JG-TC.com > Opinion > LETTER: Paying our fair share of taxes is a patriotic duty

TODAY'S HEADLINES

SPECIAL SECTION

ONLINE POLL

ONLINE EXTRAS

Shop Smart, Shop Local

SITE TOOLS

OTHER LINKS

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Lee Enterprises

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 9:58 PM CDT
LETTER: Paying our fair share of taxes is a patriotic duty

PEGGY BRAYFIELD, Charleston

Unlike the protesters attending the recent anti-tax ‘Tea Party’ I believe paying taxes is our patriotic duty.

My reasons? Well, one could argue from the history of modern capitalism, citing the “father of free market theory,” Adam Smith and his 18th century work, Wealth of Nations. Smith wrote, “The subjects of every state ought to contribute to the support of the government, as nearly as possible, . . . in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.” He further clarifies, that the goal of taxation should be “to remedy the inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor and burdening the rich.”

Or one could cite that guru of conservatism, the late William Buckley, who wrote: “For all our individual endeavors, we owe a debt to the free society that nurtures us and affords us opportunities.” Part of that debt we owe is, I believe, to pay taxes in return for the benefits we receive, including infrastructure, education, sanitation, a justice system, and the safety net that cushions our fall when economic hardships threaten our well-being.

Or might assume that, as some claim, our country should uphold “Christian values,” and quote the teachings of Jesus, whose chief command was that we love our neighbor as ourselves, feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, care for the sick, the widow and orphan, and free ourselves from the selfish attachment to material riches, which (he taught) are a great hindrance to the spiritual life.

All good reasons to favor a public policy requiring the wealthy to contribute in proportion to their means; a policy of using tax money to pay for such benefits as health care, old age and survivors’ benefits, public education, aid to families with dependent children, services for the disabled, and disaster relief, often spoken of scornfully as a “federal welfare system.”

None of us has acquired their wealth solely as a result of their own hard work. And many who have worked hard all their lives could never acquire enough to protect them from ruin, should some stroke of hard luck demand more resources than they alone command.

Without taxation, we could not have a decent society. Therefore, even if the cup of tea tastes bitter and strong, it’s our cup of tea.

We should do our patriotic duty. Pay our proportionate share for the benefits our country provides.

PEGGY BRAYFIELD

Charleston

Add your comments

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Not already registered?
Then click Here.

Comment policy:

JG-TC.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed. Comments posted on Saturday may not be reviewed until Sunday afternoon.

In order to keep the page a set width, long lines (mostly long links) will be chopped. Try putting spaces in your links or consider using tinyurl.com to make a smaller link that you can include.

We will never edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to remove comments that violate our code of conduct.

No comment may contain:

* Potentially libelous statements; such as accusing somebody of a crime, defamation of character, or statements that can harm somebody's reputation.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults, threats, harassment or inciting violence.
* Commercial product promotions.

If you have any questions, please contact our moderator.

Hahvahd wrote on Apr 22, 2009 10:47 PM:

" Amen, Peggy! Well said! People want to reap the benefits of living in America without holding up their fair share of the responsibility. Taxes ensure future prosperity. Funny thing, 2 of the biggest proponents of tax breaks, Reagan and GW Bush, ran up huge debts. They protected only the wealthy; that prosperity they were supposedly building through tax breaks for the rich never managed to trickle down to the poor and middle classes. "

Jim1969 wrote on Apr 22, 2009 11:05 PM:

" I do not know anyone who truly likes to pay taxes, but I also do not know anyone who really balks about paying their "fair" share of taxes.

The complaints I hear is about the tax system which really is not fair, about how the government wants more and more taxes and how fiscally irresponsible the government is with the tax money they do collect.

The "TEA" parties that recently occurred around the nation was not a protest about paying taxes. It was a protest about paying too many taxes and having that money wasted. Unfair taxes were one of the reasons we rebelled against England and fought the Revolutionary war. If everyone on the continent simply did his/her "patriotic duty" the USA would never have happened and this country would still be a colony. "

red,white,blue wrote on Apr 23, 2009 10:13 AM:

" OH yeah, not Yale, that old class envy, let's stick it to the rich thing the Dims have been selling to people like you for umpteen years. That's worked really well too, hasn't it? "

even steven wrote on Apr 23, 2009 10:26 AM:

" The tax-cheats Obama has surrounded himself with are obviously not patriots. "

father bob wrote on Apr 23, 2009 10:28 AM:

" i'm proud i can and do pay taxes.

if politicians wish to use tax breaks for 95% of the american people as a trumped up reason to secede from the greatest democracy on earth.....let them. just don't ask for federal funding or insurance coverage for the next hurricane or other natural disaster.

seems like all the geniuses stick together!! party on teabaggers!! "

likestoknow wrote on Apr 23, 2009 10:48 AM:

