In the United States we take taxes very seriously. Indeed it’s in our blood. One of the key reasons for the American Revolution was taxation without representation. The Colonists did not like the idea of paying taxes to England without having a voice in how those funds would be levied or spent, i.e. they didn’t have representation in Parliament. In some cases they had representation in a state assembly, but the local legislature was in all cases trumped by the government in England.
Building on that initial connection between voting and taxes, in 1964 the 24th Amendment to the Constitution made it explicitly clear that no one could be barred from voting because of a failure to pay any tax. The primary target of the Amendment was Southern states who were limiting the rights of blacks by imposing a poll tax. The Amendment however did not ban simply poll taxes but rather any “other tax” as a bar to elections.
The goal of barring discrimination of black voters was of sufficient consequence that it deserved a Constitutional Amendment. The problem however is that by adding the words “or other tax” the government sowed the seeds for its own demise.
How? By permanently severing the relationship between those who finance the government and those who control it. Today, 51% of income earners pay no income tax at all, while the top 10% pay 70% of all income taxes. In addition, 30% of “taxpayers” actually earned money from the government in the form of refundable tax credits while those on welfare are not counted in the pool in the first place.
Progressives often respond that everyone pays Social Security and Medicare taxes. That is true – assuming someone is employed. In the federal system we have five primary forms of taxes:
First of course is the aforementioned Social Security. Social Security taxes are ostensibly taken from employees to fund (or ideally to supplement) their retirement.
Then there is Medicare, also taken from paychecks, which is intended to provide health insurance to those over 65.
Next there are excise taxes, taken with the specific purpose of supporting particular government programs and funded by the people who use those services. These would include things like gasoline taxes going to pay for transportation projects and airport fees to support airport maintenance and operations.
Then we have the corporate income tax, which is levied on corporate profits. These taxes go into the general fund and are intended to pay for the normal operations of the federal government.
Finally there are personal income taxes. These taxes are often the largest single component of the federal government’s revenue, and like corporate income taxes they are intended to fund the general operations of the government.
Here is the error of the progressive argument. The taxes paid by the bottom 50% of income earners (and those who earn no income) are for either retirement support or to pay for a used service, not the general operation of the government. As such, they are paying no taxes to support the actual functioning of the government. The fact that Congress has been raiding the Social Security “Lockbox” for decades does not change this fact. As long as the government is functioning, Social Security recipients will be the senior creditors on any government expenditures… and it is the people who pay the taxes who will have to make good on those IOUs.
Neal Boortz asks the question: should the vote of a welfare matron on the government dole with a five children be equivalent to the vote of a small businessman who pays $25,000 in income taxes and has 10 employees who support 20 other family members? The obvious answer would seem to be no. Certainly no more than it makes sense to allow your neighbor to negotiate with your boss how much of your salary you will be allowed to keep and how much your neighbor gets to take home in exchange for a kickback to the boss.
Is it now time to flip the colonist’s battle cry on its head? Should there be representation without taxation? Can the United States survive with a growing majority of her population contributing nothing to the running of the government, or increasingly, being net consumers of government largesse? This is not a new issue. “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.” That quote is sometimes attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville and sometimes to Alexander Fraser Tytler. Regardless of its provenance, the notion is spot on. One need look no farther than today’s dysfunctional federal government to recognize the writer’s prescience.
Not only is the government taking all of its income taxes from the top 49% of income earners, but at the same time it’s borrowing trillions of dollars (that those same taxpayers will have to repay) to redistribute to tens of millions of others who are not paying any income taxes. The logical progression of this cleptocracy will be that eventually the most productive members of society will seek refuge in countries where they can enjoy the fruits of their labor. Where will the government look to then as it seeks to fund its redistribution of wealth?
Perhaps now is the time for another Amendment. One that states simply: “In order to be eligible to vote in federal elections a citizen must have paid federal income taxes in one of the previous three years.” Absent that, perhaps it’s time to consider a flat tax, or even better, the Fair Tax. None of these solutions will solve our fiscal problems on its own. Without spending cuts and a smaller, limited government the Grand Experiment is doomed. Creating an exclusive connection between voting and those who pay the government’s bills is a good first step however.
