"There are costs associated with living in a (orderly) society. " Yes there are, and I am not against taxation. But I am against HIGH taxation and this disproportional rate of taxation. A few years ago, I had 48% of my gross income taken from me for federal and state taxes alone. Add sales tax, property tax, gas tank, utility taxes, communications taxes, welfare taxes, etc , etc, etc and I probably paid well over 60-70% in taxes that year. Do you think this cost associated with living is fair? Did I get my fair share of road access for 60-70% of my money? Compared to many other people, HELL NO. "Notice, you don't really appear to be questioning the current rate of taxation, but the concept of taxation as a whole." I AM questioning the current tax rate. Im asking for lower taxes after all. But I DO believe in taxes. My problem is with the disproportional taxation, the leaches, and the government waste. "And do you really think it's fair to ascribe people's failure to reach your standards of a "good life" solely to their lack of ambition? " I didn't say soley. Its not the only variable. But its a big one. I've seen plenty of people with real bad starts in life do very well for themselves. I simply do not have any compassion for people who dont even try and simply wait for a government hand out. "And again, you seem to be implying that the balance of your bank account is the only valid measure of success. Have you questioned why you adopt or choose to adhere to this standard, and this standard alone?" No. Success can be measured in many ways. Im simply saying that if someone wants to be FINANCIALLY successful, the government shouldnt be punishing these achievers who attempt to accumulate wealth. My personal measure of success is how much fun I have in life. But the things I enjoy cost money, and it pisses me off that the government takes so much of it away and squanders it on wasteful spending and on people who didnt not EARN it. "Correct me if I'm wrong, but ALL your earnings are not eaten up by tax are they? There is still something left for you isn't there? Well, I'd call that an incentive. " This is analogous to, beating someone nearly to death is OK, because its not actually murder. Just because they leave me with a little bit of my money doesnt make it right. "Other entrepreuneurs obviously haven't been as troubled as you about the level of incentive, as long an incentive exists; they were still willing to risk capital and start companies even when tax rates were much higher." Doesn't mean they like it. They are working with what they have to work with. I'm quite certain the vast majority would love to have some government burden lifted. peace axeman ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The government robs me at a disporpotionately high rate compared to lower income earners, and then gives this stolen money to people who are less ambitious, and didnt work as hard as me at creating a good life for myself. ( And no I didn't start with rich parents, we were poor, no head start for me ). There are costs associated with living in a (orderly) society. However much you may detest it, you cannot deny that you derive your benefits -- in fact, your entire way of life -- from it. Also, I notice you are equating "work hard" with "good life". Yes, there is a something of a causal relationship, but only up to a certain extent. Thinking thus isn't entirely a bad thing, but it does tend to prevent a person from considering alternatives, or even acknowledging that alternatives might exist. And do you really think it's fair to ascribe people's failure to reach your standards of a "good life" solely to their lack of ambition? I think that might be a bit tough to justify. (PS, I did start with rich parents, so it's not the sour grapes of a "leach" you're hearing.) Since your all about "fairness", please educate me on hows this is "fair". A system of government which consistenly punishes people for working hard and being successful is NOT a fair government. As I said, you live in and derive your benefits from a society. Taxing you is the cost of it. Notice, you don't really appear to be questioning the current rate of taxation, but the concept of taxation as a whole. Have you really thought about what kind of a world it would be without taxes? It's worth considering, just in case you ever get what you wish for -- something the old sayings warn us against. And again, you seem to be implying that the balance of your bank account is the only valid measure of success. Have you questioned why you adopt or choose to adhere to this standard, and this standard alone? Where is the incentive? If taxes got any higher, I'd move to a Euro country and collect my massive unemployment benefits from all the SUCKERS who are out there working hard to support me! Correct me if I'm wrong, but ALL your earnings are not eaten up by tax are they? There is still something left for you isn't there? Well, I'd call that an incentive. I take it to mean, though, that it's not incentive enough. Well, that becomes more a question of adaptation to environment. If tax rates were 15% (as they are in Hong Kong, I believe) and they jumped to 20%, I bet you'd still be crying foul about being "robbed". Other entrepreuneurs obviously haven't been as troubled as you about the level of incentive, as long an incentive exists; they were still willing to risk capital and start companies even when tax rates were much higher. Apprently your history contradicts mine, because from what I've read, high taxes stifle economies. And although low taxes are not necessary for economic growth, this does not mean that high taxes don't slow things down. Logical fallacy. I do remember looking at figures that show decreasing revenues with decreasing tax rates. I'll have to have a look. Although if you have something that shows otherwise, I'd really appreciate you posting a link. I think you're being a little quick to cry "logical fallacy" too; it's not one because I never claimed higher taxes wouldn't slow an economy down, I merely pointed out that they are not an insurmountable obstacle. I think we might need to remind ourselves just why an economy is important, why we measure things like GDP. Isn't it because it's one measure of the quality of life we are leading? Certainly GDP is not a complete measure of well being -- the list of problems with using it as such is long indeed -- but there is a strong correlation between quality of life (depending on whose standards of quality you use) and GDP. Using that measure, any growth at all is positive; you don't need blistering 5% growth. Socialism sux. Want proof? Compare the capitalistic countires to the socialistic countries. Where would you want to live? I don't recall ever claiming socialism is superior. There are certainly, I think, some aspects of socialist theory/ideology that are worth considering, and I think it's a big mistake to reject them off hand, but that's far from considering myself a socialist, in the traditional, Marxian sense. (And I'm glad that you used the term "capitalistic" rather than "capitalist", because you (USA) are certainly not employing the pure version of the latter.) [/QUOTE]
That is what I fear to be true. Very depressing. Very difficult accumulating wealth. Im planning on a fun early retirement, but the government works against me very very hard. peace axeman
That was a beaut I have to admit....problem is 99% of the people dont think the way you do....so in short yes incentives are needed ( and not the I feel good about life becasue the sky is blue incentive) Cold hard cash.....There are many Cuban Doctors that are carrying your luggage in five star hotels in Cuba because there is no incentive to be a doctor......same logic...peace
And how about garnishing it with the fact that on average you're (as an American) working 9 more weeks a year for the "benefit". Well, never fear, I'm sure a tax cut to the richest 1% will do wonders to fix all that...
