Taxes
October 19th, 2008 |I was listening to Jason Lewis on Friday while driving home from work.
He was expounding upon his belief that any and all taxes is fundamentally theft of citizens property by the government.
How enlightened. It got me thinking about conservatives.
Here is a perfect example of the conservative thought process:
The light bulb. Either 100% on or 100% off. Black or white. Totally "for" or totally "against". But reality is not so stark, and their lives the hypocrite.
OK, so let’s completely eliminate any and all taxes. Income tax, sales tax, property tax…everything. We remove all manor of funding the federal government.
Who funds the military? Who pays for roads? Police and Fire? How does the federal government function without funding?
At this point all but the true wing nuts will state that some form of taxing is necessary in order to pay for national defense and infrastructure. This is called hypocrisy.
If any and all taxes is fundamental theft, as Jason Lewis contends, then any and all taxes must be opposed at all times. The minute that the conservative mind opens the door to allow for some taxation then the entire argument goes out the window. At that point it is simply a matter of the rate and manner of taxation, which is a totally separate argument.
But the hypocrisy continues into this new argument. A little bit of taxes are OK to support defense and infrastructure, but the conservative believes that any additional tax is a direct road towards a complete confiscation of all income. Federal funds towards A and B is fine, federal funds towards C is socialism or communism. Black or white, on or off, total and complete hypocrisy.
Logically one must acknowledge that some amount of taxation is necessary in order to have a federal government. One may argue the appropriateness of using tax dollars in order to fund one particular program and not another.
One may also argue against any taxes of any kind. But those that make this argument while still supporting a federal government are hypocrites.
40 Responses to “Taxes”
It’s not any and all taxes. Keep listening and maybe you’ll become more enlightened.
@Dube’: So you would then agree that who to tax and how much to tax is totally and completely arbitrary?
No.
I listened to the program friday when I was driving home from work. Lewis does not mention that any and all taxes are theft. He is referring to how Obama would like to impose a tax upon persons making more than $250,000 and essentially redistribute the funds to people making less than that in the form of a “tax credit”.
His point being that it is not fair to impose a tax on some Americans and not others. This differs from something like a property tax where you would opt in.
This is why I asked you about your view on the redistribution of wealth.
His point being that it is not fair to impose a tax on some Americans and not others.
Fair?
Do you think we should create tax policy based on what is fair?
Can’t we agree that life is not fair?
Yes, we can agree that life is not fair.
However, let’s call it what it is, socialism. That is something that I do not believe in.
Now, are you for redistributing wealth?
Dube’
All taxes are a redistribution of wealth.
I like hot water, streets to drive cars on, poor benig able to get food so they don’t riot, and educational systems. If you don’t like “redistribution” of wealth then you are anti-american. Go live in Somalia
@Dube’: It’s not socialism. I know that is the cool word in the election this year but the definition of socialism is the government control of all resources and production.
I think we can agree that this is by no means what Obama is proposing.
Now, are you for redistributing wealth?
If you want to call a progressive tax system where those who have the ability to pay more (and also have greater ability to generate more economic benefit) the “redistribution of wealth” than I suppose the answer is yes.
It’s not socialism, but it’s not a good idea to raise taxes to one part of society.
Smithers, when you talk about ability to pay – do you think that middle class families don’t have any ability at all to pay more?
@Little D – ok, so taxes are paying for my hot water? Last I checked, I paid for my water heater, I pay for the natural gas to fuel it and for the water to fill it with… if my taxes are paying for hot water I’m essentially paying for it twice.
Alright, here’s my last post on this.
One can argue that all taxes are a redistribution of wealth, but some taxes specifically target this, such as a progressive income tax. Other taxes such as for building roads, can be argued both ways.
It is not 100% socialism, but without a doubt it is a step in that direction. Last time I checked, this country was founded on principles to get away from taxes, not move more towards them.
Also, since the government is moving more towards increased welfare, unemployment, health care, why should I even work? I’m sure you heard recently that Hawaii ended it’s “free” health care for children citing budget shortfalls. The reason for the shortfall; people were ditching their own healthcare programs and picking up the Hawaii governments.
One more thing; while those who have the ability to pay more sometimes have the opportunity to generate more economic benefit, there is a choice to be made there. Go through a 3rd party system, i.e. the government to distribute it (no economic beneifit) or let them decide by not increasing taxes and allowing that person to do with their money as they choose, maybe start a business and distribute the funds through hiring more people and growing the economy.
Alright, here’s my last post on this.
I enjoy the conversation.
without a doubt it is a step in that direction.
Then you need to study historical tax rates in the United States. You would find that, even with the increases being proposed, tax rates are at pretty historically low levels.
why should I even work?
So, all you need to be happy is health care and a subsistence income? I think there are some additional benefits to having a disposable income. You make it sound like being poor is like being on vacation. Maybe you should try it and see how enjoyable a life it is. I guarantee that that the majority of those who are taking advantage of state/federal benefits would rather not be.
let them decide by not increasing taxes and allowing that person to do with their money as they choose
If this system could work, don’t you think it would already be working? It seems to me that the government got into the business of welfare, unemployment, health care, etc because the private sector has already made the decision to avoid getting involved.
