NationStates Jolt Archive

What exactly do the words "tax and spend" really mean? Because judging from the way some people say it like it is some political disease, it cannot possibly mean what it sounds like it means, that being "To collect money with taxes, and then to spend that money." The obvious altarnatives don't make much sense, when you think of "Tax and keep" it doesn't sound like that great of an idea, but even worse is what we've been doing recently "Just spend." That got us a 9-trillion dollar and rising deficit, so I don't think it's working. So why the hell is
"tax and spend" Such an insult? Isn't that what we SHOULD be doing?

What exactly do the words "tax and spend" really mean? Because judging from the way some people say it like it is some political disease, it cannot possibly mean what it sounds like it means, that being "To collect money with taxes, and then to spend that money." The obvious altarnatives don't make much sense, when you think of "Tax and keep" it doesn't sound like that great of an idea, but even worse is what we've been doing recently "Just spend." That got us a 9-trillion dollar and rising deficit, so I don't think it's working. So why the hell is
"tax and spend" Such an insult? Isn't that what we SHOULD be doing?


The idea behind tax and spend was as an insult to liberals, as the image given was of raising taxes, then spending all that money, yet producing nothing of value. From a fiscal conservative standpoint, it is much better to have lower taxes, and cut unneeded spending. The biggest reasons for the deficit are beyond the current administration's control. A war on terror, and several MAJOR natural disasters would put a hamper on any economy...

The idea behind tax and spend was as an insult to liberals, as the image given was of raising taxes, then spending all that money, yet producing nothing of value. From a fiscal conservative standpoint, it is much better to have lower taxes, and cut unneeded spending. The biggest reasons for the deficit are beyond the current administration's control. A war on terror, and several MAJOR natural disasters would put a hamper on any economy...


However, having said that, I think this administration and future administrations could be much more fiscally conservative, the market should be more in control, and the government smaller.

It means people insist on actually getting money from somewhere other than thin air to spend. And doing this makes one "evil."

The idea behind tax and spend was as an insult to liberals, as the image given was of raising taxes, then spending all that money, yet producing nothing of value. From a fiscal conservative standpoint, it is much better to have lower taxes, and cut unneeded spending. The biggest reasons for the deficit are beyond the current administration's control. A war on terror, and several MAJOR natural disasters would put a hamper on any economy...
Some might say that the failure to competently deal with these situations is within the governments control. Some might say that the continuous tax cuts, arguably benefitting the rich more than anyone, as well as the corporate givaways, are responsible for much of the deficit, but with 9 trillion dollars, there's a lot of blame to go around.

I meant to ask- what is the rate of tax in the US? How much of every dollar do you keep?

Liasia']I meant to ask- what is the rate of tax in the US? How much of every dollar do you keep?
It is a progressive tax currently (although Mr. Steve Forbes is not fond of this)..

I dont know the exact ration, but the average $35,000 a year person pays something like 18% on the first 25,000 and 22% on the last 10,000. It gets more confusing as you go, until you reach the peak, which is approximately $220,000 or higher earnings, where you pay 35% or so on every additional dollar until you reach a certain point......

hope this somewhat helps..

It is a progressive tax currently (although Mr. Steve Forbes is not fond of this)..

I dont know the exact ration, but the average $35,000 a year person pays something like 18% on the first 25,000 and 22% on the last 10,000. It gets more confusing as you go, until you reach the peak, which is approximately $220,000 or higher earnings, where you pay 35% or so on every additional dollar until you reach a certain point......

hope this somewhat helps..

Is that all? Jesus.

Some might say that the failure to competently deal with these situations is within the governments control. Some might say that the continuous tax cuts, arguably benefitting the rich more than anyone, as well as the corporate givaways, are responsible for much of the deficit, but with 9 trillion dollars, there's a lot of blame to go around.


You definitely make a valid point, but I don't think the Bush administration is to blame for this, preparation for natural disasters (i.e. building up levies) should have been infrastructure spending the states were granted federal dollars for along time ago..... but never came to be... However, there was definitely some mismanagement of time, manpower, and dollars this go round...

Liasia']Is that all? Jesus.

Where u from?

Given, the US has lower tax rates because health insurance is privatized for the most part (besides Medicare, medicaid, etc)....so it is much lower tax rate, and a pretty worthless social safety net as well, thus even lower taxes.

Where u from?

Given, the US has lower tax rates because health insurance is privatized for the most part (besides Medicare, medicaid, etc)....so it is much lower tax rate, and a pretty worthless social safety net as well, thus even lower taxes.
Uk (England). Its pretty high compared to that, methinks. Compared to the 50% in scandanavia, we get off lightly

Liasia']Is that all? Jesus.

