Cutting spending goes hand in hand with cutting taxes.
Allowing the State's to do what they are supposed to do allows spending cuts to happen.
The Federal Government should be a figurehead and not the main power. The would be a lot less corruption and arrogance in the system if each State was taking care of their own people and everyone wasn't fighting over the same "Pie of money".
The system actually is broken because the States have to compete with each other over a pool of money. We the American people lose because of this. If your taxes went to Bob who lives down the street from you (who you happen to know has 3 kids, a wife, and lost his job) you would be a lot more happy to give.
The fact that instead your taxes are going to Bob who lives in Washington State when you live in Florida causes the problems.
The very fact that we are represented by people living in Washington DC who are completely out of touch with the everday people is the problem. (Both Democrats and Republicans are the problem)
Many small corruptions, that had no desire to help one another, instead of one big would only be worse. Not to mention the lack of respect that would be garnered by the rest of the world. A world we need to survive and go forward.
Then, once the people realized there mistake we would have to start all over again. But if you can get a majority of your fellow citizens to vote for it, I will support it.
40% of Americans pay no taxes at all and get back money. Sorry but the Rich due pay their part. They pay the vast Majority of taxes. I forget the exact number for the to 50% pay somewhere around 95% of all taxes with the top 10% paying over 40% or so of the tax burden. How is that undertaxed? How can the "Working Middle Class" be overtaxed when the vast majority of them get more money back each year then they pay into the system?
"40% of Americans pay no taxes and get back money." Show me your (a) source and (b) laws that allow Americans to not pay taxes and get money back. Thanks in advance.
Oh, my God! Oh, my God! Not this again! This is driving me away from bothering discussing about taxation and the United States Code (Title 26). Who in God's Good Name is telling you that rich people pay "95% of taxes?" GOD this is where I feel very, very privileged for my education. What is rich? Are high income people rich? I have tried to explain wealth on this web page. I am not sure how to even communicate, anymore, on this issue. You people, "working class people," are very cynical BUT BELIEVE THE RICH PAY MORE TAXES THAN YOU. I do not understand this at all. L O L.
You know, Cabe, no offense.
You really have not got a clue about taxes.
It is not that you know about 1% of how taxation laws are passed and how they are administered and who pays what taxes and why and who does not, etc.
{ Mod Edit }
The latest release of Internal Revenue Service data on individual income taxes comes from calendar year 2006, a year in which the economy remained healthy and continued to grow, increasing individual income tax collections along with overall average effective tax rates.
This year's numbers show that both the income share earned by the top 1 percent of tax returns and the tax share paid by that top 1 percent have once again reached all-time highs. In 2006, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 39.9 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 22.1 percent of adjusted gross income, both of which are significantly higher than 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes.
The IRS data also shows increases in individual incomes across all income groups (see Table 3). Just as the highest earners lost the biggest percentage of their incomes during the recession of 2001, so they have prospered the most as the economy continued to rebound through 2006. For example, from 2000 to 2002, the AGI of the top 1 percent of tax returns fell by over 26 percent. In that same period, the AGI of the bottom 50 percent of tax returns actually increased by 4.3 percent. However, since 2002, as the recession has ended, AGI has risen by over 81 percent for the top 1 percent (an average of over 20 percent per year) and 17 percent (an average of around 4 percent per year) for the bottom 50 percent.
In sum, between 2000 and 2006, pre-tax income for the top 1 percent of tax returns grew by 34 percent, while pre-tax income for the bottom 50 percent increased by 22 percent. All figures are nominal (not adjusted for inflation).
This pattern of income loss and growth at the top of the income spectrum is the same during every recession and recovery. The net result has also been a sharp rise in federal government tax revenue from 2003 to 2006 compared to previous years.
The IRS data below include all of the 135.7 million tax returns filed in 2006 that had a positive AGI, not just the returns from people who earned enough to owe taxes. From other IRS data, we can see that in 2006, 92.7 million of the tax returns came from people who paid taxes into the Treasury. That leaves 43 million tax returns filed by people with positive AGI who used exemptions, deductions and tax credits to completely wipe out their federal income tax liability. Not only did they get back every dollar that the federal government withheld from their paychecks during 2005, but some even received more back from the IRS. This is a result of refundable tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit, which are not included in the aggregate percentile data here. (For more on the limitations of the data on this page, see the notes below. For a detailed paper on the distribution of the entire U.S. fiscal system, including all federal, state and local taxes, read Who Pays Taxes and Who Receives Government Spending? An Analysis of Federal, State and Local Tax and Spending Distributions, 1991 - 2004.)
Including all tax returns that had a positive AGI, taxpayers with an AGI of $153,542 or more in 2006 constituted the nation's top 5 percent of earners. To break into the top 1 percent, a tax return had to have an AGI of $388,806 or more. These numbers are up significantly from 2003 when the equivalent thresholds were $130,080 and $295,495. Top incomes in 2006 are also continuing to surpass the peak they reached in 2000. At the height of the boom and bubble, $313,469 was the threshold to break into the top 1 percent, and then it fell to $285,424 in 2002 only to finally recover fully in 2005.
The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $64,702) earned 68.2 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86.3 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $388,806) earned approximately 22.1 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.9 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns.
Average tax rates increased once again in 2006 as the economy continued to grow, even though there were no significant pieces of tax legislation enacted in 2006. Overall, the average tax rate for returns with a positive liability went from 12.1 percent to 12.45 percent from 2004 to 2005 and then up to 12.60 percent for 2006. (This does not include any refundable credits.)
The 2003 tax cut was the second in three years, and although tax rates are lower, the federal income tax still remains highly progressive. The average tax rate in 2006 ranges from 3.0 percent of income for the bottom half of tax returns to 22.8 percent for the top 1 percent.
So according to the IRS themselves the top 1% of income earners pay 39.9% of all tax income while only making around 22% of the Nation's Total Wealth.
To be in the top 50% (According to 2006 reported numbers) you had to make roughly 31K dollars. So everyone who makes 31K and above pays 97% of the income tax burden. While the bottom 50% of Americans who make less then 31K dollars per year pay 3% of the income tax burden.
Sorry Declardemer but it is a fact that the "Rich" in this country already pay the vast majority of the income tax. The top 1% of earners make roughly 400K per year and pay 40% of the income tax burden.
And you think they need to pay more? Having 1% of the population pay for the rest of the population is the epitome of socialism.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
The problem with Cabe is that his understanding of finance, economics, and taxation is very limited; you think in terms of "rich" and "wealth" as income. Edit: It is actually difficult for me to explanation taxation to individuals with no understand of the difference between reportable and non-reportable "income." Tax havens, tax shelters, exclusions, trusts, etc. is where wealthy people make their "income."
Edit 2: I am not even comfortable with the word "income." Section 61, Internal Revenue Code, and how the categories even in Section 61 are excluded from reporting to the IRS by using other Code sections.
