We make 250,000/year. I'm not a f***ing billionaire

Apparently you pulled these quotes (or got them in an email)without actually reading the context in which they were written.

Enlighten yourself and read them in context.

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

Much less, if they are resorting to calling it names like "communism" or "theft," which it clearly isn't."

Except it is theft. No one has a right to the fruits of your labor except you. When anyone takes money from you without asking your permission, that is stealing. Taxation is the government stealing from its citizens.

Why do you think the government has a right to someone else's money? What has the government done for them? Ok, so the government built the roads so that guy could drive to work everyday and earn it. Except, where did the government get the money to build the roads? They took that guy's money! In other words, that guy helped build the road too. The government is not responsible for any of it! Sure, they took the money and paid people to build the road, but don't be so naïve to think that roads and schools wouldn't exist without the government. They would still exist because the free market demands it. If you can't see this, you clearly don't know how markets work.

So, why does the government have the rights to citizens' money? Please use facts and reasoning, and not your opinion in answering the question.

exposed wrote:

Apparently you pulled these quotes (or got them in an email)without actually reading the context in which they were written.

Enlighten yourself and read them in context.

Um, no e-mail, I am not a right winger, therefore I don't rely on chain e-mails full of lies when I am looking for "answers."

The "context" argument, huh? How about this: pick a quote, find the exact context, reprint that context for us, and show me how the words in the quote don't mean what they appear to say.

reading 101 wrote:

Except it is theft. No one has a right to the fruits of your labor except you. When anyone takes money from you without asking your permission, that is stealing. Taxation is the government stealing from its citizens...

So, why does the government have the rights to citizens' money? Please use facts and reasoning, and not your opinion in answering the question.

Some of these posts are so extreme as to make it seem that this is pure trolling. Do you really advocate no government? Or just government with no revenue? Or is it government with revenue that comes from someone else?

Cool Beans wrote:

reading 101 wrote:

Except it is theft. No one has a right to the fruits of your labor except you. When anyone takes money from you without asking your permission, that is stealing. Taxation is the government stealing from its citizens...

So, why does the government have the rights to citizens' money? Please use facts and reasoning, and not your opinion in answering the question.

Some of these posts are so extreme as to make it seem that this is pure trolling. Do you really advocate no government? Or just government with no revenue? Or is it government with revenue that comes from someone else?

Can you answer the question first? why does the government have the rights to citizens' money?

You did nothing to refute a single thing I said, just tried to paint me as an extremist because my views don't line up with yours. But I am very familiar with the left's tactics, so I saw it coming and wasn't surprised.

I advocate the government for the personal protection of property rights. They can take donations, but should NOT be taking any money via taxation.

Look at churches around the world. Every church (and there are hundreds of thousands) around the world operates and (most) were built purely by donations from the members. The point is, if people actually believe their money is going to a good cause, human beings are NOT reluctant to give money. Look at the Catholic Church for instance. They have billions and billions of dollars. Where do you think they get it? The vst majority comes from people who go to Mass on Sunday and donate. No one is forced. They believe in the cause their money is going to and they freely give. I, for example, would freely donate money to a fund if a street in my neighborhood needed to be paved or repaired (b/c of potholes, etc.) IF I knew that 100% of my money was going towards paving the street and paying the people to pave it...not to politicians and wasteful spending programs.

Some try to paint republicans as evil money-hoarding people, but if this is so, why have several studies/surveys shown that republicas give more to charity than democrats?

My overall point is that if the government had built a reputation of being responsible with money and good to the people, then people would be willing to freely give to it because they truly believe in the cause, and taxation would not be necesary. Much like the church. I give when I go to Mass every few weeks because I believe in the cause to which it is going. On the other hand, almost NO ONE freely gives to the government. Why? It seems like you are advocating higher taxes and want more money in the hands of the federal government to reduce the deficit. If it is that important to you, why don't you write a personal check to the Treasury Department? You can do that. Many democrats seem to want more money to be given to the federal government, but yet you never hear about them just donating money to it. Why?

reading 101 wrote:

Except it is theft. No one has a right to the fruits of your labor except you. When anyone takes money from you without asking your permission, that is stealing. Taxation is the government stealing from its citizens.

Why do you think the government has a right to someone else's money? .

It's called the social contract. Educate yourself.

"In political philosophy the social contract or political contract is a theory or model, originating during the Age of Enlightenment, that typically addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.[1] Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights. The question of the relation between natural and legal rights, therefore, is often an aspect of social contract theory.

