I might support increasing tax rates, partly because I don't like the increasing national debt, but also because so many people don't make the connection between voting for increased government spending and the long term cost.

How many people would have voted for the high speed train between LA and SF if Proposition 1A had included a tax increase to pay for it?

See this and this: Those who believe that government should redistribute income are far less likely to give voluntarily to help others. This helps explain why, compared to the United States, European states … see low levels of private giving.

My view is that we need go to a flat tax. Delete all the government encouragement for activity such as home credits, green cars, etc. I may lose out on $xxx number of interest credit that I get for owning a home, but I will be better off in the long run.

The government needs to get out of social issues.

I heard a story yesterday that a guy in New York doesn't qualify for medicaid because he makes too much money on unemployment.

They throw around quarters - their own, anyway - like they were manhole covers. But they would gladly give you the shirt off somebody else's back.

Not only that, but if that somebody else objects to the removal of the shirt off his back for redistribution to someone else, the redistributionists are quick to brand that person "uncharitable", "heartless", "neanderthal", "right-wing wacko", or some such.

True charity is born of personal impulses and, like so many personal traits and outlooks, cannot be legislated. But redistributionists have convinced most who are dependent on them for their livelihood that charity is found at the point of a gun. And these same recipients of the plunder of others' resources -- welfare mommas, wealthy corporations, and foreign dictators alike -- are too ignorant or selfish to know the difference, or, for that matter, care.

And so the entitlement culture continues to grow. At the expense of the productive.

I think it's more that people are willing to do it if everyone else is too, but not if they are the only ones.

Something tells me that with all the people NOT paying taxes in this state that somehow the outcome wouldn't have been any different.

Drudge posted this a week or so ago - so it's off the top of my head but something like 47% of American's pay zero taxes. California probably holds a larger percentage than that with the illegal population (many working on an under the table cash only basis) who have been able to vote here.

My comment above was in response to Amy's post:

"Exactly. I'd like each new boondoggle to include the amount each taxpayer will have to pay annually for it."

I forgot to include it.

Feebie: you got the number right, but not the description.
For 2009, 47% of people owed no federal income tax. This
excludes social security, medicare, and any state or local
taxes.

Also, even your illegal population still pays sales taxes.
They also pay real estate taxes, either directly or
indirectly via their landlords.

Thanks, Ron for the correction. I was being lazy, admittedly.

But Amy's right. They don't pay nearly as much as working, legal citizens - and certainly not for these boondoggles. A legal citizens are paying indirectly as well on property taxes, plus they contribute appropriately on other areas as well.

I got a bonus this year, and it was taxed at 60%!!!

I get pretty frothed at the fact that there are people voting (citizens and non-citizens alike) who do not pay an equitable percentage in taxes as the rest of us do in this country/state. They have no skin in the game but are allowing the feds/state to rip the rest of us off.

Then there is the initiatives/bills/propositions that are so incredibly retarded and cost the rest of us indirectly as well. Like the one in 2008 about the humane chicken farming. Great! So prices for chicken will now go up and farmers will just move their business to Nevada and have those same conditions out there for chickens and we pay more either way. I consider that the hidden tax of voter stupidity!

Oh, please. This whole line of attack is like the one which says libertarians are hypocrites if they drive on government roads or went to public schools or cash Social Security checks.

Several of the founders of the US were very smart people. They could not predict the future; they did know the past, and that human nature tends to transcend all eras. They warned that if the public were allowed to vote itself benefits at the expense of others, the experiment would be over. That is also the reason they formed a representative republic, rather than a democracy, because the latter is very short-lived.

That is also the reason they formed a representative republic, rather than a democracy, because the latter is very short-lived.

The problem is that the representative's are no longer listening to the people and truly want to help them. The minority (right and left) has gotten loud and strident. Those of us in the middle get screwed.

Well duh. The people you vote into federal office are not state employees anymore, they are federal employees paid by the federal government.

They have no interest in representing their state interests. An employee of a state would have no incentive to place more and more power into federal hands.

What we need is to make one of those positions, either the house or the senate, an appointed position, a position appointed by the state government, paid by the state government, and pensioned and recieving its benefits by the state government.

That is the start of change, otherwise you'll just get more of the same.

If you doubt me, then look at the growth rate of federal government after all positions became federal based without any state appointments.

Illegals aren't paying for their health care or schooling or for roads, police, fire, or boondoggles. -- Amy

How are things paid for where you are at?
Here:
schooling combo of sales tax and property levies
roads is paid by the gas tax
police, fire - real estate tax (and possibly property levies).
So here all those are paid by everyone - possibly indirectly (via landlord) or only walk or take the bus.

Exactly. I'd like each new boondoggle to include the amount each taxpayer will have to pay annually for it. On top of all the other boondoggles. -- Amy

I just voted on a parks maintence bill - the voter pamphlet says right there. The tax will increase by 7 cents for every $1000 of real estated owned in the city for the next 5 years. The average home owners tax bill will be increased by $15.67 per year. I made up the numbers.

You don't get that type of information?

What we need is to make one of those positions, either the house or the senate, an appointed position

Senators used to be appointed by state legislatures

And then the 17th amendment happened. Jefferson Cried.

"For 2009, 47% of people owed no federal income tax. This
excludes social security, medicare, and any state or local
taxes."

Ron, there is an offsetting factor: some percentage of that 47% (I haven't yet managed to find a number) not only don't pay any income tax, but they actually take money out of the income tax system via earned income tax credits. And as far as sales taxes, people in the cash-only economy sometimes have access to ways of bypassing sales taxes. Around here, one doesn't have to look all that hard to find untaxed alcohol and cigarettes.

Art Laffer said once that a simple flat tax of 11.5 percent on individual income and business sales (which I believe translates to business revenue) would bring in an amount equal to the current income tax + FICA and medicare. He did not include sin taxes in this computation; he would leave thos alone (sorry, smokers).

Now, these rates would include NO deductions or exemptions, so you would pay the fed 11.5 percent from your first dollar earned to your last. Now, combine this scheme with my idea of ending ALL federal entitlements. Now, hopefully, you would have an entire population interested in how that 11.5 percent is getting spent, rather than a portion of the population dependent and uncaring.