Why should Bush be impeached?

[thestickman]

Philip P:

Why?

Because it’s being taxed twice and, more importantly, I don’t believe the government has an inherrent right to take away the money a person has made/saved/inheritied just because they died. No taxation without representation–or respiration

Is paying taxes fundamentally imoral, in your opinion?

Nope.

If government is not fundamentally immoral, then neither is paying taxes. The moral question then should not be as to whether any taxes should be paid, but as to how that tax burden should be distributed. To my mind, the most moral taxation scheme is the one which places the most burden on those whom can most afford it, and the least on those who can least afford it.

Ah, the old punishment for success scheme we have now. Where fewer and fewer people actually pay income taxes and more folks can be lead by the nose in hopes of targeted tax cuts. How fair…not

Under this scheme, I can’t see how the estate tax is immoral.

Of course not. Your writings on this and other topics suggest to me a perference for government redistribution of wealth for the greater good.

However, I respectfully think it’s an abomination–designed to punish success and fool people into thinking they are getting a good value for the taxes they are paying–opps, I forgot, during the Clinton years it was “making increased contributions.”

Perhaps you can suggest an alternative, more moral means of making up the difference in revenue we would lose by killing the estate tax?

Sure can. Revoke all income taxes, estate taxes, vehicle taxes, property taxes and (the lefties always love this one the most) all corporate and business taxes. Remove the 16th Amendment from the Constitution. Implement a federal
and state sales tax on ALL purchases.

IMO, this would be the most moral, most fair and most productive, personally empowering tax system possible.

 

[NotWorthy]

Philip P:

Why? Is paying taxes fundamentally imoral, in your opinion? And if so, how is govenment supposed to exist?

I wish government would spend as much time finding ways not to waste OUR tax money as they find ways to tax us.

We pay more in child education than any other industrialized nations and we rank 21st in recent tests?

24% of money for welfare actually goes to the recipients (this is 10 years old info, so it may be worse by now). The rest is waste?!?

Pork Barrel projects have gotten worse and worse every year.

Notworthy

 

[Philip_P]

NotWorthy:

I wish government would spend as much time finding ways not to waste OUR tax money as they find ways to tax us.

We pay more in child education than any other industrialized nations and we rank 21st in recent tests?

24% of money for welfare actually goes to the recipients (this is 10 years old info, so it may be worse by now). The rest is waste?!?

Pork Barrel projects have gotten worse and worse every year.

Notworthy

But I take it you have no moral problem with the estate tax, only a policy preference, as you did not address it?

 

[Thekla]

thestickman:

Sure can. Revoke all income taxes, estate taxes, vehicle taxes, property taxes and (the lefties always love this one the most) all corporate and business taxes. Remove the 16th Amendment from the Constitution. Implement a federal
and state sales tax on ALL purchases.

IMO, this would be the most moral, most fair and most productive, personally empowering tax system possible.

It’s too bad that morality has become a matter of opinion. Your argument for the fairness of a federal sales tax falls apart when you actually look at the numbers.

There are certain essential items that all of us require in order to live; food, clothing, and shelter at a minimum. According to the national sales tax theory, all items would be taxed at the same percent; let’s say 15%.

If two families, one earning $20,000/annually and the other $1,000,000 /annually, each spent $80/week for food, the “fairness” doesn’t exist when you compare the tax burden to the income.

The family earning $20,000/annually would pay $624 in sales tax; 3.12% of earnings.

The family earning $1,000,000/annually would pay the same $624 in sales tax, but it would be .06% of earnings.

Asking the lower income family to pay a tax that impacts their family at a rate 52 times greater than the high income family, and having that as the only tax, is many things, but fair is not one of them.

 

[Philip_P]

Thekla:

I
There are certain essential items that all of us require in order to live; food, clothing, and shelter at a minimum. According to the national sales tax theory, all items would be taxed at the same percent; let’s say 15%.

Also, I don’t know the numbers all that well, but 15% seems low for what would be required to make up for removing the income tax. I live in a state that has an 8% sales tax plus an income tax…I can’t imagine how high the sales tax would have to go to make up for losing the revenue from income. I think it would have an extremely adverse effect on the economy, as consumer spending plays such a large part, and a 20%+ sales tax would severely slow down consumer spending.

I do know that generally food is exempt from sales tax, as it is here. However, you do have to make up the shortfall somewhere. Perhaps those on these boards who live in countries with sales tax can share a bit. Aren’t there usually other taxes of some sort on top of the sales tax?

 

[thestickman]

Thekla:

It’s too bad that morality has become a matter of opinion. Your argument for the fairness of a federal sales tax falls apart when you actually look at the numbers.

There are certain essential items that all of us require in order to live; food, clothing, and shelter at a minimum. According to the national sales tax theory, all items would be taxed at the same percent; let’s say 15%.

If two families, one earning $20,000/annually and the other $1,000,000 /annually, each spent $80/week for food, the “fairness” doesn’t exist when you compare the tax burden to the income.

The family earning $20,000/annually would pay $624 in sales tax; 3.12% of earnings.

The family earning $1,000,000/annually would pay the same $624 in sales tax, but it would be .06% of earnings.