" Enjoyed your thoughtful and intelligent letter, Peggy "

even steven wrote on Apr 23, 2009 12:26 PM:

" There are now more voters who pay NO federal income taxes than there are who do. When politicians extract taxes from the producers and use the money to buy vots from those who do not produce, then we have taxation without representation. It is my patriotic duty to keep as much as I earn as I legally can and to refuse to allow the drones of society to live off of the fruits of my hard work. "

father bob wrote on Apr 23, 2009 2:48 PM:

" even steven wrote on Apr 23, 2009 12:26 PM:
"It is my patriotic duty to keep as much as I earn as I legally can and to refuse to allow the drones of society to live off of the fruits of my hard work. """"

well.....let's start by having your grandmother send back her social security check. and if there are any single mothers in your family, have them send back their earned income credit and medicade cards for their kids. lousy sap-sucking vermin!! "

red,white,blue wrote on Apr 23, 2009 3:25 PM:

" Why on earth would you send back your social security check when you are the one who puts the money into it? That's a specious argument I keep hearing that makes no sense. Rather you will get a social security check until the government runs out of the money YOU put into all those years of working. Which is why one should be able to have a choice as to where their 'savings' is deposited. Given a choice I'm going to put it somewhere where I know when the time comes it will be there and not 'give' it to the government. "

Harry Potter wrote on Apr 23, 2009 3:27 PM:

" Hahvahd, I think a more appropriate term would be trickle on. lol!

And for our friend RWB, still wanting to return to the wonderful Bush years, huh? That worked really well too, didn't it. "

red,white,blue wrote on Apr 23, 2009 3:28 PM:

" Even Steven, you make too much sense which is exactly why some of these bloggers will never get it. "

father bob wrote on Apr 23, 2009 3:50 PM:

" red,white,blue wrote on Apr 23, 2009 3:25 PM:
" Why on earth would you send back your social security check when you are the one who puts the money into it? That's a specious argument I keep hearing that makes no sense."""""

um......maybe because it's a socialist program, you know taking care of our citizens. like free flu vaccines and other evil socialist services. and believe me, i've paid for his grandmother, she sure didn't. "

Cognitus wrote on Apr 23, 2009 4:03 PM:

" This was an EXCELLENT letter; tried to get in to say so yesterday but letter was not displayed.
jim1969 said he doesn't know anyone who disagrees with paying their "fair" taxes. Well, from all the moaning and groaning and bi****ing I see in these columns, there seem to be a lot of people who have a distorted view of "fair". In their view, anyone who benefits from taxes is a cheat. Funny I see those same folks -- CHEATERS ALL -- driving down our roads and don't even have a guilty conscience about doing it. "

farkas wrote on Apr 23, 2009 6:13 PM:

" Got an idea.. how bout we all pay the exact same rate? Or even better, how bout we institute a national sales tax; then we wouldn't have to worry about funding so many layers of govt. waste, and abuse! Thats what went on at the tea party I went to. Folks didn't say anything about not paying. We just talked about an equitable tax structure that treats everyone the same. How bout that... fairness regardless of who you are. I think we could all get behind that couldn't we? "

Mike P wrote on Apr 23, 2009 6:18 PM:

" Most people have minimal issues with contributing their fair share in taxes. Its the ones spending and being paid by their taxes, that have no concept of maintaining a budget sustainably, that gets ire redirected.

If an individual spends more than they make, they can't tell their boss thay need a pay increase to fill spending gaps. Somehow once money changes hands and becomes tax dollars, there is little accountability to even maintain a limit of various entities expecting income to meet their expences, rather than expenses being required to be less than total income.

Various entities even began increasingly speculating with tax dollars. If they had money in hand, before it was due to be paid out, they stuck it in money markets, and other instruments far riskier than low interest accounts. How much of many of the budget gaps, is from trying to eek out some additional profits, from the large sums they handle, and seeing a resulting loss, instead.

They constantly rob pesions and other funds, to cover expenses, and expect that to be covered by whatever means, at some later time. Higher taxes and fees, while responsibility nad accountability is nill, will only perpetuate continual failures, and may or may not solve debt and spending gaps, created by poor judgement in the first place. "

Hahvahd wrote on Apr 23, 2009 7:40 PM:

" Flat taxes and national sales taxes unduly burden the poor. If I earn only $10,000 a year and am taxed, say, 5% or have to pay a 5% tax on what I buy, this eats up a significant part of my earnings; I have $9,500 left to live on. But if I make $1,000,000 a year, after paying my 5%, I'd still be left with $950,000 -- pretty easy to live on that.

