For Anyone Who Doesn't Think They Should Have To Pay Taxes, Let's Take A Closer Look.

Recently at one of the GOP presidential debates, a member of the viewing audience asked the candidates this question; "Out of every dollar I earn, how much do you think that I deserve to keep?" I don't specifically know why Michelle Bachmann was chosen to give the answer, but here it is; (I have to warn you, it's a little contradictory to say the least but I've learned to expect nothing less from Rep. Bachmann.)



In reality, I don't think that anyone cherishes the idea of paying taxes but I do believe that most reasonable people realize that taxes are the means by which this nation raises the necessary revenues to meet it's social responsibilities and without them, there really wouldn't be much of a nation here to support. From another perspective, Elizabeth Warren offers this simple dose of reality in her response to some "class warfare" questions at a town hall meeting;



Here's a list of "102 things not to do if you hate taxes" that is a little more specific with respect to identifying some of the crucial services supported by tax dollars and as long as this list may be, I'm sure there are things that were left off. I won't paste the entire list in this thread but here's the top ten and the rest can be found here;

www.addictinginfo.org...

1. Do not use Medicare.
2. Do not use Social Security
3. Do not become a member of the US military, who are paid with tax dollars.
4. Do not ask the National Guard to help you after a disaster.
5. Do not call 911 when you get hurt.
6. Do not call the police to stop intruders in your home.
7. Do not summon the fire department to save your burning home.
8. Do not drive on any paved road, highway, and interstate or drive on any bridge.
9. Do not use public restrooms.
10. Do not send your kids to public schools.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that they should "Love" paying taxes, only that to some degree, they are necessary and that in some little way, each and every one of us should feel good about paying our fair share. The best way to judge a nation is by the way they treat the least fortunate among them.

What about congress' constitutional right to levy taxes?
It's funny how the republicans only bring up the constitution argument when it's something they are against. But when it's something they are for(no taxes), the constitution goes right out of the window.

Income tax is the clincher, its illegal and if you're ever read the IRS tax abomination code, you'll find that its "voluntary" to pay income taxes. Most people pay their income tax for the same reason people pay the mafia.

I think the question was more geared towards federal income taxes. Quite a few of the "entitlements" you listed were state and property taxes. A lot of people want the Fed dimantled other than for military needs and those would be paid through state coffers. Personally I don't think there is an OUT, So that would be like me seeing being a property tax payer...I think only homeowners kids should go to public school use the police and fire etc. Since the majority of state and city services are paid for by homeowners. But that doesn't work now does it. So my point is there is no CURE.

I don't mind paying taxes. But when I'm told it will be spent on x and it gets spent on y I got a big problem with it.
When it is used to murder I got a problem with it.

The purpose of taxes is reasonable and logical, however, I think it's obviously out of control. There are a lot of unnecessary taxes instituted to circumvent raising the sort of taxes that are on people's radar (e.g. property taxes, income taxes, etc.). The problem is that you cannot raise taxes on a populous that is experiencing an economic climate, such as this, that is collapsing with every passing second. Or, well, you can, but it's political suicide (and obviously if you're a career politician, you're going to want to do whatever it takes to keep your job, even at the cost of others). Politicians fail to think logically about the current tax code reform that needs to take place. Income tax for instance doesn't "need" to exist, but it's the easiest way to tax everyone. The problem with taxing those at different levels is that it leads to a lot of class tension and only encourages to rifts and walls. Taxes on lower income families should rise to meet those in middle and upper class, or all brackets should meet somewhere in the middle. The only exception I see is for those living below poverty, but the difference really shouldn't be vast. People operate on incentives. If lower income brackets are paying lower taxes there are more incentives to not work as hard and to not earn as much, and that goes further too, digging deeper into what sort of aspirations you're essentially "allowing" people to have. "Would I rather go to school for eight or nine years to become a psychiatrist and be taxes 30%+ on my income? Or should I go to school for four to six years and be left with about the same?" This is just one example, but wouldn't you want to push your citizens towards education?

Originally posted by outandopen
I think the question was more geared towards federal income taxes. Quite a few of the "entitlements" you listed were state and property taxes. A lot of people want the Fed dimantled other than for military needs and those would be paid through state coffers. Personally I don't think there is an OUT, So that would be like me seeing being a property tax payer...I think only homeowners kids should go to public school use the police and fire etc. Since the majority of state and city services are paid for by homeowners. But that doesn't work now does it. So my point is there is no CURE.

