Taxes - our new compass as a nation
Robert Faber
That popular animosity toward taxes has a long-standing tradition, but it remains a stranger and an enemy to the principles envisioned and promised by our Founders.
Those principles, our original guide to action and articulated in the Preamble to our Constitution, promised to “establish justice ... insure domestic tranquility ... promote the general Welfare ... and secure the Blessings of Liberty.” As the basis for our new nation they were designed to serve the needs and well-being of our total population - a national concept of federally-assumed responsibility unique in all world history.
Now our concentration is on the more mundane problems of the mechanics of the operation - the size of the budget necessary to meet those obligations, the source of those funds, and the methods by which they will be raised - rather than on the principles of performance. And therein lies the growing conflict within our society - the widening philosophical gap between those most deeply committed to the basic principles that define us and the more conservative engineers of government whose primary focus is on the process of the operation. (This does not take into account the increasing majority of legislators whose primary motivation is simply reelection - but that’s for a later discussion.)
Unfortunately, striving for better often requires more cash and determination than may be readily available, so our noble ideals can too easily be dismissed in avoidance of excessive demands on our people. And that may well be our undoing - rearranging our goals to soften the discomfort of taxation. It violates our original promise to ourselves and our heirs, prompting a redefinition of who we are that is neither satisfying nor accurate
The horror of 9/11, after all, shocked us into a wildly expensive action without any discussion of cost - and that is the way responsible government works. And the recent disaster in Haiti moved our nation and our people to an instantaneous response of benevolence worthy of the dreams of our Founders and fully in keeping with the highly principled identity we had assumed for ourselves. And that is who we are.
But back home, caught in the torment of our recession, the many millions of our unemployed needy remain unprepared for the trauma or expense of serious illness or other of life's more debilitating disruptions. Unfortunately, too many of those threatened fellow citizens are left hanging in fear and uncertainty because we cannot agree on the best way to handle the finances of relief. The politically conservative antagonism toward taxes, supported even by many of those who would benefit from its largess, have so tainted the word that rational analysis is becoming increasingly difficult.
And that is fast becoming who we are.
For more than two centuries our claims and our dreams had identified us as a nation in battle against the misery of inadequate food or clothing or shelter. We initiated a system of public education to teach the elementary skills of literate survival to even the most poor among us - and we opened free public libraries to help meet the literary needs of those we were educating. And we subsidized food banks for the hungry and housing for the homeless and Medicare for the ill.
But now we see as the overriding problem of society, not the desperation of those without, but the displeasure of using taxes as the only way to pay for their remedies of relief. It is proper that what we see as essential programs of social support should be verified as sufficiently valuable and effective and that the recommended methods for meeting those needs be efficient and viable, but if that examination verifies the claims of need, then we must act to provide the necessary support.
Excessive taxes are, indeed, offensive and to be avoided where proper and reasonable, but they must not be our only focus.
Our Founders’ concentration on the principles of our democracy left the specifics of payment untouched, simply assuming that the cost of honorable intentions would be met - and throughout our history they have been met.
Pearl Harbor was bombed while we were still reeling from the Great Depression, but without hesitation we responded with all the might we had and still more that we did not yet have. We restricted wages for workers in the war plants and levied taxes of up to 90 percent on the higher income corporations and individuals. We financed the war effort and won the war - and very much more. And that is who we are!
However offensive, “taxes” is not simply a dirty word - they are a necessary part of the engine of our society. Inevitable in a dynamic nation are the dangers and discomforts of war and poverty and the many assorted tragedies of life to which we are all subject - and for our common good we must make the resolution of those misfortunes a national priority. The well-being of our total society demands that we all work together to resolve our nation’s separate tragedies - because that is who we are. And of that we should be proud.
Robert Faber is a long-time resident of Ann Arbor, a former business owner and former City Council member. He writes an occasional column on aging for AnnArbor.com. He may be reached at rgfaber@comcast.net.
Comments
Stuart Brown
Sat, Nov 13, 2010 : 7:44 a.m.
AlphaAlpha, I did check the U6 data series and it only goes back to 1994 at www.bls.gov. I understand your point and I also know that the main way unemployment is calculated is, again, from an investor's point of view. The current method of calculating unemployment measures the amount of slack in the labor market (the people either employed or looking for work); which has an inverse correlation with the amount of wages. The regression analysis I've seen says that wages increase by about 10% if unemployment (using the current form) is cut in half and reduced by 10% if unemployment is doubled.
