What do you think of the federal income tax (FICA)?

[LCMS_No_More]

If one wants to contribute, it should be voluntary. A case could easily be made that just by working a job and purchasing goods on the local economy, a sufficient contribution is made.

Some people will give away everything everyone else owns.

You’re entitled to your opinion. Fortunately, your opinion and reality do not match.

 

[vern_humphrey]

If one wants to contribute, it should be voluntary.

You have a good point. While the government does need money to operate and perform essential services, the amount of waste in the present system is huge. And, as I showed with calculations on what the FICA tax would amount to – even for a person who only made $5.00 an hour (in constant dollars) – what the government is taking from you is literally a million dollars or more over your lifetime.

As for charity, it should be voluntary – when you give, you gain merit and grace. But when it is taken from you by force of law, what do you gain? And the government certainly can’t claim this forced charity is effective – all the evidence shows that it is counterproductive and tends to lock people in poverty.

A case could easily be made that just by working a job and purchasing goods on the local economy, a sufficient contribution is made.

I recall a billboard I saw in North Little Rock, Ark: “Cabela’s is welcome in North Little Rock – if they pay their share.”

Had I been running Cabela’s, I’d have put up a billboard next to it – listing the number of people we would employ, the income tax those employees would pay, and the sales tax we would generate. That should be their share.

Some people will give away everything everyone else owns.

Absolutely. You will find people saying, “You just don’t want to help other people.” That’s false. We do want to help other people – with our own money. Let those who want to take **our **money get to work and contribute their share.

 

[ribozyme]

Actually, the US Federal budget consumed 5% or less of the GDP from our nation’s founding until the election of 1936. Now one can interpret the events of the 1936 election many different ways, but it is hard to deny that our elected officials discovered the beauty (!?) of legally buying votes through the use of pork-barrel politics.

Hong Kong’s, until China took over, entire government consumed a total of 15% of their GDP. I see no reason why our federal government can’t function on 5% and allow each state to determine how much additional tax is needed for additional programs. That would force control of most social programs to the local level, giving voters more control and thus more power.

Hong Kong has to rent out its land…

furthermore, Hong Kong has very high income inequality… much higher than the United States even with a Gini coefficient in the mid 50s

 

[RWMorris]

You’re entitled to your opinion. Fortunately, your opinion and reality do not match.

What is really scary, there are too many people who agree with you.

But I will concede to you there is a danger in absolute freedom and democracy.

Freedom requires that governments and all those who bear responsibility bow before that which presents itself as essentially defenseless and is incapable of exercising any coercion. At this level is situated the threat posed by modern democracy… It is difficult to see how democracy, which rests on the principle of majority rule, can enforce moral values that are not recognized by a majority without introducing a dogmatism that is foreign to its nature.

• Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, November 6, 1992

Authentic democracy is possible only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception of the human person… Nowadays there is a tendency to claim that agnosticism and skeptical relativism are the philosophy and the basic attitude which correspond to democratic forms of political life. Those who are convinced that they know the truth and firmly adhere to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point of view, since they do not accept that truth is determined by the majority, or that it is subject to variation according to different political trends. … (But) if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism.

• John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, 1991, #46.

Hopefully, I’m not as pie-in-the-sky as I sound.

 

[Verisimilitude]

But I will concede to you there is a danger in absolute freedom and democracy.

If practiced within the confines of morality as taught by the Church, what is the danger?

If, because humans can not live such a standard should the standards be lowered to accomodate reality?

I don’t think the danger is too much freedom. The danger is in someone elses idea of what my limit should be.

 

[Verisimilitude]

While the government does need money to operate and perform essential services, the amount of waste in the present system is huge.

Can you describe what services are provided by my income tax that are not covered by the many other taxes, tariffs and fees all ready imposed?

You identify waste in spending but haven’t given an example. I did in an earlier post and since you didn’t respond I assume you disagree that what I identified as waste- you do not.

Beyond that, if the government wastes so much money, wouldn’t the elimination of a source of funding for the government (say…the income tax) be beneficial by forcing the government to be unable to spend what they do not have?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Can you describe what services are provided by my income tax that are not covered by the many other taxes, tariffs and fees all ready imposed?

You identify waste in spending but haven’t given an example. I did in an earlier post and since you didn’t respond I assume you disagree that what I identified as waste- you do not.

Why would you assume that?

I would say there are two forms of waste:

1. Spending money on what is not necessary or cournter-productive.
2. Spending money on things not authorized by the Constitution (See Article X.)

Beyond that, if the government wastes so much money, wouldn’t the elimination of a source of funding for the government (say…the income tax) be beneficial by forcing the government to be unable to spend what they do not have?

It would if:

1. We could prevent the government from simply borrowing to finance profligate spending, and
2. Prevent them from inventing or increasing other taxes to make up for the income tax.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Why would you assume that?

