An example of why Liberals are hurting.

[Renderking Fisk]

Tax Refunds Help Rich, Hurt Poor By MICHAEL MARCHANT Commentary


Read between the lines, If you’re rich and successful then you should be punished and forced to “help those less fortunate� by cohesion of the local, state and federal government.

How dare you work such long hours and struggle to provide a better life for your family. Don’t you know you’re oppressing and denying others of a higher quality lifestyle?

Just kick back, relax, and let the governments take care of you.

 

[Marlowe]

Read between the lines, If you’re rich and successful then you should be punished and forced to “help those less fortunate� by cohesion of the local, state and federal government.

I think maybe you're reading too much between the lines. If you are middle-class (i.e., you work for a living) a greater percentage of your income is taxed. So the very rich aren't paying their fair share.

How dare you work such long hours and struggle to provide a better life for your family. Don’t you know you’re oppressing and denying others of a higher quality lifestyle?

Just kick back, relax, and let the governments take care of you.

Or, to look at it from a different perspective, "How dare you work long hours and/or two jobs and expect to be renumerated in proportion to your efforts and ideas? We're sending your job to China, you ungrateful mendicant! And we'll get a tax break, too!"

 

[Renderking Fisk]

My attitude is pretty simple.

First, the government needs to go through their budget and cut the fat with an ax. No waste, no pork. The notion that idiot from West Virginia Robert Bird gets countless memorials named after him with federal dollars is obscene and boarders pornographic.

Second, Flat tax. 15% is more then enough for everybody. If a family make less then $30,000 (adjusted for the cost of living in some areas…) then no tax is paid by that family. Don’t punish my wife and I because we went to college and worked hard while some people refuse to get motivated and contribute.

I don’t begrudge someone who was able to get a higher education then I did or is able to get a higher paying job. I don’t think that fellow should be paying more in taxes just cause he caught a lucky break or worked harder then I did.

Third and final (for now) get the freaking government out of my conscience, will ya? And the notion that because I’ve been successful doesn’t mean I have to “Give something back� is pretty smarmy and condescending. Ok, I wasn’t GIVEN anything, and I didn’t TAKE anything. We’ve worked hard for what I have. We’ll contribute because it’s the right thing to do, not because we’re forced to by an IRS whose tactics are this side of the Gestapo.

 

[Bogie1943]

Wow...

Thank you Fisk, man I don't know where I would be around here without you. It's good knowing there is another Conservative Crazed Fellow, like myself around. I love it, and I agree with you 100%!

 

[SappySwami]

The problem with a flat tax is that it isn't in any sense equal. It is the same numerical value, but not the same burden. A person close to the poverty line paying the same taxes as someone well above it is far from equal, making the differences between the rich and poor even more significant, and that of course effects a democratic system, in that democracy only works if there is a large middle class.

While I don't think some people should be given some sort of free ride, or any other exaggerated caricature of the welfare system, I also don't believe that people should pay a smaller share of their wealth to the government and let others feel the burden of it, because they are somehow entitled to the money they earned.

I love discussions like this though, so of course I'm open to arguments.

 

[Renderking Fisk]

Bogie: Good, I’m glad. It’s good to know you’re not alone and that you’re not going crazy. Sometimes I feel like I’m Wilson in George Orwell’s 1984 (but more handsome and better dressed) with some of the double speak that goes around the internet: “We celebrate free speech, but will do what we can to silence anyone who has a different opinion then us.�

SappySwami; I like the way you think. Some people feel threatened if another intelligent person holds strong beliefs that are different then theirs. Imagine if everyone here believed the same thing, 100%… what would we have?

“I agree�
“I’m with you…�
“Dittos!�
“Mega Dittos�
“I’m with the ditto guys…�

That gets pretty boring. Like I said, we can have a debate but we don’t have to argue. What’s the point of having a forum if we can’t exchange ideas? I might come on a little too strong, and I apologize for that.

The problem with a flat tax is that it isn't in any sense equal. It is the same numerical value, but not the same burden.

