Goodbye PBS and NPR! (Page 3)

If I steal a loaf of bread with the good intention of giving it to a starving child, it is still theft. Robin Hood is a thief. Nothing more, nothing less.

If selflessness in a virtue, what does that make those that consume the offerings of the selfless? Nobody identifies what THEY are. They are moochers, plain and simple.

At what point does one become selfless? Who dictates that? Is 50% of my income to the government enough? Maybe 60% would be better? Why not just work for the common good and share the rewards..... Isn't that communism/socialism? If it's so great, why aren't people flocking to China? Why weren't people flocking to the former U.S.S.R?

Would those that died in our previous wars be proud of what has become of America? Speak to your Grandfather, does he think politically we are better off today? Is the country better off financially today than is was then? What percentage of income was going to taxes then? Were people dying left and right because of the governments lack of intervention? Did people have more integrity then? If my Grandfather had to go on Welfare, claim Bankruptsy, or ask for a handout, he felt shame. If he succeeded in any venture, he felt pride. These are values lost today and continue to erode with each generation.

We'll never know if Rand got it wrong because such a Utopia will never exist. To say she is wrong is nothing more than an opinion based on nothing. I would say that the further we go down this selfless path where we want the rich to pay for the poor, the worse off we will be.

Rand got it right, but we won't know it for another 50 years. Feel pride with all of your success, act with integrity, give to charities you feel are worthwhile, but don't impose your will on me at the point of a gun and claim its for the greater good.

Nobody is. I am standed on a boat in the middle of the ocean with one other person. Food for only one person. According to you, I should give the food to the other person. That is being selfless after all. It is also serving the greater good as nobody benefits if we split the food, because then both of us would die. So what does that make him if he accepts this deal? Seems to me that I'm getting a raw deal.



You have an odd definition of freedom. I always thought that freedom meant that I had free will to do as I please without impedance. Your definition sounds more like slavery.




Fighting to free others from certain death is not wrong. Forcing people to fight against their will is wrong. No, there should not be a draft.



Yes, these people would take liberty from me, but somehow sanctioned theft of liberty is okay if it's for the greater good....



No, it's not your responsibility. It's certainly a nice thing to do, but far from your responsiblity.



It's great that you want to sacrifice yourself for the benefit of others, but I don't. I work hard for me, for MY family. I don't work hard for your benefit. That's slavery.



It's always about money. Who has it and who doesn't. This struggle will continue forever. Personal responsibility is what I believe in. I believe that I have the ability to make my life better and the lives of my family members better through my own actions. I don't need someone else to give me a handout to improve my lot in life.

Oh, and thx for the welcome back You and I have had this debate before... We probably never will see eye to eye, but that's okay, you can continue to be wrong



Edited by ChuckyFinster 2005-06-22 4:25 PM

I think we agree here in principle, but our terminology may be different. The role of government is to prevent anarchy, ensuring my freedom on the condition that I not impose upon you, removing your freedom. Is this what you were getting at?

No, it's based on thinking about objectivism.

It seems to me that at a point Randian objectivism collapses under its own logic.

To say that there is an objective truth is fine. To claim that it is knowable by reason alone sets up the fallacy of moral relativity.

It's true that human liberty is an inalianable right, and that reason is a high virture, but where do they come from? Is this source knowable in ways other than reason? If not, how do we know that our reason is sound?

You and I do dissagree about some fundamental things. (that's why I luv ya ) If we are both using our reason, how is it that we come to such different conclusions about a moral act like taking care of a child?






Edited by dontracy 2005-06-22 6:07 PM

Yes. Taxes are required to pay for the protection of our liberties(police agencies, fire depts, military, courts, etc.) I'm also okay with infrastructure investment (roads, damns, etc...).

Things like Social Security, Welfare, Unemployment, Medicare, those types of plans (I use that term losely, I'm not sure how much planning went into them) drive me up the wall.

Edited by ChuckyFinster 2005-06-22 6:56 PM

If we are both using our reason, how is it that we come to such different conclusions about a moral act like taking care of a child?

