Obama's Tax Policy

[husker rob]

i started this thread because i recieved the email and thought it was funny, and wanted to share it with the board. I didnt want to start a political debate on "Trickle Down Economics" or how Obama is the devil or whatever.

 

Every month I have taxes taken out of my pay check (both state and federal) based on my marrital status and # of dependents, and every year during the Regan, Bush, and Bush eras I recieved a refund after filing my taxes. I am far from wealthy and based on what some consider, not quite middle class. However during the Clinton years, I had to pay taxes at the end of the year 5 out of 8 times.

 

but hey that is just me.......now the future gun control laws are something that everyone should be worried about

[AR Husker Fan]

***SNIP***

 

Every month I have taxes taken out of my pay check (both state and federal) based on my marrital status and # of dependents, and every year during the Regan, Bush, and Bush eras I recieved a refund after filing my taxes. I am far from wealthy and based on what some consider, not quite middle class. However during the Clinton years, I had to pay taxes at the end of the year 5 out of 8 times.

That's interesting - two years after Clinton was elected, the mid-term elections gave Republicans control of the Congress. Which they retained throughout Clinton's presidency. And, of course, any changes to the tax code would have had to have been passed by Congress.

 

but hey that is just me.......now the future gun control laws are something that everyone should be worried about

Why?

 

On June 26 of this year, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, 554 U. S. ____ (2008), struck down Washington D.C.'s ban on handguns, saying it violated the second amendment to the Constitution.

 

Heck, the Court even struck down D.C.'s requirement that legally-owned firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled in the home, saying that makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

 

The Court did hold that long-standing gun restrictions remain in place - such as prohibitions on felons and the mentally ill from possessing guns and restrictions on carrying firearms in schools and government buildings, but that was it. The ruling very definately found that the Constitution allows for gun ownership, particularly handguns and other weapons commonly thought of as used for home defense, such as sawed-off shotguns.

 

And before anyone argues that President-elect Obama's appointments to the Supreme Court could change that, consider two things. First, when looking at the makeup of the court (age, affiliation with the "left" or "right"), it is most likely that any appointments will be to fill the so-called "liberal" wing of the court. Second, the doctrine of stare decisis would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for the Court to change the opinion, no matter who sits on the Court.

 

The full opinion can be read HERE.

[BigRedPowerWagon]

I think people are just worried. A virtual unknown is about to get into the white house. And that makes people nervous. Basic rights, gun ownership, and taxes get alot of people going. We just dont know what hes going to propose. And with a majority house and senate its going to be easier for him to pass whatever he feels necessary for change. Im all for tax cuts for the lower and the middle class but dont overtax the upper class. Thats dinging them for being rich. I dont agree with that.

[AR Husker Fan]

I think people are just worried. A virtual unknown is about to get into the white house. And that makes people nervous. Basic rights, gun ownership, and taxes get alot of people going. We just dont know what hes going to propose. And with a majority house and senate its going to be easier for him to pass whatever he feels necessary for change. Im all for tax cuts for the lower and the middle class but dont overtax the upper class. Thats dinging them for being rich. I dont agree with that.

You can hardly "overtax" the wealthy. Between the exemptions and the tax write-offs they enjoy, they actually pay significantly less, proportionally, to the middle class.

 

Warren Buffett noted about a year ago that he paid a lower rate than everyone in his office - just 17.7% compared to an average of almost 33% for the rest of the office. And, as he further noted:

There wasn't anyone in the office, from the receptionist up, who paid as low a tax rate and I have no tax planning; I don't have an accountant or use tax shelters. I just follow what the US Congress tells me to do.

While the wealthy pay more - far more - in total dollars, what is constantly overlooked is the proportion paid. For the middle class, even a small tax increase affects them disproportionately in a negative way. For the wealthy - not at all.

 

And as far as people being nervous - I can't understand that. Obama has clearly articulated his tax plan. There's no ambiguity there.

