Right Thinking From The Left Coast
Freedom of Press is limited to those who own one - H.L. Mencken

Truth to power

I know the left loves to tell us all how the rich never pay their fair share, usually right before they tell us they plan to fleece them to increase government’s power and control of our lives under the guise of some do-good collectivist right or benefit, but the facts speak for themselves. The most popular leftists/statists line these days is how the rich, and especially that top 1%, don’t pay their fair share in taxes.

Newly released data from the IRS clearly debunks the conventional Beltway rhetoric that the “rich” are not paying their fair share of taxes. Indeed, the IRS data shows that in 2007—the most recent data available—the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. This is the highest percentage in modern history. By contrast, the top 1 percent paid 24.8 percent of the income tax burden in 1987, the year following the 1986 tax reform act.

Remarkably, the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined. In 2007, the bottom 95 percent paid 39.4 percent of the income tax burden. This is down from the 58 percent of the total income tax burden they paid twenty years ago. To put this in perspective, the top 1 percent is comprised of just 1.4 million taxpayers and they pay a larger share of the income tax burden now than the bottom 134 million taxpayers combined.

Some in Washington say the tax system is still not progressive enough. However, the recent IRS data bolsters the findings of an OECD study released last year showing that the U.S.—not France or Sweden—has the most progressive income tax system among OECD nations. We rely more heavily on the top 10 percent of taxpayers than does any nation and our poor people have the lowest tax burden of those in any nation. We are definitely overdue for some honesty in the debate over the progressivity of the nation’s tax burden before lawmakers enact any new taxes to pay for expanded health care.

Read that line I bolded, and read it twice please progressives. And here is the graph in case you are too lazy to click the link:image

Yeah, the data ends in 2007 (who was president as this trend materialized BTW you libs), but my guess is that as the 2008 and 2009 numbers come out, the difference will be even bigger. There is a disproportionate tax burden here, but unlike what the progressives tell us every time they open their mouth to complain about evil America, capitalism, and Bush-Hitler, it isn’t the way they want us to think it goes. If the 95% lowest income people paid 39.5% of the taxes in 2007, that number is from the IRS itself BTW, that means that the remaining 5%, the evil rich the progressives blame for their lot and so long to soak even harder, already are paying 60% of the taxes collected by the IRS. My guess is progressives would not be happy until that number was around 95% though.

Cross posted at Wasting time with Alex

Posted by AlexinCT on 07/31/09 at 01:36 PM (Discuss this in the forums)

Comments


Posted by salinger on 07/31/09 at 04:03 PM from United States

I wonder how the curve of the growing disparity between the high and lows of income would overlay this?

Think maybe the redistribution of wealth to the upper one percenters has anything to do with this?

And what a wonderful weasle word “Tax Burden” as opposed to “Income Taxes”.

Of course people who spend more are going to be taxed more. What do you think the sales tax on a private jet is?

As Mark Twain said, “There are three types of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics.”

Pretty shallow analysis.

Posted by on 07/31/09 at 04:13 PM from United States

I wonder how the curve of the growing disparity between the high and lows of income would overlay this?

Spoken like a true marxist.  Middle class these days is quite well off, don’t let the rhetoric blind you to reality.

Think maybe the redistribution of wealth to the upper one percenters has anything to do with this?

Meaning what?  That they “stole” it from others or some such BS?

And what a wonderful weasle word “Tax Burden” as opposed to “Income Taxes”.

Welcome to the world of politics.  But, considering that “tax burden” has been in the vernacular for decades, you don’t really have a point.

Of course people who spend more are going to be taxed more. What do you think the sales tax on a private jet is?

As someone in the top 5%, I’d like to know where my “private jet” is.  I still fly coach.  The people that have their own jets tend to be a lot higher up the totem pole than you seem to think.

As Mark Twain said, “There are three types of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics.”

True enough, but you seem to forget which side to apply that to.

Pretty shallow analysis.

I agree, your analysis was very shallow....