So you think "stealing" as you call it is fine as long as it is something you approve of.

Libertarianism is just a silly impractical philosophy.

We live in a community and we give back to the community. Taxes are not "stealing" they are paying back what has already been given to us by past generations. Tax dollars are not "your money" they are the governments money. Taxes are the dues that you owe for being a member of a society. I often wonder why conservatives do not want to be responsible members of society and pay what they owe.

The only reason that there is a middle class at all is because of social programs like public education, social assistance, public universities. If it were not for redistribution of income almost all of us (unless you are a member of the uber-rich who make millions a year and if you are please buy me a road bike) would be working at poverty level wages.

What liberatrians and conservatives don't seem to understand is that when everyone is better off, everyone is better off. Take healthcare for example. It would be easy to institute a two-tier healthcare system. Universal healthcare and then you could buy private insurance for private hospitals if you wanted to. Because diseases would be caught early on the overall cost of healthcare would drop. The overall cost would be lower. Everyone is better off when everyone is better off.

I challenge anyone complaining about public welfare to quit their current job which they got through public education and/or from inherited money and to go start working at a job that requires no high school education. I would like to see how long it takes you to pull yourself up by the bootstraps-remember you can't use anything that you ever learned in public school or from any government resource. That means no adding, subtracting, reading, knowledge gained in the military etc. You might be qualified for some extremely low level manual labor job. Since you already know how to read and add, I will allow you to use those skills once you teach them to someone else. We'll see how far you get with no education. no health insurance, no housing,no transportation,and nothing more than a minimum wage job. Remember that you also cannot use the internet.

The problem is not taxes, it never has been, the problem is waste. The biggest area of waste is the military. We spend 7 times more than any other nation on our military but the last 3 wars we have fought (Vietnam, Somalia, and Afghanistan/Iraq) have been unsuccessful against guerilla tactics.

As I have said 48 cents on the dollar goes to military spending. I am not so naive as to think that we do not need a strong military, but when we are getting attacked with our own airplanes and car bombs, we certainly don't need to spend billions more on sophisticated weaponry.

To post back on the topic, the real reason that conservatives are targeting PBS and NPR is that they are the last non-corporate news sources in the country. The amount of money given to these programs in taxes is a pittance compared with other programs. However, since PBS is the only network that actually reports news (though Lou Dobbs can do a decent job as well), the conservatives wish to get rid of it so that they can have control over all of the media outlets in the country.

NOTE: I am using conservatives loosely here to mean people that complain about having to pay taxes.

Edited by lablover 2005-06-22 11:36 PM

ChuckFinster,

Thanks for stepping in. My time has been limited the last couple of days, but I have been following the posts.

Actually, most essential government functions (defense, judiciary, police) could be paid for with trade tariffs on foreign goods. Roads, bridges, dams and other infrastructure should be paid for with user fees and with today's technology imposition of user fees is more fair and practical.



If the taxes that I pay to the government are not my money, you then must assume that my labor that produced that money also belongs to the government. Sounds like slavery to me. If I do not own my labor, I do not own myself. Responsible members of society take care of themselves so that they do not obligate anyone else to take care of them. Once one has taken care of himself, he is then able to assist others in any manner he sees fit. To assume that conservatives (under your definition) would not contribute to charitable organizations and be responsible members of society (your definition) is certainly assuming the worst in human nature. These conservatives may not choose the same charities as you, which may be the problem in your mind, but they would support charities.



You assume that these things would only be available through the benevolence of the government. This is a false assumption.



This is also a false argument because you assume that the only way to obtain these things is through a benevolent government.



I'll agree here.



The conservatives control CBS, NBC, CNN and ABC as well as most major newspapers?



Edited by B-One 2005-06-23 7:05 AM

I agree with your equation. However, I think you've flipped the results. In this, and in our previous discussion, I've tried to keep God out of it because I think I'm perfectly capable of making my arguement based on objective reason alone. In fact, I arrived at many of my conclusions while still an atheist.

