Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour; a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. Thomas Paine, writing from Philadelphia, February 14, 1776
Thomas Paine
Author of the best seller Common Sense (1776)
About this blog
This blog contains the common sense thoughts of three concerned Americans: Dave, Bill, and Brian. Others are welcome to post their comments.
About the bloggers
- Dave
- Carlisle, PA
- My best friend is my wife, Barbara. Though I am concerned about my country, I am at peace about our future.
Rhetorical Gold
Watch and Consider
Blog Archive
Quotes we must never forget!
"Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants." William Penn
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other." John Adams
“The most effectual means of preventing the perversion of power into tyranny are to illuminate the minds of the people.” Thomas Jefferson
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents...Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." James Madison
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." Alexis de Tocqueville
"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve this measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." Frankin Pierce
"The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next." Abraham Lincoln
"All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their benefit; and that they have at all times an undeniable and indefeasible right to alter their form of government in such a manner as they may think expedient. This means that the citizen who thinks he sees that the nation’s political clothes are worn out, and yet holds his peace and does not agitate for a new suit, is disloyal; he is a traitor." Mark Twain
"You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we're not bound by that same limitation?" Ronald W. Reagan
"We have four boxes from which we can defend our freedom: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box." Larry McDonald
“That government is best which governs least” Henry David Thoreau
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." Norman Thomas, Socialist Party of America
"Socialism was the tragic failure of the twentieth century. Born of a commitment to remedy the economic and moral defects of capitalism, it has far surpassed capitalism in both economic malfunction and moral cruelty." Robert Heilbroner, committed socialist (for most of his life)
"To sit home, read one’s favorite paper, and scoff at the misdeeds of the men who do things is easy, but it is markedly ineffective. It is what evil men count upon the good men doing." Theodore Roosevelt
"A word to the wise ain’t necessary--it’s the stupid ones that need advice." Bill Cosby
TJ's insight on the two universal parties
Men by there constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: (1) Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. (2) Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depository of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist; and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves.
Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee (August 10, 1824)
"Wherever there are men, there will be parties; and wherever there are free men they will make themselves heard. Those of firm health and spirits are unwilling to cede more of their liberty than is necessary to preserve order; those of feeble constitutions will wish to see one strong arm able to protect them from the many. These are the Whigs (Conservative Constitutionalists) and Tories (Liberal Democrats) of nature."
Thomas Jefferson: Misc. Notes, 1801? FE 8:1
"Both of our political parties, at least the honest portion of them, agree conscientiously in the same object: the public good; but they differ essentially in what they deem the means of promoting that good. One side believes it best done by one composition of the governing powers, the other by a different one. One fears most the ignorance of the people; the other the selfishness of rulers independent of them. Which is right, time and experience will prove. We think that one side of this experiment has been long enough tried and proved not to promote the good of the many, and that the other has not been fairly and sufficiently tried. Our opponents think the reverse. With whichever opinion the body of the nation concurs, that must prevail."
Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:52
"Men have differed in opinion and been divided into parties by these opinions from the first origin of societies, and in all governments where they have been permitted freely to think and to speak. The same political parties which now agitate the U.S. have existed through all time. Whether the power of the people or that of the [aristocracy] should prevail were questions which kept the states of Greece and Rome in eternal convulsions, as they now schismatize every people whose minds and mouths are not shut up by the gag of a despot. And in fact the terms of Whig and Tory belong to natural as well as to civil history. They denote the temper and constitution of mind of different individuals."
Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813. ME 13:279
"The division into Whig and Tory is founded in the nature of man; the weakly and nerveless, the rich and the corrupt, seeing more safety and accessibility in a strong executive; the healthy, firm, and virtuous, feeling confidence in their physical and moral resources, and willing to part with only so much power as is necessary for their good government; and, therefore, to retain the rest in the hands of the many, the division will substantially be into Whig and Tory."
