Will ‘Hauser’s Law’ Protect Us from Revenue-Hungry Politicians?
by Dan MitchellDavid Ranson had a good column earlier this week in the Wall Street Journal explaining that federal tax revenues historically have hovered around 19 percent of gross domestic product, regardless whether tax rates are high or low.
One reason for this relationship, as he explains, is that the Laffer Curve is a real-world constraint on class warfare tax policy. When politicians boost tax rates, that motivates taxpayers to earn and/or report less income to the IRS:
The feds assume a relationship between the economy and tax revenue that is divorced from reality. Six decades of history have established one far-reaching fact that needs to be built into fiscal calculations: Increases in federal tax rates, particularly if targeted at the higher brackets, produce no additional revenue. For politicians this is truly an inconvenient truth. …tax revenue has grown over the past eight decades along with the size of the economy. It illustrates the empirical relationship first introduced on this page 20 years ago by the Hoover Institution’s W. Kurt Hauser—a close proportionality between revenue and GDP since World War II, despite big changes in marginal tax rates in both directions. “Hauser’s Law,” as I call this formula, reveals a kind of capacity ceiling for federal tax receipts at about 19% of GDP. …he tax base is not something that the government can kick around at will. It represents a living economic system that makes its own collective choices. In a tax code of 70,000 pages there are innumerable ways for high-income earners to seek out and use ambiguities and loopholes. The more they are incentivized to make an effort to game the system, the less the federal government will get to collect.
Several people have asked my opinion about the piece. I like the column, of course, but I’m not nearly so optimistic that 19 percent of GDP represents some sort of limit on the federal government’s taxing power. There are many nations in Europe with tax burdens closer to 50 percent, for instance, so governments obviously have figured how to extract much higher shares of national output. Part of the difference is because America has a federal system, and state and local governments collect taxes of about 10 percent of GDP. That still leaves a significant gap in total tax collections, though, so the real question is why American politicians are not as proficient as their European cousins at confiscating money from the private sector?
One reason is that European countries have value-added taxes, which are a disturbingly efficient way of generating more revenue. So does this mean that “Hauser’s Law” will protect us if politicians are too scared to impose a nationwide sales tax? That’s certainly a necessary condition for restraining government, but probably not a sufficient condition. If you look at the table, which is excerpted from the OECD’s annual Revenue Statistics publication, you can see that nations such as New Zealand and Denmark have figured out how to extract huge amounts of money using the personal and corporate income tax.
In some cases, tax rates are higher in other nations, but the main factor seems to be that the top tax rates in other nations are imposed at much lower levels of income. Americans don’t get hit with the maximum tax rate until our incomes are nine times the national average. In other nations, by contrast, the top tax rates take effect much faster, in some cases when taxpayers have just average incomes. In other words, European nations collect a lot more money because they impose much higher tax rates on ordinary people. Here’s a chart I put together a few years ago for a paper I wrote for Heritage (you can find updated numbers in Table 1.7 of this OECD website, but the chart will still look the same).
Europeans also sometimes impose high tax rates on rich people, but this is not the reason that tax receipts consume nearly 50 percent of GDP in some nations. Rich people in Europe, like their counterparts in America, have much greater ability to control the amount of taxable income that is earned and/or reported. These “Laffer Curve” responses limit the degree to which politicians can finance big government on the backs of a small minority.
But class-warfare tax rates on the rich do serve a very important political goal. Politicians understand that ordinary people will be less likely to resist oppressive tax rates if they think that those with larger incomes are being treated even worse. Simply stated, higher tax rates on the rich are a necessary precondition for higher tax rates on average taxpayers.
For “Hauser’s Law” to be effective, this means proponents of limited government need to fight two battles. First, they need to stop a VAT. Second, they need to block higher tax rates on the so-called rich in order to prevent higher tax rates on the middle class.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
69 Comments
The VAT can be summed up as "death by a thousand unseen taxes."
I like your article, but loathe calling the government confiscation of wealth "revenue."
