If only they would stick to the constitution they are sworn to uphold Nothing about half of the stuff they now do
I don not assume that people either do or do not have a 'say' in their taxes at least not directly. It does not matter to me. People do not have a 'say' in their wages, inflation rates, in natural disasters, in property values. Nobody told them that they would have a 'say' in what happened to any investment opportunity. All they can do is use the information that they have, and learn as much as they can, and hope for the best. They choose which risks they are willing to endure and which they are not. When you invest in real estate, you are by definition, saying you are willing to endure risks associated with its failure as an investment, insofar as increased property taxes may pose a risk, you have to deal with it and stop whining if your assumptions on tax increases turns out bad. Now I get your problem. You think politicians are supposed to protect home owners from this risk so that nobody ever loses their homes. You are mistaken. This risk is not sacred. Politicians are not supposed to parse out all the reasons Mr. and Mrs. Jones is going into foreclosure, to see how much is taxincreases, how much iis because Mr. Jones isn't getting enough hours at work , how much is medical bills from her tummy tuck, , and how much Mrs Jones wasted on alchohol and then on her Betty Ford treatment, or how much her husband wasted on expensive cars he could not afford. Maybe those taxes are getting some blame they should not. Those people are supposed to represent ALL the interests in the community. maybe when they vote those higher taxes, they are representing other interests, besides home owners. That's Okay. Homeowners are not special snowflakes either.
So do I. The scary part, to me, is all the people who know exactly what it means and still think that the entities it is said to have established can be restrained by it.
The difference as I see it is that governments use the term taxation to indicate what would otherwise be considered theft or extortion illegal to be legalized by a written law. Our Federal government has gradually reinterpreted our Constitution allowing itself to become the Supreme Sovereign Arbiter of right and wrong Collectivising what was once a number of States united for the purpose of self preservation of each. So, considering the dictionary definition of 'theft', I had to vote "Yes" taxation is or can be considered a form of theft but legalized by law.
Don't presume to tell me why I do or do not believe something. its arrogant and foolish. You are not some original thinker who's great insights have never seen the light of day before. You state an idea, I will find a source that precedes your glorious vision and it will seem as cliché and bookworn as any idea I am presenting I don't think anyone will ever get you to change your world view because your brain is as cemented and locked into your own agenda and ideological assumptions as any liberal's ever was. No argument will ever penetrate through. You are aren't honest enough to admit that different 'propaganda' has impacted you, just as it did every one else here. If I tell you I see that taxes are what we pay, for the civilization that surrounds us and it is part of our conpact to live in an organized community with a government, you cannot dismiss it as an old cliché. Theoretically, 'cliché arguments can be refuted. that is your job and you can't escape that duty by blaming my upbringing.
I agree 100% and taxation of the citizens of each State, IMHO should be done by the States allowing the Federal government to only tax States in "Proportion to the Census" as originally intended.
Read more carefully. I speculated about what was pounded into your head all your life. It was a reasonable assumption because we all hear it our whole lives. I didn't say anything about why you believe what you believe what you believe. The point is: believing something we all hear all our lives is not the mark of a smart person. So, were you going to say something about the difference between extortion and taxation?
Can't disagree. I am not opposed to the idea of income taxes beginning at a level above non-discretionary level.
Even my family live in and around Cologne since 300 years (in origin they came from Alsace in France), no as far as I know my family had nothing to do with Ford company. At least I agree with you, that we are encircled by taxes and it does not matter in which country you are living. Even there are of course local differences, in the USA it is in the bottom line and sum the same BS as in Germany! One difference is for example that Value Added Tax (VAT) is in the US different form state to state, in Germany it is a matter federal tax office and it is 19% (on food, books etc. 7%) in complete Germany and all 16 states we have. Let me give you an example from Germany where the state is holding his hand much... Gas station / petrol station: 1 liter gas / petrol (= 0.26... Gallon) costs in moment about 1,34 EUR = 1.40 USD. Of this price are 0.87 EUR = 0.91 USD several taxes: Mineral oil tax, environmental tax and value added tax! However, as far as I agree with you much, again: Taxes are the income of the state at least and everyone who is whining to pay taxes in general, should never whine when the state is not doing his duty when not enough tax income for it.
Utterly irrelevant question. The tax rates that I, or anyone else for that matter, pay depends entirely upon our earnings. Those that earn less pay lower rates and those that earn more pay higher rates because that is how progressive taxation works. Under the Republican malfesance the 1% are paying way lower rates than they should for their current earnings. You failed to address the problem of CORPORATE WELFARE entirely. Let me give you some examples; http://usuncut.com/class-war/10-corporate-welfare-programs-that-will-make-your-blood-boil/ Why don't you have a problem with subsidizing corporate welfare and the top 1%?
This country must borrow trillions of dollars to survive. It makes me feel the congress has no integrity. It has been many years since I was in Cologne. Hans son saw me post one time and sent me an e mail. He told me about his father who has died. In 1963, we drove to Cologne from Schweinfurt am Main, crossed the river and headed towards the Cathedral that seems to be always being worked on. My son saw it some years back and went inside. I never got to go inside. On that street, on the same side as the Cathedral, was a very large Ford Dealer. It was Han's fathers business. I think Hans told me it was the only Ford dealer in Germany. Hans brother and I drove from there to Nurburgring where we we watched sports cars race. I was in the Army then and Hans was in the same unit I was in. Petrol prices were high when I was in Germany. I never had any person who lived there talk to me about taxes there. Keep in mind we have states in the USA that are larger than Germany and I do not know the taxes charged in the various states. My state alone charges over 10 percent for income taxes and then charges us over 9 percent on sales taxes plus makes us pay taxes to own a home. When the Federal Government starts in taxing us, I think they need to charge a lot less.