Asking the lower income family to pay a tax that impacts their family at a rate 52 times greater than the high income family, and having that as the only tax, is many things, but fair is not one of them.

The old class-warfare argument strikes. The reality is, under a sales tax system, people will be motivated to improve their fiscal situation. I don’t care if the rich man pays only 0.000009% of their income. The rich vs poor class-warfare thing is to me, a non-sensical notion.

 

[Philip_P]

thestickman:

Of course not. Your writings on this and other topics suggest to me a perference for government redistribution of wealth for the greater good.

Well, I wouldn’t put it in quite that way

I do think we have vastly different conceptions of wealth, however. I tend to view it from a stewardship perspective. The wealth I am able to accumulate is all thanks to the resources available thanks to society - e.g roads, access to education, etc. I made use of these resources, but to claim that I created wealth entirely on my own would be pure ego and an empty boast. Since it was these shared resources that enable my success, I have a moral obligation to pay back a share.

And yes, part of that share properly belongs to the church, but the church does not build roads or field a police force. Stewardship applies to our secular community as much as to our faith community.

 

[thestickman]

Philip P:

Well, I wouldn’t put it in quite that way

I do think we have vastly different conceptions of wealth, however. I tend to view it from a stewardship perspective. The wealth I am able to accumulate is all thanks to the resources available thanks to society - e.g roads, access to education, etc. I made use of these resources, but to claim that I created wealth entirely on my own would be pure ego and an empty boast. Since it was these shared resources that enable my success, I have a moral obligation to pay back a share.

And yes, part of that share properly belongs to the church, but the church does not build roads or field a police force. Stewardship applies to our secular community as much as to our faith community.

Thanks for sharing your perspective. I have no problem with paying fair taxes. If you make 40 million a year and I make 12,000 a year and a gallon of milk costs $3.50, I don’t expect nor want the rich man to pay 20 bucks a gallon because he can and I can’t. If I have a hard time coming up with the 3.50 then it’s my responsibility to make the changes neccessary so I can come up with the 3.50.

If I am poor (and I have been and by many people’s standard’s I may still be) do I bear any less responsibility for my share of the road? Nope. I still have the same access to it the rich fellar does. Should I pay less for the same access just because I’m poor? Nope. Will the road last longer because I, the poor person only paid 0.00002% of my income and the rich man paid a thousand times more? Nope.

Now if I were rich (Heaven forbid—I wouldn’t want the aggravation, remember the camel/needle thing?) I would feel exactly the same as I do being nearly poor or middle class. The difference for me would be is I would make darn sure I personally helped as many people with my wealth as I possibly could. Not because the government told me to, but because, in my heart, that’s what God would expect.

Under the notion of staying on topic–do I think folks on the left resent Bush for cutting taxes? Yep. Am I glad he did? Yep. Has the nation benefitted from the tax cuts? Yes, it has.

Now if ya wanna talk about government spending…someone start a new thread and we’ll yack about it

 

[Thekla]

The old class-warfare argument strikes. The reality is, under a sales tax system, people will be motivated to improve their fiscal situation. I don’t care if the rich man pays only 0.000009% of their income. The rich vs poor class-warfare thing is to me, a non-sensical notion.

The problem with your fairness argument continues with the fact that the wealthy earner would benefit from the government at a rate 52 times higher than the low wage earner. All the things that government provides that enables business and commerce to be conducted in this country, and thus pay the million dollar wage earner, would not be financed in a proportional manner. Essentially, you are asking the low wage earner to pay a 52 times higher tax rate to enable the million dollar wage earner the ability to earn his/her salary.

Some wealthy people find it hysterically funny the way that some in the middle and bottom tier financially see the wealthy as victims of the current tax code. Others see the payment of taxes as more of a moral issue and a duty as citizens who have greatly benefited from this nation. You and I just don’t agree.

 

[NotWorthy]

Thekla:

Some wealthy people find it hysterically funny the way that some in the middle and bottom tier financially see the wealthy as victims of the current tax code. Others see the payment of taxes as more of a moral issue and a duty as citizens who have greatly benefited from this nation. You and I just don’t agree.

It’s funny, but a lot (I know, a lot, but not all) of these people that make these statements have moved a LOT of their money offshore where they don’t pay the same tax rate, or even close to the same.

Notworthy

 

[rlg94086]

Actually, your assessment is totally incorrect. Take a look at www.fairtax.org , read the details and the FAQ. It is a good system and a very moral way to tax. Your example is very well handled by the site.

Thekla:

It’s too bad that morality has become a matter of opinion. Your argument for the fairness of a federal sales tax falls apart when you actually look at the numbers.

There are certain essential items that all of us require in order to live; food, clothing, and shelter at a minimum. According to the national sales tax theory, all items would be taxed at the same percent; let’s say 15%.

If two families, one earning $20,000/annually and the other $1,000,000 /annually, each spent $80/week for food, the “fairness” doesn’t exist when you compare the tax burden to the income.

The family earning $20,000/annually would pay $624 in sales tax; 3.12% of earnings.

The family earning $1,000,000/annually would pay the same $624 in sales tax, but it would be .06% of earnings.

