Tax Season Poll

[Airstrip One]

If it were really that simple, then there'd just be some guy running each time promising to transfer all the wealth in the nation to the person who votes for him. People vote mostly based on what they think will be best for the nation at large. That's why you have all of these rich liberals.

Liberals do not vote for the country's best interest. Plebes rarely do.

 

[Topspin]

lighter than usual tax year for me, before capital gains just out of my check Unc got about 25 G's. And I agree with tinfoil Uncle Sam is a pimp with a lot of ho's to care for.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I have never, ever said governments are useless, and I don't know how you got that from what I said in the quote. Government is simply the dangerous servant and the fearsome master and that's all I've ever said.

About the latter part of your own quote, the same can be said of rule by government.

Governments are authorized, or can conceivably be authorized, to do things that would otherwise be criminal or called things worse than criminal. And even if they aren't authorized, they might just do it for the hell of it, or for bizarre ideological goals. That doesn't make them useless or evil, by the way.

So, we're between a place of public criminals and private criminals and how to protect ourselves from both. You say the rule of law. That's a great answer. But the extent to which the law shall rule and not men is the disagreement.

Just as you object to my use of language about government, I object to your use of language about libertarians. I almost take it personally, especially since I consider myself one of the least ideologically rigid libertarians I know. I don't believe in ideal worlds. I don't even believe in enacting some kind of Libertarianism, really.

I'm willing to cut deals, and there's a lot I'm willing to tolerate as long as it's understood what the general direction and purpose of government ought to be. This is libertarian enough for me: following the constitution genuinely as well as we can. And that kind of fight never lets up.

And like me, most libertarians in this country are political libertarians. They are not trying to abolish government, they are trying to reform it to it constitutional limitations.

Sure, I'm confident many would enjoy a cultural shift toward thinking and acting on liberty as an idea and institution to live by (this is sort of an objectivist idea, but not as extreme), but they would gladly take the result of incrementally less government and more liberty in their lives, consistent with the law...and the consequences that may come with it as well.

Freedom does have responsibilities and consequences that not everyone is willing to deal with. I think the libertarians of this country (and the world) are trying to ask people to look to their government for what it is authorized to do, but to otherwise find ways to deal with problems that won't ultimately require a great sacrifice of liberty by unwilling people.

If you violate the principles of the rule of law for too many conveniences and securities, you ultimately undermine some very fundamental institutions of security.

Ya know I got to "Government is a dangerous servant" and I had to stop. You just contradicted yourself. I mean what drives me nuts is that there are nations that have the level of Freedom that you're talking about. There called Somalia and Afghanistan.

OK so I read a little more. You and libertarians want to llimit government only to what they are specifically authorized for and nothing more. Can't you see how niave that is and not to mention a recipe for disastreously bad government? I mean lets look at the vital functions of our government that they are not "authorized" to do by our constitution

Build and operate public schools.
Do basic scientific research.
Construct and maintain public infrastructure.
Build and operate public Hospitals and health clinics
Provide emergency relief during emergencies and natural disasters.
Regulate public non-commercial transportation.
Provide public safety.

I could go on and on. Limiting the powers of government is well and fine and a very, very good thing the American people should be vigilant about but that's not what your advocating. What your advocating is tying the hands of government behinds it's back so restictively that it could probably neither provide basic services nore enforce the rule of law. In other words what you are advocating is Somalia and Afghanistan. Well good luck with that.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

lighter than usual tax year for me, before capital gains just out of my check Unc got about 25 G's. And I agree with tinfoil Uncle Sam is a pimp with a lot of ho's to care for.

Yup, I be one of those Ho's too.

 

[Chapdog]

Just started my tax entry, so far I have a 13K bill for April 15th. Im hoping to get that down to about 6-8K after I enter in my deductions. I take a loan from the govt every year and use the money to invest into my employers ESPP right out of my paycheck which I make automatic 15% every 6 months. I only have 15K taken out of the paychecks for tax and wind up paying about 6-8K at the end of the year. Ohh plus a $77 underpayment fee.

 

[leaningright]

Once again I find nothing much has changed taxwise for me. I work about 3 1/2 months for the country, state and county (to pay all taxes...federal, state and local) and then get charged each time I buy groceries, gas or whatever (sales tax). I am like many out there in that I don't mind paying taxes that are used to make this a better country but do have some qualms about how some of the tax money is used....or mis-used.