See author page
Most of those over 50 fully understand this issue, but we have created a huge class of voters who get more by supporting the Democrats. It includes much of the 99 weeks group, welfare groups, government employees including many teachers and union members, especially government service unions. (excluding most military who I think are the greatest value of all the services the taxpayers would willingly pay for) We need to recruit more tea party members, (see teapartyrecruiter.com), educate them about the government lies about key issues like Medicaid, Social Security and elect more conservative politicians. We need a Constitutional Convention to pass key amendments ASAP to take away Federal power including “Term Limit Amendment (12 Years)”, “Right to Work Amendment for All States”, “Fair Tax Amendment(Eliminating the Income Tax Nightmare that allows the Federal Government to pick winners and losers based on political support or lobbying)”, “Government Pension Amendment (to Convert All Pensions to Defined Contribution Only)”, “Balanced Budget Amendment”, “Immigration Amendment”(To force the laws to be followed, borders closed, and states to be reimbursed for the cost of illegals for education, welfare and medical costs), “Federal Government Restriction Amendment, (a clarification of 10th Amendment that gets the Federal government out of Education, Healthcare, Energy, EPA, Commerce, Agriculture and many more areas) and a few more amendments to fix what we see is going wrong with our representative republic.
Vince, very well thought out and presented. I agree with you – it’s time for a contitutional amendment, well thought out so no unintended consequences can creep in, that will limit takers and what they can take.
We will soon see whether Pete DuPont was right. Many years ago, as a brief Presidential candidate, Pete observed that Americans usually do nothing until things get really bad. Then they act all at once.
And our national government is really bad. Our elected representatives are selected on the basis of popularity and advertising. They are not elected based on their ability to legislate. Our representatives appear to spend most of their time in office working toward re-election. They spend little time preserving and protecting the Constitution; indeed, many of them disavow the Constitution. Our legislation is written by lobbyists, and the benefits accrue to those who pay the lobbyists: General Electric, Bank of America, and so on.
One solution: term limits.
Second solution: retirement benefits slaved to corresponding military retirement.
Third solution: full public disclosure of ALL campaign fund contributions.
Fourth solution: an Amendment requiring representatives to be bound by all laws applying to the rest of us. They should have to follow all EPA regulations, all EEOC regulations, all IRS regulations, and so on. Penalty: removal from their House.
These solutions cannot happen as a result of an Amendment adopted by both Houses. It will have to come from the several States, using the alternative amendment plan in the Constitution.
This is a major problem, and needs a Big Fix.
Mathman, thank you. It seems like fairly simple arithmetic.
Disgusting:
, but so obvious. Does anyone actually believe Rangel or Kerry can write more than a grocery list?
I have been preaching for years that if you want to have a say in how this country is run, you need to have some skin in the game- i.e. , a job. One where you pay taxes. I forget who once said that as soon as a populace discovered that they could vote some “bread and circuses” for themselves, the days of the democracy were limited, and it is all too true- when people can vote for “free” money, they will do it.
The only solution to this is to have a large majority of the voting populace almost physically “yank” us back on course of a very limited government.
This all became possible simply because we, as a population, were lulled into complacency- that combined with many progressives rewriting our history, or even refusing to teach it, put many of us into a false sense of security.
Many people give
liberals,progressives, socialists the break of acting in our country’s interests- I do not. I see them as active and knowing traitors to the very founding tenets that are our nation’s bedrock core principles. They see this nation as fatally flawed, and are moronic enough(toss in an unhealthy dose of hubris) to think that they are the only ones smart enough to fix the system.Thats a question that I don’t see our politicians answering, let alone doing anything about anytime soon. unfortunately take the example of “paying taxes one out of three years to vote”. The first thing our politicians would do would be to pass all kinds of bills to protect their constituents. Like you only pay $1.00 if your make less than 40 grand, and for those who do not work only a quarter. Government is the only business that we keep paying and rewarding those in charge for their disastrous mistakes, and their incompetency. I agree with a flat tax, but then again as a politician I would make sure that the receipt for anything bought would have the amount of the flat tax for the purchase of the product whatever it may be. I would then ensure that my constituents could file for that money back if they made less than (you pick the number), and even an extra refund for those who do not work. It’s not the system really, it’s those who run the system. The professional politician is one of the most sneaking, sly, and selfish creatures to walk the earth. They wrote the book on deception, and manipulation for their own selfish interests. Can anyone actually see them passing term limits? Not until we the people clean house, and get enough of a new caliber of a politician/citizen in office who does not view government service as career.