Democracy is a wonderful system, but it carries the seeds of its own destruction. That destruction begins when a majority realizes they can vote themselves money out of a minority's pocket. The modern Democrat Party is based on this simple concept. The original Constitution amply protected against this form of theft. It barred taxes that were not imposed equally. In effect, that meant no income taxes because incomes vary. The original Constitution also was universally understood to grant limited powers to the Congress that were spelled out in Article 1. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, even for the noblest of motives, was clearly not within Congress' delegated powers. Interestingly, the states were not so limited. If a state wanted to enact a lavish social welfare scheme, they were free to do so. But it would be up to that state to finance it. For better or worse, these protections have been swept away. The voters foolishly approved an amendment allowing income taxation, although they were assured it would never be more than two or three percent. FDR used his infamous court packing scheme to undermine the independence of the Supreme Court and coerce it into rubberstamping the so-called new Deal, after the Court had originally ruled major parts of it unconstitutional. Now the good sense of the congress is all that protects us from class warfare, socialism and economic serfdom. Why doesn't that make me feel better? Perhaps the title of this thread is apt after all.
My next project after I finish my new ES system is to build a time machine, go back in time, and bitch slap FDR peace axeman
axeman about 15% of the high federal taxes you pay go to the national debt, and thats just interest, as the pricipal is still rising THAT IS PART OF WHY YOUR TAXES ARE SO HIGH more taxes go to service the debt than to defense look at any chart, the deficit balooned in the 80s, early 90s (70,000 is the share for each family, so you are basicly paying a second mortgage for the 80s deficit spending, and a perma-mortgage at that, no 15-30 year end to this one) I was not of working age back then, so i didnt get the tax breaks, but I do get to pay 15% of the taxes i pay for the debt some say the 80s prosperity was due to this policy? maybe, but in 1984, when things got moving, the bear that started in 1966 was 18 years old - thats about as long as bears run anyway from 200b surplus (dues to bubble cap gains) to 300B deficit in 3 years - a 500b swing being world cop in mideast wont help either - another 100b another big tax cut, raising the debt like the 80s would turn us into permanant debt tax hell
Ugh Politicians are gonna destroy us. If spending is gonna get them voted in to office, or keep them in office, they are going to do it no matter what. This short sightedness is going to doom us. If taxes do in fact generate more tax revenue, why can't they do this, AND freeze spending, till they pay off their massive citibank bills? Better yet.... they should let me pay off my 70G share today, so I dont have to keep paying interest peace axeman
Not only did I read the articles, I lived it. Stockman is a lying, backstabbing weasel. I don't know what "trickle down" is, but it seems like a good description of taking money from people that earned it, handing it over to government agencies and letting them piss it away on vote buying schemes. You are just dead wrong that Reagan left the country in bad shape economically. He inherited a country with 20%+ interest rates, rampaging inflation and high unemployment, thanks to the Carter economic miracle. There were problems from time to time, largely because the Germans kept their rates too high and squelched growth there, but the economy Reagan left was vastly healthier in every important measure than the one he faced when he took office. Bush had to deal with the S and L crisis, which was caused largely by congress raising the limit on FDIC account insurance, which encouraged risky lending, some poor regulation of the industry and crucial Fed mistakes. Bush shot himself in the foot by stupidly agreeing to tax increases. I agree it would be nice if congress suddenly became responsible and began to cut wasteful spending. News flash, they won't. If your kid goes off to college and starts wasting money, you can tell him to stop or you can cut off the allowance. Guess which one works every time?