Neil Boortz tells the truth

Uhm, I don't like them?

 

I paid taxes once.

Once.







Every year, dammit.

 

Nooooo! You will be missed, sir. You (dramatic pause) will be missed. :'(

 

Not with the Board, with the thread. And actually, I like paying taxes because it means I'm in the top 50 percent of earners.

 

It was pointed out earlier, and I'll second the motion...it's not just income taxes. It's all the other taxes with which people are hit. Property taxes, city water/sewage/trash taxes, hospital district taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes, etc., ad nauseum.

This is where a lot of liberals -- or more accurately social activists -- get conflicted. I certainly don't want to see higher taxes. But I also believe there are very good and helpful things the government does, social services they provide which have a real value to the nation as a whole. But you have to pay for these services.

Taxes or services? It's a balancing act and will never be successfully resolved, I'm afraid. That being said, I'd prefer to provide services more than cut taxes, simply because from a poor person's perspective, a tax refund is usually gone immediately to pay for some other bill. Its long-term impact to that poor person is suspect.

 

It's not just about cutting or not cutting taxes. It's also about the shifting of the tax base directly on the shoulders of the ever dwindling middle class.

And a lot of that shift has come from the corporate tax base whose contribution is getting smaller every year--at least up here.

 

Not down here.


Source: Office of Management and Budget

Corporate income tax collections have also become a more important revenue source for the federal treasury in recent years. During the 1990s, corporate tax collections ticked upward to an average of 10.5 percent of federal receipts. This was due to remarkably strong economic activity and President Clinton’s 1993 tax package, which raised the top statutory corporate income tax rate from 34 percent to 35 percent.

The recession that began in 2001 forced down corporate tax collections along with the larger economy. Corporate income taxes accounted for just 7.6 percent of federal revenues in 2001. Revenues remained low for three years, and in 2003 corporate income taxes raised 7.4 percent of total federal revenue. As the economy rebounded, corporate income taxes rose to 10.1 percent of federal revenue in 2004, and 12.9 percent of federal revenue in 2005—their highest share of total receipts since 1979.

 

What happened?

 

Read a couple of the later pages and you'll see. JD rightfully would like to avoid a resurrection.

 

D. Sanchez, let me ask you ... based on what I wrote, do you at least see WHY liberals are wanting these services which ultimately cost us money and force these taxes?

 

Yes, I understand where you are coming from and can appreciate your sentiment. Look, I don't like to see children go hungry or illiterate teenagers either. What we have, and what the whole Left/Right debate boils down to is a difference in philosophy when it comes to solutions. Many on the Left see the heavy hand of government as the final answer to all of society's ills. Since the start of the so-called "War on Poverty", nearly 6 TRILLION tax dollars have been spent. For what? All we have to show for it is a bureaucratic nightmare and more poverty.

I personally believe that the solutions rest with individuals and that government should be more of a guiding hand. I would argue that many of the Federal programs, as currently constituted are incredibly wasteful and ineffective. I believe in market based approaches to problems. Instead of constructing government owned public housing, provide subsidies to apartment owners for renting to low-income families in otherwise market-based complexes, reducing the potential for slums and the subsequent cycle of poverty. Provide dollar for dollar tax credits for donations to charities that provide social wellfare. Reduce that amount of red tape that business owners have to jump through when hiring a new employee. Reform the education system so that parents have a choice in what schools there children go to, so kids aren't stuck going to underperforming schools purely because that is where the government says they must go. This is what I want. Same end goal as you, different path.

 

Except the path you propose leads to economic oligarchy, severely undereducated poor people, elderly poverty, bad meat, foul air, tainted drugs, no middle class to speak of, and, as near as I can tell, 1895.