"Progressive Slavery"

[PosterChild]

By Christopher Cook
Modern Conservative


Our taxation system involves a really disgusting dynamic. It's basic stuff, really, but it bears repeating over and over again. Repetition is the mother of pedagogy.

A political party says to one group of Americans...
"You see that other group of Americans over there? If you vote for us, we will take money from them, by force, and give it to you."
And so, this party gets the votes of the first group, and sure enough, they take money from the other group and redistribute it.

But the other group keeps working hard and making more money, because it is in their nature. So the political party says to the first group...
"You see that other group over there? They continue to have more money than you. So, if you give us your votes, we will take more of their money away from them, by force, and give it to you."

And so they get the votes again, and take the money again, and the scenario replays itself over and over again.


Here's the cast list in this this Kabuki show we call "progressive" taxation:
• The "party" — The Democratic Party
• The first group — The bottom 50% of taxpayers, who foot about 4% of America's "bill," coupled with people who vote, but who pay no taxes at all.
• The other group — The top 1% of taxpayers, who foot approximately 40% of American's bill.

Move the percentages around if you wish. Remind people that among the "rich," there are some people who inherited, rather than worked for, their money. It doesn't change the basic facts:
The most productive people in the country are locked in a constant economic vassalage to the least productive people in the country. And the democratic process keeps them there.

This can only be described as economic bondage.

To add insult to this injury...
...people who make lots of money also give lots of money to charity, and, even more infuriating...
...Republicans are more charitable, per capita, than Democrats. Red states are more charitable, per capita, than Blue states (http://magicstatistics.com/2006/11/29/republicans-are-more-charitable-than-democrats/).
This makes this economic vassalage even worse. The Democratic Party is saying to its voters...
"You see those people over there? They're already more charitable than you, but if you vote for us, we'll take even MORE of their money and give it to you."

Economic vassalage, coupled with that unjust and disturbing irony, all fueled by the democratic process.

Of course, this is not to speak ill of the democratic process. It is to speak ill of the party that has decided to make the enslavement of one group of Americans by another the key feature of what it offers to that process.
Well, I guess it wouldn't be the first time (http://www.modernconservative.com/the_metablog/370_One_of_the_most_amazing_things_you%27ve_never_ heard.html).

A few days ago, Jonah Goldberg wrote an excellent article on this subject titled The Rich Aren't Made of Money (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JonahGoldberg/2007/11/14/the_rich_arent_made_of_money).
In it, he makes all the right points. And he uses an interesting phrase.
Meanwhile, Democrats keep telling the bottom 95% of taxpayers that all of America's problems will be solved if only the rich people would pay "their fair share" of income taxes. Not only is this patently untrue and a siren song toward a welfare state, it amounts to covetousness as fiscal policy.
It could indeed, at very least, be called "covetousness as fiscal policy." However, that phrase does not fully describe what's actually going on.
Covetousness can be transitory. This dynamic repeats itself over and over. It is a fixture of our politics and our economic policy, and it has the force of the state behind it. (Try not paying your taxes one year, and watch what happens.)
A regenerating cycle of enforced transfer of the fruits of labor from one group of people to another is not covetousness. It is slavery.



http://www.modernconservative.com/blog/1126_%22Progressive%22_Slavery.html

[iceberg]

but we must tax the rich because they're evil.

[BrAinPaiNt]

but we must tax the rich because they're evil.

Or maybe we should tax the same percentage...or even remotely close to the same percentage, for the rich as we do the poor and middle class.

Does not make wanting to do that because the rich are evil, it is wanting to do that to try and make the percentage of taxes taken from different economic classes a little closer.

[jterrell]

y.a.w.n.

Taxation has always been one of those issues that get barked about in the most extreme of senses.

Its time for me to call it a weekend so I'll leave this short.

If this thread has more than 3 or 4 responses I'll detail at length why the article is full of fallacy and why the numbers are silly; not that it hasn't been done a million times.

The most simple fact is the richest 1% owns 96% of the wealth.
What exactly do we tax?

The rich people would be really upset if we had a flat tax and then they had to give all their employees raises or else they would stop working as they didn't make enough to pay the taxes.

Bottom line is those with money make the rules.

[ZeroClub]

How much money must one have to be in the top 1%?



Given the distribution of wealth in the U.S., a compelling case can be made for economic slavery. But just not in the direction that the author would prefer ....

[iceberg]

Or maybe we should tax the same percentage...or even remotely close to the same percentage, for the rich as we do the poor and middle class.