It is how you structure it. Where you earn it. When you earn. Carryforward and carry-back deductions; you can get checks from the U.S. Treasury in many, many instances. Timber, oil, farmers get checks. So do a lot of other industries. Wooden arrow head manufacturers is another one.
Some of the information the IRS releases deals exclusively with the fixed-income wage-earners; this is not measuring "income" or "earnings" from offshore accounts or investment vehicles where income is EXCLUDED from reporting to the IRS.
Wealthy people minimize income that is reportable to the IRS and maximize income that is excluded from reporting to the IRS.
Moreoever, some of the press releases from IRS do not consider earnings from capital gains, dividends, rents, interest, and so on and so forth.
Rich, wealthy people are not like you and getting "income" that is reportable to the IRS.
Aside: it is funny how you cynical people trust NOTHING the government tells you on anything except for what the IRS releases. It is remarkable to ME - that psychology.
You do not understand that most of the income earned by the wealthy is not reportable to the IRS, and hence it is not taxed.
You do not have to believe me. In fact, I get bored quickly when I discuss taxes online on web pages because people do not understand things such as earned income, exemptions, exclusions, deductions, preferred rates of taxation, tax credits, and a whole host of other means to exclude, avoid, minimize, and not report income.
Important note:
Yes. I agree. The vast, overwhelming majority of the IRS's total annual in-take is from fixed-income wage-earners, VERY SMALL amounts come from:
The problem with Cabe is that his understanding of finance, economics, and taxation is very limited; you think in terms of "rich" and "wealth" as income. Edit: It is actually difficult for me to explanation taxation to individuals with no understand of the difference between reportable and non-reportable "income." Tax havens, tax shelters, exclusions, trusts, etc. is where wealthy people make their "income."
Some of the information the IRS releases deals exclusively with the fixed-income wage-earners; this is not measuring "income" or "earnings" from offshore accounts or investment vehicles where income is EXCLUDED from reporting to the IRS.
Wealthy people minimize income that is reportable to the IRS and maximize income that is excluded from reporting to the IRS. Moreoever, some of the press releases from IRS do not consider earnings from capital gains, dividends, rents, interest, and so on and so forth. Rich, wealthy people are not like you and getting "income" that is reportable to the IRS. Aside: it is funny how you cynical people trust NOTHING the government tells you on anything except for what the IRS releases. It is remarkable to ME - that psychology.
You do not understand that most of the income earned by the wealthy is not reportable to the IRS, and hence it is not taxed. You do not have to believe me. In fact, I get bored quickly when I discuss taxes online on web pages because people do not understand things such as earned income, exemptions, exclusions, deductions, preferred rates of taxation, tax credits, and a whole host of other means to exclude, avoid, minimize, and not report income.
Declared that isn't the point.
The point is that what they pay is 40% of our total income tax revenue. So what if they are finding loopholes to pay less. 1% of the population is already paying 40% of the revenue. That is a FACT!!!!
No level of loopholes or unreported income or any other thing you can think of will change the fact that they ALREADY PAY 40% of the Burden. 1% of our POPULATION. Really think about this fact.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
The problem with Cabe is that his understanding of finance, economics, and taxation is very limited; you think in terms of "rich" and "wealth" as income. Edit: It is actually difficult for me to explanation taxation to individuals with no understand of the difference between reportable and non-reportable "income." Tax havens, tax shelters, exclusions, trusts, etc. is where wealthy people make their "income."
Some of the information the IRS releases deals exclusively with the fixed-income wage-earners; this is not measuring "income" or "earnings" from offshore accounts or investment vehicles where income is EXCLUDED from reporting to the IRS.
Wealthy people minimize income that is reportable to the IRS and maximize income that is excluded from reporting to the IRS. Moreoever, some of the press releases from IRS do not consider earnings from capital gains, dividends, rents, interest, and so on and so forth. Rich, wealthy people are not like you and getting "income" that is reportable to the IRS. Aside: it is funny how you cynical people trust NOTHING the government tells you on anything except for what the IRS releases. It is remarkable to ME - that psychology.
You do not understand that most of the income earned by the wealthy is not reportable to the IRS, and hence it is not taxed. You do not have to believe me. In fact, I get bored quickly when I discuss taxes online on web pages because people do not understand things such as earned income, exemptions, exclusions, deductions, preferred rates of taxation, tax credits, and a whole host of other means to exclude, avoid, minimize, and not report income.
Declared that isn't the point.
The point is that what they pay is 40% of our total income tax revenue. So what if they are finding loopholes to pay less. 1% of the population is already paying 40% of the revenue. That is a FACT!!!!
No level of loopholes or unreported income or any other thing you can think of will change the fact that they ALREADY PAY 40% of the Burden. 1% of our POPULATION. Really think about this fact.
You keep saying "they," and I keep telling you that the people that pay taxes are not "they."
If you keep saying "they" are rich/wealthy people, that is the problem.
The burden of this government, wars, debt, bureaurcy, defense contractors, research and development bugets are on the fixed-income wage-earner.
1% of the population is NOT paying 40% of the taxes; that is totally ridiculous.
The system actually is broken because the States have to compete with each other over a pool of money. We the American people lose because of this. If your taxes went to Bob who lives down the street from you (who you happen to know has 3 kids, a wife, and lost his job) you would be a lot more happy to give. Speak for yourself. I have no problem paying taxes to assist fellow Americans, regardless of whether it's to repair hurricane damage, fight wildfires, assist the unemployed, feed children, house homeless, safeguard against poisoned food, allow for college education, provide health care, etc. -- even if they live in Alaska! The fact that instead your taxes are going to Bob who lives in Washington State when you live in Florida causes the problems. It causes a problem for you. Do you not understand that some people don't share your views? The very fact that we are represented by people living in Washington DC who are completely out of touch with the everday people is the problem. (Both Democrats and Republicans are the problem) Exactly which federal programs would you like diverted to state and local levels?
The problem with Cabe is that his understanding of finance, economics, and taxation is very limited; you think in terms of "rich" and "wealth" as income. Edit: It is actually difficult for me to explanation taxation to individuals with no understand of the difference between reportable and non-reportable "income." Tax havens, tax shelters, exclusions, trusts, etc. is where wealthy people make their "income."
Some of the information the IRS releases deals exclusively with the fixed-income wage-earners; this is not measuring "income" or "earnings" from offshore accounts or investment vehicles where income is EXCLUDED from reporting to the IRS.
Wealthy people minimize income that is reportable to the IRS and maximize income that is excluded from reporting to the IRS. Moreoever, some of the press releases from IRS do not consider earnings from capital gains, dividends, rents, interest, and so on and so forth. Rich, wealthy people are not like you and getting "income" that is reportable to the IRS. Aside: it is funny how you cynical people trust NOTHING the government tells you on anything except for what the IRS releases. It is remarkable to ME - that psychology.
