Must have a good tax attorney. A couple of years ago I was paying 29% and I certainly was not rich.

I can see not wanting to be the only one paying extra. I mean, Stephen King's money alone wouldn't make much difference to the government, but would make a difference to him. It would only make a difference to the government if ALL the rich people gave extra.

A lot of these helpful measures, paying more taxes, doing something environmental, etc only work if everyone does them, other wise it is just a pain in the ass for a few individuals but doesn't make a difference.

That said, I don't have an opinion on raising taxes on the rich. I do know that the moderately rich people I know complain about the taxes, whereas the super rich ones I know don't because they know the legal loopholes. (I'm defining moderately rich as being able to pay for private school out of pocket, owning a home and being able to afford vacations abroad or a vacation cabin, and super rich people as owning apartments in the best part of the city, and homes at the shore AND in the mountains (not little cabins either), and flying first class)

I doubt Treacher misses the point, but King is asking why people in his income quintile aren't paying more in taxes.

Treacher also reveals a certain bitterness by suggesting that King's question is due to "guilt over being successful."

Woolworth once asked, "Why shouldn't the American people get half my money? I got all of it from them."

It isn't guilt that prompted Woolworth's question. It was the recognition that that he was making far more than he needed or could use.

I know that's an alien concept to most people, but there are some people in this world who actually don't wish to accumulate all they can for the sake of having all they can. Some people, believe it or not, actually look at whatever the lottery is paying this week and realize it's more than they could need or want.

Shocking.

What would I do if I won the lottery? Retire from the world, live simply and modestly, give the bulk to some worthwhile charity and never been seen or heard from again.

Patrick

I think the difference is not in "wanting to accumulate all you can", rather, it is not wanting to have your stuff taken at gunpoint. If taking what you haven't earned from people at gunpoint is wrong, it's wrong, no matter if its done by a mugger or an IRS agent. Just because your mugger gives you something (which you might not want or ask for) doesn't make it right!

William, I have to say that's a silly comparison.

A mugger would take things away from you, and presumably do nothing that would benefit you in any way, shape or form. Taxes are used to pay for things you DO want. Don't think so? The bulk of taxes is spent on defense. You like having the freedom to say what you want, and post on a forum like this? For every dollar you pay in taxes, 54 cents is spent on defense.

Ever drive on the Interstate? Guess what? Plan on having social security, or has social security stood between you and having your mother move in with you? Medicare? Medicaid?

You're new (or at least someone I've never responded to before), so I'm going to be optimistic and assume you can do better than that. Don't disappoint, please.

I have bought and/or read almost ALL of Stephen King's books, and pretty much thoroughly enjoyed them. He could sendme a check if he wants to. I wouldn't mind!

o.O

Patrick said: "I know that's an alien concept to most people, but there are some people in this world who actually don't wish to accumulate all they can for the sake of having all they can. Some people, believe it or not, actually look at whatever the lottery is paying this week and realize it's more than they could need or want."

I am actually one of those people Patrick. I have no desire to be rich. Never have. People are always amazed at that for some reason. I just want to be able to pay my bills, feed my children (when I have them anyway), be able to afford a vacation every now and again, and save enough to be able to retire before I am 65. If I have enough in savings to leave something to my kids, then great, but otherwise, I have no desire to have money to buy more "stuff".

But, even still, I still think it's wrong for the govt to tax someone just because they are rich and can pay more. If I WANT to pay more, then that is my right, but I agree with William that taking it by force is wrong whether it's Uncle Sam or a robber. It's not the govts money. They didn't earn it. They have no right to it.

Sabrina: But, even still, I still think it's wrong for the govt to tax someone just because they are rich and can pay more. If I WANT to pay more, then that is my right, but I agree with William that taking it by force is wrong whether it's Uncle Sam or a robber. It's not the govts money. They didn't earn it. They have no right to it.

It is the government, its laws and defense that maintain the system that allows you to earn that money. Do you not want the blanket of protection that government provides?

How long do we'd last if they didn't pay for the military? Or to put it in terms that you understand, how long do you think you'd be able to have the luxury of living in this lifestyle that you describe without a military? As I said to William, the government pays for things that you use, or others that are close to you use.

Do you not want the blanket of protection that government provides?

No.

I am for a strong defense but I am not for so many government agencies and government programs, and so much government duplication and waste.

Regarding helping others, to paraphrase Bastiat, just because we don't think government should be doing something doesn't mean we don't think it should be done.

Amy, yes, you do.

Our rich (very libertarian) friends give millions of dollars to various charities every year. They also invest in businesses and that have provided hundreds of jobs for working and middle class people.
Perhaps Mr. King should consider doing the same, if he feels like he's not doing his part.

It's no fun unless you can exert your will over others, is it, Patrick?

I know that's an alien concept to most people, but there are some people in this world who actually don't wish to accumulate all they can for the sake of having all they can.

That's fine. They can donate their excess to charity, the government, or if they want, to establish their own charity.

What's not fine is for them to turn around and tell me what I should be doing with my money.

Do you not want the blanket of protection that government provides?

Which blanket of protection is that, Patrick? you're aware that in many jurisdictions that if fire and rescue vehicles are rolled to an auto crash that you'll be charged for it? in my city, that's a $400 bill. I'm sure in LA it is much higher.

