August 23, 2006
Do You Believe Taxes Are Too Low?
If so, please remit the amount you believe you are underpaying to the following address.Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 6D37
Hyattsville, MD 20782
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 6D37
Hyattsville, MD 20782
Until you do, please refrain from suggesting that taxes are not high enough.
Posted by: Greg at
11:34 AM
| Comments (26)
| Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Unfortunately, I cannot afford to send in an amount equal to what the
Bush administration is passing onto future generations in the form of
an unconscionable deficit.
Bush administration is passing onto future generations in the form of
an unconscionable deficit.
Posted by: Dan at Wed Aug 23 13:21:19 2006 (IU21y)
2
Well, Dan, then just kick in the amount you believe you are under-taxed.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Aug 23 15:30:12 2006 (NEPJF)
3
Why would I do that, when the Republicans are simply passing it on as a Birth Tax, saddling each infant born with thousands of dollars of debt.
Posted by: Dan at Thu Aug 24 03:24:34 2006 (3peEV)
4
In other words, you don't really believe you are undertaxed when you advocate for higher taxes and against tax cuts.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Aug 24 07:02:00 2006 (4nXaP)
5
You're being awfully dense today.
In a way, yes, we most definitely are being undertaxed, if we want to maintain the level of spending that the Republican Congress and president have decided to pursue, then it is wrong to do so by means of the birth tax. We should pay as we go.
I know you're kidding about the thought that those of us who are honest enough to state what our generation is doing should penalize ourselves by sending in money which will not solve the problem, but would deprive our family of needed funds.
What we should do is reduce spending and increase taxes on the higher brackets, as well as continue the estate tax.
In a way, yes, we most definitely are being undertaxed, if we want to maintain the level of spending that the Republican Congress and president have decided to pursue, then it is wrong to do so by means of the birth tax. We should pay as we go.
I know you're kidding about the thought that those of us who are honest enough to state what our generation is doing should penalize ourselves by sending in money which will not solve the problem, but would deprive our family of needed funds.
What we should do is reduce spending and increase taxes on the higher brackets, as well as continue the estate tax.
Posted by: Dan at Thu Aug 24 11:05:49 2006 (IU21y)
6
So, despite the fact that tax cuts consistently bring in more tax revenue and tax increases tend to reduce revenue, you want a tax cut.
And you are not willing to put your money where your mouth is -- leading by example -- by voluntarily paying the amount you believe your are undertaxed. You won't do that because it "would deprive our family of needed funds" -- but argue that every family shoud be forced to give up those needed funds with a tax increase.
As far as budget cuts go, I'm all for it -- start with the every transfer payment except for social security, and then move on to the Department of Education. HUD could disappear too.
And you are not willing to put your money where your mouth is -- leading by example -- by voluntarily paying the amount you believe your are undertaxed. You won't do that because it "would deprive our family of needed funds" -- but argue that every family shoud be forced to give up those needed funds with a tax increase.
As far as budget cuts go, I'm all for it -- start with the every transfer payment except for social security, and then move on to the Department of Education. HUD could disappear too.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Aug 24 11:11:51 2006 (QDelR)
7
Ooops! That should be "want a tax increase."
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Aug 24 11:13:12 2006 (QDelR)
8
I want a tax cut if we are going to continue to fund budgets of the size that Bush has pushed through the rubber stamp congress. And it is not a "fact" that tax cuts bring in more revenue - that is a theory advanced by a few highly-paid darlings of the very wealthy. The economy is a sloppy laboratory for testing theories, and only the truly foolish would believe your theory is a fact.
Your "tax volunteer" canard is just a silly confusion of individual behavior and societal responsibility. If you have a serious bone in your body, you can figure this one out. If you're just playing goofy rhetorical games, you should think about what your position says about chicken-hawks, environmental regulation, abortion and gay marriage.
As for what to cut in the budget, we have vastly different values.
Your "tax volunteer" canard is just a silly confusion of individual behavior and societal responsibility. If you have a serious bone in your body, you can figure this one out. If you're just playing goofy rhetorical games, you should think about what your position says about chicken-hawks, environmental regulation, abortion and gay marriage.
As for what to cut in the budget, we have vastly different values.
Posted by: Dan at Thu Aug 24 23:10:58 2006 (IU21y)
9
Very interesting -- you call folks who are not in uniform but support the war "chicken-hawks" because they are not in Iraq. But then you prove yourself to be a "tax-chicken-hawk" (by your own standards) by refusing to step up and volunteer to pay those extra taxes you believe are so desperately needed. Could it be that, to use your argument, you confuse individual behavior and social responsibility in the case of military service? Could it be that you don't have a serious bone in your body on the issue of national security? Indeed, my entire argument was framed this way to prove precisely that point about liberals.
