Government looting and the effectiveness of shrugging
Posted by LionelHutz 11 years, 2 months ago to Economics
In the days of old, our government funded itself by taxing the people through various means, but most prominently by the Income Tax.
As the government becomes the primary looter, the means of revolt expressed in Atlas Shrugged makes a lot of sense.
One deprives the government of their loot by depriving them of your production.
(They can't tax what you don't make).
However, I think we have been in a new era for a while now.
We are in an era where the government doesn't need your tax money.
Think about this. We already know Social Security and Medicare are going to go broke. We've known it for years.
So what sane politician says lets expand the program (Medicare D), and then cut the revenue stream funding it (employee portion of social security)? Both actions drive the programs deeper into debt.
How are things even staying afloat?
The answer is the government is now writing IOUs, selling them to the Chinese for face value, and telling them they may collect it with interest in the future...from our unborn children.
THIS IS TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.
The following data comes from the back page of the 1040 instruction book for the past decade or so:
Percentage of Income derived from Income Taxes and Borrowing.
(Note that while the 1040 data separates income taxes from social security and medicare taxes, I lump them together in this table).
Year Taxes Borrowing
1999 82% 0%
2000 82% 0%
2001 85% 0%
2002 78% 8%
2003 70% 17%
2004 67% 18%
2005 70% 13%
2006 71% 9%
2007 75% 6%
2008 69% 15%
2009 51% 40%
2010 51% 37%
2011 53% 36%
The govt of the USA hasn't been known for compelling people to work in order to keep their income stream coming in.
Shrug all you want. The govt will simply sell more IOUs to the Chinese to make up for it.
At some point in time, the Chinese are going to come to collect on those IOUs.
Is it unreasonable to think that your children may be put into a labor camp?
Agree? Disagree? How does one fight against this?
As the government becomes the primary looter, the means of revolt expressed in Atlas Shrugged makes a lot of sense.
One deprives the government of their loot by depriving them of your production.
(They can't tax what you don't make).
However, I think we have been in a new era for a while now.
We are in an era where the government doesn't need your tax money.
Think about this. We already know Social Security and Medicare are going to go broke. We've known it for years.
So what sane politician says lets expand the program (Medicare D), and then cut the revenue stream funding it (employee portion of social security)? Both actions drive the programs deeper into debt.
How are things even staying afloat?
The answer is the government is now writing IOUs, selling them to the Chinese for face value, and telling them they may collect it with interest in the future...from our unborn children.
THIS IS TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.
The following data comes from the back page of the 1040 instruction book for the past decade or so:
Percentage of Income derived from Income Taxes and Borrowing.
(Note that while the 1040 data separates income taxes from social security and medicare taxes, I lump them together in this table).
Year Taxes Borrowing
1999 82% 0%
2000 82% 0%
2001 85% 0%
2002 78% 8%
2003 70% 17%
2004 67% 18%
2005 70% 13%
2006 71% 9%
2007 75% 6%
2008 69% 15%
2009 51% 40%
2010 51% 37%
2011 53% 36%
The govt of the USA hasn't been known for compelling people to work in order to keep their income stream coming in.
Shrug all you want. The govt will simply sell more IOUs to the Chinese to make up for it.
At some point in time, the Chinese are going to come to collect on those IOUs.
Is it unreasonable to think that your children may be put into a labor camp?
Agree? Disagree? How does one fight against this?
I would comment on your progressive examples, but not in this post...a totally different subject deserves it own post, since it most likely will draw extended conversations.
It won't change the reality. You are there, I am here, who is changing the motor?
P.S. I am a Progressive. Like Teddy Roosevelt, Richard Nixon and Abraham Lincoln (Progressive Republicans), the future must be built by those who take a risk. (TR - safe food and national parks; RN - OSHA and the EPA; AL - well, he's been covered ad nauseum)
But, before this verbal and deeply intellectual banter begins, I'm curious to know if you have the testicular fortitude to freely admit that you are nothing less than a troll. I'm willing to bet you'll deny such a denunciation.
Point #1, your "unlimited birthing is global suicide" remark is indicative of the contemporary latitudinarian-leaning neurotic that's infected the current Demunist (Democrat + Communist) party as it stands today. If in fact you were truly of a conservative character, you would not have written such a boorish estimation.