Does not make wanting to do that because the rich are evil, it is wanting to do that to try and make the percentage of taxes taken from different economic classes a little closer.

what would that % be? i think my own taxes his around 30% last time around. i'd love to see a better tax than the system we have not that's riddled with loopholes and compromises.

[BrAinPaiNt]

what would that % be? i think my own taxes his around 30% last time around. i'd love to see a better tax than the system we have not that's riddled with loopholes and compromises.

Not sure. Just should be somewhere close for all.

If one group pays 30% not sure why another should only be paying 5%.

I honestly do not have any facts or figures in what it currently is, so take what I say in this area with a grain of salt. Maybe it is close already.

I just remember Buffet talking about not understanding why he has a lower percentage of taxes taken out compared to middle class people.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Flat tax works well in theory, not sure how it would work in practice.

If you say make it 30%, then you have to make the floor high enough that it doesn't hurt the low income earners. If every one pays the same tax, the rich do benefit in that while you lose more in tax, you have way more after tax.

100000- 30% = 70000 left over

20000 - 30% = 14000 left over.

Percentage is the same but the effect on earner A) is far less.

[iceberg]

Flat tax works well in theory, not sure how it would work in practice.

If you say make it 30%, then you have to make the floor high enough that it doesn't hurt the low income earners. If every one pays the same tax, the rich do benefit in that while you lose more in tax, you have way more after tax.

100000- 30% = 70000 left over

20000 - 30% = 14000 left over.

Percentage is the same but the effect on earner A) is far less.

so the person making $100k is supporting wife, 2 kids and their home.
the person maknig $20k is a student in college working part time living in a dorm their parents making $100 pay for.

if someone has the intelligence and ability to get this kind of a job paying that kind of money, why are they more responsible otherwise?

in the end i think it should be more like:

<$20k - 10%
20k-40k - 14%

and so forth. but no deductions and things of that nature.

but again - just because someone can make more $$$ shouldn't make them have to support others. if you want everything the same, that's communism. if you want to encourage people to do better, stop penalizing them.

[StanleySpadowski]

Not sure. Just should be somewhere close for all.

If one group pays 30% not sure why another should only be paying 5%.

I honestly do not have any facts or figures in what it currently is, so take what I say in this area with a grain of salt. Maybe it is close already.

I just remember Buffet talking about not understanding why he has a lower percentage of taxes taken out compared to middle class people.


Buffet's something of a weasel. Watch what he does, not what he says. He says he's all for the government taxing the super rich higher and cutingt the charitable deduction because the government spends the money better but then turns around and donates massive amounts to the Gates Foundation and named the his primary beneficiary to avoid estate taxes.

And he compared % to a secretery who works for him but included not only taxes but all withholding including social security. That's the rub, she paid a much lower tax rate but he only pays a pittance on a % basis in social security.

Now if he wants to argue that social security should be abolished because it dooms the poor into paying a huge % of their gross income into a system with a negative return, I'd be all for that.

[burmafrd]

No taxes on any income under 30,000. For everything over 30,000- a flat tax of 15%. No deductions, no exemptions. For someone making 35,000 that means they pay 15% on 5000, which is $750. that is only $62.50 a month.
For someone making 100,000 that would be 15% of 70000 which would be $10,500. That would work out to $875 a month.
I make a good wage and grossed $65,000 last year. I paid $7600 in taxes. Under this system I would pay only $5250.
Now as regards corporate taxes that would be a lot harder to figure. Probably would have to keep some of the current system as regards depreciation, capital investments, etc. One thing- I would love all the tax lawyers that would be thrown out of work.

Steve Forbes, when he was running for Pres in the 90s, was a big proponent of the flat tax. Later on he said he was stunned by what turned out to be the biggest opponents: ordinary people who wanted to keep the deduction for mortgage interest. No matter how patiently he explained to them that they would keep a lot more on their money HIS way rather then the old way with deductions, etc they still opposed it. They wanted that deduction and that was all that mattered.

[arglebargle]

Sounds good to me, Burma. Any such major change has to get run by the accountants, of course, but I think that if Americans feel everyone is paying their fair share, they'd accept a flat tax. And severely downsizing the IRS? Great side benefit!

[Doomsday]

How much money could the government save if they did away with income tax altogether? You factor in the millions of dollars that could be saved by eliminating the IRs and all the illegals and under the table income that people dont pay taxes on and the governement could easily come up with a 20-30 percent tax on purchases made. It will never happen because the government is big brother and has to track peoples wealth so they can redistribute it.