And as far as the tax cut thing goes -- it worked for Kennedy, it worked for Reagan, and it worked for Bush. Indeed, it has worked every time it has been tried. But having both theory and reality on my side of the argument still does not persuade you, I'm sure.
And as far as the tax cut thing goes -- it worked for Kennedy, it worked for Reagan, and it worked for Bush. Indeed, it has worked every time it has been tried. But having both theory and reality on my side of the argument still does not persuade you, I'm sure.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Aug 25 01:22:49 2006 (4nXaP)
10
Oh, and as to those budget cuts, I'm merely trying to bring the Federal government back in line with the responsibilities and powers outlined by the US Constitution -- something that has not been the case since the era of FDR (if not before).
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Aug 25 01:26:02 2006 (4nXaP)
11
Hah - I made the same mistake you made! I mean "want a tax increase" . . .
Posted by: Dan at Fri Aug 25 02:01:44 2006 (3peEV)
12
Actually, I've struggled with the "chicken-hawk" issue, initially thinking it was a valid criticism, but I no longer think so. It has some emotional appeal to mock those who talk like marines on glogs, but would never have the courage to confront an angry enemy, but I don't think the point is fair. Again, supporting societal military action does not necessarily require personal military action.
And, yes, I think you're right about the inconsistency. If you sincerely expect me to mail in a check, then you and the other supporters of the war had better be doing everything you can to get yourselves over to Iraq.
And, yes, I think you're right about the inconsistency. If you sincerely expect me to mail in a check, then you and the other supporters of the war had better be doing everything you can to get yourselves over to Iraq.
Posted by: Dan at Fri Aug 25 12:28:45 2006 (IU21y)
13
Fair comment on your points -- though i would dispute you a bit.
1) One need not be in the military to do one's part, as military service is not an OBLIGATION of citizenship. And for my part, as I have mentioned elsewhere, injuries sustained in a car accident when I was in college (after I signed my contract for the Navy Reserve bu before I took my physical) caused me to flunk my physical several times over a period of years. Indeed, my teaching career is something of a way of compensating for my inability to serve in the military -- it is service to my country every bit as much as putting on the uniform is, even if it takes a different form.
2) On the other hand, paying taxes IS an obligation. If you truly believe that you are underpaying your taxes, there is a mechanism available to act on that belief. Do your actions truly conform to your belief?
1) One need not be in the military to do one's part, as military service is not an OBLIGATION of citizenship. And for my part, as I have mentioned elsewhere, injuries sustained in a car accident when I was in college (after I signed my contract for the Navy Reserve bu before I took my physical) caused me to flunk my physical several times over a period of years. Indeed, my teaching career is something of a way of compensating for my inability to serve in the military -- it is service to my country every bit as much as putting on the uniform is, even if it takes a different form.
2) On the other hand, paying taxes IS an obligation. If you truly believe that you are underpaying your taxes, there is a mechanism available to act on that belief. Do your actions truly conform to your belief?
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Aug 25 13:03:44 2006 (B3RHr)
14
How about if I just refer you to someone smarter than either of us? Judge Learned Hand - "Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes[. . . . ]" Helvering v. Gregory, 69 F.2d 809, 810-11 (2d Cir. 1934).
Posted by: Dan at Fri Aug 25 13:40:56 2006 (IU21y)
15
Now I agree with the Judge -- but if one is to contend that one (and the rest of the society) is undertaxed, does that not bring with it a moral (not to say legal) obligation to ensure one is paying one's "fair share".
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Aug 25 13:52:28 2006 (USPwS)
16
No, I don't think so. Some areas, such as paying the Republican deficit down, require federal action. One person acting alone is futile. I don't think that moral purity is achieved by futile, disempowering acts.
Posted by: Dan at Sat Aug 26 03:36:22 2006 (IU21y)
17
In other words, you believe that you are not paying your fair share -- but you are unwilling to do so absent state coercion.
And you want to deteremine the fair share of every other American, and coerce them too.
And you want to deteremine the fair share of every other American, and coerce them too.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Aug 26 03:46:10 2006 (UWziD)
18
And Dan, I was thinking about your comments above -- there is nothing disempowering about cutting a check for the above fund. Indeed, it is the ultimate act of self-empowerment -- telling the government "I don't pay enough, so I am going to do something more for my country, above and beyond what is expected of me."