Taxes are taxes are taxes. It doesn't matter whether it's property tax, income tax, gas tax, sales tax, etc... If the Fed reduces funds to public schools, guess what? My property taxes go up to cover the shortfall, go figure. Furthermore, "homeowners" are not the only ones paying property taxes. I think that the guy who owns the apartment complex also pays property tax, (which is passed on to the renters) thereby making your argument that only homeowners should enjoy social services a mute point. I think the same is true for anyone who owns "property," that's why they don't call it the "homeowners tax."

I truly believe that we should focus more on insuring that our tax dollars are utilized in the most efficient manner possible. We must put an end to crony appointments and rampant incompetence which currently seems to be the mainstay of government regulatory and oversight officials. Furthermore, we should demand that federal statutes be adopted mandating actual "jail time" for anyone found guilty of abusing or defrauding any of our social programs. Fines are not an adequate deterrence. (When someone bills the U.S. government $500 for a toilet seat or $150 for a hammer, both people, the company man who billed for it and the federal employee who approved payment, should be held accountable.)

Taxes are inevitable, it's the fraud, corruption and incompetence that must be eliminated.

ok, guys, you are really hurting my brain here..........have you not researched the beginning of the irs and the federal reserve?????? they were both passed at the same time, go on their websites and look, they proudly post when they were created......the federal reserve loans the money at an interest to the government and you pay it back to the federal reserve via the IRS.........the federal reserve shouldn't be in control of our money, the UNITED STATES TREASURY should still be in control of it, but they are not........we wouldn't have to pay the government back if they still printed the money.........there would be no reason for taxing, because they could print their own money.........not hard to understand......you guys are ridiculous........

reply to post by Flatfish

Flatfish, if you don't know what the CAFR is, then you don't know where the money comes from that funds government.
Taxes enslave, that has always been the point of taxation.
It doesn't have to be that way, because "we the people" actually have ENORMOUS assets.
The ASSETS that the federal government controls, but WE own, empowers the very few that are in control of those revenues. It is our assets that these criminals are using as collateral to fund their wars, while they ask us to make the cash flow work.
The individual states have their own assets and their own CAFR. Comprehensive Annual Finance Report. The REAL balance sheet. Through YOUR taxes, the government(s) are empowered to purchase or condemn private property, and reap the revenues. That is called "income producing assets", money that flows into the federal coffers.
What is really obscene, is our federal government does this # overseas as well. They have the big guns, they can take what they want.
Get a grip Flatfish.

I have paid MORE than G.E. and many more that have made 6,000 times more

I am Happy to be eating some supper. G'bye

Originally posted by Resonant
The purpose of taxes is reasonable and logical, however, I think it's obviously out of control. There are a lot of unnecessary taxes instituted to circumvent raising the sort of taxes that are on people's radar (e.g. property taxes, income taxes, etc.). The problem is that you cannot raise taxes on a populous that is experiencing an economic climate, such as this, that is collapsing with every passing second. Or, well, you can, but it's political suicide (and obviously if you're a career politician, you're going to want to do whatever it takes to keep your job, even at the cost of others). Politicians fail to think logically about the current tax code reform that needs to take place. Income tax for instance doesn't "need" to exist, but it's the easiest way to tax everyone. The problem with taxing those at different levels is that it leads to a lot of class tension and only encourages to rifts and walls. Taxes on lower income families should rise to meet those in middle and upper class, or all brackets should meet somewhere in the middle. The only exception I see is for those living below poverty, but the difference really shouldn't be vast. People operate on incentives. If lower income brackets are paying lower taxes there are more incentives to not work as hard and to not earn as much, and that goes further too, digging deeper into what sort of aspirations you're essentially "allowing" people to have. "Would I rather go to school for eight or nine years to become a psychiatrist and be taxes 30%+ on my income? Or should I go to school for four to six years and be left with about the same?" This is just one example, but wouldn't you want to push your citizens towards education?

Your argument could also be used in reverse; The more social services that are available, the more incentive there is for corporations to under-pay their employees and forgo providing necessary benefits like health insurance. I seem to remember Walmart having the largest number of full time employees who qualified for welfare, of any employer in the nation.

I would Only be in favor of raising taxes on lower income families IF, AND ONLY IF, we first demand that every employer across this nation pay a "Living Wage" and benefit package. The only thing I know for sure is that no matter what a person chooses as their career path, if it doesn't provide the necessary benefits to sustain them, both now and in retirement, then someone else does. If we expect for people to "pay their own way" then we should demand that their employers do the same.

Originally posted by SirClem
reply to post by Flatfish

 

The ASSETS that the federal government controls, but WE own, empowers the very few that are in control of those revenues. It is our assets that these criminals are using as collateral to fund their wars, while they ask us to make the cash flow work.