AlphaAlpha
Thu, Nov 11, 2010 : 11:54 p.m.
Interesting thoughts Stuart. You might feel your day is complete when you learn the method for calculating unemployment has been 'revised' since 1950...take a look at U6 at the BLS site; U6 today is around 17% and U6 is unemployment calculated the way it was calculated in 1950. So, it's worse than you thought. Just trying to help. Inflation...price rises...fiat money...backed currency...unbacked currency...money vs. currency...currency debasement...defining the issues can be tricky, and understanding on issues gets tricky as well.
Stuart Brown
Thu, Nov 11, 2010 : 5:40 p.m.
AlphaAlpha, www.bls.gov says avgerage unemployment from 1950-1980 = 5.2% while average unemployment from 1981-2010 = 6.3%. Doesn't sound like much but actually it is. For the reasons for this, check out 1998's J.K. Galbraith's "Created Unequal" book. He posits an "Ethical Level of Full Employment" as no more than 5.5% unemployment. Galbraith makes the point that sustained unemployment above 5.5% results in a skewing of income distribution to the top (rich get richer, poor get poorer) while the opposite for unemployment below 5.5%. Finally AlphaAlpha, I have a question for you. Why does inflation matter? I say Volker got it wrong. Fixing inflation by intentionally throwing people out of work does not make life better for workers; but it does for investors! So, guess who most of the public consists of? The correct answer is workers. The government's policy since 1980 has been skewed to favor business interests over and at the expense of most of the public since 1980. Inflation is a rich man's problem since it destroys accumulated wealth. What happens is that the rich get together and put pressure on the Fed to fix the problem by throwing workers on to the street. I don't buy the argument that Joe Sixpack is better off because the price of beer is stable since the Fed fixes the problem by having Joe fired from his construction job paying $20/hour and Joe has to take a job at Walmart's paying $9/hour (but the price of beer is stable!)
AlphaAlpha
Thu, Nov 11, 2010 : 10:01 a.m.
"Since Paul Volker, the government has intentionally targeted high levels of unemployment as a means to hold down wage costs and inflation." Can you point to any evidence of this? Volker did need to reduce the ruinously high inflation of the late 70s, and employers like some unemployment to keep labor available, but an intentional policy? You might be giving the 'government' more credit than it deserves.
Stuart Brown
Wed, Nov 10, 2010 : 11:20 p.m.
Ghost, I'm with you (I think). By 1969, the Robber Barron era had been relegated to obscurity. The mansions the Barrons lived in had been chopped up into apartments or turned into museums. The Gilded Age was a period most people didn't miss; the minimum wage in 1968 was $1.60/hour which would be $10.04 today (www.bls.gov). So, what changed? I think Ghost is much closer to the answer than gsorter when he references the low unemployment the nation went through in 1942. I believe 1942 is the genesis of the expansion of the middle class; with the principle reason the low levels of unemployment that existed until the 1980's. Since Paul Volker, the government has intentionally targeted high levels of unemployment as a means to hold down wage costs and inflation. The net result is that almost all of the productivity increases that gsorter touts has benefited the top few percent of the population. The increasing demise of the middle class has been facilitated by the same tool that created a robust middle class; management of the unemployment level. WW2 took 16 million men out of the labor force and the government spending on heavy industry stimulated demand for industrial labor; net result was a labor market paradise. Paul Volker comes along in 1979, immediately after the Humpfrey-Hawkins Full Employment act, declares the unemployment target unreachable and throws the economy into a deep recession. The rest is history...
AlphaAlpha
Wed, Nov 10, 2010 : 9:09 p.m.
Well, we agree again.
stunhsif
Tue, Nov 9, 2010 : 8:58 p.m.
Does A2.com have so few contributors that Mr. Faber has to be a featured guest writer every several weeks? How about featuring a conservative or libertarian guest columnist once in a while?
AlphaAlpha
Tue, Nov 9, 2010 : 8:31 p.m.
