Whats wrong with taxes?

The $10 simply because it's cheaper.

The $100 because it is worth any amount of money to keep the know-it-all politicians from taking over any additional aspects of our lives.

Our government (on both sides of the aisle but especially the cradle-to-grave dems) is already too entrenched in our lives and freedoms. When Hilary turns this to a socialist country, we will all see what we were missing.

Just because they have high taxes in other countries does not mean it is a situation to emulate.

The $10 - I figure that both corporations and governments are likely to abuse me in similar ways, so I might as well go with the one that costs less.

It depends on what the tax is, who (level of government) is proposing the tax, and what it will be used for. Yes, I've voted to increase my own property tax when I thought the local school district needed the money. I could see where the money was going and what it was being used for. Then the State took over all of the school allocations and began redistributing the money state-wide. Now my property taxes are going somewhere, doing something I can't really check up on. I don't know how much is doing some good, how much is being wasted, or how much is just paying clerical workers to keep records. I am much more inclined now to fight any further increase in property taxes.

At the federal level, there's so much waste and abuse that I'm highly resistant to any deal that raises my taxes. Perhaps when Congress shows some effort to stop pork barrel deals in spending bills, and we have a President who isn't in love with deficit spending, I might be more inclined to look at more taxes.

This countrie's catalyst for becoming separate from England began over taxes without representation. Yet that is what we are getting now. Since when have I voted ona war tax. Yet I pay one thru the telephone company and other places now. I had a friend who refused to pay that certain ammount of her telephone bill, and the feds came and chained her car to a tree. lol. How pathetic. A family in Massachusetts were willing to allow their house to be taken rather than pay taxes toward war. I believe that the same feelings that were rousting around in our minds back before and during the revolution are being sparked by the fact that we do not have control over our taxes once again. It is one thing to vote for a bus, and it being clear that that is what it if for. But what if the government sliced off five percent to feed this maelstrom we are in now? I don't want to pay money to destroy a country. I do not want to pay money to kill our young soldiers for the sake of a bunch of idiots in Washington. TAxes are fine when defined. But how often are they defined. Where did all the money come from to fight this bloody war in Iraq? US. But did we vote on it. Did we get representation for where and what our moneys for taxes are being used for. NO

. . . why are Americans so opposed to all taxes, even when paying a tax will save money?

People want to keep their money, and they have wed themselves to simplistic ideas to justify that impulse.

For the complete answer you'll have to read my book "Invisible Hand". But the short answer is that the nature of our money (it either is a physical object (currency) or is treated as a physical object (accounts)). That nature makes money interaction simulate a zero-sum game. That is, it seems like in order foro one to gain money someone else must lose money. Physical objects are that way.

This simulation makes people distrust anyone or any party (like a government) that attempts to get their money. In fact, when someone does something just to be helpful the person being helped may believe it's just a plot to get his money.

Therefore, people distrust government especially since government threatens to put one in jail if one doesn't pay that tax. And they are right since every party (political party and prganization) does have a motive to try to take as much money as possible.
All political parties in every government in every nation in history so far has been subject to the same temptation and at least some of the members of every government yield to that temptation. It's just human nature.

The solution to the problem is to change the nature of our money so that it is not a physical object and does not represtent a physical object. It will have to be a money that cannot be transferred from one person to another, that appears in one's account when earned and disappears from one's account when spent.

This can actually be done as described in my novel "Invisible Hand" which I am publishing here on Gather a couple of chapters each day and which is also available,
complete, at

http://www.unc.edu/~mason/hand.html

There it has no ads. The concepts and the idea are new and unique. You will find them no where else.

Sy,
I am opposed to taxes when the money I contribute to my federal government is not used for helping our nation, but to line the pockets of the super wealthy in a war that has created more enemies against us, instead of curbing terrorism. Our country is on the verge of bankruptsy (and that's putting it mildly), our children have schools without supplies, the number of uninsured goes up yearly, and services are going down. Actually, I want a refund from our government. I'm withdrawing my support of those who have no need. Dick Cheney----go find a real job and quit bloodsucking this nation!

