Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic Dues instead of taxes?

Okay, okay, don't hang me... and don't respond if you don't feel like it. (I guess many of you don't. ) Anyway, today in New york Times, an Op-Ed contributor, Richard Conniff, suggests that we should stop using the word "taxes" and talk about paying our "dues" instead. I like it!

Abolish All \'Taxes\'

Ann

Ack! I agree with this quote in the article:

Ha! I say abolish the IRS and start the fair tax. That way everything we spend money on has an additional tax on it; the more money you spend the more money the government gets.

This would work out well because rich people are going to be spending more money anyways but it would be their choice. They wouldn't be penalized just because they were rich.

Also, the US is a consumer nation big time. I bet the government would make more money off a fair tax than they do income tax.

Today, I want to stangle the IRS. My hubby and I don't live extravagantly by any means. I work 2 jobs (although one is specifically for LAFF money ) and he works 3 and is a full time student. We rarely eat out, go on dates, or go shopping. He drives a car with no a/c and numerous other problems and yet we had to send a check to the IRS for $2,000 today. Grrrrrrr!! Something is just not right in this scenario.

Of course the government does need money to run efficiently, I'd just rather them get the money from my purchases. Seems logical in my mind.

/me raises hand and dittos Steph

Let me keep my money and if I choose to spend it, then take part of it. The Fair Tax book was a great read, but sadly, I doubt it will be implemented.

We're fortunate that we don't owe these days - in fact we get more back than we pay in [yes, that's wealth redistribution and yes, I'm against it in principle and will vote for those who feel the same way, but I'm not going to say 'no thanks' either as long as that's the way the system works], but I remember the days when we did and I'm so glad they're over for the moment. They'll be back with a vengence one day I'm sure.

Changing what you call it won't change what it is. Calling a pile of horse manure diamonds won't actually change what it is. Call a spade a spade - or in this case, taxes taxes.

Carol

Seriously!! I'm all for that and not only will I be paying sales tax but so will EVERY PERSON who buys something in our country. It's time to stop punishing people who WORK!! It's time to start rewarding people who PRODUCE!! That's what makes a country run, not a government.

TEEEEEEEJ

A rose by any other name still has the stench of government thievery. Taxes are taxes. Somehow I don't think the pain will be any less if we try to rename it. I just wrote enormous checks to both federal and state governments, putting me in a fairly sour mood. Dues are things you pay the Boy Scouts or the Rotary Club. Dues are voluntary contributions to organizations you support in exchange for membership. Taxes are legal theft.

What I propose is an abolition of withholding. If people are forced to write a check to the government every two weeks, people will finally realize just how much is being taken out of their paychecks and will rebel. Like Las Vegas, the government tries to make it so that if you don't see your actual money being swiped away by the stickman, then you won't think of it as real money. There is a reason Vegas uses chips and not cash.

That's what withholding does. If you never see it, you won't notice it's missing. But if you have to write a check every two weeks, you'll see tax revolts like you wouldn't believe.

I didn't think I'd convince you. Thanks for responding, though!

(And yay to the fact that the boards are back online!!! )

Ann

I second that!!!

Stephnachia wrote:
You're right, that is a logical solution. And it would put American consumers in control of the taxes they pay. But it will never happen.

The reason is simple: there's no way to budget government spending with an income stream (the tax money) which can't be predicted. In good years the tax revenues would be higher than in bad years, because people would save their money and not buy as many expensive items. But that means that the guys and gals on Capitol Hill can't spend what they want to spend each year. And if the revenue stream is more controlled by the people, then government expenses will be more closely scrutinized by the voters. It's a perfectly reasonable solution to a problem, but the politics involved will block any implementation of it.

Remember the debate on Congressional term limits? The senators and representatives who voted against Federally mandated term limits did so because of their "conscience," not because their constituents told them they didn't like the idea. No democratic government is perfect, because the basic function of government is to perpetuate itself. As I have grown older, I have begun to believe that more and more strongly.

Ann, please understand that most Americans are not socialists. Sweden is a democratically voted socialist state and not a dictatorship, but it is still socialist. The idea of the government taking care of everything for us poor little idiot voters may sound nice in campaign speeches, but most American voters recognize it for what it is - control over every aspect of our lives.

And we, as a people, don't want that. We don't feel that we "owe" the Federal or state governments anything. We recognize that no government can operate without funds, but there has to be a limit. There has to be personal liberty linked with personal responsibility along with the government handouts. I don't mind helping someone who needs it, but I detest the idea of giving money to anyone who gets it simply by not working and not trying to find a job. And I prefer to control where my charitable contributions go. I'll get that right at least as often as some uninterested bureaucrat two or three thousand miles away, and probably more often.

Take it from me, Terry. The Swedish government doesn't control every aspect of Swedish people's lives. Not a chance. Trust me. I know, because I live here.

Ann

I think this is a common misconception that many people in the US have about the European welfare state system (which, I might add, has been eroding slowly over the past few decades).