Re: Social Insecurity Taxes - It's even better, because it's not 3%, it is a whopping 15%. What? Yes: 15%. That compulsory 'contribution' rate is so high, the program's 'managers' decided to misrepresent the facts by having employers 'collect' 1/2 of each worker's 'contributions. This practice began long ago; most employees don't even realize the extra money is withheld from their pay. Amazing.
bedrog
Tue, Nov 9, 2010 : 4:38 p.m.
whew!...i first misread the title as "texas" as a compass. dodged a bullet there!
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball
Tue, Nov 9, 2010 : 3:48 p.m.
Re: Social Security. Here is the real problem with SS - when you die - Your money is gone.. Work for 40 years, put 3% of your income into Social Security for your retirement -and that could be a lot of money. But when you die - it's gone! Magically, your money is not yours anymore. Die at 55, even before you get any benefits - your money is gone! Just like that. Your spouse does not get anything ($255) all your payments are zero'd - thanks for playing! Now if you were to live to 110, you would get a check every month for 40 or so years. But if you were to put the same money into a personal retirement account of some sort - and you died early, at least your spouse/children would get that money that you worked for.
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball
Tue, Nov 9, 2010 : 3:39 p.m.
Re: Social Security. Here is the real problem with SS - when you die - Your money is gone.. Work for 40 years, put 3% of your income into Social Security for your retirement -and that could be a lot of money. But when you die - it's gone! Magically, your money is not yours anymore. Die at 55, even before you get any benefits - your money is gone! Just like that. Your spouse does not get anything ($255) all your payments are zero'd - thanks for playing! Now if you were to live to 110, you would get a check every month for 40 or so years. But if you were to put the same money into a personal retirement account of some sort - and you died early, at least your spouse/children would get that money that you worked for.
Macabre Sunset
Mon, Nov 8, 2010 : 11 p.m.
In theory, payroll taxes are not relevant, as Social Security and Medicare are supposed to be self-sufficient. In theory, we pay in what we take out later. Pardon me for giggling a little at that, but it's the intent. That's why benefits are connected to the amount we pay in and there's no means test for benefits. If you want to convert Social Security to yet another progressive entitlement.... oh, well. It will be bankrupt by the time the Baby Boomers are done taking and it's just a stupid Ponzi scheme at this point.
Jay Thomas
Mon, Nov 8, 2010 : 12:28 p.m.
"The horror of 9/11, after all, shocked us into a wildly expensive action without any discussion of cost - and that is the way responsible government works." You don't even need to go back to our reaction to 9/11 to find wildly expensive government spending. The bailouts and stimulus is eight years more current an example. "For more than two centuries our claims and our dreams had identified us as a nation in battle against the misery of inadequate food or clothing or shelter. We initiated a system of public education to teach the elementary skills of literate survival to even the most poor among us - and we opened free public libraries to help meet the literary needs of those we were educating. And we subsidized food banks for the hungry and housing for the homeless and Medicare for the ill." I find the column to be little more than a plethora of very un-exact generalities and platitudes. Food banks receive little of their funding from government (and what they do is probably thanks to G.W. Bush and his "faith based" initiative.) Most people in government subsidized housing were not on the street before receiving it. Medicare was created for senior citizens (not "the ill"). A librarian quoted that 80% of her clientele were now at the library to use the internet (biggest reason... no not email or a2.com... it's youtube... i.e. to basically watch T.V.) or take out free movies (and help put Blockbuster, a tax paying business OUT OF BUSINESS). So much for literacy (and Washington, D.C. spends twice as much money per pupil on public education as Ann Arbor does without any of the results). Fanny and Freddie have gone broke subsidizing "the people" in their $250,000 house. There are now section 8 recipients living in McMansions (with $1400/mo payments from the federal.gov) in some parts of the country as a result of the real estate collapse brought on by government mandated "sub prime" lending (thanks to Congressman Frank for insisting people with little to no income not be "redlined"). Most of our government programs are designed to keep their recipients in dependency. If all of the beneficiaries of this "largess" (as Faber puts it) became independent, millions of government bureaucrats and caseworkers would be out of a job (so they will do what they can to keep their job). It's all become about pitting half the population against the other half and winning votes in the process.
A2K
Mon, Nov 8, 2010 : 11:31 a.m.