I have had to pay at the end of the year for the past 4 years but this year I think I will be coming out closer to even. I make between $10,000 and $12,000 through self-employment that has been biting me in the rear for a while but made some more adjustments in '09 to help compensate so I don't get hit as hard at the end of the year. This year it seems the adjustments have worked.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

Ya know I got to "Government is a dangerous servant" and I had to stop. You just contradicted yourself. I mean what drives me nuts is that there are nations that have the level of Freedom that you're talking about. There called Somalia and Afghanistan.

B.S. You can do much better than this. You have not even pointed out where this alleged contradiction can be found. Somalia and Afghanistan do not even have functioning central governments or constitutions, so you're going over the deep end making the comparison.

I'm not trying to create some fantasy country that doesn't exist. I'm trying to preserve the institutions that this country was founded on!

Can't you see how niave that is and not to mention a recipe for disastreously bad government?

Now you are the one making a contradiction. How can you have the rule of law when you don't allow the law to rule? You say you want the rule of law, but then you want the government to do things that it is specifically not authorized to do. According to you, the law can bend when something that you feel is convenient comes along.

I mean lets look at the vital functions of our government that they are not "authorized" to do by our constitution

Build and operate public schools.
Do basic scientific research.
Construct and maintain public infrastructure.
Build and operate public Hospitals and health clinics
Provide emergency relief during emergencies and natural disasters.
Regulate public non-commercial transportation.
Provide public safety.

Dude, the constitution provides for means for many or all of these things to be accomplished in our country, just not always at the level of government you desire. You're being ridiculous. Every single state's constitution that I am aware of provides for public education as a right of their citizens. Counties run many hospitals and states run many medical programs.

This is all superficial nonsense. Did we have no education before a federal department named for education? It was less than 10 years ago that we did not have a Department of Homeland Security. Was there no such thing as national defense prior to its creation?

The difference is that you are not satisfied with federalism, local control, and limited government. You want a national solution to every problem, without even consulting the constitution to see if the federal government is authorized to be involved. Or even if it is authorized, whether it is prudent for it to be involved.

If you want Washington to run more of our lives, at least have the decency to amend the Constitution instead of casting off the basic underpinnings of our system.

Limiting the powers of government is well and fine and a very, very good thing the American people should be vigilant about but that's not what your advocating.

Yes, it is.

What your advocating is tying the hands of government behinds it's back so restictively that it could probably neither provide basic services nore enforce the rule of law.

Where did I say that? As I said, it's unlikely I will get the government to stop exceeding its mandate in all affairs. So the best we can do is the best we can do.

It just matters that we do our best. Saying that you want to go outside of the Constitution's authorizations intentionally and with no regard for the long term consequences because you want a few more conveniences to match your political ideology is definitely not doing our best by our founding principles.

And if you want to change the founding principles, change the founding document.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

countries are artificial, in that, the earth itself does not create countries. now, if you're trying to say that countries are like animal terrorities, you might have a point.

indigenous people and land: is there any other....in the grand scheme of things? we are all indigenous and all our governments seek land and boundries. i fail to see why you made this comment.

you're labeling boundries and land that people claim with artificial labels. what a tribe or so called indigenous people may call ""home"", could be considered a country, just a very small country. you're putting artificial labels on the line man draws in the sand.

Sorry, didn't mean to leave you hanging. Constitution had to come first! Anyway, yes, countries at first are sort of like animal territories or habitats.

I am speaking on a origin-type level, so when I say indigenous, I'm not talking about you and I as Americans living in their own country.

I am not an ancestor of the indigenous people of this land, of whom some may have even preceded any kind of national political identity over the land. I'm sure that these first nations (that's actually what they call the natives in Canada) were many and only took up some territory and tribes. Yes, you could call them countries, but that depends on the developmental level of that civilization.

Some people understood the concept of a nation before the concept of a country. The Hebrews were a distinct nation long before they had a country, for example.

Does that make any more sense about how I'm drawing the distinction between the land and people and the political map? Obviously, the people of the United States have not known a condition in complete disassociation of government like an original civilization would, but they are still developed as a people and have a distinct culture and heritage that is confined to a certain area.