That’s why I provided all the criteria. Some I agree with and others I do not. Taxation seems to weight heavily in their score.
Yes we are taxed heavily in Oregon but it takes money to maintain the roads, etc. the roads are pretty good out here and we have lots of public parks. I mean a lot.
I’m fiscally conservative but I don’t hate taxes. I want something for my tax money and I think Oregon for the most part delivers.
One of Catos complaints is something about building or land use. We do restrict and we should. Air needs to be clean. Same with water. We need nature
I’m not trying to start shit or anything like that, I’m genuinely curious. What do you consider to be fiscally conservative, and how would that differ from what you consider to be fiscally progressive?
Being fine with taxes seems like something someone who would apply a conservative label to themselves appears a bit contradictory. I get it, I’m a libertarian socialist and would abolish taxes (among many other things) given the right conditions. Which might look contradictory on the surface depending on your understand of socialism.
Taxes are a necessary evil of living in a civilized society.
As such the state should spend our money on a responsible way and not on pork fat projects.
Not sure you understand conservatives if you think we oppose taxes. We just don’t like wealth distribution.
It depends on the flavor of conservative, it’s just been a while I’ve seen people describe themselves specifically as fiscally conservative. And a lot of the people I’ve known to use that term are very much free market types that dislike any form of regulation, taxation or government interference in industry/commerce.
Im not going to put a label on you that you don’t welcome but your (brief) description of your preferred economic policy is in line with the “left leaning” side of liberals, and old establishment democrats. Austerity politics is big in the DNC, despite their virtue signaling. (I was re-reading this and noticed I assumed you were from the US, apologies if you’re not.)
Wouldn’t you consider taxes to be a form of wealth distribution? On paper, the wealthy are supposed to pay taxes to fund public projects. That’s obviously not how that happens but I’m sure we can both agree that this is how it’s sold to us. It’s quite literally taking more money from the wealthiest than the poorest and using that money for the betterment of all, which the less wealthy individuals in society benefit the most from.
I’m not opposed to regulation or taxes. Companies are not another form of government and they need checks and balances. Companies serve at the will of the state.
I am just against excessive or needless regulation. We all want safe airplanes as an example and that isn’t something the market should decide.
What sets me apart from most conservatives is I’m not religious. As such I don’t have the moral baggage they carry. I’m not anti-gay or anti-trans or anti-much that doesn’t impact me. You want to hire a hooker? As long as it’s consensual it’s shouldn’t be illegal.
Taxes by itself are not a wealth transfer. They should be used for the generic common good. Law enforcement, roads, parks, etc. that isn’t a wealth transfer. That’s maintaining a society we all want to live in.
Give cash to poor from my tax money is a wealth transfer. If wages are not high enough, increase wages. Don’t take my money and hand it to someone else. The government controls minimum wages and should increase it to avoid wealth transfers with tax money.
And no I would never fit into the democrats. I’m neither woke nor a racist. I’m more inline with old school republicans before the religious right invaded the party.
I see where you’re coming from and agree on some points. I have a lot of semantic differences and view things like what constitutes a transfer of wealth differently. The conclusions I draw from those differences are obviously different as well, but taking what you’ve written at face value we’re on the same page.
And your last bit is interesting. Have you read about the southern strategy or the great party switch? The party switch started around the civil war but was only really solidified until the 1980s. If you find your values more in line with old school republicans, you may find more common ground among Democrats. I don’t care for either but it’s intriguing to me that you’re identifying as a conservative but you’re saying things that would find you a lot of like-minded company among Democrats. If anything, I’d say you’re more isolated and hold broadly unpopular values among conservatives based on their recent actions.
What’s “woke” to you? That term has become so watered down in the last ~10 years it’s basically meaningless. The Democrats as an institution are definitely racist, I won’t disagree with you there. But the Republican party and outlying right wing groups are significantly more racist and oppressive. It’s essentially a part of their platform. The Democrats just pretend to not be racist and sign racist legislation when nobody’s looking.
And your last bit is interesting. Have you read about the southern strategy or the great party switch?
I have. The party switch is more of a myth. The parties never switched, some views have changed and evolved but the devil is in the details.
When I use the term woke, it focuses on things that are not important but you want to appear they are. You will see the focus on things such as sexuality, or skin color but they actually do nothing to help those groups. It focuses on panem et circenses
Give cash to poor from my tax money is a wealth transfer
Does this include things like food stamps and social outreach programs for people facing homelessness and dealing with drug addiction, or is it moreso just universal basic income? Also, how would you feel if people who make way, way, way, way more money than you had to pay way, way, way more and you in turn would be paying less?
Thank you for responding. I do find it interesting that you’re ok with taxes in a general sense but that you’re selectively ok with how they’re used, though.
