About ten years ago when I was an associate highway engineer for the Idaho Transportation Department, my cubicle was bordered by two Republican co-workers (which in and of itself was bizarre) and the political discussions got pretty heated. And for those of you who know me, you know what I mean. One of those conversations came to mind the other day, so I thought I’d write about it.
That particular days break time political debate concerned taxes and how much my two co-workers hated them. Although the younger conceded that some taxes were necessary, the older guy was completely opposed to them. In fact he was so indignant about having to pay taxes he said he wished he could opt out and pay as he went, and only for those government services he benefited from, and that those services be privatized. Of course nothing I said would convince him that such a plan would be disastrous. 
I told him that I thought if he broke it down, he’d find that paying as you go would cost a lot more than he realized, but to no avail. Just like many of my Republican friends here at Gather, he was staunchly rigid in his views and it sure as hell was going to take more than a “commy leebral” to convince him otherwise.
But still, I thought it would be interesting to break down just what it would look like if the government were to offer and Opt-Out Option or (OOO) for those who wanted to go on a pay as you go system.
Throughout my travels it has been my experience when talking with Right wingers I’ve encountered that a lot of them are convinced that the vast majority of taxes go to lazy, good for nothing miscreants and illegal immigrants who are collecting welfare checks, food stamps and free health care. Of course reasonable folks know better. In actuality, only 13% of the federal budget is spent on welfare or “income security.”
So, what would it be like for folks living a pay as you go life? For starters, a quick calculation of the national defense budget divided by three hundred million US citizens and your share for 2007 is $1465.00. Unless of course you’d prefer to live in the unprotected zone. Now, this is more than families earning below the national income median pay in federal income tax, so this is getting expensive already. Of course you’ll be completely on your own when it comes to health care. In fact because you don’t pay taxes, you’ll have to be charged more for any drugs or procedures that were developed using government funding. Perhaps you want to drive your car to some place like... lets say.... work. Now that’s going to cost you. As a former highway tech, I am very familiar with how much that stuff costs, and it costs a lot.
I don’t think I need to go on to make my point. And I know the whole idea is pretty idiotic, and maybe it was idiotic to write about it, but I want to make a point about taxes. Sometime in our primordial history, we agreed that the most effective way to build a civilization was if we combined our efforts. It started with subordinate members of band paying tribute with food and skins to the wise leader who in turn guided them through rough winters and the hardships of living in a wild environment. Today we still pay tribute, but not to an individual, but to a higher cause. And that cause is the betterment of all mankind through the advancement of civilization. So in effect, tax cuts amount to slowing the pace of progress for civilization.
I know I’m going to be called a dreamer or an evil commy. But I am extremely optimistic about our world. There are millions of talented, imaginative people on this planet. If only we could get over the “me first” attitudes we could accomplish anything. The possibilities are only limited by our imaginations. And you know what I’m talking about. A world free of poverty and the multitude of cancers it has inflicted on humanity. For me it is the holy grail of goals for our civilization. I truly believe that until that happens; we are doomed to continue slaughtering each other like rabid dogs for ever.
**************************
Devin Barber, Politics Correspondent
Devin’s column, “Left Of The Right” published twice weekly or more to Gather Essentials: Politics is a Blue Collar Democrats take on current political news.
Devin was raised by proud Roosevelt Democrats. Being the son of parents counted among the throng of Americans displaced by the Great Depression has given Devin a deep rooted passion for causes dealing with the poor and the working class.
You can find all of Devin’s columns at http://gather.com/leftoftheright
You can keep up with Devin’s postings and his Gather activity by joining his Gather network. Just click here: http://kiwina58.gather.com and then select the orange “Connect” button on the left-hand side of the page.
You can find Devin and other Political Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other politics experts at Politics.gather.com.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 219
"Today we still pay tribute, but not to an individual, but to a higher cause. And that cause is the betterment of all mankind through the advancement of civilization. So in effect, tax cuts amount to slowing the pace of progress for civilization." See above.
Of course, it would possibly be inconvenient to point out that a strong public education system is a benefit to society as a whole, not just to the people who send their children to public schools. Surely no one can say that it would be a better idea if only people that could afford to pay for a private school education should get an education at all? Would it be better for thousands of children to grow up with no education, no training, no skills? Yeah, that would be good - multiply exponentially the number of people unable to get a decent job and support themselves and their families - oh, yeah, and of course, unable to pay taxes themselves...
Charles - Private education is out of reach for most. Public education is for all. If you object to paying for something you don't use - put your kids in public school.
Charles, you are paying for the education of your neighbors and those in and around your community so they don't turn to a life of probable crime and rob your house.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Society can, with the SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY,
a) give a woman complete medical care throughout pregnancy and birth, then feed, house and educate the child through college;
OR
b) pay for one year's prison time for an inmate.
Choice (a) gives you a taxpaying, contributing member of society. Which would you rather have? Right now, it seems the conservatives would rather opt for plan B.
This link is a good read for anyone who wants to know the history of the US Tax system:
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml
and another one, though this link and the site's agenda is somewhat questionable in my mind, scroll down to the "sixty income tax realities":
http://www.voluntarytax.info/#realities
The United States has a total valueof X dollars. Divide that number by the total population and you get a number that represents each persons share as citizens. Now it's a forgone conclusion that the pie is not divided up equally. Because of our economic system, those who are driven by the acquisition of money are allowed to accumulate numerous shares of the pie. Other's who are more interested in the more intangible things like love and dedication to an occupation or family and community are then left with less than a share. It is because, despite the desparity in the monetary income of these two types, their contribution to society as a whole is equal. In order to mitigate this disparity, those whose talent leans toward monetary acquisition are required to pay higher tax rates.
Where have you been, haven't seen you in a couple of days. Everything ok?
You would probably have to stipulate that an OOOer's 'fair share' must be paid in full in order to qualify to vote; otherwise some of them will certainly try and cheat or skate the system.
Of course this might give rise to a new insurance business.