Point #2, I recommend you offer your vapid unintellectual services to NASA (Not Another Saudi Arabian, formally known as National Aeronautical and Space Administration). I heard they are looking for a new power source to fly the next generation shuttle into orbit and I believe your ignorance is just the power source they are looking for, perhaps you have insight on how to convert your ignorance into power? I'm beyond sanguine that MOST people in GG most certainly possess the mental discipline required to create wealth. Just because conversations veer off-topic does not mean you can exuviate them because they didn't meet your criterion for on-line forums.
In other words, if you don't like it, get lost, grow up and go bother someone else. Got it?
Point #3, this was a bit tough in my approach. When one considers your entire message, it appears you are bitter. Bitterness is a common trait among the progressives and honestly, that's too bad for you. I'll bet you missed out on a lot in life due to your bitterness, but I digress...
In any case, I don't believe Ms. Rand would have blown smoke in anyone's face UNLESS that person said something incredibly beyond half-baked and short-sighted. What did you leave out in not telling us?
Point #4, it appears you do not understand Objectivism. Can you offer specific examples that prove your imbecilic promulgation?
Point #5, there is no point #5.
Point #6, We in fact, unfortunately, all too often DO NOT get the government we vote for. There are way too many issues in today's voting process and the machines that are used which contribute to this. Other than President Reagan, most people voted with who they got stuck with, thanks to the imbeciles of the GOP who NEVER wanted RR in the first place. It's no wonder why the GOP is where they are at today: they REJECT conservatism. When people have to choose between full-on Liberalism and Liberal-Lite, they most often will vote for the Real Thing, thus, the Repubs will continue to lose.
Objectivism is certainly the answer compared to Liberalism. It goes hand-in-hand with responsibility, which, Liberals never have been and never will be. But, depending on whom you mention, some sham GOPers.
I would like to go on, but my better half is calling on my attention. But I will close on this: NO ONE in GG has a mindset of entitlement. You are definitely on the wrong forum.
They are disrespectful of the people who elected them and those people are too disillusioned to realize it. Those who are given everything have nothing, they have no pride or self-respect; they have no dignity or individuality. That is why they hate and blame. They have become slaves to those they elected to give them everything. They can't stand the reality of their own choices.
Being the one to divide other people's money between the masses is not a noble, Robin Hood-like role.
Don't tax my rewards, but make sure I get an educated workforce and good roads? So one necessarily leads to the other? There's no way to get these things without the tax? This is a bunch of garbage. Just because the govt collects taxes and manages to get work done with it does not mean that was the only way the work was going to get done, that the work is any good or cost effectively done, and most importantly that it was RIGHT for the government to do it in the first place.
I could do without the meandering comments too. One can downvote the occasional one, of course, but when they overwhelm the body of thread replies it gets pretty silly.
We do have the brainpower for unlimited wealth creation. Unfortunately, from the meandering comments about spiders, merlot and whatnot, the typical user on this board does not have the discipline to accomplish it.
I met your heroine in 1973 at MIT. As this disgustingly greasy, fat, hairy old woman signed my copy of The Fountainhead, she blew smoke in my face. I was satisfied when she passed away destitute.
Objectivism is the philosophy of having it both ways. Don't tax my rewards, but make sure I get an educated workforce. And those roads better be fixed so the employees can get to my workplace.
You get the government you vote for, and since you only vote for people like you - well there you go. The politicians are just like you, doing what you tell them to do. Objectivism is not the answer, responsibility is the answer.
You are the answer. Take responsibility for something meaningful, like going to local government meetings. Sunshine via public oversight will make the rats you elected more circumspect in their handling of your affairs.
And this whole thread was premised on the false statement wishing for "the old days" of government income. "In the days of old, our government funded itself by taxing the people through various means, but most prominently by the Income Tax. " No, until 1913 the feds were mostly funded by tariffs.
Then the politicians you elected subcontracted the cash supply. If you hire someone to print money, what did you think they would do to keep busy?
And we do not live on a sailboat. We traveled on mine so my teenagers could see a bigger world. Like Moses and 40 years in the desert, I took a long time getting here to break my kids of their provincial US mindset of entitlement.
It's shipping season and this Objectivism junk keeps crowding up my inbox. The spam filter seems to think you're important.
I don't.
Load more comments...