenly got me thinking about how this will play out over the next several years. Suppose you are a person who believes in paying your fair share toward public goods like education or bridges that don't collapse. The incoming administration wants to gut all of that.

So what will you, as a leftist with a livable or better budget, do if the administration slashes taxes and hands you $XXXX extra money that you didn't expect to have? Keep it and use it for fun, like a vacation? Keep it and invest it in capital improvements to your home or business? Keep it and save for retirement? Kill off a hanging debt? Donate it to charity? Find some public project you can put it toward?  Invest in green energy or something else to fight climate change?  Support something the incoming administration despises  such as refugees or the whole QUILTBAG? Pick an area where America is totally failing, like affordable housing, and buy or build something that will solve a local bit of it? Or something else? Any of those might be a good choice depending on circumstances.

Regardless of what your choices are,  it will likely be better to think about this in advance than be surprised by it and flail around trying to figure out a good path on the spur of the moment.  This seems like a useful topic of discussion here.

Comments

[see_also_friend]

I remember there was some billionaire whining about people not having enough kids. If he were really concerned, he could support stuff like parental leave, free childcare, assistance for families with disabled kids, assistance for all the medical/legal fees related to acquiring a child, etc.

Separate thought - current tax law is biased, specifically in terms of what is funded. Think war taxes, abortion funding, and so on.

[siliconshaman]

I think that was Bezos..and the irony of it was completely lost on him.

Yes ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

If I was rich, and wanted more babies, I'd go to a fertility clinic and say, "Here's enough cash to fund babies for anyone who wants to have some." Or go to an abortion clinic and offer support for people who'd like to keep their baby but can't afford to -- which is over a third. And so on.

[see_also_friend]

Maybe and probably, in that order.

[crunchysteve]

One of the things I do, not that it's huge sums, is giving charitable donations "on behalf of [name]" instead of buying gifts. If I don't know their primary charity I try to make it relevant to what I know about them and it also reduces the consumerism of holidays and gift giving. Also, as most of my people are people who have comfortable plenty, the gift is usually that of a good feeling. The gift of giving the feeling of good deeds through a helping hand to others.

Fortunately, Australia is not yet facing what the quiltbag community is dreading in the US, we have entered an election year and we're facing the possible election of a government led by a corrupt ex cop who's a populist of the emotional and compassion ugliness of Trump.

It's 1935 all over again, all over the world 😔

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>>One of the things I do, not that it's huge sums, is giving charitable donations "on behalf of [name]" instead of buying gifts.<<

Go you!

As much as I love receiving gifts into my hot little hands, I admit that if someone gave me a coral reef in the Maldives, I would be all asquee.

>> It's 1935 all over again, all over the world <<

Well, at least you recognize it. Most people don't.

[ravan]

Hate to be a downer, but I don't think lower or middle classes will see any tax cuts, even if they cut the government to the bone. They will give all the tax breaks to those who make $500K or more, and corporations, and soak the rest of us to pay down "the debt".

Well ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

I'm aware of the administration's desires. I don't know how much of that they'll get, thus exactly where the breaks will fall. I also don't know how much money my readers make, which is none of my business. But somewhere out there are probably some high-earning people who are not imbecilic assholes, so this seems like a useful conversation to have.

Re: Well ...

[dewline]

As a "just-in-case" measure, I agree that this thread makes sense.

[arlie]

As a selfish American, I'm afraid I'd invest the extra as a poor substitute for the social safety net they'll be enthusiastically gutting at the same time.

Anyone who can do arithmetic (hah!) can work out that it costs much more to self insure for a single case, than to insure people in large groups. A predictable % will have an expensive catastrophe - easy to know how much to collect from each, to pay for the unlucky ones. But it's not predictable who will have the catastrophe, so without pooled risk, every single person needs to save the total amount need to cover that catastrophe, just in case.

In the real world, few can save enough, so when those of us who aren't billionaires draw the short straw, we're wiped out.

Theoretically the insurance industry provides an equivalent substitute for a government run safety net. But they feel that the way to make a profit is to deny payment after the catastrophe has occurred. Moreover, the ways they do it are frequently perfectly legal. (Did you read the fine print, or did you believe a 3 word summary that didn't describe the product accurately? Were you able to buy a product that didn't prove to have gaping loopholes when you did read the fine print?)

I'd much rather rely on good insurance against catastrophe, than try desperately to save "enough" just in case. But given the preferences of the ruling class, that's not happening. So if I'm lucky and miss out on expensive catastrophes, I'll be passing my asocial safety net down to my heirs, to maybe protect them from whatever catastrophes they encounter. Sadly, that doesn't help the people who encounter catastrophes in the meanwhile. They deserve better, but I, alas, am no saint - I'll vote for improved security for all, and gladly pay taxes to fund it, but not personally help people I don't know personally, except for relatively trivial contributions to charities.

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> As a selfish American, I'm afraid I'd invest the extra as a poor substitute for the social safety net they'll be enthusiastically gutting at the same time.<<

That's not an unreasonable choice.

>> Anyone who can do arithmetic (hah!) <<

I'm lucky to get the same answer three times running with a calculator. I am sensible enough to interpret this as a clue not to take a career that requires lots of math.

At that, past test scores indicate I am better at math than 66% of Americans. Several decades ago, which means the difference is probably worse now. Somehow.

Look at the wreck of the economy, and things like how professionals do not seem to have noticed that bubbles are bad and what goes up must come down, I can only conclude that the 66% of people worse at math than me have NOT ruled out math-related careers. >_<

>>Theoretically the insurance industry provides an equivalent substitute for a government run safety net. <<

It's not insurance anymore. It's "Insurance."

>> not personally help people I don't know personally, except for relatively trivial contributions to charities.<<

For an affordable way to help people you know personally, I recommend watching for fans, window air conditioners, and space heaters to go on sale. Buy some and stash them to hand out during heat or cold waves when someone you know has an equipment failure. Because we all know the government will do sweet fuckall to help.

[gatheringrivers]

Short term: Kill off hanging debts.

Long terms: Depends on how much I'm actually surprise-getting after my debts are paid off! :)

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

That's a logical plan. Once you close in on clearing the debts, you could start mulling over other options.