Constitutional amendment to limit taxes.

[teancum79]

I've been getting annoyed with taxes lately. So I was thinking maybe we should amend the Constitution to place a limit on the percentage of our money the government can take.

Thoughts?

[jedivelariuskenobi]

I'm rereading the taoist scriptures today as i try to do quite often and i thought this verse made sense with what you were asking ...

Tao Te Ching - Verse 75

"The reason people starve
is because their rulers tax them excessively.
They are difficult to govern

because their rulers have their own ends in mind.

The reason people take death lightly
is because they want life to be rich.
Therefore they take death lightly.
It is only by not living for your own ends
that you can go beyond valuing life."

[dianaholberg]

I voted "No, the tax laws should be dealt with in other ways" but the response "No, let's just go socialist now and save time" made me laugh because it does seem that way sometimes.

Last week I watched a fascinating documentary on FSTV about people who were asking our government officials to show them the law saying that income taxes have to be paid. Apparently no such law is written -- the income tax was intended to be voluntary. (Try telling that to the IRS auditor when he comes to take your car!)

I was impressed with the documentary until the subject started wandering into other areas such as police brutality and such. The media always shows only one side of that story. Now that our police are more often than not routinely facing criminals who are armed and hopped up on drugs, is it any wonder many of them are quick to let the adrenaline kick in?

I mean, I'm totally against police brutality, but more than that I'm grateful that there are men and women out there willing to risk their lives to keep the peace in an ever degenerating culture.

Oops... sorry... wandered off topic myself there! ;D

[teancum79]

LOL. I'm in Washington going to school. I'm trying to get my family on the state sponsored health insurance. It would cost about $300 a month for it otherwise. Anyhow in addition to health insurance the state also has. Phone bill help, power bill help Housing (trashy thou it be), Foods stamps and Child care.

To support this we have high sales tax (8.6 %) tons of hidden fees on our utility bills etc. If they would just get ride of the extra taxes a lot of people could pay their bills just fine.

Anyhow I figure some people are trying to sneak socialism in. Once everyone needs to government subsidy to get by (or pay the taxes) they win.

[Amalcas]

The problem with getting rid of all those hidden taxes is that you then need to have a truly horrifying straight up tax (for howevermuch taxes are ever that way). Admittedly, that may be preferable, in the grand scheme of things (so called "hidden taxes," at times, raise suspicions of unfairness), but that's hard for politicians to sell; its much easier to cut the taxes people keep track of, and make sure are fair, for whatever that means, and fund the tax cuts (and increases in spending) by sliding a few more taxes under the table.
More to the point, setting a limit on taxes strikes me as a little crazy, not because such an idea is necessarily without merit, but that any limit that is low enough to have effect is also low enough to be very dangerous to be set so well in stone (inasmuch as any disastrous effects will already have happened by such point as the amendment is annulled).

[teancum79]

It would be a hard sell in many cases, but I think out country needs to get back on a self reliant path or we will spend more than we can tax.

I personally would prefer to get by without subsidies and provide for my family, but if I'm taxed at 100% I won't have a choice.

[jedivelariuskenobi]

teancum79 said:

It would be a hard sell in many cases, but I think out country needs to get back on a self reliant path or we will spend more than we can tax.

I personally would prefer to get by without subsidies and provide for my family, but if I'm taxed at 100% I won't have a choice.

The Problem is that humanity has such a limited view of "self." With such a limited view, self-reliance, often means leaving lots of people without opportunity at all.

[dianaholberg]

But unfortunately, there is the other side of the coin, which is that people are socialized to believe that they deserve public assistance and are entitled to something for nothing.

I have no problem with someone like teancum receiving assistance such as what he describes -- he is studying, and the assistance he receives now to support his family is like an investment in his future. I'm sure he will contribute as much (and more) to society once he graduates.

I also have no problem with the truly disabled or truly destitute receiving public assistance. The problem is that the vast majority of those who benefit from government programs are not truly in need. They are just second- or third- generation recipients of welfare, disability, and the like. They have a sense of entitlement and would not work if they can possibly get by another way.

I know whereof I speak. When I worked as a church secretary we saw these folks week after week. One woman had three sons -- all of age and able-bodied enough to carry large and heavy boxes of food -- and they requested assistance with their trailer payment and free food as often as they possibly could. That was only the worst case -- most who benefited from the church's charity appeared to be taking advantage of it. It was quite disheartening.

