The unsustainable federal income tax gap

posted at 9:25 am on April 10, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

David Harsanyi sees the same kind of serious implications in the iniquity of the federal tax code as DocZero and wonders how this administration could have let this happen.  After all, Joe Biden insisted that paying federal income taxes was “patriotic.”  In fact, Biden actually insisted that low taxes were unpatriotic, which means that the progressive tax system’s increased progressivism over the last few years is creating a lot of unpatriotic Americans — at the expense of the few:

According to the Tax Foundation, this year the top 10 percent of earners are on the hook for around 73 percent of all the income taxes collected by Washington.

On the flip side, nearly 50 percent of households — because they don’t make enough or have various deductions — do not pay any income tax whatsoever. (Your payroll taxes “fund” your own stake in Social Security and Medicare.)

If there’s a smoother way to spread the wealth, I’d love to hear about it. But if government is a force of righteousness, a wondrous $3 trillion gift that saves lives and imbues America with hope, why is it that so many of her citizens aren’t fully invested in the magic?

To be fair, as burdensome as income taxes seem to everyone, most of us are disconnected from the genuine and growing cost of government. Tax payments have been declining for the majority of Americans (good for the economy and your freedom) while government spending is increasing.

Now, I hate people who are richer than I am as much as the next guy, but how long can we keep relying on the wealthy?

Not for very much longer, and in fact that time may have already expired. The Obama administration seems perplexed at the continuing drag on jobs in their so-called recovery, but it’s not terribly difficult to see why we’ve gone the longest time in a post-war recession without a significant uptick in employment. Barack Obama keeps increasing taxes on those people with the capital to invest in the market, and sends signals that more taxation on that group is coming. Instead of investing the money, they’re sheltering it instead.

Barack Obama came to office in part on his populist ranting about how his predecessor gamed the tax system in favor of the wealthy, but that’s just demagoguery:

The total income taxes paid by the top 1 percent of earners as a share of GDP has doubled since the early ’80s. At the same time, the bottom 95 percent of earners pay a significantly smaller share. I’m not an economist (sorcerers!) but this strikes me as an unsustainable policy.

It’s true that President Barack Obama has come up with more than $3 trillion in new taxes during his short tenure, but that’s not enough. Paul Volcker, the president’s informal adviser and former Federal Reserve chairman, recently broached the idea of “value-added tax,” a consumption tax embedded into everything you buy, and a new carbon or energy tax.

It’s entirely unsustainable, but the VAT would make the situation worse. A VAT acts as a brake on consumption by making everything more expensive. It eats into the buying power of the middle class far more than it does the wealthy, who have a much higher level of disposable income. Liberals like to call state-run lotteries a “regressive tax” on the poor, but at least the lottery is voluntary. The long-term result of a VAT will be lower consumption, which means fewer jobs, and that would hit the working and middle classes hardest.

We need comprehensive tax reform in this country, and these numbers show it. If paying income taxes is the Great Patriotic Duty of all citizens, as Joe Biden insisted, then it needs to include all citizens.  In the meantime, though, we need to end the class warfare through tax policy that is keeping our economy moribund more than two years after the start of the last recession.  If we keep demonizing those with the means to invest, we’re never going to get this nation back to work.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

We need comprehensive tax reform in this country, and these numbers show it.

Thank you. We need tax reform, not a gentrification of suffrage.

blatantblue on April 10, 2010 at 9:28 AM

Easy fix: Only those who pay taxes on actual EARNED INCOME would be eligible to vote.

Thus the 50% who pay nothing would not be eligible to vote further encumbrances on the rest.

If people prefer to live as sheep, grazing on the hillside, then that would be THEIR choice…but if they want to join the society as full participants then that would be their choice as well.

Justrand on April 10, 2010 at 9:31 AM

They’ve acted stupidly.

blatantblue on April 10, 2010 at 9:31 AM

Justrand on April 10, 2010 at 9:31 AM

So the feds screw up the tax code on their own, and your fix is to punish the ordinary citizenry by taking away their vote?

blatantblue on April 10, 2010 at 9:32 AM

If the fedgovt were run according to constitutional principles and limitations, all it would need to function financially would be imposts and duties.

Akzed on April 10, 2010 at 9:34 AM

The way of the Democrats is very simple, they simply take your money to pay off the parasitic slugs that vote for them and keep them in power . . . all else is shallow, meaningless rhetoric.

rplat on April 10, 2010 at 9:34 AM

Yes indeed Ed, we do need comprehensive tax reform but this administration tends to botch eveything it touches, so I’d rather it waited for someone competent.

jeanie on April 10, 2010 at 9:35 AM

David Harsanyi sees the same kind of serious implications in the iniquity of the federal tax code as DocZero and wonders how this administration could have let this happen.

