Taxes vs Entitlement..... (Political Opinion Thread)
clearlysuspect
Posts: 2,124 ✭✭✭✭
I'm not sure why this was on my mind this morning. I'm not doing anything special. Just sitting here watching Sportscenter, watching my daughter swing away in her little swing, and brewing some coffee. All of a sudden, this thought pops in my head: "Taxes vs Entitlement."
I've often heard members on here in political threads say, "Show me in the constitution where you're entitled to healthcare." This is just an example, I'm not looking to start another healthcare argument. Perhaps what sparked this in my mind was a woman on the news in DC last night who was trying to flag down plow trucks to come down her street (a side street off a main road) so she could get out to get groceries. Forty trucks passed her without stopping. I remember her saying, "I pay my taxes. I think I'm entitled to get my street plowed." I wanted to think she was wrong. I wanted to think, "You're not entitled to anything!" But now, after sleeping on it, I think she is right because of her first statement, she pays her taxes.
This got me thinking and made me wonder, back in the colonial days following the Revolutionary War, how much did the average citizen pay in taxes? I started snooping around Google (the answer to everything) and found this History of the Income Tax
"The nation had few taxes in its early history. From 1791 to 1802, the United States government was supported by internal taxes on distilled spirits, carriages, refined sugar, tobacco and snuff, property sold at auction, corporate bonds, and slaves. The high cost of the War of 1812 brought about the nation's first sales taxes on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches. In 1817, however, Congress did away with all internal taxes, relying on tariffs on imported goods to provide sufficient funds for running the government."
"In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an inheritance tax also made its debut. In 1866, internal revenue collections reached their highest point in the nation's 90-year historymore than $310 million, an amount not reached again until 1911."
"The Act of 1862 established the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner was given the power to assess, levy, and collect taxes, and the right to enforce the tax laws through seizure of property and income and through prosecution. The powers and authority remain very much the same today."
"In 1868, Congress again focused its taxation efforts on tobacco and distilled spirits and eliminated the income tax in 1872. It had a short-lived revival in 1894 and 1895. In the latter year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution."
"In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations. In fiscal year 1918, annual internal revenue collections for the first time passed the billion-dollar mark, rising to $5.4 billion by 1920. With the advent of World War II, employment increased, as did tax collectionsto $7.3 billion. The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945."
"In 1981, Congress enacted the largest tax cut in U.S. history, approximately $750 billion over six years. The tax reduction, however, was partially offset by two tax acts, in 1982 and 1984, that attempted to raise approximately $265 billion."
"On Oct. 22, 1986, President Reagan signed into law the Tax Reform Act of 1986, one of the most far-reaching reforms of the United States tax system since the adoption of the income tax. The top tax rate on individual income was lowered from 50% to 28%, the lowest it had been since 1916. Tax preferences were eliminated to make up most of the revenue. In an attempt to remain revenue neutral, the act called for a $120 billion increase in business taxation and a corresponding decrease in individual taxation over a five-year period."
"Following what seemed to be a yearly tradition of new tax acts that began in 1986, the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990 was signed into law on Nov. 5, 1990. As with the '87, '88, and '89 acts, the 1990 act, while providing a number of substantive provisions, was small in comparison with the 1986 act. The emphasis of the 1990 act was increased taxes on the wealthy."
"On Aug. 10, 1993, President Clinton signed the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993 into law. The act's purpose was to reduce by approximately $496 billion the federal deficit that would otherwise accumulate in fiscal years 1994 through 1998. In 1997, Clinton signed another tax act. The act, which cut taxes by $152 billion, included a cut in capital-gains tax for individuals, a $500 per child tax credit, and tax incentives for education."
"President George W. Bush signed a series of tax cuts into law. The largest was the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. It was estimated to save taxpayers $1.3 trillion over ten years, making it the third largest tax cut since World War II. The Bush tax cut created a new lowest rate, 10% for the first several thousand dollars earned. It also established a slow schedule of incremental tax cuts that would eventually double the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000, adjust brackets so that middle-income couples owed the same tax as comparable singles, cut the top four tax rates (28% to 25%; 31% to 28%; 36% to 33%; and 39.6% to 35%)."