I'd rather not have to deal with taxes either; but two things give my palate an acceptable flavor. One, there are countries that have no taxes and have no social services because of that. This creates towns and villages with bad or no water, lousy or no sewers, few policemen that don't abuse their authority, barely effective schools, low or zero money making opportunities, etc.). Two, most other developed countries have much higher withholding rates that they inflict on their employed. This is balanced, however, by some extra and higher quality social services than what the average American enjoys. Universal healthcare for instance.
Things could be better and things could be worse. The telling part I see, is that our being the richest and most powerful nation in the world has not resulted in our being the most or best humanitarian nation in the world. We are not the leaders in taking care of our citizens. Heck, we don't even take care of our patriots the way we should.
Of course bettering things would mean an increase in taxes from somewhere and industries seems to have gained a lot of teeth lately; mostly thanks to legislation favoring industries. The rich always wield their power to avoid higher taxes; even though they are the ones who could most easily cope with a dip in their net's catches. Regardless of that, a chunk of the burden would be leveied on the working classes. For the sake of peace, the services would have to be worth the hit that they would take to their net income. It works in other countries. We should be able to do it here.
\\\\"A fair share is a measurement of how well you've done financially as a result of the infrastructure and economic platform the country as a whole offers"
This would mean that everyone should pay the same percentage, since everyones financial measurement can be ratio with the same infrastructure/platform.////
That would be completely true as long as everyone received the same paycheck! Those who have been more abundantly blessed by our system have a greater obligation to the support of that system.
Charles,
I sent my kids to a private school at one time and all of us sending our kids there agreed that we wanted no compensation from the government in any way! If we're going to be selective about taxes, how about exempting me from the taxes going into Iraq as I don't believe in it and it is not being done to serve me?
Devin,
Good article! When you left Idaho for Spokane you didn't find it any less conservative than here in Boise did you? Democrats are definitely an endangered species in the Inland Empire as well as Idaho!
Perhaps those opt-outers would like to wake up some night, their house ablaze or being robbed, but emergency services would say, sorry, you haven't paid for our services! At best, the non-payer would be billed for public services after the fact!
http://www.schools.com/directory/adv_search/schooldetail.cfm?id=244
This is a flat out lie. In elementary schools, public educations fares significantly better than private. In higher grades private schools seem to have an advantage. The one common denominator throughout all studies is that, more than anything else, what governs how a student will perform in school is what level of education his/her parents received, and what socio-economic level they've reached. When poverty levels reach 50% in a given school district, teaching is nearly impossible, for both publicly run, and privately run schools.
As for cost effectiveness, anyone who believes, after ENRON, Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater, etc., etc., etc., etc., and comparing the administrative costs of Medicare and other nation's government run health care systems to our privately run system, that private industry can manage public infrastructure more efficiently than the public can, is truly delusional beyond help. Private companies make widgets better than public entities, but they're nothing short of horrendous at managing the public infrastructure.
"Look at the quality of a public park vs a private park."
What? No examples, once again? I guess you seem to still be under the mistaken notion that you merely SAYING something makes it so. Once again, I'll remind you that you're absolutely incorrect. Your opinion is NOT always fact, believe it or not. Let's see your examples to substantiate this claim as well.
"The list goes on. If the tax money were used WELL, most wouldnt care as much.
Right. Medicare costs 2-3% to administer. Private health care costs 20-30% to administer. I'm making a guess here, but I'm going to bet that you're strongly opposed to publicly run health care, and staunchly in support of private health care, right?
The same can be said for the military. The portion of the pentagon that's run by the public is the most efficient killing machine in the history of mankind. The portion that's controlled by private industry is awash in waste and profiteering. Welcome to reality land.
"Well, the rich pay more actual dollars, they pay a higher percentage, they make up the biggest piece of the tax pie... in what way are they NOT paying their fair share? It sounds like the only thing that many would consider their "fair share" would be if it were MORE unfair. FAIR would be a flat tax, or flat rate. ANY deviation from that leans in teh direction of unfair... so how do we define "fair share"?"
Apparently, somebody's not aware of how the wealthy make use of creative loopholes to avoid taxation. In many cases, corporations that report hundreds of millions of dollars in profits to wall st., magically make all of that profit disappear on their tax ledgers, and some actually get millions in rebates.
Also, someone's apparently not aware that 95% of the population pays a HUGE, deeply regresssive tax in the form of the payroll tax, but the upper 5% can literally make millions that aren't touched by this tax.
A flat tax would bring the nation's tax rate initially to approximately 23%. Currently, the top rate is 35%, while 95% of the population pays about 15% or lower. You want to LOWER the top rate by 12%, and RAISE the tax rate for the vast majority of Americans by a whopping 8%, and you call that "fair?" Hello? What planet are you from?
Not only would this alone be punitively regressive and seriously damaging to the economy, both short term and long term, but the plan would also eliminate the only real deduction that the middle class has, the mortgage interest deduction. If you truly want to destroy the middle class in this country, the "fair" tax is the quickest way to bring it about, without question.
The fact that the flat taxers refuse to acknowledge is that the upper 5% takes disproportionate advantage of the public infrastructure. They use our courts more, they use our police and fire protection more, they use our highways more, they use more of our water and sewage systems, they use more of our electrical power grids, our communications grids, etc., and therefore SHOULD pay more to contribute to that infrastructure than the lower 95%.
That said, it is a fact that the federal income tax is entirely illegal and unconstitutional. There is simply no law on the books that mandates that we pay this tax. Period. This is a very important fact to realize. What one does with that information is up to one's self, although there was recently a fellow who won a court case imposed upon him, for tax evasion. He hadn't filed for 10 years, and merely asked the prosecutor to provide evidence of a law on the books that required him to pay federal income tax. The prosecution failed to do so.
I would actually favor a system that allowed one to pick and choose their causes for funding. I think we'd be able to shrink the massively overbloated federal spending by trillions, literally overnight, and would see things like national health care finally come to fruition, as well as an end to the military and the terrorist industrial complexes.