Hold on, I thought we paid taxes to cover that?

Police? yeah, you can call 911, and someone will tell you that someone is coming, but there's no law saying they actually have to respond, and if they're busy it may not be a quick response. If your life is in immediate danger, the one person you can count is...you.

At least they're not charging you $400 to roll the constabulary to your location. But I'm sure that thought has crossed someone's mind...

Jim, it's a matter of common sense. If Amy didn't want the blanket of protection that the government provides, including the system in place that allows her to work and earn in the manner that she does, shouldn't Amy be living somewhere else? Since Amy vacations in France, I would take that as proof that she has the means to quit the country.

Obviously the system in place is what she DOES want. Otherwise, she'd be somewhere else!

I'm not sure what that has to do with Stephen King not being satisfied with merely being a multimillionaire and being able to decide what to do with his own hard-earned money, Patrick, but don't let me stop you.

I think this has more to do with Stephen having his, and not wanting anyone else to have theirs. He probably has all the tax shelters, off-shore accounts and well paid accountants to protect his money, so his goal is to keep his up and coming rivals from gaining a foot hold. How do you do that? By getting the gov't to tax the bejeebus out of them, for one thing. How else is a no talent hack going to hold on?

Actually, I'm probably giving Steve too much credit, he just wants to tell us what to do.

Nah, I don't think that's the case, Kat. King actually gives Lee Child rave reviews for one of his most recent novels, 61 Hours. (BF and I have read all of Child's books so far, and really enjoyed them. We're both kind of in awe of Jack Reacher!)

I had no idea that department existed.

I once met a man who wanted to give his Social Security back after he retired--he had done well for himself and regarded SS as more of a widow's and poor people's fund. They wouldn't let him.

Yet they have this department? Which he presumably wasn't told about?

If we can't have a smaller government, can't we at least have one that communicates between departments a little better?

Meh, I'm just the suspicious sort, and anytime there is money involved, I look for the motive that would profit the individual most. It's like people said, no one is stopping him from donating to charity, or giving what he wants to the gov't, or starting his own charity ala Bill Gates if he feels the need. It's the fact that he *needs* to go out there and draw attention to the fact that other people should have their money *taken* from them, because that is what taxation does.

If we had the Fair Tax in place, we would be able to regulate our own taxes by regulating our spending. If I wanted to be taxed less, I'd buy used, or buy a lower priced house, or car, etc. But there would be someone out there buying the higher priced goods, and it would balance itself out. And we all need food, paper products, etc, so we all have to pay something.
The fact that we pay taxes should not be taken as a right by the government, it should be understood as a partnership, we pay taxes so that they can serve us. Lately, the service has been lousy, so I think we should lower their allowance.

"It was the recognition that that he was making far more than he needed or could use."

Then why didn't he lower prices in his stores until he was making what he thought appropriate? That sure as heck would ahve helped people. Why doesn't King write for free or nearly so? His books are nigh-on $20 bucks now-THAT'S absurd. Lower the price and help people who want to read.

The Lovely Goddess writes: Amy has the means, at the moment, to stay just where she is and get her rent checks in on time. These are tough times for writers. France is a socialist country and I think it's incredibly stupidly run. Our country is better, but our government is in need of a massive diet.

France is not your only option. Besides, are you fluent enough in French to write a witty column every week?

You could try England or Canada, since there's no language barrier.

The point is not that our system that the government provides is perfect, because it's not. It is, however, the best system we all know of. I was addressing Sabrina's complaint that the government hasn't earned our money.

They haven't? Whether or not they are overpaid is another topic, however, they do earn a portion of our money. They are the ones who arranged the best military in the world, which keeps us from being overtaken by some other nation which would only be too happy to control the world's leading producer of food, among other things.

Does anyone think that a privatized military would succeed like our government's does? I don't think now would be the best time to find out.

Our taxes also pay for the legislation we currently have. Again, massive problems, but it is still a suitable arrangement for us to make our money.

"Jim, it's a matter of common sense. If Amy didn't want the blanket of protection that the government provides, including the system in place that allows her to work and earn in the manner that she does, shouldn't Amy be living somewhere else? Since Amy vacations in France, I would take that as proof that she has the means to quit the country.

Obviously the system in place is what she DOES want. Otherwise, she'd be somewhere else!"

...you have a lot of damn gall calling anyone else's comparisons silly, if you're going to deploy this stinker of an argument. It's even worse than the usual ridiculous canard about Somalia we have to put up with, and makes it virtually impossible to believe that you're arguing in good faith.

You have noticed, I presume, that the surface of the Earth is finite? You may also have noticed that its entire land area is claimed by one or another of our 195 flavors of jackboot-wearing statist discipline addicts?

If you've really been paying attention, you may have noticed that on the rare occasions that someone's actually tried to create new land, one of those 195 flavors comes and stops them/takes it away/drags them back?

In short, your argument is that we must want to live under (a variety) of the system in place everywhere in the world because we haven't left it for a place that doesn't exist and would be immediately confiscated if it ever did.