Our tax burden was lower last year than at anytime since 1950 and still you complain. I think your whining has nothing to do with taxes at all… it's about your right wing agenda and hatred of government.
VAT is OK, but must get rid of personal income taxes and abolish the IRS to save money. Ending the private Federal Reserve, and coining our own money, would be wonderful too. You know, like the constitution says for us to do.
Our government is obsessed with raising taxes instead of RAISING REVENUE. We can only raise taxes to about 20% of GDP maximum before there is a diminishing return. Tread lightly boys and girls in congress.
We not only have to fight against higher taxes, but on many other "fronts" as well. Here is a plan for doing so:
THE FREEDOM MANIFESTO
I read an article in Politico on the agenda of MoveOn.org, which explains their new agenda, now that the most liberal politician in our history has been elected President. Got me thinking of what it would look like if the "right" would – hypothetically speaking, of course – develop a plan to resist MoveOn, Obama and the age of huge (not just big) government. These people at MoveOn did not wait for politicians in Washington to step up to their agenda – they stepped up to the politicians and said "you are going to do this, or else." We Christians and Conservatives, likewise cannot continue to howl and fuss at Republicans who do not fight for the Founding Principles upon which our nation was founded. If MoveOn and the Daily Kos can do it, so can we. And we must. The attack plan below to restore Constitutional government, is just a start but should include:
1.Establish the groundwork for a boycott of the federal income tax. If you no longer feel the federal government is operating within the confines of the Constitution, you have a moral obligation to become a conscientious objector and simply say NO to the payment of taxes to Washington. Does the Constitution give the Feds the right to bail out labor unions and give non-citizens rights and benefits? If you feel that by doing so, our sovereignty, Constitution and Bill of Rights are null and void then so is any responsibility you may have had for taxes under the 16th Amendment. 2. Begin a vigorous campaign to urge the public to home-school and/or send their children to private schools, with or without vouchers. Then begin a major program to build a private, non-union school system. This is the only way we will crack the huge union dominated government school bureaucracy. 3. Begin to use the legal system to fight big government. If the ACLU can do it, why can't we? We must begin to bring suit on every issue that threatens our nation's original freedoms and traditions. 4. We begin a systematic march on the media, especially television. TV is the medium through which the liberal agenda is being implemented. The left learned long ago that a picture is worth a thousand words and the best example of this is the pictures of bodies of dead soldiers they broadcast every time we are in a war they do not approve of (usually when a Republican is leading it!). Holding pro-America, Republican rallies at local TV stations would be a great start – especially if the liberals re-implement the "Fairness" Doctrine. 5. Boycott employers who advertise on far left liberal media outlets like NBC. No patriotic American should buy a General Electric household product as long as Matthews, Olbermann and their ilk are permitted to spew their anti-Republican, anti-American hatred. 6. Expose the controlling roll that unions play in growing a totalitarian media/government complex. 7. Establish an underground network of physicians and health care providers that will fight to preserve private sector medicine. 8. Establish Committees of Correspondence and Safety to provide communications and security – just as our Founding Fathers did. 9. Join the NRA as we have just as much right to carry guns under the 2nd Amendment as the media does to carry cameras under the 1st Amendment. 10. Demand adherence to the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution and promote and support state sovereignty efforts. 11. Tell your health care providers that they do NOT have your permission to enter your private medical information in a Federal data base as required in the recently passed (and unconstitutional) so called Stimulus law. 12. Give every American citizen two million dollars, deposited in a bank of their choice, in conjunction with the elimination of Social Security and all federal welfare programs such as WIC, S-CHIP, Medicare, Medicaid, HUD, etc. Shut them all down and 13. Repeal the law that makes government employee unions legal.
These are just a few of the actions that are necessary to first stop and then roll back the liberal juggernaut that threatens our basic freedoms and liberty. In our Declaration of Independence, our Founders pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. It is not too late for us to make that same commitment; in fact it is just in time.
THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. – Thomas Paine, The Crisis, December 23, 1776
Are you insane? VAT is not OK. It is a tax added at every step of production and it is a tax that you don't actually see. And if it was OK, Europe would be like Mootopia instead of the basket case that it is.
"Our tax burden was lower last year than at anytime since 1950"
Citation?
I happen to believe that your left wing agenda of America hate, is the real problem. Your assault on people who pull themselves up by their own boot straps and earn wealth for themselves rather than wait for the government to give it to them, is destroying the fabric of society. If you are so bent on self destruction, just man up, put a bullet in your own head, and quit dragging the rest of US down with you.
And Government EXPENDITURE as a percentage of GDP hit a record peacetime high.
Forgot that bit?
How do you figure?
We pay fed tax, state tax, sales tax, fed. gas tax, state gas tax, vehicle registration, capital gains, property tax, check out your utility bills. And if your not a troll on welfare, all kind of additional business taxes (like property tax on your business stationary! to name one).
Quit whining? Oh, you must be one of the bottom feeders that pays no Fed income tax and qualifies for a $8,000 tax credit for the reward of earning low wages.
Lifeblood of the political class, both right and left, is the money out of the peoples wallet no matter what they say. Nobody votes against their own self interest no matter what a phonie altruist says.
If by tax burden is meant the individual income tax burden, then last year was not the lowest tax burden since 1950. The lowest individual income tax rates since 1950 were during the period 1988-1990 when the top marginal income income tax rate was 28%. That top marginal individual income tax rate was 31% from 1991-1992, 39.6% from 1993-2000, 39.1% for 2001, 38.6% for 2002, and 35% from 2003 – 2010.
Tax rates do not reflect what people actually pay in taxes.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05...
It is to laugh, a leftist whitewash. One gem:
"• Sales tax. Consumers cut spending sharply in this downturn, thereby paying less in sales taxes."
In otherwords, no one has any money, hence we stole less from them.
Go shine your weenie Mik.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm
Responded to below.
We know all about the center for American progress, paid for shills of Podesta and other clintonites.
How can you believe with the massive spending going on that taxes will be reduced, are you truly that dense?
How criminally wrong you are, mik. There is NO "hatred of government" in this country. And that is because there is no longer any "government" in this country. Our legitimate government has been taken over by an oligarchy. And Americans have ALWAYS hated oligarchy.
And yes, we hate those who support oligarchy.
Don't confuse the VAT with the Fair Tax (national sales tax to replace income taxes). One big difference between the two is the VAT is what's called an "invisible tax." The Fair Tax is the opposite, in that it is impossible to hide it. And you DO NOT want to give government the opportunity to hide the tax they assess on the citizenry.
That still leaves a significant gap in total tax collections, though, so the real question is why American politicians are not as proficient as their European cousins at confiscating money from the private sector?
I can only comment on the Scandinavian countries I am familiar with, but the real reason is that there are no loopholes in their tax code. They use a flat tax >40%, and then redistribute back through government programs to account for exemptions we are allowed in the US.
In summary, the US has a complicated tax code that lets the taxpayer use exemptions to keep their money. Scandinavian socialism takes taxpayer money indiscriminately, then re-apportions it back to the populace.
It should be self-evident which is preferable.
Hmmmm, so 2009 taxes were down because Bush's tax incentives were still in place so less money came into the government but yet federal spending has increased. The article also points out that the majority of the tax cuts that have kept the economy on life support EXPIRED this year and this Congress and Administration is damned and determined to increase taxes while the average household income continues to decrease and federal spending continues to increase. Ya, that sounds like an intelligent plan.
Get your head out of your ass, isn't it about time for you to pull your nappy sajjāda and kiss the dirt?
I like your thinking devan. I appreciate the amount of thought that goes into addressing big issues. I just want to suggest that when you present a list like this in a discussion forum, formatting it like this will help people absorb the points better.