"The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2003 accelerated the tax rate cuts that had been enacted in 2001, and temporarily reduced the tax rate on capital gains and dividends to 15%. In 2004, the U.S. was forced to eliminate a corporate tax provision that had been ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization. Along with that tax hike, Congress passed a cornucopia of tax breaks, which for individuals included an option to deduct the payment of whichever state taxes were higher, sales or income taxes."
"Two tax bills signed in 2005 and 2006 extended through 2010 the favorable rates on capital gains and dividends that had been enacted in 2003, raised the exemption levels for the Alternative Minimum Tax, and enacted new tax incentives designed to persuade individuals to save more for retirement."
When I read the first paragraph here, I'm not surprised that we're not entitled to things like healthcare and street plowing (this just sounds funny). Citizens rarely ever paid taxes. I guess we would pay some taxes because we purchase tobacco and most of us consume spirits and most of us own carriages (cars). But even 100 years later, when the first income tax comes around, most of us would only pay 3%.
I don't know about most of you, but I have nearly 35% of my income taxed. So, in consideration of Taxes vs Entitlement, if just a few sales taxes entitled me to my Constitutional Rights in 1791, what does 35% of my income entitle me to today? I think it at least entitles me to get my street plowed, don't you??? LOL
I've often heard members on here in political threads say, "Show me in the constitution where you're entitled to healthcare." This is just an example, I'm not looking to start another healthcare argument. Perhaps what sparked this in my mind was a woman on the news in DC last night who was trying to flag down plow trucks to come down her street (a side street off a main road) so she could get out to get groceries. Forty trucks passed her without stopping. I remember her saying, "I pay my taxes. I think I'm entitled to get my street plowed." I wanted to think she was wrong. I wanted to think, "You're not entitled to anything!" But now, after sleeping on it, I think she is right because of her first statement, she pays her taxes.
This got me thinking and made me wonder, back in the colonial days following the Revolutionary War, how much did the average citizen pay in taxes? I started snooping around Google (the answer to everything) and found this History of the Income Tax
"The nation had few taxes in its early history. From 1791 to 1802, the United States government was supported by internal taxes on distilled spirits, carriages, refined sugar, tobacco and snuff, property sold at auction, corporate bonds, and slaves. The high cost of the War of 1812 brought about the nation's first sales taxes on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches. In 1817, however, Congress did away with all internal taxes, relying on tariffs on imported goods to provide sufficient funds for running the government."
"In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an inheritance tax also made its debut. In 1866, internal revenue collections reached their highest point in the nation's 90-year historymore than $310 million, an amount not reached again until 1911."
"The Act of 1862 established the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner was given the power to assess, levy, and collect taxes, and the right to enforce the tax laws through seizure of property and income and through prosecution. The powers and authority remain very much the same today."
"In 1868, Congress again focused its taxation efforts on tobacco and distilled spirits and eliminated the income tax in 1872. It had a short-lived revival in 1894 and 1895. In the latter year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution."
"In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations. In fiscal year 1918, annual internal revenue collections for the first time passed the billion-dollar mark, rising to $5.4 billion by 1920. With the advent of World War II, employment increased, as did tax collectionsto $7.3 billion. The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945."
"In 1981, Congress enacted the largest tax cut in U.S. history, approximately $750 billion over six years. The tax reduction, however, was partially offset by two tax acts, in 1982 and 1984, that attempted to raise approximately $265 billion."
"On Oct. 22, 1986, President Reagan signed into law the Tax Reform Act of 1986, one of the most far-reaching reforms of the United States tax system since the adoption of the income tax. The top tax rate on individual income was lowered from 50% to 28%, the lowest it had been since 1916. Tax preferences were eliminated to make up most of the revenue. In an attempt to remain revenue neutral, the act called for a $120 billion increase in business taxation and a corresponding decrease in individual taxation over a five-year period."
"Following what seemed to be a yearly tradition of new tax acts that began in 1986, the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990 was signed into law on Nov. 5, 1990. As with the '87, '88, and '89 acts, the 1990 act, while providing a number of substantive provisions, was small in comparison with the 1986 act. The emphasis of the 1990 act was increased taxes on the wealthy."