"Productivity creates industry which creates jobs." Not in today's workplace: each worker who is left after the rounds of layoffs are now doing 2-3 people's jobs with no end in site. Year after year, flat salaries, decreasing benefits, no training opportunities, 10-12 hour days. Look at the stats, productivity is up across the board! Businesses have had it over on the employees for the last 10 years, squeezing more, more, more for less - the threat of losing the job hanging overhead. Sooner or later something will break down: productivity will suffer, people's health will be ruined, you'll see more "crazy" acts in the workplace, greater divide between the "haves" and "used-to-have", and smoldering resentment building to anger and then what? This doesn't even call into account the 35% unemployment rate for young people...
Rork Kuick
Mon, Nov 8, 2010 : 9:40 a.m.
Statistics using just the income taxes and not the "payroll" taxes aren't really fair, since they are all federal taxes, but this is done by folks trying to make the data look like the rich are paying too much. State and sales taxes might be included too if we really want to know in total how bad the rich have it. I'm ready to tax the rich considerably more compared to the less wealthy, since they can handle it, and the dollar break you give a modest income person gets spent fast. I'd like progressive taxes at the state level too ofcourse. Seems simple, so it takes some explaining why the less-well-to-do 80-90% can't accomplish that. I'm not asking for more total taxes, just a altered schedule. (At the state level the past 8 years have seen big cuts in spending, so it's harder to complain.)
JSA
Mon, Nov 8, 2010 : 9:30 a.m.
I would think anyone would have to agree that new technologies played a part in the end of the depression as well as spending during WWII. What surprises me is that no one has mentioned that the destruction of so much of the infrastructure and economies of Europe and Asis resulted in near full employment in American industry to replace that infrastructure and industrial base. The reality was our industry was undamaged and really the only source of industrial and consumer goods after the war for quite some time and this certainly relates to the ending of the depression.
Top Cat
Mon, Nov 8, 2010 : 9:05 a.m.
I'm always amused and annoyed when people who are benefiting from Social Security and Medicare seem to think I and my children are not ponying up enough to support the Welfare State.
David Briegel
Mon, Nov 8, 2010 : 8:11 a.m.
Macabre, Actually, China is the land of opportunity. Again, why do so few benefit from the production of our economy and society and why are so many left behind and out? That's the tough part. America is the worlds policeman. Sometimes even for a noble cause. Sometimes just a bully. If the fortune 500 and the international corporations desire a military, let them hire Blackwater. Bring our troops home and close half the military installations around the world and we could fund anything any other civiled nation can like healthcare for all.
aareader
Sun, Nov 7, 2010 : 11:58 p.m.
From my experiences, reading, taking classes etc, I am happy to read the comments of "Edward R Murrow's Ghost" His comments are on point and reflect the policies the government should have for the protection and support of its citizens. The government is the people. I would hope everyone eligible votes. I also hope voters read and look at ALL sources of information to determine who should be elected in the best interest of all of the people. Otherwise we are wasting your votes and the resources of our country. ( yup, I know I am dreaming but I can hope) Honest philosophical differences are to be appreciated. And self serving special interests lies should be called out and discredited. As noted earlier today democracy is a messy business, but if practiced for the good of all of the people it the best government on the planet. Deficits are controlled and taxes adequate and fair for all to pay.
Speechless
Sun, Nov 7, 2010 : 11:17 p.m.
"... I'd like to disagree about what pulled us out of the Great Depression. It wasn't the spending on WWII, but it was the techological advancements during the war made by the allies which greatly improved productivity...." I have to admit that the above rationale is novel. Never before heard anyone attempt one like it. But as it stands, the assertion is an entirely fact-free. Were it true, this would certainly qualify as big news to Detroit's former Big Three. In recent decades, after all, those one-time bastions of Allied war production have relied heavily on technological advances to permanently replace thousands of workers. Could it be that all the retooling and modernization somehow created countless jobs without anyone noticing? Bottom line:  from 1942-45 the feds alone put the country back to work. Keynes rules — and we shouldn't need a World War as an excuse. The 90% tax rate on the mega-wealthy was pretty cool, too. That continued after the war until Kennedy, and it funded the middle class.
Jay Thomas
Sun, Nov 7, 2010 : 10:27 p.m.