Here's one place where I think your reasoning breaks down. It seems that you and I agree that human beings have an inalienable right to liberty. It's an objective truth. As Jefferson put it, "We hold these truths to be self evident."

The question is, where does this right to liberty come from? Did it spring out of nothing? Was it always so?

What other truths, like liberty, exist? How can they be tested to know that they are objectively true? How can liberty itself be tested?

It's not enough to just say that liberty exists, and then be done with it. To do so requires a leap of faith. In other words, it seems that unless you tackle the question of where this thing called liberty comes from, you're operating from a faith based belief system.

Now, if you're operating from a faith based belief system, why should I believe you?

---
I know that you're a good guy. The reference to a hungry child was just to make a point. I think we're talking here about the foundations of our belief systems and not how you or I would act in a particular situation.

B-one:
We will never agree so there is no point in arguing. I am not going to waste my time or yours.

I started a response, but scrapped it as it is a neverending argument and I am just not up for it here.

Yes, in my opinion conservatives do own all of the major news outlets except PBS which has been getting more and more conservative since Bush was appointed. The media in this country is owned by six corporations, and every american knows that conservatives are more friendly with corporations than liberals.

When GE and Westinghouse are manufacturing weaponsand missiles for the war in Iraq and getting paid billions for it, how critical do you think their coverage will be? When was the last time you saw a Labor section in the newspaper? There is a Business section everyday...

I respect your opinions and am glad you are engaged in politics, I wish more people were. I don't agree with your political views, but I just wish more people cared enough to think about politics and vote.

Good training to you.

Fair enough! Maybe we will catch you at a tri over here someday.

You misunderstand libertarians. We expect very little from our government and that which we expect we realize is not free. National defense (a resonable national defense, not the monstrosity that we have now) could be paid for with foreign trade tariffs and voluntary service. If the cause is just you will see citizens signing up in droves. Judiciary and prisions are completely necessary and certainly not free; we after all need to ensure that others do not step on your liberty. We do not expect the government to provide us with food, clothes, medicine, and a retirement account.

Another thing we do not expect our government to do is be the provider of information. It is my subjective judgement that Lablover is correct; NPR has become more conservative as the Congress and presidency has swung right. If the government is in control of the news, through funding or otherwise, the news will certainly reflect the views of those in power. Is this what you really want?

I am for a broad and diverse market for news and information where one can access as many sources as possible to get the most truth possible from as many sides as possible. This is why I listen to and contribute to PBS. (Ok, now I'm out of the closet). You see, we libertarians are quite willing to pay for the services we value. We, however, do not wish to obligate you pay for what we value.

We don't want a free lunch. We want the price of that lunch(admission as it were) to be the same for everyone and we want that price to be low. We are tired of paying for others' free lunch.

I've never used Welfare for example yet I'm paying for it. I'll never use Unemployment yet I'm paying for it. I'll probably not get the benefit of Social Security (jury is still out, I'm 32) but I'm paying for it. I've never shown up in a county hospital, yet I'm paying for it. When we had the big earthquake in 94, I wasn't in the FIMA line for a government handout, yet I'm paying for it. And I'm paying for these services at the point of a gun. Hell, I didn't even vote for any of these programs... then again neither did any of you. The world was getting along fine without all of these looter/moocher programs before their existance. These programs are recent inventions and this country is no better off for them.

Where is my liberty if I must be a slave. I don't work for your benefit. I'm already buying many free lunches, to bad someone else is eating it.

There's no guns pointed at you, that force you to stay in this country, or that force you to work.

Well, isn't that the beauty of our system? I don't care where your morality comes from. And hopefully you don't care where mine comes from. We'll never agree on things such as religion and morality. If you believe that Jesus/Zeus/Ra/Mohammed/Thor is god, I'm happy if you're happy. If however you enforce your morality on me at the point of a gun, then we have a problem. What my belief system is predicated on is nowhere near as important as how I apply it. So if you don't value your liberty, and I know you do, dissect the philosophy all you like. In the end, when you lose them because there is someone out there that has a greater need than you and the government says they are entitled to your property, you will only have yourself to blame.