Posted by salinger on 07/31/09 at 04:19 PM from United States

As someone in the top 5%,

Top 5% ain’t shit.

You wouldn’t rate to scrape doggie doo from the heel of a one percenter. Which is why I called out the top 1%. There is an awlfully big difference - but you can dream.

Posted by on 07/31/09 at 04:38 PM from Germany

True enough, but you seem to forget which side to apply that to.

All sides ...

Posted by on 07/31/09 at 04:41 PM from United States

I agree that the midea that the rich don’t pay their fair share is crap, but I would like to see a couple of other charts alongside this.  One that includes social security and medicare; one that includes overall taxes (including state and local); and finally one that shows share of national wealth.  Unless things have changed drastiacally in a few years I am sure that the top 1% doesn’t control 40% of the wealth.

Posted by on 07/31/09 at 04:42 PM from United States

Oh and how much income does it take to be in the top 1%?  I assume this is income and not assets.

Posted by salinger on 07/31/09 at 05:09 PM from United States

Unless things have changed drastiacally in a few years I am sure that the top 1% doesn’t control 40% of the wealth.

You’re right - in 2004 they had 42%.

Posted by on 07/31/09 at 05:16 PM from Germany

Yeah, I have to question the findings of this too. At first glance, it appears to show exactly what whoever made the graph wants it to say - that taxes on the rich are unfair.

But without comparing it to the percentage of overall earnings, and the increased disparities between top and bottom earnings, it actually means nothing at all.

In fact taxes for the bottom quintile could actually have substantially increased over the time period (just as an example), and your graph could still show the same results.

Posted by AlexinCT on 07/31/09 at 05:25 PM from United States

Think maybe the redistribution of wealth to the upper one percenters has anything to do with this?

Ah yes! More of the usual class warfare BS. I know leftists/collectivist twits believe, well the certainly constantly say or insinuate thusly, that rich people only get rich by stealing from the poor, but for once I would like this concept worked out and explained to me. Ask even the dumbest crook if it is better to rob the bank or rob a dozen dives, and I am sure they will all come down on the side of the banks. Personally I have never figured out how taking anything from people that have nothing makes one rich. And considering I managed to get myself a masters in EE (minor in AE), speak 7 languages, have traveled the world, and have never had trouble understanding most things – why anyone believes collectivism will work or is a good thing considering it has never worked and goes directly against the most important natural selection science (survival of the fittest), still baffles me – but still can not figure this dichotomy out. Anyway. I have never been given a job by a poor person either.

If tomorrow we could magically redistribute the world’s wealth equally, I guarantee you that b the end of the week the people we would have the same people that are poor today poor again. People are practically always poor, not because life is unjust or someone stole from them, but because they have a tendency to make bad decisions/choices.

There are three simple rules that guarantee everyone a shot at success:

1) Get a real education. High school doesn’t hack it anymore. And a soft degree is going to disappoint you. You might think it very important that you get to spend $140K getting a degree in “French literature and poetry of the 14th century” or “Womyn’s studies”, but in the real world those degrees are worthless.

2) Do not make kids until you can financially support them.

3) Find someone with similar values to marry, work hard, and don’t do stupid things.

Some people have genius and the magic ability to turn a turd into gold. Most people, and especially collectivists, are only able to turn gold into turds. Hence the need to punish the once that do better than them salinger.

BTW, the really rich, those that are loaded and have over $20 million of worth, tend to skew towards the democrat party by nearly a 10 to 1 ratio. With that kind of cash you can always find a democrat that will add some nice loophole for you or put in some legislation to squash your competition. People trying to make that first million or under $10 in worth tend to go the other way. See the rigged game yet?

Of course people who spend more are going to be taxed more. What do you think the sales tax on a private jet is?

So salinger, all this time that they have been hammering me with these massive and ridiculous federal (forget state for now) income taxes, all I had to do was spend like I made $20K a year to keep my hard earned cash?

