I am curious about what inspired you to attend the Colorado Springs tea party.
I am agree that long-term budget deficits and growing debt are "intergenerational robbery," but taxes are low.
The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 reduced the rates that American paid. Over a quarter of the stimulus package is tax cut provisions. Obama has proposed tax cuts for almost all Americans in his budget. Yes he is proposing raising taxes on wealthy Americans, but two points here: (1) the net effect of all the cuts and increases is a net cut in what Americans pay in taxes and (2) these tax increases are unlikely to pass Congress (the only branch of the government elected by the people).
So my question is "Why the anger now?" The founders didn't dump tea in Boston Harbor after a decade of the British lowering the colonists' taxes and right before the British passed a budget to lower them even more. Reply to this
4/20/2009 7:05 AM
Tony Vilgiate wrote:
You make a couple of false assumptions in your post.
I have been involved in taxation issues for two decades now. This is not a new cause for me, nor is it a "jump on the band wagon" anti-democrat hysteria. I was "inspired" to participate in my local T.E.A. (Taxed enough already) Party to demonstrate my opposition to the increased spending and current Keynesian turn in economic policy. I was further inspired by the dishonest policy, that you regurgitated, that somehow using the tax code to redistribute wealth is really a tax cut. You can not provide a refundable tax credit to those who do not pay income taxes (Yes, I have heard the spiel about crediting against payroll taxes - but you and I both know those are insurance and retirement fund payments not income taxes.) Robin-hood economics, using the color of law to steal from the "rich" and give to the "poor", is a form of tyranny in my opinion. I am morally opposed to progressive taxation as innately unfair. I am morally opposed to taxing production in general. Taxation should be in the form of apportioned use and/or consumption taxes. Whatever you tax, you get less off. Taxing productivity reduces productivity. You can see from the Reagen era tax cuts (which brought the highest marginal rate from over 70% to closer to 40%) that by reducing taxation on productivity you had a net increase in "federal" revenues.
Your punchline, can be manipulated by how and when you take your data sample and presupposes that income taxation is moral to begin with. If you start back with the first income taxes, there was no income tax in the U.S.A. until 1862 when congress placed a tax of 3% on income over $600 dollars to fund the Civil War, you will see we are historically grossly over-taxed. The tax was eliminated in 1872 and the Fed's returned to consumption, tariff and use taxes to fund the federal government. Government revenue peaked at a staggering 310 million dollars in 1866. (A theft from the US citizens that went un-matched for nearly 40 years!) In 1896 the Supreme Court determined that an income tax is unconstitutional as it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the U.S. Constitution. A twenty-year legal battle ensued with the addition of the 16th Amendment legalizing the taxation of income. By 1918 5.4 billion dollars was being siphoned from high-earners and corporations.
Rates have fluctuated from a low of zero (for more years than there has been an income tax) to a high of, ready for this... 92% in 1952-53! How is that anything but theft? That $0.92 of every dollar can be taken by the government to use however they see fit?
The lowest the taxes have been in my live time was during the first two-years of the first Bush disaster: 1988-1990. The top marginal rate peaked at 28% with the lowest bracket running at 15%.
My point, you can take a swath of data and produce a claim that we are "under taxed" or that "we will be moving into an era of historically low taxation" but the reality is we are being stolen from, our children are being stolen from and we are heading toward hyper inflation and/or national bankruptcy.
You last question "why the anger now?" is a straw man. There has been anger for generations, there has been a movement to reform and eventually eliminate the income tax for longer than I have been alive. There have been, historically, protests. Much of the efforts have been through lobbying our individual representatives to keep up the reformation. The current move to the streets is a result of the current tax and spend, socialist leaning, progressives that dominate both houses of congress and the White House. More proactive and demonstrative action will have to be taken when the current "democracy" allows for one group to steal from another under the color of law.
4/20/2009 10:01 AM
M Lynch wrote:
My "subsample", as you call it, simply points out that taxes have been going down recently (on an unrelated note, was the tariff-based tax system of the 1800s any more moral than income tax?).
