February 3rd 1913, A Day That Will Live In Infamy
Toni of Bear Creek Ledger is reminding us that on this day in 1913, the greatest threat to individual liberty this nation has ever experienced, was ratified as an amendment to the US Constitution.
Toni of Bear Creek Ledger is reminding us that on this day in 1913, the greatest threat to individual liberty this nation has ever experienced, was ratified as an amendment to the US Constitution.
Welcome.
Tennesseefree.com is a website created by a middle Tennessee political junkie for the purpose of encouraging and promoting the free exchange of ideas among Tennesseans. Tennesseefree.com is specifically a political blog. Any resident of this state, or border state who would like to contribute to this website can do so by emailing Glen Dean. If you are a Tennessee blogger and your name is not on the blogroll, contact me and you will be added right away.
more about »
WP powered Site | Theme: Freedom Blue by Frank Helmschrott at Design Parts. Kudos to Michael for the inspiration and the colors, Fredrik for the original Design.
In a time when the right to habeas corpus has been suspended indefinitely, and when the government has the right to spy on US citizens with no warrant and no judicial oversight, you’re seriously arguing that the income tax is the greatest threat to individual liberty that this nation has ever experienced?!
Dude, step away from the Libertarian Kool-Aid!
Tgirsh, do you really think a government as small and less intrusive as government was in 1913, would have the power to take away civil liberties? It’s like you guys created a monster and then act surprised when the thing turns on you.
By the way, my libertarian Kool-Aid is spelled with a small L.
Well, that “small” and “less intrusive” government of 1913 certainly had no problem denying the right to vote to half of its adult population. And it also had no problem discriminating against minorities at will (although much of that oppression was done by state governments rather than the federal government — yay federalism!). So why wouldn’t they have had the power to do something like deny habeas corpus?
Contrary to whatever propaganda you’ve been reading, government infringement upon individual liberties didn’t begin with the New Deal…
So we have more freedom and more liberty today as a result of increasing the size of government? Yeah okay.
Depends who “we” is. If you’re a white male, I suppose you might not have more.
But really, what essential liberties did we have in 1913 that we don’t have today? I mean, I guess I no longer have the “right” to make an 8-year-old work a 12-hour shift, nor do I have the “right” to pour motor oil down the sewer…
If you pour motor oil down the sewer, I’m telling on you.
I’d never do any such thing.
But you still haven’t answered the question.
But you still haven’t answered the question.
That’s what makes Glen a principled conservadroid — he’s actually averse to lying, so if you corner him, he just shuts up. Or down. Or whatever.
.
As someone who is fortunate enough to earn enough money that I end up working 1/3 of every year just to pay my income tax bill, I would argue that my liberty is definitely threatened. I’d go so far as to say it is outright taken from me.
Liberty to spend those four months with my family instead of working–GONE.
Liberty to choose to give four months of pay to worth charities instead of being forced to give it to corrupt charities (i.e. gov’ment programs)–GONE.
Liberty to choose to invest four months of pay as I see fit for the good of my personal posterity–GONE.
Liberty to spend it all on beer, cheetos, and beef jerkey if that’s what I want to do–GONE.
From dictionary.com:
There’s that word again. “Choice” sucks, huh? I sure am glad I’ve been relieved of that right, err, responsibility..
sadcox — Why not move to a country where you wouldn’t be taxed so “unfairly”?
.
I’d rather stay in the one that I love and try to make things right. A lot of people died for us to have liberty and provide us with a system we are able to change without resorting to violence.
It would be a disrespectful shame to waste their sacrifice by tucking tail.
BTW JP, you don’t have argument with the definition of the word “liberty”? Doesn’t any policy or action that prohibits you from doing something by choice threaten your liberty by definition?
sadcox:
Either you’re incredibly wealthy, or you’re really bad at math. According to the 2007 income tax schedule, you would have to have a taxable income of $1,046,287.50 before your effective income tax rate was 33% (1/3). And that still ignores untaxed income and deductions. So your yearly income would have to be quite a bit higher than that before your effective income tax rate would be 1/3 of your total income, requiring you to work “1/3 of the year just to pay your income tax bill.”