I understand the sentiment, but not the solution. I was a full-time mom for 20 years. Altho hubby and I filed jointly, hubby was the one working and earning our living and paying taxes… instead I was raising our children to be responsible and productive adults. I taught them the value of giving back to their community thru volunteer work everywhere from the local food bank to visiting sick kids in the hospital. In addition, I volunteered at their schools a couple days a week, and served on countless PTA boards and other committees. I couldn’t count how many kids I helped learn to read, write, count, etc. I lost my job in 09, and haven’t been able to find another one, so I continue to volunteer when and where I can.
I don’t deserve a vote? It’s just all about money? I have no other value for this nation than the $$ I can fork over to the critters in Congress to waste? Is that the only value anyone has?
How sad and how telling. We’re fast becoming a nation that knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
In the early days only LAND OWNERS got to vote.
LIL: Since a married couple is considered one person, and since your husband works and pays taxes, then you are also understood pay taxes, too. Therefore, you could vote under that kind of rule. I do not think there should be any minimum income before you have to pay taxes. I think the rate should be low enough that it is enough of pain that you have an interest in how the funds are used, but everyone needs to have skin in the game. Some consideration needs to be considered for those who have retired from active work, and live off savings, obviously, they have contributed, but I really think that government workers and those on the dole constitute a conflict of interest, and should not vote.
Why don’t we just get rid of the income tax, which before the 16th amendment was unconstitutional and with very good reason. The Founders’ writings on proper tax law were brilliant and we would be well to return to their original intent rather than slap a soiled poll-tax bandage on the gaping wound to our nation’s government that is the federally-sponsored theft of individual incomes. The Byzantine Roman emperors were not so avaricious as to demand a percentage of a man’s produce. Only the feudal lords demanded that their serfs work several days in the lord’s fields for the privilege of being allowed to live in the land they were born. Truly we have traveled far down the Road to Serfdom.
While we’re at it, let’s repeal the 17th amendment as well, which effectively destroyed all hope of individual State limits on federal power.
You bet your bipei! You don’t pay taxes, you don’t vote. And now that I am thinking about it, let’s return to 100%
work-fare. Obama is all for volunteerism and has stated it many times over. So let’s persuade the oh so many on the welfare dole to get off their butts and “volunteer” for community service 40 hours/week.
Excellent argument & I agree 100%. PS Lil, don’t be an overly sensitive dumba$$. & read John’s reply above.
I agree–get rid of the whole idea of taxing income. The actual fairest national tax would be a retail sales tax, collected according to the rules of the jurisdiction it is collected. The advantages of this are that local retail sales taxes are pretty well underst0od, and since the rules are already in place, there is no need for more rules, and the political jockeying that they would entail. Pay the states a mil to collect and remit the money. A retail sales tax would collect from the underground economy, the foriegn visitors, and the illegals. It would require only enough IRS staff to audit the states, eliminate a whole bunch of record keeping, expensive compliance expenditures, and tax avoidance schemes, if the rate was low enough that the cost of avoiding it was higher than the cost of simply paying it. Walter E Williams says that since 10% is enough for God (actually he says the Baptist Church), 10% should be enough for Ceasar. The main fault I find with the FAIR TAX, and FLAT TAX, is that they exempt certain amounts of income, and require income reporting and records. Esentially, they both simply amount to the politicians messing with the rules and rates AGAIN!!! That certainly is not a real improvement.
I like a FLAT tax, with no, zero, zippo deductions, exemptions etc.. Either one flat rate for everyone regardless of income, or maybe 2 rates (but herein lies the slippery slope) of say 10 & 15%. NO ONE is exempted from paying regardless of income, & all tax credits are eliminated. So no more paying zero in taxes, & no more making money off the backs of other taxpayers at tax time. I would like a natl sales tax with NO other personal or income taxes, but I think that ship has sailed. We can not trust the buffoons/spend thrifts in DC with that. They’d only add a natl sales tax as a NEW tax without replacing the income tax, & then spend even more. I also favor eliminating all death/estate taxes which represent double taxation, & lowering corp taxes to 25% or below while eliminating loopholes, deductions etc.. SIMPLIFY & reform the whole tax system. & make it fair. It’s unfair for 49% of the citizenry to have to pull the wagon for & support the other 51%. The truly helpless are far different than the simply clue-less, & the clue-less make up a large part of that 51% load.