The graduated income tax addresses the fact that taxes place an undo burden on those struggling just to put a meager roof over their heads and mac and cheese or beans and rice or a can of noodle soup on the table. "

cd wrote on Apr 23, 2009 8:18 PM:

" Or might assume that, as some claim, our country should uphold Christian values, and quote the teachings of Jesus, whose chief command was that we love our neighbor as ourselves, feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, care for the sick, the widow and orphan, and free ourselves from the selfish attachment to material riches, which (he taught) are a great hindrance to the spiritual life.
-------------------------
That command was to the people, NOT the government! It is no one else's business how much or how often I give to charities. NONE! If you are so concerned with giving to those in need, give more of YOUR income.

It's nearly always those that have an abundance of income/assests that are dictating that the rest of us should give more and how much. If they only gave until their assets were down to the level low end of assests, we may not need any more giving, especially to the degree that they dictate.

If a person does not work, they should not eat. Let those that are deadbeats go without. "

father bob wrote on Apr 23, 2009 8:33 PM:

" cd wrote on Apr 23, 2009 8:18 PM:

That command was to the people, NOT the government! It is no one else's business how much or how often I give to charities. NONE! If you are so concerned with giving to those in need, give more of YOUR income.

It's nearly always those that have an abundance of income/assests that are dictating that the rest of us should give more and how much.""""

WHOA!.......that's a high five! "

1cav wrote on Apr 23, 2009 9:26 PM:

" CD********* What breath of fresh air.
At least someone knows something about the Bible and what Jesus taught! I guess Prof. Brayfield needs to spend more time studing her Bible and the founders beliefs that wrote the Constitution. They would revolted over income tax! "

farkas wrote on Apr 23, 2009 9:28 PM:

" Hahvahd,
The graduated income tax has an unintended consequence however; it punishes me for busting my tail. So if you look in countries where they carry this too far, you'll find it has stifled economic growth and prevented innovation. I wont work quite so hard so I don't wind up in the next tax bracket!
What you propose might feel good in a Robin Hood way, but it doesn't work. Another problem is that there is an entire class who just live on the dole and won't work for that lower wage. I know, I have family members who have done this for years. They are perfectly content to live off of our tax dollars. It kills initiative. I used to make minimum wage, and worked my butt off for years and now get along fairly well. Why won't they? "

STINKY wrote on Apr 23, 2009 10:27 PM:

" I think farkas' argument is dumb. "

The Question wrote on Apr 24, 2009 8:04 AM:

" The graduated income tax has an unintended consequence however; it punishes me for busting my tail.
---
I'll bust your tail for no charge, farkas. "

Harry Potter wrote on Apr 24, 2009 8:18 AM:

" I agree STINKY, not only is his argument dumb, but it also contradicts the very nature of most people. It says a lot about his shallowness as a person too. That uniformed argument has been used for years by people who don't understand the tax structure in this country. "

Tom Andres wrote on Apr 24, 2009 8:32 AM:

" Hahvahd, I see you have never done a search for www.fairtax.org, a website I have posted on here dozens of times.

My objection to any form of income tax (be it the present corrupt code or a proposed flat tax code) is the complexity of determining "taxable income". Any income tax reform would still involve nearly 70,000 pages of tax code - and that's the rub. That's why we are forced to spend $300-billion a year to have someone prepare our taxes for us. I prepare individual tax returns for a (discounted) fee, but I'd gladly go out of business if we could adopt The Fair Tax and get rid of this ridiculously corrupt tax code we now have.

I'll say it again: The Fair Tax does NOT tax the poor! How many times do I have to post that statement on here before it gets your attention? Under this plan, monthly "pre-bate checks" are issued to all taxpayers. The pre-bate amount is based on the amount of taxes that would be paid in the following month for taxes paid on necessities - such as food, clothing, shelter, medical care, etc. For example, a family of four would pay NO taxes at all on the first $28,000 they spend in a year. No FICA withholding taxes, nothing.

The Fair Tax also repeals the federal income tax, hidden excise taxes, FICA payroll withholding tax, the estate tax, and on and on. It repeals the 16th Amendment, and the IRS is abolished!

For the first time since 1913, The Fair Tax would be paid by those engaged in illegal activities (who presently do NOT declare any income at all). For example, the drug pusher pays The Fair Tax when buying their next million dollar cigar boat. The pimp pays The Fair Tax when buying their next $150,000 limo. Everyone pays their fair share. The illegal immigrant pays The Fair Tax (and doesnt qualify for a pre-bate!).

