Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Tax time is a bad time..
Published on April 16, 2005 By Draginol In Current Events

One has to wonder about the sanity of anyone who would, the day after April 15th (tax time in the US) argue that we aren't paying enough taxes.

I invite those who think they're undertaxed to write a big old check to the government so that they can pay their share.  Because in my experience, the people who scream the loudest for more taxes aren't paying their share.

The ones yelling that the "rich" should pay more taxes are typically people paying trivial amounts of taxation already.  They're either people who pay little because they don't earn very much money, or they're wealthy people (like John Kerry or John Edwards) who know how to play the tax game to avoid paying taxes.  Think Bush and Cheney haven't paid enough? Check out John Edwards and Kerry who pay relatively little in taxes due to playing games with personal LLCs and the like.

I pay taxes.  I pay a LOT of taxes. I also happen to believe in progressive taxation. I believe that the wealthy in this country should pay more, even as a percent, than others because it was their (our) luck to be born in a country that provides such opportunity. 

But at the same time, don't yell that I should pay even more in taxes.  For me, as a working person, taxation represents time I am spending working for the government.  Let's take a public school teacher, for instance. 

I have friends who are teachers.  One I know makes $46,500 per year.  She works 182 days per year with each day being 6 hours.  She sometimes works a few hours on a weekend grading papers and such. So let's give her the benefit of the doubt and say she works 8 hours per day. That's 1,456 hours per year.  After deductions, she pays 15% federal taxes.  That's 218 hours each year she works for the federal government.

In 2004, based on my schedule, I worked approximately 2,700 hours. After deductions, my rate rate was 33%. That means I worked about 900 hours for the federal government.  That's over FOUR times more hours I was indentured to the federal government than my teacher friend.

Forget the money for a second, let's look at it as a purely labor point of view.  I was working for the federal government nearly as many hours as my teacher friend worked for herself.

And what do I get in return? Do I get to drive on special roads? Do my kids get to go to special schools? Does the government send me a basket at Christmas? Obviously not.  In the private sector, if I was putting 4 times the effort into something I would get extra appreciation.  I don't have spend extra on cable because I work more hours and earn more money do I? I don't pay extra for water or electricity.

Most people I know who scream about taxes don't work anywhere near the number of hours I and others like me do.  They have no idea that the typical person who makes a lot of money also works a lot more hours. 

I look back at the past year and don't look just at how much money I paid in taxes, I look at how many hours I spent working not for my family but for the federal government. And then I see ungrateful people screaming I should have to work even more hours for the government -- often people who barely work full time if at all.

Now, someone might say "Nobody is forcing you to work all those hours". Very true.  I could have chosen a different career.  But if people like me did that, there'd be a lot fewer jobs.  We provide jobs for people who in turn make money to support their families.  Our economy is absolutely dependent on people who are willing to work a lot of hours to create new opportunities.

The only question is where the threshold is where it's no longer worth working so many hours.  I already work over 900 hours a year just for the federal government (and another 165 for the state government).  I'm sure there's a point where I'd say "Screw it. I've got plenty, I'm not going to put in these hours anymore."  Is this the result that tax-increase advocates want though?


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Apr 16, 2005

I'm sure there's a point where I'd say "Screw it. I've got plenty, I'm not going to put in these hours anymore."  Is this the result that tax-increase advocates want though?

That is the unintended side effect of communism, and it is oh so true.  Those that advocate taxing the rich more are only thinking of themselves and are jealous of those that have more.  They fail to realize that they cannot make you work for them, and that you do have a choice.  Not working period.

But then they would persecute you as an insensitive greedy lout.  You cannot win with them.  They are the envious and greedy, not the ones who work the hours and make the money.  They want what you have without the effort.

on Apr 16, 2005
Those who advocate harsh taxes on high income workers tend to also advocate increasing the minimum wage. They never consider the unintended consequences of their policies. 
on Apr 16, 2005
Telling everyone how terrible the tax burden when a man ( Dickey boy) making $1.7 million and paying only 21% is a joke. The bottom line is we are not generating the revenue needed to pay our bills. No matter how you complain about the tax burden in this country it is not sufficient to meet our obligations. Until we balance the budget by increasing revenue and lowering expenses we go deeper and deeper in the hole that someone is going to happen pay for in the future. It's time to act responsibly and pay our bills.
on Apr 16, 2005
You base your whole thesis on the returns of just two people out how many thousands?

Not very scientific.

Oh wait, my bad, it's just another Bush bashing arcticle.

Sorry
on Apr 16, 2005
HaHa wrong blog

Sorry
on Apr 16, 2005

Well Col Gene, Cheney made $1.7 million you say and he "only" paid 21% according to you (likely because a good chunk of that was capital gains).  That's still over $300,000 in taxes he paid.