The assumption that Faber (and others) make that the founders would have been in favor of taxing the American people to give away the money to foreign populations (because of their misfortune) is unsupported by anything I've read. They were rather frugal and quite clear about what the government should cover. Faber says "excessive taxes" should be avoided... and then in the next breath calls for a return to a 90% income tax rate! You have to wonder what an "excessive" rate is to him... 99%? To say that the founders left the "specifics of payment" untouched is more smoke and mirrors. The government was primarily funded through tariffs at the state level which the founders replaced with the tariff act of 1789 (with tariffs ranging from 5 to 15%... the founders did not believe in the kind punitive confiscatory taxation sponsored by Faber & Co). During this time the country thrived and grew rapidly, without an income tax into the 20th century. Liberal Democrats will never tell you how much your "fair share" actually is... only use that tired old bromide as a rhetorical club to bludgeon their opposition with and promote class warfare. There is never a quantifiable number engraved in stone; otherwise how could they make new election spending promises to buy votes? Getting something for nothing has become as American as apple pie.
Macabre Sunset
Sun, Nov 7, 2010 : 9:43 p.m.
David, it's the land of opportunity, not the land of entitlement. A healthy economy requires private job creation. Those who create those jobs generally earn a lot more money. Without them, no jobs. With limitations, no incentive to do anything more than look for a 9-to-5 job. When looking at income tax paid over the last 30 years, the bottom 50% paid 7.05% of income taxes in 1980. In 2008, they paid 2.70%. In other words, today, the top 1% provides the government with 14 times more income tax revenue than the bottom 50% of wage-earners. That ratio was 2.7 in 1980. This while the percentage difference between those two groups in earnings has not changed by anywhere near that ratio. The bottom line is that we've created a government where the number of takers exceeds the number of givers. That cannot be sustained, long-term. Instead, you're completely focused on the few Bill-Gates-level earners. If you just look at the income of the top 10% compared to the top 50%, the ratio hasn't changed all that much in the last 30 years. If you want to go to that top 1% and work on eliminating tax loopholes, that's great. But if you want to vilify the system because some producers are making a lot of money, I suggest you look at what their entrepreneurial contributions do for the economy at large as well.
AlphaAlpha
Sun, Nov 7, 2010 : 9:33 p.m.
Edward, Yes, total compensation, a carefully chosen phrase with much FASBY meaning, is equivalent to what an employee costs. No difference. Do you remember this quote from a Mr. Kuick "Ghost, you are usually good, but quibbling about definitions a bit now: heath care and retirement moneys do matter, and costs, if fairly calculated, can be a fair basis of comparison."? Don't press for a quote of your eventual...ah...modified stance on this issue.
AlphaAlpha
Sun, Nov 7, 2010 : 9:24 p.m.
And, deflationary, depressionary, industrial overcapacity was 'fixed' by WW2.
DonBee
Sun, Nov 7, 2010 : 9:13 p.m.
Productivity gains during WWII - oh yes. Liberty Ships - over 2700 built, time to build dropped from 244 days to 42 days on average (the record was less than a week). Welding and section building replaced dry docks and riveting. In aircraft, the moving line (Visit Willow Run sometime) resulted in automotive type building of bombers and fighter aircraft. Shipbuilding employment increased by a factor of 30, but output by a factor of 100. According to some books on WWII, steel making employment increased by a factor of 20 but again output was up by a factor of over 100. Larger ladles, and furnaces, meant that a smaller team per ton of output was needed. Radar, high voltage electrical systems, welding, improved two way radios, and more all came into play. There are several papers written by Dr Warken that detail much of the improvement in logistics and production during WWII and the impact those improvements had post war. He was the author of several studies on the WWII National Planning Board.
David Briegel
Sun, Nov 7, 2010 : 8:49 p.m.
Macabre, You left out the improvement that has occurred over the last 30 years. Why would you ignore that part? And you have no answer for the second part of why so few are doing so well while so many are doing so poorly? I know that is the tough part but I believe it is the most relevant! Is it "refreshing" to ignore the "rest of the story"? And there is no hatred involved. Nor jealousy. Nor envy. Alpha, if China bothers you, why do you not speak about the Waltons, Rick Snyder, and the "values" of the victors of Ronnie's Cold War? You all seem to hate communism and socialism except when it comes to the resulting exploitative profits. The Chinese plantation? I guess it's much easier to discuss "counterproductive rhetoric" with Republican talking points?