Taxes have been going down and spending has been going up. The net result is record deficits and a growing national debt. How do we stop this? Two options (1) raise taxes or (2) cut spending. If Democrats propose raising taxes Republicans vilify them. If Republicans propose spending cuts, Democrats vilify them. The end result is that spending increases and tax cuts are politically popular and any attempt is reverse these trends are ignored or punished by voters.
Ignoring your moral arguments for now, how do we change this process?
As for my "straw man", these have been no nationwide protests like last week for the last 8 years, so I am wondering out loud if the real issue is long-simmering anger over our current tax laws or if the real issue is fear of future action by the Obama administration. It sounds like this is true for you, but is the same true of most people you talked with at the tea party?
Why the grassroots movement now, but not while Bush and the Republican and then Democratic Congress doubled the national debt.
It makes it seems as though the tea parties are simply a political gimmick. No law has passed to change the status quo (other than more tax cuts via the stimulus-by the by the AMT seems like a tax cut you could learn to love) I don't think that is true for the earnest people who attented these events, but I wonder about many of the organizers and their Republican connections.
Given the current deficits, is it even responsible to talk about cutting taxes today?
Why not a "let's actually pay our bills" party? I bet turn out would be low. Reply to this
4/20/2009 10:25 AM
Tony Vilgiate wrote:
Most of the T.E.A. Party participants are small government folks. There was a diverse group of politically active people in attendance at the Colorado Springs party. Libertarians, Independents, Republicans, and quite a few Conservative Democrats all with a wide range of grievances, including but not limited to taxes. (bailouts, war, nationalization of private biz, debt, spending, abortion, legalizing pot)
The momentum for this movement started under Bush with the first of the bailouts (TARP) activities. There were significant activities on the right against spending, but many felt, with a sitting Republican President and some kind of balance of power there (theoretically) pushing their elected reps was a better strategy. Also, in general, conservatives are less likely to be the protesting type. With both the Legislative and Executive branches under progressive control, the grass roots conservative movement feels it has lost its voice and representation, hence the 4-15-2009 TEA Parties.
I believe that our government has exceeded its' Constitutional mandates. It is too large, participating in activities it has no legal (constitutional) authority to engage in. The direction we are heading is toward tyranny. I am in favor of radically cutting the Federal government (thus radically cutting Federal spending).
We change the system by eliminating massive chunks of the current federal bureaucracy and returning to the state the rights and responsibilities they should constitutionally have. We roll back federal entitlement programs. We set federal priorities that are within the charter of the Constitution and return the rest of the mess to the states to develop in a free market system that creates competition for industry, citizens and consumers.
Great place to start would be term limits - citizen legislators again who go, serve and come home!. Career politicians have proven to be ineffective and self-serving. Having states pay their own representatives (they should not be Federal Employees) would be another great start.
(and there were plenty of nationwide "progressive" protest during the second Bush disaster)
This is a much bolder set of policy goals then I usually allow myself to think about.
Just two comment/question. Pretend that somehow entitlement programs are rolled back. Let's say I get rid of Medicare and Social Security entirely. How do I explain to everyone that the money they have been paying in FICA taxes is, poof, gone. We do not have any of this money now, so a refund won't work.
Number 2. I'm sure you know that term limits have been ruled unconstitutional at the federal level and for many states. Are you in favor of a term limit constitutional amendment? I personally think that we have term limits of a sort now. They are called elections. If you don't like your member don't vote for them. Reply to this
4/21/2009 6:02 AM
Tony Vilgiate wrote:
For the Medicare and SS program roll backs, I only have a vague idea on how I would handle that and it would most likely take a few decades. Those that are a) currently receiving benefits and b) those with in a 5-year window would be the biggest challenge. Those in generation X, Y and i would be much easier to accommodate with a private plan. Sincerely, I don't have a road map set up to guide the nation down that path.
As for term limits, I do favor a Constitutional Amendment to limit them. The problem with the wasteful spending is that everyone loves their own congressman, but has a sub 30% approval of congress in general. They love the pork when it comes home, but not when it is sent out. How else can you explain Barney Frank? His district loves him, but he does a world of damage to the country as a whole. The seniority system in both houses of congress are deplorable. It matters little which of our tow parties are in control, they both are self-preserving creatures, lacking principles and clinging to what should be borrowed power and a sacred trust.