Think you will find though that most republicans do understand the need for taxes. What I have a problem with is taxes that infringe on my rights and "make" me change my ways. We just got a 70 cent tax hike on cigarets. That is essentially saying we don't like your habbit so we will make it more expensive for you. Yet I still get taxed on my cig. gum that would help me quit. Sure taxes are less for those but if you gonna charge more taxes for cigs wouldnt it make sense to put the money toward health costs or other quit smoking innitiatives but you see I live in a democraticly controlled state and that would just make too much sense. So where does the money for cig tax go? CONSTRUCTION
Here is a good discussion on the medical cost issue. I am just wondering why everyone just blindly follows Michael Moore?
http://healthpolicyandmarket.blogspot.com/2007/06/cost-to-administer-medicare-versus-cost.html
http://www.philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm
Devin,
I have a better idea,
Lets allow a special above and beyond donations check box on all tax forms, the tax payer can earmark the additional funds to go where they feel is needed most, education, the military, welfare.
Of course they must declare their political affiliations just so we can see who gives above and beyond!
But then we already know who gives more in our country don't we?….Conservatives (just in case there was any doubt)
There is nothing unconstitutional about "sin taxes," and, imo, it makes perfect sense to make those taxes harsh, in order to motivate smokers to quit. 1,000 people die every day as a result of this habit, and the financial cost to society in general is enormous. What other legal product with such a God awful rate of mobidity is allowed? True, it is a legal drug, and it is a personal choice, to some degree, but what other legal product kills this many people, and cost as much to society?
"wouldnt it make sense to put the money toward health costs or other quit smoking innitiatives but you see I live in a democraticly controlled state and that would just make too much sense. So where does the money for cig tax go? CONSTRUCTION"
It is my understanding that a significant portion of cigarette taxes, as well as the state civil cases against tobacco companies, go towards health costs and prevention efforts. I've not seen that the money is used for construction.
"Here is a good discussion on the medical cost issue. I am just wondering why everyone just blindly follows Michael Moore?"
Your link was incomplete. I don't know of anyone who's blindly following Mr. Moore. If anything, his comments receive far more scrutiny than anyone else's, simply because he has so many political enemies that wish to discredit him.
"I personally like the Austrian system where its essentially a flat tax but has different brackets based on income."
There is no constitutional grounds in this country for ANY federal income tax. The federal income tax is used to pay the interest on the massive and endless debt that the federal government owes the federal reserve. If we were to abolish the federal reserve and stop debt spending, there would simply be no need for a federal income tax.
Who would pay for the military and Congress, for example. There are real federal expenses.
Since the majority of the upper 5% are quite likely to be republicans (not necessarily conservatives, however), and since our tax code is set up to allow deductions for charitable donations, it should surprise nobody that republicans contribute significantly to charitable causes.
The real test would be what they would do without the tax deduction for such behavior, and since much of their agenda seems to indicate a clear "I've got mine, screw you" attitude, it seems rather unlikely that they would remain as champions for the downtrodden, if that deduction were removed. Let's not forget that this is the party that doesn't give a rat's ass that 1/6 of the population is uninsured, or that 1/5 of the nation's children live in poverty.
That said, it seems a bit dubious that a contributor to one of the most hard line right wing publications in the country would publish a book lambasting liberals, and expect that it can be taken as evidence of a purely independent scientific study. Based upon what I can see, the book was written with a rather clear partisan agenda, which usually means that scientific facts that were used as a basis, were either cherry-picked or brushed aside, depending upon the convenience of them in the author's intended use for them, or there was no such scientific documentation to begin with.
This paragraph especially excites me: Throughout my travels it has been my experience when talking with Right wingers I've encountered that a lot of them are convinced that the vast majority of taxes go to lazy, good for nothing miscreants and illegal immigrants who are collecting welfare checks, food stamps and free health care. Of course reasonable folks know better. In actuality, only 13% of the federal budget is spent on welfare or "income security."
Talk about blind followers. I used to wonder how so many (and there are MANY) could buy into these absurd stereo-types. And then I realized they don't really believe it. What they actually buy into are lies, and they willingly follow liars because it makes them believe others will think that they might one day be as wealthy or powerful as the liars they so admire.
Who would pay for the military and Congress, for example. There are real federal expenses."
I seriously doubt that we would cease to have a military without the current $1 trillion that we spend annually for it. The fact is, until 1950, this nation had no standing military at all. Today, the privatized MIC is gobbling up the national budget nearly as fast as the failed privatized health care system.
The nation could survive just fine without a federal income tax, just as it did for the 140 years or so before the IRS was created.
never said it was unconstitutional so no need to loose your glasses simply said I don't like it...thats still allowed isn't it? Here is the article discussing what the funds go for.
http://www.sj-r.com/News/stories/12928.asp
Its not ALL construction (although thats what the headlines sais) but it is supposed to help a major budget deficit we have in IL. Although since our illustrius leaders still can't come up with a budget and we are operating under emergency extensions who knows what the money will be used for.
The Health care link works so not sure. Here it is again
http://healthpolicyandmarket.blogspot.com/2007/06/cost-to-administer-medicare-versus-cost.html
So Mr. Superman, where would the money come from to pay for federal programs like NASA, OSHA, Military, FEMA etc. Now I know other public services like schools, police etc. can come from state / property tax but then all people living in appartments would be "free loading". Besides these services still receive federal dollars.
The solution is let them opt out of paying taxes, but require that they post a notice on all their property, "This property and/or any persons in it are not entitled to publically finananced police or fire protection or any publically finananced services including but not limited to the prosecution and incarceration of any person who damages, steals the property, any of its contents, or inflicts or damage to or harms any persons in or on it."
All person who choose to opt out would also be probhited from having telephone numbers that have access to 911 centers etc.
Just kidding, but it might make some people change their mind about taxes being necessary even without the addition of requiring them to pary substantially higher feeds to registar a motor vehicle that can be legally operated on public roads.