Beautiful response, Terry!! I recall mentioning this in the Charlton Heston thread, but your summation is much better. I can't get off where some people think they need the government to handle food, clothing, shelter, medication, therapy, transportation, and general all around well being. These same folks act like the government owes them that stuff, but those same folks refuse to acknowledge that it's hardworking taxpayers (that are willing to handle that stuff themselves) that are forced to pay the free ride of the users. Nah, about sick of that here, and so we're moving out of the liberal mecca of MN and moving to AZ.

TEEEEEEJ

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/...mp;newsId=20080410005850&newsLang=en

April 10, 2008 11:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time

CCAGW Says, “Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is”
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)

--The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) today hailed the introduction of the aptly titled “Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is” Act, sponsored by Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.). The bill would amend the Tax Code to allow individuals to make contributions above and beyond what they already pay in taxes. Tax forms would include a line indicating how much each person would like to pay. The bill is in response to those who have claimed to be unfairly undertaxed.

“It is time for Americans who like the fact that the government spends so much of their tax dollars to ‘put their money where there mouth is’ and give up extra taxes voluntarily,” said CCAGW President Tom Schatz.

According to a 2007 Harris Interactive survey conducted on behalf of the Tax Foundation, only 2 percent of respondents claimed the amount of federal income tax they pay is too low, compared 58 percent of respondents who said that their taxes were too high.

Citizens already have an opportunity to contribute to a fund within the Department of the Treasury to reduce the federal debt. According to the Treasury, the lowest amount sent to the government was $744,675.06 in 2004, and the most was last year, a whopping $2,624,862.42.

“If the bill passes, it will be easy to send extra tax dollars to Washington, where everyone knows they will be spent wisely. More money could be spent on important priorities like hops research, lobster and sheep institutes, or olive fruit fly research - all among the 11,610 pork projects worth $17.2 billion that were uncovered in Citizens Against Government Waste’s 2008 Pig Book,” concluded Schatz.

The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste is the lobbying arm of Citizens Against Government Waste, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government.

Taxation has always been a sore subject for Americans. The American Revolution, for example, was fought (at least in part) as a protest against unfair taxation. Most Americans don't realize, however, that American colonists were paying much less in taxes than British citizens (1/7th to 1/26th the amount, depending on the historical source). One could argue that Americans were paying for fewer services, which is certainly true, but the taxation by the British was hardly the oppressive policy we seem to think it was.

What's interesting, of course, is that, after the Revolution, American leaders became the ones in charge of taxing the citizenry. Many of their long held views on taxation changed, and they became frustrated by various rebellions (Shays' Rebellion, for example). The government created in the Articles of Confederation was a direct reaction to perceived problems of British rule, but the weak central government and the lack of power to tax made it extremely ineffective.

Personally, I have no problem with paying taxes. Sure, I'd love to have more money in my pocket, but it would be difficult to accomplish anything without the organization (yes, it could be better) and infrastructure provided by the government. Taxes pay for a variety of necessary services, including roads, schools, and defense. My only real problem with taxes in is when the money is wasted on silly, pork-barrel projects or when government leaders overpay for goods and services in order to line someone's pockets. As for the idea of people with higher incomes paying more taxes, I have no problem with that either. They take up more of society's resources, so they should shoulder more of the burden of taxation.

Just my two cents. Forgive the mini history lesson--as an American history teacher, I couldn't resist.

But part of the problem in the 1700s was also representation. The colonies had no representation in Parliament and thought 'virtual representation' was a load of bull. Had the colonies been given even token representation, it could have forestalled the war without making a difference.

I don't particularly care for either of my Senators or my Rep, though one is worse than the other two, but I was involved in choosing them, whether I voted for them or not, so I can't claim I am not represented.

Carol [who used to teach Am. History but is Am. Govt/Poli Sci]

Carol, it's always fun to have another history teacher to talk shop with. I left the representation issue out because it wasn't directly relevant to my point about taxes (and, therefore, it would have been a much longer post/essay). I agree that representation was an issue for the colonists, but it seems to have been more of a slogan than anything else. Having a few real representatives in Parliament would have hardly given the Americans any sort of power to control their destiny. It wasn't overly practical either, given the physical distance between Britain and the colonies.

The Americans complained about the concept of virtual representation, but what seems to have frustrated them more is that the British had become more actively involved in their affairs after the French and Indian War. The war was expensive (and, yes, it was a part of a larger European war), and the British wanted them to help share the costs. To that end, they imposed more taxes on the colonists. When the colonists resisted, they tried different types of taxation in order to get the money they needed. They even offered to allow the colonists to tax themselves, provided that some of the money would go to Britain to pay for the war. The colonists were used to running their own assemblies without much interference, and they didn't like being told what to do. They certainly didn't like the harsher measures the British resorted to, including the disbanding of colonial assemblies and the closing of the port of Boston.