A three term limit with elections held for 1/3 of each chamber every 4 years.
Tony,
I am curious about what inspired you to attend the Colorado Springs tea party.
I am agree that long-term budget deficits and growing debt are "intergenerational robbery," but taxes are low.
The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 reduced the rates that American paid. Over a quarter of the stimulus package is tax cut provisions. Obama has proposed tax cuts for almost all Americans in his budget. Yes he is proposing raising taxes on wealthy Americans, but two points here: (1) the net effect of all the cuts and increases is a net cut in what Americans pay in taxes and (2) these tax increases are unlikely to pass Congress (the only branch of the government elected by the people).
The punchline is that taxes are historically low. See the following chart if you don't believe me: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/04/16/GR2009041600152.html
So my question is "Why the anger now?" The founders didn't dump tea in Boston Harbor after a decade of the British lowering the colonists' taxes and right before the British passed a budget to lower them even more.
Reply to this
You make a couple of false assumptions in your post.
I have been involved in taxation issues for two decades now. This is not a new cause for me, nor is it a "jump on the band wagon" anti-democrat hysteria. I was "inspired" to participate in my local T.E.A. (Taxed enough already) Party to demonstrate my opposition to the increased spending and current Keynesian turn in economic policy. I was further inspired by the dishonest policy, that you regurgitated, that somehow using the tax code to redistribute wealth is really a tax cut. You can not provide a refundable tax credit to those who do not pay income taxes (Yes, I have heard the spiel about crediting against payroll taxes - but you and I both know those are insurance and retirement fund payments not income taxes.) Robin-hood economics, using the color of law to steal from the "rich" and give to the "poor", is a form of tyranny in my opinion. I am morally opposed to progressive taxation as innately unfair. I am morally opposed to taxing production in general. Taxation should be in the form of apportioned use and/or consumption taxes. Whatever you tax, you get less off. Taxing productivity reduces productivity. You can see from the Reagen era tax cuts (which brought the highest marginal rate from over 70% to closer to 40%) that by reducing taxation on productivity you had a net increase in "federal" revenues.
Your punchline, can be manipulated by how and when you take your data sample and presupposes that income taxation is moral to begin with. If you start back with the first income taxes, there was no income tax in the U.S.A. until 1862 when congress placed a tax of 3% on income over $600 dollars to fund the Civil War, you will see we are historically grossly over-taxed. The tax was eliminated in 1872 and the Fed's returned to consumption, tariff and use taxes to fund the federal government. Government revenue peaked at a staggering 310 million dollars in 1866. (A theft from the US citizens that went un-matched for nearly 40 years!) In 1896 the Supreme Court determined that an income tax is unconstitutional as it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the U.S. Constitution. A twenty-year legal battle ensued with the addition of the 16th Amendment legalizing the taxation of income. By 1918 5.4 billion dollars was being siphoned from high-earners and corporations.
Rates have fluctuated from a low of zero (for more years than there has been an income tax) to a high of, ready for this... 92% in 1952-53! How is that anything but theft? That $0.92 of every dollar can be taken by the government to use however they see fit?
The lowest the taxes have been in my live time was during the first two-years of the first Bush disaster: 1988-1990. The top marginal rate peaked at 28% with the lowest bracket running at 15%.
My point, you can take a swath of data and produce a claim that we are "under taxed" or that "we will be moving into an era of historically low taxation" but the reality is we are being stolen from, our children are being stolen from and we are heading toward hyper inflation and/or national bankruptcy.
You last question "why the anger now?" is a straw man. There has been anger for generations, there has been a movement to reform and eventually eliminate the income tax for longer than I have been alive. There have been, historically, protests. Much of the efforts have been through lobbying our individual representatives to keep up the reformation. The current move to the streets is a result of the current tax and spend, socialist leaning, progressives that dominate both houses of congress and the White House. More proactive and demonstrative action will have to be taken when the current "democracy" allows for one group to steal from another under the color of law.
Reply to this
My "subsample", as you call it, simply points out that taxes have been going down recently (on an unrelated note, was the tariff-based tax system of the 1800s any more moral than income tax?).