I'm all for taxes. The more the better. Of course, the richer you are the more you should pay

I have worked for government for twenty years. Obviously, I am not "against" taxes, but I can tell you that government is far better at raising cost than controlling it.

I do not think many people are "against taxes" rather, people are wisely reluctant to allow government costs rise faster than those of other sectors of the economy.

I remember when the largest employers in Minnesota were 3M, Honeywell and Control Data. Now the largest employers are The State of Minnesota, The University of Minnesota and Hennepin County. The county alone has almost 11,000 employees.

As for school districts....the most expensive K-12 school in the state charges $20,000 a year. The Minneapolis School District spends $16,500 per student per year.

The point at which people complained about the lack of government funds has long passed. Now people need to complain about getting their money's worth.

I'm also for the $10 option.

Think about it. If it costs $100 to take the kids by car, the expenses of maintaining a bus are quiet a lot more substantial thana car. So for less than $1 a month your kids can catch the bus.

The actual cost is probably more like $2 or $3 per month or more (multiplied by the number of kids on the bus). So not only can you see where your $10 has gone but also some of the other taxes you pay as well.

I reckon many think the government can make all the money they want when in reality the government is a business entity in itself. It needs to create income, make investments and improvements (Roads, schools etc) and create a profit (Surplus)...

I have to say that I am with Austin on this one.

A perfect example of governmental greed and incompetence is the now proposed "new" tax on tobacco products; allegedly proposed to fund the SCHIP bill. In 1998, as a result of lawsuits against tobacco companies, the four major tobacco product companies were ordered to ante up 52.6 BILLION DOLLARS, supposedly to "assist those people afflicted with smoking related illnesses". Once that money was awarded, politicians from every state in the union were seen rubbing their greedy hands in glee, thinking of all of the pork barrel projects they could spend all that "free" money on instead of putting the money into a fund to do the job the money was supposed to do. Can anyone provide the name of even one person who, suffering from a smoking related illness, received a check from either a federal or a state agency to assist them in paying for the cost of their illness?

From 2000 to 2005, taxes for tobacco products have been raised a record 73 times. Where has all that money gone to? The politicians keep saying, "Well, it will force people to quit using tobacco and make them healthier; besides providing for the welfare of people with smoking related illnesses". If that is true and tobacco use is cut by as much as 50-75%, what are the politicians going to turn to to "regain" the taxes lost by such an action? What are they going to tax next to make up for the loss........liquor?...fast foods?....pizzas?....some other "unhealthy product"?

Unless and until politicians are forced to control their incontrollable urges to spend, spend, spend, they don't deserve to levy more and more taxes on the working citizens of this country. Too many politicians, entrenched in their positions, are only concerned with maintaining their power and position and will resort to lying, cheating, misrepresenting and outright chicanery to slip their hands into your wallets in order to maintain their control and influence.

I know the $10 alternative seems the best but it is my experience that when we give the $10 we also give up some sort of choice or freedom. Besides that many of the private services turn out to be better in the long run. For example: If you just send your kids on the bus, you have no control over who they meet or the safety of their trip. When you take them not only do you keep some control of the situation but you get to spend some quality time with them. I always took mine and often times the car was the only place where we could talk privately.

It is a timely topic, Sy. Obviously judging from your responses, it is also a topic that is imposssible for most of us to consider independently of our existing political biases.

I personally have to admit that legislative groups, Dem, Republican, or Venusian, are much better at talking about cutting goverment costs than they are at actually doing it. On the other hand it should be perfectly obvious that the Republican tax cutting habits have put us in a place where government revenue simply does not equal legitimate government expenses. It is absurd that we are paying that 500 billion fo the Iraq occupation with money that we are borrowing from China- and we are now getting noises from China that they are getting sick of loaning us money because the dollar is now sliding and they are losing money on the deal.
This is a dangerous, dangerous situation of the USA. We can talk about principles all day here, but we are getting into a bad PRACTICAL situation that is going to take a decade to climb out of, and is going to effect our standard of living in a negative way.