 

Given the Supreme Court decision on gun ownership, there is little he or Congress can do to limit ownership - particularly since most stances he took on it involved the very issue that was decided by the Supreme Court.

 

And liberties? That one truly baffles me. Are those people forgetting the Patriot Act and all of the ways it attempts to negate the Constitutional rights to search or seizure only on probable cause and a warrant?

 

No, most of this reaction is simply ideology trumping intelligence - people hearing what they want to hear. The information is certainly readily accessible, if people would simply bother to read. It's not that people don't know - they either don't want to know (as it would clash with their ideology) or they're too lazy to look (and it would clash with their ideology).

[General Blackshirt]

Obama's tax plan flat out will not work and several economists a whole lot smarter than me agree.

Ding Ding Ding. It seems that nearly all the economics professors take the same standpoint on this stuff, so why do we never listen to them? They understand it more than anyone, but it never seems that they get much credit for their opinions. Oh well...

 

And also, maybe the wealthy shouldn't be taxed more than Joe-Six-Pack because...say...I don't know....they earned their money more? The raised taxes on people who worked hard in life should be used to pay welfare for lazy people who refuse to get a job....why?

 

Flat tax. It's what is the most fair and will make the government the same amount of revenue.

[sarge87]

Warren Buffett noted about a year ago that he paid a lower rate than everyone in his office - just 17.7% compared to an average of almost 33% for the rest of the office.

Did Buffet let known the fact he does not receive compensation as CEO of Bershire Hathaway that would normally be taxed at 36%? His entire income comes from investments, and the rest of his money is locked up in trusts. He always seems to leave that "little" fact out when he tells that yarn. Buffet would enjoy a higher tax rate to hold down companies that are in direct competition to the holdings of BH.

 

If he or anybody else feel they don't pay enough in taxes, they can write a check for any amount to this address.

 

Internal Revenue Service*

1111 Constitution Avenue, North West

Washington, DC 20224

www.irs.gov

800-829-1040

[SOCALHUSKER]

All this talk of income taxes makes me crazy!! Instead of talking about the differences between the Republican and Democrat's tax policies, we need to be discussing the immorality of taxes to begin with. Theft is theft no matter what you call it. Giving from one person what is rightfully someone else's, is theft. Arguing about which President you payed more taxes under is meaningless because you are still paying taxes. Yes, getting a refund is nice but guess what, it was your money to begin with. Do you really think the government knows how to spend your money better than you do? They sure seem to think so.

 

We need to stop paying taxes and force the government to cut spending to a reasonable level. I don't care what % of my income they tax, any % above 0 is entirely too much. Considering most states have a sales tax on top of it, the majority of citizens pay roughly 40% of their income a year in taxes, unless they don't pay income taxes, never eat out, never buy groceries and never purchase anything else from the store. What an f@cking joke!!

[huskerjack23]

All this talk of income taxes makes me crazy!! Instead of talking about the differences between the Republican and Democrat's tax policies, we need to be discussing the immorality of taxes to begin with. Theft is theft no matter what you call it. Giving from one person what is rightfully someone else's, is theft. Arguing about which President you payed more taxes under is meaningless because you are still paying taxes. Yes, getting a refund is nice but guess what, it was your money to begin with. Do you really think the government knows how to spend your money better than you do? They sure seem to think so.

 

We need to stop paying taxes and force the government to cut spending to a reasonable level. I don't care what % of my income they tax, any % above 0 is entirely too much. Considering most states have a sales tax on top of it, the majority of citizens pay roughly 40% of their income a year in taxes, unless they don't pay income taxes, never eat out, never buy groceries and never purchase anything else from the store. What an f@cking joke!!

taxes pay for things we need. if you're not willing to help pay for things that help the common good, then go start a country that's purely a free market and see how that works for you. tell me when you pave your first road.

[zoogs]

^ seriously dude.

 

put down the ron paul kool-aid for just a sec. there are interesting principles in libertarianism, but it's kind of weird how religiously some people follow paul.

