Eating the Rich in California

By -

In California, the top one percent income earners pay 47% of the State's income tax. Not surprisingly, some of these "rich" have chosen to move their businesses and their persons to states with less draconian income taxes. Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming have no state income tax.

Is it really fair that the majority of voters pay virtually no taxes, yet get to use their political power to spend whatever they like using money from people who are compelled to pay taxes? Is this not taxation without representation?

With regard to the Federal income taxes, the bottom 50% pay an insignificant percentage of the total taxes, and a smaller percentage every year. In 2008, the bottom 50% pay only 2.89% of the total taxes. Yet 51% can vote to award themselves money from government programs for anything they like. For example, the government pays farmers two billion dollars not to farm their land. It paid sixty billion dollars for other kinds of corporate welfare. We spent something like 500 billion dollars in Iraq in 2008. So we can build democracy there or something. (the Weapons of Mass destruction turned out not to exist).

To me, it seems fair that the tax rate should be equal for all voters. If I make ten times what you do, my taxes will be ten times higher, but you will pay according to your ability. If you want to wage war in Iraq making it safe for democracy, or pay Farmers not to farm, you should pay your fair share for these brilliant projects.

If a person pays no taxes, they should not get a vote on how the money they did not contribute is to be spent. People who feed off of other humans are called cannibals.

Comments

cura_te_ipsum said…
As a resident of California (sometimes regrettably), I see firsthand that this is a welfare state. The social programs are consuming the budget at an alarming rate and taxing the rich is the only solution that our liberal legislature has come up with. Businesses suffer under high taxes, regulations, fees, etc. and the consequent exodus of business hasn't yet prompted real political change. I'm not sure how much longer the state can survive before it collapses under the weight of entitlements and people living off the system.
9:14 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anger Management

By -
Image
   Isn't it interesting that Religion and Politics are taboo topics in polite company?  These are very important to many people, but discussing them only seems to provoke anger in most people.  The exception seems to be that people of similar opinions can discuss with one another how much they hate, desipise, and laugh at those of different beliefs.   Apparently, religions and politics are not subjects that most people desire to consider in a calm, cool, rational manner.  Rather, for most people, religion and politics are emotional topics.  They are the subject of Faith.  People have faith in their religion.  More surprisingly, (at least to me) they have Faith in their politics.  Faith and Reason are like oil and water; they do not mix.   I am not restricting my comments to stupid people or any particular party.  My observation seems true to me of very intelligent members of various parties (although there does seems to be a tendency to judge members of parties to which you do not
Read more

Victory in Fallujah

By -
_____________________ by Ralph Peters New York Post November 11, 2004 -- IN the Second Battle of Fallujah, military operations are ahead of schedule. Our casualties have been blessedly light. The terrorists who haven't fled are being killed by the hundreds. Our troops will soon achieve their goal of eliminating Iraq's key safe haven for terrorists. Our Marines and soldiers have carried the ball inside the 10-yard line. The media's response? Move the goalposts. The legions of pundits ("Will talk for food") now suggest that a win in Fallujah will be meaningless because we failed to kill or capture the terrorist leadership, because some of the thugs ran away and because Fallujah won't resemble Darien, Conn., by next Sunday. On Tuesday, as our troops handily pierced the defenses terrorists had spent months erecting, The New York Times carried two front-page stories implying that our forces were facing possible defeat. The Times' military analysis
Read more

War on Terror

By -
Image
by Bob Clasen Currently, the Administration is trying to wage a War on Terror. But Terror is not an entity. It is a method of warfare, like automatic weapons, or aircraft. One cannot wage war against a technique or technology. I suggest that what is needed is not more soldiers to be sent to Iraq, but greater clarity of thought. Who, exactly, is our enemy? It would appear that one of America's enemies is Fundamentalist Islam. Why is Fundamentalist Islam our enemy? Because Fundamentalist Islam defines unbelievers as infidel and urges its members to wage war against them. This is the doctrine of jihad. The problem is not with extremisist who hijacked a peaceful religion. The problem is the doctrine of Jihad, or Holy War is found throughout the Koran. This doctrine can be re-interpreted by modern liberal types as a psychological warfare against one's own sins, but that is not how many people throughout history have interpreted it. Anyone who is given to literal interpret
Read more