@Vince: First off, I hate you for scooping me on a post I was getting ready to write. But your post is better than what I was going to write so rock on!
@Everyone: How has a post with a subject line like this not had Greg or any of our other lib regulars chime in?
My post was going to take Vince’s point, but in a slightly different direction . My proposal would have been if you’re on the federal dole you don’t get to vote – welfare, unemployment, etc. Yes, to some degree it would be a poll tax, but if having a skin in the game is important to you that’s all the more incentive to get back into the workforce. There would have to be some exceptions (retirees, veterans), but that was my broad stroke.
My other idea was actually inspired by Ann Coulter. I’m not a fan of hers as she comes off as the Michael Moore of the right, but occasionally she makes a great point. She was suggesting that with the passage of Obamacare allowing “kids” up to 26 years old to be dependents should also strip away their right to vote. I’d take it a bit further – we lowered the voting age to 18 partially because of the draft, but the draft is gone. My suggestion for the young would be that if someone else is claiming you as a dependent (whether for tax or health care purposes) you don’t get to vote. Want to vote? Get out on your own and file your own tax return. Show that you’re willing to accept the consequences of the votes your casting. When you’re ready to do that you’ve earned the right to vote.
That was basically what I had. Well researched and a very thoughtful post, Vince.
I think the progression should be:
1) Eliminate ALL withholding. You collect your total paycheck, then you have to pay the taxes with a check you write yourself; I’d include all of social security in this scheme, just so people understand how much they really are paying, not the “50/50 you pay and your employer matches fiction”. Sure, you will see the TV news pics of some single mom who’s car gets towed by the IRS for failure to pay her taxes. It won’t take but maybe 6 months before the legislators feel the REAL HEAT about hw much they are ripping off us taxpayers. Even those who succeed in getting back all they put in and even more, will feel the heat, because they will have to caugh it up out front, then get it back as a “tax return”. That is sort of like the mugger giving your watchband back, but keeping your Rolex.
2) repeal the ammendment that makes income tax legal. Add the fact that ever adding an income tax or value added tax is unconstitutional.
3) Then institute a national sales tax collected according to the rules of the jurisdiction it is collected. This gets everyone who buys something at retail. The regular people, the under ground economy, the illegals, the foriegn tourists, the imports, while it exempts our exports from our taxation, since they are not sold at retail in the US.
We need to do something about the regulators, too. I mean the reason many jobs leave the US is due to the IRS, EPA, EEOC, OSHA, CPSC, and hundreds of other agencies that bug business operators.
@JohnGaltKS:
Two more amendments: #1 to get rid of gerrymandering of districts both at the federal as well as state levels. And #2 to make it a federal crime with a prison sentence of one to five years for voter fraud as well as $50,000 to $250,000 per count.
We can go on and on about ammendments. The real solution is to reduce the government to strict constitutional levels, so it is not worth much to own a politician, or at least not worth paying much to rent one. Until we get politicians out of our lives, they will be well worth owning so that they can be used to attack your competition in ways that private parties dare not attempt.
I fail to understand why we have allowed politicians to amass such power. Even back in biblical times, politicians were considered to be the lowest form of pond scum.
@Lil: #7
I”m a vet and I get a VA pension haven’t done a lick of work since ’91. VA bennies aren’t taxed so no income taxes from me. I also currently have cancer and I’m likely to start getting 100% service connection benefits, I was a Boiler Tech and went through to yard periods were they stripped off the asbestos from the steam pipes. Am I also no longer going to be able to vote?
Although I do qualify under owning land as I’m buying the house I live in along with my two sisters, they too are buying the house.
I wrote a similar article a couple of years ago; however, my idea was that anyone taking government handouts OTHER THAN social security and medicare would lose their vote until such time as the “payment” was ended. This would include farmers and others taking government subsidies, but would exclude any person receiving money for work which would earn a salary in the private sector. (IE, a government-employed secretary would not lose her vote, since she earns her salary by providing a service.)
Although I was nearly burned in effegy for my “outrageous, stupid and dangerous” comments, I continue to believe that those who do not contribute to the economic pie should NOT have a say in how big a slice of that pie they get to eat.
@FreeDame, Sounds like we’re all on a similar wavelength. I’m curious to what drew so much heat. Have you still got the link that has all of the comments?
