Originally posted by whodeyI can't find anything from Ben Franklin about taxes over 1/10 being oppressive. However, I did find two BF quotes that are applicable to your postings in Debates:
I am only stating how some of the Founding Fathers felt. For example, Ben Franklin once said taxes that exceed 1/10th of your income should be considered oppressive. The Boston Tea party was hatched due to taxation wihout representation etc.
I don't know anyone who does not like taxes, do you? In fact, the people who vote for them often don't even pay them as the Obama administration soon found out earlier this year. LOL.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
Originally posted by FMFTo quote Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr when asked by a secretary:
So pure freedom would be taxless - 'freedom from infrastructure', 'freedom from being defended', 'freedom from a legal system'?
“Don’t you hate to pay taxes?”
His reply:
“No, young fellow, I like paying taxes, with them I buy civilization.”
Originally posted by FMFLiberty and taxation are related. It doesn't follow that any taxation means no liberty. The founders recognized that as taxation increased, liberty decreased, and that certain types of taxation tended to be more destructive of liberty than others.
So pure freedom would be taxless - 'freedom from infrastructure', 'freedom from being defended', 'freedom from a legal system'?
The tax code of the USA is on the order of 30,000 pages long. This is not about simply raising revenue to operate the government, but more about manipulating behaviors, social engineering. The social engineering aspect of taxation is particularly destructive of liberty.
Originally posted by FMFPermit me to cite a couple of simple recent examples in the USA.
I have wasted scarcely a single minute of my life bellyaching about taxes. I find obsession with tax - even reaching the baffling extreme of equating an utterly mundane thing like 'a high level of tax' with "freedom"! - almost incomprehensible.
April 1. 2009 new Federal taxes on tobacco were imposed. The money was to fund CHIPS, a precursor to total socialized medicine.
Tobacco products are probably the most taxed items already in the US, but it's "low hanging fruit". Who can object to taxing a vise, to give kids health care? The difficulty is that the vise is legal, and a personal choice, a matter of liberty.
I was a cigar smoker, but the new tax increased the cost of my vice by 25%, and to boot I didn't like where the money was going so I stopped smoking cigars. My sister, far more a tobacco addict than I, rolls her own cigarettes. The increase in cost for her was 300%, and she continues to smoke.
Locally my State is considering a ban on smoking in bars, and restaurants, but excludes casinos. Why? Because casinos are too great a source of revenue.
In any case, the taxation is more about manipulating behavior, limiting choice and liberty, than it is about revenue.
If taxation were equal and fair and to fund the required business of governent, I'd not give it a second thought. However, when it is clearly manipulative of behaviors, limiting liberty and choice, and is a direct transfer of money from one who earned it to another who didn't, why then I get upset, angry and rebellious.
Originally posted by normbenignSo when pushed to talk about your definition of freedom by someone who thinks your definition of freedom may perhaps be shallow and a wee bit daft, you start talking about cigarettes and cigars?
Permit me to cite a couple of simple recent examples in the USA.
April 1. 2009 new Federal taxes on tobacco were imposed. The money was to fund CHIPS, a precursor to total socialized medicine.
Tobacco products are probably the most taxed items already in the US, but it's "low hanging fruit". Who can object to taxing a vise, to give kids health c ...[text shortened]... from one who earned it to another who didn't, why then I get upset, angry and rebellious.
Originally posted by FMFFreedom is always a matter of doing what someone else views as "daft". It is then pretty common to either ban the activity, or tax it to oblivion. In either case, liberty suffers.
So when pushed to talk about your definition of freedom by someone who thinks your definition of freedom may perhaps be shallow and a wee bit daft, you start talking about cigarettes and cigars?
When everyone agrees on an activity, like breathing, liberty is hardly an issue. When there is disagreement, such as political speech, religion, or daft habits, liberty becomes and issue.
Originally posted by FMFLet's choose something a bit less frivolous, like the matter of education. Plain logic would presume that parents are responsible for providing for children.
Can you explain with a few examples?
Are you saying, for instance, that your own behaviour is manipulated and that you yourself are socially engineered because you pay more tax than you'd like?
Yet childless, unmarried people are taxed to support public education. Also, parents are given tax deductions (breeding incentives).
And again, the matter of tobacco taxes funding children's health care? It is simply not my responsibility to pay for other people's breeding. If they can't afford medical care, then don't have children.
Socialism is fine until you run out of other people's money to spend. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, simply because Peter can afford it, doesn't make robbery moral, just or even desirable. Eventually, Peter either runs out of money, or tires of funding other people's excesses and leaves. Atlas shrugs!
Originally posted by normbenignThose children are going to run the country some day. So you bet your behind that you should pay taxes for them. In a civilized society we pay for things we may not use and likewise for others who may have to pay for you. It is called the real world.
Let's choose something a bit less frivolous, like the matter of education. Plain logic would presume that parents are responsible for providing for children.
Yet childless, unmarried people are taxed to support public education. Also, parents are given tax deductions (breeding incentives).
And again, the matter of tobacco taxes funding children's ...[text shortened]... uns out of money, or tires of funding other people's excesses and leaves. Atlas shrugs!
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
Originally posted by normbenignI think you've chosen a bad example to bolster your argument. One of the things that I think is important for any nation to try to accomplish is a basic level of education for all its young citizens. If it were simply left up to the parents ability to pay then there is no doubt that many of the poor would not have access to quality education and that would take away the potential for upward mobility thereby restricting liberty and freedom for a sizeable chunk of our population.
Let's choose something a bit less frivolous, like the matter of education. Plain logic would presume that parents are responsible for providing for children.
An educated population is in the best interest of all of us and when you have a population as large and diverse as the US then taxation is the only way to acheive this. I wish all parents were responsible enough or well to do enough to manage their child's education. Sadly this is not the case so the task becomes the responsibility of society as it should be.
Originally posted by Palynkaquit while your behind.
I thought you liked Founding Fathers' quotes.
Oh, right, only when they're in youtube "documentaries".
Honk, honk!
I was interested in knowing why the founding fathers were against a central bank BACK THEN.
Jebus, I think i've given you too much credit. Has your younger stupider brother been loggin in and posing as you these last few weeks?