This assumes that this situation is not what they’ve been striving for.

SaintGeorgeGentile on April 10, 2010 at 9:36 AM

So the feds screw up the tax code on their own, and your fix is to punish the ordinary citizenry by taking away their vote ability to spend other people’s money? blatantblue on April 10, 2010 at 9:32 AM

Akzed on April 10, 2010 at 9:36 AM

So HotAir is now officially in favor of raising taxes?

Skandia Recluse on April 10, 2010 at 9:37 AM

Ben Stien was on Fox with Megyn Kelly yesterday, and she asked him what President Obama should do to create jobs. he said the single best thing he could do would be to announce a 3-year moratorium on any new taxes 0or regulations affecting small or medium-sized businesses.

rockmom on April 10, 2010 at 9:38 AM

Akzed on April 10, 2010 at 9:36 AM

You’re missing the point

blatantblue on April 10, 2010 at 9:38 AM

rockmom on April 10, 2010 at 9:38 AM

Why do that? They don’t want to help private industry, just choke it’s life blood so the federal government can become the nation’s top employer

blatantblue on April 10, 2010 at 9:40 AM

blatantblue: “So the feds screw up the tax code on their own, and your fix is to punish the ordinary citizenry by taking away their vote?”

Golly, maybe the “ordinary citizenry” would demand changes to the tax code to spread the burden around…eh?

One SIMPLE change would ensure that virtually no HONEST working person was dis-enfranchised: Make it impossible to RECIEVE more than you CONTRIBUTED. Simple!

Thus anyone who paid even ONE DOLLAR in taxes…or even ZERO dollars in taxes would get to vote! But if you are a net tax CONSUMER then go right ahead…but I don’t want you voting MORE of my money to yourself!

Get it?

Justrand on April 10, 2010 at 9:41 AM

Unsustainable? UNSUSTAINABLE?
WHAT IS UNSUSTAINABLE IS THE LEVEL OF IGNORANCE AND INCOMPETENCE IN THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION.

Cybergeezer on April 10, 2010 at 9:41 AM

I simply must believe that what we are seeing-living-suffering through by the hands of the Democrats is by design. The suffering is necessary for the Progressives to gain ground at this point; they have been gaining ground on individual freedom in America for at least 3-4 generations now. What we see is the drive to the finish line; they’re inside the red zone and they know it full well. Those of us who don’t see this are the sheep being readied for slaughter.

They are in this to win. Every Democrat Governor, Senator, Congressman, state representative; they are all in to win total and complete power over the people. November must be a huge house cleaning; HUGE, if freedom is to march forward rather than continue to retreat.

Keemo on April 10, 2010 at 9:41 AM

Why is it that we tax income and not wealth? How many of the uber-wealthy have relatively low income and pay next to nothing?

Just asking…

beatcanvas on April 10, 2010 at 9:42 AM

How did we survive until FDR w/o Social Security, or until LBJ without Medicare, Medicaid, AFDC, federal slumlording etc?

We should repeal all taxes on wages, all capital gains taxes, and all corporate taxes? Sound crazy? Only because the fedgovt’s out of control spending.

Regarding wage taxes: If I trade you a cat for a dog there’s nothing to tax. If I trade you eight hours of labor for $500, why should I be taxed? Neither of us made a profit: you got time and I got money on agreed terms. We’re even.

Akzed on April 10, 2010 at 9:43 AM

Justrand on April 10, 2010 at 9:41 AM

Good to see you back here and engaged old friend!
Reminds me of the old days at CQ…
Best to ya.

Keemo on April 10, 2010 at 9:43 AM

You’re missing the point
blatantblue on April 10, 2010 at 9:38 AM

I notice you’re in no hurry to enlighten me…

Akzed on April 10, 2010 at 9:44 AM

Justrand on April 10, 2010 at 9:41 AM

You’re silly enough to support an idea that would write off many conservatives. Are all conservatives in the top fifty percent? Yea? The bottom 47 percent is composed of purely liberals? Why don’t I believe that notion?

Thus anyone who paid even ONE DOLLAR in taxes…or even ZERO dollars in taxes would get to vote!

You think the voting system is phucked up now?

Wha’ cha’ gonna do when someone has paid income tax their entire life but got laid off in an election year?