[teancum79]

Short term assistance and care for the unable are noble goals.
Creating a system where most people are taxed to the point that they need government help to get by is bad.

Some efforts do need to be made to help those who are in poverty to be able to get out, but as Diana said permanent wards of the state (who are not disabled) is really bad. My brother spent some time in England he meet people who where 4th generation dole bludgers. 4 generations of a family where no one has worked for their support. This is a very unhealthy thing for the people and a society.

[doug]

I agree with the general consensus that people shouldn't be put into a position of over reliance on the state. Teancum is correct about the English (more specifically British) situation were there are families who grow up without working and do not learn a "work ethic".

And this sad. Not because people are "wasters" or inept but because they form part of a parallel society were state help is the norm and work isn't so much not considered as seen as impossible. It helps to understand that people create barriers for themselves in their heads. For such people, helping them see the possibilities they have never considered (through vocational or academic education or indeed work placements) is often the best cure.

No one wants to be considered useless and helping them to see they can be usefull is an unbelievable help and realisation.

As to the question of tax: I have always found the American fear of tax odd. Britain stands somewhere in the middle between the American and European view of tax. We have a welfare system and a health care system funded by tax but in the last couple of years have also introduced tuition fees for university and so on. Scotland has always been more left leaning than England so the Scottish parliament quickly debunked that idea after the UK government introduced it but it was a real change for us at the time.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to get round to is that I don't think we should simply consider tax by virtue of how much it costs but by what is provided by it. Going back to our healthcare system: no one in the UK needs to worry about health bills. If I need treatment for cancer it’s free; if I need a broken bone mended it is free; if I need to visit the Doctor because I have a sore throat it is free. I believe removing that kind of worry is worth its weight in gold. In Denmark education is free from pre-school to university and it is a similar story across mainland Europe.

Taxes are a pain I grant you but used properly and well they can provide much needed services that help society to stay healthier, stronger and more informed. It doesn't have to mean you create a country full of wasteful scroungers.

[Amalcas]

My perception of the general American "fear," or perhaps dislike, of taxes is that it is rooted in the "individualism" which is expressed much differently (and arguably to a far greater degree) in America than anywhere else, in particular the concept of equity of opportunity versus equity of economy (or outcome). Beyond that, it might be considered a generalized fear that the tax money will be used improperly; that is, people expect an "equal" (or fair, however you define that) share of the tax to benefit themselves; when they see tax money being squandered (which I won't say it isn't often enough, though I am not here specifically referring to aid programs, but more to other things) there is a general backlash to the collection of taxes, due to a perception that the process could be streamlined (which it certainly could), and thus less taxes would be necessary.

[doug]

I think the American belief in equity of opportunity as preferable to equality of economy would be fine if equality of opportunity was a reality. Structural inequalty continues to make the poor poorer and the rich richer. A completely liberal tax free economy is ridiculously unfair to those at the bottom of the pile-and there are many of them. Tax can help redress that imbalance and can, in concert with other policies, create the equality of opportunity you're talking about.

I agree that it is how the tax money is spent that is the real issue. I would just add that the less you spend the less you get in terms of services.

[teancum79]

I think a big part of the problem is that we are too busy pointing out how the other guy will ruin the country to improve the system. I'd much rather have fewer freebies and lower taxes than really high taxes and the government doing everything.

The problem with taxes and services is that it cost money to tax people and it cost money to regulate the services. Each dollar that is taxed and turned into a service gets a whole lot smaller in the process. Sadly history has shown us that unless there is some forced help for the poor most of the rich will ignore them.

[dianaholberg]

I don't know... most of American "poor" are still rich by the world's standards. We call people "poor" if they make $19K a year -- that's a fortune in most countries.

I think in general we complain too much. We are greatly blessed.

[Amalcas]

While your point is true, Diana, there are a couple mitigating factors: first, the cost of living in the United States is as astronomically higher than that in many poorer countries as our average income is. Second, the option of moving to someplace where this "wealth" would be substantial is probably not open to such individuals; most could probably not afford to emigrate (or otherwise be incapacitated by such barriers as language), and such individuals would also quite possibly remain poor even if they managed to emigrate, as what work could earn them so "little" in the United States would probably not earn them any more relatively in another country.