[SOCALHUSKER]

And look how well our current system is working!! Excellent huh?? I forgot that our roads are so great, the economy is flourishing, inflation is down, employment is through the roof and they're not using our tax money to reward and bailout those who fail to employ sound business practices. One would be an idiot if they didn't think roads could be paved or any other "community projects" completed without the government or taxpayer's help. Do you really believe companies in the transportation industry wouldn't be willing to pay for roads and other methods of travel if they knew it would be beneficial to them? You can bet your ass they would!! How do you think the best railroad lines were built? By those who were willing to look at the long run effects and saw how they could benefit from it. Yes, you may see toll roads or some other fare for their use but guess what? The roads would be paved and you wouldn't be paying BS taxes for other programs or projects that you didn't believe in or had no use for. The same could be said for any other industry and for any other project. If it's beneficial to someone it will be done, that's the way the market works. On top of that, all the projects would be completed a lot more efficiently and of better quality if left up to the industries and the market forces.

 

Zoogies, as far as religiously following Ron Paul or “drinking his Kool-Aid”, can’t say that I do. I happen to agree with his stance on economics, foreign policy, following the Constitution and the general direction this country is headed. I don't see how that correlates to religion but to each his own!! I guess when I, and many others, hear the ideas and thoughts of liberty and freedom and we know in our hearts they are right, we try our hardest to make those points heard. Does that make me crazy or religious?? I think too many people are blind and apathetic to the criminal behavior that occurs within our own government and they need to be informed. If you disagree just say so, but please back it up with something and put your own statist Kool-Aid down!!

[SOCALHUSKER]

All this talk of income taxes makes me crazy!! Instead of talking about the differences between the Republican and Democrat's tax policies, we need to be discussing the immorality of taxes to begin with. Theft is theft no matter what you call it. Giving from one person what is rightfully someone else's, is theft. Arguing about which President you payed more taxes under is meaningless because you are still paying taxes. Yes, getting a refund is nice but guess what, it was your money to begin with. Do you really think the government knows how to spend your money better than you do? They sure seem to think so.

 

We need to stop paying taxes and force the government to cut spending to a reasonable level. I don't care what % of my income they tax, any % above 0 is entirely too much. Considering most states have a sales tax on top of it, the majority of citizens pay roughly 40% of their income a year in taxes, unless they don't pay income taxes, never eat out, never buy groceries and never purchase anything else from the store. What an f@cking joke!!

taxes pay for things we need. if you're not willing to help pay for things that help the common good, then go start a country that's purely a free market and see how that works for you. tell me when you pave your first road.

 

What's the "common good" and who gets to decide what it is: you, me, the government? Maybe I'm missing something here but I thought the common good was the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and not having those rights infringed upon. Did some other "common good" appear since the Constitution was written that changed the definition to mean good for some at the expense of others?

 

Also, what do YOU get from your taxes, I'd like to know? What "common good" are you paying for? Please inform me, I'm dying to know!!

[The Ghost Of Henry David Thoreau]

All this talk of income taxes makes me crazy!! Instead of talking about the differences between the Republican and Democrat's tax policies, we need to be discussing the immorality of taxes to begin with. Theft is theft no matter what you call it. Giving from one person what is rightfully someone else's, is theft. Arguing about which President you payed more taxes under is meaningless because you are still paying taxes. Yes, getting a refund is nice but guess what, it was your money to begin with. Do you really think the government knows how to spend your money better than you do? They sure seem to think so.

 

We need to stop paying taxes and force the government to cut spending to a reasonable level. I don't care what % of my income they tax, any % above 0 is entirely too much. Considering most states have a sales tax on top of it, the majority of citizens pay roughly 40% of their income a year in taxes, unless they don't pay income taxes, never eat out, never buy groceries and never purchase anything else from the store. What an f@cking joke!!

taxes pay for things we need. if you're not willing to help pay for things that help the common good, then go start a country that's purely a free market and see how that works for you. tell me when you pave your first road.