Uh, fast food? The obesity problem seems to be eclipsing tobacco use, now, Clark.
That article you put up there is obviously not scientific in it's methods and counts tithing to the church as charity. It also, by the author's own admission isn't definitive, and he states he did it to stimulate more research on the subject. He also is making the rounds of the conservative speaking circuit making bucks doing it. I know I once headed the united way drive where I worked, and those were definitely not my experiences. Most conservatives shined me on, citing giving at church, etc. while progressives signed up in much larger numbers for payroll deduction.
This article pertains to where FUTURE ADDITIONAL cigarette tax revenue would be directed, not where it is CURRENTLY directed.
"http://healthpolicyandmarket.blogspot.com/2007/06/cost-to-administer-medi"
This is truncated.
"So Mr. Superman, where would the money come from to pay for federal programs like NASA, OSHA, Military, FEMA etc. "
The same places it comes from now. The federal income tax is used to cover the interest on the debt that the federal government owes to the federal reserve.
http://www.devvy.com/notax.html
http://www.etherzone.com/2003/stang082203.shtml
That's true. In fact, while the percentage of smokers has dropped to somewhere around 25%, I just read the other day that, by the year 2015, 75% of the population is projected to be obese.
This is a real problem, and I would definitely propose a stiff "fat tax" on any foods containing MSG (a useless additive with dozens of secret names that's only there to create addiction), and on high-fat, high-caloric content foods, in order develop revenue to go towards the tremendous cost to society of the longterm illnesses that result directly from obesity.
That does not, however, let tobacco off the hook. The fact remains that 1,000 people die each and every day as a direct result of smoking tobacco. The cost to society, in terms of lost production, medical treatment, and premature deaths is astounding.
The link you provided was interesting because it told me how the insurance and drug companies are going about brainwashing everyone into thinking a single payer system was bad! Talk about specious arguments. The first takes facts not admitted or even presented in evidence. The next mentions, but fails to take in the significance of the fact that Medicare serves the disabled and elderly and would be cutting their costs if this were averaged out over an entire population.
The third, Medicare benefiting from private insurance spill over in cost containment, must have been presented purely for humor as I've never seen private insurance do anything realistic in the way of controlling costs while Medicare payments are keep the to minimum.
I suppose the shrewd analytical thinker who put this diatribe together can also explain to me how drug companies are protecting me from Canadian drugs as well!
While I'm not agreeing with everything Clark said on taxes, I am appalled to think you feel persons living in apartments get to "free load!" They pay higher rents so the landlord can pay those taxes. Simple business! And you should know that.
Devin,
Excellent article! I think if there is going to be any selective taxation it should be me opting out of taxes for Iraq which I oppose!
Clark,
If you're still reading this thread I can tell you that in Idaho the tobacco money has not gone for health and smoking cessation. Can't speak to any other state for sure but it is my understanding that many states made zero effort to use the funds as intended. Idaho tried to start with but if there's money there and you've just made permanent tax cuts, the available money (tobacco) goes first!
It is also true that Charities work more efficient then government organizations so lets not stuff them all together.
No problem with earning a honest days wage. I do have a problem with government mandated wages. We just got the minimum wage hike "go live" but IL also passed some wage increases a few months ago. Within days I saw signs go up that said due to the increase in minimum wage our prices will have to be raised to... fill in the blank. If you guys think that these increases will not ultimatly be passed to consumers then you are dumber then Bush.
People were crying about no raise in min. wage for over a decade. Show me ONE person (not job) that been working for 10 years and has stayed at min. wage all that time? Minimum wage is an entry level job and the market responds to people doing a good job and promotes them. People get raises when getting more education, receive additional training and thats how it should be. What incentive does someone have to better educate themselves if they will get a raise anyhow?
But you are right people should not work hard, educate themselves etc. they might become rich and God forbid give something back to the community. We cant have that!
Let's not forget the purpose of taxes. That is to fund the government and nothing more! Taxes to form social policy, health policy, enterprise policy are wrong because they would reflect the policy of the administration and not only can that change with the wind, it is not a policy of the United States Constitution. The only purpose is to fund the government.
As such, the correct level of taxes (of all kinds) is just enough to pay all current expenses and make regular payments on long term indebtedness (the national debt we shouldn't have run.) When taxes consistently exceed this, there should be a cut in taxes, shortfalls should trigger tax increases.
Tax cuts for other purposes, no matter how noble sounding, are simply current politicians pandering to special interests for whatever reason.
While our founding fathers thought we could run the country on import/export fees, times change and needs change. A constitutional amendment was passed allowing an income tax and regardless of promises made at that time, what you see on paper is what you get. That is like the commitment to raise social security taxes to 10% by 1960 as was intended at it's inception. It didn't happen. Sure would have solved problems, had it been so!
Devin,
Loved your last comment!
Are you saying that ZERO of the revenue dollars from both the lawsuits against tobacco companies and the tobacco tax revenue dollars goes to either health care costs in your state, or to smoking cessation and prevention education? I find that hard to believe, frankly. I realize that some revenue obviously goes elsewhere in a state's budget, but I just can't imagine that your state has chosen to allow ALL of the revenue to go elsewhere.
Of course, the great paradox for states, with regard to tobacco revenues, is that it is a dying industry (no pun intended) in this country, meaning that, each year, a smaller percentage of the population chooses to smoke. This means that this significant revenue stream decreases each year, and that, God be willing, one day will disappear altogether.
" Who let Clark in?
Does anyone really want him here?"
You're simply not capable of playing nicely, are you? Do you have mommy issues, by any chance?
"Show me ONE person (not job) that been working for 10 years and has stayed at min. wage all that time?"
I can name tens of thousands. Just go to any Kmart, Walmart, or the like. Look at any telemarketing company, restaurant, motel, or fast food joint. All of these entities pay minimum wage and nothing more for their bottom tier positions. And if you think no one ever works more than a few years at these jobs, think again. I personally know a woman who has worked as a motel maid for 17 years and has never earned above minimum wage ans she is their most senior employee.