I don’t wish to play games so I will ask directly.

Do you support the Presidents (foreign policy) actions in Iraq?
Do you support US aid money to places like Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan and other Muslim nations in the WOT?
Do you support the Patriot Act, Military Commisions Act and secret rendition of terror suspects?

Would you answer directly what services are provided by an income tax that are not covered by other taxes, tariffs and fees?

I would say there are two forms of waste:

1. Spending money on what is not necessary or cournter-productive.

1. Spending money on things not authorized by the Constitution (See Article X.)

Can you give examples of each?

It would if:

1. We could prevent the government from simply borrowing to finance profligate spending, and

1. Prevent them from inventing or increasing other taxes to make up for the income tax.

We can’t prevent them from doing that now. Why not at least take the income tax away from them?

 

[RWMorris]

If practiced within the confines of morality as taught by the Church, what is the danger?

If our children are taught these moral absolutes there is little danger. But our excessive taxation goes partially to “socially” educate our children into right thinking citizens.

If, because humans can not live such a standard should the standards be lowered to accomodate reality?

They shouldn’t, and we should all try to live up to that standard, even though most of us will fail. But failure is the only route to human wisdom. Another “good” use of our excessive taxes; limit failure, dumb us down, keep us dependent on government programs, maintain the “State of Fear”.

I don’t think the danger is too much freedom. The danger is in someone elses idea of what my limit should be.

You nailed it. That is exactly what John Paul II was talking about when he said, “Authentic democracy is possible only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception of the human person…if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power.”

 

[Verisimilitude]

If our children are taught these moral absolutes there is little danger. But our excessive taxation goes partially to “socially” educate our children into right thinking citizens.

Which is an excellent reason to stop funding the Department of Education.

They shouldn’t, and we should all try to live up to that standard, even though most of us will fail. But failure is the only route to human wisdom. Another “good” use of our excessive taxes; limit failure, dumb us down, keep us dependent on government programs, maintain the “State of Fear”.

You nailed it. That is exactly what John Paul II was talking about when he said, “Authentic democracy is possible only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception of the human person…if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power.”

We have become a nation of absolutes in an environment of political correct inclusivness. Obviously with 35 years of legalized abortion we do not have a correct concept of the human person.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Which is an excellent reason to stop funding the Department of Education. ** Works for me. While we’re at it, why don’t we demolish price supports for tobacco? Corn no longer seems to need price supports, so why not get rid of that one too? In my state, cotton will grow, but it’s a trifle too far north to do it well in some years. But the government insures those crops, year after year. So why not get rid of that program too? With wheat prices as they are (possibly because of corn prices,) why not get rid of that support program too? Cattle ranchers get no price supports at all, so obviously food will be raised without supports. And when you get down to it, do we really need to spend tremendous amounts of federal money to support irrigation projects in western deserts? Maybe the products grown there should be moved to tobacco and cotton land that won’t raise cotton very well, but is wonderful land otherwise.**

We have become a nation of absolutes in an environment of political correct inclusivness. Obviously with 35 years of legalized abortion we do not have a correct concept of the human person.Indisputably so as to some. Not to all.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Ridgerunner
Works for me. While we’re at it, why don’t we demolish price supports for tobacco? Corn no longer seems to need price supports, so why not get rid of that one too? In my state, cotton will grow, but it’s a trifle too far north to do it well in some years. But the government insures those crops, year after year. So why not get rid of that program too? With wheat prices as they are (possibly because of corn prices,) why not get rid of that support program too?

Sure. It would keep a lot of money in the states and areas which would know better what to grow because that was what was making money in the market and trade with other nations. Mega international farm corporations might have to compete with local family farms again and we might get a better variety of food to choose from as well.

Cattle ranchers get no price supports at all, so obviously food will be raised without supports.

That’s good. Maybe Congress can work good trade deals with other nations with low tariffs whch would help the consumers cost.

And when you get down to it, do we really need to spend tremendous amounts of federal money to support irrigation projects in western deserts?

Is it coming from my income tax? If so, no. Living in deserts has risks like living on the Gulf coast or in tornado country. (The Anasazi used to live there but left because there was no water. I think the Mayans did the same in Central America.) Water rights is a topic in itself but suffice it to say if the states have lawfull agreements between themselves and private businesses are willing to risk the endevor to create farmland out of desert for a profit then they are willing to risk a loss. If America gets hungry enough they will pay the cost/risk in the price of food unlike the manipulated high prices now. Private corporations have HOA type groups similar to neighborhood groups so the role of the government is just to ensure everyone plays by the rules they agreed to. I don’t live with an HOA so I’m not sure if those who do will pay the mortgage of a neighbor for a while if they lost their job and is about to forclose. Do HOA’s subsidize it’s members for some reason like the federal government does certain industries?

