Let's face it.....the left thinks its fair to tax, therefore punish, America's most hard working and most productive employees to pick up the slack for the least productive Americans. ..........I think a good way to get the unemployed and lazy to get up and work is to require that they pay their share of taxes. ...............Why would it make since to punish those that are the very people that are spending and contributing to the economy?
the left thinks its fair to tax
I think a good way to get the unemployed and lazy to get up and work is to require that they pay their share of taxes.
I understand what you are saying but you make 2 points in sharpe contrast of themselves IMO. I'm not picking on you per say because what you said above is a general belief across conservative economic thought so in that sense you are right in the mainstream.
However, as "conservatives" if you will or better yet, people who believe in small gov't, the statement above cancels itself out. "WE"
decry the left who we say belive it's fair to tax and in a general way, that would be true. I'm sure for example that D (I use D since you proclaim him of the left) would in fact consider some gov't programs worthwhile that you would disagree with so the first statement in your case and mine would be somewhat true. (BTW D, I think you are a mixed bag of both so-called left and right ideas but that's just me!)
But then you say the following, "I think a good way to get the unemployed and lazy to get up and work is to require that they pay their share of taxes."
In the first you chastise the left for believing it's fair to tax and then you turn around and say it's fair to also tax a segment you believe are not being taxed or paying enough taxes. (Someone says the rich don't pay enough and someone else says the poor aren't paying enough. )
IMO, this is the inconsistant "Trick Bag" small gov't types get pulled into. In the late 70's Ronald Reagan was decrying US gov't tax and economic policy and 2 things he said he wanted to do was to bring back gold backed currency and eliminate the income tax. I've heard talk upon talk upon talk over the years from so-called conservative elected leaders about killing the income tax or getting rid of the annual faceoff we have to have with the IRS but over the years what has happened? Is the income tax still here and do we annually have to file forms? Yep! Does there seem to be any end in sight? Nope and if you consider pure economics, it's seems fair to say there won't be and that taxes will in fact have to go up in order to service the debt. When you consider the babyboomers are nearing the time of leaving the wage earner tax status and the numbers to fill the void aren't there unless we allow the immigrate to take our place(Hint! Hint!), the tax from the smaller size wage earner class will have to go up to meet the demands.
You might parade the "Fair Tax" but outside of lipservice on rare moments, the republican (read conservative) party leadership has yet to not only get behind this movement but even become co-sponsors of the legislation. Even the Bush adminstration refuses to back the legislation. Same thing when the flat tax idea came to light in the 80's (1984' first time I heard it and it came out of the growing American Tax Protestor movement of the time) and you thought Steve Forbes came up with something new! Nope, had been around a while and he saw it as a nice platform to run for office on.
Me personally, I liked Ron Paul's idea of cutting gov't, selling large amounts of domestic and foreign lands incluidng many military bases that serve no other use this means of local federal subsidation and earmark magnets for local business interests (nothing to do with real national defense) end all corp. means of welfare to private business interests. You then take that money and pay down the national debt, pay down IOU's to the various so-called trust funds like social security with the idea of fully funding them to meet all current obligations and then end the tax for those funds and then let the plan die and the current obligated members die off. In other words, in this case all means of direct federal income taxation would end. You come back at best for the time being of paying only a user tax like the highway federal excise tax when you get gas or buy tires for highway use. Don't buy gas to use the road and you don't have to pay the tax. Completely voluntary. If the federal gov't needs funds they can do so by means of apportionment and going directly to the State legislatures as then return as another layer of checks and balances. Nobody get's thrown out in the cold which makes D warm and fuzzy and we get to finally take home a paycheck on Friday of the "GROSS" and not the "NET" so to speak. Not to mention the end of days for "K" Street and the bought and sold gov't to the hgihest bidder we have now because there is very little power if any to buy and sell.
Do republicans plan to end Social Security? No not really. It would become a quasi-gov't/private plan as the money will be entrusted to private companies that the gov't grants status to and then by law you'll have to allot so much money (most likely the same amount now going to SS) to fund this account. In effect, you've still got the gov't telling you what to do and how to live your life and the money withheld is still an odd form of privatized taxation. Private is where by my own free will and own idea I come to someone and of their free will and own idea we exchange in a business way to meet the demands we both have. It is an act of complete and open voluntary action, encouraged nor mandated by no other party or interest other than the 2 of us involved in the exchange. The "pick list" idea of the federal gov't might be called privatization but it's more a merchantilist monopoly of the European model that we let enter our shores in the 19th century and even with name changes, it's never left our shores.
Same is true of healthcare. Newt Gingrich back in 05' came out with his idea he's parading and has broad support among "conservatives" where by law you will be required to buy private health insurance and if you can not afford it, the gov't will buy it for you. Yeah, Newt really did say these things. Newt is creating a new gov't program that uses outside contractors (insurance companies) to give it all the glow of privatization but is using the police powers to force you and I into this plan so to speak and if we can't afford it, no worries, the public trough will again step up and pay. How long before this blows up into a massive giveaway plan. Much of Hillary's current ideas come from Newt's plan as in 05' she and Newt along with Patrick Kennedy worked on this idea together.
Sounds to me like the left get's charged with loving taxes but how can we not also make that same claim against the so-called right? Oh yeah, they hide it behind the word "PRIVATIZATION!"
Look, I think folks like ourselves for the most part realize the need to be responsible for our lives and futures and do so accordingly and if for example they did away with the SS tax, I'd take that weekly amount and either roll it into my 401k or some other means of savings or investment. Some people would do the same but others would not. The question comes down to a couple of simple thoughts.
1) Does passing a law mandating a person do something that left to themselves, they would not do on their own equate to more gov't or less gov't?
2) Does mandating a person take part in a private business or matter equate to more gov't or less?
3) If you mandate even a privatized function, will it require police powers to assure total partcipation?
4) If the gov't privatizes an industry and controls who is and who is not in the market place, does that constitute a government created monopoly and are monoplies anthama to Free Market/Free Enterprise Economics?
5) Based on the answers, how does this all square with the idea of left/right, liberal/conservative political thoughts and ideas?
If we believe in limited gov't then we must stay true to it IMO at all times. Do we force the "unemployed and lazy" into the same tax slavery as ourselves or do we maintain principle and figure out how to conform the functions of gov't so that we to can have the same tax bill as those folks?
Out of the last 28 years, except for 8 years the republican party has controlled the White House and the bully pulpit. They have been in position to set the national agenda. From 1995' to 2007' they controlled the Congress and then in Jan. 01' they controlled both branches of gov't and some would argue the 3rd branch as well. In all of that, with all this power, did gov't decrease in size, scope and means of direct taxation? Upon that question is where the rubber meets the road IMO!
Some here might think I'm carrying the democrats water and that comes as no real surprise. but the simple fact is the democrats have never in my political lifetimes extolled the virtues of real limited gov't. On the otherhand, republicans especially starting in 1980' have and when I hired them in 1980' to do the job, they didn't. Like any good customer I demand satisfaction and I doubt I'll get my money back!
That said, my only recourse is to in effect complain to the better business bureau to warn other potential customers in the real hopes that someone within the republican ranks will realize where they went wrong and do the right thing.
BTW: I'm not holding my breathe either!