Posted by AlexinCT on 07/31/09 at 05:27 PM from United States

Oh and how much income does it take to be in the top 1%?  I assume this is income and not assets.

While many of the really rich try their best not to have an income, the return on their assets can only be hidden for so long. Sooner or later they pay taxes or lose wealth.

Posted by salinger on 07/31/09 at 05:35 PM from United States

So salinger, all this time that they have been hammering me with these massive and ridiculous federal (forget state for now) income taxes, all I had to do was spend like I made $20K a year to keep my hard earned cash?

Uh - what?

What is hard to understand about the more you spend the more you pay in sales tax? My point was that the chart calls out some nebulous tax burden not income tax. I am postulating that sales tax would fall into the category of burden.

So, yes if you spent like you made 20,000 dollars a year you would pay the same sales taxes as anyone else who spent the same amount (local tax differences and investments aside.)

Oh - and if you don’t want to pay high federal taxes quit working for other people - ‘cause if you’re working for yourself and still complaining you are doing something really wrong.

Posted by AlexinCT on 07/31/09 at 05:36 PM from United States

But without comparing it to the percentage of overall earnings, and the increased disparities between top and bottom earnings, it actually means nothing at all.

More collectivist BS. Why is it that every collectivist is so envious/jealous of how much the other guy has? How about we focus on the fact that the bottom earners have seen the largest increase in their income come from the fact that the rich saw their wealth increase? In fact our standard of living has increased the most precisely because of the growth of wealth driven by these “evil” rich people

In fact taxes for the bottom quintile could actually have substantially increased over the time period (just as an example), and your graph could still show the same results.

You might have missed it, it was mentioned in the article I linked, but in this country the bottom quintile, thanks to Bush mind you, do not even pay taxes.

It is becoming obvious to me that the kool-aid drinkers seem to no longer like this particular statistic because it no longer helps them make their argument that it is OK to fleece the rich. From the obvious comments made by those that are no ready to dismiss this in favor of some new criteria that will allow them to go on stealing from the productive, you know.

Posted by AlexinCT on 07/31/09 at 05:43 PM from United States

What is hard to understand about the more you spend the more you pay in sales tax? My point was that the chart calls out some nebulous tax burden not income tax. I am postulating that sales tax would fall into the category of burden.

So, yes if you spent like you made 20,000 dollars a year you would pay the same sales taxes as anyone else who spent the same amount (local tax differences and investments aside.)

So now the excuse is that since you have more money to spend, and hence end up paying more taxes, that somehow means you didn’t pay enough taxes? That it is still unjust? Because if we screw those that have more money to spend with a bunch of taxes, after we already gave them a harder shafting for making more money through high income taxes, that still doesn’t make it kosher? Let me make sure I get this straight: “Social Justice”, the level playing field, happy collectivists, and so on, can only come when we make sure confiscatory taxes on income and wealth leave everyone with the exact same money to spend at the end of the day? Equality of outcome uber alles!

Explain to me again why this isn’t simply jealous/envious people manipulated by a greedy and power hungry rabble rousing elite into thinking that justice will only be served when we are all equally miserable?

Posted by on 07/31/09 at 05:47 PM from Germany

I know people in the top 1%, and drink with them.  Very nice people.

They fly 1st class.

Posted by on 07/31/09 at 05:49 PM from Germany

While many of the really rich try their best not to have an income, the return on their assets can only be hidden for so long. Sooner or later they pay taxes or lose wealth

Or they open up accounts in the Cayman Islands…

Posted by salinger on 07/31/09 at 05:59 PM from United States

So now the excuse is that since you have more money to spend, ... Equality of outcome uber alles!

Wow - that was some little rant. Why waste such wonderful discourse on a retort that has nothing to do with what you are replying to?

My point - I’ll do this slowly - my point is that the chart you provided used the oily phrase TAX BURDEN - not income tax. You following?

Okay now, I then said I am assuming that sales tax could fall under the term BURDEN. I could be wrong on this – maybe it doesn’t include sales taxes – but I think it does. If you can prove me wrong on this – well then, I’d be wrong. Right now this is more like a proposal. Got it? See, the whole thing hinges on you following along.