Thank you everyone for these great comments. I think this is a very interesting subject, and we can see the diversity of opinions.

I would just like to reply to Tony about tobacco taxes, since I have a professional interest in this as a public health person. The tobacco industry settlement was with the states, not the federal government. You are partly right in your assertions, in that it was then up to the states to decide how to spend the money. Most of the states used the funds for some combination of research into cancer and other tobacco diseases, educational campaigns or related public health measures. Unfortunately, some states saw this just as you said, an unexpected windfall. I am not sure of the legality of the situation, but I believe that if anyone lives in a state where the tobacco money is being misused, you should contact your local legislator and complain.

This tax thing, as I see it is really a human thing ... or greed, and putting onesself before your community and country. This same thing happens in every human activity, it is human nature, but somehow when it is constantly harped on how bad just government is, and how they spend our money unwisely ... well, that is just propaganda to make business look better. There is a need for both, and personally to have reasonable health care, not just for myself but for everyone, and a more civil of a society I would be willing to pay for it. The problem comes when we are paying, and not seeing the benefits, and then not able to change anything, which is pretty much what we have today, and coincidentally the battlecry that began this country .... no taxation without representation.

As PeggyAnn Larry M pointed out, tax protesting is illegal. But I'd like to use this forum to ask the question, why not institutionalize tax protesting?

My thinking is as follows: We now have powerful enough computing in place that each and every US citizen could file his or tax return electronically and at the same time designate where that money would be spent. What would the ultimate ramifications be if we were able to go over the Congress's heads and say NO to funding x, NO to funding Y, YES to finding A, B, C and Z.

In this way, each person could support the functions of government that were the most important to him or her personally, and if any one particular function of government started to wither alarmingly, the populace as a whole could be in on the collective decision to save it or sink it.

The Congresspeople would be against this idea, of course, as it would render them suprerfluous.

Jim ... sorry I just think this idea of altruism expecting people to manage their money spent by government wisely is a crackpot idea, and I think you know it. The whole country would fall apart. Everyone would be superfluous, except the police, and they'd probably be taking bribes in short order as well.

I dont know if Jim was serious, but I think it wouldnt be a bad idea if done in a non-binding way. It would let the government (Federal as well as local) know exaclty what people are thinking about where their money should go. I think lots of congress people would like to have this input. Of course, the results might be surprising.

Unfortunately, raising taxes here would just mean the politicians get more money in their pocket. The money doesn't go where it should!

There is a website featuring an online "game" called the California Budget Challenge

http://www.nextten.org/

I envision something like this on the federal level. Let's say 25 years as an "advisory" sort of thing, and then if it pans out, let it become the norm.

I wouldn't mind paying higher taxes if I honestly knew where it was going.

Well Europe as a whole...is quite expensive...
But USA is richer and they have a hand on everything...
It all goes back to the kind of political and economical system..they have...

Usually the taxes go inside their pockets only few percentage serve the country

A core competency of government is delivering $0.10 of value to the taxpayers for each $1.00 of tax revenue collected.

It's fascinating to me that some folks would rather pay $100 to a corporation than $10 to government to preserve their "freedoms," yet many of these same folks are all for allowing that same government to conduct warrantless wiretapping and to lock up suspected terrorists forever without needing to file any charges.

As far as all the government waste -- yes, there is a lot of waste, but probably not more than in corporations. With a corporation, the waste is often in the form of obscene compensation packages for executives.

A government that can give you all you desire can just as easily take it away.

"Whats Wrong with Taxes?"

It is not the Peoples responsibility to pay for "honeybees," condoms, midnight basketball, Illegal Immigrants, the Children of Illegal Immigrants, smoking-cessetion, etc., etc., etc., ad-infinitum.

THAT is what is wrong with "Taxes."

I would choose the "private provider," because he would more likely be responsible for the creation of AT LEAST one job...and that is a far-greater contribution to a Free Society than a Government hand-out.