Quote :

"Income Redistribution Day 2005 Apr 15, 2005 Mark Alexander The deadline for filing income taxes may be April 15th, but the average taxpayer will not earn enough cumulative gross income to pay for federal, state and local government spending and regulation until sometime in July. In fact, the cost of spending and regulation now exceeds $24,000 per person per year. The total combined public and intergovernmental (so-called "trust-fund") debt is approaching $7.8 trillion. Not content to rest on their laurels, the FY 2006 House and Senate budgets will rack up an additional $365 billion in debt. On top of the current '05 budget's bloated social and discretionary spending, there were more than 14,000 clear examples of unrestrained spending (AKA "pork-barrel") projects appropriated at a cost of about $27.3 billion. Case in point: Consider the $80 billion Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief (H.R. 1268). It includes $103 million for the Emergency Watershed Protection Program; $55 million for wastewater treatment in Desoto County, Mississippi; $25 million for the Fort Peck Fish Hatchery in Montana; and, well, you get the picture. Fact is, as with previous budgets, Congress has NO Constitutional authority for a large portion of the FY06 budget. In the late 19th century, Justice Stephen J. Field noted in an opinion: "If the provisions of the Constitution can be set aside by an Act of Congress, where is the course of usurpation to end? The present assault upon capital is but the beginning. It will be but the stepping-stone to others, larger and more sweeping, till our political contests will become a war of the poor against the rich; a war growing in intensity and bitterness." Indeed. For most of American history, taxes were levied primarily on consumption, rather than income, and for good reason. In The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton argued, "It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess." All that changed in 1913, however, when the central government started taxing income. At that time, federal taxes were equal to 3% of GDP and the entire tax code was two pages. Now taxes are in excess of 20% of GDP and the tax code is more than 46,000 pages (including 481 separate tax forms). Additionally, taxpayers will spend a cumulative 6.5 billion hours complying with that code, and due to its complexity, more than half of taxpayers will rely on "professional preparation," costing them more than $200 billion. Government taxation and spending radically departed from constitutional limits under Franklin Delano Roosevelt's reign. FDR launched myriad socialist programs, the effluent of which plagues us today. Roosevelt, by decree, redefined the role of the central government -- and was class warfare's greatest advocate. He proclaimed, "Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle." Of course, that wasn't an "American principle," but a paraphrase of Karl Marx's Communist maxim, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." FDR set the stage for the entrapment of future generations by the welfare state and the incremental shift from individual freedom to dependence on the state. Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev said of Roosevelt's "New Deal" paradigm shift, "We can't expect the American people to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." Echoing that sentiment was perennial Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas -- the grandfather, incidentally, of Newsweek Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas: "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." Indeed, FDR, himself the beneficiary of a great inheritance of wealth (like so many Leftist protagonists), was what V.I. Lenin called a "Useful Idiot" -- a Western Leftist who took the side of the Socialists in political debates). So where does that leave us today? Former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker warned recently that, once again, America is "skating on thin ice" because of federal budget deficits (read: unrestrained federal spending) -- and we are headed for another an inflationary cycle similar to that of the 1970s. And there is no sign of restraint. Regarding tax-code complexity, President George Bush noted in his State of the Union address in January, "Year after year, Americans are burdened by an archaic, incoherent federal tax code. [America] needs a tax code that is pro-growth, easy to understand, and fair to all." Of course the notion of simplifying the tax code is nothing new. In a letter to James Madison in 1784, Thomas Jefferson asked, "Would it not be better to simplify the system of taxation rather than to spread it over such a variety of subjects and pass through so many new hands." Mr. Bush now says tax reform my have to wait a year. As for tax rates, we are reminded of these supply-sider words from a former president who crusaded for tax reduction: "Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased -- not a reduced -- flow of revenues to the federal government. ... The present tax codes ... inhibit the mobility and formation of capital, add complexities and inequities which undermine the morale of the taxpayer, and make tax avoidance rather than market factors a prime consideration in too many economic decisions." Ronald Reagan? Nope. Try John F Kennedy"

4/14/2006 11:03:08 AM

which is the one reason I love JFK. I figured if we could have another Republican like Reagan or another Democrat like JFK, this country would be so much better off.

4/14/2006 11:09:47 AM

Yes..JFK was probably more fiscally conservative than today's GOPers.