AlphaAlpha
Sun, Nov 7, 2010 : 7:47 p.m.
BTW, including the top ~8% gets us down to about $100,000 per year, and guess who that group includes? Our highly compensated public servants!
AlphaAlpha
Sun, Nov 7, 2010 : 7:44 p.m.
Right on, Macabre Sunset. Every letter rings true. Facts are refreshing; rhetoric is counterproductive.
Macabre Sunset
Sun, Nov 7, 2010 : 7:13 p.m.
David, the top 1% of earners make 20% of the money, but pay 38% of all federal income taxes. The top 5%, which is people making $160,000 or more, pay 59% of all income taxes. They provide a safety net for the poor and the unemployed. We should thank them rather than vilify them. Without their tax money, people would be starving to death and their children would have no hope, as schools would disappear. Our roads would crumble and the working poor would have no way of getting to work. How 'bout that thank you? Their success in earning means everyone benefits. They don't deserve such hatred.
David Briegel
Sun, Nov 7, 2010 : 7:04 p.m.
DonBee, OK, You are correct. 50%. Now, please direct your attention to the vast increase in the net worth of the wealthiest 5%, 2%, 1%,.1% over the last 30 years and then explain who won the dreaded and evil "class warfare". Simultaneously, please explain the vast imcrease in the number of citizens without health insurance, the working poor, the poor, disabled, homeless, foreclosed, bankrupted, and without hope. Don, these people are barely making enough to survive in this economy and you really want to tax them? And then tell us in the same breath that those in the highest percentile shouldn't be taxed more? Seriously? The rates of Clinton or Reagan? Did they do poorly in those years? Do they ever? Now, please draw some correlations between the two. Sean, please read above. Mr Barnes, it is only mean to question the authority of a Republican who is then allowed to refer to those who disagree as America hatin', terrist luvin' defeatists who want our soldiers dead.
Macabre Sunset
Sun, Nov 7, 2010 : 6:43 p.m.
Every time the government prints more money to satisfy Edward's expensive entitlements, we all pay the price. Our money is worth less. Our retirement savings are worth less. That's the hidden taxation of out-of-control spending. People are not pets. Every time you take a dollar, you should have to perform a service for our country. Every time you go a year without paying any income tax, you should have to spend a month working on a public project. Maybe if people had to give back, they'd appreciate the safety net the taxpayers provide for them. Under the current system, people like Edward are always sticking their hands out, demanding more and more.
AlphaAlpha
Sun, Nov 7, 2010 : 6:40 p.m.
"Private levels are higher." They are at unprecedented levels; many are too indebted to buy bonds. "the thought of China financing our recovery bothers me" It should. You more than most should know how very many wars have resulted from too much indebtedness. "There is a great deal of wealth that could go into such a mechanism today" Where? Domestic (unlikely) or overseas (potentially unwise)?
Speechless
Sun, Nov 7, 2010 : 6:17 p.m.
Following up on ERMG, the New Deal years in the 1930s exemplify limited results from substantial, yet restricted, stimulus spending. Between the Roosevelt administration and Congress, there wasn't sufficient political will to launch full-scale Keynesian spending during peacetime. Nonetheless, noticeable economic recovery occurred in the years 1934 through 1936. Following reelection, Roosevelt switched gears in 1937 and chose a fiscally conservative path, backing away from government spending as a means to boost the economy. Later that year, the steady but partial recovery came to a halt, as the Great Depression promptly entered into a double-dip. After Pearl Harbor, the federal government pulled out the stops and gave the economy a full Keynesian treatment in the interests of ramping up wartime production as fast as possible. Twelve straight years of Great Depression vanished in very short order. That shows the power of federal spending. Obama's enacted stimulus plan, much like the 1930s New Deal, provided real help but was far too small to seriously turn the economic tide. If we, as a society, now move in the opposite direction — into austerity — then expect to have this Great Recession to kick around for another ten years or more, with modest improvements followed by yet another dip. In regard to Robert Faber's focus on modern tax obsessions, the middle class would feel better about taxation, federal in particular, if they saw a much greater return. No such satisfaction is gained from dropping a cool trillion or two on wars in Asia and on bailing out Wall Street banksters. This only emulates the corruptions of the later Roman Empire, not the higher ideals found in the Declaration of Independence or Common Sense. On the other hand, Social Security and Medicare are very popular for good reason. Likewise, there would be a much improved feeling about taxes if, for instance, the feds were to divert most of the $660 billion or more we spend each year on the military toward civilian purposes that produce clear, on-the-ground results in everyday life: true universal health care, free university education, robust mass transit, free day care services, and so on.