 

What's the "common good" and who gets to decide what it is: you, me, the government? Maybe I'm missing something here but I thought the common good was the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and not having those rights infringed upon. Did some other "common good" appear since the Constitution was written that changed the definition to mean good for some at the expense of others?

 

Also, what do YOU get from your taxes, I'd like to know? What "common good" are you paying for? Please inform me, I'm dying to know!!

 

When having this conversation I think it is important to first agree upon a few certain truths.

 

First, taking something that does not belong to you is theft.

 

Second, theft is immoral.

 

Third, the income tax is not voluntary so it is theft.

 

Fourth, therefore, theft is immoral.

 

Fifth, making something legal does not make it right. Just as legal honor killings and the subjagation of women and minorities was wrong.

 

Sixth, legal taxation is legal plunder see Bastiat The Law for more.

 

Seventh, to advoate an immoral act is to also be immoral.

 

The only thing that exists is the individual everything else is either a conception or preception made by individuals. For example, one cannot show a family without showing the individual and one cannot successfully show society without showing the individual. Therefore, what is good must lie with the individual and not be "common." And if the individual gives up his good for the good of others than it must be a vouluntary transaction. If it is taken by force the negation of good is taking place.

 

Murray Rothbard wrote For A New Liberty in which he states how to "protect liberties while paving streets" at the same time. He also rightfully defines society as, “not a living entity but simply a label for a set of interacting individual.” Furthermore, stating the assumption that if the government did not steal in order to pave streets would result in not having streets is an absurd presumption.

 

Streets are needed for trade and commerce, this is Say's Law, a demand has been created therefore the market will create a supply. With competition the streets will not only be better and well maintained they will also be cheaper to produce. This is simple economics that is demonstrated over and over in the market.

 

In the 20th Century alone the world's governments were responsible for the deaths of 360 million people. These are not the institutions that I want paving my streets in the first place.

 

Other people are not our property therefore we should not treat them as such. Forcing individuals to "pay" and income tax is treating them as property. I will win the argument, that I am the person that knows what is best for me, everytime. So please stop treating me and others as your property. The fruits of my labor belongs to me only and not you. I work for it, so I should decide where 100% of it goes. Stealing 20% makes me 20% a slave and the property of others.

[SOCALHUSKER]

All this talk of income taxes makes me crazy!! Instead of talking about the differences between the Republican and Democrat's tax policies, we need to be discussing the immorality of taxes to begin with. Theft is theft no matter what you call it. Giving from one person what is rightfully someone else's, is theft. Arguing about which President you payed more taxes under is meaningless because you are still paying taxes. Yes, getting a refund is nice but guess what, it was your money to begin with. Do you really think the government knows how to spend your money better than you do? They sure seem to think so.

 

We need to stop paying taxes and force the government to cut spending to a reasonable level. I don't care what % of my income they tax, any % above 0 is entirely too much. Considering most states have a sales tax on top of it, the majority of citizens pay roughly 40% of their income a year in taxes, unless they don't pay income taxes, never eat out, never buy groceries and never purchase anything else from the store. What an f@cking joke!!

taxes pay for things we need. if you're not willing to help pay for things that help the common good, then go start a country that's purely a free market and see how that works for you. tell me when you pave your first road.

 

What's the "common good" and who gets to decide what it is: you, me, the government? Maybe I'm missing something here but I thought the common good was the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and not having those rights infringed upon. Did some other "common good" appear since the Constitution was written that changed the definition to mean good for some at the expense of others?

 

Also, what do YOU get from your taxes, I'd like to know? What "common good" are you paying for? Please inform me, I'm dying to know!!

 

When having this conversation I think it is important to first agree upon a few certain truths.

 

First, taking something that does not belong to you is theft.

 

Second, theft is immoral.

 

Third, the income tax is not voluntary so it is theft.

 

Fourth, therefore, the income tax is immoral.