This from Rep Ron Paul:

Quote :

"As April 15 approaches, ponder these words from libertarian Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas), who has introduced legislation to abolish the income tax: "[C]ould America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of her history. "Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker's paycheck. "Even today, individual income taxes account for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Eliminating one-third of the proposed 2007 budget would still leave federal spending at roughly $1.8 trillion - a sum greater than the budget just 6 years ago in 2000! "Does anyone seriously believe we could not find ways to cut spending back to 2000 levels? Perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all. "It's something to think about this week as we approach April 15th.""

[Edited on April 14, 2006 at 11:24 AM. Reason : .]

4/14/2006 11:24:26 AM

^ that makes me very happy to listen to.

Yes, todays GOPers are a thundering disappointment. So much so that I have switched my part affiliation (still gotta go fill out the paperwork). I'm an independent now and will remain until a party emerges that WILL balance the budget and WILL make headway into paying off the debt.

4/14/2006 11:26:11 AM

Michael Evans, IndustryWeek.com highlights our tax fun...

Total federal income taxes collected last year: $932 billion. That works out to $6,650 per employee.
In addition to income taxes, the federal government collected another $1.286 trillion in taxes, mostly Social Security taxes.
The total state and local tax burden amounts to $1.14 trillion.
The grand sum here -- paid by employees and proprietors -- is $3.358 trillion.
This works out to $24,000 per employee.
The total compensation earned by employees and individual proprietors last year was $8.2 trillion.
This means that 40% of income goes to taxes of some sort.
That rate, of course, is much higher for those earning higher incomes. Much lower for those in low income brackets.

Where did it go?
$495 billion for national defense.
$272 billion spent by the federal government for the purchase of goods and payment of employees
$1.69 trillion sent to someone else. Wealth redistribution, plain and simple

4/14/2006 11:43:53 AM

And that's a real shame... this country started because of an unfair tax (on tea). And look at us now.

It's got to stop. Pull the troops out of Iraq, get rid of all this unnecessary, ridiculous spending, like 200 million for a bridge to a town in alaska that has 100 people in it...

If I ever became president, I would reduce every single bureaucracy, every program, everything, by 50% for starters.

I will never be president.

4/14/2006 11:48:45 AM

im not gonna argue that the country's spending is a good idea.
BUT, to say that things were fine and dandy throughout the 19th century is bullshit.
go look at how many stock market crashes and other financial collapses there were before the New Deal. Lets ignore 1929, and say it sits on the fencebetween ages. If so, then since the New Deal we have had one market crash, which occured in 1987 when mr reagan was doing "great" things.

prior to the turn of the century we were experiencing huge booms and busts in 5 year cycles. the world was not perfect.

4/14/2006 1:46:27 PM

I stopped reading at "19th century" followed closely by "stock market crashes"



[Edited on April 14, 2006 at 1:52 PM. Reason : .]

4/14/2006 1:49:31 PM

oh look, a circle jerk

4/15/2006 1:29:47 AM

Quote :

"Income Redistribution"

GET RID OF THE ARMY

redisrtubtion BAD

4/15/2006 1:33:11 AM

The 19th century was wraught with currency collapses (the US dollar becoming worthless and all), remember, the gold standard didn't get started until about the 1880s in an effort to fix the currency problems. It largely worked, until the creation of the Federal Reserve (and WW1 crap) institutionalized a fundamental flaw, culminating the great depression.

4/15/2006 10:08:25 AM

Perhaps we should return to the 1800's where children worked in mills, we had no healthcare and hard working people starved to death. Are taxes really that bad?

4/15/2006 10:12:51 AM

Quote :

"Perhaps we should return to the 1800's where children worked in mills, we had no healthcare and hard working people starved to death. Are taxes really that bad?"

Well with tax rates approaching 50% of our income, it may be close to the time where we'll have to return the kiddies to the mills in order to make ends meet.

Healthcare was quite affordable in the 40s and 50s, even for lower income folks. It didn't get expensive and convoluted until the gov't started sticking its nose into it begininng in the 1960s.
Taxes are necessary, but taking away $1.69 trillion just to give it to someone else is wrong.

Quote :

"oh look, a circle jerk"

It looks like most of the country is in the circle as well http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060415/ap_on_re_us/tax_attitudes

[Edited on April 15, 2006 at 10:44 AM. Reason : .]