You do not understand that most of the income earned by the wealthy is not reportable to the IRS, and hence it is not taxed. You do not have to believe me. In fact, I get bored quickly when I discuss taxes online on web pages because people do not understand things such as earned income, exemptions, exclusions, deductions, preferred rates of taxation, tax credits, and a whole host of other means to exclude, avoid, minimize, and not report income.
Declared that isn't the point.
The point is that what they pay is 40% of our total income tax revenue. So what if they are finding loopholes to pay less. 1% of the population is already paying 40% of the revenue. That is a FACT!!!!
No level of loopholes or unreported income or any other thing you can think of will change the fact that they ALREADY PAY 40% of the Burden. 1% of our POPULATION. Really think about this fact.
You keep saying "they," and I keep telling you that the people that pay taxes are not "they."
If you keep saying "they" are rich/wealthy people, that is the problem.
The burden of this government, wars, debt, bureaurcy, defense contractors, research and development bugets are on the fixed-income wage-earner.
1% of the population is NOT paying 40% of the taxes; that is totally ridiculous.
It is a fact shown by the IRS itself.
1% of the population is paying 40% of the income tax revenue.
How is that hard to understand? I know that doesn't fit into your worldview but that doesn't make it false. You can't argue with the IRS. They are the ones taking in the Tax returns and publishing the information.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
The system actually is broken because the States have to compete with each other over a pool of money. We the American people lose because of this. If your taxes went to Bob who lives down the street from you (who you happen to know has 3 kids, a wife, and lost his job) you would be a lot more happy to give. Speak for yourself. I have no problem paying taxes to assist fellow Americans, regardless of whether it's to repair hurricane damage, fight wildfires, assist the unemployed, feed children, house homeless, safeguard against poisoned food, allow for college education, provide health care, etc. -- even if they live in Alaska! I have no problem with giving charity. I do even though I make around 40K per year and have three children and a wife to take care of. The problem I have is with the Government choosing for me. The fact that instead your taxes are going to Bob who lives in Washington State when you live in Florida causes the problems. It causes a problem for you. Do you not understand that some people don't share your views? That is fine. We have differing views. The very fact that we are represented by people living in Washington DC who are completely out of touch with the everday people is the problem. (Both Democrats and Republicans are the problem) Exactly which federal programs would you like diverted to state and local levels? Everything except Postal, interstate commerce, and control of the military when we are at war should be transferred to the lowest level possible. If it can be handled by the town/city then it should be.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
1% of the population is paying 40% of the income tax revenue.
Do you have any Idea how much wealth the top percent of the American population has?
Have you ever stopped to consider what they get in return?
Is it possible that they would present this information in a way that is favorable?
These are some of the most powerful people in the world, and I am completely staggered by the notion that you think I should be concerned for there well being
Is this the Independent entrepreneurial spirit you were talking about.
1% of the population is paying 40% of the income tax revenue.
Do you have any Idea how much wealth the top percent of the American population has?
Have you ever stopped to consider what they get in return?
Is it possible that they would present this information in a way that is favorable?
These are some of the most powerful people in the world, and I am completely staggered by the notion that you think I should be concerned for there well being
Is this the Independent entrepreneurial spirit you were talking about.
No it isn't a concern for their well being. It is a concern for what makes America Great. The whole idea of America is the American Dream. We are a country full of people who came from nothing and are wealthy. This isn't a country of "Old Money" like an England, France, or Germany.
This is a country of new wealth. This is a country that just about anyone with the right idea could be the next Bill Gates. So why punish people for working hard?
IT doesn't matter what percentage of their overall wealth they are actually reporting to pay their taxes. If they are finding legal loopholes to get out of paying even more taxes then good for them. Why should they have to pay more?
Honestly why is it FAIR that 1% pays 40% of the bill.
Think about that in different terms.
You, Declared, Devil, and I go out to Dinner.
The dinner bill comes to 100 dollars.
Devil being the wealthy girl that she obviously is pays 40 dollars of that bill.
You qazyman and Declared probably being upper middle income types of folks each pay around 28 dollars a piece.
That leaves little old me. The low income Military Service member to pay the remainder. So I get to pay 4 dollars for my meal.
Now we each ate 1/4 of that total meal yet we didn't pay equally for it.
Now of course since I am in the Military I am sure you guys were happy to buy me dinner.
But the point remains.
The poor don't get less use of the public services that they don't pay for. And the Rich don't get more use out of the Public services even though they pay a lot more for them.
The system is broken and unfair.
Instead of punishing those that are foolish with their money (The people who live beyond their means) with a Federal Sales Tax. They instead punish those who work the hardest (even thoug they are usually the ones living well below their means as well).
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
argue all you want but when the bush tax cuts expire in 2010, and the taxes on the middle class go up due to the expiration of it- well you just raised taxes on them poor wittle middle class.
1% of the population is paying 40% of the income tax revenue.
Do you have any Idea how much wealth the top percent of the American population has?
Roughly 22% of our total wealth. Yet they pay 40% of the taxes.
Have you ever stopped to consider what they get in return?
They don't get to use the services they pay for anymore then a person that doesn't pay taxes at all. In fact one could argue that they get a lot less out of the services that are provided by tax income.
Is it possible that they would present this information in a way that is favorable?
I highly doubt the IRS is presenting their cold hard data in any manner at all other then just the numbers.
These are some of the most powerful people in the world, and I am completely staggered by the notion that you think I should be concerned for there well being
I answered in my other post about this. It isn't being concerned about their well being. Anyone that is honestly arguing that the Rich being taxed more is really going to hurt their well being is an idiot. No the fact is that the Rich already pay quite a bit and it isn't fair to make them pay more. Why shouldn't everyone be responsible for themselves? Plus you can argue that the Rich provide a lot of money already in Charities, Job Creation, Spending of their wealth, etc that might be hurt by increasing their tax burden.
Is this the Independent entrepreneurial spirit you were talking about.
Partly, but it is also about Fairness. Wealth should be equated with how hard you try and work for it. In America we already have a pretty good system that rewards those who work hard. Other countries have lots of "Old Money" but that isn't the case in America. The Vast Majority of Wealthy people in America are first generation wealthy individuals. Why punish them for their success?
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
When this country was founded Americans did not pay taxes. LOL the governemt did not provide for anything for the people, No the government was supported by tarrifs alone. What we have now was never their intentions. Why would the government ever decide how people spend their money? If the government is for the people the government would support their right to keep their money rather than decide how to spend it for them. The whole point of America in the first place was to give us the freedom to create our own futures without the government interfering. I am sure they would be absolutley appalled for someone to twist those words into " the government taking care of everyone as they see fit" rather than allowing us to decide that for ourselves. LMAO!
The whole point of America in the first place was to give us the freedom to create our own futures without the government interfering.
This is your interpretation and it's wrong.