"Minimum wage is an entry level job and the market responds to people doing a good job and promotes them."
I'm afraid the opposite is more likely the case. Many of these companies replace full time workers with part time workers to avoid paying any of the benefits they reserve for "full time" employee's. Many minimum wage earners leave these jobs out of frustration, only to find the only jobs available to them are more minimum wage jobs.
I find it interesting that you want to abolish the federal reserve yet you are in favor taxing people for their individual choices. Do we have an obesity problem? I dont know I cant see the scale my belly is in the way.
Does smoking kill people yea so does alcohol and many other things. You see, I believe people are responsible for their actions. I don't need the governement pressuring me to quit smoking by raising my taxes. I will quit when I want or more precicly when my wife actually goes through with her threat of kicking me out of the house if I dont quit :)
Does anyone really want him here?
Yeah Rich, you do. If Clark, myself and all the other Leebrals weren't here, just think how boring your life would be, not to mention that if there weren't any Lefties, the Righties leadership wouldn't need YOU... bye bye Richie...
I believe that this is a blanket statement that simply cannot be supported fully. It depends upon the charity and the government organization that's being compared to it.
"If you guys think that these increases will not ultimatly be passed to consumers then you are dumber then Bush."
Oh, so what you're saying is that if there is no minimum wage increase, nothing ever goes up in price. Ok. I don't agree, nor do I think anyone else would. A tiny increase in minimum wage has very minimal effect on the cost of goods and services, and it tends to increase economic activity, so whatever minimal negative effects result from the tiny increases in goods and services is offset by additional growth.
"Show me ONE person (not job) that been working for 10 years and has stayed at min. wage all that time?"
It's a starting point. However, it sets the foundation for wages above that level as well. When was the last time you worked at minimum wage?
"What incentive does someone have to better educate themselves if they will get a raise anyhow?"
Oh, so in other words, if a person is making a whopping $5.85/hour, and is going to get a mandatory increase next year, to $6.something, they'll just lay down and start riding the gravy train? First, I can tell you that people at this level of income are some of the hardest working people in this country. Secondly, I can tell you that NONE of them are satisfied with their below-poverty level wages.
"But you are right people should not work hard, educate themselves etc. they might become rich and God forbid give something back to the community. We cant have that!"
What person do you know that has avoided any attempt to become wealthy, or even advancing their level of earning, for fear of taxation?
" That is to fund the government and nothing more!"
The government is you and I. The purpose of taxes is to fund what you and I deem worthy of funding.
"Taxes to form social policy, health policy, enterprise policy are wrong because they would reflect the policy of the administration and not only can that change with the wind, it is not a policy of the United States Constitution."
What does the following mean to you?
" We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
"As such, the correct level of taxes (of all kinds) is just enough to pay all current expenses and make regular payments on long term indebtedness"
Since when? We're currently (by most estimates) $9 trillion in debt, and that level grows every day. The "payments" that we're currently making on this debt are coming from the federal reserve printing massive amounts of DEBT DOLLARS, and for every debt dollar that they print, we owe INTEREST.
Again, the revenue that's drawn from federal income taxes do NOT go to providing basic elements of the government. It goes to pay the INTEREST on our DEBT.
"While our founding fathers thought we could run the country on import/export fees, times change and needs change."
What changed was an illegal federal reserve system and numerous money-bilking apparatus were set up, in order to keep this nation forever in debt.
"A constitutional amendment was passed allowing an income tax "
It was NEVER ratified. Check your facts. Aside from that, there is not a single law on the books that mandates that you and I pay federal income taxes. Not one. It's a scam.
"That is like the commitment to raise social security taxes to 10% by 1960 as was intended at it's inception. It didn't happen. Sure would have solved problems, had it been so!"
The issues facing SS are not because we're not taxed enough, but that the trust fund has been robbed, in order to cover up for massive debt spending over 18 of the past 26 years.
I don't know about your friend the motel maid, but I just went to an Anti Wal-mart site: http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/facts/
Even they state that "In 2001, sales associates, the most common job in Wal-Mart, earned on average $8.23 an hour"
Now that is twice the minimum wage. So even the devil himself pays people more then minimum wage.
What in the hell are you talking about? Walmart doesn't HAVE any sales associates. They employ mainly cashiers and stock persons. And if you read my comment, I said "bottom tier" employees, not the "most common."
You're stretching things quite a bit to make your point Victor, which is what? "Everything is OK, nothing to do or say regarding improvong our civilization since it is already as advanced as it can get?"
You may be satisfied with the way things are, but I am not.
I find it interesting that you want to abolish the federal reserve yet you are in favor taxing people for their individual choices."
The federal reserve and the federal income tax system are both illegal and unconstitutional. I strongly oppose both, on constitutional grounds. Taxing individuals for the life choices that they make is not unconstutional.
"Does smoking kill people yea so does alcohol and many other things. You see, I believe people are responsible for their actions. I don't need the governement pressuring me to quit smoking by raising my taxes."
No pressure. Simply getting you to pay for the damage that your habits cost society, that's all. Smoke and drink all you want, and if I had my way, shoot up all the heroin and snort all the coke you want. Just accept the fact that you'll be paying consumption taxes while you support those habits.
"I will quit when I want or more precicly when my wife actually goes through with her threat of kicking me out of the house if I dont quit :)"
Quitting smoking is easy. STAYING off is a bitch and a half. I've successfully quit for either months or years three separate times, none of which caused me undo problems or difficulties, and have fallen off the wagon each time. Number 4 is fast approaching.
Its in "Quotes" I didnt say it....the ANTI wal-mart web site said it. Hands you a cigarette, you look more stressed then me.
What are you talking about, clown? I said that I've succeed brilliantly at quitting, all three times that I've attempted it. I'll succeed a fourth time in a short while.
" Clark, its a shame you grew up to be such a sniveling, whining, complaining nut job instead of a man that your family could be proud of."
Gee, coming from someone as widely respected and deeply admired as you, that really hurts.