4/15/2006 10:43:47 AM

if its only 2005

does that mean i get to turn 25 again next year?

4/15/2006 11:08:07 AM

where is this 50% number from?
I have heard it before, but never seen any actual math on it.

4/15/2006 11:21:40 AM

Quote :

"Waluigi: oh look, a circle jerk"

pretty much what I thought too when I first stumbled into this thread...

and EarthDogg, most people always say the tax system is unjust -- it's like asking "Do you support cancer?" and being surprised when a majority says no... 

4/15/2006 11:30:24 AM

Quote :

"most people always say the tax system is unjust -- it's like asking "Do you support cancer?" "

At least they're working on cancer. The tax problem won't get fixed as long as the the job is given to the very politicians who benefit from its abuse. But we're all more interested in sports and American Idol to do anything ourselves.

Quote :

"where is this 50% number from?"

We're at 40% now...but if you have a problem with the figures, you'll have to take that up with Michael Evans at IndustryWeek.com.

4/15/2006 12:07:29 PM

^^
the job will always be given to politicians. always. politicians run government -> government collects taxes -> politicians decide taxes.

4/15/2006 12:11:36 PM

i dont have a problem with that number.
i just want to know how they figured it out.

and people are dumb. most people say they hate taxes, but they also say they want government to provide roads, they want laws, they want all the things (or at least most) governments provide, but no one is willing to pay for it. gotta make a choice.

4/15/2006 12:47:59 PM

I've come to realize that there are way to many people in this country who view "the government" as an entity with an unlimited supply of money and have no concept that the government gets the money it spends from its citizens. politicians know this and use spending programs to get votes. this is why we have no spending and/or tax reform. any politician who starts cutting spending programs is going to lose votes from those who benefit from the money.

4/15/2006 1:21:36 PM

Quote :

"and people are dumb. most people say they hate taxes, but they also say they want government to provide roads, they want laws, they want all the things (or at least most) governments provide, but no one is willing to pay for it. gotta make a choice. "

i have no problem when taxes are used properly but sooooo much $$$ is wasted, one of the main things that i think we need is a welfare reform. i have no problem helping ppl that need it as long as they are willing to try to help themselves. however ppl need to realize that it is not the governments resopnsibility to take care of them. i wouldn't mind payin higher taxes if all of it was being used properly, like higher pay for military, cops, firemen, and teachers.

4/15/2006 1:32:16 PM

Quote :

"i wouldn't mind payin higher taxes if all of it was being used properly, like higher pay for military, cops, firemen, and teachers."

as for the welfare debate, i think a lot of that was solved in the 1996 welfare "reform", but that stuff is probably too off topic.

4/15/2006 2:45:07 PM

Quote :

" if we could have another Republican like Reagan or another Democrat like JFK, this country would be so much better off."

I concur

Quote :

"Yes..JFK was probably more fiscally conservative than today's GOPers."

taken as a whole, no doubt

Quote :

"Even today, individual income taxes account for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Eliminating one-third of the proposed 2007 budget would still leave federal spending at roughly $1.8 trillion - a sum greater than the budget just 6 years ago in 2000! "Does anyone seriously believe we could not find ways to cut spending back to 2000 levels? Perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all."

wow, that's pretty amazing

Quote :

" Pull the troops out of Iraq"

not that simple, in my mind. regardless of what you think about everything we've done in Iraq in the last 3 years, I don't think that throwing up our hands and saying "SEE YA, this shit sucks!" is a viable option.

Quote :

"BUT, to say that things were fine and dandy throughout the 19th century is bullshit. go look at how many stock market crashes and other financial collapses there were before the New Deal"

I'm cool with most of the New Deal...it's the slippery slope that we started down and the Great Society that pisses me off.

Quote :

"Perhaps we should return to the 1800's where children worked in mills, we had no healthcare and hard working people starved to death. Are taxes really that bad?"

You're missing it, dude. First of all, not all of the controls against that stuff is contingent upon taxes. Second, NO ONE is saying that we shouldn't pay taxes. People are just claiming that we are paying too much, and that a lot of the money that we are paying isn't being utilized in an efficient manner. Oh, and the way that we collect a lot of our taxes is a huge, inefficient, asspain clusterfuck.

Quote :

"and people are dumb. most people say they hate taxes, but they also say they want government to provide roads, they want laws, they want all the things (or at least most) governments provide, but no one is willing to pay for it. gotta make a choice."

