posted on May, 21 2011 @ 02:32 PM
I think that what most people don't like about paying taxes is the waste involved, which is truly shocking. Taxes can pay for many mutually
beneficial services. Fire departments, libraries, roads, defense-all those make a good deal of sense. The problems arise when a well-meaning
nanny-type person decides someone needs "services" and uses taxes to provide them. This quickly turns into a situation where money is taken from
producers and given to non-producers. As Margaret Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's
For example, in my state (Washington) the state budget went up 80% from 1999 to 2009. Inflation plus population growth was less than 40% during that
time. What happened to that other 40%? The Democrat controlled legislature and governor hired thousands of new state employees, threw money at
"service" after "service" and wound up several billion dollars short when the recession hit and sales taxes dried up. The problem was that
citizens didn't even see this happening because sales taxes drove increased spending. If property taxes had been used to fuel this limitless flame,
people would have noticed, but sales taxes are on nearly everything you buy and with people buying lots of new cars, the money was there, so the state
And that's the issue right there. Government will ALWAYS find ways of spending money, even if they have to change definitions to do it. What you have
to do is create "unserved" populations. Here's how it's done. Let's say you have a library that has historically offered children's programs in
the library. lady librarian gathers the kids, gives them a puppet show, encourages them to read. Good thing, right? We've been doing it over 100
uears. People are generally FOR this sort of tax expenditure.
But now the feds offer grant programs for new and innovative programs. The feds will pay for this, so let's think of something to do. I know! We've
got all these kids in daycare because both parents work. Let's devise a program for the librarian to go out to the daycares with the puppet shows and
a bunch of books. Thise poor unserved children will then be served and their lives will be richer and better! (Now COULD the daycare have brought the
kids to the library? Probably, but Shhhh! We'll never get the money if you think that way!) So we apply for a grant, get the ,oney, buy a van, hire a
librarian, buy a 'daycare collection' and away we go spending, oh, $200K or so. We did it by dividing the population of kids into two and
proclaiming one set was "unserved," even though statistically this would be difficult to prove and you shouldn't look too carefully at how the data
The next year the grant is up and the library is faced with paying for this new innovative service without government grant (tax) help. Woe is me! We
need more taxes to keep this wonderful program going! And THAT'S what Washington has done over the last ten years. They have devised many new
innovative ways to spend our money. But if you ask the average citizen, "Does the state provide more services today than it did ten years ago?" The
answer is that there's nothing particularly better about the state now. It's just that the state pays tens of thousands of new state employees to do
"something useful," though no one ever asked the citizens if they thought so, too.
IMO the states could get buy with a whole lot less taxes because we don't really NEED all these "services" that the state bureaucrats think we do.
Having the state support you creates dependancy on the state. Why are the Indian Tribes poor? Because they have been supported by the state. Why are
they beginning to do well now? Because they are beginning to support themselves rather than rely on the BIA.
Now, as far as NOT paying taxes, that would be 47% of American households today. Soem other interesting stats:
From 1986 to 2004, the total share of the income tax burden paid by the top 1 percent of income earners grew by nearly half, from 25.8 percent to 36.9
Over that same time, the burden of the bottom 50 percent of earners was almost halved from 6.5 percent to 3.3 percent.
The Tax Foundation has noted that in 2000, a year before the first tax cuts under Bush, roughly 30 million tax returns had no income tax liability.
Every dollar those earners made they kept.
By 2004, a year after the second round of cuts was passed, 43 million returns had no tax. It estimates that, in all, more than 25 million Americans
have been wiped off the federal tax rolls just by President Bush.
OK: To summarize, then.
The top 1% pay over a third of the taxes.
The top 50% pay about 96% of the taxes.
The bottom 50% pay a little over 3% of the taxes with 43 million returns paying NOTHING at all.
You want to know why you don't have a job? It's because the $1.00 that could have been invested went to the government instead. And yet you can sit
there with a straight face and say, "We need to tax the rich."