And finally, Hahvahd, the problem here is at least two fold: our corrupt special interest tax code AND the corrupt spending habits of the federal government. Let's make that distinction known. The TEA Parties I attend address taxes AND spending. "

Beaches wrote on Apr 24, 2009 9:05 AM:

" I have no problem paying my fair share, but have the problem mentioned by other posters - I'm at the bottom of a tax bracket that goes quite high - so I am paying a large percentage of taxes, and it really eats into our income. I do consider myself fortunate that I sacrificed and got an education that allows me opportunities for a better salary - and I paid for that education, not the government, no one but me. I work more than one job so that I can afford to pay my bills and have some extra - again, my choice. But as I crunch numbers, I'm beginning to see that the extra I bring in from my second job may not be enough to make up for the additional taxes I pay, so I need to rethink that decision. Less work for me means less money that I pour into the system, both through taxes and through spending, and less that I can give to charities. It's a tough decision. "

nothingsfree wrote on Apr 24, 2009 9:26 AM:

" The dumb part about the Farkas argument is that it is all true. I really dont believe that the tax rates and the socialist programs are the worst part of the question. In a true Socialist government, everyone has there roles to fill. There are consenquences for those who do not contribute. The leadership of this country wants the people who are contributing to take care of those who choose not to. I will gladly pay more taxes to help those in need. But we need to work "bottom up" to get those that are "choosing" not to contribute to at least try to carry some of the load. The continuous mention of dropping Social security and medicaid etc by the Left on this site is just "blow". That is not what most people mean when they argue against the increase in socialist programs. Bringing that up on every blog just shows lack of thought. Most people want to have a society that cares for its weak. BUT, we do not want to take care of those who choose not to make better for themselves or others. I throw the "or others" in there because there are low paying jobs that are a benefiting all of us. Teachers, school nurses, some coaches (not just sports) etc. Almost all of these people have the intelligence/skills/drive to have made substantial livings in another direction. They have chosen to sacrafice for our children. I will gladly send tax dollars to those people. THAT IS THE ISSUE. "

farkas wrote on Apr 24, 2009 11:40 AM:

" Stinky,
What a well thought out rebut. I love a good intellectual discussion. Thanks for indulging us with your great insights. "

Mike P wrote on Apr 24, 2009 12:03 PM:

" How many of those opposed to graduated income taxes, itemize deductions and get recipts for their tithe or other charitable contributions from buying girl scout cookies, lions club and others at intersections, and even possibly writing a check for the salvation army kettle. Misers, scrooges, and tightwads, often use the we need a flat tax, but want a recipt for every nickel they could possibly write off of their taxes.

When Bush knocked the top bracket down a total of 4.1 percent, and the next 2 down 3 percent, over a couple years, He did something else that had a different impact. He added a new 10 percent bracket at the bottom, from the moment he started adjusting.

Which is more diabolical, 2 new graduated brackets Clinton added at the top, or what Bush did?

Thirty one percent was the most any income bracket was taxed, until Clinton added two additional brackets. Bush lowered the 36% bracket to 33%, 31% to 28, and the 28% to 25, but left those below that at 10% he added for the first 8,025, and 15 percent for the 8,025 to 32,550. Where were his tax cuts aimed? Where weren't they?

Tax cuts at the bottom, would have benefited all, but capped the cuts to those who are above lower middle class.

In 2008 if you made 100k in taxable income, you owed 22,372 in taxes. That comes to 22.37%, because of the graduated rates. 100k falls in the bottom middle of the 28% bracket. If you made 65,725, you owed 19.44%, it was the top of the 25% bracket. And if you made 32,550 you owed 13.8%. It was the top of the 15% bracket. The difference gets smaller, for those who make less money, and bigger for those who make more. Many bracket levels were also raised, sheltering even more earnings for the wealthy with even lower taxes by percentage. Cutting rates and raising bracket limits, ammounted to double discount day for some.

Flat income tax, would hurt everyone.

Percentage tax, is designed to be fair and permanent. It depends on growth, and people being able to increase their earnings, over time.

GW went too far with his cuts at the top, one of which is being left in place. How might middle class tax cuts, have helped millions of people increase their means, and ultimately boost the economy, possibly heading off much of what led to this economic crisis. You got a stimulus check instead, to make up for not adjusting your rates. He did all of this post 9/11, go spend to fight terrorism. "

father bob wrote on Apr 24, 2009 12:39 PM:

" STINKY wrote on Apr 23, 2009 10:27 PM:
" I think farkas' argument is dumb. """""

you got that right...he/she/it doesn't mention working under better economic conditions for years. thanks to the sh*t hole the last administration dug for us, it's not as easy at this point. "

Danny Boy wrote on Apr 24, 2009 2:34 PM:

" I have to quit smoking, the taxes are higher than the Cigs. "

revclif wrote on Apr 24, 2009 5:18 PM:

" "Without taxation, we could not have a decent society. Therefore, even if the cup of tea tastes bitter and strong, its our cup of tea."

This country had no Federal income tax until the establishment of the 1923 Federal Reserve Tax Act which created the privately and primarily foreign bank held federal reserve which is just as much a part of our Federal Government as Federal Express.