 

Fifth, making something legal does not make it right. Just as legal honor killings and the subjagation of women and minorities was wrong.

 

Sixth, legal taxation is legal plunder see Bastiat The Law for more.

 

Seventh, to advoate an immoral act is to also be immoral.

 

The only thing that exists is the individual everything else is either a conception or preception made by individuals. For example, one cannot show a family without showing the individual and one cannot successfully show society without showing the individual. Therefore, what is good must lie with the individual and not be "common." And if the individual gives up his good for the good of others than it must be a vouluntary transaction. If it is taken by force the negation of good is taking place.

 

Murray Rothbard wrote For A New Liberty in which he states how to "protect liberties while paving streets" at the same time. He also rightfully defines society as, “not a living entity but simply a label for a set of interacting individual.” Furthermore, stating the assumption that if the government did not steal in order to pave streets would result in not having streets is an absurd presumption.

 

Streets are needed for trade and commerce, this is Say's Law, a demand has been created therefore the market will create a supply. With competition the streets will not only be better and well maintained they will also be cheaper to produce. This is simple economics that is demonstrated over and over in the market.

 

In the 20th Century alone the world's governments were responsible for the deaths of 360 million people. These are not the institutions that I want paving my streets in the first place.

 

Other people are not our property therefore we should not treat them as such. Forcing individuals to "pay" and income tax is treating them as property. I will win the argument, that I am the person that knows what is best for me, everytime. So please stop treating me and others as your property. The fruits of my labor belongs to me only and not you. I work for it, so I should decide where 100% of it goes. Stealing 20% makes me 20% a slave and the property of others.

 

Fixed it for you!!

 

Great points by the way!!

[AR Husker Fan]

Oh, brother…

 

When having this conversation I think it is important to first agree upon a few certain truths.

By all means. However, if your proposition is that “truth” is either universal or factual, then your argument has failed before it has begun. For example…

 

First, taking something that does not belong to you is theft.

The term “theft” is a legal term, the definition of which is determined by those who make the laws. In America, laws are made by the legislative branch (while it could be argued that the executive branch has veto power, that is a power to stop the enactment of a law, not the power to make a law – and the legislative branch has the power to override the veto). The legislative branch is the representatives elected by the people (this is significant later in your “argument”).

 

Second, theft is immoral.

Which is ultimately irrelevant when considered in light of your ultimate proposition; i.e., that the government commits theft through mandatory taxation. Morality has nothing to do with a legal definition. A nice rabbit trail down which to send the reader, but a rabbit trail nonetheless.

 

Further, unlike mores, morals are specific to the individual. That is, mores represent a society’s or group’s acceptable conduct. Morals, conversely, are the principles by which individuals decide to act or to live their life.

 

Third, the income tax is not voluntary so it is theft.

This proposition – for it is certainly not “truth” – is flawed in two ways. First, and as noted above, “theft” is defined by the legislature, which in turn is composed of the representatives selected by the people. Therefore, any definition of “theft” is the definition created by the people. Taxation is not included in the definition of “theft”. Second, the income tax is certainly voluntary. It is a law established by the people through their representatives. In other words, the people have elected to tax themselves. The reasons for this are varied, but nevertheless, it is fact – or “truth”, if you prefer.

 

Fourth, therefore, theft is immoral.

This is redundant – see your second alleged “truth”. However, I will assume that you were trying to form some kind of cogent statement along the lines that taxation is immoral, with your proposition being that since taxation is not voluntary and since taxing without consent is theft and since theft is immoral, taxation must be immoral. However, as noted above, each prong of your “proof” is invalid, and thus, so too is your conclusion.

 

Fifth, making something legal does not make it right. Just as legal honor killings and the subjagation of women and minorities was wrong.