Hm? Are you going to make exemptions for situations such as that? Do they provide some sort of proof of being laid off at the voting area? How convoluted do you think it can get? Very, IMO.

“One dollar in taxes”
We do every day, from goods, to sales taxes.

blatantblue on April 10, 2010 at 9:44 AM

thx Keemo…I’m over at my site: bejohngalt.com mostly…but I check HotAir multiple times a day! come on over sometime (you’ll recognize some folks! :) )

Justrand on April 10, 2010 at 9:45 AM

I notice you’re in no hurry to enlighten me…

Akzed on April 10, 2010 at 9:44 AM

Because it’s quite apparent.

blatantblue on April 10, 2010 at 9:45 AM

beatcanvas on April 10, 2010 at 9:42 AM

Answer is easy; rich Liberals do not pay taxes… Many of them are running our country right now. This is not my opinion, this is fact. Hundreds of stories are available; look no further than Timmy Geithner.

Keemo on April 10, 2010 at 9:46 AM

Justrand on April 10, 2010 at 9:45 AM

Will do so immediately; bookmarked and will engage.

Keemo on April 10, 2010 at 9:47 AM

Because it’s quite apparent.
blatantblue on April 10, 2010 at 9:45 AM

You could have described my error in the time it took you to write two non-responses.

Akzed on April 10, 2010 at 9:47 AM

You could have described my error in the time it took you to write two non-responses.

Akzed on April 10, 2010 at 9:47 AM

Your error is supporting a tiered system of voting rights.

blatantblue on April 10, 2010 at 9:48 AM

geez, blatantblue, it’s pretty freaking easy:

Have a NET tax INPUT within the previous four years and you get to vote. Yes, people could “game” that…but to do so they would have to AT LEAST forego sucking on the Government teat for 1 year in 4.

That beats the hell out of the current system where people suck away for DECADES…and still get to vote themselves more ObamaCash!

Justrand on April 10, 2010 at 9:48 AM

Our Founding Fathers probably never heard the term “clusterphark”.
I’m sure they know very much about what it means today.

Cybergeezer on April 10, 2010 at 9:48 AM

Your error is supporting a tiered system of voting rights. blatantblue on April 10, 2010 at 9:48 AM

That was easy! But it’s a tautology. You beg the question that a tiered system is unjust. That’s the issue you need to address.

The solution is to abolish income and wage taxes altogether. But so long as we have them, it is unjust to allow the same benefits to those who pay and those who don’t.

Akzed on April 10, 2010 at 9:50 AM

That beats the hell out of the current system where people suck away for DECADES…and still get to vote themselves more ObamaCash!

Justrand on April 10, 2010 at 9:48 AM

Yea, and it has nothing to do with income taxes determining one’s right to vote.

John Kerry won the top 28 states with the highest per capita income in 2004.

I think you’d regret creating the system you call for.

blatantblue on April 10, 2010 at 9:51 AM

Welfare queen with eight b@stards = one vote.

Small business owner who occasionally skips a paycheck to make payroll and support the welfare queen and her b@stards = one vote.

That’s fair?

Akzed on April 10, 2010 at 9:52 AM

p.s. to Keemo, I write a weekly column over there called “The Price of Freedom”…every Friday.

be interested in your thoughts on them (you can look up that category)

cheers!

Justrand on April 10, 2010 at 9:53 AM

So the feds screw up the tax code on their own, and your fix is to punish the ordinary citizenry by taking away their vote?

blatantblue on April 10, 2010 at 9:32 AM

I asked a general question late in the DrZero thread: How did the Left get into power?

What we are looking at, here, is cause and effect. The Left gets into power, then they screw up the tax codes through sheer malice.

OldEnglish on April 10, 2010 at 9:54 AM

A VAT instead of an income tax would be just fine with me. Those who consume more would pay more in taxes and vice verse. It would encourage people to consume less, which contrary to popular wisdom (was there ever a more oxymoronic phrase) would be great for the economy. More savings means more capital available for investment and all the good economic news which comes with that.

But of course, that isn’t the plan and we all know it. The plan is to allow Fed-zilla to capture as much of our wealth as 10 times what the economy can bear. To politicians our economy is simply a vehicle to fund their ambitions and so, a VAT would be in addition to and not instead of our grossly inefficient and perverse income tax.

MJBrutus on April 10, 2010 at 9:54 AM

Akzed on April 10, 2010 at 9:50 AM

Well, the argument I’ve read about here, and heard in my own family is the “skin in the game” argument.