AlphaAlpha
Sun, Nov 7, 2010 : 4:35 p.m.
What about public and private debt levels?
AlphaAlpha
Sun, Nov 7, 2010 : 3:22 p.m.
DonBee - FYI - Your 104K comment was addressed, where you made it.
AlphaAlpha
Sun, Nov 7, 2010 : 3:19 p.m.
""These levels of spending and debt" pale in comparison to those of WW2 as a % of the GNP." What about compared to the other ~235 years of the Republic?
DonBee
Sun, Nov 7, 2010 : 1:27 p.m.
According to the IRS roughly 50 percent of the people in the US actually pay income taxes. Roughly 50 percent do not. I have a hard time understanding how almost half the population is so poor that they don't have enough money to pay taxes. Could someone explain this to me? Unemployment is roughly 13 percent. even at double that level for discouraged people that is 26 percent. Poverty is roughly 22 percent according to the latest government statistics. I would have to guess there is at least some overlap between poverty and unemployment. So can someone tell me why our many thousand page tax code has only gotten half the people in the US to pay income taxes? Inquiring minds want to know.
AlphaAlpha
Sun, Nov 7, 2010 : 12:53 p.m.
"Alexander Hamilton and Adam Smith both understood that, far from being destructive, government spending AND government debt created wealth for a nation's citizens." At these levels of spending and debt?
Sean Gray
Sun, Nov 7, 2010 : 11:23 a.m.
Good article. I think as well many conservatives like myself see taxation as an endless fuel that drives political campaigns because without a large pile of tax money, little can be promised by the politician. What most of us want is the genuine freedom and liberty to live productive lives free from government intrusion. And, we see huge clouds of programs [some more helpful than others], already in place, filling our once clear skies. Health care for children, the poor and elderly [sCHIP/ MichCare/ WIC, Medicaid and Medicare, respectively]. Social Security, which covers the elderly plus children/ mothers with diabled or deceased parents/ spouses. There are unemployment benefits for those who lose their job. Federal and State programs for home buyers and foreclosures. Subsidized homes, subsidized apartments, subsidized senior centers, subsidized college grants [not loans] for the underfunded seeking college. Tax payer subsidized cell phone programs. Subsidized farms, subsidized transportation. There is welfare and the taxes we spend to make ads and commercials for people who don't know they can receive welfare. The list could go on, obviously. And, usually, anyone who complains or offers a better more efficient way of helping the less fortunate are told they lack compassion and understanding, even for this writer who grew up on welfare and in the Herman Garden projects; poor, at times going without heat during the cold months, etc. But people like me who have come out of poverty, who have seen both sides... understand a couple of things. We see that Government offers two forces, they can help or destroy. And when we observe our nation as a whole we see that where the most government programs [read: intrusion] exist the most the destruction occurs. In my view, any government program created should at its core be designed to make a person independent. But, and I think many times by design to help the politician get re-elected, the programs are designed to create dependence. A program designed so the recipient says, "I need candidate A. Candidate A is necessary for my survival. But candidate B will destory me. So I vote for A." We should never give government so much power over our lives. But the only way to control government is to have a say in how much of our income they can take. Because, without our voice in this matter, government subsidize will never be efficient [and therefore not helpful], and, morover, there will never be enough of them to satisfy our human need. Sean
AlphaAlpha
Sun, Nov 7, 2010 : 11:19 a.m.
If tax dollars were spent efficiently, there would be more than enough for all.
Olan Owen Barnes
Sun, Nov 7, 2010 : 10:55 a.m.
It is not being mean to question authority when a tax (forced movement of funds from the individual to the state) to the government for it wants which often is full of waste and is of a needless nature. It is senseable for groups who say we are taxed enough already to vote their view in the arena of ideas and name calling just makes these groups stronger and they can win elections. Therefore maybe you guys should keep up the name calling.