What I find interesting is that the author is mostly concerned about finding new ways for the Government to raise money.
No options in there for SPENDING LESS, only taxing more.
Making $60,000 last year, I was in a 33% tax bracket -- not counting Social Security and Medicare withholdings. That means, the government took over $19,800 of the money I made in Income Tax. They also took about $6,000 in Medicare and Social Security. That totals about $26,000. I received aboout $3,000 in a return, so that mean
Well, you know, this money the government takes from us is used for something. A significant part is wasted of course, but most of it goes toward something most people would consider useful, even if it does not provide you with any direct monetary benfit. Like supporting the army, or interstate highways, or funding research, or even education (federal loans, for example). Also it is used to provide services to the poor, including paying welfare to those who don't work. And, you know, it provides even those of us who would never need welfare with a useful service. One reason is that otherwise we would have the world revolution that Marx promised us 150 years ago.
So those taxes may be necessary, because if it were left up to you, you would probably not be able to procure these services. Remember, Americans actually pay less taxes than most other people in the developed world.
Notice I did specify INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX. The gov't has lots of sources of revenue, including tarriffs, fees and excise & property taxes. Keep in mind, Personal Income Tax wasn't introduced until around 1913 or so. (http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Basics/Tax/Histor y.html)
I'm not saying abolish all services provided by the gov't. Many services are necessary. However, the gov't is extremely wastful and provides tons of "services" that are of questionable benefit.
I see. So you must think progressive taxes are particularly bad. Of course excise taxes and tariffs are actually regressive. Since everyone pays the same, the poor have to give a higher proportion of their taxes to the government. That seems like a completely backward way of funding anything: taxing the poor more than the rich. Somebody has to provide the money and it is better for eveyone if it is Bill Gates who pays more, because his lifestyle wouldn't be affected even by 90% tax. And I think it is ok if I
"the poor" can be exempt. The original income taxes only applied to the upper 10% of the income earners. 90% of the population was exempt through one way or another. Homestead exemptions help low/middle income families with real property tax.
What I think is the government does a decent job in engineering and infrastructure (i.e. - Interstates, dams, etc.) but does a mediocre job compared to private organizations when handling social welfare issues.
Remember, Americans actually pay less taxes than most other people in the developed world.
In Federal Taxes, yes this is true.
But once you add State + Local taxes, things get expensive.
And second of all, your reasoning is flawed. Just because the rest of the developed world pays more in taxes than we do, does not mean that we are undertaxed. On the contrary, it could also mean that they are even more overtaxed than we are.
So the Great Unwashed are too stupid to pick the right things to buy? An economy of any size large enough to talk about is too large to have effective central planning. There is no way the planners can know what the right things are to invest in based on the priorites of the people they took the money from, and the priorities of the people the money is going to. Only the individual knows his preferences.
If you're smart enough to hold a franchise, you're smart enough to know if you should buy guns, butt
Unix is the worst operating system; except for all others.
-- Berry Kercheval
Tax and Spend (Score:1, Insightful)
No options in there for SPENDING LESS, only taxing more.
Making $60,000 last year, I was in a 33% tax bracket -- not counting Social Security and Medicare withholdings. That means, the government took over $19,800 of the money I made in Income Tax. They also took about $6,000 in Medicare and Social Security. That totals about $26,000. I received aboout $3,000 in a return, so that mean
Re:Tax and Spend (Score:5, Insightful)
So those taxes may be necessary, because if it were left up to you, you would probably not be able to procure these services. Remember, Americans actually pay less taxes than most other people in the developed world.
Re:Tax and Spend (Score:2)
I'm not saying abolish all services provided by the gov't. Many services are necessary. However, the gov't is extremely wastful and provides tons of "services" that are of questionable benefit.
Others, like Social Security and
Re:Tax and Spend (Score:2)
Somebody has to provide the money and it is better for eveyone if it is Bill Gates who pays more, because his lifestyle wouldn't be affected even by 90% tax. And I think it is ok if I
Re:Tax and Spend (Score:2)
"the poor" can be exempt. The original income taxes only applied to the upper 10% of the income earners. 90% of the population was exempt through one way or another. Homestead exemptions help low/middle income families with real property tax.
What I think is the government does a decent job in engineering and infrastructure (i.e. - Interstates, dams, etc.) but does a mediocre job compared to private organizations when handling social welfare issues.
How many people starved to death in the U.S.
Re:Tax and Spend (Score:2)
In Federal Taxes, yes this is true.
But once you add State + Local taxes, things get expensive.
And second of all, your reasoning is flawed. Just because the rest of the developed world pays more in taxes than we do, does not mean that we are undertaxed. On the contrary, it could also mean that they are even more overtaxed than we are.
Re:Tax and Spend (Score:1)
If you're smart enough to hold a franchise, you're smart enough to know if you should buy guns, butt