So, if you spend more you will pay more sales tax - okay?  - make sense?

See, sales tax is a percentage of the price of the item - around here it’s about 7% So say I buy a soda for a buck - the clerk charges me a buck seven. You buy a Monster energy drink for two bucks and you pay two fourteen – you’ve paid double the taxes BECAUSE YOU SPENT DOUBLE. Hence my statement – the more you spend the more you pay in taxes.

Here we go now…

The top 1 percent of wealth holders are very likely to spend a whole lot of money on stuff – that stuff will come with sales tax – if this sales tax is included in your charts “burden” then the chart is stupid because these one percenters have the benefit of owning all that stuff. Kind of like a return on their sales tax – sort of – not really, but I hope this doesn’t need any more explaining.

Posted by on 07/31/09 at 06:34 PM from United States

My point - I’ll do this slowly - my point is that the chart you provided used the oily phrase TAX BURDEN - not income tax. You following?

Uhh, Salinger, you should read a little more carefully.  While the title of the chart uses “Tax Burden” the notation on top of the vertical axis says “Income taxes”. 

Clicking on the link to the report and reading for ten seconds also confirms that the numbers are about federal income taxes.

And I didn’t really phrase my question above the way I wanted.  I meant to ask what percentage of income the top 1% earns, not what percentage of wealth since we can’t confiscate people’s savings. 

Also, I would like to see how Social security changes this since Social Security is a profoundly regressive tax for which there are no deductions.

Posted by on 07/31/09 at 06:38 PM from United States

You might have missed it, it was mentioned in the article I linked, but in this country the bottom quintile, thanks to Bush mind you, do not even pay taxes

Can’t really blame Bush on that-it’s been a long time coming.  When I was a student and single parent in the 1990s I was taxed negatively.  One year I made about 18k.  With deductions my income tax came to about $150.  Then I got more than $2000 from the gov’t for the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Posted by AlexinCT on 07/31/09 at 07:11 PM from United States

My point - I’ll do this slowly - my point is that the chart you provided used the oily phrase TAX BURDEN - not income tax. You following?

My point is that you are a moron for trying to make the point that it is not a tax burden. It is downright criminal despite that fact you somehow think this is a good and just thing. Despite Biden’s assurances that paying taxes is a patriotic duty, I still believe that we are being robbed by a greedy collectivist bunch of nincompoops. All so they can expand government, and thus their own personal power, and use the wealth they steal from productive people to buy votes from the people that do not think it is fair that they should suffer the consequences of their idiotic choices in life.

In the existing progressive taxation system there is no way to make the case that being a productive citizen is rewarded a highly punitive tax, be it income, wealth at death, sales, or hidden (and boy are there a lot of hidden taxes), at every opportunity. If anything the words “tax burden” are too mild to express the crime going on here. And the demands that the productive give up even more makes it even worse. Don’t worry. When the productive stop producing, like they did when Carter and crew gave us those near 90% tax brackets, we can all be equally poor.

So, if you spend more you will pay more sales tax - okay?  - make sense?

I understood your argument perfectly the first time around. Your argument is that because they are spending more, and consequently paying more taxes, it is not really a “burden”. After all, these evil rich people have more money to spend and get more nice things than you do! How dare they!

I am sure all the people working at those shops that made the items the greedy rich people buy would prefer that these vile rich people stop buying stuff. No taxes paid, so they do not need to point out they pay more taxes than the other 95%, and more people without jobs. A win-win!

Jealousy sucks.

Posted by on 07/31/09 at 08:33 PM from United States

How can sales tax increase your tasx burden more that the sales tax rate? (6% here in Michigan).  If the riches spend ALL thier money, they pay the top tax rate plus the sales tax.  That is over 40% of their income, not even counting state taxes/SS/FICA.  Salinger is an idiot.