The point was religious freedom, and the goal was a system of government were the wealthy landowners and a King did not have control over the laws and institutions that govern the people.
Question as to what direction the people chose to take said government were left intentionally unanswered.
You really need to do better than that!
It was not about religious freedom .. you forget all about "taxation without representation?" you forget the boston tea party? LOL! It was about being taxed and not having any say on how the government spent their money. They added the religious freedom because they wanted to cover all their bases, they wanted to be truely "free". As do I.
And you failed to read my post about the Whiskey Rebellion. Within 5 years of the adoption of the US Constitution Federalized troops were used in Western Pennsylvania to suppress a tax protest movement.
There damn well were taxes imposed on the people by the original founders of this country.
George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and "Lighthorse" Harry Lee commanded these troops.
And you failed to read my post about the Whiskey Rebellion. Within 5 years of the adoption of the US Constitution Federalized troops were used in Western Pennsylvania to suppress a tax protest movement.
There damn well were taxes imposed on the people by the original founders of this country.
George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and "Lighthorse" Harry Lee commanded these troops.
There just opposed to people working together for the common good, because as soon as they do, It's less money and power to horde.
God forbid you would have to accept people as being equal to you.
Originally posted by Cabe2323 Do you honestly believe the stuff you right? Our founding fathers never intended the Government to Tax us. That is apparent because they left taxation to each State. They intended our government to be a collection of strong State Governments. Example: Founding fathers intended us to be The united STATES of America What we are right now is: The UNITED states of AMERICA. That was never the intent of our founding fathers or our Constitution. We are supposed to be a collection of States not a strong Federal Government. The Federal Government was never meant to tax and decide these types of things. That was meant to be left up to the States. Our founding fathers would die of heart attacks if they saw someone in NY paying taxes that were used for someone in New Mexico. That is the very problem that they had when they founded this Great Nation. Our Government today is the very epitome of Taxation without Representation. I have no say if my Tax dollars get used in Pensacola, Florida, or heck even this Country for that matter. The very fact that your tax dollars get taken and used in a different State then the one you live, a State that might very well be over 3,000 miles away, is exactly what our Founding fathers were upset about.
I'm going to make you an honorary Texan, because you have no idea about American History.
Taxes were only one of many reasons leading up to the American Revolution.
Our founding fathers believed in Federal taxes. The first Federal Tax was implimented shortly after the adoption of the US Constitution at the behest of Alexander Hamilton to pay for the Federal government's costs of the American War of Independance. You remember the American War of Independance, it wasn't a free war.
The reason it is called a FEDERAL government is it is a FEDERALIST system. Not a CONFEDERATION of States. Thus, your emphasis is wrong, or we would have a Constitution of the Confederate States of America. We don't today because you lost. Git over it bubba.
Our founding fathers would not die of heart atacks over taxes in NY being used to pay for something in New Mexico. George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and "Lighthorse" Harry Lee personally commanded a Federalized militia and suppressed a Federal tax rebellion in Pennsylvania.
You do have representation over how your tax dollars are used. You have a local US representative, and two US Senators, who vote on spending bills. The original American colonies had no representative to send to Parliment, either in the House of Commons, or the House of Lords. That's what taxation without representation meant. It had nothing to do with where their money was spent.
It was not about religious freedom .. you forget all about "taxation without representation?" you forget the boston tea party? LOL! It was about being taxed and not having any say on how the government spent their money. They added the religious freedom because they wanted to cover all their bases, they wanted to be truely "free". As do I.
And you failed to read my post about the Whiskey Rebellion. Within 5 years of the adoption of the US Constitution Federalized troops were used in Western Pennsylvania to suppress a tax protest movement.
There damn well were taxes imposed on the people by the original founders of this country.
George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and "Lighthorse" Harry Lee commanded these troops.
Yes the Whiskey Rebellion. A Tax that lasted around 10 years before being repealed in 1803. It was also put into place not so much for the Revenue but for social control. Hamilton was a Federalist. Not every founder was.
Hamiltron was opposed by Thomas Jefferson and also James Madison.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Originally posted by Cabe2323 Do you honestly believe the stuff you right? Our founding fathers never intended the Government to Tax us. That is apparent because they left taxation to each State. They intended our government to be a collection of strong State Governments. Example: Founding fathers intended us to be The united STATES of America What we are right now is: The UNITED states of AMERICA. That was never the intent of our founding fathers or our Constitution. We are supposed to be a collection of States not a strong Federal Government. The Federal Government was never meant to tax and decide these types of things. That was meant to be left up to the States. Our founding fathers would die of heart attacks if they saw someone in NY paying taxes that were used for someone in New Mexico. That is the very problem that they had when they founded this Great Nation. Our Government today is the very epitome of Taxation without Representation. I have no say if my Tax dollars get used in Pensacola, Florida, or heck even this Country for that matter. The very fact that your tax dollars get taken and used in a different State then the one you live, a State that might very well be over 3,000 miles away, is exactly what our Founding fathers were upset about.
I'm going to make you an honorary Texan, because you have no idea about American History.
Taxes were only one of many reasons leading up to the American Revolution.
Our founding fathers believed in Federal taxes. The first Federal Tax was implimented shortly after the adoption of the US Constitution at the behest of Alexander Hamilton to pay for the Federal government's costs of the American War of Independance. You remember the American War of Independance, it wasn't a free war.
The reason it is called a FEDERAL government is it is a FEDERALIST system. Not a CONFEDERATION of States. Thus, your emphasis is wrong, or we would have a Constitution of the Confederate States of America. We don't today because you lost. Git over it bubba.
Our founding fathers would not die of heart atacks over taxes in NY being used to pay for something in New Mexico. George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and "Lighthorse" Harry Lee personally commanded a Federalized militia and suppressed a Federal tax rebellion in Pennsylvania.
You do have representation over how your tax dollars are used. You have a local US representative, and two US Senators, who vote on spending bills. The original American colonies had no representative to send to Parliment, either in the House of Commons, or the House of Lords. That's what taxation without representation meant. It had nothing to do with where their money was spent.
Nice try but my family was always on the winning side of the wars. We won the Revolutionary war and we won the Civil War. (I was born and raised in NY until High School, then I move to Florida with the rest of New Yorkers).
Hamilton believed in a Strong Central Government. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison did not. Jefferson believed in States Rights and a weak central government. You remember that guy right? You know the one that actually had a heck of a lot more to do with our Government then Hamilton.
The Whiskey Rebellion had nothing to do with actual taxation and all to do with Hamilton trying to increase the power of the Federal Government. He wanted the Government to be able to tell people what to do and use force to make sure it happened.