That's only the Federal tax. There are also State income taxes, sales taxes, other excise taxes, luxury taxes, and, of course, the ubiquitous "hidden" taxes.

I only make $32,000/year. In California, that's almost poverty level. I take home half that and this year the Federal and State governments said I owed them money.

I don't know what country you're from, but I imagine that, although you pay higher taxes, you get more from the government in terms of health care and other subsidies.

I'd be interested to know.

That's only the Federal tax. There are also State income taxes, sales taxes, other excise taxes, luxury taxes, and, of course, the ubiquitous "hidden" taxes.

I only make $32,000/year. In California, that's almost poverty level. I take home half that and this year the Federal and State governments said I owed them money.

I don't know what country you're from, but I imagine that, although you pay higher taxes, you get more from the government in terms of health care and other subsidies.

I'd be interested to know.

From the sounds of things, it's not hard to beat the US's social provision. Considering the UK spends 1/3 of its budget on the NHS and only like 1% on the military, i suspect i would get more.
$32,000 poverty? If you have a family, maybe.

Liasia']I meant to ask- what is the rate of tax in the US? How much of every dollar do you keep?
It's kinda hard to calculate. We have 11% payroll taxes, but we supposedly get those back when we get old and start collecting social security. depending on your income tax bracket (which is progressive) you pay 24%-32% of your income. Then there's property tax (I don't know how that's calculated) And in most states, sales tax (typically 8% of a sale price.) For income tax however, there are a billion little writeoffs, and people with lots of money tend to pay accountants to find loopholes that let them get away with paying less taxes. A lot less taxes. Then of course, stockholders benefit greatly when the government props up the companies they own, or give them no-bid contracts, or allow them to do whatever they want globally.

Liasia']Uk (England). Its pretty high compared to that, methinks. Compared to the 50% in scandanavia, we get off lightly

Given England has very shitty health care as well, they only spend about 7% of GDP on health care, the average of industrialized countries is about 10%... (US somehow manages to spend 15%, although 43 million go uninsured)..

Given England has very shitty health care as well, they only spend about 7% of GDP on health care, the average of industrialized countries is about 10%... (US somehow manages to spend 15%, although 43 million go uninsured)..

Yeh, but no-one dies of an untreated disease in the Uk unless they want to or there is a serious failiure in the system. In the US poor=death.

Back to the OP's question, I have always interpreted "tax and spend" to be an insult to the 'liberal' (U.S. democrat, not classic liberal) habit of throwing money at every cause imaginable. The Ted Kennedy syndrome, in other words.

Poor people? Give them money! Starving artists? Grants, money! Subsidies! Environmentalists? Give them millions for studies on how not being a vegetarian contributes to global warming! (actual study) and so on...If you run out of money- RAISE TAXES!!!!

That is the basic idea I believe. BIG government, massive redistribution of wealth.

Liasia']Yeh, but no-one dies of an untreated disease in the Uk unless they want to or there is a serious failiure in the system. In the US poor=death.

that's not 100% true....any hospital receiving federal aid (which is pretty many) are required to see patients regardless of health insurance or not.... they don't just turn away patients, or they face serious penalties. However, there is a big inconvenience factor in the US, hospitals will make the uninsured (not to mention the millions of underinsured) wait for hours upon hours. However, even there are more systems moving TOWARDS the US model than the US moving towards those "socialized insurance" models like Canada...

Back to the OP's question, I have always interpreted "tax and spend" to be an insult to the 'liberal' (U.S. democrat, not classic liberal) habit of throwing money at every cause imaginable. The Ted Kennedy syndrome, in other words.

Poor people? Give them money! Starving artists? Grants, money! Subsidies! Environmentalists? Give them millions for studies on how not being a vegetarian contributes to global warming! (actual study) and so on...If you run out of money- RAISE TAXES!!!!

That is the basic idea I believe. BIG government, massive redistribution of wealth.

very well said... This is one of the big flaws of the left side of the aisle in the US, the willingness to throw money at problems. However, as of late, conservatives haven't been very fiscally responsible either...

Liasia']From the sounds of things, it's not hard to beat the US's social provision. Considering the UK spends 1/3 of its budget on the NHS and only like 1% on the military, i suspect i would get more.
$32,000 poverty? If you have a family, maybe.