Patrick, I don't think anyone objects to paying taxes. We object to paying MORE taxes just because we (hypothetically) have the means to do so.

I want the tax dollars that are paid to be put to good use. Fixing the roads, military (which I agree is the best in the world), law enforcment, maintainance of public properties/buildings, fire dept, public schools...etc... that's the "blanket protection" that is suppossed to be funded by my tax dollars. The reality is though that tax dollars are being used to fund govt programs that the majority of tax payers don't use, the country doesn't need, and are part of the reason this country is broke in the first place. And then, there is a demand that we pay MORE for these programs that only benefit those who are essentially stealing from us. Ridiculous.

By paying my taxes, I should be entitled to the govt services that my tax dollars pay for yet more and more we see that is not the case. Everyday we see more and more of those "blanket protections", like our consitutional rights, taken away in the name of "safety" yet we continue to willfully fund programs like the TSA.
Everyone who works pays into social security which is suppossed to also be "blanket protection" for retirement. Most of us will never actually receive any pay out for that because the money will eventually run out. Welfare? Food Stamps? The majority of the tax paying population don't recieve free money every month just for being poor. Where my "blanket protection" from poverty?

If somone wants to pay more because that's their desire, then so be it. It's their money and they can do as they wish. But forcing someone to pay more, just becuase they can, so that the govt can continue to fund useless and expensive programs is unreasonable and fiscally irresponsible. It attitudes like that that keep the poor poor and make the rich want to open off shore accounts. The govt needs to use the money they are getting from taxes smarter. The weathly should not be funding the govts stupidity just because they can afford it.

I love this country. I don't want to go anywhere else because while I agree with you Patrick that while it's not perfect, it's still better than what the other guy has. But, because I am a tax paying citizen, I have that "blanket protection" that you speak of to speak out against the govt officials running it into the ground.

Patrick - stop the reductio ad absurdum argument please. No one is saying there should be no taxes or the military should be privatised, just that government should be kept to a minimum to provide essential services. And anyone who feels they should pay more than is required can if they want to.

Plan on having social security, or has social security stood between you and having your mother move in with you?

Social Security is a fucking joke, one of the stupidest programs of all time. A massive defined benefits pension scheme with no underlying assets - all completely unfunded.

I notice it doesn't appear in the ridiculous pie chart you linked to showing defense spending at 54%. The one Amy linked to a few weeks ago made much more sense.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-only-chart-you-need-to-see-to-understand-why-the-us-is-screwed-2011-2

Once you include entitlement programs, the military component fades a bit.

I'm glad I live in a country (Australia) where budget deficits for three years running is regarded as big news, and politicians scramble over themselves to return to surplus.

"I know that's an alien concept to most people, but there are some people in this world who actually don't wish to accumulate all they can for the sake of having all they can. Some people, believe it or not, actually look at whatever the lottery is paying this week and realize it's more than they could need or want." - Patrick

And those people are free to do so.

I'm so tired of rich liberals whining that they don't pay enough in taxes and then jetting off to the Vineyard or Aspen for the season.

If Stephen King wants to pay more taxes, he's free to send in more than the required amount on his federal return. He's free to form a charity, as Bill Gates did, and distribute his money to worthy causes. He's free to simply give his money to charity, as Dick and Lynn Cheney did (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1615415/posts)

Michael Moore claims the money of the "rich" is public property. Yet he seems to guard his private millions pretty fiercely...all while trying to convince the world he's just another working stiff from Flint.

Treacher's response to King is entirely silly, and is based in a willful misreading of King. King's point was certainly not that he and only he should pay higher tax rates, but that he and people like him should pay higher tax rates. One may disagree with King's preference for a more progressive income tax that imposes higher rates on those with very large incomes, but King's point is a legitimate perspective on a matter of public policy.

Maybe King can lead by example similar to what Gates did with his prompting other rich to be more charitable. In this light, Treach is not being "entirely silly" Christopher.

Christopher must believe that it is not silly to give the government more money to spend. Government cannot manage its budget now so by giving them more money they will be able to control their spending. As a matter of public policy, that is silly.

...but King's point is a legitimate perspective on a matter of public policy.

Then perhaps he should make it a point to just go ahead and pay higher taxes without bitching about it?

I do not believe King prepares his own tax return. He hires professionals to prepare his tax returns. I wonder if he instructs them to not look for, and take advantage of, every loophole available. If he let his concerns of not paying enough taxes be known to them, I am sure they would not increase their fees by researching to make sure his pays low taxes. Also, they would advise him like Treach has,since the info is available in the instructions to the 1040.

To you democrats, progressives and liberals:

King is not advocating giving up his weslth, which is accumulated, and retained, income. He is advocating giving up some more of his income which does not effect his current wealth. It would effect those who have high incomes but have yet to reach significant wealth. His wishes may prevent others from reaching his level of wealth. If he was generous, he wants to appear to be, he would give up some of his wealth.

Wealthy people can afford to pay taxes. I'll listen to them when it affects there wealth like it does the rest of us.

King's point was certainly not that he and only he should pay higher tax rates, but that he and people like him should pay higher tax rates.