How much you pay last year, Colonel?

on Apr 16, 2005
Dr. Guy. You're so right. And of course COL Gene doesn't get it. You have the need for high taxes because of socialism. Because people say "You have lots, I want my fair share of what you've earned." Your fair share of what someone else has earned is NOTHING. Your fair share of what you earn, is all of it. You can then choose to spend that money however you see fit. It's socialists that believe that the government has the right to take from one group of people and give it to another based on some worthiness quotient that comes down to a competition on who is more pathetic that cause high taxes. It is the socialists that cause government spending to run rampant. It is the socialists with all of their social programs that fail time and again to actually improve anything they touch with their socialism (i.e. Social Security, homelessness, healthcare etc. etc. anyone?) The moment you force someone to pay for the well being of others is the moment that person stops working as hard. The more you force them to give up what they have earned, the more they will either find ways around it (loop holes in the unjust taxation system) or the more they will stop working hard and pretend to be pathetic themselves. (these are the truly immoral people beyond even the socialists).

Progressive taxation is a stupid concept. It proposes that because you work harder and more intelligently and thus earn more money, you should pay more than your proportionate share. Assuming for a moment that an income tax system is actually at all "fair" 21% of 1 million dollars is $210,000.00. 21% of $20,000 is ~$4400. Expecting the man that makes 1 million dollars a year to pay proportionally more is not just immoral, it is slavery. It is the ultimate in cannibalism. And there is only one end result to cannibalism: death.

More to the point, the entire concept of income tax is immoral. The government does not have the right to steal. That is they don't have the right to take from you anything that you do not voluntarily enter into fair trade with them for. They must provide a service TO YOU, to be paid for it. If you choose not to pay for that service, then you canot partake in that service, but the government also cannot get paid for it. This is the fundamental root of all capitalism. It is the fundamental root of all civilization. To do otherwise is to undermine civilization and destroy it from the foundation up. If the government is to provide roads, then the government has the right to charge gas tax at the pumps along that specific highway or have a toll road. They do not have the right to use that money for ANYTHING other than that specific service that you were using. Further they do not have the right to use other money to subsidize that service that you were using or MIGHT at some point in the future decide to use.

And before you socialists bring it up, "if you don't like it, don't live here" or the variations of "you're getting a service of being an American" is a stupid argument. Imagine saying to Dr. King: "If you don't like this whole slavery thing, you can go back to Africa." Or "If you want all of the benefits of being an American then you have to live with the fact that you're a slave." Your constitution provides the people with the right to bare arms. Not to protect the nation, but to overthrow the government the moment it infringes on your basic human rights. The reason that is in your constitution is specifically because the founding fathers recognized that "if you don't like it, don't live here" was not an argument when it comes to infringing on freedom. (it is however an argument for preventing people from infringing on freedom, such as the barbaric concept of female circumcision. But I'll leave that to you to figure out why the difference.)

(Can't wait for BakerStreet to jump in with some illogical statement without proof at this point and decree that everyone else is an extremist or a fool...)
on Apr 16, 2005
More to the point, the entire concept of income tax is immoral. The government does not have the right to steal. That is they don't have the right to take from you anything that you do not voluntarily enter into fair trade with them for. They must provide a service TO YOU, to be paid for it. If you choose not to pay for that service, then you canot partake in that service, but the government also cannot get paid for it.


Not to protect the nation, but to overthrow the government the moment it infringes on your basic human rights.


What are you going to do, protect your right to refuse to use (and pay for) the roads, water, money, law, protection from invasion, electricity, and oh yeah, the maintenance of communication services such as, I don't know, the internet by force of arms? Or perhaps declare the acrage around your house an independent nation...

I concede the government is by and for the people by consentual agreement, but not that you automatically have the right to refuse to recognize the government out of hand, and without better reason than you not liking to pay for their services.

Besides, anarchy boy, I'd love to see how you intend to intentionaly completely fail to benefit from the government in any way. Since, after all, accepting their services without paying for them or by mutual agreement would be stealing, right?
on Apr 17, 2005
Reply By: COL Gene Posted: Saturday, April 16, 2005
Telling everyone how terrible the tax burden when a man ( Dickey boy) making $1.7 million and paying only 21% is a joke. The bottom line is we are not generating the revenue needed to pay our bills. No matter how you complain about the tax burden in this country it is not sufficient to meet our obligations. Until we balance the budget by increasing revenue and lowering expenses we go deeper and deeper in the hole that someone is going to happen pay for in the future. It's time to act responsibly and pay our bills.


He is still right about not paying the bills.

Reply By: Draginol Posted: Saturday, April 16, 2005

Well Col Gene, Cheney made $1.7 million you say and he "only" paid 21% according to you (likely because a good chunk of that was capital gains). That's still over $300,000 in taxes he paid.

How much you pay last year, Colonel?


Probably no where near that amount.

Reply By: John Galt Posted: Saturday, April 16, 2005

More to the point, the entire concept of income tax is immoral. The government does not have the right to steal. That is they don't have the right to take from you anything that you do not voluntarily enter into fair trade with them for. They must provide a service TO YOU, to be paid for it.


So how would you suggest the country to actually pay for things? Anything for that matter? On top of that in order to have a place to even get the opportunity to make more than 30,000 cost money. From educational system to war powers.


