A wake-up call?

[SeattlePioneer]

Hello Shortride,

 

 

Taxes are property taken by force or the threat of force.

 

But it is force used in a legal and legitimate way, too.

 

You might call taxes a legalized form of theft, but you should really recognize that it is both legal and property taken by force or the threat of force.

 

It is neither a good idea to ignore the fact that it is something done by force nor that it is a legal and legitimate function of government.

 

In my view, those who love taxes and would like to see more and higher taxes should recognize that they should exersize a degree of restraint in taking the property of people.

 

Those who despise taxes need to recognize that taxes are necessary and should recognize that the power to tax is both legal and legitimate.

 

 

Both sides should exercise some restraint and have a degree of respect for those they disagree with.

 

Personally I think those who are dipping into someone's pocket should have a degree of respect for the person whose property they are taking, and treat that person with as much respect and courtesy as possible in the process of shaking him down and emptying his pockets.

[Troop24]

EA calls it a responsibility shift on th e part of the Federal government to pass the tax burden down to the state and local level, which I agree with. Lisabob said "don't even start on corporate taxes" but they too pass the tax burden on to others while they enjoy their corporate gains. In CY 2010 GE filed 7,00 tax returns and paid $0.00 in taxes (granted they lost $448 million in the US in 2009, but they profited internationally at the rate of $10.8 billion and they added back a tax benefit of $1.1 billion to its profit statement.) http://xrl.in/8r90 Not too be outdone for CY 2010 GE reported a worldwide profit of $14.2 billion ($3.2 billion in the US) and they paid $0.00 in U. S. taxes and even claimed a $3.2 billion tax benefit. http://xrl.in/8r93 (I used a CNN link and a Fox link does that make it fair and balanced?)

 

Yet what about the people they employ were they all able to claim a positive tax benefit? I simply seek fairness and the elimination of those loopholes that make it possible for major corporations to pay no taxes (or worse yet claim an benefit) while the working man is paying the burden.

[Twocubdad]

Today, I think all Americans owe a great debt to President Obama and all our Senators and Representatives who last night reduced the federal budget by 1.09%. The $38.5 billion they cut means the federal government will live within it's means for the next 11 days. We won't add to the national debt again until -- ready for this -- Patriot's Day, April 19.

 

 

[packsaddle]

I wrote, "The Fair Tax would eliminate most of this rancor."

Jet responded, "Payroll taxes are stupid taxes. They penalize productivity and are involuntary. A consumption tax would be far better. The do not discourage wealth creation and can be avoided by anyone willing to do without a particular good."

Jet, you obviously are profoundly ignorant about the Fair Tax. I suggest that you goforth and educate thyself: http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main

[gcnphkr]

How am I "profoundly ignorant about the Fair Tax"? It is a consumption tax is it not?

 

 

[packsaddle]

Sorry, your response looked like argument, not agreement.

[gcnphkr]

>>> No, it's not. Go check your dictionary.

 

violence: an act of aggression (as one against a person who resists)

 

What do you call throwing a person into prison?

 

>>> In a civilized society, we have to follow the rules. Our rules are set by our chosen

>>> representatives. Nearly 100 years ago, they chose to adopt the federal income tax,

>>> even putting it into the Constitution.

 

Is capital punishment not violent? Is war not violent? Just because something is legal, and maybe even necessary does not make it non-violent or even right. For its first 77 years the Constitution allowed slavery. Did that make it non-violent or right?

 

>>> I'm fairly certain the U.S. waged war before the income tax came along.

But it sure makes it much more affordable. BTW, the only truly expensive war prior to the passage of the 16th Amendment was the Civil war. It was paid for in part by an income tax (See the Revenue Acts of 1861 and 1892).

 

There may be a need for taxes, but when you go to the ballot box to loot your fellow citizen, you should at least have the courage to call it what it is. You should be able to stand there, look a person in the eye and say with confidence that you know better how to spend their money than they do.

[evmori]

All taxes are involuntary. That doesn't make them wrong or illegal! Obeying traffic laws is also involuntary.

[gcnphkr]

>>> All taxes are involuntary.

 

Not exactly. Should a person choose, it is possible to not ever directly pay a tobacco tax, gasoline tax, highway toll or property tax. While more difficult, they can also avoid, and certainly can minimize sales taxes, duties and tariffs. Generally the inconvenience of accomplishing this adds additional costs so that a person is better off just playing the tax.

 

While it is possible to avoid payroll taxes, it is very difficult to do so legally unless you are very rich.

 

>>> That doesn't make them wrong or illegal!

 

I never said it was illegal. But where it is right or wrong is subject to debate. Indeed, considering that, if a private citizen were to take money from another person against his will it would be wrong, the onus is on the person advocating a tax to demonstrate that the tax is NOT wrong. For some taxes this is fairly simple to do. For example, a highway toll is intended to be used to pay for the construction and maintenance of a highway. The users are the ones paying for it and rightly should pay to do so. The same is the case for gasoline taxes, although it is flawed as it penalizes vehicles that get low mileage, but this is balanced by the added negative externality of pollution.

