So following your "logic" if you work hard for your money you should pay less tax. By that standard the hotel maids, migrant workers, and other low paid, but hard working Americans should pay less.

Then if we beiliev we must have someone pay taxes we should tax the hell out of those who dont work for their money. Folks like Paris Hilton and the dividend babies. Jerry, I think you may be a closet socialist!

I do not know where you get your reading material but this country came into being over taxes and individual freedom. Owning a business is NOT a privilege but a basic right that all can do and it was intended to be so.

To understand the difference and choices made James Madison is a good read as are the Adams ( all ). Probably be helpful to you.

That's funny. White slave owners in the 18th and early 19th centuries had the exact same sentiments about business and property ownership.

Your comment is really quite telling. You feel it's your right to not own property or a business (which it is) and I assume you own neither. On the other hand you feel you have the right to demand payment from those owners in order to pay for those social programs you so desire. You want the money and the programs, you just don't want to pay for any of it yourself.

In my book taking the property of another using the threat of violence leveraged by the power of gov't is not called social programs, social democracy, redistribution,

...............................................it's called theft.

Hmmm, let's see, "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness." Which one of those is analogous to business? Or maybe they snuck an amendment in there I'm not aware of? How many times is the word business or corporation in the Constitution?

Mike--
Perhaps you'll pay a lower percentage of tax because Idaho receives $1.21 from the federal government for every dollar paid in tax, compared to Washington's $.88 for every dollar paid in tax. Anything over a 1:1 ratio makes it a welfare state, doesn't it?

You assume wrong.

I don't demand payment, other than upholding the Constitution that clearly states the government will assess and collect a tax for the general welfare of the United States. I am not exempt from paying those taxes.

SW,

So in your book are all taxes a form of theft? The gov't. collects them under the threat of violence of a sort, and it's certainly leveraged by the power of the gov't.

Sg

Boiled down in that narrow scope, yes one could say that all taxes are some form of theft since they use the threat of jail or imprisonment to solicit payment. Although I myself probably wouldn't go that far.

Do I view taxes that are taken against my will through the use of force that go to pay for immoral and illegal military adventures across the globe or to bailout Goldman Sachs and Society General for their losses in AIG CDS investments as theft? Absolutely.

Could some taxes, i.e. taxes used to pay for roads, schools, fire, and police be construed more as "user fees" as opposed to outright theft? Sure.

Bottomline a government closest to it's constituents has to answer to those constituents when they spend their money.

A federal government, when too large, has literally zero accountability when it comes to spending the people's money.

Central planning does not work, this much we know. The evidence is all around us.

In line with Jerry, I must ask, "what is money?" For many of us it represents the time and sweat we spent earning it. When my family goes out to buy something, I often think, "I worked my but off for .... hours for this?" My wife, who doesn't work, looks at money a little differently, but still gets it a little. My mother-in-law, who is on SSI, still can't figure out why they don't just raise taxes and give her more money each month. I think most people would get really pissed off if someone came to their door, dragged them out of the house, and made them mow the neighbor's lawn and do their laundry. Especially if the neighbor was some idiot who sat their smoking a cigarette and complaining that they needed the house painted too. Then consider that they choose you just because you have the nicest house on the street, so thereforth must be the most able to spare the time. After a while, you might just let your house go and spend your time fishing.

"I think most people would get really pissed off if someone came to their door, dragged them out of the house, and made them mow the neighbor's lawn and do their laundry. Especially if the neighbor was some idiot who sat their smoking a cigarette and complaining that they needed the house painted too. Then consider that they choose you just because you have the nicest house on the street, so thereforth must be the most able to spare the time. After a while, you might just let your house go and spend your time fishing."


No [censored]!

I have often thought one way taxes might be more palatable would be to have a check off list we send in with our taxes. If we could choose which department our money went to maybe we wouldn't mind paying taxes so much. If America is sick of foreign wars and $500 toilet seats we could deny DOD any of our money. If we are sick of Medicaid deny DHHS any of our money. It would be interesting to see how we ended up spending our money under that scenario,

Krijack - Name me ONE... just ONE person who was taxed out of their big home.

Just one.

According to your analogy... it shouldn't be that difficult... right?