From devan:
1.Establish the groundwork for a boycott of the federal income tax. If you no longer feel the federal government is operating within the confines of the Constitution, you have a moral obligation to become a conscientious objector and simply say NO to the payment of taxes to Washington. Does the Constitution give the Feds the right to bail out labor unions and give non-citizens rights and benefits? If you feel that by doing so, our sovereignty, Constitution and Bill of Rights are null and void then so is any responsibility you may have had for taxes under the 16th Amendment.
2. Begin a vigorous campaign to urge the public to home-school and/or send their children to private schools, with or without vouchers. Then begin a major program to build a private, non-union school system. This is the only way we will crack the huge union dominated government school bureaucracy.
3. Begin to use the legal system to fight big government. If the ACLU can do it, why can't we? We must begin to bring suit on every issue that threatens our nation's original freedoms and traditions.
4. We begin a systematic march on the media, especially television. TV is the medium through which the liberal agenda is being implemented. The left learned long ago that a picture is worth a thousand words and the best example of this is the pictures of bodies of dead soldiers they broadcast every time we are in a war they do not approve of (usually when a Republican is leading it!). Holding pro-America, Republican rallies at local TV stations would be a great start – especially if the liberals re-implement the "Fairness" Doctrine.
5. Boycott employers who advertise on far left liberal media outlets like NBC. No patriotic American should buy a General Electric household product as long as Matthews, Olbermann and their ilk are permitted to spew their anti-Republican, anti-American hatred.
6. Expose the controlling roll that unions play in growing a totalitarian media/government complex.
7. Establish an underground network of physicians and health care providers that will fight to preserve private sector medicine.
8. Establish Committees of Correspondence and Safety to provide communications and security – just as our Founding Fathers did.
9. Join the NRA as we have just as much right to carry guns under the 2nd Amendment as the media does to carry cameras under the 1st Amendment.
10. Demand adherence to the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution and promote and support state sovereignty efforts.
11. Tell your health care providers that they do NOT have your permission to enter your private medical information in a Federal data base as required in the recently passed (and unconstitutional) so called Stimulus law.
12. Give every American citizen two million dollars, deposited in a bank of their choice, in conjunction with the elimination of Social Security and all federal welfare programs such as WIC, S-CHIP, Medicare, Medicaid, HUD, etc. Shut them all down and
13. Repeal the law that makes government employee unions legal.
Your hate marginalizes your credibility.
That number is skewed as the lower incomes were protected from paying tax at all. The report does an AVERAGE rather than a MEAN, showing that, while the upper middle class actually paid slightly more than usual, the average rate was lower than usual. It also accounts a reduction in sales tax payments, completely and utterly due to the fact that the economy faltered and people were buying less. I don't understand why sales taxes were figured. It means they're also averaging state taxes into the equation, since there is no national sales tax.
• Stimulus law. One-third of last year's $862 billion economic stimulus went for tax cuts. Biggest reduction: The Making Work Pay tax credit reduced income taxes $800 for married couples earning up to $150,000. (These account for TAX CREDIT, but are counted where Social Security is not. This is also a credit that applies mostly to lower income to lower middle class earners and is essentially just redistribution.)
• Progressive tax rates. Presidents Clinton and Bush pushed through a series of tax changes — credits, lower rates, higher exemptions — that slashed income taxes for poor and middle-class families. A drop in income now can trigger big tax breaks and sharply lower rates, sometimes falling to zero. (Part of the explanation here is that people DROPPED INTO LOWER TAX BRACKETS. That is not ok.)
• Sales tax. Consumers cut spending sharply in this downturn, thereby paying less in sales taxes. (This skews the report by adding at least 50 new variables and more likely is 90 or more new variables, since most states have at least two tax systems at work simultaneously.)
Regardless, the complaint in this article isn't about the tax we've had, but fear of the taxes (such as a VAT) that we may gain.
Sneaky taxes: 2-3% here, 4-5% there, taxes everywhere
All of this must be Bush's fault. Somehow.