The Whiskey Tax was repealed and was never actually very effective as a tax. It wasn't ever really collected outside of Pennsylvania anyways. And even Hamilton himself said it was more about social issues then actual Tax revenue.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Originally posted by declaredemer You know, Cabe, no offense. You really have not got a clue about taxes. It is not that you know about 1% of how taxation laws are passed and how they are administered and who pays what taxes and why and who does not, etc. { Mod Edit }
You know, declaredemer, no offense, but I have very little respect for people who look down their noses at other people. Especially individuals who are obviously as intelligent as Cabe. You posts smack of elitism and I find that people who are elitist usually have some other insecurity they are trying to cover for.
And anyone who thinks that America is undertaxed has to be about as clueless as they come. Income tax, payroll tax, capital gains tax, death tax, property tax, sales tax, excise tax. And those are only the ones I can think of off the top of my head. I know there are more. If any bright young entreprenuer finds a way to make money, the government will find a way to tax it.
Also, I think Obama is better for the economy 1. During Reagen trickle down worked because the work was in the USA. But with Bush and McCain giving all those tax breaks to companies that would go overseas, now the money trickles overseas and the American people get laid off
2. Taxing the execs won't create less jobs if there are regulations in place to limit exploitation.
3. Big businesses and rich CEOs from corps make so much anyway is because they exploit their workers to no end
4. The rest of the western civilized world has figured out how to tax big business their share, and they are doing just fine, job wise
5. The war on Iraq is a great example of big government spending. I rather more than half the war money go towards my main priorities over war (energy independence, health care, education)
6. there is going to be 10's of thousands of new jobs created by the new energy programs.
7. We've tried wealth redistribution for the wealthy, via Bush's tax cuts for the rich which McCain favors renewing. That did not work. They didn't create jobs and they didn't increase wages for the middle class. Spreading the wealth to the rich is no better than spreading it to the poor. Americans now pay less in taxes than at any time since WWII. The low tax rate, in effect for eight years now, has not produced anything resembling general prosperity.
8. the rich and the big corporations don't have anything without workers to do their dirty work and make their products. Wealthy people have the cash to take advantage of the current tax system so that someone making $250K a year actually pays less in taxes than someone making 65K a year. And they can save for a better retirement without having to pay taxes on the money that goes into that retirement account.
9. Obama is for regulation of the market. McCain is against it. We saw how a market can crash without regulation.
10. 5 million green jobs will be created through 'energy services' and when the poor have enough money to get off welfare, they too will be getting jobs and contributing to our economy. and now a barrage of links starting with economist magazine:
It was not about religious freedom .. you forget all about "taxation without representation?" you forget the boston tea party? LOL! It was about being taxed and not having any say on how the government spent their money. They added the religious freedom because they wanted to cover all their bases, they wanted to be truely "free". As do I.
And you failed to read my post about the Whiskey Rebellion. Within 5 years of the adoption of the US Constitution Federalized troops were used in Western Pennsylvania to suppress a tax protest movement.
There damn well were taxes imposed on the people by the original founders of this country.
George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and "Lighthorse" Harry Lee commanded these troops.
Yes the Whiskey Rebellion. A Tax that lasted around 10 years before being repealed in 1803. It was also put into place not so much for the Revenue but for social control. Hamilton was a Federalist. Not every founder was.
Hamiltron was opposed by Thomas Jefferson and also James Madison.
No, not every founder was. There were two political parties at that time, the Federalists, and the Democratic-Republicans. The Federalists were the ones that won the political battle, and founded the United States as a Federal government.
The purpose of the Whiskey Tax was to pay the costs of the American Revolutionary War. The Colonial government had issued alot of script for food, clothing, horses, and wages, etc. There was a need for revenue to redeem the script. It was also a political struggle for the Federalists.
Back at the time the Declaration of Independance was signed both sides knew there would be a future confrontation, but first they figured independance, then they'd have the confrontation over a Federalized or Confederation form of governemnt. They needed each other for independance, so they were partners of convenience. That confrontation came in the form of the American Civil War. The Federalist won the American Civil War, and our government remained Federalist.
Now, more than two hundred years later, we are still fighting over we are a Federalized Nation, or a Confederation of States.
Also, I think Obama is better for the economy 1. During Reagen trickle down worked because the work was in the USA. But with Bush and McCain giving all those tax breaks to companies that would go overseas, now the money trickles overseas and the American people get laid off
2. Taxing the execs won't create less jobs if there are regulations in place to limit exploitation.
3. Big businesses and rich CEOs from corps make so much anyway is because they exploit their workers to no end
4. The rest of the western civilized world has figured out how to tax big business their share, and they are doing just fine, job wise
5. The war on Iraq is a great example of big government spending. I rather more than half the war money go towards my main priorities over war (energy independence, health care, education)
6. there is going to be 10's of thousands of new jobs created by the new energy programs.
7. We've tried wealth redistribution for the wealthy, via Bush's tax cuts for the rich which McCain favors renewing. That did not work. They didn't create jobs and they didn't increase wages for the middle class. Spreading the wealth to the rich is no better than spreading it to the poor. Americans now pay less in taxes than at any time since WWII. The low tax rate, in effect for eight years now, has not produced anything resembling general prosperity.
8. the rich and the big corporations don't have anything without workers to do their dirty work and make their products. Wealthy people have the cash to take advantage of the current tax system so that someone making $250K a year actually pays less in taxes than someone making 65K a year. And they can save for a better retirement without having to pay taxes on the money that goes into that retirement account.
9. Obama is for regulation of the market. McCain is against it. We saw how a market can crash without regulation.
10. 5 million green jobs will be created through 'energy services' and when the poor have enough money to get off welfare, they too will be getting jobs and contributing to our economy. and now a barrage of links starting with economist magazine:
Originally posted by Cabe2323 Nice try but my family was always on the winning side of the wars. We won the Revolutionary war and we won the Civil War. (I was born and raised in NY until High School, then I move to Florida with the rest of New Yorkers).
I still dub thee an Honorary Texan. Your ideas are not Federalist. New York was/is a Federalist State, not a Confederation of States.
you give me a link called www.economistsformccain.com/ and I give you a link from The Economist magazine (where that image is taken from)... hardly comparable.
you give me a link called www.economistsformccain.com/ and I give you a link from The Economist magazine (where that image is taken from)... hardly comparable.
Exactly. Mine is much better. Yours is socialist and British, mine is capitalist and American.
EDIT: look at your own data, Thrakk. 46% are democrats and 10% are republicans. I think that explains everything.
Comments
Cutting spending goes hand in hand with cutting taxes.
Allowing the State's to do what they are supposed to do allows spending cuts to happen.
The Federal Government should be a figurehead and not the main power. The would be a lot less corruption and arrogance in the system if each State was taking care of their own people and everyone wasn't fighting over the same "Pie of money".
The system actually is broken because the States have to compete with each other over a pool of money. We the American people lose because of this. If your taxes went to Bob who lives down the street from you (who you happen to know has 3 kids, a wife, and lost his job) you would be a lot more happy to give.
The fact that instead your taxes are going to Bob who lives in Washington State when you live in Florida causes the problems.