Thomas Jefferson to Joel Barlow, 1802. ME 10:310
"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee (August 10, 1824)
"Wherever there are men, there will be parties; and wherever there are free men they will make themselves heard. Those of firm health and spirits are unwilling to cede more of their liberty than is necessary to preserve order; those of feeble constitutions will wish to see one strong arm able to protect them from the many. These are the Whigs (Conservative Constitutionalists) and Tories (Liberal Democrats) of nature."
Thomas Jefferson: Misc. Notes, 1801? FE 8:1
"Both of our political parties, at least the honest portion of them, agree conscientiously in the same object: the public good; but they differ essentially in what they deem the means of promoting that good. One side believes it best done by one composition of the governing powers, the other by a different one. One fears most the ignorance of the people; the other the selfishness of rulers independent of them. Which is right, time and experience will prove. We think that one side of this experiment has been long enough tried and proved not to promote the good of the many, and that the other has not been fairly and sufficiently tried. Our opponents think the reverse. With whichever opinion the body of the nation concurs, that must prevail."
Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:52
"Men have differed in opinion and been divided into parties by these opinions from the first origin of societies, and in all governments where they have been permitted freely to think and to speak. The same political parties which now agitate the U.S. have existed through all time. Whether the power of the people or that of the [aristocracy] should prevail were questions which kept the states of Greece and Rome in eternal convulsions, as they now schismatize every people whose minds and mouths are not shut up by the gag of a despot. And in fact the terms of Whig and Tory belong to natural as well as to civil history. They denote the temper and constitution of mind of different individuals."
Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813. ME 13:279
"The division into Whig and Tory is founded in the nature of man; the weakly and nerveless, the rich and the corrupt, seeing more safety and accessibility in a strong executive; the healthy, firm, and virtuous, feeling confidence in their physical and moral resources, and willing to part with only so much power as is necessary for their good government; and, therefore, to retain the rest in the hands of the many, the division will substantially be into Whig and Tory."
Thomas Jefferson to Joel Barlow, 1802. ME 10:310
"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
16 comments:
When all taxes (not just income taxes) are taken into account, the lowest 20% of earners (who average about $12,400 per year), paid 16.0% of their income to taxes in 2009; and the next 20% (about $25,000/year), paid 20.5% in taxes. So if we only examine these first two steps, the tax system looks like it is going to be progressive.
And it keeps looking progressive as we move further up the ladder: the middle 20% (about $33,400/year) give 25.3% of their income to various forms of taxation, and the next 20% (about $66,000/year) pay 28.5%. So taxes are progressive for the bottom 80%. But if we break the top 20% down into smaller chunks, we find that progressivity starts to slow down, then it stops, and then it slips backwards for the top 1%.
Specifically, the next 10% (about $100,000/year) pay 30.2% of their income as taxes; the next 5% ($141,000/year) dole out 31.2% of their earnings for taxes; and the next 4% ($245,000/year) pay 31.6% to taxes. You'll note that the progressivity is slowing down. As for the top 1% -- those who take in $1.3 million per year on average -- they pay 30.8% of their income to taxes, which is a little less than what the 9% just below them pay, and only a tiny bit more than what the segment between the 80th and 90th percentile pays.
Bottom line is most of the wealth in this country is with the top 2%. Median household income has only gone up 17% (inflation adjusted) over the last 30 years or so.
I do know just from what I have read and my situation that this year I paid in fed. income tax 10.3% and since a lot of rich people make their money thru capital gains and dividends they only paid 15%, and I do have an issue with that.
However, my opinion is that anyone who has income for the year should pay something, even if its only $50 in income tax, so that we all have a stake in this country.
I do know
Suggest you read http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Correction.....income for us po folk has only gone up 11.7%, not 17%.
The reason the progressive nature of the taxes paid seems to fizzle out as the income goes up is because of FICA. You cannot factor FICA into your calculations. It is not progressive and has a cap. And there is good reason for the cap. There is only a limited amount anyone can receive in monthly Social Security payments, regardless of how much they have contributed. Why should someone who makes a million dollars have to give 15.3% of it ($153,000.00) into a Social Secuiry scheme that will at best return a couple of thousand dollars a month after age 67.