On the other hand, a tax increase is disempowering, as it is the forcible extraction of a citizen's property at the )metaphorical) point of a gun.
On the other hand, a tax increase is disempowering, as it is the forcible extraction of a citizen's property at the )metaphorical) point of a gun.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Aug 26 04:25:40 2006 (+YQ5b)
19
My fair share means nothing in the absence of everyone stepping up to the plate. For me to pay for the Republican irresponsibility while you don't would be simple folly.
As for your complaints of coercion, that's the cost of living in our society.
As for your complaints of coercion, that's the cost of living in our society.
Posted by: Dan at Sun Aug 27 03:18:30 2006 (IU21y)
20
Then I would argue that you don't REALLY believe you are under-taxed -- or if you do, you are quite willing to continue to steal from the government. Heck, your argument could be used to argue against voluntary military service in the absence of universal conscription.
I guess what it comes down to is that you are unwilling to live up to what you view as your responsibility without the rest of society being forced to conform to YOUR standards at the point of a gun -- proving that you are not particularly a believer in liberty so much as you are a statist.
I guess what it comes down to is that you are unwilling to live up to what you view as your responsibility without the rest of society being forced to conform to YOUR standards at the point of a gun -- proving that you are not particularly a believer in liberty so much as you are a statist.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Aug 27 03:29:46 2006 (5E7uh)
21
I sm not an anarchist, if that's what you mean, and it appears it is.
How is it that by paying my taxes at the legal rate, I am stealing from the government?
Why would I voluntarily pay the many thousands of dollars necessary to make up my miniscule share of the Republican deficit, when it would only harm me and not solve the problem? We do not and have not ever had a tax system based on voluntary payments. Perhaps in some utopian vision such a system would work, but not in this world.
How is it that by paying my taxes at the legal rate, I am stealing from the government?
Why would I voluntarily pay the many thousands of dollars necessary to make up my miniscule share of the Republican deficit, when it would only harm me and not solve the problem? We do not and have not ever had a tax system based on voluntary payments. Perhaps in some utopian vision such a system would work, but not in this world.
Posted by: Dan at Sun Aug 27 07:38:35 2006 (IU21y)
22
You claim you are not paying enough. I'm suggesting that is akin to theft in a moral sense.
Second, you seem to be incapable of behaving according to your own moral beliefs ithout being forced to do so by the state -- and having everyone else forced to behav according to your standards as well. That is clasic statism -- as opposed to what I intended as its opposite, individualism (not anarchism).
You feel you are underpaying, yet refuse to do so unless am made to (by my lights) overpay. Seems to me that only one of us is being done wrong in that situation -- and that no one is doen wrong by your decision to pay what you believe you morally owe.
Second, you seem to be incapable of behaving according to your own moral beliefs ithout being forced to do so by the state -- and having everyone else forced to behav according to your standards as well. That is clasic statism -- as opposed to what I intended as its opposite, individualism (not anarchism).
You feel you are underpaying, yet refuse to do so unless am made to (by my lights) overpay. Seems to me that only one of us is being done wrong in that situation -- and that no one is doen wrong by your decision to pay what you believe you morally owe.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Aug 27 08:50:29 2006 (abAYU)
23
Your insufficiently developed conscience is not my fault.
Posted by: Dan at Sun Aug 27 11:40:52 2006 (IU21y)
24
I'm living according to my morality -- you are refusing to live according to yours absent state coercion of the entire populace to do so.
Which of us has an underdeveloped conscience?
Which of us has an underdeveloped conscience?
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Aug 27 11:54:52 2006 (abAYU)
25
In your world, a mass-murderer who doesn't feel bad about it is morally superior to an occasional speeder who knows he should slow down.
I love these fascinating pictures into the psyche of the right.
I love these fascinating pictures into the psyche of the right.
Posted by: Dan at Sun Aug 27 23:07:04 2006 (IU21y)
26
Hardly, Dan -- that's quite a strawman you've created.
Especially since the greatest mass murderers of the 20th Century were each and every one of them creatures of the Left -- Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. And each was toasted as a hero by the Left.
Especially since the greatest mass murderers of the 20th Century were each and every one of them creatures of the Left -- Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. And each was toasted as a hero by the Left.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Aug 28 00:36:20 2006 (4nXaP)
20kb generated in CPU 0.0077, elapsed 0.0154 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.01 seconds, 55 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
21 queries taking 0.01 seconds, 55 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.