Are you saying that if I don't like the way the country is going I should just leave? Or are you saying that I'm not a slave because I can leave anytime? Or are you saying that I should just play the game and make demands of my brother? There is not integrity in following any of the paths laid out.

I'm saying that taxation is not equitable to slavery as you are neither forced to remain where you are, nor are you forced to produce.  The "rules" of the "game" were set before you joined it.  You knew the "rules" before you started playing it.

If you are ever involved in a traffic accident ( please don't think that I wish this on anyone ) will you refuse to be carried by or treated at any medical facility which receives taxpayer funding?  Would you prefer instead that when the ambulance pulls up to the emergency room doors that the first question asked is 'Cash or Charge'?

Whether utilized or not, you have access to many "safety nets".  If you are fortunate to never have to be caught in any of them, congratulations to you.  If you are unfortunate however, will you stand by the conviction of your morals to refuse treatment/recompense/service?

No man is an island.  Our society exists because we collectively bear the burden of cost to maintain it.  To enjoy the fruits of that society without wanting to contribute to it's cost is hypocritical.  And by enjoying the fruits, I mean, being secure in the knowledge that medical care will be available to you should you need it in an emergency, that you can ask for assistance in times of hardship and receive it, that many artistic and educational resources are made available to you.

When is giving enough?

The Origin of the Income Tax
by Adam Young
[Posted on Tuesday, September 07, 2004]
"The freedoms won by Americans in 1776 were lost in the revolution of 1913," wrote Frank Chodorov. Indeed, a man's home used to be his castle. The income tax, however, gave the government the keys to every door and the sole right to change the locks.

Today the American people are no longer the master and the government has ceased to be the servant. How could this be? The Revolution fought in the name of the inherent natural rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness promised to enthrone the gains of individualism. Instead, federal taxation bribes the States and individuals to serve the interests of ever-greater submission to the centralized will.

How did tax slavery come to the land of the free?

1812

The first proposal to impose an income tax on America occurred during the War of 1812. After two years of war, the federal government had accumulated a then-staggering $100 million of debt. To fund the war against Britain, the government doubled the rates of its major source of revenue, customs duties on imports, which obstructed trade and ended up yielding less revenue than the previous lower rates. At the height of the war, excise taxes were imposed on goods and commodities, and housing, slaves and land were taxed. After the war ended in 1816, these taxes were repealed and instead a high tariff was passed to retire the accumulated war debt. Thankfully, the notion of an income tax was defeated.

However, the malevolent spirit of the income tax reappeared as a measure to fund the Union armies in the war to prevent the secession of the Confederacy. The war was expensive, costing on average $1,750,000 a day.[1] Struggling to meet this expenditure, the Republican Congress borrowed heavily, doubled tariff rates (the Morrill Tariff initially provoked the Deep South to secede), sold off public lands, imposed a maze of licensing fees, increased old excise tax rates and created new excise taxes. But none of this was enough.

1861

In July 1861, the Congress passed a 3% tax on all net income above $600 a year (about $10,000 today). However, no revenue was ever raised because a second tax passed before the first was due (on June 30, 1862). The war's demand on resources made the earlier tax ineffective, and the sale of bonds could not keep up with the expenditures of the administration and the armies. In March, the Congress passed an income tax of 3% on annual incomes of $600 to $10,000 and 5% on incomes from $10,000 to $50,000 and threw in a small inheritance tax too. Lincoln signed the bill on July 1, 1862 to take effect a month later. The Union debt then stood at $505 million.[2] This tax also included the first appearance of withholding and was applied to federal salaries and on interest and dividends.[3]

In 1863, Congress then passed a special 5% tax on incomes above $600 to pay for an army recruitment program that would pay men $2 per recruit and pay recruit's their first month's pay in advance.[4]

In mid-1864, the rates were raised again. The 3% tax on incomes above $600 was increased to 5%, a new 7.5% rate was introduced on incomes over $5,000, and the old rate of 5% on incomes above $10,000 was raised to 10%. The tax on interest and dividends was also raised from 3% to 5%.