Although the antecedents of social contract theory are found in antiquity, in Greek and Stoic philosophy and Roman and Canon Law, as well as in the Biblical idea of the covenant, the heyday of the social contract was the mid-seventeenth to early nineteenth centuries, when it emerged as the leading doctrine of political legitimacy. The starting point for most social contract theories is a heuristic examination of the human condition absent from any political order that Thomas Hobbes termed the “state of nature”.[2] In this condition, individuals' actions are bound only by their personal power and conscience. From this shared starting point social contract theorists seek to demonstrate, in different ways, why a rational individual would voluntarily consent to give up his or her natural freedom to obtain the benefits of political order."

You are richer than 98% of Americans. 90% earn less than half of what you do. 50% earn $50,000 or less. In other words, not many feel the same way you do, as a percentage of wage earning Americans. Get a perspective on life around you. 90% of Americans want your problem of having to pay a little bit more. But you have to pay for 5 cars. Boo-hoo.If it wasn't unfair then, it's not unfair now to roll things back to pre- Bush Jr. rates.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Distribution_of_Annual_Household_Income_in_the_United_States.png

Agree that the cost of education needs to come down. I payed an arm and a leg for mine. And my parents did not/could not help me at all.

You make some good points about hiring, but the corporate tax rate does matter as well. Why would/should a company sink money into an American factory when they are going to be taxed at 35% on the profits?....when they could just as easily set it up in another country with a lower corporate tax rate and make more money when all is said and done. Seems like incentive to me to outsource.

that is all rationalization using old belief systems. There are no facts listed, it is just someone's opinion of why the government should have a right to the citizens' money. Use facts please. That is their opinion that their is a social contract that exists. It is not my opinion. It is not a fact.

Again, facts please. Otherwise you are just admitting that taxation is theft, but only trying to rationalize why it may be ok in some cases.

Neb wrote:

married up wrote:

Sure, they invested. But the 1990s economy would have been even stronger with lower tax rates. More money for them to invest.

You should have read more Sherlock Holmes as a kid. You seem to be twisting facts to suit theories instead of changing your theories to suit facts.

Seems to me like you have nothing constructive to counter this argument so you resort to petty banter. It all comes down to whether one trusts oneself or the government to better provide for him/herself or family. I think most would prefer deciding what to do with the money on their own rather than having the government take it away and potentially "waste" it.

If you want no taxes, go to a place like Somalia where there is no government and no protection. Oh wait, the gangs come up to people and threaten them if they don't pay and take the money for themselves and give nothing back to the people. I've said it before, how can taxes be called stealing when the vast majority of them go back to help our society and that means YOU. All this talk about people wanting "free stuff" is so way off. We all want stuff our government provides. Even if you want to go up into the woods and live off the land with nothing to do with government, the government might protect people from coming in, kicking you out and building on it. Even if you never take advantage of the police, it is the idea of law enforcement that will stop many people from hurting you and taking your possessions.

I know I am arguing with an extremist and there is no way to convince them, but where do we draw the line? No one can tell me what an important government responsibility is and what isn't. Every time someone threatens to cut any government program, someone will roll out the elderly person who won't get to eat or the child who is homeless or the person who has a disability and can't work anymore. The vast majority of these programs do what they are supposed to do. Yes there are people who take advantage of the system and that should be stopped. But in the big scheme of things, it is relatively minor. Everyone finds one example of a guy sitting on his butt collecting welfare, but people need to look at all the people these programs help and put a face to them.

What is one person's freebee is another person's necessity and politicians always seem to align themselves to either group to get votes. Government expenditure is growing and we are not going back to the days when government only provided a small army, a post office and collected tariffs. We need to have real solutions to these issues, not bury our heads in the 18th century wishes.

Really? Do you build the roads you drive on? Did you go to public school? Your kids? Are you entitled to services from policemen, firemen? You are entitled to your money usually through enforceable contracts. Lucky for you there are contract laws, and a judiciary that can enforce them.

The US government was given the right by its own citizens to tax citizens that receive benefits provided by the government. Unfortunately corruption exists everywhere, but that doesn't affect the rights to collect tax.

rekrunner wrote:

You are richer than 98% of Americans. 90% earn less than half of what you do. 50% earn $50,000 or less. In other words, not many feel the same way you do, as a percentage of wage earning Americans. Get a perspective on life around you. 90% of Americans want your problem of having to pay a little bit more. But you have to pay for 5 cars. Boo-hoo.

If it wasn't unfair then, it's not unfair now to roll things back to pre- Bush Jr. rates.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Distribution_of_Annual_Household_Income_in_the_United_States.png

Not speaking for the OP, but if your rationalization is "the majority of Americans don't feel the way you do" then that is a horrible rationalization. I'm sure in nazi Germany many people thought it was just fine to kill Jews. I mean come on, there are OK arguments FOR raising taxes, but this is a pretty bad one.