Let’s suppose you have a more modest, but still top 5%, income: $200,000 per year. Let’s further suppose that you have no pre-tax deductions like health insurance, flexible spending, etc. Let’s further suppose that you’re single, and that you don’t itemize your deductions, choosing only to take the standard deduction.
Income: $200,000
Less standard deduction ($5,350) = $194,650
Less deduction for exemptions ($2,675) = $191,975 (taxable income)
According to the 2007 tax laws, the tax for that level of income is “$39,148.75 plus 33% of the amount over 160,850″
So, $191,975 - $160,850 = $31,125
$31,125 * 0.33 = $10,271.25
$10,271.25 + $39,148.75 = $49,240 <– Actual income tax owed
So even at $200K per year of income, with NO tax credits and NO deductions other than the standard deduction, your actual income tax rate would be 24.71%, and you’d have to work until April 1 (less than 1/4 of a year) to pay off your income tax bill.
Note, too, that the above assumes none of your income is from capital gains. On long-term capital gains, the tax rate is just 15%, well below even the income tax rate for most brackets.
It would be a disrespectful shame to waste their sacrifice by tucking tail.
I agree, but freedom, as you know, is not free. Even after taxes, you have many more times my after-tax earnings, and I live comfortably. It’s tough to feel sympathy for anyone in the 33% tax bracket, because those people have enough money to work to change the tax code, or they can move elsewhere, where taxes are lower.
Liberty: In a constitutional representative republic, we often “vote” to adjust liberties against the common good… some I agree with, some I definitely do not. However, taxes are the price we pay to live in this, the greatest of all nations. I pay mine as gladly as I can.
.
Guys, believe it or not, I don’t sit in front of the computer all day. I have a three year old, a wife, a business.
Tgirsch, the federal government is involved in nearly every part of our lives today. They pass anti-smoking laws, laws having to do with education rather than leaving that solely to the states, they pass federal anti-drug laws, they take from the federal treasury and hand the money out to certain companies they feel the need to subsidize (corn ethanol), they use highway money to hand out pork, they force the citizenry, without choice in my case, to put their money into a government run ponzi scheme. We have lost the freedom to do what we want to with our money. Rather than give to the charities that we want to, our money is confiscated and given to charities that help politicians get reelected. And what about the recipients of the handouts, do you think they are free? Is dependence freedom? Currently the federal government runs everything. In the seventies, if a state wanted to set their speed limit at 65, they missed out on highway money. Whenever you are given something, and you become dependent on that handout, you just lost your freedom. I could go on and on, but the point is, the federal government today is larger than it has ever been. And more government always means less freedom. I am sorry, but governments do not make people free. People are born free. It is government that takes freedom. The federal income tax is the means by which this massive power grab of government has grown. We even have government getting involved in freaking baseball.
Now I realize that we need a source of revenue, but if all government did was the things it did prior to 1913, government would need a lot less. I support doing away with the current system and instituting a flat tax. Of course, it wouldn’t really be a true flat tax, but a graduated flat tax. I understand politics and a truly across the board, same rate flat tax, would never get passed.
But it is time for people to realize that a government that gives you something is a government that can control you. National healthcare will be a victory for government and a loss for the individual. Sadly, many people are willing to give up that freedom for some medical security. Just wait though, when Big brother makes you lose weight and starts taxing that piece of cake, then maybe folks will get it. By then it will be too late.
Now I realize that we need a source of revenue, but if all government did was the things it did prior to 1913, government would need a lot less.
As a percentage of GDP, how would you feel about cutting the defense budget to 1913 levels, Glen?
.
TG,
Thanks for correcting me. No, I don’t make that much, so I don’t pay 33%. Let’s say it’s 25%. No wait, let’s say it’s 10%. Ah hell, let’s say it’s .01%.
That’s .01% too much.
I’m sorry you spent so much time refuting the semantics of the point while choosing to ignore the principle.