Seth, do you happen to know the true level of taxes you pay? Do you add up taxes paid to your city, to your county and state along with those paid to the Federal Government? Are your local police paid by federal taxes or your teachers, etc?
Most folks remain entrenched in the 1700's ideas of self governance. At the time, those were radical and extraordinary ideas that evolved ideas of what government should be. However, it seems that society is mired in this idea, much like many were mired in monarchy as the primary form of government prior. It is time for the next evolution, and this is why modern libertarianism is taking hold. The freedom movement is increasing in following while they authoritarian two parties are declining. Unlikely that the change will occur in my lifetime, but the trend is positive.
Most people would agree to a definition of theft as Taking what does not belong to you, OR failing to deliver value for money taken. Most people don't object to paying fair taxes- they object to not getting their money's worth or being treated fairly. What is owed to government as reasonable tax to support the system is generally seen as legal, and should be. Failing to deliver a working government when that money has been taken would clearly be a kind of theft. In addition- when there are double standards that benefit the collection of tax where the same standard would be denied to normal debt and obligations, you have a kind of theft that is created by the abuse of power. This happens everyday. So while taxes in principle are not theft- taxes in practice often are. Here's an example. Many years back, a sales tax auditor decided we owed tax on some 200 invoices, all the same customer and situation, shipping goods to a chain of stores all over the country. It was an unusual situation and we had formally asked for instructions on how to handle it. When I explained this to the auditor, he asked if I had that in writing- and yes, I did. It was from the regional director of the revenue department the auditor worked for- his boss. The auditor looked at it briefly and say, "Well it doesn't matter, he was wrong. Nothing we say is binding on us, even in writing. If you want something binding, you have to get it on the letterhead of the legal department." So- we paid taxes and penalty for doing exactly what the people making the rules told us to do. Theft? damned right. I've seen it at the federal level too.
There are presently some 93 Welfare Programs that cost $1.4 TRILLION annually. Both the programs and the costs can be shifted to the States. The States are perfectly capable of setting up and running a Food Stamp program, as well as subsidized housing program. Note that some States, counties and cities operated their own independent subsidized housing programs. Each of the 50 States had their own disability program, before Eisenhower nationalized them, placing them under Social Security. 35 States had their own social-security-like programs before FDR nationalized them creating Social Security as it is now. Even more to the point, States can tailor their programs to fit their demographics, economy and geology/geography (which impacts their economies), instead of the idiotic one-size-fits-all mentality of the federal government.
Last year I paid 23% of my income to federal income tax, state income tax, and my property tax. This does not include fuel taxes and a few other small taxes that are attached to cable TV/internet (like the 911 tax) or the taxes I pay for my IPA's that I drink regularly. It also doesn't include fees paid to DMV, or fees for water and sewer. There are no sales taxes in my state. Local police, fire department, roads, libraries, courts, planning, building inspection, jail and corrections, and community college extension are paid by my property taxes. Any capital improvements to our local schools or city government are voted on and then paid by property taxes. Local schools are paid out of local property taxes on a statewide "per student" rate. My state income tax pays for state government, courts, prisons, state police, state highways, state social services, and partially subsidize our state universities. That list may not be totally complete, but that's a general overview.
If you read about the history of the income tax, one of the reasons it was enacted was because tariffs imposed a disproportionate burden on lower income people by raising the price of goods they bought. The cost of things could also fluctuate depending on how much tariff was imposed, and there was an arbitrariness about it that people didn't like. I am not dismissing your idea out of hand, just mentioning it because that is the history. Income taxes can be crafted to not burden the poor, and they are stable, rather than fluctuating from year to year, congress to congress, etc. In general, I favor shifting things to the states, but there are problems with that. For example, let's say, hypothetically, that we were to decide to end federal Social Security and Medicare, and shift that to the states. In order for your state, Ohio, to continue those programs, taxation of some sort would have to be imposed on the people of Ohio. My guess is that in order to provide the same benefits, your state Social Security/Medicare taxes would have to rise somewhat, and here's why. I am not an expert on Ohio, but I think it is safe to say that the average income of an Ohio resident is somewhat below the average income of a California resident and the residents of several other states. Since those federal programs are funded by a percentage of what is earned (through payroll taxes), states where people are earning more are actually subsidizing the states where people earn less. Per person, they earn more, so they contribute more to the system. I do think we should take care of our seniors. They are our parents and grandparents. And, they are us in due time. So I support those programs. So just understand that if we shift those federal programs to the states, richer states are going to pay less for them, and poorer states are going to pay more for them. The alternative for the poorer states is to cut the support of our seniors, and I would never support that. Another problem is this ... Some people settle into one place and stay there all their lives and never move. But many people do move from time to time as they follow their careers and opportunities. So let's say you lived part of your life in Ohio, part of it in Indiana, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. Let's say you've always wanted to retire on the west coast, and maybe one of your adult children has moved out there, and your grandchildren are there too. So you retire and move to say, Oregon. But Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Oregon all have their own separate rules for Social Security and Medicare. Why should Oregon pay your Social Security/Medicare benefits when you have never paid into their system? Maybe they wouldn't. And maybe those other states wouldn't pay you unless you were a resident. It could happen. With a federal program, your benefits follow you wherever you go. So I'm just throwing these things out as food for thought. Cheers!
