I've lived in Mtn Home since 1989, so that's...hold on...I'm thinking...WOW! Exactly 25 years! Boy, I think I can almost declare myself an Idahoan. But my family is British and I grew up in Louisiana around lots of other Brits so I still think I'm a little bit of a mutt. Those of you who have been around awhile may remember when I used to blog all the time. My opinions weren't very accepted and there was always an issue because I work for the county. That really wasn't fair because I NEVER blog at work! And I am still entitled to my opinions and thoughts about city and county issues, right? However, it stirred a lot of pots and those pots certainly can make a lot of noise! Since I'm a writer, I took what I wrote in my blog seriously so I spent a lot of time researching things which got exhausting to do when you're not even get a paycheck for it. So I stopped. That was a blessing to many! However, to this day, I still have people stop me and ask me why I wasn't blogging and t! hey missed it. I've missed it. Mainly because there are so many issues that come up and I have no voice except around my friends and I'm sure they are tired of it.

Robin Hood Syndrome

Posted Saturday, October 31, 2009, at 1:23 PM

Don't move!

Taxing the rich and giving to the poor. Everyone loves Robin Hood. I do! But it is a fairy tale that just doesn't work in government. Hillary Clinton said, "we should take things from the rich for the common good." (Isn't she rich?)When is it justifiable to steal from the "rich" and give to the poor? When is stealing right? With that kind of mentality, any crime could be considered okay if the situation can be altered to make it appear justifiable. And who among us couldn't come up with a justifiable reason for any sin that we are guilty of?

I was so angry when I heard (the rumor?) that the "Rich" would have a 45% tax rate. Just like I was angry when the government decided that it was justifiable to take 95% of the income of any CEO that they wanted. How is it that those who have a socialist viewpoint talk about 'fairness" and that it is not fair when there are so many who have not while others have it all. It should be leveled. We should all have the same. That is what they think fairness is.

So explain to me how it is "fair" for someone to work 45% of their year to pay for those who have none? Just to be upfront here, I fall in the lower-middle class and therefore I am not RICH. However, I don't hate rich people and wouldn't mind it if I were in the upper middle class. I can see how fair it would be if every single American, no matter what their income was, gave 10-15% of their yearly labor to help pay. I see that as fair. And each American decided for themselves how much of the rest of their income they would dedicate to their other charitiable giving. To force someone to give away a larger percentage of their labor in order to give to the poor or to pay for something the poor can't afford is a sure-fire way to break the spirit of a nation.

I just don't understand this "share-the-wealth" mentality and how it would be a good creed for our future. Let me see if I can make it even more clear in my mind. I have a talent or skill that an employer needs. He pays me an income for that work. As a citizen, I give a portion of that income and the rest is mine. As long as that portion that I give is reasonalble, everyone is happy. Afterall, we all are willing to provide for our nation. However, if my income is forcibly taken from me at an alarming rate, then my income is no longer mine. My skill or labor is owned by another and therefore I am enslaved to the entity that takes my money. Like the sharecroppers of the past, we labor to give to another and we are given a small percentage to survive. How is that fair? How is that morally right? What psycholoical effect does that have on a person? What incentive do I have to be a slave to a government? Is that not one of the reasons that America was populated in the beginnning? Too many taxes and too little freedom? How happy of a person will I be knowing that from Jan. to the middle of May (approximately) all of my income will be taken? Of course, I am talking about those people who are the top 3%. Those evil millionaires who have so much money should be sharing with us all, right?

Economically, this will enslave us. Psycologically, this will demean us. Spiritually, this will break us. Leaving an overall bleak picture. Those who can afford it, will have more incentive to liguidate, pack up and find another place to call home. The wealthy will leave and along with them, their companies, their businesses and their top employees too. Who will be here to employ us lower class? Who will be left to provide for us? If the rich are not here to be taxed in order to give to us, then what? Oh, I know, the government will just make it so that if you were born in the USA, you pay taxes no matter where you live. So then if you live in another country, you pay 45% to America and 25% to that country and there ya go! The rest is yours, you lucky dog!

Comments

View 14 comments

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

I have no gripe with the amount of federal income tax I pay. Just considering the service I receive in the area of the defense of the nation I live in, the amount I pay is well worth it and I'm getting a bargain. Sure, the money could be used more wisely in some cases, but those instances of $600 hammers are the exception.

I have disagreement with the manner in which the state administers a sales tax. I believe sales taxes should be crafted to directly address and offset specific burdens that are placed on the state as the result of desired economic activity. A consumer making a purchase places no economic burden on the state whether the purchase is made through a grocery store or a car dealer.

