R
RWMorris
Guest
IMHO, the only way to limit the size of government is to limit their ability to tax and the amount they are allowed to spend and borrow. There is no other way to do it.
- Status
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
This is true, there are too many taxes and they are too high in the singular and the aggregate.
When property taxes are raised sky-high, the elderly who are on fixed incomes and have paid-for houses are actually pushed out of their own homes by the state. How wrong is that?
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
We could just follow the Constitution as it was written. It limits government very strictly, but has been overwritten over the last 100 years.
R
RWMorris
Guest
Having lived and owned property in the State of Texas for many years I learned quickly that in Texas one does not own property, he merely rents it from the state.This is true, there are too many taxes and they are too high in the singular and the aggregate.
When property taxes are raised sky-high, the elderly who are on fixed incomes and have paid-for houses are actually pushed out of their own homes by the state. How wrong is that?
R
RWMorris
Guest
Thanks to the United States Supreme Court.
D
DanteAlighieri
Guest
The top 1 percent of earners pays 35 to 40% of the tax burden in the US, while accounting for only around 20% of income (source). The top 10 percent pays 70 percent of the taxes, while the bottom 40 percent actual MAKE money from taxes because of credits and reduced tax liability (source).
So, you tell me: whom do taxes hit the most?
Peace,
Dante
B
buffalo
Guest
So now it is 26 to 3.
Still confused why the defense of bigger government. Unless there is confusion as to what bigger smaller government really means.
Perhaps the press should poll the citizens on this very question.
Still confused why the defense of bigger government. Unless there is confusion as to what bigger smaller government really means.
Perhaps the press should poll the citizens on this very question.
E
exnihilo
Guest
This is the fatal flaw in the thinking of the big government types. They presume, without any shred of evidence, that politicians are better than businessmen. In fact the evidence goes the other way. The businessman has to at least provide a good or service that the people voluntarily want. He has to have contribute to voluntary society. The politicians only contribution is a promise to take from some people and give to another. His words are the same as a thief and his methods no different.
Of course in the modern economies the CEOs are thieves. They’ve partnered with the politician. The politician agrees to restrict trade for the businessman and force people to buy his product. But if you take away political power this all disappears.
The most important democratic freedom is the right to buy and sell freely. This is far more important than political democracy. Western Civilization has been rapidly destroying any economic freedom in exchange for worthless political power. It is economic freedom that keeps even dictators in check.
R
RWMorris
Guest
I agree, and the only way to take away political power is reduce politicians’ access to money.
W
wynnejj
Guest
The defense of bigger government probably lies in the question…
Which would you prefer?
(1) bigger government or,
(2) smaller government favoring bigger corporations
I think if you asked this question, you wouldn’t see such a swing against bigger government.
With “smaller government”, one needs numerous “smaller corporations” with healthy competition.
E
exnihilo
Guest
Do you mean campaign finance? I personally think that is a dead end. The lobbyists and the politicians are too smart to let that happen. They know how to still get favors even if it isnt direct contributions. It is kinda like the the NCAA athletes in revenue sports. They supposedly dont get any financial incentives. But that is constantly being violated.
The corporation is a creation of the state. It exists to limit liability. Liability is a natural limit to reckless behavior. Whenever you remove liability people will act more recklessly.
It might be that liability should be limited to encourage productivity. But it has been taken to the other extreme. You have banksters that can make millions from their company, driving it into bankruptcy, and then the government will bail out the millionaire executives and their banks. This is not limited liability but no liability. And since human nature can not be undone by law we see greater recklessness with our current economic system. Government is no help since it categorically denies any liability (the doctrine of sovereign immunity).
I would advocate a thorough reform of corporations to remove many of the limitations on liability and to decrease corporate power and special privilege. If there is any way to fix the system this is where I think it must start.
R
RWMorris
Guest
No, I do not mean campaign finance. I am speaking of our tax dollars. Currently, the federal government has 24% of our GDP at its disposal. That is an obscene amount of money, not to mention our nation’s wealth.
C
Carlan
Guest
Smart people help my thinking out please…How does a nation with over300 million citizens operate on a small or very very little Federal Government involvement?
Thank you! Carlan
Thank you! Carlan
B
buffalo
Guest
Let the states handle it. Cutting 10% out of the feds still leaves a really big government.
C
Carlan
Guest
The States already do much…What do you mean actually? Like something over in Europe, Little countries,like unto themselves?
No don’t think that would go over
Carlan
B
buffalo
Guest
\
The Catholic principle of subsidiarity says to put issues in the smallest units hands.
Mother government does not work.
C
Carlan
Guest
Yes, I know about subsidiarity but States can only do so much. I live in a very poor state compared to some. Even the big ones like Calif are on the brink of going broke right now.
And even getting rid of mother government for the most part, in my opinion, would open up one heck of a can of worms. Even with every state getting their fair share of Federal income tax.
Carlan
T
Trader
Guest
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Does anyone here recognize this? I do not think our politicians do. What would the wise people who wrote this think of the IRS code, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, a policy of equalizing the results of unequal choices, the marriage penalty, and a federal government that spent 25% of GDP and borrowed 40% of every dollar spent to be paid back by future generations?
Oh yeah, smaller(in case you couldn’t tell).
Does anyone here recognize this? I do not think our politicians do. What would the wise people who wrote this think of the IRS code, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, a policy of equalizing the results of unequal choices, the marriage penalty, and a federal government that spent 25% of GDP and borrowed 40% of every dollar spent to be paid back by future generations?
Oh yeah, smaller(in case you couldn’t tell).
E
exnihilo
Guest
Yes it is terrible. And literal tax dollars are only part of the problem since they borrow and inflate.
The size of government certainly will be in some way proportionate to the number of people. I think the question relates to the scope of government. And in my opinion the government should be at most 1/10th of its current size. The government charges me a lot of money and I get nothing in return. The worst thing is I’m lied to and told that I’ll someday get Social Security (a 15% tax) which is impossible. If the government were subject to its own rules the people running SS would be jailed for breach of fiduciary responsibility.
S
sedonaman
Guest
When did we have it in the first place?
- Status