Posted by on 07/31/09 at 09:38 PM from Germany

My point - I’ll do this slowly - my point is that the chart you provided used the oily phrase TAX BURDEN - not income tax. You following?

I think so, you’re proving that you’re a complete tool?

Posted by on 08/01/09 at 03:14 AM from Japan

That is over 40% of their income

If they own about 40% of the total wealth, then that seems about right.

Many European countries, by contrast have top marginal rates in excess of 50% and Denmark, tops the pile at a grand 68%. Denmark’s base rate is 42%.  And then you have to at Sales Taxes onto that too.

I’ll save my tears for those, rather that the hard-working but undertaxed rich but poor uber-wealthy of the US.

Posted by InsipiD on 08/01/09 at 04:34 AM from United States

I’ll save my tears for those, rather that the hard-working but undertaxed rich but poor uber-wealthy of the US.

Are you sick with jealousy or just a thief?

Posted by on 08/01/09 at 08:02 AM from Germany

Are you sick with jealousy or just a thief?

Neither. I do quite well, and I don’t mind paying taxes. If my income rises, which I hope it will, I will pay more, and not mind that either.

What I do miss is a say in how they are spent.

Posted by on 08/01/09 at 09:38 AM from United States

What I do miss is a say in how they are spent.

And you do realize that if you didn’t give the government your money in the first place that you would have COMPLETE control on how it was spent right?

I’ll save my tears for those, rather that the hard-working but undertaxed rich but poor uber-wealthy of the US.

I love that. “Undertaxed”, because the government has a right to your money. And because the government knows how to spend your money better than you.

You wouldn’t rate to scrape doggie doo from the heel of a one percenter. Which is why I called out the top 1%. There is an awlfully big difference - but you can dream.

Typical liberal mindset, money is a right, and people who have more of it are mean.

I used to work for a high end home theater company and I regularly worked with millionaires. I have been in peoples houses and and spent weekends with people worth HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars. There is not a SINGLE thing different about a rich person than anyone else. In fact, they were generally some of the kindest most giving people I have ever met. I have met far more poor assholes than rich.

There are three simple rules that guarantee everyone a shot at success:

1) Get a real education. High school doesn’t hack it anymore.

That I call bullshit. A friend of mine graduated from UF with a masters in a accounting in February and hasn’t been able to find a job. Second, a job doesn’t make you rich. Thirdly, someone like Bill Gates who never graduated from college, has made more money and had a far larger impact on society as a whole than almost all the college grads in this country.

There are three simple rules that guarantee everyone a shot at success:

1. Work hard
2. Learn and understand as much as you can
3. Accept that success and happiness isn’t measured by money.

Top 5% ain’t shit.

Oh really? So the fact that you and other “5%"ers live better than the VAST majority of human beings that have ever lived means “shit”? This amazing society that the profit motive has created you would do away with?

My point - I’ll do this slowly - my point is that the chart you provided used the oily phrase TAX BURDEN - not income tax. You following?

And income tax is COMPLETE bullshit. It was passed by Woodrow Wilson so that the central banks that finance our country (and subsequently cause the entire mess we are in now) would have the backing of the tax payers to fund their ridiculous loans and to guarantee the government would pay them back.

Income tax is the biggest scam ever pulled over on the American people.( except for maybe global warming)

Posted by AlexinCT on 08/01/09 at 10:38 AM from United States

Many European countries, by contrast have top marginal rates in excess of 50% and Denmark, tops the pile at a grand 68%. Denmark’s base rate is 42%.  And then you have to at Sales Taxes onto that too.

You aren’t making the ridiculous argument that because those collectivist and punitive European states have to have these massively high tax rates to pay for the collectivist system that supports a huge number of lazy and no good people, that we need the same here are you? Because if your argument is that “Europeans have a much higher tax rate than us, so we have a long way to go to catch up”, let me remind you that Europeans also have countries that have 10%+ unemployment during the best of economic times, huge numbers of unproductive idiots, a protectionist trade system to keep their almost always government subsidized industries from going under, overpriced goods, and the luxury of an American tax payer provided military to keep them from all speaking Russian. And there are so many other problems that I would need pages to go over them.