/sarc off (for those who don't know me, sarcasm is my native tongue)
If you are going to copy and paste your arguments you should source them, so we will know if we are talking to sodahead.com or speaker.gov…. it's just common courtesy.
Right, and you know whats not being counted? Corporate tax rolldown. That is NEVER counted. However, if you are saying percentage matters less than dollar amount…then you're confused. The percentage of your income you keep controls much of your buying power. If a person's income is taken at a higher percentage, then they spend less of a percentage of what is left (since they spend in terms of dollar amounts), which is detrimental to economic growth. Dollar amount of taxation is only important when you count revenue, since dollars pay bills where percentages don't. Of course, I understand that you may mean that people actually paid less per capita in tax via much of the tax credits, but most people would have been better served having had that money in their paycheck throughout the in order to pay bills with and have some extra spending money, than to get that money back in a lump sum at the end of the year. The lump sum seems nice, but, to economic stability and growth, consistent consumer spending effects more than large spending.
"Will ‘Hauser’s Law’ Protect Us from Revenue-Hungry Politicians?"
Hauser's Law might protect us from revenue hungry "politicians." Unfortunately, we're no longer dealing with revenue hungry politicians. What we're dealing with is a criminal regime which doesn't operate under the rule of law, nor works for the benefit of the nation. This power structure has sold its soul to a global cabal that will stop at nothing to destroy the "free world" in order to advance a dictatorial world government out of the chaos they create.
It's not just a "conspiracy" anymore, it's the way they're doing business.
There is another dimension to this equation: While the Government takes, it also gives. Citizens in more socialist countries may pay more in tax, but get back some in benefits and services that they would otherwise have to purchase in the private sector. Their take-home pay stretches furher – especially for those making less money. They get proportionally more back from Govt. than they pay in tax (if they pay anything at all). The result of this system is more fairness (spread the wealth) but less efficiency and less freedom.
It is partially about our agenda, sure, because our agenda is lower taxes. When congress comes out and says, "we are going to let tax cuts expire," it is the same as if they had said, "we are going to increase taxes." When congress says, "we are going to increase spending," it is the same as them saying, "we are going to increase taxes in the future." You aren't stupid and neither am I, so we can both see that what is going on right now will inevitably lead to higher taxes. You're right that "95%" of Americans might pay less taxes and only 5% will have to pay for the rest of us, but if that is the case, then tax rates on the rich will have to become so high that there probably won't be as many rich anymore. After that, we all know that the next logical step is to raise taxes on the next 5% and the next 5%… So, why should we sit by while the government goes out of control? Why should we let the people in charge make politically motivated, short-sighted decisions (as opposed to ones motivated by our best interests) about our future when there are relatively easy things we could be doing to stand up for common sense?
Theres your astroturfing right there.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.a...
* Think tank run by Hillary Clinton and former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta
* Helped launch Media Matters For America in 2004
The Center for American Progress (CAP) describes itself as "a nonpartisan research and educational institute" aimed at "developing a long-term vision of a progressive America" and "providing a forum to generate new progressive ideas and policy proposals."
Robert Dreyfuss reports in the March 1, 2004 edition of The Nation: "The idea for the Center began with discussions in 2002 between [Morton] Halperin and George Soros, the billionaire investor. … Halperin, who heads the office of Soros' Open Society Institute, brought [former Clinton chief of staff John] Podesta into the discussion, and beginning in late 2002 Halperin and Podesta circulated a series of papers to funders."
Soros and Halperin recruited Harold Ickes — chief fundraiser and former deputy chief of staff for the Clinton White House — to help organize the Center. It was launched on July 7, 2003 as the American Majority Institute. The name was changed to Center for American Progress (CAP) on September 1, 2003. The official purpose of the Center was to provide the left with something it supposedly lacked — a think tank of its own.
Regarding the new think tank proposed by Soros and Halperin, Hillary Clinton told Matt Bai of The New York Times Magazine on October 12, 2003, "We need some new intellectual capital. There has to be some thought given as to how we build the 21st-century policies that reflect the Democrat Party's values." She later told The Nation's Robert Dreyfuss, "We've had the challenge of filling a void on our side of the ledger for a long time, while the other side created an infrastructure that has come to dominate political discourse. The Center is a welcome effort to fill that void."
Persistent press leaks confirm that Hillary Clinton, and not Podesta, is ultimately in charge of CAP. "It's the official Hillary Clinton think tank," an inside source confided to Christian Bourge of United Press International. Robert Dreyfuss notes in The Nation, "In looking at Podesta's center, there's no escaping the imprint of the Clintons. It's not completely wrong to see it as a shadow government, a kind of Clinton White-House-in-exile — or a White House staff in readiness for President Hillary Clinton." Dreyfuss notes the abundance of Clintonites on the Center's staff, among them Clinton's national security speechwriter Robert Boorstin; Democratic Leadership Council staffer and former head of Clinton's National Economic Council Gene Sperling; former senior advisor to Clinton's Office of Management and Budget Matt Miller; and others.
In addition to the aforementioned individuals, CAP's key personnel also includes Director of Media Strategy Debbie Berger, daughter of Clinton national security chief Sandy Berger; Sarah Rosen Wartell, who serves as Senior Vice President, Chief Operating Officer, and General Counsel; Mark David Agrast, Senior Vice President for Domestic Policy; and Robert O. Boorstin, Senior Vice President for National Security and International Policy.
One of CAP's primary missions is to carry out "rapid response" to what it calls conservative "attacks" in the media. To this end, CAP maintains more than a dozen spokespeople ready to appear on short notice on national talk shows to debate or respond to conservative commentators. Among CAP's expert commentators are its own President, John Podesta; Eric Alterman, who claims expertise on the subject of media; and CAP Senior Vice President Morton Halperin, who offers to speak on national security.
On May 3, 2004, CAP helped to launch David Brock's Media Matters for America – which claims to serve as a "watchdog" organization monitoring "rightwing" media for ethics and accuracy. According to The New York Times, Brock conferred with Hillary Clinton, Senator Tom Daschle, and former Vice President Al Gore about Media Matters before embarking on the project. "Mr. Brock's project was developed with help from the newly formed Center for American Progress," notes the Times, and John Podesta "introduced [Brock] to potential donors."
CAP posts daily "Talking Points" to guide the likeminded in their disputes with conservatives. The organization has also established an American Progress Action Fund as a "sister advocacy organization" that "transforms progressive ideas into policy through rapid response communications, legislative action, grassroots organizing and advocacy, and partnerships with other progressive leaders throughout the country and the world."
Too much. Sorry, I'm taking care of my daughter and can't concentrate long enough to read all this. Could you paraphrase? Skimming through, it seems interesting.
oh sorry, here's my source:http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05...
looks familiar for some reason…
sorry i didn't post that, since I ASSUMED THE SOURCE WAS A GIVEN.
Fixed it: http://i25.tinypic.com/2a6qef4.gif
Just give your $ to Dear Leader and shut up! [sarc]
A song and message for Obama.
Alinski tactics 101. We will defeat these people perpetrating as our representatives. We will have the final word in November. http://www.onetermpresident.net/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AP-IM7maxbI&fe...
Audit the Fed,
Restore the Republic
God Bless America
The IRS are just the enemies' troops.
The true enemies are the people in Congress who keep boosting taxes and playing games with special exceptions and tariffs. They do so on behalf of their supportes, but they are the ones who are responsible for the actions taken.
The point of taxes is to raise revenue. Period. Not to redistribute wealth from the productive to the unproductive. Not to punish this behavior or reward that behavior. Not for "social engineering" or "social justice", whatever those terms mean.