Fuel taxes should address the specific actions the state takes to address the impact the consumption of those fuels has on our environment. Fuel taxes would not be used to support highways and roads.

All highways and roads should be supported by tolls with those tolls based on vehicle types and the specific construction methods used when constructing specific roadways. Here's a limited for instance, all passenger cars with two axles would pay a flat rate of .02 cents per mile on any highway within the state. Over the road trucks would pay a rate based on 1) the gross vehicle weight, and 2) the type of road construction used on the specific roadway they are travelling.

Other ideas?

-- Posted by DaveThompson on Sun, Nov 1, 2009, at 10:22 AM
So, what's your plan?

-- Posted by DaveThompson on Mon, Nov 2, 2009, at 5:50 PM
http://www.cnbc.com/id/26941466/?slide=1

-- Posted by DaveThompson on Mon, Nov 2, 2009, at 9:23 PM
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/congress_approves_500_billion_for?utm_sourc...

-- Posted by DaveThompson on Tue, Nov 3, 2009, at 8:01 PM
No, bazookaman, what are your suggestions for funding the limited government you favor? For instance, how do you envision funding defense?

-- Posted by DaveThompson on Tue, Nov 3, 2009, at 8:07 PM
I'm asking because in your earlier comment, the first thing on your list appears as, "I want our STREETS fixed so I don't knock my front end out of alignment..."

Did you really mean to tell us that? With all the posturing you've made on this blog, the first thing on your list of "wants" is "...STREETS fixed so I don't knock my front end out of alignment..."?!

-- Posted by DaveThompson on Tue, Nov 3, 2009, at 9:43 PM
How would your tariff taxes limit government spending?

Where's the fairness in paying a tax to participate in the economy?

-- Posted by DaveThompson on Wed, Nov 4, 2009, at 8:47 PM
I'm asking because back on Kim's Oct. 29th post, you commented, "We ARE on tap to be FORCED into buying things whether we want to or not, under threats of fines and other penalties, aren't we! (HCB)"

Would citizens be forced to participate in the tariff tax you envision, or will there be an opt-out provision?

-- Posted by DaveThompson on Wed, Nov 4, 2009, at 8:52 PM
If consumers sought to acquire goods and services with the tariff tax in place, could they barter for those goods and services and not be expected to pay tax?

-- Posted by DaveThompson on Thu, Nov 5, 2009, at 11:46 AM
How would your tariff taxes limit government spending?

Where's the fairness in paying a tax to participate in the economy?

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Wed, Nov 4, 2009, at 8:47 PM

Is that not what we do now Dave? We pay taxes to support big business and bail them out when they fall flat on their faces due to an inability to budget, etc. So, WE do pay taxes "to participate in the economy" no matter how bad it gets. We pay-pay-pay! So what was your point with this comment? Without the middle class to tow the line, the fat cats at the top would starve because God knows they do not pay their "fair share."

-- Posted by OpinionMissy on Thu, Nov 5, 2009, at 3:33 PM
I'm asking these questions in the context of bazookaman's plan. Look back and review the earlier comments. Do you have any insight into how those questions would be addressed under bazookaman's outline?

-- Posted by DaveThompson on Thu, Nov 5, 2009, at 6:50 PM
Okay then!

I agree with you on several of those points you touched on, although many of the points you bring up are issues that may be addressed at the local or state level.

I fail to see why there would be any burden on the city after a single family home is built. I can understand fees for code inspections in some cases. As a for instance, apartment complexes. If someone can enlighten me as to what the fees are required for, by all means, please do.

Now, I've got a question regarding foreign aid. Over on Kim's post of Oct. 29, "There's no place...", I've been in a bit of a back and forth with OpinionMissy. She and I agree(though she may not agree that we agree)that many nations stood by and did nothing to prevent the Nazi's crimes against humanity. There have been other instances of genocide since WWII. I think we all remember Pol Pot. More recently there was Bosnia-Herzegovina (sp?), Rwanda, and now, Darfur. Wouldn't a foreign policy that didn't include humanitarian aid be less effective?

-- Posted by DaveThompson on Fri, Nov 6, 2009, at 5:46 PM
Junkyard dog, I am just beaming with pride. Well said! Robin Hood was a thief. Justifying a crime is exactly what our current President and his staff live and breath. Wrong is wrong. Thanks for putting it into words so well.

-- Posted by kimkovac on Sat, Nov 7, 2009, at 9:09 PM
Yo, dog!

Can you really do that?!

-- Posted by DaveThompson on Sun, Nov 8, 2009, at 10:06 AM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration:

If you already have an account, follow this link to login
Otherwise, follow this link to register