What's stopping him? Oh wait, you asserted that's "silly." Therefore it must be. It couldn't be that you missed the point.

this whole "tax the rich" concept should be so foreign to anyone who wants to live in a free society. I say tax everyone, no matter how little they make at the same flat percentage rate. The rich will automatically pay more. This concept about minimum income people paying little or no taxes, or worse yet getting refunds when no taxes are paid is absurd and should be illegal in a democracy. It is these people who vote in these crazy liberal idiots who want social spending to increase. They vote for these people because they are promised all kinds of crap and they know they know they will have to do nothing to pay for it, because the "rich" will. This whole concept of redistributing the wealth is just so evit I am not sure how logical people can defend it.

It's not enough to do what you think is right if it doesn't involve controlling others.

Nice point, DaveB.

Too many people confuse wealth and income.

Wealthy people, like Ted Kennedy, Stephen King, et al, can afford to agitate for higher income taxes, because higher income taxes only diminish their income. Higher income taxes don't diminish their overall wealth. The millions hidden in tax shelters remains inviolate.

People who, due to education, hard work, or even just luck, are only now making a high income, but did not have a foundation of wealth, will have their overall wealth negatively affected by higher income taxes because their accumulation of wealth depends upon their income.

Chris Rock attempted to illustrate the difference when he said, "Shaquille O'Neal is rich. But the guy who signs his paycheck is wealthy."

I wonder if struggling writer Stephen King would want to smack established writer Stephen King for his comments.

"Plan on having social security[?]"

You have got to be fucking kidding me. I turn thirty this year. If there's social security for me thirty five years from now I'll probably keel over from the pure shock of it. The SSI money taken out of my paychecks is lost for good. I'll never see a penny of it back again.

The country is utterly broke and sliding off a cliff, and goons like King, instead of thinking of ways to stop spending, are thinking of more creative ways to confiscate money from the people. If the government were a person, it would be sent to rehab.

What's stopping him? Oh wait, you asserted that's "silly." Therefore it must be. It couldn't be that you missed the point.

Nope, it couldn't be. Taxes are a public policy issue, which is what anyone not seeking to make a cheap point would interpet King to be discussing.

Our government is supposed to be "by the people for the people". Liberals think the people are to be in servitude to the government. You cannot change the minds of the Patrick’s of the world. For him and those like him the answer is always to demonize success and tax the demon robber barons.

The top 5% earners pay 54% of all federal income tax while the top half of earners pay 96% of all federal income taxes (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmost.htm). How much more should they pay? It is galling that most of the people screaming the rich should pay more, don’t pay any federal income tax at all. I’ll take a wild stab at it and say Patrick isn’t in the top half of money earners. It never ceases to amaze me how easy it is for liberals to spend someone else’s hard earned money all the while clutching theirs with both hands.

Oh, by the way, if King is only paying 28% he has a very creative accounting firm. If he truly believes he should be paying more, why on earth is he taking advantage of every loophole available to him to reduce his tax burden all the way down to 28%. Seems more than a little disingenuous on his part and reduces his credibility to zero…..

I wonder if struggling writer Stephen King would want to smack established writer Stephen King for his comments.

Given the substantially lower marginal tax rates now versus when King was getting started, I doubt it.

I understand that people are not fond of taxes, but our rates now are very low by historical standards, both in terms of marginal income tax rates and proportion of GDP. Given the massive short- and long-term deficits we face, and the political impossibility of eliminating them on cuts alone (Medicare, Social Security and Defense are the big line items, and they all are very popular with voters), tax increases are a necessary part of addressing the deficit problem. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.

Christopher, assuming I am delusional as you say, I would be incapable of a solution.

Since you are must think you are a non-delusional, rational thinking individual, able to determine who is delusional and who is not, what would you do? What would you cut and when? Who, and how much, would you tax?

We need you, since those in charge of taxing and spending are unable to cut spending and raise taxes. They to, under your definition, must be delusional. Are you our savior, and, if so, are you alone or are there others? If there are also others, who pray tell are they?

Donut Shop

Customer: Where are the donuts?
Clerk: We ran out at about 1 o'clock.

Customer: But, I love your donuts!
Clerk: Sorry, the owner didn't want to be selfish.

Customer: That doesn't make sense.
Clerk: The shop is very successful, and he is feeling guilty about that. So, he is only making as many donuts as he needs to, to get by comfortably. He is allowing other donut shops to have their piece of the pie.

Customer: But, I love your donuts!
Clerk: It is selfish attitudes like yours that keep our society from being good.

You seem to misunderstand the difference between tax rates, and tax revenue.
When tax *rates* increase, tax *revenues* decrease, because the economy suffers, people stop investing and start putting their money away, etc. Businesses are not going to expand, or make new hires, or buy new equipment when tax *rates* increase, therefore less money flows into the gov't coffers.

When tax *rates* are lowered, tax *revenues* increase. I invite you to study the Reagan years.

Spending is still the issue, with Congress critters spending way more than is coming in, and a lot of it is waste. If we don't get a handle on that, we are, in the immortal words of some guy, fooked.

*sigh* Now, tell me who is delusional.

Taxes are a public policy issue, which is what anyone not seeking to make a cheap point would interpet King to be discussing.