Actually, in Southern California, even a single person cannot live well on $32,000. Rents start at around $800 a month for a one-bedroom apartment and mortgages are higher. If you're taking home half of the $32,000, that's $16,000 or $1,333.33/mo. Take $800 out of that and you have $533 for food, utilities, clothing, transportation, medical expenses, recreation etc. When you break it down, it's not much.

The way the tax system is set up, while the federal taxes don't impact the middle income people much, the State taxes do (except for those states that don't have income tax, but a much higher sales tax) and we bear the brunt of the "tax and spend" mentality.

that's not 100% true....any hospital receiving federal aid (which is pretty many) are required to see patients regardless of health insurance or not.... they don't just turn away patients, or they face serious penalties. However, there is a big inconvenience factor in the US, hospitals will make the uninsured (not to mention the millions of underinsured) wait for hours upon hours. However, even there are more systems moving TOWARDS the US model than the US moving towards those "socialized insurance" models like Canada...

Meh. I think socialism is a good idea, and capitalism only appeals to the rich in society.

that's not 100% true....any hospital receiving federal aid (which is pretty many) are required to see patients regardless of health insurance or not.... they don't just turn away patients, or they face serious penalties. However, there is a big inconvenience factor in the US, hospitals will make the uninsured (not to mention the millions of underinsured) wait for hours upon hours. However, even there are more systems moving TOWARDS the US model than the US moving towards those "socialized insurance" models like Canada...
Yes, uninsured people who have health problems will be treated. but they will also be billed, and very commonly they cannot even begin to afford whatever proceedure or medicine is required to keep them living. Unlike hospitals, landlords tend to be less understanding when people cannot afford to pay them. Many poor people refuse to see a doctor, because the doctor might find out that they're sick, and then they'll need treatment, and they can't possibly begin to afford it.

Yes, uninsured people who have health problems will be treated. but they will also be billed, and very commonly they cannot even begin to afford whatever proceedure or medicine is required to keep them living. Unlike hospitals, landlords tend to be less understanding when people cannot afford to pay them. Many poor people refuse to see a doctor, because the doctor might find out that they're sick, and then they'll need treatment, and they can't possibly begin to afford it.

This is true. One major problem with uninsured and underinsured is that they dont go for well visits (preventive) and thus only go for severe illness, which is usually in the ER. Thus, lower income people only receive the MOST expensive type of medical care in the U.S. generally.... very bad problem.

Liasia']Meh. I think socialism is a good idea, and capitalism only appeals to the rich in society.
but.......be careful about throwing the word "socialism" around, I mentioned socialized insurance, NOT socialized medicine. There is a big difference. even Canadian doctors and hospitals have a pretty high percentage of ownership, there are very few truly PUBLIC owned facilities.

but.......be careful about throwing the word "socialism" around, I mentioned socialized insurance, NOT socialized medicine. There is a big difference. even Canadian doctors and hospitals have a pretty high percentage of ownership, there are very few truly PUBLIC owned facilities.
Well, i was reffering to socialism as in complete public ownership. But i guess the way labour and PFIs are taking the uk, we will be the same pretty soon.

Liasia']Meh. I think socialism is a good idea, and capitalism only appeals to the rich in society.
Capitalism is a great way of generating revenue and services for the rest of us, through taxation.

Tax-and-spend is Hun code for "run the government well."

Rents start at around $800 a month for a one-bedroom apartment and mortgages are higher.

Ouch. And here I was bitching about rent being high because of the college in town. I found a relatively decent 1 bedroom for $390/month. But then, a lot of people here in town only make minimum wage (in Michigan it's $5.15 until October when it'll be $6.85).

Capitalism is a great way of generating revenue and services for the rest of us, through taxation.

Except in capitalism no-one gets taxed, so it isn't really.

Ouch. And here I was bitching about rent being high because of the college in town. I found a relatively decent 1 bedroom for $390/month. But then, a lot of people here in town only make minimum wage (in Michigan it's $5.15 until October when it'll be $6.85).

Jeez.. around here it's like £5.50, close to $10. Sucks to be you.

Liasia']From the sounds of things, it's not hard to beat the US's social provision. Considering the UK spends 1/3 of its budget on the NHS and only like 1% on the military, i suspect i would get more.
$32,000 poverty? If you have a family, maybe.

Actually that is about poverty for the Bay Area. Rent will run you $1600-2000 for a semi-safe area.

-edit- that's for a 2 bedroom. A single, you can knock off about $200-400....

I'm amazed at how civil this conversation has managed to stay, despite the ideological differences that obviously abound whenever anyone mentions the "T-word"

Keep it up guys, I'm actually learning something! :)

Liasia']Jeez.. around here it's like £5.50, close to $10. Sucks to be you.