The very fact that we are represented by people living in Washington DC who are completely out of touch with the everday people is the problem. (Both Democrats and Republicans are the problem)
Many small corruptions, that had no desire to help one another, instead of one big would only be worse. Not to mention the lack of respect that would be garnered by the rest of the world. A world we need to survive and go forward.
Then, once the people realized there mistake we would have to start all over again. But if you can get a majority of your fellow citizens to vote for it, I will support it.
Just as the founding father's intended.
You know, Cabe, no offense.
You really have not got a clue about taxes.
It is not that you know about 1% of how taxation laws are passed and how they are administered and who pays what taxes and why and who does not, etc.
{ Mod Edit }
The latest release of Internal Revenue Service data on individual income taxes comes from calendar year 2006, a year in which the economy remained healthy and continued to grow, increasing individual income tax collections along with overall average effective tax rates.
This year's numbers show that both the income share earned by the top 1 percent of tax returns and the tax share paid by that top 1 percent have once again reached all-time highs. In 2006, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 39.9 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 22.1 percent of adjusted gross income, both of which are significantly higher than 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes.
The IRS data also shows increases in individual incomes across all income groups (see Table 3). Just as the highest earners lost the biggest percentage of their incomes during the recession of 2001, so they have prospered the most as the economy continued to rebound through 2006. For example, from 2000 to 2002, the AGI of the top 1 percent of tax returns fell by over 26 percent. In that same period, the AGI of the bottom 50 percent of tax returns actually increased by 4.3 percent. However, since 2002, as the recession has ended, AGI has risen by over 81 percent for the top 1 percent (an average of over 20 percent per year) and 17 percent (an average of around 4 percent per year) for the bottom 50 percent.
In sum, between 2000 and 2006, pre-tax income for the top 1 percent of tax returns grew by 34 percent, while pre-tax income for the bottom 50 percent increased by 22 percent. All figures are nominal (not adjusted for inflation).
This pattern of income loss and growth at the top of the income spectrum is the same during every recession and recovery. The net result has also been a sharp rise in federal government tax revenue from 2003 to 2006 compared to previous years.
The IRS data below include all of the 135.7 million tax returns filed in 2006 that had a positive AGI, not just the returns from people who earned enough to owe taxes. From other IRS data, we can see that in 2006, 92.7 million of the tax returns came from people who paid taxes into the Treasury. That leaves 43 million tax returns filed by people with positive AGI who used exemptions, deductions and tax credits to completely wipe out their federal income tax liability. Not only did they get back every dollar that the federal government withheld from their paychecks during 2005, but some even received more back from the IRS. This is a result of refundable tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit, which are not included in the aggregate percentile data here. (For more on the limitations of the data on this page, see the notes below. For a detailed paper on the distribution of the entire U.S. fiscal system, including all federal, state and local taxes, read Who Pays Taxes and Who Receives Government Spending? An Analysis of Federal, State and Local Tax and Spending Distributions, 1991 - 2004.)
Including all tax returns that had a positive AGI, taxpayers with an AGI of $153,542 or more in 2006 constituted the nation's top 5 percent of earners. To break into the top 1 percent, a tax return had to have an AGI of $388,806 or more. These numbers are up significantly from 2003 when the equivalent thresholds were $130,080 and $295,495. Top incomes in 2006 are also continuing to surpass the peak they reached in 2000. At the height of the boom and bubble, $313,469 was the threshold to break into the top 1 percent, and then it fell to $285,424 in 2002 only to finally recover fully in 2005.
The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $64,702) earned 68.2 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86.3 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $388,806) earned approximately 22.1 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.9 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns.
Average tax rates increased once again in 2006 as the economy continued to grow, even though there were no significant pieces of tax legislation enacted in 2006. Overall, the average tax rate for returns with a positive liability went from 12.1 percent to 12.45 percent from 2004 to 2005 and then up to 12.60 percent for 2006. (This does not include any refundable credits.)
The 2003 tax cut was the second in three years, and although tax rates are lower, the federal income tax still remains highly progressive. The average tax rate in 2006 ranges from 3.0 percent of income for the bottom half of tax returns to 22.8 percent for the top 1 percent.
Source: Internal Revenue Service, http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html ("Individual Income Tax Returns with Positive Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) Returns Classified by Tax Percentile - Early Release")
So according to the IRS themselves the top 1% of income earners pay 39.9% of all tax income while only making around 22% of the Nation's Total Wealth.
To be in the top 50% (According to 2006 reported numbers) you had to make roughly 31K dollars. So everyone who makes 31K and above pays 97% of the income tax burden. While the bottom 50% of Americans who make less then 31K dollars per year pay 3% of the income tax burden.
Sorry Declardemer but it is a fact that the "Rich" in this country already pay the vast majority of the income tax. The top 1% of earners make roughly 400K per year and pay 40% of the income tax burden.
And you think they need to pay more? Having 1% of the population pay for the rest of the population is the epitome of socialism.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
The problem with Cabe is that his understanding of finance, economics, and taxation is very limited; you think in terms of "rich" and "wealth" as income. Edit: It is actually difficult for me to explanation taxation to individuals with no understand of the difference between reportable and non-reportable "income." Tax havens, tax shelters, exclusions, trusts, etc. is where wealthy people make their "income."
Edit 2: I am not even comfortable with the word "income." Section 61, Internal Revenue Code, and how the categories even in Section 61 are excluded from reporting to the IRS by using other Code sections.
It is how you structure it. Where you earn it. When you earn. Carryforward and carry-back deductions; you can get checks from the U.S. Treasury in many, many instances. Timber, oil, farmers get checks. So do a lot of other industries. Wooden arrow head manufacturers is another one.
Some of the information the IRS releases deals exclusively with the fixed-income wage-earners; this is not measuring "income" or "earnings" from offshore accounts or investment vehicles where income is EXCLUDED from reporting to the IRS.
Wealthy people minimize income that is reportable to the IRS and maximize income that is excluded from reporting to the IRS.
Moreoever, some of the press releases from IRS do not consider earnings from capital gains, dividends, rents, interest, and so on and so forth.
Rich, wealthy people are not like you and getting "income" that is reportable to the IRS.
Aside: it is funny how you cynical people trust NOTHING the government tells you on anything except for what the IRS releases. It is remarkable to ME - that psychology.
You do not understand that most of the income earned by the wealthy is not reportable to the IRS, and hence it is not taxed.
You do not have to believe me. In fact, I get bored quickly when I discuss taxes online on web pages because people do not understand things such as earned income, exemptions, exclusions, deductions, preferred rates of taxation, tax credits, and a whole host of other means to exclude, avoid, minimize, and not report income.
Important note:
Yes. I agree. The vast, overwhelming majority of the IRS's total annual in-take is from fixed-income wage-earners, VERY SMALL amounts come from:
Declared that isn't the point.