"On Aug. 10, 1993, President Clinton signed the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993 into law. The act's purpose was to reduce by approximately $496 billion the federal deficit that would otherwise accumulate in fiscal years 1994 through 1998. In 1997, Clinton signed another tax act. The act, which cut taxes by $152 billion, included a cut in capital-gains tax for individuals, a $500 per child tax credit, and tax incentives for education."
"President George W. Bush signed a series of tax cuts into law. The largest was the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. It was estimated to save taxpayers $1.3 trillion over ten years, making it the third largest tax cut since World War II. The Bush tax cut created a new lowest rate, 10% for the first several thousand dollars earned. It also established a slow schedule of incremental tax cuts that would eventually double the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000, adjust brackets so that middle-income couples owed the same tax as comparable singles, cut the top four tax rates (28% to 25%; 31% to 28%; 36% to 33%; and 39.6% to 35%)."
"The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2003 accelerated the tax rate cuts that had been enacted in 2001, and temporarily reduced the tax rate on capital gains and dividends to 15%. In 2004, the U.S. was forced to eliminate a corporate tax provision that had been ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization. Along with that tax hike, Congress passed a cornucopia of tax breaks, which for individuals included an option to deduct the payment of whichever state taxes were higher, sales or income taxes."
"Two tax bills signed in 2005 and 2006 extended through 2010 the favorable rates on capital gains and dividends that had been enacted in 2003, raised the exemption levels for the Alternative Minimum Tax, and enacted new tax incentives designed to persuade individuals to save more for retirement."
When I read the first paragraph here, I'm not surprised that we're not entitled to things like healthcare and street plowing (this just sounds funny). Citizens rarely ever paid taxes. I guess we would pay some taxes because we purchase tobacco and most of us consume spirits and most of us own carriages (cars). But even 100 years later, when the first income tax comes around, most of us would only pay 3%.
I don't know about most of you, but I have nearly 35% of my income taxed. So, in consideration of Taxes vs Entitlement, if just a few sales taxes entitled me to my Constitutional Rights in 1791, what does 35% of my income entitle me to today? I think it at least entitles me to get my street plowed, don't you??? LOL
0
Comments
Whenever I hear the phrase: "I pay my taxes. I'm entitled to (blank)" I say: consider the source. People often throw that term around without realizing what taxes they pay and what those taxes go to pay for. Snow plowing is a local tax issue. It's paid for, in large part, from property taxes. So, the person who yells, "I pay my taxes! I want my street plowed!", might not even pay property taxes. Therefore, he/she's not entitled. There's also a process for everything. Standing on the corner trying to flag down a plow truck makes for good TV, but isn't very practical. She should be on the phone, **** to her alderman or local elected representative, putting the responsibility on them. Because, even if she doesn't pay property taxes, she probably at least pays state income tax, which does go to pay politician's salaries.
So, everybody's "entitlements" are relative and depends on each individuals' situation. The basics covered in the constitution are a no-brainer. But, when it comes to more detailed issues like health care and snow plowing, entitlements are subjective........
"Long ashes my friends."
Lilwing, thank you for your response. I guess I should have stressed it more, but my comments on the street plowing was more of sarcasm. Kinda like a joking bad analogy. Yes, she certainly should have taken more appropriate messures for getting her street plowed.
Krieg, I whole heartedly agree that a lot of our taxes should be used for national defense and protecting those who serve us. As a DoD contractor I am very well aware of the costs involved with providing this service to the American citizens.
But, after providing national defense, theres a lot of money left over. What should this money go towards and at what point should we demand more, or less, for our money?
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
People seem to demand more and more from the Government all the time. I think that seems to be one of America's biggest problems. I call it the "entitlement mentality". In that they think the Government should provide everything for them. But what they don't understand is, in order for the Government to provide a "new service" they will need to pay for it, and since the Government doesn't produce wealth, but confiscates it, they will have to raise taxes lord knows that they are incapable of cutting spending somewhere...bureaucrats still need their $800 toilets.