Another rabbit trail. The issues of “right” and “wrong” are irrelevant, for the reasons I’ve already stated. To even make this argument, however, you must first define the terms “right” and “wrong” in terms of society or the individual; i.e., mores or morals. If the former, it is axiomatic that laws are the codification of mores; as such, if it is legal, it is “right” based upon society’s mores, as codified in the law. If the latter, it is one person’s determination as to whether they will follow the law or their morals when there is a difference between the two. Which means, while the individual may believe certain behaviors to be “wrong”, that is a personal determination and not a societal standard.

 

Sixth, legal taxation is legal plunder see Bastiat The Law for more.

Yet another rabbit trail. Further, it is just a restatement of your earlier propositions, and fails for the same reasons.

 

Seventh, to advoate an immoral act is to also be immoral.

A nice issue for a philosophical discussion, but yet again, irrelevant when discussing the legality of an act or the mores of a society.

 

The only thing that exists is the individual everything else is either a conception or preception made by individuals. For example, one cannot show a family without showing the individual and one cannot successfully show society without showing the individual. Therefore, what is good must lie with the individual and not be "common." And if the individual gives up his good for the good of others than it must be a vouluntary transaction. If it is taken by force the negation of good is taking place.

 

Murray Rothbard wrote For A New Liberty in which he states how to "protect liberties while paving streets" at the same time. He also rightfully defines society as, “not a living entity but simply a label for a set of interacting individual.” Furthermore, stating the assumption that if the government did not steal in order to pave streets would result in not having streets is an absurd presumption.

What drives individuals into forming groups and societies is the perception by the individuals that the group or society can accomplish that which cannot be accomplished by the individuals acting individually. However, that perception does not mean that the “only thing that exists is the individual”. The act of unification creates a new entity that exists regardless of the individual. Individuals may leave that society or organization, and the society and organization continues to exist.

 

The individual does not, in forming society or creating laws through representatives, “give up his good for the good of others”; rather, he sacrifices some individuality so that he may benefit from the acts of the society or the laws. While he may give up the right to act in any manner he wishes, he does so to ensure that there are laws to govern conduct of all individuals in the society that server to protect him or otherwise benefit him.

 

Streets are needed for trade and commerce, this is Say's Law, a demand has been created therefore the market will create a supply. With competition the streets will not only be better and well maintained they will also be cheaper to produce. This is simple economics that is demonstrated over and over in the market.

Ludicrous. The “market” may create the demand, but it is some kind of governmental entity that supplies the roads. Whether municipal, county, state, or federal, that is the means by which roads are created to supply the demand for highways that are capable of transporting massive amounts of goods from one point in the country to another.

 

If your proposition had even a single shred of merit, it would follow that we would see private enterprises – and private enterprises alone and operating without benefit of tax dollars – creating roads. They would petition their representatives for a law that authorized them to do so, and then they would do it.

 

To date, not a single example of that exists…

 

In the 20th Century alone the world's governments were responsible for the deaths of 360 million people. These are not the institutions that I want paving my streets in the first place.

And yet you live in a society, voluntarily, in which that is precisely what happens.

 

If, as you allege, it is true that “to advoate (sic) an immoral act is to also be immoral”, it is just as true that the individual who contributes to an immoral act is also immoral. You pay taxed, you contribute to a society that is, in your eyes, abhorrent for “killing” others.

 

Are you familiar with the term “hypocrisy”?

 

Other people are not our property therefore we should not treat them as such. Forcing individuals to "pay" and income tax is treating them as property. I will win the argument, that I am the person that knows what is best for me, everytime. So please stop treating me and others as your property. The fruits of my labor belongs to me only and not you. I work for it, so I should decide where 100% of it goes. Stealing 20% makes me 20% a slave and the property of others.

And if that were the case, you might be right. As demonstrated, however, that is not the case. Regardless, if you find it “immoral” or “illegal” (the latter of which is certainly not true), you have recourse, ranging from voting for candidates that will implement your policies to lobbying legislators, to even separating from society and finding another society in which to live.

[huskerjack23]

AR Husker Fan FTW!

 

by the way, we just found an anarcho-capitalist. you learn something every day.