In addition, why should taxes be progessive at all. Where is the equal justice under the law? And why should capital gains be taxed at a higher rate than so-called earned income. All of the tax theories practiced in this country are discussed as though they are somehow handed down from heaven. There are many ways to finance a government. There is nothing sacrosanct about our system. It's time to rebuild the entire system from the ground up, and we should start by eliminating all taxes on income.
first off someone making a million would only give 6.2 per cent, not 15.3. I don't think there is a cap on medicare, so that would continue on. If you want to blog on our income tax system, that's fine, but it is what it is and there is a widening gap where the rich are getting richer the rest of us are barely making gains, and you can't deny those facts that a very small per cent have most of the wealth in this country.
Most people who make a million dollars are self-employed, which means they pay 15.3% in FICA. But the same argument holds for those who work for the man.
Interesting to see that Tom, with all his impressive facts and figures, doesn't realize that self-employed people have to pay the full tax, whatever the exact percentage is. They don't have an employer to help them with half of the tax, because the ARE the employer.
As for your silly class warfare rich vs. poor nonsense, there are always going to be rich people in the world, and in all likelihood, you and I are not going to be among them. Face it. Get over it. Deal with it. Be an adult. Do you see me demanding that Obama hand over some inordinate amount of his $1.7 million to me or to some anonymous "poor"? As long as he didn't steal it, what do I care? I don't. I don't simmer with envy over the evil rich guy. From what I can tell, you have it pretty good. You have a job with long tenure, decent pay and great benefits. And the evil free market has given it to you. Why do you bellyache and demand that rich people just give you what isn't yours and you didn't earn? Why are you consumed with envy? Do you think in a Soviet system you so ardently desire a greater proportion of the people would hold the wealth? Don't you realize it would be much smaller?
Dear Brian, I have no envy to the rich. Yes, they have to pay the full 15.3%, but at least on my return I get to subtract 1/2 of my SS tax from my income, which is fair. I guess my problem is I am aware that not everyone in this great country gets the same upbringing I got and some of the breaks I got along the way in my adult life and I think the only one who can step in and try to help is the government. I personally don't ask the government for anything. I do not need their help, but I know some who do, and I know some who work and work and are always being told we can't afford to give you a raise, so they wind up losing out to inflation. There's more to be than just my own self.
Now, I am no longer working, Brian. The contract ended and the new company did not hire me, so I was laid off by Honeywell. Looking at who was not hired by the new contractor, it really appears it was those of us who are older and thus making more money than all the 30 year old fresh outs that did get the jobs. So now I have been sacrificed for profit. Should I collect unemployment? Would you?
Tom, I haven't had a raise for six years and this is the third year for Barbara. The sad truth is, people need to learn to live within their means. I don't buy your assertion that the government is the only entity that can step in to help. There is family, church, a vast array of charitable organizations, not to mention the possibilty of getting a second job for a while. Yes, life can be tough, but some things are more valuable than being affluent. Being free from dependance on the government is one thing that comes to mind.
Tom, at last a worthy debate. I’m sorry you lost your position. I know from experience that that is a shock to the system, and no matter how many times it happens, it never gets easier. You have to make your own decision about whether to accept unemployment compensation. I’ve only ever known one person who declined to even apply for unemployment compensation: myself. In my case, I voluntarily signed on to a temporary job. I knew it was going to end, and when the inevitable happened, it never occurred to me that my friends and neighbors should take up my support, without my even trying to find—or create—some useful work.
Where we differ is that I believe there are more people with that positive upbringing than you suppose. For those who lack it, government is neither a substitute nor a solution. And by the way, it is government recklessness and irresponsibility that creates and stokes inflation. I will rely on the free market, which has created great prosperity for all of us, including those who feel they must rely on the government. I recently was let go from a little part-time job I had, apparently because my employer no longer felt he was benefitting from what I was doing for his company. He was no longer willing to pay me for what I was doing for him, and that is the final verdict, until I find someone with the opposite attitude. I don’t believe I was “sacrificed” for profit, because I support my erstwhile employer’s goal of making a profit. If not for the profit motive, he would not be able to employ any of the very valuable employees he retains. Without profit (absent some crony relationship with the government, which means with you and me, without our consent, by the way), he would be smart to take his capital, live off the interest, and play golf, leaving all his employees to their fate.