Been saying this for years, and I think even here. Military, Police, Guard past services gets you a life time vote. The bottom line, is what the democrats have going is out and out bribery, and those collecting the bribes should not be allowed to vote. Thank you for your service Purple Dragon.
IMO, ALL deficit spending is “taxation without representation,” as the taxes are passed on to future generations who clearly have no representation in Congress, and can not vote. Just because some moms, dads or grandparent’s voted in favor of taxing the children, (many as yet unborn,) doesn’t mean that the offspring would have voted to be taxed.
All of this overlooks the most fundamental point, someone made the decision to spend the money, i.e. Congress. As long as vote buying is the means to re-election to public office, representation is an improbable result as those who don’t vote for the winning politician aren’t represented when the dole is handed out. As a consequence, those who pay the most are represented the least. This is not representative government.
Personally, I have come to the conclusion that the great American experiment in democracy has failed as far as voting is concerned. For a government to represent the governed, the actual governed people who live with the results of their decisions (Laws) must be running the government, we currently do not have this. Who really thinks Barney Frank, Tim Geithner, Barack Obama, etc are subject to the Law of the Land? They aren’t and that means they don’t represent me who is subject to the Law.
It’s time to admit this failure and do away with voting entirely, randomly choose people from an eligible pool for public office and then you will have a true representative sample of the governed running the government. Who would pass onerous laws knowing when they themselves return to private life at the end of their term are subject to those laws? Just like jury selection, pick one, serve one term and then you are done with ACTUAL public service. This ends the payoffs, the lobbying and the political party system.
Obviously, there has to be a provision to include those who’s past service/work lead them to be able to live on the benefits of those past endevors. That is the bad part of taxing “income”. Exactly what is “income”? Why is some income better than other income for tax purposes? I go for the idea that if you are drawing a governmnet check as a result of past service, like regular social security, a retirement from work including military, then you are included as a producer, this would include spouses. If you are on some sort of what we used to call “relief”, then you do not get a vote in how the country is run. I still think that a national sales tax collected according to the rules of the jurisdiction it is collected would be the simplest, fairest tax, not having to mess with the rules of income taxation.
Interesting point. I deal with tax preparation and I can tell you that those in the lower half of the income spectrum certainly do count on getting their Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) Checks every tax season. The IRS has taken over distribution responsibilities for the welfare department in the form of their EITC program. This program has spurred a huge growth segment in the tax preparation business industry. These are the guys that rush in the first couple of days of the filing season and want their refunds as fast as possible. The flaw I see in your rhetoric is that what is to stop these habitual EITC candidates from just stating that they are self employed, to the extent that they maximize their refundable credits (EITC) and then they get their huge tax checks and get to vote because they are technically paying their Self Employment tax with a portion of their refundable credit. Basically, the government is paying their self-employment tax for them. If you have any questions about refundable tax credits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit please visit our website at http://www.federaldirecttax.com
I do have an uncomfortable feeling about restricting voting rights. After the results of the last election in 2008, my observation was that a great number of voters perhaps the majority believe what they’re told on TV, on radio, and in the newspapers. It seems the politicians can say anything they want the people to hear, whether it’s true or not, and the voters believe it! I have to admit, up until recently I have been ignorant voter as well. When I vote, I vote for the person who is saying the things I want my leader to say. I voted for George HW Bush in the Republican primary against Ronald Reagan, then I voted for Ronald Reagan in the election for president. George Bush senior was saying what I wanted my leader to say the way I wanted my leader to say it. But oddly enough, John F. Kennedy was saying the things I wanted my leader to say as well. There’s a point here somewhere, I want everyone to have the right to vote, but the constitutional amendment disallows qualifying people for voting. I see this as detail again wagging the dog. Those who do not produce, therefore don’t pay taxes, get to determine the fate of those who pay the taxes,run the country and run the economy in the country. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, a very wise and famous man once said(whose name escapes me at this time), ferreting out truth in politics requires something other than watching the evening news on the major media. Why can’t the news media just report the truth instead of creating news. I see the problem but have no solution for it.
@PurpleDragon: Thank you for your service, PurpleDragon. Your situation is a much MUCH better example of what I was trying to express. As another poster said, your service has earned you a lifetime vote no matter what.
