Published: Thursday, May 2 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
By Bastiat's definition, I guess all forms of taxation are legal plunder.
Had an individual boarded a ship in 1790 and demanded payment of a tariff upon
threat that the ship's goods would be impounded, the individual would have
been guilty of a crime. But Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution
gives Congress the power to imposes taxes and tariffs. So, apparently, Bastiat
disagreed with the drafters of the Constitution.
"I oppose this act because it would be considered a crime"Ah, So now raising taxes is a crime?House vote - 257
Representatives voting in favor and 167 voting againstSenate vote - 89
Senators voting in favor and 8 voting againstLooks like most of our
congress should be in jail (according to you). Or is it just Obama?Do you really hold that it is a crime "if the law benefits one citizen at
the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without
committing a crime." So much for school taxes for those without
children.So much for a Tax for roads for those without a car.So much
for (add yours here) The list could go on and on.
My wife grew up in a socialist European country. She was a pretty tepid
political moderate until one summer day. She called and asked if I could get
out of work a couple of hours early so we could go swimming at the YMCA with our
son. I said I couldn't, I had to work. She went anyway. While in the
pool, she overheard one woman (whose male companion was also in the pool) say to
another "Well, I could work, but then I would lose my welfare check".
She became a hardcore conservative from that second.You get what you
subsidize. If the government subsidizes people not working we should expect
people not to work. I seem to remember comments about the "dangers of the
dole".My wife chose to go back to school to become an engineer.
She teaches Math and takes Chemistry during the day and Physics at night. I go
to pick her up at 10:00 pm at the college, after I have worked at my job. We
are sacrificing fun and leisure for our financial future. But will it be worth
it after the extra taxes we will have to pay?
"My wife chose to go back to school to become an engineer. She teaches Math
and takes Chemistry during the day and Physics at night. I go to pick her up at
10:00 pm at the college, after I have worked at my job. We are sacrificing fun
and leisure for our financial future."....so what happened to
that son you couldn't spend time with?Pathetic to allow a
single overheard conversation convince you that you should sacrifice your life
in pursuit of financial gain.I overheard a banker in the sauna
talking about responsibility one day...
I cannot comment or respond while I work, so allow me to proactively respond to
some of the highly predictable comments that will surely come:- I
have nothing against immigrants. I was twice an immigrant to Europe, (not
counting mission) I am married to an immigrant and 75% of my work team are
immigrants - they are intelligent, hard-working people. If anything we do not
allow enough immigrants in. What I do not like are benefits (food stamps, extra
school programs, welfare) that are given to immigrants. Don't break the
law, pay your own way, and we're good.- Like Milton Friedman, I
am not against government spending per se, as long as it is as close to the
local level as possible. Utahns should not pay for Texas highways, and Texans
shouldn't pay for Utah schools.- I am not against public
schooling or even increased spending for schooling per se, but schools have
morphed into social service centers rather than places of learning. More money
will not mean better learning under this model.- The taxpayer should
not bail out corporations.
Sooooo... I'm confused...This letter writer would rather attack
fellow Americans? Saying that those earning less need to be "plundered?"
What about folks like Mitt Romney and Corporations like GE who pay
near zero?What about EXXON mobile which is STILL being subsidized
despite making record profits into the billions?I guess it's
just easier to attack the poor and middle class than to advocate big corp and
richies to pay their fair shares. While the rest of us have struggled the last
few years they have flourished.
Mr. HereticMy wife was a stay-at-home mom until our son went to
school. She doesn't work or go to school during the summers. The pool
conversation didn't affect her decision to go to school, rather it affected
her attitude towards the welfare state. Taking money from one person to give to
another under threat of prison and house confiscation is wrong. She saw the
damage the welfare state did to her home country which is perennially broke.
We don't have a babysitter, or leave him alone. My wife
doesn't teach full time. She picks him up from school. He is either with
one of us, or at school. He is getting straight A's, and talks about
physics. He asked me last week if when matter is converted to energy if it
loses information. After my answer, he said, "well, that wasn't how you
explained relativity to me. You said Einstein taught. . ." In fact Mr.
Heretic, at age 11 I think he is doing pretty well.The three of us
do everything together. Grocery shop, read, movies, my wife's charity
work, field trips, lunch, . .
Poor sad multi millionaires. Its so terrible for them that a temporary tax cut
expired and now they have to pay taxes at the same levels that they did under
Clinton. How can they possibly survive? I think we should start a
new political party comprised mainly of poor and middle class people who sre
dedicated to the sole purpose of protecting tax breaks for millionaires and
billionaires. Oh wait...