[jterrell]

No taxes on any income under 30,000. For everything over 30,000- a flat tax of 15%. No deductions, no exemptions. For someone making 35,000 that means they pay 15% on 5000, which is $750. that is only $62.50 a month.
For someone making 100,000 that would be 15% of 70000 which would be $10,500. That would work out to $875 a month.
I make a good wage and grossed $65,000 last year. I paid $7600 in taxes. Under this system I would pay only $5250.
Now as regards corporate taxes that would be a lot harder to figure. Probably would have to keep some of the current system as regards depreciation, capital investments, etc. One thing- I would love all the tax lawyers that would be thrown out of work.

Steve Forbes, when he was running for Pres in the 90s, was a big proponent of the flat tax. Later on he said he was stunned by what turned out to be the biggest opponents: ordinary people who wanted to keep the deduction for mortgage interest. No matter how patiently he explained to them that they would keep a lot more on their money HIS way rather then the old way with deductions, etc they still opposed it. They wanted that deduction and that was all that mattered.

That's a Dem plan Burm:)

I paid about 20K in tax last year. I make good money but sadly not enough to get all the big deductions. Honestly what I should do is start a small business that really does nothing but provides me huge tax breaks and I could write off much of my entertainment and electronics expenses.

.

[jterrell]

How much money could the government save if they did away with income tax altogether? You factor in the millions of dollars that could be saved by eliminating the IRs and all the illegals and under the table income that people dont pay taxes on and the governement could easily come up with a 20-30 percent tax on purchases made. It will never happen because the government is big brother and has to track peoples wealth so they can redistribute it.

A flat sales tax would cause a sticker shock and lack of spending. Thus any estimates on raised money would be woefully short. We'd see the highest deficit in our history. It would be like George Bush on crack.

The government is not re-distributing money any more than a casino is.
It is collecting it to do its bidding, much of which is to keep the economy rolling. Very little actual money goes back to the poor. Instead it goes to whatever the politicians can barter for.

The biggest issue with this "article" and that is a loose term, is that the rich are only getting richer and the poor staying poor. That's proof positive there isn't any re-distribution. Its kinda like playing Monopoly and owning all the properties but loaning the other person a few hundred so they can pay your rent a few more times around the board.

It has nothing to do with someone's nature either; which was an insulting and stupid use of term. When you get to about 500K you no longer have to work. Your money works for you.

Should a guy washing dishes pay the same amount of tax as me? Heck no, he should not. I have more money, will still have more even if I pay much higher taxes and will continue to have a skill set to make more money than him every day for the rest of our lives. Can he acquire my skillset? Possibly but unlikely and even if he did he would remain 10 years behind me in actual experience in this field this always behind me financially.

Home owners get a tax break. People in apartments? Nope!

Right now money determines politics. But real money isn't personal.

Bill Gates has money, but Microsoft as a whole is REAL money. It is money that doesn't just sit in a bank drawing interest but instead moves mountains.

There is so much crying over welfare, which is but a fraction of our federal expenditure. Anyone here wanna stop working and live off of welfare? Anyone wanna move into public housing? I mean surely we all realize people are there because its so awesome and cool right?

I think I'll save my bitterness for someone who has a life I could actually imagine living....

[Doomsday]

The government is not re-distributing money any more than a casino is.
It is collecting it to do its bidding, much of which is to keep the economy rolling. Very little actual money goes back to the poor. Instead it goes to whatever the politicians can barter for.


It is hard for me to read any further that that line because that is actually what the government is doing. Where do you think welfare, foodstamps etc. come from? It comes from taking money from people in one economic group and giving it to people in another group. Not to mention child credits and other tax refunds that have been added in recent years.

I am also tired about hearing about how being uneducated or unskilled is an excuse for not having to pay taxes. Im not saying they should pay the same $ amount as me but when I am paying 32 percent a year in taxes and other people are paying less then 10 percent something isnt right. The current system makes it extremely difficult for middle class people to save for their future.

The reason poor people are staying poor, is most of them are poor for a reason. I had a roommate a few years back who made 1/3 of the money I did, yet he would go out to the bar everynight. I wouldnt even go once a week cause it is so expensive. He always had time and money for beer and cigarettes but was never willing to put in any effort to better himself. Anyone can make excuses but MOST people in this country can make a good living if they are willing to work hard and develop a skill. I dont think its my responsibility to carry the burdon for those that dont or wont.