I constantly hear liberals talk about how the evil corporations controlled by people in this country only want good things for themselves and want everyone else to be poor. And yet they beleive that poor people will do great things for the world if only they could receive help from some special government program. What a contradiction... the business, poltical, and social leaders of our generation that are leading our society are innately evil, and the poor, innocent, oppressed, poverty sticken people on the bottom are innately good and our only hope for humanity. Does this make any sense to anyone else?
The fact is that even those people working at minimum wage jobs can put themselves through school and get a good paying job because the OPPORTUNITY is there. Granted, not everyone starts off equal... that's life... deal with it. But regardless, in this country everyone has the same OPPORTUNITIES to be successful.... There are so many stories from people who "did it themselves", I would think that liberals thinking that everyone must have the same outcomes would have been shutup a long time ago.... It comes down to personal responsibility.... You either have it or you don't.
Nice article, funny and to the point ... ( way better than capt-save-a-hoe)
Isaac, I virtually never hear about how LIBERALS think the government can run anything better than private enterprise, but I do hear how CONSERVATIVES repeat over and over how private enterprise is always right and government is always wrong, doesn't explain things like social security, the fire department, police department on the one hand, or the incredible incompetance of the world's largest autombobile company GM saying it can survive with a 25% share of the American auto industry, and just in 20+ years now not being able to buy cars that Americans want to spend money on, despite their lower price, and help from the government.
What matters is not public or private, what matters is a dedicated group of people somewhere getting the job done, instead of ripping people off for doing nothing.
Thanks for the comments.
The top 25% of income earners provided more than 83% of all the income taxes taken in last year...
Lowest level income earners recieve an average of $8.21 per tax dollar paid in 2004...
Middle income earners receive an average of $1.30 per tax dollar paid in 2004...
The highest income earners receive an average of $0.41 per tax dollar paid in 2004...
Does this seem fair to any else?.... does it seem slanted and perverted to make the rich greater and the poor worse off? I didn't think so...
In fact, the federal government could operate at the level its at now or even higher without a penny of income tax or any other kind of open taxation. This was even pointed out in a Life Magazine article in the 1940's by then-chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Paul Volcker.
Our federal government is actually funded overwhelmingly by the insidious inflation tax, which is the cruelest and most dishonest tax of all; as it hits the poor and middle-class the hardest, to the benefit of politicians and uber-rich Wall St. bankers.
Btw, keep up the great articles.
Lincoln lived at a time when you could go out into the woods and chop down trees and make a log cabin - not the case today. Really slanted quote and point.
Again, no one is talking about taking so much as to deflate anyone desire to work away, just asking questions like ... why when a company is losing money do all the CEOs on each other's boards get together and vote themselves huge bonuses, and then find ways to neutralizing and removing shareholder actions against it?
You guys want to be fair, talk about the attitude of the founding fathers to aristocracy and royalty.
Most doctors are unhappy and screwed pretty much with all the debt they have the positions they have now where they have no autonomy and cannot help people, they have to be micromanaged by the bean counters who tell them how to handle every circumstance with only profit in mind.
The fact is that if you need medical care, surgery in the US, you are likely not to get very good care. You are mistaken if you think doctors in Canada, England, France, etc are treated like civil servants.
As to social security i am well aware there are some people like above who think people should work til they drop. Thankfully most in the US disagree. Secesh,
I am sure the country could do without your $20 bucks.
Isaac, I can sypathize with the regulation thing ... it is a pain. The problem is simple, when unregulated business and people do things that kill other people. its that simple, it is sadly a necessity. Rather than work with it, companies complain and break the law, or hire lawyers and get around it. It is a pain, but it is a cost of doing business, it should be up to business and government to make the regulation as easy and light and cost effective as possible.
Finally, if the rich hate to pay taxes so much why dont they fix some of these problems ... there's money to be made there? Really I do not understand people's hatred of taxes, it must come from their parents of just hearing it over and over. No one likes to pay taxes, but I guess I have just not ever minded. I'd be much happier if the government would get its act together and be efficient with my money, but I do not mind at that someone else gets my tax dollars, this country belongs to all of us and some of us are not as fortunate as I .. what kind of people are shirkers anyway.
You think you will have a better life and we will have a better country if there were no taxes, - BS.
Lincoln's quote transcends time... it wasn't made as a practical point of use only in his present time, but mroe of a guideline for a good social principle. The problem is that for most people, if you tell them that the money they have earned is going to be taken away from them, and then given to someone who doesn't work, eventually they become resentful. That is just the way the human mind works.. we think we are entitled to what we "earn". I don't think people should "fend for themselves" without compassion, but rather people should not be forced by the government to give up more and more of their earnings to support civil services that simply "waste" money.
I am all for taxes, and I pay them gladly. What I don't like is the government continually raising taxes to pay for more stupid gov't programs that don't do anything. Life would definitely be worse off without any taxes, but life definitely won't get better by raising taxes. That is the republican viewpoint, and one that I support.
I understand what you are saying about businesses and regulations, but we need to find ways to cut regulations, not create more. That again is a Republican stance.
I believe you hit the nail on the head with you're early comment;
"Because of our economic system, those who are driven by the acquisition of money are allowed to accumulate numerous shares of the pie"
Money equals labor. That's what we pay for with it, and that's generally what we must do to get it. It is a myth that money is good, and that acquiring wealth is therefore somehow doing something good for society. Labor is not a good thing by nature, it is only good if the labor it encourages results in good things happening. Few would argue that the labor a gang puts into getting money through violent means is really "good" money. Nor would many argue that the labor put into an illegal war of aggression, which results in vast numbers of deaths and injuries, and great social upheaval, like say . . . Hitler's Germany perpetrated, was "good" money.
"Good money" is money that causes people to labor at good things. And that is where the problem lies for many (certainly not all) wealthy people. They really don't think of the general welfare of others as a "good" thing. They simply assume that their own welfare is their business, and others ought to tend to their own too. The word we have for this attitude is 'selfish'.