JP,
Look, I completely agree with and support your right to pay as much in income tax as you want. I would never deny you the privilege of throwing your money down whichever black hole you’d like. Furthermore, I think you should be given the choice (there’s that word again) to deny your children the fruits of your labor to any degree you choose.
All I’m saying is that we should all be afforded the right to make those same choices for ourselves.
JP, I think there needs to be a lot more public scrutiny as far as the the military budget is concerned. In many ways, it is nothing but a bunch of pork and waste also. I don’t know how much it can be cut, but there is certainly a lot of waste in it. Military though, is one of those things that federal government was supposed to do in the first place, not most of the other things it is doing now.
All I’m saying is that we should all be afforded the right to make those same choices for ourselves.
And, as I was saying… if you are wealthy enough to be in the 33% federal income tax bracket, you have choices — choices than 19 out of 20 people do not have, ever.
You can put your money in Delay’s PAC. Or Steve Forbes’. Or, you can pick up the whole fam damily, and move to the U.A.E.
.
Funny… if I had only stayed with the Fortune 100 that asked me to steal (and ignore stealing by others), I would probably today be making double what I was when I resigned, there. That’s roughly 3x what I make, today.
I’m still okay with how it turned out.
.
Military though, is one of those things that federal government was supposed to do in the first place, not most of the other things it is doing now.
But we weren’t supposed to have a standing army, either.
Now I see the need for a standing army, even if the Founding Dads didn’t think that was a great ideer. It’s one of those things that fall under “provide for the general welfare.” It would suck if China invaded. Don’t think it’s likely, but if you guys keep sheltering and cheating on the taxpaying, they will be more motivated to come here to protect their assets… they own a lot of us, right now.
There’s nothing wrong with taxes. People, through their representatives, establish priorities… and there are many. There are many priorities that don’t deserve a hearing to suck the public teat, I agree. But if you can mobilize people, you can make a difference in D.C. Them’s what’s got the money can buy up some airwaves, and have a huge impact.
I like the way it’s set up, but it still isn’t where we need to be.
What we need to do is either pare down the standing forces, and just put the world on notice: We’re sick of fighting pointless wars. The next time we’re attacked, we’ll use our nukes. We’ll use them wherever it will hurt the attackers the worst. Don’t fuck with us. End of story!
.
The great thing about talking stuff like this out, you can always find some common ground.
JP, I don’t doubt for a second that your heart is in the right place, and I think that’s true of 99.9% of the people in this country. It sucks to see people suffer, especially when they are put in bad situations through no fault of their own. I think the large majority of us really do want to help people in need.
The disagreement always seems to lie in deciding on the best possible way to make a positive difference. I think you and I (and millions more of us) could, and would, do twice as much with half the money. I want that choice, and I want that ability.
Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of people pay their taxes and feel that in doing so they’ve abdicated their social responsibility to someone else…”let the government take care of it.”
The worst part of the situation actually isn’t monetary. The worst part is that it seems like people are feeling less and less responsible for each other as we turn over more power to big entities, be them governments, corporations, or Delay and Forbes.
Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of people pay their taxes and feel that in doing so they’ve abdicated their social responsibility to someone else…”let the government take care of it.”
But they needn’t. If you gave away 33% of your income last year, you’d still be able to spend time with your kids… you just might spend a few hours volunteering to build a house, together, with others, or making sure some poor kids get some vegetables. All this without impacting your lifestyle, materially.
The worst part of the situation actually isn’t monetary.
I hope you’ll forgive me when I say, “That’s fuckin’ easy for someone making $1M+ to say!”
.
You didn’t read my response to tgirsch….I don’t make 1/10 that kind of money. I was using the number (pulled from my ass) to make a point. Sorry for the confusion there–should have been more clear.
I was using the number (pulled from my ass) to make a point.
Well, that’s just wrong, since the actual tax rate you pay is relevant to our discussion!
But, like Glen, I see you want to dip, dive, step and steer — rather than have an actual, substantial discussion on the topic.
That’s .01% too much.