It would seem apparent to me that the key word in the above statement is "criminals." I have a hard time understanding just how the tax dollars and/or assets are inherently evil. IMO, It's the "criminal" element within the structure that needs to be eliminated, not the revenue source.

The individual states have their own assets and their own CAFR. Comprehensive Annual Finance Report. The REAL balance sheet. Through YOUR taxes, the government(s) are empowered to purchase or condemn private property, and reap the revenues. That is called "income producing assets", money that flows into the federal coffers.

This sounds like you're describing government acquisition of private property via condemnation under the "eminent domain" clause of the constitution. In it's original form, eminent domain clauses in the constitution served a vital role in the acquisition of property for "public use." How else should the government acquire private property for the construction of "public use" projects like interstate highways, bridges, dams, schools, military installations, etc...?

James Maddison was very specific in his choice of language while writing the 5th amendment to the constitution and it wasn't until G.W. Bush issued executive order no.13406, where he specifically changed the language, that eminent domain was perverted and thus became a tool to acquire private property for the development of private enterprise and/or profit.

en.wikipedia.org...

The practice of condemnation was transplanted into the American colonies with the common law. In the early years, unimproved land could be taken without compensation; this practice was accepted because land was so abundant that it could be cheaply replaced. When it came time to draft the United States Constitution, differing views on eminent domain were voiced. Thomas Jefferson favored eliminating all remnants of feudalism, and pushed for allodial ownership.[2] James Madison, who wrote the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, had a more moderate view, and struck a compromise that sought to at least protect property rights somewhat by explicitly mandating compensation and using the term "public use" rather than "public purpose", "public interest", or "public benefit".[3]

On June 23, 2006, the first anniversary of the Kelo decision (see above), President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13406 which stated in Section I that the federal government must limit its use of taking private property for "public use" with "just compensation", which is also stated in the constitution, for the "purpose of benefiting the general public." The order limits this use by stating that it may not be used "for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken".[15] However, eminent domain is more often exercised by local and state governments, albeit often with funds obtained from the federal government.

All I can say is that I would welcome the problem of having to pay a million dollars a year, or more, in taxes! If I were paying that much in taxes, I must have grossed a hell of a lot more than that, so I'd just bet there would be plenty left over for me.

This whole topic is so blurry in our culture.

Consider public services as products (= education).
Consider public service providers as wholesalers (= schools).
Consider the federal system as both the lending system (as we know the banks and politicians are all but synonymous), and also the re-sellers (= federal education programs).

It makes absolutely no sense to pay the federal government to redistribute money to local services. They take their cut as the re-sellers and we immediately are losing a massive percentage of our value. We should be paying schools directly for services rendered. Again, we should be paying wholesale prices to wholesalers instead of paying strangers in a far away place to facilitate things that they can't possibly understand and manage well.

Taxes or no taxes is a straw man within a civilized and highly populated culture. This has been the case for thousands of years.
The true issue is how to responsibly facilitate the process so that there is less evaporation. "Evaporation?," you might ask. Consider money like water... if you send it to D.C from California, only to have it go back and distributed out, you have lost a lot of water/money to evaporation. In reality, this evaporation takes the form of paying for federal systems, crony capitalism (as opposed to free-market capitalism), and a perverted (even if well intended) attempt at social welfare systems.

So then, how to resolve this? Pay taxes in the same way that our voting system was intended to work. Pay only local taxes, which then are distributed to "higher" and "stranger" systems as needed by local systems. Certainly some national programs would still exist, and I can even imagine new national programs which would be helpful. For example, cross state motor vehicle license database access. And this is a good example to point out that these "high" systems which are far removed from personal communion are relatively cheap to implement vs the brick and mortar operations provided by local DMVs. However, in our current society, we would expect to get ganked by the fed since the process would be facilitated in reversed/perverted order.


So, again, your opening post is quite hyperbolic (as is not paying taxes at all, in our post-caveman time) and negates a real discussion as to how we can and should facilitate important social services through appropriate and limited taxation. This should not lead us to trivialize the hyperbolic acts of supporting a failing federal tax system or refusing to pay taxes at all as these unctions both bring to light important factors regarding our daily needs which go beyond personal hygiene and personal belongings. It is unhealthy and irreverent to to suggest that "a tax is a tax." The facilitation of a tax is highly important. Let the Great Pacific Garbage Patch be an example and proof of my point that systems which are guided by those who do not care result in a buildup that eventually cannot be ignored. We are not just figuratively living in our filth, we are literally trashing our home and it seems that most people can only bicker. What a craptastic thing to think about.

reply to post by Dasher


Please read my post very carefully. I choose my words very specifically and the ideas I am trying to convey are very precise. Nevertheless, for those vulgar minds which cannot follow healthy rhetoric:
Local taxes should trickle up to national needs. National taxes are a perversion of monetary flow, as though your blood is pumped by your feet and hands instead of your heart.