Equal? Who said anything about equal? Or fair? And who said Taxes should be a burden? That’s exactly my point… it SHOULDN’T be a burden. Think it’s fair that my family sees half of its income go to taxes? How’s that for a burden?

The Government has many different ways to generate revenue for roads and bridges, and what do we get for the money? Few years a go in a span of a couple of weeks a bridge fell apart in Massachusetts and Connecticut… there are always potholes through out the New England States… and “The Big Dig� which has hundreds of Millions of Dollars and several years behind schedule is loaded with corruption. Where’s the outrage? How much of that money could have gone to other programs to help people out of poverty?

The Government (Republicans and Democrats both) has a SPENDING problem, not a revenue problem. It’s not about accounting; it’s accountability they seem to have a problem with. The government takes in money for one program, but in a time of “crisis� they “re-appropriate� that money for another program… then come back to the tax payers for more. Imagine you paid for a hat, and the store owner said: “I spent that money on something else I needed to do in the shop, I need another $150 before I can send you the hat you already bought.� The Government does that consistently, yet there’s not enough outrage. Maybe cause we’re all working too darn hard to pay for those taxes in the first place.

Don’t raise taxes, it just encourages the government to waste more money… then come around looking for more. This is an bipartisan equal opportunity for outrage.

 

[Marlowe]

Renderking and Bogie: Just because I poke some holes in some of the rhetoric in Renderking's opening post, don't get the idea that I totally disagree with the spirit of what he's saying, but what he says and how he says it I would characterize less as "conservative" and more as "libertarian."

Not that I've had any long, deep political political discussions with Renderking, but I strongly suspect that our views would line up more than they diverge. I'm just trying to be the Devil's advocate.

It's funny,on other boards I'm often the guy who speaks up for the conservative vewpoint. Maybe I'm just a contrarian...

Now, let's all be friends and vilify the French!

 

[SappySwami]

I agree that there is a problem with re appropriating funds. I live in the north bay, and for more than 10 years we have been voting for measures to try to get a train from Santa Rosa through Marin county, to San Francisco, and it seems every few election years we have to vote on it again because the money that was supposed to go to it has gone away somewhere. I'm not even sure where to start talking about that problem, I think it's too fundamental.

And maybe burden was too strong a word. But what I was getting at is how you said it isn't fair that you should spend half your income on taxes, which is my point as well. With a flat percentage tax, the guy making 40 grand a year has a much easier time than the single mother working a minimum wage job (that is a notorious democrat example, and I apologize, but it serves my purposes.) The way things are now, a particular income bracket is responsible for holding up the government with funds, and it's the middle class. The lower classes don't pay as much (though I don't think they should, to allow them more ability to work up the social latter, increasing their income, and ultimately bringing more money to the government) while the more rich keep their money because of that well-sold fantasy about trickle down theory. (One of the greatest economic ploys the rich have used to justify themselves and keep the masses at bay, in my opinion.) To use the word again, the burden is too much on just one social group, but if it was more dispersed I think it would be easier on everyone.

I haven't taken an econ class though, so must of my knowledge of that comes from sociology, so feel free to debunk any silly assumptions I have.

 

[Art Fawcett]

Ok Swami,
please tell me how , with the top 20% of wage earners paying 80% of the taxes total, this is "favoring the rich" and giving them a less proportionate tax burden? You are espousing a myth that has been perpetrated on us for years and i am constantly amazed when someone says that a "flat tax" across the board with a minimum threshold is somehow "unfair". Perhaps we should look at the definition of "fair". Perhaps we should also look at the definition of "equal". To me, the term equal means the same burden on EVERYONE, not just the chosen ones. When the tax relief was enacted a few years ago the liberals in Congress screamed that the poor weren't getting their "fair" share of the refund but, excuse me, don't you have to pay IN to get something BACK?
Your belief that the middle class is holding up the burden of the taxes is factually incorrect. This is another myth that, if repeated often enough somehow becomes "fact". It is just plain NOT true.

 

[Renderking Fisk]

Marlowe: I’m sorry if I’m went for your throat, Marlowe. Yea, maybe my approach was a bit too aggressive.