Considering he works with words for a living, I choose to listen to the ones he actually uses. But you have my condolences.

so Patrick... I'm confused. Which is better from your POV? An Individual who wishes to give their wealth away? Or a government that confiscates your wealth because you can "afford" it?

King is saying that he thinks rich people like him should pay more, and that the government should force them to. He doesn't wish to do so, unless everyone else shares. He isn't willing to LEAD by example. He wishes govt. to coerce from behind.

the two things are entirely different.

The baseline of what we give to Our Government, which is US, is to have it provide the services which we have agreed upon over the years. It is already a VERY progressive system, as witnessed by the top percentages paying almost all income taxes, while those on the bottom actually receive credits.

At what point in time did the transfer of wealth become most important?

THAT is what King is really talking about, in that the govt. and not him should be doing it. It's not charity, it is institutionalized transfer.

I am considered "wealthy" or at least "rich". I own land, a few businesses, and employ a handful of people. All I know is that when tax time comes around, I rarely have the money. There are so many expenses and places where the money goes - often to government entities, just in different forms - that I have to scrape the bottom of my bank account just to pay them every year.

My property taxes alone are $30,000. But I guess I'm lucky because my ex pays that for just ONE house he owns in Brooklyn Heights, NY.

I dropped off my taxes at the accountant today, and my stomach is in knots worrying about how I will pay them. They'll probably be around $15,000 - 20,000. I don't have that in my bank account.

If I had hundreds of thousands sitting around, it would be nothing. But a substantial portion of profits go back into the business - improving and updating things. When you're so rich like Stephen King, you don't even feel the loss of 28%. But, for most of us, who are only moderately rich - meaning those of us still WORKING and holding small businesses together - the taxes kill us, as well as keeping us from hiring more employees. That is what has happened in this country.

Nobody should have to pay a third or half of their income to government. When you add in property taxes, in practical terms, I own nothing - I basically rent my land from the government, so they can then also take a big chunk of my profits.

This stifles economic growth! This is why our unemployment rate is so high. Stephen King is not representative of the majority of people in the higher tax brackets.

When tax *rates* are lowered, tax *revenues* increase. I invite you to study the Reagan years.

You're not entirely wrong, but I think you oversimplify. There is a point where tax rates are sufficiently punitive to discourage business activity, but the actual rate at which that happens is uncertain (I've read it to be as low as 50% and as high as 70%). But the whole point of the Laffer curve is that it is a curve - an inverted U. When rates get too high, you're on the right side of the curve, and economic activity is depressed; at that point lowering taxes will increase revenue. However, when the system is on the left side of the curve, raising taxes will increase revenue.

In the case of the Reagan era tax cuts and their effects on the economy, there were many factors at play. Marginal tax rates were high, and were lowered early in his presidency. Revenues rose as well following these cuts. Therefore, one might assume that revenues were caused by the tax cuts.

However, there was also a signficant effect of the business cycle. Our economy was in a shambles in the late 1970s and early 80s, and faced with the problem of both stagnant growth and very high inflation. To combat the inflationary part of the cycle, Volker raised the federal funds rate massively, which broke the inflationary cycle but tanked the economy, leading to unemployment that was substantially higher today. As inflation got under control, the Fed was able to ease up on its contractionary policies, which helped move the country out of recession; the Reagan tax cuts also helped. Revenues increased, but the tax cuts were only part of the picture.

There were also times when Reagan raised payroll taxes, business taxes and energy taxes when the budgetary picture required it. The Clinton era tax increases did not depress economic activity. I could go into more detail, but this post is plenty long. Suffice it to say that the picture is much more complicated than the simple "tax rates go down and revenues increase" that you suggest.

“tax increases are a necessary part of addressing the deficit problem. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.”

It’s only delusional if we keep the status quo. And this way of thinking is what has led us to this point. A government that spends this out of control, raises the dept ceiling as they wish and prints money like it will never be made again continues on this path then the only solution is the continuation of tax increases until there is nothing left to tax. This is not a good solution. The better solution is for the government to be fiscally responsible.

Shut down most (over 10,000) government agencies, of which we need less than 10% of, eliminate subsidies, reduce government staffing, stop pork barreling, eliminate pensions for all elected officials, cabinet members and bureaucrats, require government unions to pay into their healthcare, privatizing public union pensions and not guaranteeing them through tax payer monies, selling off all non-essential government properties, repeal Obama care, limit welfare to 5 years, allow private business and banks to fail, removal of all un-necessary business crushing regulations and the multitude of cross over agencies that over see them. I could continue but you get the point. Cutting enough waste is easily doable.

We also need a constitutional amendment that enforces the government cannot spend more than it receives in taxation…..

But ... the roads! The ROADS! Don't you libertarians care about the roads???

Now I get it. I just recalled a post by Dr. Helen made last week called "Every response that led to paying work was from a man." King whines and complains and Treach gives him a solution. Liberals, Christopher, Patrick et al, don't want solutions. Could it be that Liberals just have a strong feminine side. No offense meant to women.

We Libertarians not only don't care about the roads, we don't care about the poor either. After all, the poor were just left to die in the streets until the 1960's and President Johnson started taking care of them, with taxpayers money of course.

The better solution is for the government to be fiscally responsible...I could continue but you get the point. Cutting enough waste is easily doable.

It's easily doable in a theoretical sense. It's not easily doable from a practical sense, because people scream bloody murder when politicians propose cuts in government services they value. Unfortunately for our fiscal situation, the government services most valued by huge groups of motivated voters are those that are most costly. That's what makes deficit reduction a very difficult political problem. If it were simple, it would have been done by now.

Older people, who are a large and growing part of our population, vote in higher numbers than any other group, and they punish politicians whom they think threaten their entitlements; a lot of the reason they voted for Republicans in huge numbers in November was because they were worried that Obamacare threatens Medicare.

It's easy for you to write your ideas for all of these massive cuts, but the problem is that there is a constituency for every expensive program who likes that program. This puts enormous pressure on politicians not to cut that program.

Considering he works with words for a living, I choose to listen to the ones he actually uses. But you have my condolences.

And you mine, if your post is what you think passes for clever commentary.

We Libertarians not only don't care about the roads, we don't care about the poor either.

Not only do we not care about the poor, we poke them with pointy sticks, to punish them for their bad behavior and lack of character!

"It's easy for you to write your ideas for all of these massive cuts, but the problem is that there is a constituency for every expensive program who likes that program. This puts enormous pressure on politicians not to cut that program."

Yes, and this wouldn't be a problem if we had term limits. When politicians vote for their job over what is best for the country, they're selling us all out. Tough decisions are going to have to be made. I think serving as a representative should almost be like the Peace Corps - not a get rich/power scheme, as it is for most politicians these days - but a public service.

You see some of the governors, like NJ's, for instance, now stepping up and doing the right thing. He knows he probably won't get re-elected - he's going to piss off a lot of people making the gov cuts he has to make.

That is part of the problem because the percentage of people employed by the government, either directly or indirectly, is a huge voting block in and of itself. Bureacracy perpetuates itself. And every part believes they're essential, but most of these government agencies didn't exist 50 yrs ago...yet, we still had maintained roads, police protection, and a strong military...and families could still afford to have only one parent working...and also own their own home...because they weren't overburdened with taxes.

You can't just look at the federal taxes. You have to look a family's entire tax burden - local, state, and federal. That has gone up staggeringly. It was around 10% for all those combined in the 1950s. I don't know exactly what it is now, but I'll bet that, all combined, the average middle class or upper middle class family - the ones paying taxes - are paying more like 20 - 25% if they own a home most places.

“It's easy for you to write your ideas for all of these massive cuts, but the problem is that there is a constituency for every expensive program who likes that program. This puts enormous pressure on politicians not to cut that program.”

And there in lies the problem. If politicians did the correct thing as opposed to doing the politically expedient thing we could fix this. It is also (should be) incumbent on the people to stop thinking that they are entitled to anything from the government other then what the constitution allows.

Career politicians cater to any group that helps with re-election. Put term limits on senators and congressman, remove their pensions and lifetime healthcare benefits and turn government back into public service as opposed to a career and they won’t be so easily corrupted.

I’m not claming it will not be hard on a lot of people but to continue down our present path is not only illogical, it’s unsustainable. The continuation of an over burdensome, obfuscating and un-fair tax system is hardly the answer. I have offered ways that our government could do something relevant. Will they, unfortunately it would seem the answer is no. However your idea to just tax the rich is not a solution, it’s part of the problem. What do you suggest, that we should just stand pat and do nothing? Tax the rich until it is no longer prosperous to be, prosperous.

Instead of telling me how easy it is for me to list my ideas that you deem undoable; why don’t you step up to the plate and enlighten us on some of your solutions. There is little, if any, intellectual value in pointing out what you think will not work, if you’re not going to offer your own solution to the problem…..

And you mine, if your post is what you think passes for clever commentary.

Merely having a chat. Turn that frown upside-down.

Can't remember if this got posted here:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2056610-1,00.html

I didn't agree with everything he said, but these two comments really stood out:

"It's not that our democracy doesn't work; it's that it works only too well. American politics is now hyperresponsive to constituents' interests. And all those interests are dedicated to preserving the past rather than investing for the future. There are no lobbying groups for the next generation of industries, only for those companies that are here now with cash to spend."

And

"That is why the federal government spends $4 on elderly people for every $1 it spends on those under 18. And when the time comes to make cuts, guess whose programs are first on the chopping board. That is a terrible sign of a society's priorities and outlook."

There is little, if any, intellectual value in pointing out what you think will not work, if you’re not going to offer your own solution to the problem…

I don't have a solution because I think that the political inertia is too much right now for either Republican to compromise on taxes or Democrats on entitlements. What I have is a prediction for how things will happen – the way they usually do with our government, via a messy compromise that will leave no one especially happy, but will get done what needs to get done.

At some point in the not too distant future, bond yields for U.S. treasuries are likely to start rising due to investor concerns over our deficits. Because borrowing will start to look expensive enough to really bankrupt us, the concern over that will be sufficient to provide political cover for politicians of both parties to agree to budget concessions neither is willing to make right now.