Originally posted by Dasher
reply to post by Dasher

 

Please read my post very carefully. I choose my words very specifically and the ideas I am trying to convey are very precise. Nevertheless, for those vulgar minds which cannot follow healthy rhetoric:
Local taxes should trickle up to national needs. National taxes are a perversion of monetary flow, as though your blood is pumped by your feet and hands instead of your heart.

you are still not getting it....your taxes do not go to local or federal levels, they get sent back to the federal reserve through the irs.....the local governments get their money from state, who in turn gets their's from federal government, the federal government get's the money from borrowing from the federal reserve at an interst rate....you are paying on the interest, your money isn't even touching the principle.....if the treasury was printing the money and not borrowing from a private bank that calls itself the federal reserve, you wouldn't have to pay taxes at all and things would still get payed for......you guys are being fooled into paying "your fair share" to these loan sharks called the federal reserve.......

reply to post by Flatfish


With the exception of 1-4, the others are at the local level. So, using the others in the argument of Fed Taxes is void.
Now, again, the question is simple. How much more does the individual have to pay?
Of it were only for 1-4, then taxes would be lower. But, they are not. The Fed taxes income and purchases.
They get to take a portion from the individual.

Why do I need to pay for others to live?
Where does the Govt and the members get the idea that it is ok to take from me to provide for others.
How much is too much?
How much should I be allowed to keep, from what I earned? You did not do my work. The Govt did not do my work. You and the Govt are not entitled to benefits or rewards of my work.
That is called plunder.
Or theft outside the Govt circle.

reply to post by patternfinder


Your post is moot as you clearly did not understand what I was communicating.
You are only serving to obfuscate the ideas I am sharing. Please be more careful in the future.

Re-read my posts carefully and you will see that the resolution I offer would necessarily cut out and dry up the Federal Reserve.

1. Do not use Medicare.
2. Do not use Social Security
3. Do not become a member of the US military, who are paid with tax dollars.
4. Do not ask the National Guard to help you after a disaster.
5. Do not call 911 when you get hurt.
6. Do not call the police to stop intruders in your home.
7. Do not summon the fire department to save your burning home.
8. Do not drive on any paved road, highway, and interstate or drive on any bridge.
9. Do not use public restrooms.
10. Do not send your kids to public schools.

The fact that the majority of your taxes dont go to pay for any of these things aside (because if people choose to ignore that fact there isnt anything I can about it) let's look at how many of these listed alleged uses of my tax dollars I use and which ones I use by choice and which ones I am forced at gun point to use.

SS and Medicare I am forced at gun point to participate in.
Don't join the military? Why the hell anyone would I'll never know.
National Guard to help me? I lived through one disaster they could have helped with. I finished fixing things on my street and property myself days before they ever arrived. Can I get a refund for that?
No 911/cops or fire? Fine by me. The times I've interacted with either havent exactly inspired confidence. Nevermind the fact that should I call them it will take them nearly half an hour to get to me so can I get a refund for that too?

Roadways, huh? Seeing as how there is a gun to my head to collect property tax forcing me to participate in commerce to earn an income which forces me out onto those roads they can't rationally and honestly expect me to be happy to use a thing I use in protest to meet a demand they externally forced upon my person can they? Sure they can. They're government!

Ive never used a public restroom. I wouldnt know where to find one around here.

If I had kids they sure as hell wouldnt be going to a public school.

Why should be paying these taxes again?

Originally posted by Dasher
reply to post by patternfinder

 

Your post is moot as you clearly did not understand what I was communicating.
You are only serving to obfuscate the ideas I am sharing. Please be more careful in the future.

Re-read my posts carefully and you will see that the resolution I offer would necessarily cut out and dry up the Federal Reserve.

i'm looking at this part of your post

only that to some degree, they are necessary and that in some little way, each and every one of us should feel good about paying our fair share.

and i'm calling hogwash....i'm not obfuscating anything, i'm sincerely saying that we wouldn't have to pay these taxes if we didn't have the federal reserve and paying these taxes is not a "patriotic" thing to do......we shouldn't have to worry about paying our "fair share" because we are already paying it by participating in society already.....

reply to post by patternfinder


You are entirely confused as I did not say anything like the second quote.
Again, my post clearly defines a method which would help to resolve unnecessary taxes and would eliminate a lot of "fat" in national systems.

I am unsure of why you are failing to see that my posts are in accord with what you are saying in brief, you are obviously confused, but now I am concerned that you are playing the part for the sake of misdirection. I hope that is not the case.