wahlins said: I think most people would consider the statement, "Taxes are a confiscation of a persons' money done arbitrarily" to be pushing the envelope of what is reasonable. Arbitrary? That is the word you are going to go with? We fight two wars and cut taxes on the rich, then expect the middle class warriors and poor kids to pay/work for it. I think that is a good way to get yourself a nice piece of chocolate pie from "The Help"!
I think most of people who complain about Governmental Management have never studied it or been involved with the budget process for a governmental entity. The diseconomies of scale are legislated by the folks you elect and have nothing to do with the employees who manage to get something done anyway. These drawbacks and slow downs are all associated with attempts to be perfectly clear, fair and honest in the awarding of jobs and contracts.
"The Help" -- I saw that movie. It was pretty good.
But, let's try to get the quotes right. I didn't say this: "Taxes are a confiscation of a persons' money done arbitrarily." That may be your paraphrase of what I said, but its not what I said.
To discuss it, though, you're interjecting emotional judgments into the situation. I'm just calling it for what it is. Taxes certainly are a confiscation of property -- the government declares something of yours should be transferred to them without your consent (you don't get to decide if you want to pay it or not). Sure, much of it goes to useful things, but that's not the point. The point is that it is taken from you under penalty of law without your consent. I'm not saying that this confiscation is good or bad -- it just exists.
The arbitrary part is where the tax rates change. Take a look at the 2011 marginal tax rates from the IRS:
•10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,500, plus
•15% on taxable income over $8,500 to $34,500, plus
•25% on taxable income over $34,500 to $83,600, plus
•28% on taxable income over $83,600 to $174,400, plus
•33% on taxable income over $174,400 to $379,150, plus
•35% on taxable income over $379,150.
Why do the cutoffs exist where they do? Why is 25% assessed on $34.5k to $83.6k? Why not $35k to $83k? There is no objective standard by which these are determined. The cutoffs are determined arbitrarily by subjective means. There is nothing stopping the government from saying, "Wahlin, we are setting the xy% rate at whatever you make this year" and there is nothing you can do to say you deserve to keep more of your own money. If you think you need more money to meet your obligations and feed your fmaily, tough luck. Someone else has decided how much of your own money you should get to keep.
I think its important to keep this in mind as we talk about taxation -- what impact do our decisions have on the freedom of our citizens.
If you think I'm off base, please let me know and explain why.