Maybe the products grown there should be moved to tobacco and cotton land that won’t raise cotton very well, but is wonderful land otherwise.

Well, a little research and talking with others about it might prove it’s not a good idea, but you should be free to try at your own cost or find someone else to loan you the money to do it.

Industrial hemp (currently outlawed) would produce twice as much energy as corn (currently subsidized/mandated) for ethanol and that stuff grows like a weed, because it is. Kids can’t get high with it and it makes great rope and like the peanut it has many uses. Besides, with corn so high; (no pun intended to the hemp reference) if we put more corn into the market for food, food might cost less. A non-edible thing like the dollar is even an example. The more printed the less they are worth.

But if we did those things you suggest I bet prices would drop because of competition and you would have more of your money. Great ideas.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I don’t wish to play games so I will ask directly.

Do you support the Presidents (foreign policy) actions in Iraq?
Do you support US aid money to places like Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan and other Muslim nations in the WOT?
Do you support the Patriot Act, Military Commisions Act and secret rendition of terror suspects?

I support the defense of the United States and recognize our greatest danger is international terrorism.

I have been a soldier too long, and have too much experience in the field to believe there is such a thing as a “perfect war.”

I
Would you answer directly what services are provided by an income tax that are not covered by other taxes, tariffs and fees?

You don’t understand how the budget works. Money is fungible, and most everything is paid out of the General Fund of the Treasury. You can figure what percentage of revenue is due to the income tax, and fairly claim that the Income Tax pays for that percentage of everything. You cannot track individual dollars from your witholding tax to the purchase of say, a paper sleeping bag for the Forestry Service.

I
Can you give examples of each?

The current welfare system is counterproductive and has locked generations into poverty. The Department of Education is one of the departments for which there is no Constitutional authority.

I
We can’t prevent them from doing that now. Why not at least take the income tax away from them?

I eagerly await your plan for doing that.

 

[Verisimilitude]

I support the defense of the United States and recognize our greatest danger is international terrorism.

I have been a soldier too long, and have too much experience in the field to believe there is such a thing as a “perfect war.”

It isn’t a question of the perfect war, it is a question of policy. Your answers are too vague and simplistic for something so deadly as war. By your simple statement of support you do support those things that are harmfull to this nation like the Patriot Act, like pre-emptive war, like payments to Islamic dicatators. I asked specific questions that have specific answers. The defense of this nation does not reside within the borders of another nation that has not declared war on us or attacked us.

International terrorism is no different than street gangs in our cities, or pirates of 150 years ago. Terrorism is a tactic of violence, not an army under the control of a soverign nation state. Terrorism is not an ideology that drives murder-bombers to kill innoccents in crowded market places but Islam is. Declare war on the ideology not the tactic. Doing otherwise is a recipe for failure.

You don’t understand how the budget works.

Budgets are easy to understand. If I have only $100 to spend…that is the budget regardless if I need to spend $200.

Money is fungible, and most everything is paid out of the General Fund of the Treasury. You can figure what percentage of revenue is due to the income tax, and fairly claim that the Income Tax pays for that percentage of everything. You cannot track individual dollars from your witholding tax to the purchase of say, a paper sleeping bag for the Forestry Service.

Money might be, but specific legislation isn’t. For example if the American people are told a 2% federal tax is being added to all fuel purchases to pay for interstate highways, and a law is passed to impliment that tax, why would I expect a federal highway budget that would require 4% tax and the differecne be made up with income tax money?

The current welfare system is counterproductive and has locked generations into poverty. The Department of Education is one of the departments for which there is no Constitutional authority.

I eagerly await your plan for doing that.

Voting in people to our government that say they will honor the Constitution and vote them out if they do not. Stop voting for the lesser of two evils and stay true to personal convictions despite the odds or conventional wisdom. Few have actually lived up to that lawful idealism. Those that have are marginalized, mocked, and dismissed as not being credible or logical. Funny how someone that does honor the law is unrealistic, but those who break their word are honorable servents of society.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It isn’t a question of the perfect war, it is a question of policy. Your answers are too vague and simplistic for something so deadly as war.

Tell us about your war experience.

By your simple statement of support you do support those things that are harmfull to this nation like the Patriot Act, like pre-emptive war, like payments to Islamic dicatators. I asked specific questions that have specific answers. The defense of this nation does not reside within the borders of another nation that has not declared war on us or attacked us.

Your assumptions are too vague and simplistic for something so deadly as war.

International terrorism is no different than street gangs in our cities, or pirates of 150 years ago.

And how many terrorists or guerillas have you personally killed? What’s your background experience for this sweeping (and totally wrong) statement?

Terrorism is a tactic of violence, not an army under the control of a soverign nation state.

Terrorism is not a tactic.