But the fact is, we all have skin in the game, because the decisions of law makers effect all of us. We all pay taxes from gas into our roads. We vote for officials who deal with those monies.

We ALL are mandated to be protected by the federal government in the constitution. Because of things like terrorism, which effect all Americans (through it’s violence and economic repercussions), I’d say all of us have “skin in the game” when it comes to voting for a candidate based on, say, foreign policy.

How many families in that 47 percent have active duty members overseas? Hm?

The fact is, we all have a vested interest and “skin” in the game, one way or another. Some more than others? Sure, but we all do have some vested interest in politics and our elections.

blatantblue on April 10, 2010 at 9:54 AM

The sales taxes paid by people on welfare is not even paid with their own money!

Akzed on April 10, 2010 at 9:54 AM

Many people in that 47 percent work and have jobs. They should be able to vote for a pro-growth and pro-job candidate.

And, again, how many rich liberals exist in America? So many.

You’d be creating a monster you’d soon hate with your utopian ideas.

blatantblue on April 10, 2010 at 9:56 AM

You take away all the freebies, you don’t need much if any taxes. Let people pay the full price for the things they use. A typical example is toll roads that are funded by those that use them.

docdave on April 10, 2010 at 9:56 AM

no, blatantblue, I wouldn’t regret it.

People vote differently when the vote will affect THEM!

Example (from the company I work for):
Give bottled water away for FREE…and on any given day hundreds of bottles get 1/2 (or less) consumed and left laying around. Heck, it’s FREE! Charge TEN CENTS for the same bottle and (a) fewer bottles get taken out and (b) those that DO get taken out get fully consumed! TEN cents.

People living off the Government teat have a VESTED INTEREST in voting themselves a bigger juicier TEAT!

Justrand on April 10, 2010 at 9:57 AM

This is indeed troubling.

Bishop on April 10, 2010 at 9:59 AM

Justrand on April 10, 2010 at 9:57 AM

Everyone is effected, but many are too stupid to notice.

blatantblue on April 10, 2010 at 10:00 AM

The Constitution is utopian? Because I can’t find a tax on wages in it.

All I’m calling for is the abolition of taxes on domestic income, trade and labor, and the replacement of it with constitutional taxes to support the fedgovt – imposts and duties. We would then not need federal income and wage taxes or welfare at all, and the question of whether some peolple should or shouldn’t vote would be moot.

Akzed on April 10, 2010 at 10:00 AM

We would then not need federal income and wage taxes or welfare at all, and the question of whether some peolple should or shouldn’t vote would be moot.

Akzed on April 10, 2010 at 10:00 AM

I’m with ya’ on abolishing those things.

blatantblue on April 10, 2010 at 10:01 AM

We pay quite a bit in Co-Pays, Out-of-pocket expenses, and prescriptions. If we accept a VAT, then I can get that much closer to deducting the portion that is more than 7.5% of my Adjusted Gross Income.

If we had an AGI of $50,000 (Joint filing) then we would need more than $3,750 in medical expenses before we could deduct a cent. (And only be able to claim the portion more than $3,750)

Think about it…

ericdijon on April 10, 2010 at 10:01 AM

Build the roads, defend the coasts, and run a federal court system.

What else should the federal government be doing?

Aside from that, scrap it, get out of the way, and allow the country to get back to work.

BuckeyeSam on April 10, 2010 at 10:01 AM

we need to end the class warfare through tax policy

It’s class warfare that sustains the leftist beast. So as long as the beast lives, it will nurture class warfare.

petefrt on April 10, 2010 at 10:02 AM

I’m with ya’ on abolishing those things.
blatantblue on April 10, 2010 at 10:01 AM

An honest man! Our problems stem from these things, and unconstitutional govt that requires them. What we’re really discussing is the unsustainability of the current unconstitutional mess.

Akzed on April 10, 2010 at 10:03 AM

blatantblue: “Many people in that 47 percent work and have jobs.”

and they should VOTE…but they should NOT receive more BACK than they put IN.

Want to find out how much people value their vote??? Put a simple check box on the Income Tax form that applies ONLY if you will receive more BACK than you put IN:
Your return shows you will receive more back than you contributed. Doing so will eliminate your right to vote in elections during this year. Check this box if you still wish to receieve more back than you put in

Justrand on April 10, 2010 at 10:03 AM

Why is it that we tax income and not wealth? How many of the uber-wealthy have relatively low income and pay next to nothing?

