You’re talking about the Medicare tax on capital gains for those who make over $250K a year? If that’s the most you can find to whine about, that’s pretty weak beer.
Everything else you mention is just wild speculation. Obama is not “discussing a VAT,” by the way.
Sharing a toy does not permanently deprive the child of the toy, whereas taxation permanently deprives the taxpayer of the money.
I think I’m using “selfish” in the usual sense, which is something like “unreasonable regard for one’s own interests to the exclusion of the interests of others.”
I don’t know about that. There’d be plenty of openings in the “roving brigands” field.
I love when liberals use the word “access” to mean “the government should pay for it.” It’s a nice little reminder of the unreality of the liberal douche position.
No, it means WE should pay for it. We ARE the government.
I realize that I am wasting my time here, but taxation doesn’t deprive the taxpayer of the money. I may not have the folding cash in my pocket after I pay my taxes, but I enjoy the roads, schools, public safety services, and the fact that I don’t trip over homeless junkies in the street. Frankly, I think the government does a better job providing these than I could; I’d likely blow that money on foolishness like lottery tickets. Oh, wait. The money from the lottery supports programs for the elderly in my state. Oh, well. Back to the old drawing board.
Well, we are and we aren’t, and therein lies the rub. “The government” means the sovereign, in our case the people, but it also means the whole institution through which the sovereign governs, which is a body of people who, like everybody else, have their own career interests. (Like a corporation is its stockholders, but also, in another sense, a corporation is its employees.) And Libertarians and various RWs – and various LWs, too – are always accusing the government-as-institution of acting in its own institutional interests, in disregard of the general public’s interests, and/or accusing the government’s elected officials and bureaucrats of acting in their own individual interests, in disregard of the general public’s interests; and there is no denying – certainly our Founding Fathers would not have denied – that sometimes such criticism is justified, in any and every state regardless of form or ideology.
-
I agree with BG in that this statement only goes so far. To continue the corporation analogy, a corporation invarious contexts “is” its shareholders, its employees, and a separate entity in its own right. You are picking one of those to the exclusion of all others for all purposes, which isn’t correct.
-
Almost half of all US citizens don’t pay any US federal income taxes at all, and the vast majority of taxes are paid by the very top income earners. So, saying that all the people are the government ignores the fact that not all the people pay the bulk of the cost of government (andn in fact, a small minority pay the vast majority of the costs).
I’m not sure who you are arguing against, but it’s not me. I don’t want to not pay any taxes, and I don’t want the government to do nothing.
I love how you dodge the issue by whining about my wording without actually addressing the argument. It’s a nice reminder of the way you have to live your life with your fingers in your ears and your eyes screwed shut.
You know, I *may *have heard that you are the government, you are jurisprudence, you are the volition, and you are jurisdiction. It’s *also *possible that I make a difference, too.
I’d like a cite for what percentage of the budget FIT comprises. I’m actually curious, not snarking.
Why are you always complaining about so many people paying no taxes? Why do you want to increase taxes on the poor and middle class? All you blather on about is how individuals make better choices than the government with what to do with their money, but when it isn’t you or Daddy Warbucks who isn’t paying any income taxes, suddenly a zero percent tax rate is a terrible thing that’s going to lead to the end of fairness in America.
You’re such a fucking egocentric douche bag. To modify the old saying about Puritanism, I now believe that “fiscal conservativism is the dreadful fear that someone, somewhere, is paying less in taxes than they are.”
Christ. It doesn’t matter what I say, you’ll just make up something you think I said and get all pissed at me for that.
I don’t want to pay no taxes. I don’t even think that, in a vacuum, the amount I pay in taxes is too high. The only thing I care about is what the taxes I pay pay for and the effect of tax policy on the economy.
But that stuff is difficult to understand, and you don’t have the ability to understand it, so you just think I don’t want to pay any taxes.
No, I just get tired of repeating things that people don’t pay attention to anyway.
Can you clarify? Please fill in the blanks: “give me a cite for x as a percentage of y.”
Please give me a cite for Federal Income Tax as a percentage of the Federal budget.
Le sigh. What do you mean by “federal budget”? If you mean all revenue of the federal government, then see an article I linked upthread, which said that the US FIT makes up 57 percent of federal revenues, with payroll taxes making up another thirty-something percent.
I mean, “Of all the money the federal government spends, how much of it is brought in through the federal income tax from private individuals?”
Ah. I don’t know. It’s something less than 45 percent because that is the percentage of federal revenue from personal income taxes and the government spends more than it makes. Also, of course, that percentage will change over time.
Google’s free for everyone, you know.
Yes, but he who maketh the claim musteth supporteth ith. So if you want to make any impression on me at all, you’ll have to put your “~half of people pay no FIT” stat in context.
Pretty sure I already have (made an impression, that is).
Here’s a cite for “nearly half of people pay no US FIT”: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1
Here’s a cite with the dollar amounts of different components of the budget: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258
I’m not sure what exactly this has to do with what you are asking.
I think the confusion comes from the way you refer to taxes as “theft,” and call people who support taxes “thugs.” It seems natural to assume that, because of this language, you think that taxes are a bad thing that people shouldn’t have to pay. However, you have since clarified that being in favor of these things only makes you a thuggish thief (or, if you prefer, a thieving thug) if you support taxes for thing Rand Rover doesn’t personally approve of. You wholly support taxation for things you think are worthwhile.
Which, as near as I can tell, makes you just another liberal douche.