Taxes have been going down and spending has been going up. The net result is record deficits and a growing national debt. How do we stop this? Two options (1) raise taxes or (2) cut spending. If Democrats propose raising taxes Republicans vilify them. If Republicans propose spending cuts, Democrats vilify them. The end result is that spending increases and tax cuts are politically popular and any attempt is reverse these trends are ignored or punished by voters.
Ignoring your moral arguments for now, how do we change this process?
As for my "straw man", these have been no nationwide protests like last week for the last 8 years, so I am wondering out loud if the real issue is long-simmering anger over our current tax laws or if the real issue is fear of future action by the Obama administration. It sounds like this is true for you, but is the same true of most people you talked with at the tea party?
Why the grassroots movement now, but not while Bush and the Republican and then Democratic Congress doubled the national debt.
It makes it seems as though the tea parties are simply a political gimmick. No law has passed to change the status quo (other than more tax cuts via the stimulus-by the by the AMT seems like a tax cut you could learn to love) I don't think that is true for the earnest people who attented these events, but I wonder about many of the organizers and their Republican connections.
Given the current deficits, is it even responsible to talk about cutting taxes today?
Why not a "let's actually pay our bills" party? I bet turn out would be low.
Reply to this
Most of the T.E.A. Party participants are small government folks. There was a diverse group of politically active people in attendance at the Colorado Springs party. Libertarians, Independents, Republicans, and quite a few Conservative Democrats all with a wide range of grievances, including but not limited to taxes. (bailouts, war, nationalization of private biz, debt, spending, abortion, legalizing pot)
The momentum for this movement started under Bush with the first of the bailouts (TARP) activities. There were significant activities on the right against spending, but many felt, with a sitting Republican President and some kind of balance of power there (theoretically) pushing their elected reps was a better strategy. Also, in general, conservatives are less likely to be the protesting type. With both the Legislative and Executive branches under progressive control, the grass roots conservative movement feels it has lost its voice and representation, hence the 4-15-2009 TEA Parties.
I believe that our government has exceeded its' Constitutional mandates. It is too large, participating in activities it has no legal (constitutional) authority to engage in. The direction we are heading is toward tyranny. I am in favor of radically cutting the Federal government (thus radically cutting Federal spending).
We change the system by eliminating massive chunks of the current federal bureaucracy and returning to the state the rights and responsibilities they should constitutionally have. We roll back federal entitlement programs. We set federal priorities that are within the charter of the Constitution and return the rest of the mess to the states to develop in a free market system that creates competition for industry, citizens and consumers.
Great place to start would be term limits - citizen legislators again who go, serve and come home!. Career politicians have proven to be ineffective and self-serving. Having states pay their own representatives (they should not be Federal Employees) would be another great start.
(and there were plenty of nationwide "progressive" protest during the second Bush disaster)
Reply to this
Tony,
This is a much bolder set of policy goals then I usually allow myself to think about.
Just two comment/question. Pretend that somehow entitlement programs are rolled back. Let's say I get rid of Medicare and Social Security entirely. How do I explain to everyone that the money they have been paying in FICA taxes is, poof, gone. We do not have any of this money now, so a refund won't work.
Number 2. I'm sure you know that term limits have been ruled unconstitutional at the federal level and for many states. Are you in favor of a term limit constitutional amendment? I personally think that we have term limits of a sort now. They are called elections. If you don't like your member don't vote for them.
Reply to this
For the Medicare and SS program roll backs, I only have a vague idea on how I would handle that and it would most likely take a few decades. Those that are a) currently receiving benefits and b) those with in a 5-year window would be the biggest challenge. Those in generation X, Y and i would be much easier to accommodate with a private plan. Sincerely, I don't have a road map set up to guide the nation down that path.
As for term limits, I do favor a Constitutional Amendment to limit them. The problem with the wasteful spending is that everyone loves their own congressman, but has a sub 30% approval of congress in general. They love the pork when it comes home, but not when it is sent out. How else can you explain Barney Frank? His district loves him, but he does a world of damage to the country as a whole. The seniority system in both houses of congress are deplorable. It matters little which of our tow parties are in control, they both are self-preserving creatures, lacking principles and clinging to what should be borrowed power and a sacred trust.
A three term limit with elections held for 1/3 of each chamber every 4 years.
Reply to this