The point is that what they pay is 40% of our total income tax revenue. So what if they are finding loopholes to pay less. 1% of the population is already paying 40% of the revenue. That is a FACT!!!!
No level of loopholes or unreported income or any other thing you can think of will change the fact that they ALREADY PAY 40% of the Burden. 1% of our POPULATION. Really think about this fact.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Declared that isn't the point.
The point is that what they pay is 40% of our total income tax revenue. So what if they are finding loopholes to pay less. 1% of the population is already paying 40% of the revenue. That is a FACT!!!!
No level of loopholes or unreported income or any other thing you can think of will change the fact that they ALREADY PAY 40% of the Burden. 1% of our POPULATION. Really think about this fact.
You keep saying "they," and I keep telling you that the people that pay taxes are not "they."
If you keep saying "they" are rich/wealthy people, that is the problem.
The burden of this government, wars, debt, bureaurcy, defense contractors, research and development bugets are on the fixed-income wage-earner.
1% of the population is NOT paying 40% of the taxes; that is totally ridiculous.
Declared that isn't the point.
The point is that what they pay is 40% of our total income tax revenue. So what if they are finding loopholes to pay less. 1% of the population is already paying 40% of the revenue. That is a FACT!!!!
No level of loopholes or unreported income or any other thing you can think of will change the fact that they ALREADY PAY 40% of the Burden. 1% of our POPULATION. Really think about this fact.
You keep saying "they," and I keep telling you that the people that pay taxes are not "they."
If you keep saying "they" are rich/wealthy people, that is the problem.
The burden of this government, wars, debt, bureaurcy, defense contractors, research and development bugets are on the fixed-income wage-earner.
1% of the population is NOT paying 40% of the taxes; that is totally ridiculous.
It is a fact shown by the IRS itself.
1% of the population is paying 40% of the income tax revenue.
How is that hard to understand? I know that doesn't fit into your worldview but that doesn't make it false. You can't argue with the IRS. They are the ones taking in the Tax returns and publishing the information.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Do you have any Idea how much wealth the top percent of the American population has?
Have you ever stopped to consider what they get in return?
Is it possible that they would present this information in a way that is favorable?
These are some of the most powerful people in the world, and I am completely staggered by the notion that you think I should be concerned for there well being
Is this the Independent entrepreneurial spirit you were talking about.
Do you have any Idea how much wealth the top percent of the American population has?
Have you ever stopped to consider what they get in return?
Is it possible that they would present this information in a way that is favorable?
These are some of the most powerful people in the world, and I am completely staggered by the notion that you think I should be concerned for there well being
Is this the Independent entrepreneurial spirit you were talking about.
No it isn't a concern for their well being. It is a concern for what makes America Great. The whole idea of America is the American Dream. We are a country full of people who came from nothing and are wealthy. This isn't a country of "Old Money" like an England, France, or Germany.
This is a country of new wealth. This is a country that just about anyone with the right idea could be the next Bill Gates. So why punish people for working hard?
IT doesn't matter what percentage of their overall wealth they are actually reporting to pay their taxes. If they are finding legal loopholes to get out of paying even more taxes then good for them. Why should they have to pay more?
Honestly why is it FAIR that 1% pays 40% of the bill.
Think about that in different terms.
You, Declared, Devil, and I go out to Dinner.
The dinner bill comes to 100 dollars.
Devil being the wealthy girl that she obviously is pays 40 dollars of that bill.
You qazyman and Declared probably being upper middle income types of folks each pay around 28 dollars a piece.
That leaves little old me. The low income Military Service member to pay the remainder. So I get to pay 4 dollars for my meal.
Now we each ate 1/4 of that total meal yet we didn't pay equally for it.
Now of course since I am in the Military I am sure you guys were happy to buy me dinner.
But the point remains.
The poor don't get less use of the public services that they don't pay for. And the Rich don't get more use out of the Public services even though they pay a lot more for them.
The system is broken and unfair.
Instead of punishing those that are foolish with their money (The people who live beyond their means) with a Federal Sales Tax. They instead punish those who work the hardest (even thoug they are usually the ones living well below their means as well).
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
declaredemer is OK for a socialist america.
dailybuzz too.
cabe and I are not.
argue all you want but when the bush tax cuts expire in 2010, and the taxes on the middle class go up due to the expiration of it- well you just raised taxes on them poor wittle middle class.
so whats obama going to do about that?
-I will subtlety invade your psyche-
Do you have any Idea how much wealth the top percent of the American population has?
Roughly 22% of our total wealth. Yet they pay 40% of the taxes.
Have you ever stopped to consider what they get in return?
They don't get to use the services they pay for anymore then a person that doesn't pay taxes at all. In fact one could argue that they get a lot less out of the services that are provided by tax income.
Is it possible that they would present this information in a way that is favorable?
I highly doubt the IRS is presenting their cold hard data in any manner at all other then just the numbers.
These are some of the most powerful people in the world, and I am completely staggered by the notion that you think I should be concerned for there well being
I answered in my other post about this. It isn't being concerned about their well being. Anyone that is honestly arguing that the Rich being taxed more is really going to hurt their well being is an idiot. No the fact is that the Rich already pay quite a bit and it isn't fair to make them pay more. Why shouldn't everyone be responsible for themselves? Plus you can argue that the Rich provide a lot of money already in Charities, Job Creation, Spending of their wealth, etc that might be hurt by increasing their tax burden.
Is this the Independent entrepreneurial spirit you were talking about.
Partly, but it is also about Fairness. Wealth should be equated with how hard you try and work for it. In America we already have a pretty good system that rewards those who work hard. Other countries have lots of "Old Money" but that isn't the case in America. The Vast Majority of Wealthy people in America are first generation wealthy individuals. Why punish them for their success?
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
When this country was founded Americans did not pay taxes. LOL the governemt did not provide for anything for the people, No the government was supported by tarrifs alone. What we have now was never their intentions. Why would the government ever decide how people spend their money? If the government is for the people the government would support their right to keep their money rather than decide how to spend it for them. The whole point of America in the first place was to give us the freedom to create our own futures without the government interfering. I am sure they would be absolutley appalled for someone to twist those words into " the government taking care of everyone as they see fit" rather than allowing us to decide that for ourselves. LMAO!
The whole point of America in the first place was to give us the freedom to create our own futures without the government interfering.
This is your interpretation and it's wrong.
The point was religious freedom, and the goal was a system of government were the wealthy landowners and a King did not have control over the laws and institutions that govern the people.
Question as to what direction the people chose to take said government were left intentionally unanswered.
You really need to do better than that!
It was not about religious freedom .. you forget all about "taxation without representation?" you forget the boston tea party? LOL! It was about being taxed and not having any say on how the government spent their money. They added the religious freedom because they wanted to cover all their bases, they wanted to be truely "free". As do I.