Yeah, but I bet the cost of living is quite a bit lower here. I live in a town of about 30k. Although not quite enough to make it even. Damned auto industry going down the toilet and taking Michigan with it.

Liasia']Except in capitalism no-one gets taxed, so it isn't really.


If you mean "fairyland" say "fairyland" not "capitalism."

If you mean "fairyland" say "fairyland" not "capitalism."

I assumed we were talking theoretically. People always take communism as its theoretical extreme, so i don't see why capitalism shouldn't be the same.

Yeah, but I bet the cost of living is quite a bit lower here. I live in a town of about 30k. Although not quite enough to make it even. Damned auto industry going down the toilet and taking Michigan with it.

Mmmm its what i've heard. Tho if $32,000 isn't enough to live on, then it isn't.

Liasia']Mmmm its what i've heard. Tho if $32,000 isn't enough to live on, then it isn't.

USD 32k is more than enough to live on here, but apparently in parts of California it isn't. There are a few cities in Michigan where USD 32k isn't enough, but it's a small list.

USD 32k is more than enough to live on here, but apparently in parts of California it isn't. There are a few cities in Michigan where USD 32k isn't enough, but it's a small list.
Fair enough. It's the same in any country i guess. A small flat in London can cost £1,000,000+ easily.

USD 32k is more than enough to live on here, but apparently in parts of California it isn't. There are a few cities in Michigan where USD 32k isn't enough, but it's a small list.

It's the same more or less here. However, the salaries tend to follow COL.

What they pay me in the Bay Area; they would not pay me in areas where the land is cheaper.....

Ouch. And here I was bitching about rent being high because of the college in town. I found a relatively decent 1 bedroom for $390/month. But then, a lot of people here in town only make minimum wage (in Michigan it's $5.15 until October when it'll be $6.85).

In Missouri, it's possible to find a $390/month apartment, but it probably won't be "decent". I've seen 1-2 bedroom apts advertised for $500 as if that's cheap. I have house payments of a little over $200, but it's for a 100 year old house that I bought 14 years ago (before the prices jumped), in the "bad" part of town.

In Missouri, it's possible to find a $390/month apartment, but it probably won't be "decent". I've seen 1-2 bedroom apts advertised for $500 as if that's cheap. I have house payments of a little over $200, but it's for a 100 year old house that I bought 14 years ago (before the prices jumped), in the "bad" part of town.


Romanar, where in MO (roughly)? I am in St. Louis, I would say a good area apartment, 2 bedroom will run $620-$650 or so..

Romanar, where in MO (roughly)? I am in St. Louis, I would say a good area apartment, 2 bedroom will run $620-$650 or so..

I live in Kansas City, and the prices are probably similar. The lower priced places I've seen aren't in "good" areas.

Actually, in Southern California, even a single person cannot live well on $32,000. Rents start at around $800 a month for a one-bedroom apartment and mortgages are higher. If you're taking home half of the $32,000, that's $16,000 or $1,333.33/mo. Take $800 out of that and you have $533 for food, utilities, clothing, transportation, medical expenses, recreation etc. When you break it down, it's not much.

The way the tax system is set up, while the federal taxes don't impact the middle income people much, the State taxes do (except for those states that don't have income tax, but a much higher sales tax) and we bear the brunt of the "tax and spend" mentality.Yeah, no kidding. I live in eastern New York and $32,000 here would be absolutely impossible. After all taxes are accounted for, that's about $21,000, or $1,750/mo... guess what? Rent here is $2,500 month, and with the average home price floating between $375,000 (minimum) to $725,000... yeah, $32,000 is a matter of life or death.

For a single person to make it even decently out here, they'd have to make at least $75,000/year. After taxes it's $45,000, just enough to pay for that $2,500 rent. My parents make $155,000 combined and we're not living like it, let me tell ya. Did I mention this isn't even a rich area?

Yeah, no kidding. I live in eastern New York and $32,000 here would be absolutely impossible. After all taxes are accounted for, that's about $21,000, or $1,750/mo... guess what? Rent here is $2,500 month, and with the average home price floating between $375,000 (minimum) to $725,000... yeah, $32,000 is a matter of life or death.

For a single person to make it even decently out here, they'd have to make at least $75,000/year. After taxes it's $45,000, just enough to pay for that $2,500 rent. My parents make $155,000 combined and we're not living like it, let me tell ya. Did I mention this isn't even a rich area?

Are there any McDonalds or Wall Mart's in the New York City area at all?