Although I consider myself to be fairly conservative, my patience is wearing
thin when it comes to the whining about how terrible multi-millionaires and
billions have it. The rich seem very capable of taking care of themselves.
I'm not a socialist, but I do agree with Obamaa in the need to "spread
the wealth around." CEOs shouldn't be making hundreds of times more
than their average employee. In a perfect world, they wouldn't.
What a silly letter. Taxation is not plunder.
This letter only makes sense to me when I remember that when conservatives use
the term “the people” they really mean “the business
"We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some
of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those
loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible
for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of
his salary, and that’s crazy. [...] Do you think the millionaire ought to
pay more in taxes than the bus driver or less?" - Ronald
ReaganDo you also "oppose this act because it would be
considered a crime?"Criminal? I think not. I doubt you do
More silliness from the far right.Now all of a sudden taxation is
"plunder?" What do you nutcakes want? No taxes at all? Go
live in Afghanistan then. Sheesh
I would voluntarily pay more taxes if it were an offset of the national debt.
Unfortunately, there is little likelihood that would happen. Politicians have
never seen someone else's dollar they didn't want to spend.
All should read "The Proper Role of government" written by Ezra Taft
Benson when he was both a cabinet member and a member of the LDS quorum of the
twelve apostles. To be short, his essay is in harmony with the letter
writer's opinion. I can not legally "take" half of my
neighbor's cows, just because my neighbor owns 10 and I own none. It is
also not just to ask the sheriff (ie. the law of the land, congress, etc) to
take half of my neighbors cows and "redistribute" them to me. An
essential element of freedom is the right to own individual property.
One post cited Article 1, Section 8, but that poster did not tell us that
Congress has power to tax us ONLY for the enumerated duties listed in that
one-sentence Section. We gave power to Congress to tax us, but we did not give
them unlimited power to tax us. We listed the duties (services) that we expect
the Federal Government to perform. Those duties are very limited. All other
duties (services) we reserved for the States or for ourselves (Amendment 10).
Transferring wealth is not an authorized duty of the Federal
Government. Taxing one person at a higher rate is not authorized by the
Constitution. Those who twist the Supreme Law of the Land to include
legislation from the bench need to rethink the reason that we limit government.
They need to rethink the word "freedom". They need to rethink what it
means to have agency and responsibility.The Government is not our
nanny. We are responsible to our Creator to use our lives productively and to
take care of our own responsibilities without crying to government to feed us,
to clothe us, to house us. We are responsible.
Ezra Taft Benson was an extreme conservative influenced by the Cold War and
Cleon Skousen. I have a hard time believing that modern-day prophets
like President Monson would advocate raising the taxes on the poor, cutting food
stamps, cutting medicine for cancer patients, and food on wheels so that folks
like Mitt Romney can still pay near zero on their taxes. Or so GE can pay zero.
Or so EXXON Mobile can receive their subsidies.In fact, President
Kimball was pretty clear in his view AGAINST our defense spending. All should
read, "The False Gods we Worship.""We are a warlike
people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the
Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods
of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and
depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become
antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God"Even when the army
itself states that they don't want certain tanks, repubs say YES and stuff
them down their throats.What we need to do is listen to a
prophet's voice. Listen to the savior. STOP WORSHIPING MONEY!
@ 4601Apparently you missed Clinton's Presidency. He actually
had a surplus. Then along came the GOP's champion, George W. Bush. And
well... Our debt is now in the trillions.
Bastiat's philosophy is a giggle. Equating piracy with constitutional,
representative taxation "to promote the general welfare"? Not exactly
Maverick,We know from you saying that 49% is a majority that you have a
problem with math. You are further showing your math problems by
claiming Clinton had a surplus. Clinton never had a surplus - he was still
borrowing from Social Security to meet general government expenditures. Gross
federal debt INCREASED every year during the clinton administration.Yeah, after slick willy came bush, then BO. BO's deficits are LARGER
than bush's. Gross federal bdet increased more in 38 months under BO than
it did in 96 months under bush. Do you REALLY want to compare?And
you are really showing gullibility by claiming anyone has been proposing raising
taxes on the poor so wealthy folk have to pay less. the bush tax cuts reduced
marginal rates for the middle and lower class more than the wealthy. but
you've never been one to let the truth interfere with your ideaology.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments