llf@houxz.UUCP (11/17/83)
In regards to tax breaks for private schools, or any other public service. I think that some limited tax break could be implemented which would make things relatively fair by accounting for income of family and number of kids in private school. Though, it's true that those who (currently) send their kids to private school can afford it, it is still expensive. I would, I think, support tax breaks for college students also (either their families, or them -selves). However, I cannot support a total refund of those taxes. The reason for this is: People generally desire to live in "good" neigh -borhoods. Part of that definition of good is schools, airports, roads, and other such "general use" things. If you don't pay taxes to support those things, you 1) don't really deserve to live in such a neighborhood, and 2) any such neighborhood that you live in will quickly become "bad". So if you find the idea of paying for "other" peoples whatever unpleasant, first consider your own property values and personal values.
jrl@harpo.UUCP (j .liano) (03/20/84)
One question has always come to mind around this time of
year. That being when you pay taxes on your income (federal),
you cannot deduct your social security taxes. Since this is a
large sum these days, and it is NOT income (you can't spend it)
what would happen if you took the deduction. Chances are that the
IRS would nail you to the wall. Another idea is that in the U.S.
our governments are based on a hierarchy. That being your local
government comes first, your state comes second and the federal
comes last. Based on this logic one should be able to pull off
somethinf like this:
Pay your local taxes based on your full gross income
pay your state taxes on gross income minus local taxes paid
pay your federal taxes on gross income minus local taxes, state
taxes and social security taxes.
Another thing that needs to be done is the adjusting of the tax tables
for inflation. For example say in 1950 you made 20K. Well that 20K
enabled you to buy a home and a car (new !) and still have 2K left
over for the fed. (based on a 10% bracket). Well in 1984 that 20K
puts you in the 23% bracket and there is no way with what is left
that you could buy a car, let alone a house. What has happened is
that people who are < 30 must accept a lower standard of living than
their parents did. Thus our concept of an upward mobile society has
been shot to hell by a group of self serving wise old men. Roosevelt
started it with the Social security program, Johnson added to it with
the Medicare/Medicaid system, and Reagan is adding to it with the defense.
By the time that the baby boom generation retires, the working populus
will be paying around 50% of their income to support us. I don't think
that the people will be so docile that they will stand for this. But we
put up with todays tax rate don't we ? tac@teldata.UUCP (Tom Condon) (03/23/84)
, (sop to blank line eaters--consider it a religious sacrifice)
The question has been raised as to whether the taxpayers out
there will continue to quietly shell out their hard earned phony
dollars when the tax rates reach 50%. I'd like to tell you a
little story about the argument over the graduated income tax
amendment. It seems that when the law was proposed there was
a doomsayer (they are ALWAYS right - eventually) who stood up
and said,"If we pass this crazy law the tax rate could go as
high as..." and he paused in thought and came up with a figure
which he thought was impossible,"...three percent (3%)." Well,
everyone decided that he was just a mental case, "'cause we'd
never let our government do anything that radical, we're a
democracy." Now history has shown us which one was right and
left us a nice lesson too. Don't give a government *ANY* power
which you do not want abused sorely! (Incidentally, modern
research has found that the entire government budget COULD be
funded by a 5% NON-graduated tax if there were no deductions.)
Now while I am at it, the question of the utility of allowing
the U.S. government to handle all of our big brother functions:
A reputable accounting firm did a study of just how much it costs
to get one dollar ($1) into the hands of the poor and needy. If
you walk up and give a poor person the dollar it costs nothing!
If you give the dollar to a church or organized religion for the
purpose of contribution to the needy (not a church contribution)
it costs $.07 to get the dollar to the needy. If you give the
dollar to a charitable organization (e.g. salvation army) it costs
$.15 to get to the needy. If you give that dollar to a private
foundation (i.e. the Rockafeller foundation) it costs $.25 for the
needy to receive it. Now I am going to put the answer (hopefully)
on the next scroll page so you can think about it and guess at
what it cost to get that dollar to the poor and needy if you give
it to the Federal Government. Just imagine all of that bureaucratic
efficiency in action.
OK, got a number in your head? If so go to the next page.
To get one dollar ($1) to the poor and needy through the U.S. government
costs $4. Now this is not all of the tax dollars, just those that go
to the various departments whose function is to give money to the poor
and needy. For every five dollars we put in they get one! Now what
would happen if we all kept that five dollars back from our taxes and
gave three of it to a poor person? The poor would get three times as
much, and we would each have an extra two to spend. Now, doesn't that
make you want to vote Democrat in the next election? (NO! I am not pushing
the Republicans but I try to remember where the Great Society came
from.)
As a final word for today, I would like to discus "Impeachment". The
press, in conjunction with the politicians, has endeavored to make this
into a dirty word. It isn't, any more than right to trial by a jury
of your peers is a bad idea. They are both *OUR* checks on the over-
bearing power of the government. They NEED to be exercised when the
time is right to keep the government within the bounds set out for it
when the Constitution was written. ANY elected or appointed official
can be removed from office by recall or impeachment. That is how WE
get rid of the snakes. If the Supreme Court fails to hear an important
case because of the legal ramifications, we should go about getting
rid of the obstructers of justice. If a president or congressman votes
contrary to the promises which got him elected then he should be removed
(why keep an known liar in office?). *WE* are responsible for insuring
our own freedom from the bureaucracy, that is why our government was
designed around a "Checks and Balances" system, so we could!
I apologize for the length of this, but it comes from the heart.
P.S. Never trust a fanatic (including me).
From the Soapbox of
Tom Condon {...!uw-beaver!teltone!teldata!tac}
A Radical A Day Keeps The Government At Bay.alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) (11/09/84)
Whoops! I made a mistake in the last stmt of my last article. Obviously Reagan does not say The reason for the deficit is that the govn is overfed. rather, he says The reason for our economic problems is not that you are undertaxed but that the govn is overfed. The reason for the deficit is that Congress overspends. Reagan has got it right: We envision an America in which every day is the Fourth of July; They envision an America in which every day is April 15th ! sdcrdcf!alan
colonel@sunybcs.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) (10/10/85)
References: <5847@cbscc.UUCP> <dciem.1673> <2127@burdvax.UUCP> > Oh, c'mon! That's the old, tired, liberal notion that all wealth > belongs to the government and the IRS, in it beneficence, let's us poor > taxpayers keep some of it. That notion is indeed old, tired, and liberal, and it's unattractive besides. If you ever run into Jesus Christ, be sure to disabuse him of that notion. "Render unto Caesar ... "