This means you could live without the interstate highway system, and our national defense? I’d think about that one. Freedom: It ain’t free. Quit trying to weasel out of paying, you greedy bastards!
.
I mean, if it takes me five weeks to pay my federal income tax, it’s easy to surmise I pay ~10%, right-o?
I wonder why Glen doesn’t wanna say. I figure either it’s as low or lower than my effective FedTax rate, or he’s a freeloading America-hating, Communist tax cheat, one.
.
JP, maybe I don’t want to disclose personal information. I will say though that I take every deduction I can, just like Warren Buffet, only I don’t take every deduction I can and then claim I don’t pay enough.
Btw, if I made as much money as you, I would probably pay more. You evil rich person.
Btw, if I made as much money as you, I would probably pay more. You evil rich person.
You really under 10% EFTR? If so, maaan… I feel bad not tellin’ you that real estate was fixin’ to go in the shitter.
.
JP, maybe I don’t want to disclose personal information.
That’s why I engineered it the way I did: Hours/days/weeks/months. Actually, you asked how many months it took for us to pay our FedTax. I answered: 1.25 months. Five weeks (jes’ a hair below, actually). I can prove it, in person, and will, to you. Bring your own calculator.
Why would I wanna be dishonest about this? No one knows what I make — I measured in terms of hours of work to pay off federal income tax liability. You can guess well about my income, and I don’t mind (I’m betting you, Glen, and I are close in tax rate). I’m presently single, middle-class. Hasn’t always been that way, but I’ll compare my tax rate both now and under Clinton (when I made almost double the salary), and I won’t holler too much about either one. I’ve done well, and I live well.
.
[…] and Tgirsch wants to know how we are less free now than in 1913. If you are a liberal who believes in government helping […]
Glen:
They pass anti-smoking laws
I’m not aware of any federal laws that ban smoking, except for an executive order that bans smoking in federal buildings (which is within their jurisdiction). And, as the old saying goes, your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose. Similarly, your freedom to smoke ends at my lungs. You want to smoke in your house, or even outside, knock yourself (and your lungs) out. Once you’re indoors, in a building that’s open to the public, that’s an entirely different matter.
We have lost the freedom to do what we want to with our money.
That’s a steaming crock of crap. I’m sorry, but it is. Unless you believe that absolutely all taxation should be 100% voluntary (which, by the way, would make you friggin insane), you retain plenty of freedom to spend your money however you see fit.
And if you want to give your money to charities, you’re free to do that, too, and you even get to deduct that from your income when you do your taxes. Further, I’d be surprised if the amount of federal taxes that go to charities is even close to 1% of the federal budget.
Currently the federal government runs everything.
That’s hyperbole, and I think you know it.
Even your speed limit example is fundamentally flawed, because the states had a choice to set the limit higher and forgo the national funding. That they chose not to doesn’t mean they weren’t free to do so. And in any case, I doubt any sane person would describe the “right” to drive 80 on the Interstate as a “fundamental liberty.”
We even have government getting involved in freaking baseball.
A right they have because of baseball. If major league baseball wants Congress out of its business, they can forfeit their anti-trust exemption and play by the same rules as other businesses. Of course, you’re beginning to convince me that you’re crazy enough to do away with anti-trust legislation.
Pretty much everything you describe as a lack of freedom is little more than an inconvenience. When it comes to essential liberties, however, up until 2001 or so people were freer than they’ve ever been. Unless you start counting the freedom to smoke in a restaurant to be an essential liberty on par with the right to face your accusers, to know the charges against you, to see the evidence against you, and to defend yourself against those charges in a court of law.
sadcox:
I was using the number (pulled from my ass) to make a point.
Too bad it was a lousy point.
But the reason I spent so much time debunking it is that people constantly talk that way about how much tax they pay, when in fact the vast majority of us overestimate what we pay in taxes.
Now, you may be against the income tax, or taxation of all kinds for all I know, but this puts you decidedly in the minority. We do live in a Democracy, after all, so it’s not just all about you.
[…] Dean longs for a time when segregation was the norm, women weren’t allowed to vote, and minorities had few rights. […]