Interesting… Overall Texas is 16 and NY is 50.
Edit: as a matter of fact, the bottom of that list looks very blue.
That’s why I provided all the criteria. Some I agree with and others I do not. Taxation seems to weight heavily in their score.
Yes we are taxed heavily in Oregon but it takes money to maintain the roads, etc. the roads are pretty good out here and we have lots of public parks. I mean a lot.
I’m fiscally conservative but I don’t hate taxes. I want something for my tax money and I think Oregon for the most part delivers.
One of Catos complaints is something about building or land use. We do restrict and we should. Air needs to be clean. Same with water. We need nature
I’m not trying to start shit or anything like that, I’m genuinely curious. What do you consider to be fiscally conservative, and how would that differ from what you consider to be fiscally progressive?
Being fine with taxes seems like something someone who would apply a conservative label to themselves appears a bit contradictory. I get it, I’m a libertarian socialist and would abolish taxes (among many other things) given the right conditions. Which might look contradictory on the surface depending on your understand of socialism.
Taxes are a necessary evil of living in a civilized society. As such the state should spend our money on a responsible way and not on pork fat projects.
Not sure you understand conservatives if you think we oppose taxes. We just don’t like wealth distribution.
It depends on the flavor of conservative, it’s just been a while I’ve seen people describe themselves specifically as fiscally conservative. And a lot of the people I’ve known to use that term are very much free market types that dislike any form of regulation, taxation or government interference in industry/commerce.
Im not going to put a label on you that you don’t welcome but your (brief) description of your preferred economic policy is in line with the “left leaning” side of liberals, and old establishment democrats. Austerity politics is big in the DNC, despite their virtue signaling. (I was re-reading this and noticed I assumed you were from the US, apologies if you’re not.)
Wouldn’t you consider taxes to be a form of wealth distribution? On paper, the wealthy are supposed to pay taxes to fund public projects. That’s obviously not how that happens but I’m sure we can both agree that this is how it’s sold to us. It’s quite literally taking more money from the wealthiest than the poorest and using that money for the betterment of all, which the less wealthy individuals in society benefit the most from.
I’m not opposed to regulation or taxes. Companies are not another form of government and they need checks and balances. Companies serve at the will of the state.
I am just against excessive or needless regulation. We all want safe airplanes as an example and that isn’t something the market should decide.
What sets me apart from most conservatives is I’m not religious. As such I don’t have the moral baggage they carry. I’m not anti-gay or anti-trans or anti-much that doesn’t impact me. You want to hire a hooker? As long as it’s consensual it’s shouldn’t be illegal.
Taxes by itself are not a wealth transfer. They should be used for the generic common good. Law enforcement, roads, parks, etc. that isn’t a wealth transfer. That’s maintaining a society we all want to live in.
Give cash to poor from my tax money is a wealth transfer. If wages are not high enough, increase wages. Don’t take my money and hand it to someone else. The government controls minimum wages and should increase it to avoid wealth transfers with tax money.
And no I would never fit into the democrats. I’m neither woke nor a racist. I’m more inline with old school republicans before the religious right invaded the party.
I see where you’re coming from and agree on some points. I have a lot of semantic differences and view things like what constitutes a transfer of wealth differently. The conclusions I draw from those differences are obviously different as well, but taking what you’ve written at face value we’re on the same page.
And your last bit is interesting. Have you read about the southern strategy or the great party switch? The party switch started around the civil war but was only really solidified until the 1980s. If you find your values more in line with old school republicans, you may find more common ground among Democrats. I don’t care for either but it’s intriguing to me that you’re identifying as a conservative but you’re saying things that would find you a lot of like-minded company among Democrats. If anything, I’d say you’re more isolated and hold broadly unpopular values among conservatives based on their recent actions.
What’s “woke” to you? That term has become so watered down in the last ~10 years it’s basically meaningless. The Democrats as an institution are definitely racist, I won’t disagree with you there. But the Republican party and outlying right wing groups are significantly more racist and oppressive. It’s essentially a part of their platform. The Democrats just pretend to not be racist and sign racist legislation when nobody’s looking.
I have. The party switch is more of a myth. The parties never switched, some views have changed and evolved but the devil is in the details.
When I use the term woke, it focuses on things that are not important but you want to appear they are. You will see the focus on things such as sexuality, or skin color but they actually do nothing to help those groups. It focuses on panem et circenses
Does this include things like food stamps and social outreach programs for people facing homelessness and dealing with drug addiction, or is it moreso just universal basic income? Also, how would you feel if people who make way, way, way, way more money than you had to pay way, way, way more and you in turn would be paying less?
That is wealth transfer.
Thank you for responding. I do find it interesting that you’re ok with taxes in a general sense but that you’re selectively ok with how they’re used, though.