Quote :

"politicians know this and use spending programs to get votes."

those two are kinda getting at the same point, and yes, that is at least PART of the problem.

Quote :

"one of the main things that i think we need is a welfare reform."

I totally agree. However, welfare is kind of a perpetual whipping boy. There is certainly a good reason that it is an easy target, but from the numbers I've seen, there really isn't nearly as much fat to be trimmed there as most people think.

Quote :

" higher pay for military"

sounds like a plan to me!

4/15/2006 3:12:43 PM

damnit duke. way to kill the conversation with a well thought out and polite post.

btw- lbj =
i think we can all agree on that.

4/15/2006 6:35:51 PM

hey, I'm a uniter, not a divider. Duke in 2028!

and LBJ is on the short list of my least favorite Presidents, for a variety of reasons.

[Edited on April 15, 2006 at 7:28 PM. Reason : anyone ever wondered how things would be different today if had Goldwater defeated Johnson?]

4/15/2006 7:28:21 PM

yes, if goldwater had won, he could have struck down that pesky Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 that he voted against back then.

things would be much better off!

4/15/2006 7:32:19 PM

First of all, the end result of that legislation was coming regardless, and Goldwater, long having been a champion of civil rights, certainly would not have stood in the way of the intent had the details of the legislation been more to his liking.


Second, Goldwater was far more socially liberal than any GOP Presidential candidate has been since 1964. If THAT had been the face of the modern GOP, civil rights causes would've been advanced even more quickly. I'd say that civil rights were at least arguably a higher priority for Goldwater than they were for, say, John F. Kennedy (which isn't really taking anything from Kennedy--he could've been proud of what he set in motion, for sure).

4/15/2006 7:47:31 PM

it was a landmark bill that had the support of most proponents of civil rights on both sides. some things should take precedence over political ideology, like seeing to it that black people can sit down and eat with everyone else.

if he was such a big civil rights backer, he would have seen that the 1964 Act was popular and necessary.

4/15/2006 8:00:46 PM

I don't disagree. He probably should've voted for it.

I'm just saying that I don't really demonize him for opposing it, because I see the big picture. Not only was he not a racist, he was a pretty big proponent of civil rights. If he'd been elected, I think it would've been a net gain for civil rights causes.

4/15/2006 8:03:55 PM

Quote :

"Goldwater said he supported the white Southern position on civil rights, which was that each and every state had a sovereign right to control its laws. The Arizona Republican argued that each American has the right to decide whom to hire, whom to do business with and whom to welcome in his or her restaurant. -- Juan Williams"

Sounds like a proponent of "freedom of association" . If a guy doesn't want to hire someone because of their skin color, it's his right. He's an idiot, but it's his right. The gov't cannot force people to get along and accept each other.

Black voters rewarded LBJ and his democrats for the "Great Society", but looking at todays result of a pitiful welfare state... I wonder if they would be still as pleased.

Quote :

"Al Gore, Sr. did not stop at simply voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In addition, Congressional Quarterly reported that Gore attempted to send the Act to the Senate Judiciary Committee with an amendment to say "in defiance of a court desegregation order, federal funds could not be held from any school districts." Gore sought to take the teeth out of the Act in the event it passed. Ostensibly, Senator Gore was "elated" at the idea of young Al, Jr. going to school with black children. In reality, however, the future vice president attended an elite private school. In the end, the Gore Amendment was defeated by a vote of 74-25. Senator J. William Fulbright of Arkansas, one of President Bill Clinton's political mentors, was among the 23 southern Democratic senators and only one Republican voting with Gore for this racist amendment. Republican Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona voted against the Civil Rights Act because he was afraid the nation would be transformed into a "police state" as a result of some of its provisions. He did not want to throw out the proverbial "baby with the bath water." History, of course, labeled Goldwater a racist even though he voted against the Gore Amendment - an amendment devised to continue school segregation. If anyone in the Senate should be tagged as a racist, it should be those voting for the Gore Amendment. Why didn't history record Al Gore, Sr. and the other southern Democrats as racists? --R.D. Davis"

Goldwater was a staunch supporter of civil rights. A supporter of the NAACP, He desegregated his state's National Guard before Truman desegregated the U.S. Military. As far as the Voting Rights Act, Goldwater opposed it because it only applied to 13 states. If it had applied to all 50, he would've supported it.

