Whatnot

Maybe I misunderstood your first point. It seemed to me that you were saying the reason taxes were so low 100 years ago, is that quality of life sucked (ie bad roads, bad docs). Making it appear that you were tying the quality of life to the govts funds and our debt. Which is incorrect and a dumb way to get that point across.



But if you weren't trying to say that, then, yes, I guess my counter to your argument is moot.





But the new argument you bring, or me understanding your old argument..... That is a terrible argument too. Obviously today isn't tomorrow, or yesterday, and 100 years ago isn't today.... That doesn't mean you can't compare things about them. the OP compared the ideals and thoughts and morals of 1913 that made it successful, and the lack of those that make us very unsuccessful now.



Sure comparing cars and lifestyle of back then is comparing apples to bananas, but comparing ideals to ideal is apples to apples, and the apples of today are rotten.

187sks

In 2008 I sat down, went back through the year's budget, and calculated my actual tax rate. What percent of the dollars I earned were lost to taxation.



I included:

federal income tax

sales tax

property tax

capital gains tax

B&O tax

workers compensation

Social Security

Medicare



In total taxes claimed 54% of my household's earned income. It was a gross of something like $80k that year with a 3 person household.



I didn't even think to include:

liquor tax

gasoline tax

license and registration fees

utility taxes



Altogether my family gave the government right around $45,000 in 2008. It's asinine.

i8acobra

If you think 1913 was successful, you haven't read much history. Living in this country in 1913, if you were aristocracy, was horrible.

Tibbi

You're cherry picking. The amount of taxation, which is the argument, is not directly proportional to historical circumstances. While the bloated government we know today would surely starve on such a fiscal diet, there is no reason to assume that under-taxation (assuming that even to be the case) was the cause of turmoil.

i8acobra

It is NOT my job to educate you. Seriously, read a fricken book.

Tibbi

Understood. You think the Revenue Act of 1913 and the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution are about Aryan reform. You know, ".25 acres, a white picket fence and a dog in every yard." I hate to break it to you, but a history book that is written in crayon does not necessarily hold the credentials you may think. Yep, it's fun pretending to be the smartest person on the internet by using logical fallacies to punch imaginary holes in arguments.

wheel_of_steel

Some societies have way higher taxation rates than the US, but manage to spend it well. Some examples would be france, much of scandinavia, and england. There's a buttload of tax, however they get free healthcare, free education or at least very good student loans, excellent public transport, and quality infrastructure. And that's fine by me.



The problem is, I think that if the US or Australia had such high tax rates, it'd be much of the same bullshit as there is now. I think there needs to be a deeper structural reform instead of constant squabbling over individual bills.

Whatnot

I'm not really worried/saying they tax us too much, that isn't the issue at all. If anything (given our current situation) we need to be taxed more....



The issue is the spending. What they spend/waste the money on...ESPECIALLY when they can't afford it, and they keep spending way more then they are getting, which causes them to borrow more, which ends up costing us more for the same amount. We I see a responsible govt following the intent of the constitution, I will gladly pay every tax with pride and a smile on my face. Taxes aren't evil, people deserve to be paid for their work, and the congressmen should have a high paycheck live a high class life...IF they do what they are supposed to do and followed the original intent of our founding fathers.



I know there was some advice against joining entangling alliances...which we ignored, as most of our founding fathers rules and ideas came from observing history. I guess there was no historical precedence on over spending, so they didn't think it necessary to say "don't spend more than you make, but if you get into debt, don't KEEP spending even more than what got you into debt". I guess if there is a revolt and any country decides to found a new nation, they will probably learn form our mistake and add that.



There was no king stupid enough to think "Hey, leys give mandated amounts of money to the poor. Because I know the poor can't and won't be able to pay us back with any taxes, so this money is coming from the hard working and rich. They won't mind." No, there would be a revolt against the stupid king. Sure it was ok for the king to give to the poor sometimes, when he had a surplus (making way more than he is spending), people would see it as a gracious king. And they would understand when he didn't due to being in debt/taking in way less than he is spending. But then idea of a king to put his whole kingdom into jeopardy, because he was an idiot and passed mandated giving of funds to poor regardless if he has the money or not, just never happened. I guess it was common sense (or so our founding fathers thought) not to do this. You can substitute any form of spending in this scenario. Would investing money into research be a good idea? Or should you pay rewards for results? And retirement and soc sec was never ever thought of on conceived back then. You would start poor, and attain wealth (if you worked hard) and you would have enough money to not only retire, but you would have a surplus to give to your child. The thought of "enjoying life" so much that you can't afford your old age, and not only will you have nothing to give to your child, but you will actually require them to pay for your old age??? Rediculous.

i8acobra

It's only written in crayon because you don't agree. I had both AP American and AP European History in High School. I'm not pulling this stuff out of my a*s as you seem to think.

Tibbi

Yet you come to every debate totally unprepared and present numerous fallacies as argumentative evidence.





I have a high school education as well, and on track to graduate summa cum laude from my college. So I guess by your definition I'm almost as bad ass as someone who stays at at Holiday Inn Express. Good to know.