One last thing since it popped up when I was typing.
It’s not socialism, but it’s not a good idea to raise taxes to one part of society.
Then why would I work to achieve something? Where’s my motivation to go out and improve myself to make more?
Here you go. USA income tax rates have been as high as 94% in the past.
Socialism and redistribution of wealth? We are nowhere near close.
@monty p: it’s not a good idea to raise taxes to one part of society.
Why not?
do you think that middle class families don’t have any ability at all to pay more?
More than who? Each income bracket pays more taxes than the bracket beneath them.
Maybe I wasn’t clear Dube’ My argument is in line with yours. The tax plan to raise taxes to only people making >250K isn’t a good idea. It smirks of class warfare. If you think taxes should be raised at all, it should be done uniformly, but still within people’s ability to pay. The middle class still has the ability to pay, if even slightly more.
Not that I think it’s a good idea, but even under socialism people are still motivated to make more. So worst case I’d bet that you’d be still motivated.
I am not going to defend a progressive tax system as fair. I think most tax systems are inherently unfair one way or another.
Except maybe the Fair Tax. I am all for trashing the current taxation system and giving the Fair Tax a try.
I am against painting Obama as a communist or a socialist just because he is in favor of a progressive tax system. That’s a cop out argument. Progressive taxation unfair? Life is unfair.
the fact that “life is unfair” is much of the premise of taxes and other legislative programs to create fairness. Hence the conundrum. You can break it down to two opposing views. Create fairness by legislating “fair processes”. This isn’t entirely fair because “life is unfair” and there are winners and losers, the hard working aren’t necessarily rewarded, luck and circumstance help also. Hence the judgement of fairness by “results”. This leads to tinkering to try and create fairness, but this doesn’t create fairness either. Not only because “life is unfair”, but also “unintended consequences.” All animals react to incentives. The intent of rules to create “fairness” based on results, leads to animals changing their behaviors to maximize their benefits based on their perceptions and circumstances. So the ultimate question is, which way is more fair? Legislation through fair processes or fair results?
”
More than who? Each income bracket pays more taxes than the bracket beneath them.
”
Do you think that middle class families don’t have any ability at all to pay more than they do right now?
Instead of fair – think reasonable. Is it reasonable to make a “No new taxes” pledge to everyone that makes <250K?
Don’t get me wrong – I don’t agree with smearing of Obama either. Also, I don’t like the agruements Jason Lewis makes. But I’m also not a huge fan of the way Obama is selling his tax plan.
Do you think that middle class families don’t have any ability at all to pay more than they do right now?
Some can pay more, I know of a number that can’t.
I guess it depends how you define middle class. Those making over $100,000 can possible pay more, those making less probably not. Obama draws the line at $250,000. He had to draw it somewhere.
Reasonable? Is giving a tax break to the wealthy and expecting the economic benefit will trickle down the economic ladder, when evidence points to the contrary, reasonable?
@skibbertarian: So the ultimate question is, which way is more fair? Legislation through fair processes or fair results?
Now I have two things to think about at night Skibby. Thanks.
”
Those making over $100,000 can possible pay more, those making less probably not. Obama draws the line at $250,000. He had to draw it somewhere.
”
Ok – but Obama closed the door altogether.
I don’t think trickle down economics work either. I don’t advocate giving a tax break to the wealthy if your not giving a tax break to other classes. I do think it’s a good idea is you are going to be a Dem. Pres with a Dem. congress, you should make sure your policies don’t alienate fiscal conservatives so we don’t have the backlash like we’ve seen over the last 8 years.
The tax plan to raise taxes to only people making >250K isn’t a good idea. It smirks of class warfare. If you think taxes should be raised at all, it should be done uniformly, but still within people’s ability to pay.
You argument assumes that the tax code was appropriate to begin with. What if the previous administration’s tax structure favored tax breaks for the wealthy in a disproportionate and/or inappropriate way? Is a correction, of sorts, then still inappropriate?
It sounds like some of you are assuming that the current tax system is fair, thereby making the argument that each tax bracket should see similar adjustments. Well, did you ever think that it is in fact unfair and imbalanced?
I’m not saying Obama’s tax plan brings everything back into focus. Taxes are about supporting necessary infrastructure for our society and providing incentives and disincentives for things to build a stronger society. Its effectiveness and “fairness” changes just as our laws do. Stop thinking that it’s all about you and what taxes you deserve from your own myopic perspective. We are all in this together, right?
[if] you are going to be a Dem. Pres with a Dem. congress, you should make sure your policies don’t alienate fiscal conservatives so we don’t have the backlash like we’ve seen over the last 8 years.
I fail to see how changing the tax code in and of itself would alienate fiscal conservatives… I imagine fiscal conservatives to care more about efficient and non-wasteful spending? I get that they can thus prefer fewer taxes (less revenue) for the government, but it doesn’t seem to be a prerequisite. I mean, wouldn’t it be ok in the eyes of a fiscal conservative to rein in spending while also building a little surplus for those rainy days? Perhaps I’m misunderstanding what it means to be fiscally conservative. Or, perhaps some who consider themselves to be fiscally conservative don’t understand what it means?