And for the first time, with the changes, Americans now had to swear to the veracity of their tax returns, and government assessors could now challenge a return. The penalty for not filing a tax return was likewise doubled to 10%.[5]

At first, the income tax raised comparatively little revenue in relation to the war's demand for it. Harvesting only $2.7 million in 1862–1863, by the next year, the tax pulled in $20.2 million. And believing that many large-income earners were eluding the taxman, Congress raised the rate on incomes over $5,000 to 10% and gave the assessors the power to estimate income and increased the penalties for noncompliance, from fines of 25% to double that for filing fraudulent returns. By 1866, 30% of federal revenues derived from the income tax totaling $73 million, and derived primarily from just three states, New York, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts.

In a move to increase compliance and the veracity of returns, the government even made tax returns available to the press. This practice was outlawed in 1870.[6]

The Confederacy also experimented with a progressive income tax, eventually imposing a tax in kind that further destroyed the already ruptured and blockaded economy of the South.[7]

1865

After the war ended, the income tax continued on to pay the government's gigantic debt, but resistance was building. In 1867, progressing rates were replaced with a flat tax of 5% on all incomes above $1000 a year. However, the penalty for failure to file was raised to 50% and the payment date was moved from June 30 to April 30.[8]

This income tax expired in 1870 and was replaced with a 2.5% tax on incomes above $2,000. Finally, when that law expired in 1872, the United States was again without an income tax.

In the post-war years, a booming economy produced tariff surpluses for decades, but this didn't deter many attempts to reintroduce an income tax, with members of Congress introducing sixty-eight bills to do so between 1874 and 1894.

1894

Amid the panic of 1893, an amendment was passed establishing a 2% tax on all incomes above $4,000 a year (about $50,000 today), but exempted the salaries of state and local officials, federal judges, and the president.



Democratic Senator David Hill of New York lamented, "It may be impracticable that our distinctively American experiment of individual freedom should go on."[9]

President Cleveland opposed the income tax, but let it become law without his signature, believing it to be unconstitutional. In 1895, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against the income tax, saying that its provisions amounted to a direct tax, which was prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.[10]

Article I, Section 8 and 9 declares that direct taxes must be apportioned amongst the states according to the census. The Sixteenth Amendment was designed to get around this problem.

1895–1909

Aside from an attempt to float an income tax to pay for the Spanish-American war, the income tax largely disappeared as a major issue. Nonetheless, the Democratic Party, turning its back on its Jeffersonian heritage, endorsed a constitutional income tax amendment in their party platforms of 1896 and 1908.[11]

In 1908 Theodore Roosevelt endorsed both an income tax and an inheritance tax, becoming the first President of the United States to openly propose that the political power of government be used to redistribute wealth.

Meanwhile, factions within the Congress cobbled together a compromise amendment and in 1909, President Taft, known to be favorable to an income tax, if not necessarily an amendment, stated that although ratification may be difficult, he had "become convinced that a great majority of the people of this country are in favor of vesting the National Government with power to levy an income tax."[12]

That same year, the income tax amendment passed overwhelmingly in the Congress and was sent off to the states. The last state ratified the amendment on February 13, 1913. The Springfield Republican reported "The Sixteenth Amendment owes its existence mainly to the West and South, where individual incomes of $5,000 or over are comparatively few."[13]

1913

Richard E. Byrd, speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates, predicted, "a hand from Washington will be stretched out and placed upon every man's business. . . . Heavy fines imposed by distant and unfamiliar tribunals will constantly menace the taxpayer. An army of Federal officials, spies and detectives will descend upon the state. . . ."[14] Pandora had opened the box.

The presidential election of 1912 was contested between three advocates of an income tax. The winner, Woodrow Wilson, after the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, called a special session of Congress in April 1913, which proceeded to pass an income tax of 1% on incomes above $3,000 and applied surcharges between 2% and 7% on income from $20,000 to $500,000. A few years later the Supreme Court kissed and blessed progressivity.

