Don't start hating on me, I know young adults pay tax. I'm one myself and pay 10% consumption tax, plus a heck of a lot off my wage each fortnight. But I earn more than most people my age. The contention of this thread is as follows: if young adults paid something like what they eventually will in tax, they would be much more laissez-faire in their economic policy. [hr][/hr] Imagine if they got out of high school and got a job, perhaps while studying. Imagine they got their wage and 46.5% of it had been taken on income tax (that's the top bracket, but you get the idea). Surely there would be riots in the streets clamoring for lower taxes. There would be student protests over every campus in the country. The political demographics of young adults seem related to their unique position as citizens: they have very little income to tax, but are prime-aged to receive a whole host of paternal benefits from the welfare state: education, unemployment assistance, healthcare, etc. As a result, for them - both increased taxes and spending are a very good deal: low cost, high return. Then they turn 30, get a career rather than a job, and start paying through the nose. Then they become much more fiscally laissez-faire: the costs are no longer being paid by others, now they have to contribute! [hr][/hr] So what do you think? Is the tax-and-spend attitude of young adults entirely attributable to their not having lost faith in their ability to change the world yet, or does their tax/welfare position play a role? Also, if they had to pay an "adult" proportion of their income in tax, would they be less supportive of the welfare state? Thanks, anticipating your response.
Thank you for posting the topic SP! 9 years ago when I was still married, my wife's granddaughter used to chide me ALL the time that I was heartless and didn't care for those less fortunate. Turning 16, she got her first job in one of those trendy clothing stores in a local mall. She worked two weeks and got her first paycheck. She came storming into the house hollering for GPC (her nick name for me) grousing on how she was getting ripped off. She said she was making $8.25 an hour and the 20 hours she worked, her check should be $165. I looked at her pay stub for her and told her the Government took the rest. She screamed what right did they have to do that.....I simply told her she was helping people less fortunate and it would be heartless not to. She stormed out and slammed the door behind her.
Well yes, because they'd be paying a vastly higher tax rate than anyone else. Nobody pays 40+% of their entire income in tax - those higher rates only apply to to top proportions of very high incomes. Young people pay exactly the same amount of tax as older people on the same income. You're trying to manufacture a fake situation to stir up an equally fake response. If you want to challenge tax rates, you should present an honest picture of what they actually are and make honest arguments against them. If you can't do that, maybe you don't have as strong a position as you believe. Actually the elderly are generally in a much better on that basis (for good reason). The young tend to use less healthcare resources, unemployment is quite limited for those who haven't yet started work and education is (should be!) an investment for society in general and is nominally funded by their parents generation anyway. There will always be differences in socio-political views of different age groups but I don't think you can force changes to that and just because a group of people think differently to you doesn't automatically mean they're completely in the wrong. Maybe us old cynics (including those of you old before your time ) have something to learn from youthful optimism?
taxing people more for labored income is like the rich stealing your lunch, they should pay the same tax as the working class for their income
Psychologically speaking when the tax bite hits the paycheck for the working youngster most of them do not alter their pre-existing political perspective or core ideology because they know that everyone working must also receive the same sort of tax bite. It takes something slamming home that penalized the teen for something that he or she is not to blame for but that doesn't penalize another -- let's say -- set of teens in order for their to be a political epiphany resulting in an alteration of core ideology. I told this story yesterday in some other thread, but it's relevant to this subject and so here it is again: Not long ago my wife was helping an avid Democratic Party Korean-American girl with a high school research paper, Oh but she was adamant about how greedy and racist GOPers were, this child of wealth herself by the way, and then she got assigned to research Affirmative Action by a history teacher. Then in the course of doing research she discovered to her horror that she with her damn near 4.0 GPA WAS automatically going to be penalized by Affirmative Action in college admissions where other minority types were concerned BECAUSE she was a stereotypically overachieving Asian student. The beauty of this is that she made all the discoveries on her own. Overnight she switched from damn near being a radical leftist to being a moderate Republican. See? That youngster was being penalized BY leftists FOR the color of her skin and for her ethnic origins and exclusively to benefit (in her eyes) countless slackers, and so she experienced a fundamental epiphany that is going to have repercussions in regards to her perspective in life for the rest of her existence.