Also:
Reply By: John Galt Posted: Saturday, April 16, 2005

Progressive taxation is a stupid concept. It proposes that because you work harder and more intelligently and thus earn more money, you should pay more than your proportionate share. Assuming for a moment that an income tax system is actually at all "fair" 21% of 1 million dollars is $210,000.00. 21% of $20,000 is ~$4400. Expecting the man that makes 1 million dollars a year to pay proportionally more is not just immoral, it is slavery. It is the ultimate in cannibalism. And there is only one end result to cannibalism: death.

So do you propose that someone earning 30,000 a year pay 21% our of their pay while someone earning a million pay, lets say 12%?

Math wise, equal proportion is to have 21% taken out of both. 221,000 is allot of money, but I would gladly have that taken to keep the rest of the million. Also note that 4,000 dollars taken from someone making less than 30,000 a year is a lot of money RELATIVE to him and his needs.

Also note that you do not actually have to pay taxes... really. I forget where I read that. What they actually get you on is not reporting what you earn... ahhh I can't remember. In the end, you end up paying taxes anyway though some catch-22 in the law (have to look this up)




I think the real point is, and I have Frogboy to thank for changing my mind on this, is to not tax the individual more. Once you reach a specific proportion of income, that should be it. Whether your a millionaire or a billionaire. The only problem is the theory of economics that basically notes that the more money a person has the less likely that person is to spend it on commodities. (yes it is true and there is even a economic equation for it).

In other words, rich people tend to save rather then spend. So the question would be then, how do we get that money back into the economy instead of a bank/money fund?

This is why there needs to be a balance between how much is taken and how much is actually free for all to use. A person who makes a lot can arguably give more without too much fret that they will do without any of the luxuries that keep the economy going (from hotels to planes to cars and housing). So a millionaire can TECHNICALLY still save much of what they are earning plus buy those luxury items. (Not to mention the fact that being rich does allow one to buy better quality products and defiantly buy in volume and be able to store it of which is very important.)

Nevertheless, it is not actually fair for a rich person to pay more, but there HAS TO BE an equality of terms. A person earning 12,000 a year can not have 33% of his earnings taken out of their pay. A person earning a million can arguably pay 33% much like the person earning 100,000 dollars a year or the person earning 40,000 (specifically left out 30,000 because that seems to be the point of equitable living).


There has to be a balance of taxation. During certain times the 100,000 a year person is more likely to spend what they earn, and since they are spending what they earn, taxing them would not be a good idea. If it turns out that they are not spending what they earn then taxing is a good idea to re-free up the money (liquidity).







The real question here is, what is the proper taxation policy during this time in American history... and maybe now IS the time to ask, while everyone is either mad about it, or happy that they got a return.
on Apr 17, 2005
"After deductions, my rate rate was 33%."

33% is the highest rate of tax you pay? Dear boy, many wealthy chaps in Britain would kill for that rate. Luckily I have numerous tax lawyers who shield my vast income from tax.

40% is the highest rate in Britain, plus the peasants have 'national insurance' taken from their wages to pay for state pensions and the NHS. What a load of nonsense.
on Apr 17, 2005

It's 33% federal then another 6% state so that's really 39%.

If Kerry had won the election, I was going to switch to the John Edwards LLC method of lowering my taxes but luckily for the tax increase advocates, Bush won and me and probably thousands (millions?) like me will continue to pay traditional income taxes rather than just throw it all into an LLC and take stock dividends every month that get taxed at a much lower rate.

 

on Apr 17, 2005
Higher taxes do not necessarily lead to higher government income anyway; ESPECIALLY in the higher tax brackets. Tax evasion is expensive in most cases (especially if you want to legally evade taxes). But if your taxes go up, the incentive to evade taxes goes up too.
on Apr 17, 2005

You have lots, I want my fair share of what you've earned."

And unfortunately, that is their creed.  Not their fair share of what they earned, but of what you earned.  because you earned more.

on Apr 17, 2005

It's 33% federal then another 6% state so that's really 39%.
If Kerry had won the election, I was going to switch to the John Edwards LLC method of lowering my taxes but luckily for the tax increase advocates, Bush won and me and probably thousands (millions?) like me will continue to pay traditional income taxes rather than just throw it all into an LLC and take stock dividends every month that get taxed at a much lower rate.

39% plus another 15.3% (FICA and medicaid).  Oki, for the really rich, the 12.6% cuts off at $180k (for both).

But then we have Property tax, sales tax, personal property tax, vehicle tax, etc.

Figure the Gov sucks up about 40% for the poor and 60% for the rich.

is that enough for the blood suckers?

harldy.

on Apr 17, 2005
Bush made $764,219 and paid a total of 243,000 in taxes including Social Security, Medicare, Property, sales and income taxes. He had a total tax rate of 31.8%. Cheney had a total tax rate of about 25%. In 2001 Bush paid about 37% and Cheney paid about 42%.

They did well for themselves!
2 Pages1 2