The IRS is their collection arm and I dare you to find anything in the Tax Code that requires individuals to pay a tax on their earnings. I, for one, do not and will not pay federal taxes no matter what!

It just goes to a Luciferian cabal of greedy money me. "

revclif wrote on Apr 24, 2009 5:25 PM:

" I meant the 1913 Tax Act and to say it is a greedy Luciferian cabal of money men. "

revclif wrote on Apr 24, 2009 6:32 PM:

" While you research the truth about the Federal Reserve go to google video and watch Aaron Russos America:Freedom to Fascism. It will be a real eye opener.

May God bless and keep you and yours. "

Cognitus wrote on Apr 24, 2009 8:49 PM:

" farkas:"Or even better, how bout we institute a national sales tax; then we wouldn't have to worry about funding so many layers of govt. waste, and abuse!"

You obviously didn't read my treatise on the fraudulent "fair tax". Sales tax ON WHAT?? Purchase of stocks? bonds? real estate for investment? So if a builder pays sales tax on lumber, etc. and then I buy a house, paying sales tax on it -- then I've paid sales tax twice.
This sounds a bit like the European value-added tax, which I confess I never understood. "

candor wrote on Apr 24, 2009 9:57 PM:

" Render unto Caesar" is the beginning of a phrase attributed to Jesus in the synoptic gospels which reads in full, Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesars, and unto God the things that are Gods (Ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ) (Matthew 22:21).

This phrase has become a widely quoted summary of the relationship between Christianity and secular authority. The original message, coming in response to a question of whether it was lawful for Jews to pay taxes to Caesar, gives rise to multiple possible interpretations about whether it is desirable for the Christian to submit to earthly authority. Interpretations include the belief that it is good and appropriate to submit to the state when asked, that spiritual demands supersede earthly demands but do not abolish them, or that the demands of the state are non-negotiable. However others have also interpreted this saying as meaning that spiritual authority should maintain its independence from temporal authority, which rules by force rather than moral law." Is it amazing that Caesar acts more like a god! Quite funny, I am a single Mom ( Dad walked out) and I have worked 2-2.5 jobs. I would find housekeeping jobs, mowing jobs, while being a part-time secretary, teachers assistant, etc. anything that I could bring my kids and teach them the value of hard work. I never left my kids with a sitter and still volunteer work etc. Yeah it was tough and now that they are both attending college things aare still tight. We are American citizens. I am now disabled and still work. Sorry but it makes me ill to see are tax money being ill spent by entities that are non-deserving and spend are hard earned cash on others that never contributed to our society except to add to the poverty level and produce more like them. The middle class is now extinct. "

Tom Andres wrote on Apr 25, 2009 12:05 AM:

" Cognitus, please study the material, then post. www.fairtax.org

The Fair Tax is only paid at the retail level. There's no opportunity for double taxation. "

party girl wrote on Apr 25, 2009 2:34 PM:

" I love a good debate and have been content to merely observe this one...until now. Redundant tax is a certainty. Yes...under a consumption tax (sales tax) system taxes would be paid by the builder of a home on materials and again by the purchaser. The flaw in the argument is that we do this now. Imbedded payroll tax is added to the cost of any and everything we do. In business, when considering what to charge for a new product or service one must consider the TOTAL cost...not just what has to be paid to have it on the shelf. What is paid to the stocker, the seller, the promoter...and the cost of manpower includes payroll tax, fica, SSN...a HOST of taxes that are imbedded and passed on NOW. The big misunderstanding about the Fair Tax is that it is some right wing politician's wet dream. The study that developed the concept was commissioned by an independent party (not political) and was conducted by a panel of leading economists. It is also revenue neutral, meaning that if the formula is implemented as planned...costs do not rise or fall, and additional tax revenue is not created. BUT, as mentioned here before EVERYONE above the poverty level who purchases in this country would contribute instead of just those of us who earn legitimate livings. If you hate the wealthy, this should ESPECIALLY appeal to you. Under current laws, individuals of means who make no INCOME actually pay very little in taxes (think Paris the heiress, or widows of mobsters) consumption tax remedies this. Also, the punitive nature of our current tax structure has created a hostile environment for large businesses. Many are now "head quartered" in the Bahamas or other countries who have no such system. The FAIR TAX would make our country a more inviting place to own a business leading to better jobs and more opportunities for Americans. Which is, afterall, what most would agree would be the solution to our current recession. Additionally...the class warfare is as old as feudalism...or Cain & Able...if you want the things I have, you should do the things I've done...work a full time job through college, put in 60 hours a week to build your business, avoid debt, live beneath your means...retire early and well. This system makes no attempt to disenfranchise the poor, disabled, elderly, or even current inhabitants of our grossly abused government housing & welfare systems....it is NEUTRAL...and genius, in my opinion. "

candor wrote on Apr 25, 2009 2:56 PM:

" Excuse me, but does "patriotic duty" extend to illegal immigrants? Since many of them seem to be using our system without paying into it are we not stupid for allowing this?
I am under the belief that charity/hard earned money etc...begins and assists those at home. I agree with helping/volunteering our communities, but...use our heads people...Follow the money!