Just asking…

beatcanvas on April 10, 2010 at 9:42 AM

Define “wealth”.

On paper I’m now worth about $600,000. But I can’t touch any of that money without being taxed at the regular bracket as income, with a 10% penalty on top of it. I can’t spend any of it until I’m 59 1/2 without owing that 10% penalty on top of the tax rate for whatever amount I take out. That’s my money that I earned after almost 30 years of employment and I can’t touch it without losing half of it to taxes.

The only way a rich person could avoid paying taxes on their “wealth” is to put their money in a non-interest bearing bank account and never buy anything of value with it.

Jaynie59 on April 10, 2010 at 10:04 AM

blatantblue: “Everyone is effected, but many are too stupid to notice.”

the word is “affected”

Justrand on April 10, 2010 at 10:04 AM

mess.

Akzed on April 10, 2010 at 10:03 AM

understatement of the year

im looking forward down a couple of decades, when entitlement spending will encompass the entire federal budget

blatantblue on April 10, 2010 at 10:05 AM

blatantblue: “Everyone is effected, but many are too stupid to notice.”

the word is “affected”

Justrand on April 10, 2010 at 10:04 AM

I stand corrected, and your ideas are stink rank with ridiculousness.

blatantblue on April 10, 2010 at 10:06 AM

Justrand on April 10, 2010 at 10:04 AM

That removed all of the exsightment from the massage.

ericdijon on April 10, 2010 at 10:07 AM

That removed all of the exsightment from the massage.

ericdijon on April 10, 2010 at 10:07 AM

It’s been an intents debate.

blatantblue on April 10, 2010 at 10:09 AM

How about the weight of your vote in any election is equal to the federal (and state) income taxes one paid last year? The more taxes paid, the more your vote is worth…
:-)

That would get action to make everyone pay income taxes (however the small amount) and move to a flat tax system.

albill on April 10, 2010 at 10:09 AM

That removed all of the exsightment from the massage.

ericdijon on April 10, 2010 at 10:07 AM
It’s been an intents debate.

blatantblue on April 10, 2010 at 10:09 AM

I’ll bet my presents was missed.

thomasaur on April 10, 2010 at 10:12 AM

How about the weight of your vote in any election is equal to the federal (and state) income taxes one paid last year? The more taxes paid, the more your vote is worth…
:-)

That would get action to make everyone pay income taxes (however the small amount) and move to a flat tax system.

albill on April 10, 2010 at 10:09 AM

This country is doomed.

Jaynie59 on April 10, 2010 at 10:13 AM

How about the weight of your vote in any election is equal to the federal (and state) income taxes one paid last year?

albill on April 10, 2010 at 10:09 AM

Texans will be gypped

ericdijon on April 10, 2010 at 10:13 AM

Now, I hate people who are richer than I am as much as the next guy

Does this affect anyone else in the same way it does me?

thomasaur on April 10, 2010 at 10:15 AM

I think you’d regret creating the system you call for.

blatantblue on April 10, 2010 at 9:51 AM

I doubt it, but if so, then we would have to live with the consequences. See how nicely that works out?

As someone said earlier, the argument is really about how much of the economy the government controls. After that, I can live with a variety of tax systems, since I will get hosed regardless.

pehrsson on April 10, 2010 at 10:16 AM

blatantblue: “your ideas are stink rank with ridiculousness”

golly…nothing thinner than Liberal skin…nothing!

p.s. Heinlein makes very good case for only former-military being able to vote. theory is that unless you were willing to serve your country for a period of time you didn’t deserve a vote! I’m not ready to go there. Yet.

Justrand on April 10, 2010 at 10:16 AM

I disagree strongly with blatantblue, but I want to applaud his refusal thus far to accuse the rest of us of advocating this out of racial animosity. It is refreshingly novel.

pehrsson on April 10, 2010 at 10:18 AM

Justrand on April 10, 2010 at 10:16 AM

Yea, I’m a liberal now.

Sigh

p.s. Heinlein makes very good case for only former-military being able to vote. theory is that unless you were willing to serve your country for a period of time you didn’t deserve a vote! I’m not ready to go there. Yet.

Justrand on April 10, 2010 at 10:16 AM

I hope you don’t go there ever. Most of the country doesn’t get to vote?

blatantblue on April 10, 2010 at 10:19 AM

p.s. Heinlein makes very good case for only former-military being able to vote. theory is that unless you were willing to serve your country for a period of time you didn’t deserve a vote! I’m not ready to go there. Yet.