"The art of taxation lies in plucking the goose so as to obtain the maximum amount of feathers with the minimum amount of hissing." – Jean Baptiste Colbert, Finance Minister to Louis XIV
The problem with VAT (and Fair Tax as well) is that it would drive a certain portion of the economy underground. Namely, the part where transactions can be done with cash. This is already a problem that exists under state sales tax regimes. And VAT fraud is much more common in Europe than governments want to believe.
"The result of this system is more fairness (spread the wealth" but less efficiency and less freedom". Doesn't "fairness" depend upon whom is calling the shots? I seem to have missed where that perfectly egaltarian world exist, while the value – and historical rarity – of freedom seems to have been lost upon you.
Your absurd and regurgitated maxims remind me of a darkly humorous truism spoken by a Bulgarian friend of mine:
The difference between Capitalism and Communism is as follows: In Capitalism men oppress other men; in Communism it is the other way around.
I'd rather be free to provide for myself than be provided for. That is the fairest proposition of all!
The flaw in you reasoning is that you assume that the government is just as efficient in delivering services as the private sector would be. Would you like me to tell you another fairy tale?
The profit motive is what makes the private sector want to be efficient. More efficiency leads to lower costs and more profit. Competition keeps prices down. Happy customers means repeat business. Unhappy customers means new business for competitors.
Contrast to government. Doesn't have a profit motive. Actually, quite the opposite. No linkage between the value provided and the cost because it's OPM (Other People's Money). Monopoly provider so no worries about competitors offering something better at a cheaper price with better service.
As for "more fairness"? Okay, first define what "fairness" means.
Lower than what? What is the perfect tax rate? Just saying you want lower taxes means nothing. Say which government services you are willing to give up, then we will have an election to see if anyone agrees with you and the winner will set the tax rates.
Facts suck, kind of like you and your non points Mickey
How DARE we complain about OUR money being taken and HANDED to OTHERS
How DARE we complain about the FED spending OUR money on things it has no business being involved in
How DARE we complain that the FED is innefficitent and CORRPUT
Yeah mickey, we know you leftist think you are doing us a favor by leaving us a few dribs and drabs of our own earnings, we understand you think you are the masters, we are the serfs. We understand all of that which is why this November you and your ilk are going to be handed walking papers.
You stupidity marginalizes your existence
You reach the wrong conclusions as usual what a SURPRISE!
HA HA HA Pot calling the kettle black copy-tard!
Well, my favorite gal-pal is out of bed and looking to spread some love. Morning sunshine.
You fascists would support a VAT in a second if that was the price of funding your war machine
Here's another asshat: http://i25.tinypic.com/2a6qef4.gif
go back to school little boy/girl – you are grossly misunderstanding the history, meaning and use of the term facist – big shock, a libby who doesn't know shit
he IS a weenie
his hatred and disdain for anything American, just bleeds thru every sissy post he writes -
Jeez MIKADINGBAT, get with the times little boy, there is no right wing agenda nor is there a hatred of government.
Pay attention little boy, it's AMERICANS who love their country – oh jeez, why do I bother with a freakin block head like you……….
Is this where you break into the lefty tried and true song and dance about how you have to cut teachers, policemen, firemen, blah blah blah
And our least favorite fatty troll boy is spinning tales again – oh goody
I think you do it because deep down you think you can change my mind and make me see the light of right wing freedom. I think your time is better spent ignoring me.
I agree completely. Each taxing authority must stop seeking some new activity or substance to tax. Stop spending and your revenue need will diminish. We need to study overall taxing principles, i.e. local and state taxes are specific the citizens use of local and state services. The Federal government is limited by the Constitution (incidentally we need to overturn much of the Interstate Commerce clause S.C. decisions).
A VAT is a hidden tax and will spread like cancer. I believe any tax on income is counter productive by its very nature; however a flat tax might be palatable. Consumption taxes as a percentage of the purchase seems fair and workable and it very well could encourage savings.
These are some good beginnings. I will comment on a couple: income taxes—there was a movement a few years ago which alas did not get much traction. Everybody knows the excitement, dread, and expectation of the April 15th deadline. In some communities ice crème is served to tax filers that are in line to get their returns postmarked by midnight. Needless to say, Post Office employees are working overtime. How about if NO one filed their return until April 16th? A very silent but impossible to ignore message would be sent.