This misses the point of the topic. All things being equal - sure, but things are not all equal. Young adults tend to earn significantly less than their adult counterparts, and are generally more pro-tax and spend in their politics. The thread is speculating on a possible connection between these characteristics, not saying that them paying less is unfair. Nor was I saying that people actually pay an effective income tax rate of 46.5%. That's the top rate, as I said. Y What utter nonsense. Figure out the contention of the thread then get back to me. Definitely true, another interesting topic. The elderly tend to have very odd political views indeed. Conservative on social (and often economic) issues, but try to take away their pensions or social security and you'll find yourself in political exile soon enough. I'd speculate that they are generally more conservative because they've lived through a life of paying taxes, but figure that they're entitled to something in return from the next generation (or their own) as a consequence. It's easy to forget that many of them lived through the days of 90%+ top tax rates. I would never suggest you could or they are. Youthful optimism is all good and well - I'm a radical myself, I have nothing against the desire the young have to change the world. However, it's important that we do this with an accurate picture of the problem and its solution. The point of the thread was that... perhaps... just perhaps... when it comes to taxation+spending, young adults are not. Well I guess there are two components to your response: that concerning progressive taxation, and that concerning spending/labor laws. [hr][/hr] As far as progressive taxation goes, I've always found it to be a fundamentally unequal and unfair system. Equality demands that each citizen should pay an equal amount of value regardless of race, gender, or socio-economic status. But that's not even what progressive taxation does away with - a flat tax does away with that principle, and people pay an equal fraction of their income. Progressive taxation is inequality on steroids. [hr][/hr] The minimum wage we are just unable to find any agreement on whatsoever. I am firmly opposed to all price controls and interference in the labor market. I take this seriously enough to oppose restrictions on immigration. If taxation takes some of your property entirely, labor laws take the remainder in part. No longer can you negotiate voluntarily, no longer can you refuse service on whatever basis you please - your property is now on lease from the state. What they don't take directly, they'll take through the fine print in the terms and conditions. [hr][/hr] As for the images - the first would be more accurate if Uncle Sam was refraining from taking a big bucket of their money rather than giving them one. The latter makes it appear as if the tax cut is a subsidy rather than the absence of a tax. The second I mostly agree with. I have no sympathy for the GOP, industry, or government. In fact, I consider industry to be one of the main aggressors in all this - government and industry constantly collude for the benefit of both. Sometimes I think those benefits are justified, as with tax cuts, other times (much more frequently), I find them abhorrent, as with direct subsidies, eminent domain, the monetary system, regulatory barriers to market entry, etc. I'll go as far to say that industry and the rich (in collusion with government) are much more of a problem than the left. The rich bloody love government, how else would they eliminate competition? By offering a superior product?
You shouldn't lie to her. She'll just turn into one of those low-information voters who is manipulated by the latest demagogue.
There's a risk of over-simplifying of course (you've already identified yourself as evidence of exceptions after all). There does seem to be some political variation linked to age and I've no doubt there will be some linked to personal economic circumstances too. People who are (or think they are) paying more tax will tend to be less favourable towards taxation and vice-versa. None of that makes any of them right though and this kind of thing benefits a little professional detachment. Yes and that's why it was a poor example. There is more than enough misinformation and confusion about taxation without adding to it. The realistic comparison would be if young people earned much more and so reached the high-rate thresholds. Of course, that would still leave them lots of (to them) take-home pay so maybe they still wouldn't be too down on the tax system.
Wrong. I worked self employed and paid a 13.5% tax rate on top of a 9% sales tax rate in the state I live in on top of VAT tax on a vehicle I owned. I also know that just by looking at the budget numbers getting ride of welfare would do almost nothing to my tax bill. If full grown adults actually took a look at a budget pie and truly wanted a lower tax bill they'd start talking about cutting the military spending and fixing social security and medicare so they are actually self funding, just those 3 things amount to over 75% of government spending, welfare, education, etc, anything that could be counted as being given to someone less fortunate, amounts to 14% of that pie.
