You don’t understand. The ditto heads only want an army and police force to protect their piles of money. They don’t care if the society that surrounds them is uneducated or starving or the old and feeble die in the streets. As long as they can drive to their private jet without hitting a pothole then the rest of the roads can be a cratered war zone. They don’t care if the whole country is Mad Max land as long as it doesn’t touch them. They only want to pay tax for what benifits them directly. Now if only they can get the rest of society to agree. Perhaps buying more radio and TV stations to pump out their view will do the trick. This internet thing has people on it who think and cogently argue without being shouted down so it’s not working so well… yet.
That’s a bit hyperbolic too. Was the country Mad Max land when the average American paid 50 cents a year in taxes?
I can tell you what will make America look like Mad Max: a government that spends more, year after year, than it could possibly take in in taxes, until the creditors spook or they have to start printing money to pay the bills.
But you gotta admit, as evils go, having a society is pretty smooth and mild.
I think the people whose lives have been ruined by the IRS might not be so sure about that. And it’s not just willfully guilty people. The nature of laws and enforcement is that the well-meaning run afoul of them as well, and that’s truer of taxes than many other things.
Sure, the nature of laws and enforcement means well-meaning and innocent folk are charged with murder. Which leads one to propose…what exactly?
What year was that? It certainly wasn’t just after WWII when the top rate was 80%. Rich people actually gave a damn about the country then though. These days if you push the rate too high the money moves off country, not that a lot of it doesn’t already. Fine though, pay your teachers 50 cents a year these days and see if you get Mad Max.
We all agree that laws against murder are incredibly important. But we do something with murder that we don’t do with taxes: we assume the perpetrator is innocent until proven guilty. And that it would be better to let 10 guilty men go than imprison one innocent man. That’s the principle anyway, not sure how well we live up to it.
On taxes, it’s ass backwards. You owe until you prove you don’t owe, and if you don’t pay, they take everything. Even when you win, you sometimes lose.
What even more amazing is how much worse it was before Republicans cracked down in the IRS in 1998.
No one paid 80%. The rich paid just a little bit more than they do today, something like 30% I believe.
Do you think politicians would EVER tax themselves at 80%? Thus the loopholes.
Here’s how these things go. Politicians propose tax increase. Politicians of course don’t want to pay higher taxes themselves, so insert loopholes to shield themselves. Friends and donors also don’t want to pay higher taxes, so more loopholes for them too.
Perhaps you are right, the system we have is too obtuse, if we can both agree on principle that taxes are just then the only logical thing to do to preserve an individuals freedom is to have a court hearing for every person for every year whereupon the government must make it’s case and win to charge that individual a specific amount of tax.
I’m sorry. It was 94%. Cite.
I know it was 94%. And no one paid 94% of their income, except maybe Ronald Reagan because he didn’t have the sense to get an accountant. But that was the intention. The high rates were suckers’ rates.
The AMT was imposed precisely because some rich people paid no taxes at all despite the high marginal rates.
A predecessor Minimum Tax was enacted by the Tax Reform Act of 1969[16] and went into effect in 1970. Treasury Secretary Joseph Barr prompted the enactment action with an announcement that 155 high-income households had not paid a dime of federal income taxes.[17] The households had taken advantage of so many tax benefits and deductions that reduced their tax liabilities to zero.[18] Congress responded by creating an add-on tax on high-income households, equal to 10% of the sum of tax preferences in excess of $30,000 plus the taxpayer’s regular tax liability.[19]
It picks up a bit in chapter 2.
My copy came packaged with a razorblade which I thought was unduly pessimistic on the part of the publisher.
I don’t agree with that rate either but going back to pre Bush tax rates would work to balance the budget. It worked at that time. In tough times the poor know they are going to take a hit. They don’t feel as bad when they know the rich take one too. Even knowing the rich pay lobbyists and buy radio personalities to lessen their share of the burden they expect more concessions than they get. Republicans are about nothing but the wealthy and haven’t bothered to hide it one bit. It’s a bit of a “let me explain why you should have less on your dinner table so I can have another layer of money on my mountain” thing that the poor and most middle class not in the stupid south will never buy into.
So if a law was passed that required a person to pass a test in order to vote, I take it that you would be perfectly ok with that? After all, that’s democracy in action.
Nope. Wrong again.
If the Founders had intended such a thing to be in the Constitution, they–gasp–would have actually put it in the Constitution.
However, you can go down the list of what the federal government is allowed to do, and you will find absolutely nothing that indicates that the Founders intended the government to have that much power.
Tax increases, at least big ones, don’t happen, only marginal ones do. If Congress voted for a big tax increase, it would include so many loopholes that it might actually reduce revenue.
Most Congressmen are rich. Most of their friends are rich. When they hear “Raise taxes on the rich.” what they actually think they hear is “raise taxes on unsympathetic rich people, but don’t raise taxes on nice rich people like ourselves and our buddies.”
Ever heard of the Constitution? Taxes are allowed - that kind of voting restriction is not.
Actually, it is allowed under the Constitution, it’s not allowed under the Voting Rights Act. All the Constitution says is:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
To build it? Sure it is, since there is no way of knowing that the people who won’t contribute will decide to use it at some other time. It does make sense to charge users for incremental costs such as cleaning and lifeguards.
Because there are less extreme ways of getting things done.
Oh, I agree. I’m from California, and I know the mess that happens when people vote on stuff like this. Years of higher gas prices here, by the way, have led to a steady increase in fuel efficiency. If you own a silver Prius you can hardly find it in the parking lot among all the others. But being forced to pay for something is not extortion. If $2 a gallon is acceptable for gas, $5 might be a rip off but is not extortion. If paying 10% in taxes for stuff you like is acceptable, paying 20% might be too high in your opinion, but it isn’t extortion.