We do need to get behind home schoolers and provide various resources to promote its growth. An alternate union free open to the public school system, although difficult to achieve, would be a glorious victory.
We simply need tax reform, education reform, union reform and judicial review reform
such delusions you carry, THAT is the truly fun part! keep it up, where would we all be without your stupidity to remind us just who is standing in the way of TRUTH
And Europe has a much higher rate of unemployment and under employment because of it. Why do you think Greece and Spain are in the crapper? France will be next followed by GB then Germany. Oh, and we don't hear much about South America do we? They are destined for an eternity of 3rd world life because of their incompatibility with the human race. And the Brazilians think the Olympics will give them stature> All that will do is allow the rest of the world to view the reality of a total loss of integrity and moral values and what socialism has born unto them.
[...] » Will ‘Hauser’s Law’ Protect Us from Revenue-Hungry Politicians? – Bi… [...]
so, there's a check box at the bottom of the tax form for voluntary contributions. how much extra do you send each year?
if the answer is "none" then you need to shut up and move to your Europtopia you redistributive hypocrit commie
Sadly for you, I do what I want and live where I want. And there's nothing you can do about it but whine. Sucks to be you.
exactly, only possible in a free constitutional republic. criticizing our system while singing the praises of those failed entitlement nanny states, yet you don't want to take part of their wonderful experiments. I don't see you, or any of your kind lining up to live there. your hypocrisy says it all. socialists are nothing but parasites, feeding off the hard work of others.
I know that on lists like this red vs. blue states is a big deal. But the reality of where we live depends more on family and employment circumstances than political considerations. I've live in both and have never chosen a location for political purposes.
"I know that on lists like this red vs. blue states is a big deal"
Actually, thats a lie that is starting to fall apart. It is Big government vs minimum government. The fascists and socialists are on the same team. Banksters and elites don't care which system as long as they run it.
I have never seen government shrink in my lifetime. In fact, the largest expansion since the end of WWII was under Reagan. So it doesn't even matter who we elect, the trend for the size of government is up.
The problem for proponents of "small government" is they can't define what it means. And when they try, the discussion turns to which programs they want to cut. And that leads to defeat at the polls. If you haven't figured it out by now, people love tax cuts and hate to lose government services. Republicans campaign on tax cuts, but then refuse to follow through on the spending cuts and the budget deficits grow.
One of the thing we heard from Republicans when GWB came into office was a strategy to "starve the beast". What they failed to realize that the deficits grow government faster than taxing and spending.
This was plagiarized from the American Spectator. You give Thomas Paine credit for his work. You might want to offer the same courtesy to fellow bloggers.
agreed
but, socialists by necessity to carry out their agenda require BIG government. Current GOP leadership pays lipservice to shrinking government, but take every opportunity to stealth increase it.
interest on borrowed money to finance deficit spending ensures constant growth. it needs to stop while there is still time.
I don't believe that a socialist agenda has anything to do with the size of modern government. I personally do not even know any socialists. What drives the size of government is the demand for government services. We like having our enemies kept at bay, our meat inspected and our air breathable. We like having children who can read and write. The socialist claim is a political tactic that has no basis in reality.
I agree that we should pay for the government we demand.
"The socialist claim is a political tactic that has no basis in reality.
if the call is for more social entitlements, its socialist. if the call is for more business breaks and bailouts, its fascist. use whatever titles you like. the underlying concepts remain the same. getting more, and expecting someone else to pay, and using the coercive force of government to carry it out.
"I agree that we should pay for the government we demand"
Everyone is demanding something for nothing. its not realistic, or sustainable. We have to demand LESS from government. it is the only path that MIGHT save us in the long run.
Online Article……
[...]The information mentioned in the article are some of the best available [...]……
You must be logged in to post a comment.