It is no big mystery why wealthy people have a tendency to be selfish, for naturally, if one is selfish they will tend to act toward their own welfare to an inordinate extent, since that's what the word means. It doesn't mean all wealth is acquired in this way, but it does mean that in a capitalistic society, those who are selfish will have a consequent fixation on collecting wealth, so they can get people to labor toward their welfare.
Such people do not, of course, like to think of themselves as selfish, but rather, have taken to arguing they are normal, and that all people are really just like them, interested in their own welfare virtually all the time. They like to think they're just a bit more aware of their true nature, and don't waste a lot of time pretending to care about others. And since that is true, they are in fact more good than others, for they are not faking this mythical concern.
They have no way of comprehending what a disaster life would be if cooperation toward general welfare such as the paying of taxes makes possible were significantly diminished, any more than they have any way of comprehending how horrible life would be if people really were just like them, and all actually had the selfish disposition they do. They are so out of touch with reality, that they actually argue for people quitting with all this junk about concern for others, and simply acknowledge that self concern is the highest good, like it is for them.
"Dan E.,
That article you put up there is obviously not scientific in it's methods and counts tithing to the church as charity. It also, by the author's own admission isn't definitive, and he states he did it to stimulate more research on the subject. He also is making the rounds of the conservative speaking circuit making bucks doing it."
So?
So it can't be proven to the inth degree, that doesn't make it an unreasonable representation of the facts. The guy is trying to sell his book and the conservatives love this stuff (anything we can rub in the faces of the, oh we're so better than you liberals) you know.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200612/ai_n17196125
Superman,
"The real test would be what they would do without the tax deduction for such behavior,"
Well guess what? They did!
"ABC's "20/20" went to Sioux Falls, S.D., and San Francisco, Calif. We asked the Salvation Army to set up buckets at their busiest locations in both cities. Which bucket would gel more money? I'll get to that in a minute.
San Francisco and Sioux Falls are different in some important ways. Sioux Falls is small and rural, and more than half the people go to church every week.
San Francisco is a much bigger and richer city, and relatively few people attend church. It is also known as a very liberal place, and since liberals are said to "care more" about the poor, you might assume people in San Francisco would give a lot."
………
"even though people in Sioux Falls make, on average, half as much money as people in San Francisco, and even though the San Francisco location was much busier-three times as many people were within reach of the bucket-by the end of the second day, the Sioux Falls bucket held twice as much money."
There you go, No tax deductions, just simple charity.
"I'm talking about a society where anyone who gives an honest days work recieves a "living wage.""
And exactly how much would that living wage be Devin?
Would that wage have to be enough to pay for say a yearly vacation? After all time off from work and recreation both ad to a family's well being?
Would that wage have to be enough to pay for a mini van as compared to an economy car because a couple decides to have a large family?
Would that wage have to be large enough to take in an elderly family member when they couldn't care for themselves any longer?
What would that living wage be I wonder?
All democrats are liberals. All liberals are evil. All evil wants to tax you at a higher rate. Therefore, all republicans are gifted to us from God."
Unfortunately for the middle class and working poor, the right wing talking points simply aren't based in fact at all. The basic fundamental of voodoo economics is to lavish massive tax cuts for the wealthy, dramatically drive the nation into deep debt, gut spending for programs that the masses have come to expect and rely upon, including maintaining the infrastructure, privative everything public, and send the bill to the middle class and working poor, in the form of higher inflation, higher interest rates, higher state, county and local taxes, numerous new fees and expenses due to cuts in social and infrastructure spending, and of course, less provided to society.
So, the middle class received a federal income tax cut of $300 or so. The upper 5% received an average cut of several tens of thousands of dollars, including several hundred thousand dollars in cuts to the upper 1%.
Your dollar is now worth much less, your property taxes have increased, you're paying more for basic living items, you're paying for services that you didn't have to pay for before, you're paying more fees, you're paying more interest, and you're quite possibly doing that all with less earnings than previously.
What's the real intent of voodoo economics? To demolish the middle class, and creating an aristocracy. There have been two periods in our history when the middle class was vibrant and strong. One was just prior to the revolutionary war, and the second was during the turmoil and social upheaval of the late 60's and early 70's. The ruling elite cannot tolerate a strong, health middle class, because a strong middle class is educated, aware, and politically connected. As a united force, the middle class is overwhelming, and the ruling elite are all too aware of this.
Therefore, along with the use of religion, right/left politics, bigotry, fear, and intimidation, the ruling elite has drawn the ultimate divisive weapon; wealth.
When we're working multiple jobs just to make ends meet, we're not likely to hit the streets to demand change. When education funding is cut, it becomes extremely difficult, and oftentimes, impossible for the middle class to become educated. When we're arguing amongst ourselves about left/right politics, religion, race, money, or cowering in fear, we're divided and not likely to unite.
We have to find a way to rise above these divisive tactics, if we're ever going to re-take this nation. The policies that have been handed to us are NOT serving the masses, as the founders had designed. They're serving the aristocrats, and we will only see a continual erosion of the middle class, a growing of poverty, and most tragically, a collapse of democratic government in this nation, as long as we allow it to continue.
Be honest with yourself, and take a look around you. If you're not earning $250,000 or more, you're in the lower 95%. Is your dollar buying more today, or less? Are you paying for educational supplies for your kids that you previously didn't have to pay for, or has your child's school cut programs that they used to have available to them? Are you paying less in interest? Are you paying fewer fees and local/county/state taxes? Are the roads that you travel on in better or worse shape? Has the cost of your electricity decreased? How about your neighbors? Do you know anybody who's filed bankruptcy or has lost their house to foreclosure? Do you know anybody who's lost their good-paying job, and has had to replace that with a much lower-paying job?
Seriously, folks. This stuff isn't a coincidence. This is all the direct result of neoconomics. We've all been sold a pack of lies. Wealth doesn't trickle down. When you hand public wealth to the ruling elite, they simply do whatever is necessary to cause that newfound wealth to grow, whether that means building a new widget factory in Dearborn, or in Bangladesh. These people have no national allegiance. It matters not to them whether their profits are earned overseas, and therefore escape US taxation. What matters to them is what matters to every corporation on the planet; earning more wealth.