A nice thought Dave,........but it'd never happen.

If implemented though I think you'd see some real nice roads and police/fire departments cropping up all over the country

Wouldn't be that hard QuatreSel.

Then again,.....I wouldn't expect you to post something without thinking about what you're writing.

Just take a look at county auctions all over the country where people (mostly seniors) who have had their home foreclosed on for deficient property taxes.

I can name two in my own family that let lots go rather than pay the backed taxes on them. Pretty dumb but everyone seems to have one of those type of people somewhere in the family. One lot was in California City and cant remember where the other was.

Far more common than you think Salt.

And that is one hell of an idea Dave. Can we get that on the ballot.....sadly No.....but we can dream.

This is 4Salts standard response. No offense 4Salt but there is a tipping point. Where it is I don't think we know quite yet. But you can't continually provide programs that are too expensive and not sustainable and keep coming back to the tax payers to fund more and more and more.

We have to find a balance. The D's and R's have proven they are not capable of finding this balance.

Stink - The people you refer to did NOT have their property tax rates INCREASED to the point where they had to leave their homes... and that's my point. They FAILED to plan for payment of property taxes after they retired. Property taxes aren't what Krijacks' analogy described either. It was the 'rich' being taxed out of their homes in general. THAT'S what I asked him to provide one example of.

Wntrrn - The Teabaggers are screamin' about being over taxed... but the reality is that Federal taxes are the lowest they've been in more than 60 years! How do you 'splain that?

Property taxes are a state/local thing also... so ya can't go blamin' Obama and the Democrats in Congress for that. Plus, if anything, people's assessments have gone DOWN to reflect the current market value of the property.

I agree that spending is high... but I believe that it is necessary right now to keep our economy afloat. Inflation is NOT on the rise and the deficits will reduce as the economic stimulation brings more tax revenue into the federal coffers.

Now is NOT the time to suddenly stop the social spending. For every dollar that is spent by the feds as unemployment payments for instance... a dollar fifty is returned. Those people spend 100% of that money stimulating their local economies, which in turn keeps more people employed. It's all cyclical. The less money that people spend the more the economy slows, which results in more people being laid off etc.

The federal tax increase that will result from allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is 3.5% to those making more than $200,000 a year. The marginal rate will return to 39%. Still far LOWER than it was when Reagan took office.

You folks on the right talk about being over taxed and tipping points being reached... but the FACTS just do not bear this out. WHY is that?

I wish just for once you all could be intellectually honest and just say "I don't give a rat [censored] about anybody else. I got mine and I'll be damned if'n anybody's gonna take it away from me."

I'd respect you a lot more.

So they should have been able to keep their places and skip out on their taxes? I'm not following.

Dave's idea is the best I've heard. A lot of the people yelling loudest against taxes (not necessarily on this board) are the same people that were the must gung-ho about heading overseas to bust some heads. They often seem blind to the ludicrous costs required to fund such ventures. Although some of them suddenly seem less blind to it now that Obama is president.

Not sure where you saw I was "blamin" Obama for property taxes. Perhaps re-read,......this time much slower and move your finger along the words as you read.

So every individual past and present who has lost their home due to back property taxes did not in one single case have their property taxes increased??? That's interesting,.......really it is. You must have some staggering knowledge of the nationwide, county to county, property value assessment arena. I'm impressed Considering the rampant increase in assessed values nationwide during the housing boom. I'm sure there's more than a couple of people out there who will disagree with you.

Here's a news flash for you as well. Assessments in most areas have most certainly not gone DOWN. In some areas there may have been small decreases but only when the property owner petitions the Assessor's office to re-assess the property. I've spoken to many county assessor's AND they've all told me the same thing. The county tells them how much money they need, and the Assessor's Office goes out and finds a way to make it happen. Quite a "free market" approach to assessing property values,.........don't you think?

The rest of your post uses such back asswards logic I don't know where to even begin. Other than to congratulate you for finally composing a post void of the icon.

You're a rockstar

Not what he was saying KD.

Salty asserted that never in the history of time and space has an individual ever been taxed out of their home or property.

Probably one of the top 10 stupidest statements I've heard on "The Dark Side" yet.

And that's saying alot.