 

But you have a much harder time doing this with income taxes. It be very difficult for a person to give a moral or economic justification for most of it. The most common will be national defense. But the amount we spend on the military far exceeds what is needed for defense, how do you justify the excess? The second will be that society has a moral obligation to take care of the weak. That claim is exceedingly to difficult to establish. The arguments tend to be loaded with emotion and very little reason.

[Twocubdad]

I think the point is government seem to have forgotten the source of their revenue. In NC, the state government is down-right giddy over a "free" half-billion-dollar federal grant to improve passenger train service. The result will be to shave 13 minutes off the train ride between Raleigh and Charlotte. Of course the train will still take 40 minutes longer than by car.

 

But who cares? Tax dollars are like manna from heaven. No one really had to go out and earn that money. And it's not like they'll put a tax lien on your house and sell it out from under you if you can't pay your taxes, right?

[evmori]

>>> All taxes are involuntary.

 

Not exactly. Should a person choose, it is possible to not ever directly pay a tobacco tax, gasoline tax, highway toll or property tax. While more difficult, they can also avoid, and certainly can minimize sales taxes, duties and tariffs. Generally the inconvenience of accomplishing this adds additional costs so that a person is better off just playing the tax.

 

While it is possible to avoid payroll taxes, it is very difficult to do so legally unless you are very rich.

 

The only way to avoid taxes on purchases is illegal. If you want to go that route, be my guest.

[gcnphkr]

>>> The only way to avoid taxes on purchases is illegal.

 

Come on, you know that is just not true.

 

In most states private party sales are not taxed, generally the exception are only for purchases of registered items like automobiles. In many states used items are not taxed. In areas where food it taxed, you can either grow your own or purchase it is a place that does not charge the tax.

 

In some jurisdictions Internet purchases are not taxable as long as the retailer does not have a physical presence in the area. There is some question if the use taxes that 22 states are imposing on their citizens is a violation of the Commerce Clause. So far no case has made it to the SCOTUS.

 

And of course, you can simply not make the purchase.

[Eamonn]

packsaddle

I don't claim to know very much about Fair Tax, but it seems a lot like the VAT (Value Added Tax) that is in place in the UK.

Over the past few hundred years governments have looked for and found all sorts of ways of taxing people. Again in England there has been a tax on windows and before that a tax on chimneys. (Can't work out why I keep thinking about George Harrison and the Taxman?).

The debate that is going on now is more about how the money is spent, more than what method is used to collect it.

jet526 makes some good points about entitlement.

I might disagree with him, but his points do have some merit.

The recession we have experienced has caused governments all over the world to look at what cuts can be made.

In Ireland old age pensioners are being asked to pay more for their medical care. In England students are close to rioting because of increased tuition costs.

Here in PA. Our Governor has come up with a budget that axes a lot of the funding for education, especially higher education. Already students are starting to voice how unhappy they are with the proposed cuts. The truth is that while students don't tend to vote and are an easy target for cuts. Their parents do vote and when faced with having to pay a lot more will remember who caused them to have to pay more.

All too often these cuts are made not where they might be needed and not where they will do the most good but where they will do the least harm politically for the people who make them.

Worse still is when some groups get special attention because they have helped someone or some group get elected and they are exempted from cuts or taxes because of their support.

Those who end up being harmed are those who will cause the least fuss and very often have no real voice.

At times the people who make the cuts fail to see that all they are doing is shifting the problem from one area to another and at the end of the day no real savings have been made.

I don't know the answers.At times the media gets so wrapped up in the trivial stuff that is the sound-bite of the day, that the real hard news that determines so much and effects us all is just not reported, it becomes hard to know and even find out what is going on.

Ea.

 

 

 

 

[evmori]

Who's talking about private party sales? I thought we were talking about walking into a store and buying something! And if ya do that, you will probably pay tax on the item purchased! Why? Because you have to!

[packsaddle]

Eamonn, if you read me carefully, you'll see that jet526 and I are not in strong disagreement. What I see is someone who seems just to have discovered the problem and seems to think no one else has. If these cost-cutting measures are so great (and again, if you read me carefully you'll see that I have long advocated much quicker and stronger cuts than are being suggested here), these could and should have been implemented back when a single so-called 'conservative' party had ALL of the branches of government under their control...but they didn't. For that reason, anything I hear coming from them now just falls flat as ingenuous. They had an opportunity to do the right thing and they didn't. Now they are just playing politics so that they will have a chance to return to power so they can fail to do the right thing again.

 

I am not optimistic. I do see that we could quickly address this problem. As Beavah has mentioned, if both parties wanted to show their sincerity, they could merely implement the rather limp recommendations of the most recent debt commission. They won't. So I am not optimistic. Jet526 will continue to shout about all this and eventually he will also realize that the American people have long ago decided to let circumstances dictate the terms of the outcome, not good sense and planning or honest self-discipline.

 

And really, I'm OK with this. It means that this country has embraced a purely Darwinian approach to society and that we have placed our faith and our futures in those Darwinian forces of the marketplace. Let me be clear, there are solid truths out there. The very real laws of nature will apply themselves. Our poor choices will eventually have their consequences and the system will demand its payment. Moreover, the system won't care about pain, has no compassion, no sense of future or purpose. It will merely exact payment. These will be interesting times.

It would be nice, IMHO, if we could at least be honest enough to admit our choice. But we aren't. So be it.

That was my turn, now time for others to rant....