Dave’s points are well taken. To me, freedom is one of the highest aspirations of mankind. Government’s price for dependency is high. I would rather be dead than be a ward of the state. We live in a very generous, charitably disposed society. That is essentially because of Christianity. Of course, government doesn’t want to compete with God, and does whatever it can to marginalize charitable organizations. That isn’t good for society or for the economy, in my opinion.
Blessings to you and yours.
Just got these numbers out of American History magazine: In 1980 (pre-Reagan tax cuts), the top 5% paid 37% of the nation's income taxes. In 2008 (post Bush tax cuts), the top 5% paid 59% of the nation's income taxes. I think the Democrats know this. I think they know there is a point of diminishing return. I think they are not really trying to "soak the rich" but to let the rich (of which there are many liberals) off the hook. Isn't it the Laffer Curve that shows that as you raise rates (especially on the so-called rich), actual tax revenues will decrease?
The national debt increased in the 80s in spite of the fact that revenues nearly doubled because Congress would not curb spending. Same for the Bush years. The surplus of the 90s was because we paid off the savings and loan debt and Newt ran the House. We have been round and round about this so many times that I see no point in continuing to go round and round. If you choose to ignore the facts and draw your own conclusions, you are free to do so. I would rather be more realistic. BTW, who was it that dispooved the Laffer Curve?
The Laffer curve is valid. Conservative principles work, when tried. The problem is that they are rarely allowed to work. Big government statist liberals hamstring the free market, manipulate interest rates, cause inflation, and then deny the validity of the Laffer curve. They are the problem, don't you see that, Tom? "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem," a great man once said.
The problem is not that people are "hoarding cash." They are acting in their self interest, which is perfectly moral and sensible in a free society. Government--yes, your heroic government--is stifling and suffocating risk taking and economic activity. Have you no understanding of cause and effect? Read Atlas Shrugged.
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/07/on-charlatons-and-cranks.html
http://www.wehaitians.com/a%20political%20comeback%20supply%20side%20economics.html
http://voxbaby.blogspot.com/2007/01/new-years-plea.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/16/AR2006101601121.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0625/p15s01-cogn.html?page=2
Tom, concerning the articles and blogs you referenced, the Washington Post article says, "Holtz-Eakin and other economists said they can only speculate about why that economic growth generated a disproportionate jump in revenue." And the CSM artcle says, "Economics, though, is not an exact science. There is room for debate." None of the pieces you referenced give any proof that the Laffer Curve has been disproved. All they do is demonstrate that what a person believes about the economy largely depends on his political ideology.
In its lead editorial on April 18, the WSJ demolishes the soak-the-rich class-warfare scam for the lie it is. Giving Obama the benefit of the doubt by using data for 2005, a “boom” year for the economy, if you taxed 100% of the income of people making over $200,000 a year, you would get $1.89 trillion, enough to cover Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, but not ObamaCare or anything else. (The same exercise for 2008, for people over $380,000—top 1% of earners--would give you $938 billion, less than 25% of Obama’s $4 trillion budget.) Where else do you get tax money? The answer is obvious: the middle class. As the Journal points out, like Willie Sutton, the government knows that that’s where the money is. And if, for political purposes, you are trying to exempt more and more people from any federal tax liability, then you have to get it some other way, for instance a VAT, carbon credit scheme, or by getting rid of cherished middle-class tax deductions like the mortgage-interest deduction. You could also continue your profligate borrowing and try to inflate away the debt, which would be disastrous.
This is a matter of arithmetic. It is addition and subtraction. You can’t get around it. Of course, if you’re a big-government politician, you must turn to lies, gimmicks and tricks, because 2 plus 2 does not equal 5 and never will.
I sure hope no one gets rid of my mortgage deduction. VAT....eh, who knows. Carbon, I could live with if done correctly. I don't have little kids, but doesn't our current tax code virtually encourage you to have kids because of the credits you get these days?
Post a Comment