Justrand on April 10, 2010 at 10:16 AM

Does that argument support a President with no military service? None, nada.

CWforFreedom on April 10, 2010 at 10:20 AM

racial animosity. It is refreshingly novel.

pehrsson on April 10, 2010 at 10:18 AM

lol ive been reading HA from the get go. At most I think a HANDFUL (at best) of the commenters here are actually racially motivated.

We all believe in the same thing, smaller and more limited government. We just don’t agree on suffrage policies

blatantblue on April 10, 2010 at 10:20 AM

pehrsson: “…I want to applaud blatantblue’s refusal thus far to accuse the rest of us of advocating this out of racial animosity.”

uh oh…I’m picturing a light-bulb going on above blatantblue’s head…

Justrand on April 10, 2010 at 10:21 AM

The vast majority of the readers here are good people and don’t harbor racial animosity, pehrsson :]

blatantblue on April 10, 2010 at 10:21 AM

A VAT instead of an income tax would be just fine with me…

MJBrutus on April 10, 2010 at 9:54 AM

NOOOOOOOOO! A national sales tax instead of an income tax would be fine. A VAT tax is a hidden beast that is easy to manipulate and easy to lobby against. In addition, it would cost businesses billions to implement. A national sales tax would be open to easy scrutiny and would therefore be harder to manipulate. Businesses already have the means to implement it since all(?) local governments already collect sales taxes.

stvnscott on April 10, 2010 at 10:22 AM

As someone said earlier, the argument is really about how much of the economy the government controls. After that, I can live with a variety of tax systems, since I will get hosed regardless.

pehrsson on April 10, 2010 at 10:16 AM

This really made me think awhile. I conclude, in an Adam Smith sense regarding leisure, where leisure is purchased with the net amount realized after taxes and expenses, that the government controls every bit of the economy.

ericdijon on April 10, 2010 at 10:22 AM

I’m not completely sold on the idea of a VAT or national sales tax, but I am definitely opposed to them until the 16th amendment is repealed.

cartooner on April 10, 2010 at 10:24 AM

CWforFreedom: “Does that argument support a President with no military service? None, nada.”

Actually I don’t see why not…but I doubt the former-military folks voting would vote for such a person! :)

and last add to blatantblue for a bit…
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value.”
Thomas Paine

Justrand on April 10, 2010 at 10:24 AM

“What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value.”
Thomas Paine

I doubt someone like Thomas Paine would prefer to punish the people for the faults of the feds

blatantblue on April 10, 2010 at 10:25 AM

like such as

ericdijon on April 10, 2010 at 10:26 AM

I’d also like to know what percent of that 47 includes current Tea Party members

Or conservatives in general who find our tax code to be ridiculous, arbitrary, and unfair to everyone involved.

blatantblue on April 10, 2010 at 10:27 AM

blatantblue…like I said earlier, give people an OPT-OUT of receiving MORE than they put in.

Want to vote? Skip the handout! Simple!!

Letting people hide behind “the Feds” is crap! [It's THEIR fault for giving me free stuff!! More please!!]

Justrand on April 10, 2010 at 10:27 AM

like such as

ericdijon on April 10, 2010 at 10:26 AM

I’m 0 for 2 now!

blatantblue on April 10, 2010 at 10:28 AM

How about the weight of your vote in any election is equal to the federal (and state) income taxes one paid last year?

albill on April 10, 2010 at 10:09 AM

Texans will be gypped

ericdijon on April 10, 2010 at 10:13 AM

My perennial suggestion is to use ATM’s for voting machines. 1 USD per vote, and everyone gets a 1 USD refundable tax credit. Get it all on the table. Instead of lobbyists, etc., that skim a percentage before passing on the bribes, pay it straight into the voting machine. $1M USD gets you 1M votes, straight up and on the record.

Stand up and be counted, no backroom deals.

Honest Leadership, Open Government :)

Who is John Galt on April 10, 2010 at 10:28 AM

I’m 0 for 2 now!

blatantblue on April 10, 2010 at 10:28 AM

Just pokin’ some good neighborly fun. Most of wut is recordid hear iz writtin colloquially anyweigh. Sew, if we wuz speakin’ ow loud, yood wood no wut I wuz sayin’ and woont even no if I wuz uzin da rong werd.

ericdijon on April 10, 2010 at 10:34 AM

The vast majority of the readers here are good people and don’t harbor racial animosity, pehrsson :]
blatantblue on April 10, 2010 at 10:21 AM

Just don’t use the word [deleted on advice of legal counsel].