We are all frustrated and a bit envious at others who seem be in the money without seemingly to work for it, but someone had to. If it is inherited some hard working individual made sacrifices like the majority of us for our children, grandchildren, or others. What business is that of ours? I do not have nor ever had money, but just enough to cover bills (sometimes). I am assisting my children through college, as that is my choice. Will they have employeement after a four year or six year degree? Maybe not, but they made choices and knew the facts about the up and coming hottest job markets. The choice is theirs. They and I work very hard for this opportunity. They do not know what it is like to have weekends off or shopping sprees to name a few. Homework coupled with physical work is the only life for them until they have their education completed. NO I do not believe if they have a $80,000-$400,000 job (Dr. Or Engineer) that they should feel their patriotic duty to give more! The sacfrices, years, and money that was spent for this education is indeed a sacrfice of a lifetime. Think again about stating our Patriotic duty....go look at the thousands of disabled, homeless military people that live in cardboard homes around the White House! "

farkas wrote on Apr 25, 2009 8:43 PM:

" Cognitus,
Have you researched the fair tax? It's actually quite a workable solution. true the builder will pay taxes on the lumber, but if they aren't paying income taxes, it's a wash. And if you buy a house that was already owned, the taxes are already paid... you pay nothing! As things are now the govt charges taxes at each sale, under the fair tax structure it only gets taxed at the initial sale. This is true of every purchase you make, so if you for instance buy a used car, the tax was paid at the first sale... uncle sugar can't hit you again. If you are frugal, you can avoid a lot of his double and triple dipping. In terms of the govt tax revenue, it will actually increase because ther is an entire segment of the economy that will then be contributing that wasn't before. Even if a consumer was earning wages under the table, they will now be brought into the fold because it doesn't matter that their income was un-accounted for; the taxes are levied at the purchase counter not the W2. "

leatherneck wrote on Apr 26, 2009 7:26 AM:

" Don't mind paying taxes. Its what there doing when them that sucks. Obamas people don't pay theirs unless they get caught "

M wrote on Apr 26, 2009 11:28 AM:

" We live in a Republic not a Democracy, FB. "Obamunism" because everyone else deserves what you've worked hard for. "

The Question wrote on Apr 26, 2009 7:30 PM:

" Oh, for Pete's sake, We live in a democratic republic, if it has managed to survive Bush and Cheney.
I do wish you fascists could restrain yourselves from snarling your hostility to our American democratic ideals. As Lincoln said, Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people. And that's a real Lincoln quote, not a Jack Pierce fabrication. "

Tom Andres wrote on Apr 26, 2009 8:04 PM:

" party girl, farkas: Here are some facts about The Fair Tax:

The FairTax is a single-rate, federal retail sales tax collected only once, at the final point of purchase of new goods and services for personal consumption. Used items are not taxed. Business-to-business purchases for the production of goods and services are not taxed. A rebate makes the effective rate progressive.

The FairTax is replacement, not reform. It replaces federal income taxes including personal, estate, gift, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes.

All valid Social Security cardholders who are U.S. residents receive a monthly prebate equivalent to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services, also known as the poverty level expenditures. The prebate is paid in advance, in equal installments each month. The size of the prebate is determined by the Department of Health & Human Services poverty level guideline multiplied by the tax rate. This is a well-accepted, long-used poverty-level calculation that includes food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical care, etc. See chart in Figure 1 below. "

farkas wrote on Apr 26, 2009 8:38 PM:

" Question,
There you go again dropping the "f" bomb. If someone dissagrees with you, you start with the adolescent name calling. You want to talk about democratic ideals how bout' a liveley discussion with folks with different points of view. It's these different points of view that have made this country great. We can differ with one another and debate without fear of reprisals or condemnation. That's your "democratic ideal". If everytime someone differs with you, you look down your nose at them and label them with some demeaning quasi-explative, you stifle this debate.
As far as the Lincoln mis-quote goes; we all make mistakes. Maybe all of us but you? Probably not. The point he made is still valid, even if it was written by someone half as impressive as Lincoln. "

The Question wrote on Apr 26, 2009 10:01 PM:

" The point is not valid. It is vapid right-wing drivel dressed up with lies about Lincoln. Have you no intellectual standards? "

The Question wrote on Apr 26, 2009 10:11 PM:

" And by the way, "fascist" is not an insult when applied to what's left of the Republican Party. For a party that supports torture, police state spying on Americans and the invasion and occupation of nations that never attacked or threatened the U.S., "fascist" is merely an accurate description. I mean that literally and seriously.
It's the reason Republicans have started to throw the term "fascist" around so inaccurately and irrationally. They're afraid people will recognize them for what they are, so they're trying to obscure the plain meaning of the term, as they already have done with torture ("enhanced interrogation"), the estate tax ("the death tax") and the police state ("homeland security" and "free speech zones"). "

medic57 wrote on Apr 27, 2009 7:43 AM:

" There are now more voters who pay NO federal income taxes than there are who do.