[jterrell]

It is hard for me to read any further that that line because that is actually what the government is doing. Where do you think welfare, foodstamps etc. come from? It comes from taking money from people in one economic group and giving it to people in another group. Not to mention child credits and other tax refunds that have been added in recent years.

I am also tired about hearing about how being uneducated or unskilled is an excuse for not having to pay taxes. Im not saying they should pay the same $ amount as me but when I am paying 32 percent a year in taxes and other people are paying less then 10 percent something isnt right. The current system makes it extremely difficult for middle class people to save for their future.

The reason poor people are staying poor, is most of them are poor for a reason. I had a roommate a few years back who made 1/3 of the money I did, yet he would go out to the bar everynight. I wouldnt even go once a week cause it is so expensive. He always had time and money for beer and cigarettes but was never willing to put in any effort to better himself. Anyone can make excuses but MOST people in this country can make a good living if they are willing to work hard and develop a skill. I dont think its my responsibility to carry the burdon for those that dont or wont.

Only idiots truly believe people are on welfare and loving it.
That money you think you are paying to the poor is going where?

Follow the life-line of it.

Tax bill comes due wham gov't collects.
Gov't uses it to fund their war and their salaries and everything else including welfare/medicaid.
Really, really poor(because being poor doesn't get you a check) person gets a check. That check is no where near your paycheck and allows them to live at the poverty level. Which for a Mom with two kids is 17,170 dollars. Wow they are just living it up off of your tax dollars. But that money is paid out to whom? The ex-roommate you had spends his on beer and cigarettes. Ok so who makes money then? The bar owner, the liquor/beer companies, and the cigarette companies. See the poor person didn't get o keep any of that money they just borrowed it to buy items they are not going to own and certainly are not going to use to make money.

On the other hand we give huge tax breaks to IBM and Exxon. Those companies pay their CEO's more than 1 million dollars per year. Your share of the taxes is higher because they can't be bothered to pay the agreed upon percentage and need tax breaks. It's not bad enough they are already getting local and state breaks to be in that location but also federal breaks. The amount of tax they pay would fall into the lowest bracket of personal returns who did in fact pay anything. Even worse they take their sexy new profits and build shops in India and China.

There are legit reasons for tax outrage but it should be leveled at corporate welfare not people making under 20K per year for a family of 4.

And believe it or not we have a lot of people born in this country with disabilities either physical or mental. Minimum wage jobs are the best they can do. And they may not be able to keep those jobs long term.

The census numbers show that those below poverty and receiving welfare is often single mothers with kids. Only 4% of married couples with kids fall below the poverty level while 24% of single mothers with kids do. So believe that what you are paying for is a mother who either had no business having a child and should have aborted or who was duped by a man into thinking they would have a family.

[iceberg]

A flat sales tax would cause a sticker shock and lack of spending. Thus any estimates on raised money would be woefully short. We'd see the highest deficit in our history. It would be like George Bush on crack.

The government is not re-distributing money any more than a casino is.
It is collecting it to do its bidding, much of which is to keep the economy rolling. Very little actual money goes back to the poor. Instead it goes to whatever the politicians can barter for.

The biggest issue with this "article" and that is a loose term, is that the rich are only getting richer and the poor staying poor. That's proof positive there isn't any re-distribution. Its kinda like playing Monopoly and owning all the properties but loaning the other person a few hundred so they can pay your rent a few more times around the board.

It has nothing to do with someone's nature either; which was an insulting and stupid use of term. When you get to about 500K you no longer have to work. Your money works for you.

Should a guy washing dishes pay the same amount of tax as me? Heck no, he should not. I have more money, will still have more even if I pay much higher taxes and will continue to have a skill set to make more money than him every day for the rest of our lives. Can he acquire my skillset? Possibly but unlikely and even if he did he would remain 10 years behind me in actual experience in this field this always behind me financially.

Home owners get a tax break. People in apartments? Nope!

Right now money determines politics. But real money isn't personal.

Bill Gates has money, but Microsoft as a whole is REAL money. It is money that doesn't just sit in a bank drawing interest but instead moves mountains.

There is so much crying over welfare, which is but a fraction of our federal expenditure. Anyone here wanna stop working and live off of welfare? Anyone wanna move into public housing? I mean surely we all realize people are there because its so awesome and cool right?

I think I'll save my bitterness for someone who has a life I could actually imagine living....

bill gates sold 2 million shares the other day around $35 a share. he's got 'real' money.