Bishop on April 10, 2010 at 10:34 AM

It is the iniquity(sic) of the federal tax code–not inequity? But some would see the tax code as iniquitous as well, I guess.

Click on April 10, 2010 at 10:35 AM

Ok, I’m sympathetic to the points raised here. But, I don’t think most people separate income taxes from federal taxes from state taxes from any other kind of taxes.

These arguments center only on inequity of income taxes. However, when total tax burden as a percentage of income (which would include sales taxes, property taxes, cell phone taxes, etc.) the picture is much different.

The poor don’t pay no tax. (No that’s not grammatically incorrect.) And they still pay social security and medicare withholding. AND their employer pays tax for them, too!

So, this whole “the poor pay no tax” really doesn’t fly. It also makes it harder for the dems to listen because it’s a fairly stupid argument. Yes, taxes are unfair. Yes, they are too progressive. Yes, it’s unconstitutional to try to direct and control behavior through the tax code. But, the poor are taxed. We’re all taxed – and too much.

Oh, and nobody caught this? “Now, I hate people who are richer than I am as much as the next guy, . . . ” That’s just sick.

Pablo Snooze on April 10, 2010 at 10:38 AM

Flat tax is the only solution with no exceptions. Everyone pays the same percentage on their income earned. I suppose a Fair Tax could also be implimented but they would start with exception after exception to protect their voting block. Everyone pays the same rate and the slugs will stop demanding higher and higher rates on the evil rich.

trs on April 10, 2010 at 10:42 AM

Good to see great commentary. I’ll Bookmark John Galt as well.

The real key is to start the transformation:
1) Now – cut all tax rates in half t least- revive the economic patient. Cut corporate taxes to zero for the next five years for corporations moving and keeping manufacturing into the US, Corporate rates will remain zero to 1% on said corps if they move their location to US shores and become US companies (Yes that is Toyota, Honda etc)
2) Put in place mandatory absolute, not percentage, reductions in personal and corporate income taxes on a yearly basis for the next ten years and transition everything to duties with maybe a constitutionally mandated max of 5% Personal income tax – if a VAT type tax appears then Personal income tax becomes zero immediately.

Get rid of the IRS as an enforcement arm of the “progressive” government. Everyone pays a simple tax.

The Fed government only defends our shores, defends the constitution verbatim and explores new frontiers for the USA to expand into (See C. Columbus)

Colonel_prop on April 10, 2010 at 10:43 AM

Pablo
1. We are talking federal taxes.
2. Social Security and Medicare were already adressed.
3. Re: -Oh, and nobody caught this? “Now, I hate people who are richer than I am as much as the next guy, . . . ”
I took it as sarcasm.
4. How many of the poor don’t work? If they do how many are paid under table. You seem a little naive.
5. Stay on topic.

CWforFreedom on April 10, 2010 at 10:43 AM

This country is doomed.

Jaynie59 on April 10, 2010 at 10:13 AM

Can we agree that we no longer actually have a republic, but have, in its place, a de-facto democracy; and that this this democracy has progressed so far into its old age (100 years? 150?) that it is now a virtual oligarchy?

A democracy dies when the “demos” votes itself the fruits of the minority’s labor — the ruling few rise who can manipulate the sleepwalking populace with bread and circuses.

Truly the American republic is dead. We have been slowly corrupted, until envy (who even uses that word these days) has taken hold of even the most high-minded. It disturbs me that class envy so ordinary as to be presumed normal.

zenscreamer on April 10, 2010 at 10:48 AM

Why is it that we tax income and not wealth? How many of the uber-wealthy have relatively low income and pay next to nothing?

Just asking…

beatcanvas on April 10, 2010 at 9:42 AM

Gosh. What a great idea. So each year, would we have to pay taxes on the same wealth that we had last year? Taxing the same assets over and over and over?

What a great idea.

misterpeasea on April 10, 2010 at 10:49 AM

Once upon a time, there was a property requirement to vote, ie you needed to own property for the franchise.

Since property owners pay property taxes, that guaranteed voters had “skin in the game”, and a vested interest in a government that didn’t look on property/business owners as their personal piggybank.

An idea worth looking at again.

Rebar on April 10, 2010 at 10:50 AM

trs on April 10, 2010 at 10:42 AM

It’s the best idea out there, but the parasites will still find other ways to punish those who are successful; the entire tax code would need to be scrapped.

Bishop on April 10, 2010 at 10:51 AM

The VAT is regressive as is a sales tax.