4/15/2006 10:58:45 PM

he also supported some earlier (1950s era) voting rights legislation for blacks.

all in all, Goldwater was pretty much the last person anyone could accuse of being a racist, or any other kind of anti-civil rights proponent.

4/15/2006 11:01:28 PM

Quote :

"regardless of what you think about everything we've done in Iraq in the last 3 years, I don't think that throwing up our hands and saying "SEE YA, this shit sucks! Here r some nukes for u" is a viable option."

fixed

4/16/2006 11:06:18 AM

INERENT OPPRESSION IN THE SYSTEM

4/16/2006 11:14:06 AM

Author Charles Adams talks about how the Framers tried to limit taxation by controlling gov't spending...

Quote :

"The primary control over runaway taxation was to be in the restrictions on the Congress's spending power. There is no question but that bad taxes are the product of too much spending. Control spending and taxes will automatically be controlled. The recent Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution is designed to do what the Framers tried to do with Article I, Section 8: Congress had the power to levy taxes "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." The key words are Debts, Defence, and general Welfare. Once again, in the debates for ratification and in The Federalist, these terms were held up to be the final cap or restriction on the federal government. Expenditures outside of those terms would be illegal and unconstitutional. Thus by controlling expenditures you control taxes and prevent the federal government from becoming an all-powerful national government. Of course, that's all history. Like the rule of uniformity, the expenditure restrictions have no meaning whatsoever. But let us take a moment to see what the Framers had in mind. Did the term "common Defence" mean that military expenditures could only be made for defense? That is, no funds for aggressive wars? Did the term common Defence mean that military expenditures could only be made for defense? That is, no funds for aggressive wars? That is exactly what the Framers were talking about. That is exactly what the Framers were talking about. In The Federalist, No. 34, Hamilton said they were embarking on a "novel experiment in politics, of tying up the hands of government from offensive war, founded on reasons of state; yet certainly we ought not to disable it from guarding the community against the ambition or enmity of other nations." The reason for limiting Congress's power to spend for the military was because of the high costs and taxes that are required. As Hamilton said, the costs of nonmilitary expenses of government "are insignificant in comparison with those which relate to national defence." As we noted, the concept of limiting tax moneys for defense found strong support in England and the Spanish provinces. It also came to the New World and found expression in the early American constitutions. In The Laws and Liberties of Massachusetts (1648), conscription for military service (which is a tax in the form of labor) was limited to defensive wars, within the Commonwealth. Looking back over the past two hundred years of American history it is obvious there were a number of wars that were not defensive, but were in Hamilton's category of "offensive war, founded on reasons of state." The "general Welfare" clause was also held up to be a restriction on government spending. It did not mean anything in general, quite to the contrary. It meant benefiting the whole nation. General meant no expenditures for some "special Welfare." You couldn't build a project to just benefit New Yorkers; the project must benefit the nation as a whole. That's history too. "Pork barrelling" is simply a political science term for expenditures that are for a politician who was able to lobby a "special Welfare" spending bill through Congress. Enforce the "general Welfare" provision of the Constitution and most corruption by misappropriating taxpayers' money would disappear. Enforce the general Welfare provision of the Constitution and most corruption by misappropriating taxpayers' money would disappear. The Framers of the Constitution were all realists about government, with no illusions about the dangers of political power, even in the best of hands with the wisest of men. Government had to be kept under control, and in keeping with the spirit of the Enlightenment, government must be limited and this could only be accomplished by tough controls on taxing and spending powers. They all believed that the Constitution they had produced would do just that; and in the beginning — it did. Nevertheless, when they finally finished their work and the time came to sign the document, there was no euphoria over their work product. The philosophic Dr. Franklin signed the instrument "with tears, and apologized for doing it at all, from the doubts and apprehensions he felt." He then observed and predicted, "that its complexion was doubtful; that it might last for ages, involve one-quarter of the globe, and probably terminate in despotism." The fear of despotism appears again and again in speeches and writings, even among strong supporters like Franklin. This negative view subsided with the Bill of Rights and with the strong arguments put forth at the ratification debates pointing out that taxing and spending powers were greatly restricted. So long as these controls were in place said the supporters, despotism would be curtailed. But, we may ask, if the controls fail, will Franklin's prophecy come to pass? "

4/17/2006 11:23:12 AM