Journal mcgrew's Journal: Tax Day 38
The new Illinois Times is out tomorrow, but last week's brought a surprise. It seems that the first Federal income tax was instituted by a Republican. And what's more, it's the Republican President most revered by most Republicans -- Abe Lincoln?
It looks hypocritical to me, for conservative Christians to complain about taxes. "But," many say, "we're not complaining about paying taxes, we're complaining that taxes are too high!"
Federal tax is lower than any time since Truman. So WTF are they bitching about?
"Is it lawful to pay taxes, or not? Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it. And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?"
Abraham Lincoln, the first Tax And Spend Republican in history.
To be fair... (Score:2)
...I'm pretty sure the most revered Republican president is Reagan...which is far more deliciously ironic IMO.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd have to agree with you. Odd that both he and Lincoln are from Illinois (Lincoln was born in KY but raised here).
Answer (Score:1)
Any spending not explicitly authorized by Article I, Section 8.
Any spending not explicitly authorized by Article I, Section 8 is unconstitutional for the Federal Government.
Also, the current "Progressive" Federal Income Tax was the brainchild of the first Constitution hating Fascist American President: Woodrow Wilson. Lincoln's tax rate was around 3%, and the Supreme Court - prior to the 16th Amendment - ruled the Income
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they certainly could spend the money more wisely. I'd like to see all deductions (especially the charity deduction) eliminated, I'd like to see the war on drugs ended (what a waste of money, the drug laws cause the societal problems they blame on the drugs), the Afghan war ended, stupid shit like the "bridge to nowhere" ended.
Any spending not explicitly authorized by Article I, Section 8
Such as? (I'd say the war on drugs fits that bill, the EPA certainly does not -- pollution doesn't honor state lines
Re: (Score:1)
In order to be crystal clear, when I say "fascist" I use it to mean the Mussolini style Italian Fascism, not Hitler's National Socialism (two sides of the same totalitarian coin, really).
Woodrow Wilson, much like Benito Mussolini, favored strong, centralized Federal Government.
And since the Devil's in the Details:
+ Wilson established what amounted a Ministry of Propaganda â" called the Committee on Public Information â" by executive order in 1917.
+ George Cre
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, thanks for the history lesson. As to the "war on poverty" they ended that in 1996 when AFDC was replaced with TANF. It really was a big improvement; rather than simply giving money to the poor, the goal is to get them in the workforce. Not sure about the energy department, but I agree that the TSA and DHS should be disbanded (I'd keep the FEMA part of DHS).
Re: (Score:1)
You're welcome. But please, don't just take my word for it. Feel free to do the research into Wilson's record, words, and actions and come to your own conclusions.
Re: (Score:2)
Red couldn't write a line like that in a million years...
RIP, dumbass. Say hi to Dick Clark if you see him.
Re: (Score:1)
That's kind of the idea, Splenda. I wrote a long explanation in Jeremiah Cornelius's journal, go over there and check it out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you dump the Dept. of Energy and what would you replace it with?
Re: (Score:1)
Spoken by someone who really has not the faintest fucking clue what the Dept. of Energy does.
Re: (Score:2)
From wikipedia:
Re: (Score:1)
As far as domestic energy: No need for (much) Federal oversight. There's a market demand for energy.
Re: (Score:1)
Since day one, the DoD has not been trusted with the Nuclear arsenal. There is a reason for this. If you actually need this explained to you, you would probably reject the reasoning.
Re: (Score:1)
Probably incorrectly parented, but that AC was just a troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you mean like DHS, most of the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the Air Force, NORAD, and every other sprawling part of our military-industrial-cogressional-contractor-surveillance complex not directly attached to the Army or the Navy?
Since Article I, Section 8 "only" allows Congress to fund an Army and a Navy, and since "Common Defense" is in the same sentence as "General Welfare".
But, I've never seen "s
I would object to the income tax (Score:2)
If it was 99% or 0.01%. The thing that bugs me the most about it is the financial strip search we have to do every year as individual taxpayers. It's a nasty, time consuming, stressful process to reveal stuff that frankly ain't the government's goddamn business. Abolish it, replace it with a 15% sales tax on everything, and then cut a check for 2 grand for every man, woman and child at the beginning of every new year, to offset the taxes paid for necessities, and so the poor don't have to pay anything (and
Re: (Score:2)
This is a problem. Not your idea, but where it stems from. You seem to be under the misapprehension that taxes are solely to raise money for the government. If only it were so!