Is it a requirement to be dense and totally unable to grasp how the real world works to be a collectivist? Let me say it again: envy of what others have or have achieved, does not give you the right to steal from them. No matter how many lies you fabricate to pretend that they got their wealth by nefarious means and your crime is actually just an attempt to bring justice, what you are doing remains nothing short of theft.

Posted by AlexinCT on 08/01/09 at 11:01 AM from United States

That I call bullshit. A friend of mine graduated from UF with a masters in a accounting in February and hasn’t been able to find a job.

That’s because the current government’s economic policies and anti-business actions have guarantee that practically every company out there has gone into a self defense mode and are not hiring - and especially in such high end jobs as accounting - as they try to whether out the insanity. Even worse, people like your friend that might have thought about starting their own business are likely to also not do that because the risk of failure because of the anti-business environment is not worth it. These are not normal times.

The problem could also be with your friend. I too have highly educated people I know that have job trouble these days. Some of them however would have these same problems in the best of times, because despite all the education, they lack work ethics.

Second, a job doesn’t make you rich.

Really? Ask Bill Gates if his job didn’t make em rich. Or Michael Jordan, or Steve Jobs, or the other slew of rich people. They would be surprised at your assertion that what they do is not a job.

Thirdly, someone like Bill Gates who never graduated from college, has made more money and had a far larger impact on society as a whole than almost all the college grads in this country.

Did you think that the only education that was worth it came with a degree from some uppity college? I always get really angry when people use Bill Gates as an example to make the argument that a good education is unimportant. Do you think Bill Gates accomplished the things he did without first learning some essential and important skills that allowed him to then turn these into the wealth he now has (through some real hard work I might add)?

1. Work hard

The ability to acquire a good education and the skills to advantage go hand in hand with the ability to work hard. But if you have no special skills or product to offer, no amount of hard work will yield you great wealth.

2. Learn and understand as much as you can

How does this differ from my point that education is key? Education does not mean a degree from an expensive school.

3. Accept that success and happiness isn’t measured by money.

Not sure what this means at all unless you are making the point that money doesn’t buy you happiness.

The fact is that knowing stuff, working hard, and being able to provide something others want and will pay for, are all skills that will help you succeed. Well that is unless you are a collectivist twit. Then you stole what you got from the poor.

Posted by on 08/01/09 at 11:31 AM from United States

Hey Salinger you still here?  Did you read my post above about the “oily phrase ‘tax burden’”? Care to withdraw that statement?

Posted by on 08/01/09 at 11:35 AM from United States

I always get really angry when people use Bill Gates as an example to make the argument that a good education is unimportant.

There is a big difference though between a “good education”, and what the colleges are putting out. How many economists who never saw the economic trouble were college educated? How many college professors fall into this “collectivist” mindset you are so against. I don’t think there is a single profession where I have heard more horrible ideas from, than college professors.

My real point of contention was the claim that a “guaranteed shot at success” needs a college education. While I am in college right now, I joined the military and a got a “real education” in real life, right after high school. Now that I am out and see all my friends who have graduated from college are still the exact same persons they were before I left for the military, and are financially in a far worse spot than I. I am the only person I know that doesn’t have a single dollar of debt to my name. I have 2 cars, a house, a wife, a dog, a home theater (and I mean a real theater with a projector), a big ass flat screen tv in the living room and plenty of money to blow on bullshit. I have also found that my experience in college so far has been underwhelming to say the least. I haven’t studied or done much of any homework and gotten As the whole time. To be fair, I am not exactly in my “hard” classes yet, but I went to tech school in the military for almost a year at 8 hours a day 5 days a week, and college is child’s play.

But if you have no special skills or product to offer, no amount of hard work will yield you great wealth.

There are people who make far more money than I and are in far worse financial situations than me. Getting a high paying job is not the key to “great wealth”.