That may be true, it may also be true because they don't make enough money to have to pay taxes, it doesn't mean they can't vote. A single person can make many thousands of dollars and still not make enough to even have to file taxes. "

Becky wrote on Apr 27, 2009 3:40 PM:

" Peggy, I don't think you realize just how many taxes you actually pay. You not only pay taxes on income, but you also pay taxes on every purchase, bill, service, license, fee, toll and just about anything that uses money exchanges. That's not a "fair" share. Why should we constantly have to pay congress critters' lunch bill, gas bill, home bill, retirement, doctor bills, dentist bills, vacations, cars, tea parties, legal fees, and pretty much everything under the sun? Before they raise our taxes/fees/license dues and the like, THEY need to cut into their luxuries quite a bit. After that, they can cut out MANY middlemen in govt who do nothing but take a cut from the money wagon between the low guy and the higher ups. There is much waste of our money that can be cut out BEFORE they dip into our pockets even deeper than they already are. "

Becky wrote on Apr 27, 2009 3:41 PM:

" even steven wrote on Apr 23, 2009 10:26 AM:

" The tax-cheats Obama has surrounded himself with are obviously not patriots. "

Now THAT'S funny :D "

father bob wrote on Apr 27, 2009 5:28 PM:

" candor wrote on Apr 25, 2009 2:56 PM:
" Excuse me, but does "patriotic duty" extend to illegal immigrants?"""

they pay taxes using an ITIN. it's a 9 digit number similar to a SSN. the government issues ITINs regardless of immigration status or eligibility for a SS card. most employers of immigrants get them the ITINs in order to deduct withholding taxes and avoid a liability to the IRS.

saying they pay no taxes is a false statement. "

candor wrote on Apr 27, 2009 6:47 PM:

" Excuse me Father Bob... and please correct me if I am wrong, but I happened to be a witness to a situation where there happen to be a senior citizen (approx couple( 65-70 yrs) that had only been in this country 6 weeks,they were accompanied by their son and translated for them. They needed housing assistance, healthcare, and a food allowance. They were handed a check and told to come back in a week and they could sign the papers to get into housing, nd they would receive their medical cards in a week. This was in Chicago, as I was with my Aunt of 62 years who had worked since age 15, was involved in an accident and left unable to walk. She had been asking for assistance for 3 years, and said that everytime she sees a similar scenario each month. After she hired an attorney she did get the assistance. Just wondered how these scenarios do not affect our taxes. Please educate me! Thanks. "

HerChild wrote on Apr 27, 2009 9:23 PM:

" When everything you make is taxed, and then everything you buy is taxed, that is way beyond anybody's fair share! "

father bob wrote on Apr 28, 2009 9:05 AM:

" candor, sorry to hear about your relative, but that has nothing to do with your statement about paying taxes. i think that's more about your looking for a scapegoat for your relative's problems. "

RDCENT wrote on Apr 28, 2009 10:54 AM:

" What is a fair share? If you think that taxes are too high and government should spend less, then you can try to make your voice heard. If you think that others should have their taxes raised, you can do the same. However, if you think that your own taxes are too low, there is nothing against the rules to pay more than what is legally required. Peggy - Do you believe that the tax code is exactly correct in your case? It seems to me that there is a good chance that you think that they are on the low side. If so, I suggest that you pay what you think is fair and not what the government thinks is fair. "

Harry Potter wrote on Apr 28, 2009 12:52 PM:

" I've noticed that's it's usually those that are in a better position to pay more taxes that yell the loudest about any and all taxes. They're also the ones who begrudge those than need our help too. Many of them come onto this site and crow about their faith, yet speak with unchristian like hatred toward the less fortunate among us. Ronald Reagan was well known for his boot straps idea, but what about those that don't have boots let alone any boot laces. "

Hahvahd wrote on Apr 28, 2009 5:47 PM:

" Harry Potter, excellent post! I couldn't have said it half as well! "

name_hidden_to_protect_the_innocent wrote on Apr 28, 2009 7:27 PM:

" HerChild wrote on Apr 27, 2009 9:23 PM:

" When everything you make is taxed, and then everything you buy is taxed, that is way beyond anybody's fair share! "

Very well said!!!! "

jrhendren wrote on Apr 29, 2009 12:41 AM:

" Paying taxes no problems. Paying huge taxes that are unneeded because a bunch of bureaucrats can't budget their money, problem. I have no problem paying my fair share, it's paying for those who do not want to pay I have a problem. Now I am not even talking about those on welfare. Look at how many proposed cabinet nominees have tax problems. The same people deciding how much we pay, are not paying their own. I am not saying anything about the different parties, just using the most resent examples. If they would pay their taxes that would help alone. We should all pay our taxes, but not have to pay for those who will not. "

gringa wrote on Apr 29, 2009 12:09 PM:

" Hahvahd - "I couldn't have said it half as well!"