Sappy, you’re views aren’t silly… they’re yours for a reason because of what you’ve observed experienced and taught. There’s nothing wrong with your views as long as they grow with you over time as you get more experience and information.

A single mother making less then my flexible $30,000 shouldn’t have to pay hardly anything while the single man making $40,000 shouldn’t have to pay more then $15% in taxes, period. Don’t punish someone who hasn’t done anything beside work hard on his career. Don’t punish someone for not having a family yet.

• 
  We should be able to keep more of our own money and do with it as you please.
  You should be able to invest it as you please (small business would flourish and towns could sell more bonds to improve the local infrastructure)
  You should be able to save it as you please (everyone should invest for their own retirement.)
  And give it away as you please. Folks would be able to contribute more to the Tsunami victims with out the federal government doing it for them.

I’m going to go on a tangent here against Liberal dogma for a second: It should be a CHOICE to give to charities and social programs. Remember the word “Choice�? You shouldn’t be forced to contribute; it should be a CHOICE. (I’m pro-choice, it’s a woman’s right to choose either an automatic or a revolver when defending her body.) You want the government to keep it’s laws off your body and out of your bedroom, but you want the federal government (IRG – Internal Revenue Gestapo) to invade someone else’s finances and take away wages because they’ve worked harder or have been more fortunate? That’s inconsistent.

I agree the more fortunate should contribute more, but I don’t want it mandated by the government, that’s Orwellian.

I come back to my original thesis… it’s the responsibility of the government to spend money wisely. They’re selling class warfare and envy to fuel the division between groups of citizens while masking their own incompet spending habits. It’s not up to the government to pick up the slack for their people. Remember, it’s supposed to be a government “For The People, By The People�… our founding fathers would be outraged if they learned that many of us pay close to or more then 50% in taxes. Outraged.

 

[MK]

.

The flat tax is very interesting. It has a lot of merit. The one thing that could cause problems is the way that it is writen is.

Would people have to pay tax on their gains in stocks and other investments?

If not....somebody could just take a small amount to live on while the bulk of their money rides the market without it being taxed.

Does anyone else see any potential loop holes?

I think the flat tax is a great idea. It would put a big damper on the IRS and tax accountants....but I can live with that.

 

[SappySwami]

I still don't believe a flat tax is democratic (in that it doesn't take into account ones burden, so isn't universal.) But I will concede that it could work if it were like Norway's, where income has a flat tax, but there is a separate tax on wealth. That could be the thing that fills the gaps that a flat tax creates. I don't know much about the system, but I do like the Scandinavian governments, because they're fairly socialist. (And I'm Norwegian. Little bit of nationalism. )

 

[Art Fawcett]

Swammi, to me what you are saying goes completely, no I mean COMPLETELY against the doctrines that have made this country great and successful. The idea of free enterprise is the notion that with hard work and genuine effort EVERYONE can succeed to the max of their capabilities. Thats what drives innovation, discovery, progress. Yes, there are some negatives along the way ( think Enron) but we have to accept the bad with the good. What you are proposing says, we'll let you work your butt off but when you are considered "wealthy" ( by the way, the state of California considers everyone making over 35K per year in the "wealthy" category) why then, we'll just TAKE it from you. How much progress and innovation do you think that will spur? I am an avid capitalist Swammi, and what you are placing before me is a socialist dogma that has never, and will never keep progress rolling. I love the Scandanavian people but how many inventions have come from there in the last 100 years? How many new enterprises do you think this kind of government have inspired? Why, when you are successful, you must be PUNISHED for it.
Great idea...

 

[MK]

.

Art is correct. The "punish-the-rich" school of thought is very bad idea.
I will entertain the idea of a flat tax but giving the very, very poor a pass on taxes. We pretty much do that now anyway.