And, it's done at the expense of the middle class, more often than not. Our entire system, from the corrupt and illegal federal reserve to the fraudulent, illegal tax code, to the bastardization of the national treasury, is built to flood wealth to the ruling elite at the expense of the middle class.
Consider the fact that, while proponents of neoconomics rail against taxes and any domestic spending for infrastructure or social support, they're suspiciously silent about corporate welfare handouts. While they issue loud praise and worship at the alter of the "free market," they're collecting unfathomable amounts of public wealth. Name a politician of either party who hasn't earned at least a portion of his/her personal wealth through public funds.
In fact, you'll generally find that those who howl the loudest for tax cuts for millionaires, and are most anxious to privatize the entire public infrastructure, are those who stand to gain the most personal wealth from such policies.
The mantra used to fool us is that "wealth trickles down." This simply is not true. As we can all very clearly see for ourselves, just by asual glance at actual socio-economic realities over the past 26 years.
The earnings of the poor and middle class, fully 95% of the population, have stagnated, and recently, have actually fallen. The earnings of the upper 5% have risen exponentially during the same period, and the more wealth one had at the onset of neoconomics, the larger the exponential increase in their personal wealth. The gap is growing exponentially wider, and it's not at all by accident.
Don't be fooled. We're being fleeced and have been anesthetized. It's time to awaken, starting with the realization that the federal reserve and the federal income tax system are both illegal and unconstitutional.
I realize that my taxes go for those poor lazy miscreants as well as for corporate welfare. I don't consider either to fall within the role of the federal government. There are many other things I disagree with the government paying for as well.
I'll be nice and not call you a commie. I think there is far more to being a "commie" than what the beliefs you hold. At the same time, I understand the desire for a utopian world where we don't have to slaughter one another. I once held the same belief. However, human nature makes utopian communities and fantasy.
Quit with the real life stuff... it's not fair. Don't you know that every CEO is evil? Don't you know that your "real life experiences" have just been brain washed into your mind? I mean, if you disagree with the left, then you must just be spewing out "right wing talking points"... don't you get it :)
Clark,
You assumptions about the rich just caring about themselves and wanting the keep the middle class down doesn't really make sense. The rich would not want to destroy the quality of life for the middle or lower class because they ultimately need them to make money.... Here are some statistics that might blow your mind:
In 2002 political party contributions....
People who gave $200-$1000 gave $68 million to Republicans and only $44 million to democrats...
People who gave $1000-$10000 gave $317 million to Republicans and $307 to democrats...
People who gave $10000+ gave $111 million to the Republicans and over $140 million to the democrats...
People who gave over $1 mllion dollars gave $3 million dollars to the republicans and over $36 million to the democrats...
You know that these stats mean... that the rich DO NOT overwhelmingly support the REpublicans, but rather the democrats do. And what is more, is that the middle class donations overwhelmingly went to the republicans.
If that is the case, why would the rich want to help the dems who are going to create an "equal society" in regards to wealth, and the middle class want to help those who wish to create an "aristocracy?" Think about your answers... and quit with the "right wing talking points" crap... I didn't get these from FOX news. It is from the Center for Responsive Politics.
I guess I should have realized that it's all a conspiracy...
Bull, A lot of these very large contributions come from folks who are cheating the system by giving money in their name, but the money actually comes from corporations who donate to both parties apparently in an attempt to hedge their bet. But you can bet your bottom dollar they support the Republicans. It's a system that compromises far too many politicians and needs to be changed. I think some sort of public funded campaign finance system is a good idea. Media entities could provide equal commercial time in lieu of taxes. Other expenses could be mitigated similarly.
A "living wage" is a wage that is sufficient enough to "LIVE." Yes, it would include enough for an annual vacation. Goog God, It simply amazes me that some in our world believe that a person working a full time job doesn't deserve things like that just because they are not wealthy. Yet the wealthy seldom if ever actually work. More often than not, they spend their working hours on the golf course.
You stereotypes are unfounded and quit dispicable. And yes, campaign finance reform is in place, it was called McCain-Fiengold. Now the democrats have over $100 million more dollars than the GOP does, and yet you still not happy? Give me a break.
You've agitated a Right wing nerve again... GOOD!!! Don't let they're nonsensical diatride of spew get to you my friend. It's only more evidence of how insecure they are. But I don't blame them. it is a very difficult time right now for Ultra conservatives. Their party is falling apart and the moderates on the Right turning on their neo-con bretheren. The day of the ultra conservatives is over thanks to Shrub and his ilk.
You say something... it's fact. I say something... it's opinion. A double standard coming from a Republican... I'm going to have a heart attack from NOT surprise.
Facts presented to:
Testimony on Campaign Finance Reform
Before the Senate Rules Committee
Derek Cressman
Campaign Finance Analyst
United States Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG)
March 29, 2000
Most citizens do not give large political contributions. Fewer than one out of every thousand American citizens gave a contribution of more than $200 to a presidential candidate in 1999. This number would be somewhat less troubling if large donors were representative of the majority of the population. Instead, most large donors are older white males with vast financial resources. According to a national survey conducted by four political scientists(1) during the 1996 congressional elections, of those who gave contributions over $200, 95% were white, 80% were male, 50% were over 60 years of age, and 81% had annual incomes greater than $100,000. These numbers are very different from the population of the United States at that time: 17% were non-white, 51% were women, 12.8% were over 60, and only 4.6% declared an income of more than $100,000 on their tax returns. More so than the public at large, these donors tended to have conservative views, especially on economic issues. However, one-third of the large donors identified themselves as liberal, compared to one-fifth of the general public, so it is primarily the middle of the political spectrum that is underrepresented among large donors.
Because large individual donors determine who can run for office and who wins elections, potential candidates who don't appeal to and solicit money from these