An important principle for this nation’s founders was “no taxes without representation.” It is now clear that we also oppose taxes with representation. We justify this notion by the feeling, pushed by conservatives, that we are ‘overtaxed’. A review of world tax rates shows that U.S. tax revenues, as a percent of GDP, are the lowest among developed nations.
In 2009, total U.S. tax revenues were 24 percent of GDP, a rate between Turkey and Mexico. Canada’s 31.1 percent was exceeded by Western European nations like Germany at 33 percent-plus and even higher percentages for Norway, France, Belgium, etc. The list is topped by Denmark at 48.2 percent.
A place to start would be taxes on fossil fuels with the proceeds going to job creating domestic investments in our decaying infrastructure and public transport.
In his farewell address to the nation, President George Washington said that we should cherish “public credit’ and avoid “throwing upon posterity the burden that we ourselves ought to bear.” Regarding taxes, he said, “there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant.”
Rolf Westgard
Deerwood
Comments (41)
Add commentA little context for Washington's quote is in order...
This is his quote "in context"--
As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering, also, that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.
Hmmm...seems a little different in context, doesn't it?
Washington
Note the "avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace." Then we have your idol, GW Bush, who launched his ego driven trillion dollar invasion of Iraq by borrowing the money. Washington would have raised taxes to pay for it to avoid "throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear."
And there is no difference in context when Washington says,
"that to have revenue there must be taxes;" sounds the same to me.
It's time to pay our bills.
Lybia
I feel better knowing that the "war" in Lybia is free.
Rolf
What better way to cultivate peace than to not burden our offspring (yes, and that means the poor of future generations as well) with crushing debt.
So how would you have handled Al Qaeda?
BTW, has anyone seen this: violentflashmobs.com?
Rolf,
The current federal gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon and Minnesota's tax is 27.5 cents per gallon. I have no problem adding to the fed tax a user fee (if the money went specifically to roads). Are you talking simply gas tax or are you including all fossils fuels?
Al Qaeda
After 9/11 I would have invaded Afghanistan and stayed there to finish the job without invading Iraq.
Long before 9/11, my policy would not have included total one sided Israel support, so there probably would not have been much of an al Qaeda threat.
Muehl
Providing the full context of the speech didn't fit Rolf's argument. So, like any good liberal, he took it out of context in hopes it would fit his agenda. Then in typical liberal fashion, he simply assumed everyone is just too ignorant to understand it.
Additional context - Washington wrote and delivered that speech from the context and experience of a General that was denied adequate support and funding by the legislature, in order to secure a victory during the Revolution.
And the point I love the most......the progressives consistently argue that they are not trying to model US social policy after the socialist policies and economies of Europe. Yet he provides comparisons to these socialist leaning nations. And Canada.....its only a four hour drive from Deerwood. I'm sure they would welcome you with open arms, Rolf.
"Long before 9/11, my policy
"Long before 9/11, my policy would not have included total one sided Israel support, so there probably would not have been much of an al Qaeda threat."
COMICAL !!!
ey
The War, according to you, in Libya is free because we spend more in Iraq. Now there is backward thinking on your part.
al Qaeda
"Long before 9/11, my policy would not have included total one sided Israel support, so there probably would not have been much of an al Qaeda threat."
You're right, Rolf, it's our fault these muslim extremists hate us.
Love it or leave it
From Judith: "And Canada.....its only a four hour drive from Deerwood. I'm sure they would welcome you with open arms, Rolf."
Forget about improving our country. Just get lost. Enough said.
pd
Compared to Iraq, Libya is a bargain. Plus we actually have a coalition of the willing.
"And Canada.....its only a
"And Canada.....its only a four hour drive from Deerwood. I'm sure they would welcome you with open arms, Rolf."
Or are you carpetbagging from your home in the Twin Cities today? In that case, its only a mear 6 hours away.
as a percent of GDP
I'm not of the belief that "as a percent of GDP" is some great equalizer that makes comparisons of the US and Iceland viable in the least.
As a percent of GDP Iceland has 137 times as many representatives in their legislative branch as the United States does. Should we increase our House of Representatives to 73,195 members so we are on par with them for representation as a percent of GDP?