I assume that this compromise will probably tweak Social Security in a way that will help it to remain solvent, perhaps raising the retirement age and/or or means-test it; similar changes will happen to Medicare. The military will be made more lean, hopefully at the expense of some of our expensive and unnecessary overseas involvements in places such as Europe, where the countries we protect are both stable and able to do more to protect themselves. The compromise will also entail a return to something like Clinton-era tax rates, but perhaps with greater simplification of the tax code.

This compromise – or some parts of it – may come as soon as the next few weeks when we have a government shutdown which might be scary enough to provide the needed political cover for Obama to negotiate changes to entitlements or Republicans to defy Grover Norquist. Or it might happen in 2012. But I think that this is what is likely to happen. Radical changes in our tax code or entitlements or military spending are really unlikely to happen. Our political system is designed to discourage sweeping changes, so it seems more likely that reforms are more likely to incremental.

"For every dollar you pay in taxes, 54 cents is spent on defense."

Patrick, you are a motherfucking lying little leftist asshole. You have no excuse for repeating that Big Lie, as many times as it's been discussed here.

“I don't have a solution because I think that the political inertia is too much right now for either Republican to compromise on taxes or Democrats on entitlements. What I have is a prediction for how things will happen – the way they usually do with our government, via a messy compromise that will leave no one especially happy, but will get done what needs to get done.”

Fair enough Christopher, you are unfortunately correct in your analysis. I don’t agree they will get done what needs done. Neither side is going to make the hard decisions that need to be made to move us towards solvency. Punting the ball down the field does nothing to help move us forward. Our government is so bloated and out of control that we need radical fiscal change, of which neither side seems likely to try and conquer. We are in desperate need of a massive overhaul, but I won’t be holding my breath…..

Well (said with my best Reagan impression), we see Christopher. I sure wouldn't want you on my team, platoon or political party. You put all your energy into sniping and carping. I have been in this battle since shortly after a living room conservation in Colorado that started the Libertarian Party in the early 70's. At first it was for me, but now it is for the kids (god I hate saying that).

The Tea Party may be the change we have been waiting for, we will see. I will put my effort into it. Christopher won't.

Red Rider would call you a pussy.

The people in Fargo would ask you for help filling sandbags but you wouldn't help. The flood is coming anyway, right. Last year, this year and probably next year.

Hmm, Christopher - are the things you say likely to a) Meaningfully reduce our national spending shortfall (deficit) or b) Do anything to reduce our cumulative shortfalls (national debt)?

I fear things will get far more uncomfortable than you imagine. I hope you are wrong, although at the same time I agree with Ed that if this analysis is correct it is unfortunate. I'm tired of kicking the can down the road.

"Every response that led to paying work was from a man."

Amy - you are one of the few, the proud, the Ma... uh, a real woman. Not a feminine wussy.

@Dave B:

I have been in this battle since shortly after a living room conservation in Colorado that started the Libertarian Party in the early 70's.

Though I share some affinity with Libertarian principles, particularly when it comes to privacy and civil liberties, I'm not a libertarian. I think that libertarianism is built upon incorrect assumptions about the way that people's decisions affect each other. Libertarians make some important points, but I don't buy their doctrine wholesale.

The Tea Party may be the change we have been waiting for, we will see. I will put my effort into it. Christopher won't.

No, because I don't agree with the Tea Party about how to solve our country's problems.

Red Rider would call you a pussy.

When you write that Red Rider would call me a pussy are you referring to the Canadian band, the BB Gun, or the cartoon character? Despite a high school coach's appreciation for the band, I can't imagine why one of their judgments' should be dispositive in anything real.

The people in Fargo would ask you for help filling sandbags but you wouldn't help.

I'm more than happy to pitch in to help things where I can. Right now, I'm busy being a good husband and building a successful business. Doing a lot of politicking will have to wait; a man can only do so many things well at once.

@Pirate Jo:
Hmm, Christopher - are the things you say likely to a) Meaningfully reduce our national spending shortfall (deficit) or b) Do anything to reduce our cumulative shortfalls (national debt)?

Yes. Otherwise, they wouldn't solve the issue that I expect to bring things to the point where our political actors do something substantive.

All I know for sure is that this country is in a very precarious position and the time for action is right here, right now. The status quo will no longer do and we simply cannot pass along the issues of today down to the next generation as we have been doing for far to long. It’s time to ask one simple question of yourself:

Do you want to be part of the problem, or would you rather be part of the solution?

If you choose to be part of the problem, put on a helmet because it’s going to be a rough ride and you will assuredly, in the end, be on the wrong side of history…..

Here is the Constitution of These United States.

Here is a partial list of government agencies:

• Department of Energy


• Department of Education


• Department of the Interior


• Department of Agriculture


• Department of Transportation


• Department of Homeland Security


• AMTRAK (National Railroad Passenger Corporation)


• African Development Foundation


• Federal Communications Commission (FCC)


• Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)


• Federal Housing Finance Board


• Federal Labor Relations Authority


• National Endowment for the Arts


• National Endowment for the Humanities


• National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)


• Panama Canal Commission


• Peace Corps


• Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation


• Small Business Administration (SBA)


• Social Security Administration (SSA)


• Tennessee Valley Authority


• U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (Medicare)


• United States Agency for International Development


• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)


• Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)


• The interstate highway system (Not a real department but splitting from the DOT because I use it, but it is still a pet peeve.)