And you failed to read my post about the Whiskey Rebellion. Within 5 years of the adoption of the US Constitution Federalized troops were used in Western Pennsylvania to suppress a tax protest movement.
There damn well were taxes imposed on the people by the original founders of this country.
George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and "Lighthorse" Harry Lee commanded these troops.
And you failed to read my post about the Whiskey Rebellion. Within 5 years of the adoption of the US Constitution Federalized troops were used in Western Pennsylvania to suppress a tax protest movement.
There damn well were taxes imposed on the people by the original founders of this country.
George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and "Lighthorse" Harry Lee commanded these troops.
There just opposed to people working together for the common good, because as soon as they do, It's less money and power to horde.
God forbid you would have to accept people as being equal to you.
I'm going to make you an honorary Texan, because you have no idea about American History.
Taxes were only one of many reasons leading up to the American Revolution.
Our founding fathers believed in Federal taxes. The first Federal Tax was implimented shortly after the adoption of the US Constitution at the behest of Alexander Hamilton to pay for the Federal government's costs of the American War of Independance. You remember the American War of Independance, it wasn't a free war.
The reason it is called a FEDERAL government is it is a FEDERALIST system. Not a CONFEDERATION of States. Thus, your emphasis is wrong, or we would have a Constitution of the Confederate States of America. We don't today because you lost. Git over it bubba.
Our founding fathers would not die of heart atacks over taxes in NY being used to pay for something in New Mexico. George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and "Lighthorse" Harry Lee personally commanded a Federalized militia and suppressed a Federal tax rebellion in Pennsylvania.
You do have representation over how your tax dollars are used. You have a local US representative, and two US Senators, who vote on spending bills. The original American colonies had no representative to send to Parliment, either in the House of Commons, or the House of Lords. That's what taxation without representation meant. It had nothing to do with where their money was spent.
And you failed to read my post about the Whiskey Rebellion. Within 5 years of the adoption of the US Constitution Federalized troops were used in Western Pennsylvania to suppress a tax protest movement.
There damn well were taxes imposed on the people by the original founders of this country.
George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and "Lighthorse" Harry Lee commanded these troops.
Yes the Whiskey Rebellion. A Tax that lasted around 10 years before being repealed in 1803. It was also put into place not so much for the Revenue but for social control. Hamilton was a Federalist. Not every founder was.
Hamiltron was opposed by Thomas Jefferson and also James Madison.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
I'm going to make you an honorary Texan, because you have no idea about American History.
Taxes were only one of many reasons leading up to the American Revolution.
Our founding fathers believed in Federal taxes. The first Federal Tax was implimented shortly after the adoption of the US Constitution at the behest of Alexander Hamilton to pay for the Federal government's costs of the American War of Independance. You remember the American War of Independance, it wasn't a free war.
The reason it is called a FEDERAL government is it is a FEDERALIST system. Not a CONFEDERATION of States. Thus, your emphasis is wrong, or we would have a Constitution of the Confederate States of America. We don't today because you lost. Git over it bubba.
Our founding fathers would not die of heart atacks over taxes in NY being used to pay for something in New Mexico. George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and "Lighthorse" Harry Lee personally commanded a Federalized militia and suppressed a Federal tax rebellion in Pennsylvania.
You do have representation over how your tax dollars are used. You have a local US representative, and two US Senators, who vote on spending bills. The original American colonies had no representative to send to Parliment, either in the House of Commons, or the House of Lords. That's what taxation without representation meant. It had nothing to do with where their money was spent.
Nice try but my family was always on the winning side of the wars. We won the Revolutionary war and we won the Civil War. (I was born and raised in NY until High School, then I move to Florida with the rest of New Yorkers).
Hamilton believed in a Strong Central Government. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison did not. Jefferson believed in States Rights and a weak central government. You remember that guy right? You know the one that actually had a heck of a lot more to do with our Government then Hamilton.
The Whiskey Rebellion had nothing to do with actual taxation and all to do with Hamilton trying to increase the power of the Federal Government. He wanted the Government to be able to tell people what to do and use force to make sure it happened.
The Whiskey Tax was repealed and was never actually very effective as a tax. It wasn't ever really collected outside of Pennsylvania anyways. And even Hamilton himself said it was more about social issues then actual Tax revenue.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
The top 5% earners pay 60% of our nations taxes
The top 15% pay 80%
Why cut taxes for the poor when they zero out every year
You know, declaredemer, no offense, but I have very little respect for people who look down their noses at other people. Especially individuals who are obviously as intelligent as Cabe. You posts smack of elitism and I find that people who are elitist usually have some other insecurity they are trying to cover for.
And anyone who thinks that America is undertaxed has to be about as clueless as they come. Income tax, payroll tax, capital gains tax, death tax, property tax, sales tax, excise tax. And those are only the ones I can think of off the top of my head. I know there are more. If any bright young entreprenuer finds a way to make money, the government will find a way to tax it.
And you failed to read my post about the Whiskey Rebellion. Within 5 years of the adoption of the US Constitution Federalized troops were used in Western Pennsylvania to suppress a tax protest movement.
There damn well were taxes imposed on the people by the original founders of this country.
George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and "Lighthorse" Harry Lee commanded these troops.
Yes the Whiskey Rebellion. A Tax that lasted around 10 years before being repealed in 1803. It was also put into place not so much for the Revenue but for social control. Hamilton was a Federalist. Not every founder was.
Hamiltron was opposed by Thomas Jefferson and also James Madison.
No, not every founder was. There were two political parties at that time, the Federalists, and the Democratic-Republicans. The Federalists were the ones that won the political battle, and founded the United States as a Federal government.
The purpose of the Whiskey Tax was to pay the costs of the American Revolutionary War. The Colonial government had issued alot of script for food, clothing, horses, and wages, etc. There was a need for revenue to redeem the script. It was also a political struggle for the Federalists.
Back at the time the Declaration of Independance was signed both sides knew there would be a future confrontation, but first they figured independance, then they'd have the confrontation over a Federalized or Confederation form of governemnt. They needed each other for independance, so they were partners of convenience. That confrontation came in the form of the American Civil War. The Federalist won the American Civil War, and our government remained Federalist.
Now, more than two hundred years later, we are still fighting over we are a Federalized Nation, or a Confederation of States.
Ask a bunch of socialist econonomists, get a socialist response.
Ask a bunch of non-socialist economists, get a differeny response:
www.economistsformccain.com/
Now, I think they both stink, but by far, most economists I see say McCain is better.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I still dub thee an Honorary Texan. Your ideas are not Federalist. New York was/is a Federalist State, not a Confederation of States.
you give me a link called www.economistsformccain.com/ and I give you a link from The Economist magazine (where that image is taken from)... hardly comparable.
Exactly. Mine is much better. Yours is socialist and British, mine is capitalist and American.
EDIT: look at your own data, Thrakk. 46% are democrats and 10% are republicans. I think that explains everything.
fishermage.blogspot.com