Finally, something on which we agree. LOL "

Harry Potter wrote on Apr 29, 2009 5:27 PM:

" Look at how many proposed cabinet nominees have tax problems.

Not to defend tax cheaters jr, but I have long thought this sort of thing has been going on for years with appointees from both party's. The vetting process is probably more intense now, as well as the scrutiny being put on by the various news outlets who are always looking to scoop with a scandal story. Remember that is was the news media that turned a blind eye to John Kennedy's supposed philandering ways. Those days are long gone. I wonder how many good people don't go into public service because of all of this.

Several years ago, due to the nature of my assignment in the military, I recieved a high level security clearance. Later I was told by several neighbors of the intense questioning by the military investigators, and I was a lowly corporal at the time. I can only imagine the scrutiny given a cabinet position appointee these days. Personally, I wouldn't want my family to have to go through that. "

jrhendren wrote on Apr 29, 2009 11:45 PM:

" Harry Potter wrote on Apr 29, 2009 5:27 PM:
Later I was told by several neighbors of the intense questioning by the military investigators, and I was a lowly corporal at the time. I can only imagine the scrutiny given a cabinet position appointee these days. Personally, I wouldn't want my family to have to go through that. "

Exactly, there are people losing their clearance because of their financial debt. We then put people in charge of our money who do not even pay their own taxes. If you get right down to it, we need to be teaching our students how to take care of their finances before they leave high school. Maybe then when they reach the point as an elected official they will know who to spend money wisely, and pay their taxes as they should. I know its a pipe dream, but its an idea. I do believe the process is more intense for the reason you state, and I am sure has gone on in both parties for a longer amount of time then we both could guess. In honesty though do you really want someone who does not pay their taxes, not gets around it through loopholes, but just does not pay, deciding how much you should pay? Again this is in general not toward any party. "

Mike P wrote on May 1, 2009 2:28 PM:

" Wasn't the person in charge of the IRS having some tax issues last year?

Few would argue the tax system can be complex to navigate if more than a 1040 EZ form is required. Its likely most higher bracket folks, pay a preparer to do what everyone strives for. Pay as little tax as they possibly can. Many of them may likely have accountants. The stories never went so far as to say the individual prepared the returns that came up short. Most of the people probably had staff and secretaries, that should have been keeping recipts and logs of taxable and non taxable stuff.

Now they are finally looking hard at simplifying the tax code, and closing some loopholes and shelters in the process. Going after UBS and other off shore havens for evading taxes.

Once they began to push to get info from UBS, their deposits fell by billions of dollars. Soon after that several universities got several million each in anonymous donations, with the strict stipulation they will not try to investigate the donors identity. May or may not be related. That could be from any number of scenarios, but one might think if it were completely above board, use as a tax write off, would be sought by even the most generous of donors. Many of the schools contacted the IRS to make sure the donation acceptance wouldn't implicate them in anything, because of the unusually vague nature of its origin and oddly stipulated acceptance.

Tax law is a complex legal specialty, but tax preparers can be certified by an online or mail order course. We had our own local tax sheltering fraud, so people of many walks of life can be unknowingly tied to additional liability, and not have a clue unless the limited number of audits they do draws your name.

Four or so out of many, all with complex finances, all getting their lives picked through with a fine toothed comb, is better than I figured would result with seemingly more open and honest unbiased looks. Suggests if they did an audit of all of government, lobbyists, and politicos, they would probably find at least that percent of oopses, and probably some deeper intentional entanglements.

People that spend millions to get a job that pays low six figures, or less should probably get an audit via arthritic knuckled proctologist every year. "

M wrote on May 2, 2009 6:06 AM:

" to "Question": Are you seriously saying that you thought my little quote from a t-shirt makes me a fascist? Please...get a sense of humor. "

florence wrote on May 5, 2009 8:21 PM:

" Obama the modern Rasputin...convinced the liberals that blindly paying taxes is patriotic... "

father bob wrote on May 6, 2009 11:52 AM:

" florence wrote on May 5, 2009 8:21 PM:
" Obama the modern Rasputin...convinced the liberals that blindly paying taxes is patriotic... """""

you're funny.... "