Hey Yanks! Ready for some higher taxes?

[dendro]

http://www.rense.com/general91/esd.htm

Oooof! That's gotta hurt, big time.

Glad I'm on SSA now...

One of my sons in law recently killed himself, this year, so my daughter wouldn't have to pay his estate tax on the properties and insurance under the new code changes coming next year. (Well, I'm sure he had some other reasons as well-like despair that the "new economy", aka depression, would not enable him to meet all his notes).

Such a lucky country...  :twisted:

[Amomynous]

Leaning slightly to the civil libertarian side, my natural disposition is towards government taking a very limited role in life (which, of necessity, suggests little taxing, spending, and law making).

I know that opinions vary on this (the other day I saw a bumper sticker that said "Healthcare is a Human Right." Is it?). It's OK that opinions vary, but just asserting your opinion as truth does nothing but
increase polarization.

What really bother me is that there is no real dialog taking place. Those "in power" (politicians, media, etc.) have set the limits of discussion so narrowly that I would say that the discourse in the public sphere is roughly analogous to walking into a car dealership and buying a car where your only choice is a pickup or an SUV.

As a society we're not even discussing--or even contemplating discussing--the question "what role do we want government to play in our lives?" Personally I want it to play a very limited role.  Others want a bigger role. But those who mediate public discussion discount and marginalize those who lay more than a few degrees from the approved position, and the approved position is definitely trending in the "government is your daddy" direction.

And when no real public discourse exists, the decisions are made for us (but in a clever way that makes people think they're making the decisions themselves, through the ultra-flawed "political process").

The way I see it, society is more or less doomed--not because it's going in a direction that I don't want it to (which it is), but because there is no real consciousness or awareness steering the ship. Society is a train speeding down the tracks, and you can't steer a train. I wish people would wake up and realize this ('cause if they did, perhaps there would be a little steering), but they won't.

[What do I mean by "real discussion?" For starters, it would mean examining, in depth, the various positions and all of their short-term and long-term implications. Society is a complex thing, and all of its parts are heavily interrelated, but people are so used to looking at it piecemeal that they don't even have the ability to think about it in any true way.]

People want bread and circuses. If we take healthcare as an illustration, they want it paid for and they want it high quality and they want to not give up any of their choices, etc.

Looking at countries that have adopted national healthcare we see that there are great implications in cost, quality, availability, timeliness, and personal choice (not to mention cost burden). If, after examining all of these things, society wanted to go through with it, I'd say go for it. But such in-depth examination will never happen. The discussion agenda is basically being pushed by two groups: those with something to gain, and those (empowered by this first group) who may mean well, but are reacting on a simple, emotional level without really considering the implications. [And by this latter group I don't only mean those who support the nationalization of health care; those against it also tend to react from simple emotional centers without an examination of the implications of maintaining the status quo.]

[dendro]

Very well stated, Amom.

Thanks for a thoughtful analysis.

It is strange to me that there are so few libertarians in the world. Libertarianism seems so natural to the human organism-to me anyway.

[Amomynous]

It is strange to me that there are so few libertarians in the world. Libertarianism seems so natural to the human organism-to me anyway.

I know what you mean.

My guess is that the Libertarians (capital L) give libertarianism (small L) a bit of a bad name. The political party (which I think adds some important discussions to the political conversation--at least they would, if allowed) is too extreme for most folks, so I think the whole perspective tends to be blown off by people without really pondering its strengths and weaknesses.  

Again, I think it may come down to just how tightly mediated political discussion is--any slightly non-majority positions is immediately marginalized. You could see that happen with Obama's change.gov site; the top request for change was MJ legalization, and Obama just blew it off with a joke. The best way of marginalizing someone is to not even give them the benefit of disagreement!

In the standard response to non-majority opinions, Wolfgang Pauli's famous quip comes to mind: "Not only is it not right, it's not even wrong."

[sandic]

Really, they ought to be closing the corporation tax loopholes, and penalize companies who outsource jobs to countries that don't have a minimum wage, or the freedom to form unions.  Though seriously, it's amazing how all the inflation under Bush never got mentioned, but now, when Obama is trying to sort out the mess he inherited, is taking all the flack.  The Republicans run huge deficits, partly because they seem to like to support every dictator out there, as long as he's not for the people at the bottom getting any money or property.  Most of those taxes listed were taxes before, that exemptions had been made for.  It's up to the congress to raise or lower taxes, so let's put the blame where it belongs.  I'm not saying Obama is perfect, mind you.  I mean, why the hell are we getting involved in Africa, ffs?  We can't even sort out the wars we already got going.  That's where the money's been going.  Instead, they ought to focus on education and on providing subsidized housing to those families that need it.  Pouring money into church agencies to administer to the homeless is a poor substitute than just going ahead and helping a family make the rent payments when they need it.

[laughingwillow]

sandic: I agree 100%. The wife and I prefer to give money to local folks/family when emergencies hit, rather than give to organizations that must meet payroll and deal with other inefficiencies before the first dollar gets into the hands of those in need.

lw

[senorsalvia]

I was just ruminating on society as a whole yesterday...  I also think that 'life as we know it', is on a downhill slope.  Hell, even the talk radio conservatives take the position that our children and later generations will not begin to live even as good an overall existence as we now have (such as it may be)...  It's sort of depressing to me really..  I honestly do not see us as a nation doing much of anything except aimlessly meandering about...  One political hack job after another comes down the pike.  The sheeple bitch and moan a bit, as if they have been assured that, in and of itself, will effect some positive change...In the end... Life goes floating down the abyss...   The idealism and dare I utter;  the hope for a more free and bright future used to be a notion I held dear and expected to see the evidence of.  Was it me??  Was I somehow so naive as to believe such things??  Nowadays, I'm half tempted to just take up the old Yippie adage..  "Revolution just for the Hell of it, just for the fun of it"...  I mean really now, it sure does not appear it would hurt anything...

[Stonehenge]

I can't argue with that too much, senor. Our standard of living has gone downhill since the 50's, something like that. The politicians are nuts and the whole world is in an uproar. Japan's disasters are not going to help any. If we are lucky we will avoid a world wide depression and near simultaneous collapse of most world govt's in terms of being able to service their debts. SS may be down the tubes at worst case.

More likely we will muddle through and get used to doing more with less. People had it worse 1000 years ago. Living to 40 was considered a ripe old age and people had to do hard labor every day to stay alive. The good old days.

[Jacko-2]

I was just ruminating on society as a whole yesterday...  I also think that 'life as we know it', is on a downhill slope.  Hell, even the talk radio conservatives take the position that our children and later generations will not begin to live even as good an overall existence as we now have (such as it may be)...  It's sort of depressing to me really..  ..

Yes, very depressing ... but the thing of it is, the reason they are discussing it and a hell of a lot of it, is to get people to start accepting that it is the reality and the unavoidable result of what we are as a nation.   Because some interests can really, really cash in if we head that way, and they are interests that have been investing heavily in destroying campaign reform and keeping money out of politics and keeping the trial of how money is getting into politics concealed.  Taxes are really fucking low, with only over a quarter million in assets available for tapping into for estate taxes ... even when that was available (is there any estate tax currently? ... ya know that mechanism whereby hundreds of millions in investment earnings (mega profits on work your extra cash was doing for you ... didn't even break a sweat and you aughta pay taxes on that hard earned due while you've got kids to feed, I tell ya)   Well fuck, anyone who thinks money will do their kids better than a loving parent who was there and provided them with love and support ... I don't even really want to think about that.

Y'alls gettin' to be some jaded motherfuckers around here.