Yeah, 41% is a larger number than 28%, but can nothing be said about economies of scale? Since our GDP is 1,158 times greater than that of Iceland's are we required to have 1,000 times the scale of everything? Should we have 1,158 positions for Secretary of Treasury? Imagine 1,158 Hank Paulsons and Timmy Geithners running around the Treasury Department. That would solve all of our problems.
rolf
"Compared to Iraq, Libya is a bargain. Plus we actually have a coalition of the willing."
Are you saying we are\have been in Iraq alone?
Iraq
Essentially, yes.
Wrong
When I was there, I personally worked with soldiers from 3 other countries. I know for a fact that there were over 20 nations besides our's involved.
dean
Don't argue with rolf. Like other pseudo-intellectuals, who know nothing about everything; it is like arguing with a rock. And thank you for your input in Iraq. Did you see rolf there?
Why, Rolf, you little cherry picker...
Washington also calls upon religion and morality to guide us in doing the right thing in the very same speech:
"Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it - It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence."
And I do believe in paying out debts, Rolf, I don't believe in running up bills bigger than we can pay, something at which your party of choice seems to excel.
Oh muehly,
do you need to be reminded that the great bulk of the national debt was run up under republican presidents and their "suck off the rich" philosophy (otherwise know as 'trickle down'), $5 trillion under the [filtered phrase] from Texas alone. Village idiots seem to be very noisy these days, especially among the rabid right.
Wrong, Chey....
You do realize that as of 2008, unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid amounted to 53 trillion dollars, don't you? Those are all Democratic babies.
What stretch of time
are we talking about here?
What do you mean what stretch
What do you mean what stretch of time? As of 2008, the unfunded future liabilities (i.e., amounts that the government had already promised to pay as of that time that have not yet been funded) were $53 trillion dollars for SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. That number came from the Controller of the United States and it makes the national debt look ridiculously small.
As you might be aware muehl,
the 'liabilities' don't come due in one lump sum but are paid off over time. SS is solvent until 2037 (assuming the good faith and credit of the US and judging by the way investors have been running to US treasuries after the wall street debacle, leads one to believe it is still good and will be for some time); medicare solvent until sometime into the '20's (yes, it will have to be reformed and dealt with); ditto medicaid. The problem with the latter two is the the ongoing rise in health care costs (the 'system' still needs to be drastically reformed but insurance companies and the hysterics of the world will scream bloody murder if it is suggested that system be rationalized). We pay one way or another for people who need health care/attention... insurance or not.
Want to make Social Security and Medicare solvent
then improve the economy! All the arguing in the world about social programs are meaningless without genuinely addressing the economy. We have done the country a great injustice by disregarding basic economic principles in banking, the stock market and loose credit ( and yes I blame the Democrats and Republicans equally). We have to make the US once again "business friendly" and once done the social programs will be far easier to deal with.
Agree LLR,
got any suggestions how to do that?
Chey,
You don't want to hear this but the best way is with tax reductions and fewer regulations, with a twist. The tax reductions would only apply to companies with at least 75% of their business and total operations in the US. We should reward companies that do business in the US. Also tax credits for companies that buy American products made in the US. We also have to cut some of the regulations that make it almost impossible for smaller businesses to follow. I'm not talking about the regs that keep you from dumping toxic waste but the little stupid regs. that seem to find their way into every new bill that is written. Finally President Obama has to quit talking out of both sides of his mouth with regards to business, he can't stand behind business in a news conference then direct his departments to do the complete opposite. I know it's a lot to ask liberals to buy into but lightening up on business, instead of attacking us, would definately improve the economy and as an incentive to them make it easier to fund the social programs.
Or we could do this... (from a facebook post I got)
Operation Freedom Freedom: The USA should invade the USA to win the hearts and minds of the people by building roads, putting people to work, and installing democracy.
Your latter suggestion
is not so far off from what others see as necessary, LLR. Technically, tho, it would be a govt program.
And speaking of toxic waste, along comes barnboy.
Ha Chey,
you're right! I guess that wouldn't work then. I will then concentrate on my first proposal.