Terrorism is not an ideology that drives murder-bombers to kill innoccents in crowded market places but Islam is. Declare war on the ideology not the tactic. Doing otherwise is a recipe for failure.

And how many battles have you won?

Budgets are easy to understand. If I have only $100 to spend…that is the budget regardless if I need to spend $200.

Then it should be easy for you to explain to the rest of us the various “colors of money” in the Federal Budget and why they exist.

Money might be, but specific legislation isn’t. For example if the American people are told a 2% federal tax is being added to all fuel purchases to pay for interstate highways, and a law is passed to impliment that tax, why would I expect a federal highway budget that would require 4% tax and the differecne be made up with income tax money?

I think you’ve confused yourself.

Consider the FICA tax – what were we told it was for? And how is it being used?

Voting in people to our government that say they will honor the Constitution and vote them out if they do not. Stop voting for the lesser of two evils and stay true to personal convictions despite the odds or conventional wisdom.

Good idea – political self-castration.

Few have actually lived up to that lawful idealism. Those that have are marginalized, mocked, and dismissed as not being credible or logical. Funny how someone that does honor the law is unrealistic, but those who break their word are honorable servents of society.

And how do you plan to change that?

 

[Verisimilitude]

I eagerly await your plan for doing that.

A specific plan would be to require our elected representatives to first evaluate their states ratification of the 16th Amendment of 1913. If errors are found they should be addressed as prescribed by the law. My guess would be that it would be found the proceedures were not followed and not enough of the states in 1913 approved it so it should be set aside- much like Roe was made law by the courts which should also be set aside.

Secondly a serious public and fair debate on the use and benefits of keeping the income tax as law should be reasonable to have. Plugging ones ears and refusing to the debate is childish and not worthy of an open society.

Lastly, more people that are exposed to the truth will eventually learn to support it and not the status quo.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Tell us about your war experience.

And that has to do with what? Dr. Spock never hads a baby but he was an expert on them.

Your assumptions are too vague and simplistic for something so deadly as war.

Shall I show you the list of what neocons believe again?

And how many terrorists or guerillas have you personally killed? What’s your background experience for this sweeping (and totally wrong) statement?

If wrong tell me what country sent them out on 9/11?

Terrorism is not a tactic.

Is it a religion? A form of government?

And how many battles have you won?

How many deflections can you give to simple questions?

Then it should be easy for you to explain to the rest of us the various “colors of money” in the Federal Budget and why they exist.

How many colors of money in your home or business budget? How often do you spend more than you have with the ability to pass the debt onto others?

I think you’ve confused yourself.

Consider the FICA tax – what were we told it was for? And how is it being used?

Which is why I would prefer to end it rather than keep it.

Good idea – political self-castration.

Better than being a sheep.

And how do you plan to change that?

By never goose-stepping like you do seemingly. Do you know what a lemming is? From someone who self-proclaims honor and bravery for military service you show a surprising lack of character in your posts.

 

[vern_humphrey]

A specific plan would be to require our elected representatives to first evaluate their states ratification of the 16th Amendment of 1913. If errors are found they should be addressed as prescribed by the law. My guess would be that it would be found the proceedures were not followed and not enough of the states in 1913 approved it so it should be set aside- much like Roe was made law by the courts which should also be set aside.

How do you plan to get the fat cats who run Congress and the State Legislatures to do that - money is power, and you’re asking them to give up their power.

Secondly a serious public and fair debate on the use and benefits of keeping the income tax as law should be reasonable to have. Plugging ones ears and refusing to the debate is childish and not worthy of an open society.

I’d love to see such a debate – but the mainstream media won’t support it. They are all “mo tax is bettah, lah!”

Lastly, more people that are exposed to the truth will eventually learn to support it and not the status quo.

Yep. But right now we are voices crying in the wilderness.

 

[vern_humphrey]

And that has to do with what? Dr. Spock never hads a baby but he was an expert on them.

Spock did more damage to children than any other person I know.

Shall I show you the list of what neocons believe again?

A list that matches no one in the world - except those who inhabit your imagination.

If wrong tell me what country sent them out on 9/11?

Non sequitor.

Is it a religion? A form of government?

None of the above. I suggest you study a few manuals and get back to me.

How many deflections can you give to simple questions?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

How many colors of money in your home or business budget? How often do you spend more than you have with the ability to pass the debt onto others?

I note that you avoided the question.

Which is why I would prefer to end it rather than keep it.

And how do you plan on doing that?

Better than being a sheep.

I’d rather be a ram than a weather.

By never goose-stepping like you do seemingly. Do you know what a lemming is? From someone who self-proclaims honor and bravery for military service you show a surprising lack of character in your posts.

For someone who has never been there, you show a surprising lack of character.

 

[ribozyme]

Spock did more damage to children than any other person I know.

Why because you despise collectivism? You abhor his altruistic approach to dealing with Kahn Noonien Singh?