But if the Bush tax cuts expire EVERYONE will be paying more, not just the OP.

Congrats on the nest egg you guys have built up. That said, some suggestions:1. She doesn't have to stop working if you guys have a baby. You could get a nanny. Yes, *perhaps* not ideal for you guys but an option.2. If you can, use public transport if available and sell one of the two cars. If you have to use 2 cars in the future, get a cheaper used on.3. Health clubs are a possibly unnecessary expense. Can't you just run outside like most folks? Also, it shouldn't cost 100/person for each month at a health club! There are tons (at least here) for 30 bucks a month.4.Cable is another expense that you don't "need." Even so, there should be deals for about 30/month for cheaper cable/tv.5. Food and basic living expenses shouldn't be 1,000 a month for two people. One can live VERY well on 150/month on food per person. Nobody buys stuff on sale, just expensive regular priced food.

I agree with the OP wrote:

my wife and I live in Chicago and make $210,000/year. We had about $160k in savings as of last month.

We're 29 years old with a baby on the way. Meaning she will stop working when the baby comes. I make approximately $150,000/year.

We just bought a $500k house. Our expenses:

Mortgage/Taxes = $2,500

Cars (2) = $600/mo

Insurance = $200

Health Clubs = $200

Student Loans = $300

Gas/Electric = $100

Cable = $100

So we're at $4,000 in expenses right off the bat. Then take into account food and basic living expenses. Thats another $1,000 at least.

So our $150,000 doesnt go nearly as far as most people think. We went from having a lot of money (saving about $6k-$7k per month) to basically being paycheck to paycheck.

reading 101 wrote:

that is all rationalization using old belief systems. There are no facts listed, it is just someone's opinion of why the government should have a right to the citizens' money. Use facts please. That is their opinion that their is a social contract that exists. It is not my opinion. It is not a fact.

Again, facts please. Otherwise you are just admitting that taxation is theft, but only trying to rationalize why it may be ok in some cases.

I'm sorry - but you can't just dismiss a theory which has been advanced by Plato, the bible, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau etc just by saying these are "old belief systems."

You asked for why taxes shouldn't be seen as theft. I gave you a very well defined philosophical argument - now it's your job to refute it using a reasoned argument.

Its enough that the teaparty took a crashing blow when reality blew up in their face on election night, now you have to take the beliefs of their most revered founding fathers and use them to hammer the coffin closed.

married up wrote:

Seems to me like you have nothing constructive to counter this argument so you resort to petty banter. It all comes down to whether one trusts oneself or the government to better provide for him/herself or family. I think most would prefer deciding what to do with the money on their own rather than having the government take it away and potentially "waste" it.

I've had plenty of constructive arguments. Here's a study prepared for the congressional research service looking at the impact of top tax rates since 1945.

The conclusion is that while there isn't any proof that top tax rates impact GDP growth - there is substantial evidence that it impacts concentration of income in the top earners.

The way they put it - "The evidence does not suggest necessarily a relationship between tax policy with

regard to the top tax rates and the size of the economic pie, but there may be a relationship to how

the economic pie is sliced."

When you say - "growth in the 90's was great with Clinton's policies but it could have been better with conservative policies" you are putting forth a hypothesis that can never be proven or falsified. That is a very illogical way to come to a conclusion. Yes, telling you to read more Sherlock Holmes was a little snarky - but it was on point snark.

Ater reading several hundred "contributions" to the original post, I have found this thread most insightful. The fact that Thomas Jefferson, a darling of the Right Wing, held the belief that the wealthy should pay a tax relative to their wealth, should give pause for deep thought. I noticed, in particular, the angry responses (kind of like a dog cornered) by those "no government is good government" element. This discussion should be summarized, for whenever (and it will) this argument comes up again. It seems to me, the case for taxing the wealthier at a higher rate has certainly been made. One thing that has not been discussed is the irrefutable fact that over time our country has suffered and deteriorated as a result of embracement of the "trickle down" theory. Why that theory has not been totally dismantled should be the subject of further discussion.

Dood, when I finish my education (relatively soon), I'll probably be making about 250,000 to 300,000 a year. However, I currently live on about 6-7,000 a year with health insurance and everything. Being in third-world countries teaches you that even having electricity, running water, a disease-free society, and hospitals teaches you that we DO live very well in america.That being said, I do understand how wealthy people that have worked hard would feel frustrated that their money is being taken away. Those extra expenses don't help your "quality of life", in my view. However, spend money on a big house in a rich neighborhood and eschew the cheaper, just as safe neighborhood.