Everyone earning income should contribute to the government, thus an absolute minimum income tax of 5%, indexed to the cost of government as it was in 2007, so that when government increases by 1% the absolute minimum income tax goes up by 0.1%, and can never drop below 5%. No exemptions: it is a single line income tax, you could do it on a post card.

That amount is low enough to ensure that everyone who works gets to feel the pain of the IRS, and also puts Congress and the government on warning that every time they try to do ‘good things’ that the relative poor will pay the price for their ‘good things’. Every income earner should feel that up and down the line, and having skin in the game will mean that there needs to be a wide-spread buy-in to the ‘good things’ that Congress and the government want to do. The problem is that there is no good feedback left with so many not paying taxes… and the rich can take care of themselves and if they feel so damned ashamed of making more without income, then they can jolly well soothe their bruised little feelings and mail in a nice, fat check to the IRS. So government can waste it.

A sales tax under the thumb of special interests, or worse a VAT with loopholes, exceptions, ‘special’ privileges… those make the shop keepers the equivalent of government income collectors and is a burden on their business. Instead let the burden fall on those who do contribute via their wages and earnings.

I would prefer one, unitary, flat tax up and down the line for these very reasons, but a good place to try that out is with those who now pay no taxes on income. That would take the working poor out of the exempt class and put them into the ownership class of having an active stake in the well-being of the Nation. They would have mortgages that got no special exemptions, their donations for charity could not be written off, their healthcare likewise falls into the non-write off area. Call these FULL CITIZENS of the Nation as they would not be trying to empower the privileged who GOT the exemptions in the tax code with any special treatment. The rest of us are the ones paying for the corrupt tax code, corrupt business interests who don’t want to carry their share, corrupt social organizations that want subsidies via the tax code… we are the ones spreading the corruption. Let those who taste the true cost and benefits of liberty see our wicked ways and demand that WE stop promulgating a corrupt tax code for the well off, big businesses, big banks, big contributors and backwards social programs. Let them demand of us to stop this wicked government from promulgating ill in the name of ‘good’. Let them shame us by the purity of simple taxation with representation so that we may reform our ways by the shame they heap upon us.

Unless you have no shame and enjoy corrupt government at every turn, of course. But then you aren’t a full citizen wanting to pay your way, are you? I’m willing to pay the price to end this corruption. Are you?

ajacksonian on April 10, 2010 at 10:51 AM

Problem in a nutshell: Even the most brilliant scheme for neutering the political bastards requires the very same political bastards to vote it into law.

How the hell does that happen? Mass hypnosis?

State’s rights lawsuits by the Several States are our only chance of missing the iceberg.

Who is John Galt on April 10, 2010 at 10:51 AM

blatantblue on April 10, 2010 at 10:19 AM

You went from squish to liberal in less than a week! ;p

ladyingray on April 10, 2010 at 10:52 AM

Forget whether people pay taxes or own property. How about a test of basic economics and civics? No discrimination there, except against people too ignorant to be allowed to vote.

misterpeasea on April 10, 2010 at 10:52 AM

zenscreamer on April 10, 2010 at 10:48 AM

Can we also agree not to give up quite yet? I have this thing against wearing chains and bowing to people, I wouldn’t be very good playing the serf so I don’t plan on surrendering. Good people will rise to the top and put things back together, it may take a while and it may be painful, but I have faith.

Bishop on April 10, 2010 at 10:54 AM

I rather like the idea. You pay taxes, you vote. You don’t pay taxes, you get to exist. There is no reason why everyone can’t pay taxes, even if it’s just $1 every April 15th. The “poor” in this country have it made. Maybe we should set up field trips so that they can view the “poor” in other countries.

GarandFan on April 10, 2010 at 10:54 AM

Why is it that we tax income and not wealth? How many of the uber-wealthy have relatively low income and pay next to nothing?

Just asking…

beatcanvas on April 10, 2010 at 9:42 AM

How many times do we tax the same wealth . It was taxed already in most cases when they obtained it. Oh and it is their property. This world is insane. Property rights used to mean something. If you ask the founders these rights are paramount to freedom. This has gotten completely out of hand.

CWforFreedom on April 10, 2010 at 10:54 AM

Why is it that we tax income and not wealth? How many of the uber-wealthy have relatively low income and pay next to nothing?

Just asking…

beatcanvas on April 10, 2010 at 9:42 AM

Good point, I vote we take your money.

whbates on April 10, 2010 at 10:56 AM

Comment pages: 1 2