Also, that is Good question to ask your local representative! Like I was saying, what are taxes go to and what they SHOULD go to, are entirely backasswards...ie...buying votes. Here is an example. My wife and I both worked for a mortgage company back in 2007. I was there for over 3 years and she was there for about a year till they closed the doors. Once that happened, we were both out of a job. Well, we went and filed for our unemployment benefits and then since she was pregnant with my son at the time, went and tried to apply for medicare. Well, according to Medicare, we STILL MADE TOO MUCH MONEY...even with unemployment...which I'm sure many of you know doesn't pay much. Well, we got turned down and I was livid. I asked the lady "You mean to tell me, after working and paying into the system for 15 years, the one time I need some help, I don't qualify even though I barely have an income stream"? "nope, sure don't" Needless to say, I was @#$@ pissed. So believe me when I say that our taxes don't always go to what we need them to...they go to what will keep politicians in power...ie...vote buying.
Sorry if I start going off on tangents, I start to get carried away sometimes.
"Long ashes my friends."
I was helping my neighbor dig out her cars when a plow truck simply drove by leaving in his tracks feet of snow.
Now that wasn't a case of him having somewhere else to be he was simply wasting time and resources.
My tax dollars went into him driving around my neighborhood and not actually plowing anything... I understand the plight.
I thought this was very well said. I also added line breaks for you. LOL.
link
"Long ashes my friends."
WOW...
"Long ashes my friends."
But first, I had to add what was originally submitted as a joke to me, but sadly enough is not so funny now due to the current political climate.
To me, this is directly in line with the current political climate that is advancing socialism. But the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money, since the few end up paying for the many as has been stated
Now, that being said, the quote I saw from Margaret Thatcher. This was given back in 1987. Glad to see nothing has changed -.-
And to me, this was too eerie considering I was just looking at entitlement today.
The dictatorship in Rome slimmed down their government, made it far more efficient, and was able to put a massive amount of power into a single persons hand (Caesar Augustus for instance) that amazingly wasn't abused all that much. Benevolent/honorable dictators were the rule, not the exception for several hundred years in the Empire. The Roman people under the Caesars had an incredible amount of freedom in comparison to under the Roman Republic, economically and socially, and the changes in government structure took the Roman world from a horrible system designed to run a city, to the perfect system to run an empire.
The point of my paper will essentially be to say that our republic is incapable of fixing itself and it will need a drastic political change - like a dictatorship - in order to slim down the bloated, disgusting waste of a government we have. Even though I vote Republican, I don't believe they would do anything even given a super majority and a republican President. And even if they did, eventually our culture of entitlement would vote someone else in later on to give them more things they do not deserve. And I feel I am not alone in my opinion.
In my humble opinion, if our government continues the way it is (slow, inefficient, overbearing, incompetent) I believe America will demand, as Rome did, a single person to be in charge. Probably not in my lifetime, but it wouldn't surprise me.
"Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country."
What we need is a president who will cut the budget down to size immediately. No more multi trillion dollar deficits. We need to have a balanced budget within immediately and be running a surplus shortly there after. Planned Parenthood needs to go, ACORN needs to go, and on and on. No item in the federal budget should be off the table.
The problem with this is that there will be so many people whose pet projects go away. There would be no more "Derek Zoolander School for Children Who Can't Read Good and Want to Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too", no more million dollar grants for studying homosexual behavior in Brazil, no more studies for cow farts. It would be highly unpopular because everybody would be effected in some way. The next election cycle would come along and we would elect a president who promised all things to all people. We truly live in an I, Me, Mine society. It's sad.
The problem is the federal government has become entirely too powerful and keeps growing and growing... It has grown with every president since FDR. Most left wing democrats think it's great that President Obama and their party are taking more power at this time, but they are very short sighted... They don't seem to realize that the tables will turn and Republicans will be in office again someday, and then all that power the Democrats have built will be handed over to someone they don't agree with... That is one reason I opposed President Bush expanding the roll of government as well. I may have agreed with him more than I do with President Obama, but I know he wouldn't always be President. We have to think about what's down the road. The founders were trying to protect against this kind of thing when the Constitution was written... It's just a shame we have gone so far off track.