[Doomsday]

A flat sales tax would cause a sticker shock and lack of spending
Maybe some people would, but we live in an overly materialistic society and the odds are greater that a large portion of it would spend their extra money. It is just like when you switch jobs and get a big raisey. The next thing you know you are living in a bigger house, driving a nicer car etc. It is the American way.


We will just have to disagree because I believe tax relief for large companies is good for the economy. The more profitable those companies are the more jobs they produce. Increasing their taxes usually results in loss of jobs and an increase of the cost of their goods or services.

As far as helping people with disabilites or whatever, I have already stated I have no problem supporting people who truly need assistance and I have no issues with helping out others from time to time when they are down on their luck. I have a big issue when the government makes it a way of life for others who are more then capable of supporting themselves.

The governement needs to find ways to be more fiscally responsible instead of just raising taxes whenever the well dries up.

[PosterChild]

Maybe some people would, but we live in an overly materialistic society and the odds are greater that a large portion of it would spend their extra money. It is just like when you switch jobs and get a big raisey. The next thing you know you are living in a bigger house, driving a nicer car etc. It is the American way.


We will just have to disagree because I believe tax relief for large companies is good for the economy. The more profitable those companies are the more jobs they produce. Increasing their taxes usually results in loss of jobs and an increase of the cost of their goods or services.

As far as helping people with disabilites or whatever, I have already stated I have no problem supporting people who truly need assistance and I have no issues with helping out others from time to time when they are down on their luck. I have a big issue when the government makes it a way of life for others who are more then capable of supporting themselves.

The governement needs to find ways to be more fiscally responsible instead of just raising taxes whenever the well dries up.


I forgot I'd posted this last week, just as an afterthought...Anyway in regards to the flat tax issue, the ironic aspect of that is one of the things that makes the poor people poor, is their incessant materialism and tendency to live beyond their means, and the net effect of that would still be a disproportionate tax burden. Just a voluntary one.

[jterrell]

Maybe some people would, but we live in an overly materialistic society and the odds are greater that a large portion of it would spend their extra money. It is just like when you switch jobs and get a big raisey. The next thing you know you are living in a bigger house, driving a nicer car etc. It is the American way.


We will just have to disagree because I believe tax relief for large companies is good for the economy. The more profitable those companies are the more jobs they produce. Increasing their taxes usually results in loss of jobs and an increase of the cost of their goods or services.

As far as helping people with disabilites or whatever, I have already stated I have no problem supporting people who truly need assistance and I have no issues with helping out others from time to time when they are down on their luck. I have a big issue when the government makes it a way of life for others who are more then capable of supporting themselves.

The governement needs to find ways to be more fiscally responsible instead of just raising taxes whenever the well dries up.

Who on this board would go out and spend for luxury items that now cost 25% more? We are materialistic but how many luxury items would you buy that costs 25% more? Would you eat out less if all meals out cost 25% more? Would you keep your vehicle longer if a new car costs 25% more? Would you be less likely to buy a house if it costs 25% more?

If we do buy less of things then the profit margins become smaller and items get priced up even more. Jobs are actually lost.

Would the poor who paid few taxes before do so? Maybe but they won't have much money to spend as they weren't paying much tax anyway so the money they do spend will simply stretch less.

The government absolutely needs to be fiscally responsible. But it does not need to be responsible for creating jobs for India and China. It does not need to make large corporations able to buy politicians or create record profits.

Corporations do not create jobs, demand for items does. The Free Trade economic system is not about selling our souls to corporations but rather about allowing supply and demand to be met in a fair manner. We continue to give corporations advantages in that game. That's why corner stores and small business are so few and far between. They can't compete with all the advantages a big company gets.

The last time this country grew far too invested in corporations we had the Great Depression. In 1987 with Reagonomics kowtowing to business we had another market crash.

The answer for me to run myself like a business. Be mindful of the bottom line and push for increased revenue at every turn. When an individual does it they are mercenaries but business does it as a matter of habit.

[jterrell]

I forgot I'd posted this last week, just as an afterthought...Anyway in regards to the flat tax issue, the ironic aspect of that is one of the things that makes the poor people poor, is their incessant materialism and tendency to live beyond their means, and the net effect of that would still be a disproportionate tax burden. Just a voluntary one.

The number of people living in abject poverty would increase ten-fold because you would have to make 25% more money to buy those necessities.

Further those minimum wage jobs would dry up as the service industry would be the hardest hit.