• Merit Systems Protection Board

Here is the exercise:
Without using the commerce clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) -- because that has been abused to death -- please correlate every department listed above to where it is a federal responsibility in the aforementioned U.S. Constitution.

I will give the person that can do it a direct $25 cash award via Paypal. (Amy will have to pass me the address, but I'm sure she's willing to do it.)

"Do you not want the blanket of protection that government provides? "

Does she get a better level of protection for paying more taxes?

Without using the commerce clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) -- because that has been abused to death -- please correlate every department listed above to where it is a federal responsibility in the aforementioned U.S. Constitution

Why should anyone engage in your little exercise when it explicitly rejects the source of most Federal regulatory authority?

On the "cutting waste" solution to deficits...

It's gone way too far for that. The "streamlining processes, cutting costs, and getting rid of the rorts" argument is the signature of a lazy politician who doesn't want to make hard choices. It's basically a promise to keep things just as they are and wave a magic wand over the rest.

Look at businesses that hire consultants to do time and motion analyses and so on that *might* save 1% on costs at best. In fact they would regard that as a stupendous result. There will always be friction and waste in any large organisation. Even in relatively small groups (say 200 or so people) things get screwed up. I've worked on projects like that where the amount of mis-communication, duplication of effort, and straight out bad decisions makes you wonder how the job ever got done. But that's with 20/20 hindsight. And the job did get done. It happens, you should always try to minimise it but it's not a magic bullet.

Anyone serious needs to be talking about cutting or restructuring the existing programs. Which as Christopher points out is much harder to sell.

Elle, I think your attitude to SS is sensible - plan your retirement as if it won't be there. It can't possibly last 35 years in its current form anyway.

Jim P:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Yes, it's vague and broad, but seems to give Congress the authority to do things that provide for the General Welfare of the people.

You can make many valid arguments that Congress is spending too much on too many things, but let's please stop the false Tea Party argument that the Constitution doesn't provide for them to do so.

"Do you not want the blanket of protection that government provides? "

Patrick, would that be the blanket keeping me warm at night or the one trying to strangle me (with regulations)?

Clinky, what does general welfare mean? Anything and everything? Does that general welfare not get spelled out in the tenth ammendment?

By your view, its supposed vagueness destroys any notion of states. Why have state laws, federal law reigns supreme on everything, right?

Why should anyone engage in your little exercise when it explicitly rejects the source of most Federal regulatory authority? -- Posted by: Christopher at March 12, 2011 2:27 AM

Thank you Christopher for your liberal response.

The federal government was not supposed be involved in commerce beyond the point of regulating what would happen when I produced steel in Bethlehem, PA and then floated it down the Delaware river for delivery to North Carolina that Delaware couldn't tax or tariff it. Same as producing cotton in Georgia and shipping it to New York's textile mills. The intervening states were allowed to tax me for road use, but not the load I was shipping.

This was perverted by the Wickard v. Filburn decision. Now to bring this to the modern day:

“As previous Commerce Clause cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter falls within Congress’s power. See Thomas More Law Ctr., 720 F.Supp.2d at 893 (describing the “activity/inactivity distinction” as an issue of first impression). However, this Court finds the distinction, which Plaintiffs rely on heavily, to be of little significance...It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not 'acting,' especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.” -- U.S. district court judge Gladys Kessler of Washington, D.C.

Under this thought process they could regulate that you have to have a 50" television, made in America, regardless of the fact that you live in a 300 sq foot studio apartment. That is economic activity under this premise.

With your view -- the government (especially the fed) should be involved in every aspect of our life. This was not the intention when the government was founded. The intent was that when the government intruded in your life it was at the closest to you level. For all intents the township or city should be doing the regulating.

There are some things that you need a supremacy ruling. But that is in the sense that if I have a right to buy, carry and consume alcoholic beverages in City A and am traveling to City C where it is legal to possess and consume as well -- they can't arrest me in City B en-route as long as I'm not consuming it there.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; -- Posted by: clinky at March 12, 2011 9:04 AM

You are rephrasing the context that way. Just different bolding shows that.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

There are two interpretations of the general welfare clause. But even then -- that was effectively overridden by the Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The fed doesn't have the right to regulate locally. If it did then tell me why a federal law wasn't written for

• The 55 speed limit


• Drinking age 21


• Seatbelt use


• mandatory sentencing guidelines for all states


• marijuana laws


• the amount of fines

They have blackmailed the states into compliance, but they couldn't write it as a law.

The fed is supposed to be equal among the states.

"The bulk of taxes is spent on defense."

What Cousin Dave said. This statement doesn't even pass a smell test. Count the trillions being bandied about - I must have missed the military units being bailed out. I must have missed the President sticking up for collective bargaining rights for military pensioners. Count the real cuts made by two administrations: dozens of subs, hundreds of aircraft, two-hundred-plus thousand military personnel, taken as credit by a certain scumbag as reducing Federal employment!

Got a neighbor doing extended duty in the Middle East? Congratulations. You've just given him up.

Drive around and start counting public housing projects. Read the damned US Government Manual and discover how many Federal employees there are!