Asking the lower income family to pay a tax that impacts their family at a rate 52 times greater than the high income family, and having that as the only tax, is many things, but fair is not one of them.

 

[mlchance]

So, basically, after numerous messages nitpicking back and forth about estate taxes and nonexistent national sales taxes, no one has come up with a single congent reason why President Bush ought to be impeached.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[thestickman]

mlchance:

So, basically, after numerous messages nitpicking back and forth about estate taxes and nonexistent national sales taxes, no one has come up with a single congent reason why President Bush ought to be impeached.

– Mark L. Chance.

You are correct

 

[thestickman]

Thekla:

The problem with your fairness argument continues with the fact that the wealthy earner would benefit from the government at a rate 52 times higher than the low wage earner.

I could care less if the wealthy earner benefits from government at a rate a billion times higher than I do. IMO, that’s 100% irrelevant to the payment of taxes.

All the things that government provides that enables business and commerce to be conducted in this country, and thus pay the million dollar wage earner, would not be financed in a proportional manner.

The government pays? I’m sorry, but that’s not only non-sensical, but no excuse for taking away the money of the rich/successful/inheritied.

Essentially, you are asking the low wage earner to pay a 52 times higher tax rate to enable the million dollar wage earner the ability to earn his/her salary.

No, I’m not. I’m setting up a system where the low wage earner is movtivated to improve their income level without punishing them for doing so.

Some wealthy people find it hysterically funny the way that some in the middle and bottom tier financially see the wealthy as victims of the current tax code.

I wouldn’t begin to know what wealthy people think of taxes since we’re not fiscally rich nor do we hang out with others who are.

Others see the payment of taxes as more of a moral issue and a duty as citizens who have greatly benefited from this nation.

Some do. Some also make such a claim in the name of believing the state knows better what to do with people’s wealth than the people do.

You and I just don’t agree.

I concur.

 

[Thekla]

thestickman:

Under the notion of staying on topic–do I think folks on the left resent Bush for cutting taxes? Yep.

I was glad to see this acknowledgment from you; that the dislike and low regard for Mr. Bush likely stems from **policy **and isn’t just some personal thing. There are reasons that the majority of Americans see the country as moving in the wrong direction and do not separate the man from his policies.

The finanical well-being of the country is a very serious concern and, over time, Mr. Bush has created an image of himself as someone who will use tax policy and federal programs to further enrich the elite while at the same time driving the nation into crushing debt

And then there is Iraq…

 

[katewithak]

mlchance:

So, basically, after numerous messages nitpicking back and forth about estate taxes and nonexistent national sales taxes, no one has come up with a single congent reason why President Bush ought to be impeached.

– Mark L. Chance.

If Bush knew in fact that there were no WMD’s in Iraq and that Iraq did not present a clear and present danger and engaged us in war with Iraq for ulterior motives, then he should be impeached.
If the above is not true, and he had actual information that Iraq was a clear and present danger and did have WMD’s then no, he should not be impeached.
For the most serious thing he has done is engaged us in war. Nothing else, taxes, budgets, whatever has he done that would be illegal. But engaging in war without reason-or lying about the reason- would be tantamount to murder and then yes, impeach him, If not, don’t.

 

[Thekla]

rlg94086:

Actually, your assessment is totally incorrect. Take a look at www.fairtax.org , read the details and the FAQ. It is a good system and a very moral way to tax. Your example is very well handled by the site.

Next thing you’ll be bringing out Steve Forbes Jr. I don’t need to read the “flat-taxers;” I’m quite familiar with their campaign.

They can do math, but beyond that I find their ideas for tax policy to be immoral.

 

[st.jerome]

thestickman:

The government pays? I’m sorry, but that’s not only non-sensical, but no excuse for taking away the money of the rich/successful/inheritied.

Its not nonesense. Its called corporate welfare in which government subsidizes big business. Pure Reaganomics. You don’t give money to the needy, instead you give money to the rich so that they don’t have to work too hard to get richer.

 

[Thekla]

thestickman:

I could care less if the wealthy earner benefits from government at a rate a billion times higher than I do. IMO, that’s 100% irrelevant to the payment of taxes.

The government pays? I’m sorry, but that’s not only non-sensical, but no excuse for taking away the money of the rich/successful/inheritied.

You might want to re-examine this first statement. It seems overly hostile and slightly unhinged. However, you do seem to agree that it is possible to benefit from government at different rates.

Your second statement appears to question the idea that capitalism benefits from the government; as though people would be able to generate their same level of financial success no matter the country they lived in. To all those people convinced that they are “self-made” without the government’s help, I say take thee to Sierra Leone and we’ll see how long you last.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

st.jerome:

Its not nonesense. Its called corporate welfare in which government subsidizes big business. Pure Reaganomics. You don’t give money to the needy, instead you give money to the rich so that they don’t have to work too hard to get richer.

Tax breaks to businesses create jobs so that the poor can get off welfare. Are you suggesting that the poor should not have the dignity of working? Are you suggesting that the poor be kept in place and serve only the role of bolstering the political profile of Democrat noblesse-oblige?