Also, I’m unclear as to what you mean by backlash over the past 8 years… can you provide who and what specifically?
(Finally) Why are taxes being attacked anyway? I read a quote from a historical figurehead not too long ago that said, “I like taxes — they buy me civilization.”
If this is the case (and I believe that it is) there is nothing inherently wrong with taxes. We’ve been here before — on this blog and it goes round and round everywhere else, too — we live in a society and taxes are a part of that society. We are not everyone for themselves. It is easy to say f-u when you’re riding high, less so when you aren’t.
I don’t get this attitude that “government is deciding for me how ‘my money’ (taxes) gets spent!” Those who allocate where money gets spent are the representatives we choose. Sure, sometimes we make mistakes and pick bad seeds, but c’mon — let’s take a bit of responsibility here. I too am against mis-management of our taxes and wasteful spending in implementation. I don’t think anyone is for it. But Americans are lazy as f^*k. We generally don’t do any research. People are “too busy” to educate themselves and then are incapable of making educated decisions come election time.
So, I think it’s naive and myopic (thanks dan) to talk about taxes as bearing inherently negative characteristics. Taxes are a means to an end, not the end nor even the reason for the end.
@checkbook: Why are taxes being attacked anyway?
TEH SOCIALISM!!!
I’d like to see progressive CX entry fees. I think people making over $250K/yr can afford to pay $30 to race at Green Acres.
”
It sounds like some of you are assuming that the current tax system is fair, thereby making the argument that each tax bracket should see similar adjustments. Well, did you ever think that it is in fact unfair and imbalanced?
”
I think the current income tax rates are reasonable given the complex factors that create it. So I think it is unreasonable to say people making <250K will not see a tax increase if the government wants to raise revenue.
@Bob Schwartz: YOU ARE TEH SOCIALIST!
@monty p: I think the current income tax rates are reasonable given the complex factors that create it. So I think it is unreasonable to say people making <250K will not see a tax increase if the government wants to raise revenue.
OK. I’ll take the opposite view point.
I think the current income tax rates are unreasonable given the complex factors that create it. So I think it is reasonable to say people making <250K will not see a tax increase if the government wants to raise revenue. Sounds great to me.
I wins elekshun, I can haz Presnut!
@Smithers: I wins elekshun, I can haz Presnut!
dubya, is that you??
the current tax system will never be repealed/overhauled. Too many people make too much money off of it. You think H&R Block and Tax Accountants, IRS, financial planners, loophole advisers, the grossly wealthy, etc would let a simple system be put into place? I don’t think so…
This is the canard both parties have engaged in. The dems say we need to raise taxes on the wealthy to make it more fair (class warfare) while the republicans say we need to cut taxes (so the electorate spends more, propping up their lame economy) while neither platform addresses the budget deficit and all the excess spending…
Seems to me everyone is assuming that the tax table is reflective of what people actually pay. Ever hear of effective tax rate? Anyone have any statistics on that? Anyone wanna bet that the average family in the $250K+ tax bracket has a lower effective tax rate, than, say the person who only gets the standard deduction?
The system is inherently flawed, but I agree with Skibbertarian; there’s no incentive whatsoever to overhaul the system or completely throw it out and start all over again.
@Lynne: Ever hear of effective tax rate?
No. Did you just make that up?
@Lynne: Um, so fecking what? The absolute in tax paid is fairly huge!
Check this out, put in the little numbers and you’ll see the lovely tax: http://www.dinkytown.net/java/TaxMargin.html
Lynne’s right, there are so many loopholes it’s not funny. It would be interesting to see what rich people actually pay, if anything.
@Steven:
Loopholes such as….?
Effective tax rate is the percentage of your gross income you actually pay, rather than your tax bracket. If you have your taxes prepared by an accountant, they usually provide that info so you can compare what you are actually paying year-to-year vs. the tax table percentage.
Buckeye-can’t get into the link here, I’ll look at it tonight. But, are you talking tax brackets again? Honestly, I don’t give a rat’s rear what the tax tables indicate as “paid”; the reality is once the deductions are taken into account, the rate is much, much lower. Thus, the benefit of being a homeowner and/or having a dozen kids (ok, just joking on the kid thing-they cost a fortune!) Anyway, I haven’t read the link so need to see it to comment further.
Well, I looking at the damn form in front of me, I’m can’t see much “room” for deductions on Schedule A, maybe a real conservative could show where to find some more.
27.4%/well over $100,000 (total, not marginal rate) is what we paid to Dubya (ie just fecking Federal), whether you give a rat’s ass or not, my guess is Joe Plumber is paying a *much, much, much* lower effective rate.
For example, if Joe and his wife make $100K, have two kids, and $5k in itemized deductions, the family’s average tax rate is less than 10%
So much for your “tax bracket” rhetoric….
Buckeye, are you drunk???