The income tax returned as the product of an unholy combine between statist intellectuals with visions of state-sponsored utopias, envious demagogues and the desire by established, wealthy interests to prevent any competition to their place and to offload business costs to an expanding regulatory welfare state.[15]

At first the revenue raised by the new income tax was disappointing: only $28 million in 1914. But then it accelerated. $41 million the next year, when the top rate was 7%, and nearly $68 million in 1916, when it was raised to 15%.[16] Eventually more than $1 billion would be pulled in by the income tax during the whole of World War I, when the rates were raised to 67% in 1917 and 77% in 1918, and make the hated tax the permanent feature it has become today.[17]

After the war, the top rate would fall to 73%. In the 1920's it fell to a low of 24% in 1929 but never again got as low as the pre-war rate of 7%. What would Americans do for a 7% rate today, one wonders? Hoover and the Republicans raised the rates to 25% in 1930, then to 63% in 1932. Under the corporate statism of the New Deal, rates leaped to 79% in 1936, 81% in 1940, finally exhausting itself at 94% in 1944–1945.

The lowest rates showed the same appetite, advancing from a 1% rate on incomes below $20,000 in 1915. In 1917, it became 2% up to $2,000, then 6% up to $4,000. By 1941, the lowest rate was 10% on incomes below $2,000. In 1945, this had jumped to 23%. Today it is 10% on annual income up to $7,000; 15% on income below $28,000. The top 10% of all income earners pay 60% of all tax revenue. And the top half pay over 95% of all revenue raised by the federal income tax.[18] The average American now works twenty years for the government simply to pay his taxes.[19]

In 1943, the government began withholding taxes on the advice of Milton Friedman.[20] After the war ended, this method of stealth taxation (and tax increases) continued.

Not until 1964 were the top rates lowered, down to 77%. In 1982, the top rate was lowered to 50% and by the late eighties the rate had been lowered to 28%.[21] But rates were raised again to 31% under George H.W. Bush, and again in 1993 to 39.6% under Clinton. George W. Bush apparently holds as an unshakeable principle that no American should be taxed more than a third of his income by the federal government. John Kerry, should he become president, appears likely to suggest the rates be raised back to the Clinton level.

The income tax lived up to its nature during World War II, devouring American wealth and liberties like a swarm of locusts, where it became the nearly universal tax we know today. In 1940, fewer than fifteen million tax returns were filed. Just ten years later in 1950, the number would be fifty-three million. In 1939 the income tax raised $1 billion. 16 years later it would raise $19 billion.[22] The state had found its most fertile harvests—middle class and working-class taxpayers. As Chief Justice John Marshall remarked, truly "the power to tax involves the power to destroy."

Adjusting for inflation, in the 81 years between the enactment of the income tax in 1913 to 1994, government spending increased 13,592%![23]

The great critic of the income tax, Frank Chodorov wrote "Whichever way you turn this amendment, you come up with the fact that it gives the government a prior lien on all the property produced by its subjects."[24] The United States government "unashamedly proclaims the doctrine of collectivized wealth. . . . That which it does not take is a concession."[25]

It was with great honesty that Frank Chodorov lamented, "America is no longer the America of the Declaration of Independence."[26]

Good reading, but you didn't answer the questions I posed.

Well said Coredump.

Complaining about paying taxes is like joining a club using all the facilities and then whining about that your fees are too high and paying for the women's lockeroom since you don't use it.

The welfare argument is a red herring anyway. The percentage of your tax dollars which goes to welfare is so low compared to the precentage that goes to the military, and if ever there were a program that deprived others of life and liberty it is the military when it is mismanaged like with this current administration.

It seems to me that one should me much more upset by our government torturing 28 people to death and killing 1700+ of our own troops and at minumum 28,000+ Iraqi civilians in a war of aggression and choice with your tax money than worrying about how you shouldn't be forced to "help" someone else or fund PBS.

You are forced to hurt others with "your" taxes a lot more often than you are forced to help them.

See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8335486/

Good news as far as I am concerned!!