Not sure what this means at all unless you are making the point that money doesn’t buy you happiness.

I mean that you will only be truly successful when you stop worrying about how much money you are making and figure out how make the money you have work for you. You can be just as happy driving a 99 Pontiac Grand Am as you are when driving a Ferrari (and I have driven one before).

Posted by AlexinCT on 08/01/09 at 12:07 PM from United States

There is a big difference though between a “good education”, and what the colleges are putting out. How many economists who never saw the economic trouble were college educated? How many college professors fall into this “collectivist” mindset you are so against. I don’t think there is a single profession where I have heard more horrible ideas from, than college professors.

I think we are talking past each other here Dirk. When I speak of education, I am not talking solely of a college degree (even though that is what I focused on). When I speak of getting an education I mean learn skills that can give you a way to earn a living, and if you work real hard might earn you a slot amongst the wealthy. Most college degrees these days aren’t worth the paper they are printed on, often even when they are hard science or engineering degrees. And you are right when you point out that most college education is simply collectivist indoctrination, a pure waste of time.

My focus and point when I made my comments about college when addressing education was to illustrate that the people that think that just because they attended college, often wasting a whole load of money and only being indoctrinated in that collectivist pap, they are now entitled to a big paycheck and a life of luxury, was stupid. I was stressing the fact that you needed to learn something real, with substance, and that would allow you to actually earn a living. If you go to college or not.

Hey Salinger you still here?  Did you read my post above about the “oily phrase ‘tax burden’”? Care to withdraw that statement?

Don’t hold your breath. I didn’t even bother with this as it would make absolutely no difference for these collectivism lovers. They will simply find some other metricexcuse to illustrate why outright stealing from the productive was justified.

Posted by on 08/01/09 at 05:01 PM from Germany

And you do realize that if you didn’t give the government your money in the first place that you would have COMPLETE control on how it was spent right?

Right. But the society I live in would lack pretty much everything I currently enjoy as a result of paying taxes -security, trust, hope, universal education, roads, garbage collection and disposal, safe water and food, medicines for orphan diseases… My quality of life is much better as a result of paying taxes.

I don’t mind being labeled a ‘collectivist’ either. Because unless you don’t want a military, police and a justice system at all, then you are too (it’s just a matter of degree).

Posted by salinger on 08/01/09 at 05:01 PM from United States

Hey Salinger you still here?  Did you read my post above about the “oily phrase ‘tax burden’”? Care to withdraw that statement?

Sure - you’re catch is valid. I still think the term burden is loaded - but it does look like they are talking income taxes.

This doesn’t negate the validity of my link though showing that the top 1% do in fact control over 40% of the nation’s wealth.

Don’t hold your breath.

Give it a rest dude. Tell ya what - I’ll give ya dollar a day (donated to the charity of your choice) - for up to a year - that you don’t use the word collectivism or some derivative or synonym thereof. Use it once and the bet is off and you walk with zip.

I originally thought of suggesting a drinking game where shots or beers were done each time you used the term but I don’t want to be responible for the liver damage that would ensue.

Posted by AlexinCT on 08/01/09 at 07:31 PM from United States

Right. But the society I live in would lack pretty much everything I currently enjoy as a result of paying taxes -security, trust, hope, universal education, roads, garbage collection and disposal, safe water and food, medicines for orphan diseases… My quality of life is much better as a result of paying taxes.

The sad thing is that you have no idea how much better it could have been if your money had not been given to the most inefficient and incapable people, government, to provide you with these things (I am not even going to waste the time pointing out government really has nothing to do with getting you these things other than taking credit for it).

Give it a rest dude. Tell ya what - I’ll give ya dollar a day (donated to the charity of your choice) - for up to a year - that you don’t use the word collectivism or some derivative or synonym thereof. Use it once and the bet is off and you walk with zip.

Collectivism. I don’t need your money. I prefer calling em as I see em. Especially when it irks them to be called what they are.

<< Back to main