The reason tax reform has gotten nowhere in this country is because the primary use of taxes is to wield political power and attempt to shape society thru that power.
Tax rebates are given to those in favor of the powerful and denied to those out of favor. Want to change behavior? Tax the "bad", rebate the "good".
Cash for Clunkers
Rebat
Re: (Score:2)
What good is a Representative or Senator that can't throw a few tax breaks to companies (aka "contributors") in his district?
That is indeed a problem, but it's not one that would be solved by simplifying taxes. I do agree that tax could be less complicated, how about simply ending all deductions and government grants? That wouldn't solve the bribery problem but it would make tax day brain-dead simple for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Ending deductions is what I'm talking about. It is a complicated, thorny issue that goes well beyond simplification of the tax code.
Until we as a nation have a discussion about the true purpose of taxes as social manipulation we won't make any progress.
And most gov't grants go to fundamental research, which we as a nation do not have enough of. There is way too much foundational science that can't be quickly monetized but is the bedrock of our entire technological advancement as a civilization to leave to t
Re: (Score:2)
I'd give grants for research, but I'd kill the grants and giveaways to the farmers and oil companies.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd give grants for research, but I'd kill the grants and giveaways to the farmers and oil companies.
Keep the grants for small family farmers but take them from corporate mega farms as they don't deserve them. Penalize the oil companies for all the dirty shit they have done in the past. And while we're at it stop this fracking as it's just another way to keep the consumer from buying energy efficient cars and trucks. Sure the gas milage is getting better but we're still consuming non renewable resources that pollute the environment.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, you mean subsidies. I agree.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing that bugs me the most about it is the financial strip search we have to do every year as individual taxpayers.
"Financial strip search?" If you have to exagerate to make your point, your point isn't very sharp.
It's a nasty, time consuming, stressful process to reveal stuff that frankly ain't the government's goddamn business.
Nasty? I've been paying income tax for over 40 years and I've never found it to be "nasty"". Time consuming? Only if you're rich and searching for loopholes, in which case your
Re: (Score:1)
So, you'd pay $5000 - probably less than what you paid in Taxes this year, and you're upset about it being "unfair" that the $50 million guy paid $1 million in taxes?
McGrew, can I ask a slight favor of you? I would like to get your honest opinion on the Fair Tax Plan: http://www.fairtax.org/ [fairtax.org]
As far as "hurting the poor", I'm pretty sure things that aren't taxable today - foodstuffs, etc, still wouldn't be taxable, so
Re: (Score:2)
23% Sales tax? No, that's not the least fair. Don't like it a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever tried to run your own business and have to file a schedule C? If not, then I can't even begin to make you understand that yeah, it's pretty much is a financial strip search and it's time consuming as hell, between the forms themselves and logging receipts, tracking mileage, etc. Computers have made this much easier lately, but it seems to me they're And before you accuse me of being rich and searching for loopholes or something, the biggest profit my business made in the time I operated i
Re: (Score:2)
No, I use the 1040 EZ form, no deductions. But in a business you're going to have to keep track of expenses anyway and should already have the records. That's not to say that they shouldn't try to make it as easy on taxpayers as possible and they really should simplify the process, especially for small businesspeople.
I'll bet Mike Meyer's* taxes are hell, he own a construction company and Felbers. Oddly, he actually enjoys the paperwork (but not the taxes).
*Not the famous Mike Meyers
Re: (Score:1)
Well, what about a tax (around 0.5%) on every transaction through the banking system? Technically, it would be no different than the usual calculations of changes and fees that banks apply to all their transactions, and would use existing infrastructure. This would eliminate the need for personal income tax. Humans would no longer be taxed on their income.
In my opinion, governments could raise additional tax revenue from excise taxes and duties, corporate taxes, etc. while using the choice and levels of tax
Re: (Score:2)
Well, what about a tax (around 0.5%) on every transaction through the banking system?
If they did that, I'd cash one check -- my paycheck.
I would question your storyline. (Score:2)
As mcgrew has already pointed out, filing taxes is only a burdensome process if you have lots of money and are trying to maximize your deductions, in which case your accountant is the one who has to deal with it.
See above.