 

[jamespowers]

I am not sure I want to give anyone a pass on income taxes. As I see it, everyone should pay something so they know exactly what an income tax is and what reprobates placed it on us. If you give some people a pass while others pay then you are taking from Peter to pay Paul and you will forever have the allegiance of Paul to take more from Peter. If everyone gets it then they understand the process and have an equal ability to become outraged at increases, spendthrifts and just outright morons who cloak themselves as out "leaders." I am not willing to pit the rich against the poor but I am willing to pit the people against the government. Not in a revolutionary drive but a republic in which everyone has a stake in what is spent and they become watchdogs for their own bucks.
You would really see a complete change if everyone paid something. Those that now ask for more would be more worried about keeping more of what they have not taking more of what someone else has. The apathy that now exists might just change and our government along with it. What I want most is the people taking an interest in a government that acts in their name. Come on let's be serious. Go ask a few dozen people on the street who their Congress Critter is and they have absolutely no idea. How can you have accountability in a situation like that? Make them all pay and see what happens.

Regards to all,

J

 

[Renderking Fisk]

“Apathy…� everything you said James hit home, but when you wrote that word you hit a home run with 3 other runners on base, bottom of the 9th in the final game of the World Serise, breaking the tie and bringing the penant back to the home town.

How are we expecting to sovle any problems if we don’t know who’s in charge, you can’t answer the question if you don’t know the whole question yet, is that it?

Move the ellections closer to Tax Day… see what happens. I doubt it’ll ever happen, because it’s such a good idea on how to get people motivated in civics. If people actually knew where their money was going, I doubt people would continue to look at the Government as the “End All And Be All� solver of problems.

Here’s a question for liberals, why is it that you’re afraid of the government intruding in your personal life, but you believe the government should be put in charge of Income redistrobution? That’s a sincer question, I’m not trying to get anyone’s goat… I’m looking for honnest answers.

 

[BellyTank]

Art- Scandinavian inventions

Art said-
"I love the Scandanavian people but how many inventions have come from there in the last 100 years? How many new enterprises do you think this kind of government have inspired?"

Well, just a few-

-Linux
-the ball bearing
-the adjustable spanner
-dynamite
-paper clips
-TetraPak
-Talkie Movies
-Turbo cars
Don't forget World famous Scandinavian design.
I think a Swede actually designed the Coke bottle.
Pretty inspirational stuff...

The Scandinavian system works very, very well thanks.

BellyTank.

 

[Marlowe]

Oh, and BellyTank, your post earlier about why everyone should pay is the same reason why we should still have the Draft. People get a lot more choosy about the fights they pick and how the military is run and used when it could be them or their kid having to back it up. Then everyone has a stake in the thing.

But this is off-topic.

 

[BellyTank]

Marlowe?

Not very good detective work Marlowe- this was my first post on this thread-
just defending the Scandinavian system...
BT. :cry:

 

[jamespowers]

Oh, and BellyTank, your post earlier about why everyone should pay is the same reason why we should still have the Draft. People get a lot more choosy about the fights they pick and how the military is run and used when it could be them or their kid having to back it up. Then everyone has a stake in the thing.

Actually your comment applies to my earlier post and it just butresses my argument--Thanks. Forced conscription and forced excessive taxation are in the same league. I disagree with both of them. The difference is that the people now in the military are self selecting and they have a choice what branch of the service they sign up with. I have no choice as to where my tax money goes. Whatever rat hole it goes down now is against my will.
The people in the military join with full information and understand the stakes when they sign their induction papers. I have no idea what I am going to pay or where it is going to go.
The military is a unique organization in our government. We figured out long ago that the military works best when those that are there are there because they want to be. Just like every other job in this country. I certainly do not want someone in the military who was put there kicking and screaming. I could really depend on that soldier to defend this country.
Taxation is an evil that, as Ben Franklin said, is inevitable. What should not be inevitable is the extent to which it is a self perpetuating process. Not everyone understands this and most are economic illiterates. All the Keynesian models relied upon in the Drepression did nothing to cure it. Economic growth in the form of a war and all the production and resulting employment this entailed cured the depression. If you want to understand the effects government spending has on the economy then just refer to the GNP calculation: GNP= Government Spending + Consumer Spending + Investment. What this tells us is that as government spending increases, it sucks up more money from consumers and investment in private business or otherwise. Taxation figures into the equation on the government spending side. If we tax consumers they have less to spend and invest. Simple. Milton Friedman had it quite right.

Regards to all,

J