@John, Illinois: Thanks, John — that makes sense. As I said, I understand the sentiment of “No representation without taxation.” There is an inherent conflict of interest, as one who leeches all they have from the govt will only vote for more. And something must be done about the inequity of taxation; when there are more people taking from the system than contributing to the system, that system is bound to fail.
@Lil: Since 51% of the nation doesn’t pay taxes, why should they get a vote? I mean, I understand your sentiment, and indeed, I have been laid off for 6 mo. now, so the rule would apply to me also- bubt while most of us are hard-working people, there is always a cadre of people, (and the numbers are increasing) who feel that the government owes them a living. Not so.
The government is supposed to guarantee you the OPPORTUNITY, nothing else. This is how life culls the herd, and it is a hard thing, and it sounds heartless, but it runs along the same lines of reason as to why nature kills albinos- they, no matter what they are, are unfit to live in a predator-eat-prey world, as they cannot hide if they are prey, and cannot hunt effectively if they are a predator.
To paraphrase Don Corleone, ” It’s not personal, it’s business.”
The same could apply to the tax code, as those who have paid in taxes could vote for the direction they want their money to go- it’s only common sense.
@Blake: I’m not sure how to respond… I tried to make that point in my reply to John, “There is an inherent conflict of interest, as one who leeches all they have from the govt will only vote for more….”
But there are others who do not work and pay income taxes that do contribute. I gave the example of a full-time mom, Purple Dragon gave the example of a military vet. I’m sure there are more examples. And I still believe that money is not the only way to be a productive and contributing member of society worthy of a vote.
@Lil: I did not mean to dis you in any way- but, yes- a full time mom indicates a father who works, so there you go- and as for military, I agree, that should be an exception, but I still stand by my comments as regards mooches and “entitled” brats. They should have no say in how others tax monies are spent.
@Blake: No problem 🙂 Seems we agree more than we disagree — it’s just the devil in the details.
@PurpleDragon: Under a Flat, Fair or natl sales tax scenario everyone including all govt pensioners would pay some amount of tax/sharing in the burden of running the govt. There would be no income minimum & no exemptions or exclusions. But regardless, a veteran (retired military) would not fall under the category of not contributing, which is the point of No Representation without Taxation. & again, homemakers or @ home spouses/partners etc.. are part of a tax paying team.
@PurpleDragon: & btw, thanks for your service. & so sorry about the cancer diagnosis. hope you’re doing okay.
@Joe R: Yes, this is true. And note the proliferation of all sorts of tax prep ads about fast refund checks etc.. around tax time. With proposed tax reform of a flat or other … all deductions, loopholes, write offs, subsidies, etc… no exemptions or exceptions, should/would disappear. Including ALL tax credits. ALL. Note the following report today from a Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) audit that illegal immigrants not authorized to work in the United States received $4.2 billion in tax credits from the IRS in 2010, almost quadruple the amount five years ago. TIGTA reported that an increasing number of illegals are claiming a refundable tax credit meant for working families. This is another direct credit. It doesn’t lower AGI like a deduction, but directly reduces the amount of taxes owed or results in a check/refund to the filer. The audit found that
(of course) this provides a huge incentive for illegals to come, live and work in the US (illegally).
I hate these ALL these REFUNDABLE CREDITS. They are rife for fraud.
@Blake: Good luck with your job search. It’s a tough job mkt, so I wish you the best. Hope you are staying positive, & network.
I agree. And a democratic republic collapses when you reach the tipping point where ‘more people are voting for a living than working for a living’. (forget the author of that quote) which is the slippery slope; & why Franklin had said”…. a Republic, if you can keep it”. We are in a place where MANY MANY people believe &; expect that the purpose of govt is to provide for their every want & need. And others who do work & contribute their share for the most part, but don’t understand basic economics (nor math & physics) & feel that the nanny state is needed to support the masses of poor/helpless/clue-less people. aka these are the so-called ‘caring’ liberals.
Anyway, we are at that tipping point, & something needs to be done.
@Lil: Yes, get your point. & also didn’t mean to dis’ you. It’s just that of course someone like you is a contributor/a maker, not a taker. it’s not just $$’s, it’s about taking personal responsibility for oneself (& also for your family & dependents). And when times are tough, as caring conservatives we should give eachother a handup, which is different than a hand out. (Dennis Miller.) etc… but that’s all different than forced taxation & subsequent redistribution by the govt.
Which is why (+ the tipping point) we do need Tax Reform, asap.
Everyone should read “Free to Choose” by the late Milton Friedman & “Liberty and Tyranny” by Mark Levin. Two excellent books on these topics.
So here I am paying property taxes that feeds an in effective public “Fool” system while those in the so-called education system always go to the low income communities to ask them to vote for a property tax increase they don’t pay into but I do.
Go figure, that is not right and why should I pay for someone who is a ward of the state to force upon me a higher tax base?
@Mune Shadowe:
Hence this was included in the original post:
I note that poor people who use Housing Assistance allow me to pay, not only MY property taxes, but also, through my income tax dollars, theirs as well!
It is bad enough if you live on the land that is being taxed–at least you get a vote. How about the land where your store, or factory, or farm is located is in a different school district than your house. Being commercial property, the tax rates are generally much higer than for residential property.
@marie: #35
I’m currently under going chemo again and it’s really doing a number on me, makes me very weak and somewhat depressed. The usual loss of appetite and I’ve been using a feeding tube since April there’s no incentive, such as the food tasting good, for me to eat. It’s becoming a struggle to eat 3 times a day. But I have to otherwise the tube sucks in and out of my stomach which is extremely unpleasant.
My idea is a lot more drastic. Anyone who gets more than 50% of their income from government does not get to vote! That includes people who work for contractors that get more than 50% of their income from the government. It is a conflict of interest. I might make an exception for our fighting men. Voting is not a right!! Life and Liberty, supported by property and justice, are rights and it matters little to me how they are retained and protected, whether that be by a benevolent dictator or a thousand politicians.
@Mune Shadowe: Well, it’s that or they (non producers) come and take it by force. /snark/
btw, essentially that is the liberal position, give it up voluntarily or get shot resisting. What do you do when someone sticks a gun in your face and says give me your wallet? You give him the wallet. Liberals just dispense with the gun ahead of time in order to mollify the non producers with handouts.
On tonight’s Follow the Money program (Eric Bolling, Fox Business channel) there was a guest panel about (needed) tax reform including a discussion of the Flat, Fair & Natl Sales Tax scenarios. Unfortunately I only caught the tail end & also need to learn more about both the Fair & Natl Sales Tax proposals anyway. (btw, E Bollling is great. He’s a finance guy & a fiscal conservative.) But I did catch that the Fair Tax – although it would flatten the IRS (yah!!!) & REPEAL the 16th amendment which permitted the collection of income taxes (another yah!), it would tax consumption at a proposed rate of 23%. So a house purchase of say $500,000. would generate a 23% Fair Tax. That’s $115,000. A $300,000 home generates an additional $69,000 tax. And this would come on top of other state & local transfer taxes & fees etc… (And try to buy a house in the northeast for less than these amounts.) The Fair Tax would not hurt the poor or lower income people (who would also receive a subsidy – an up front payment to “help” them pay their ‘consumption’ taxes) , while it would cause a significant burden to the bulk of us – the middle class.
Other than flattening & shrinking the IRS a great deal which is good news on many fronts, the Fair Tax does not look too fair.
@PurpleDragon: I am so sorry. I hope you can find the inspiration to get through this despite feeling so unwell & down. I would also feel depressed. I don’t know what words could possibly help at all but I will include you in my prayers. Do try to force yourself with the feedings & keep on schedule with them because your body needs sufficient hydration & (good) nutrition. I just met a wonderful woman Saturday who confided that she was a cervical cancer survivor. That was many years ago now & she is doing fantastic.
I would like to submit for your approval, as was said on the series “the Twilight Zone”, a quote, from a movie, that was obviously written before movie writers had blatant liberal tendencies- This comes from the movie “The Alamo”, starring John Wayne, in which Wayne, who plays Davy Crockett, is explaining to William Barrett Travis, just why he came from Tennessee to fight in Texas:
” Republic- I like the sound of that word; it means people can live free, talk free- go or come, buy or sell, be drunk or sober. Some words give you a feeling- same feeling you get when your son first learns to shave, or makes his first sounds like a man- Republic is one of those words.”
I submit that in two sentences, this writer summed up precisely what our Republic is truly about, at its bare bones, and this thinking is what we need to get back to.
I believe there was a time very early in our Republic when owing property was debated as a requirement for voting. Then we got smart real and “improved” things thus setting the stage for the cradle to grave welfare state.