Yes, this is the logical conclusion from their beliefs:
Joe Citizen has an inviolable claim to other people’s money but not to his own.
How weird is that?
Only an “intellectual” could believe it.
15 thoughts on “The Theftist Mindset Of The Left”
Comments are closed.
That’s because Leftists get to facilitate the transaction of government-sanctioned Theft. Those who were elected, voted for and staff the bureaucratic instruments of American wealth transfer can be quite proud of their successes in the late 20th century.
Joe Citizen has an inviolable claim to other people’s money but not to his own.
An argument with regard to the above statement might be that the government has a “right” to 20% of your effective income – but that you have a right to the other 80%. People actually tend to find a degree of taxation acceptable, and even feel it their civic duty, if it is not excessive and they get value for money. Unfortunately the US has recently seen serious abuse of taxation and inefficiency in its use – health being a prime example. Currently, I doubt the US government even justifies 10% of GDP – not until they show (to the voting public) that they can spend it far more responsibly (can on average spend that money better than individuals).
I suspect a universal voucher system that provided for a low level safety net and pre existing conditions might somewhat get around this – and potentially cost the tax payer less than current government sponsored health care (while providing much better near universal but very limited care). This would in no way change the nature or cost of good health care, which the vast majority would pay directly for. Such a system might be a good fit for the US and retain the good aspects of the current US system while adding the good aspects of other countries (like much less expensive and better base care). Got to get the bureaucracy out of health care.
I find it strange in the US how people use insurance companies to run their health care (and even make it employer dependent???), instead of providing actual insurance and instead of running their own health care – very inefficient and disruptive to a free market, and why would you trust an insurance company with your own health??? In most other countries insurance is actual insurance, it only covers what you can not comfortably cover yourself. I suspect if people in the US actually started paying directly for their own health care out of their own pockets – the ongoing base health care that they do not need a catastrophic insurance system to cover (like what most people in other countries do), then health costs would probably halve and people would get much better care and have far more control/say over their own health.
Unfortunately, without tort reform there is no real hope of fixing the US health system.
An argument with regard to the above statement might be that the government has a “right” to 20% of your effective income – but that you have a right to the other 80%.
I’d practically do cartwheels if my tax burden was only 20%. Like most people, my tax burden consists of:
Federal income tax
Social Security tax
Medicare tax
State income tax (Colorado)
State and local sales taxes (about 7.6%)
Property tax
Vehicle use tax
Taxes added to my utility bills, phone bill, and cell phone bill
Those are just the taxes that quickly come to mind. It doesn’t even begin to count the taxes and regulatory compliance costs hidden in the price of everything we buy and we get to pay sales tax on that!
All told, my wife and I pay over $50,000 a year in taxes. That’s WAY over 20% of our income with precious little to show for it. It’s strange how the people who feed off of taxes say I’m greedy for wanting to keep more of our income but they’re never called greedy for demanding ever more from the government.
We have this written fable that consent is the basis of our government. It never has been and never can be. However, if it were true then no tax would come from anyone without consent. I would consent to be taxed for the nations defense. I find it difficult to think of one other single thing (things we are currently taxed for could easily be handled by contract locally.)
Taxes are well over 50% for anyone working. My dad used to fill up his microbus (no, he was not a hippy, just an A/P mechanic) for $3 at about $0.22 per gallon. Do you know what the taxes on a gallon of gas are today. Me neither.
It’s the “need = right” fallacy that underlies most, if not all, of coercive redistributionism. If you need something, you have a right to it, even at someone else’s expense. If you can’t prove (to the statists’ satisfaction–and of course they’re never satisfied) that you need those extra simoleons you honestly earned, then you have no right to it.
One lots of figures I see suggest that federal tax has been in the 15-20% of GDP range for the last fifty years, and is actually closer to 15% at the moment.
My suspicion is that taxpayers are not particularly impressed with how their taxes are currently being spent and so it is becoming increasingly difficult to extract tax from them. Also, the less efficiently the federal government spends money, the worse the economy does and the less tax it collects. However I fear the federal government can stay irrational longer than the taxpayer can stay solvent. Or is it that the voters can stay irrational longer than the government can remain solvent…
Pete, if you think you’re being taxed less than 20% you’re looking at it with a microscope. Widen your view and you will find all the other fees like gas taxes and such put you over 50%.
“Theftist.” I like it, and do hereby decree that it be the New Epithet for the Progressive Left in 2011.
Someone recently showed that federal revenue has never been able to get out of that range, regardless of the tax rates Congress imposes.
And even if overll tax burden were only 15% of GDP, what is that to me or me to it? My household income isn’t indexed directly to GDP.
Pete, why is it the government’s responsibility to pay for any of the necessities of life for anybody? If government should pay for anyone’s health care — why not for his food? His rent? His cell phone bill?
Government’s only role, I submit, is to solve collective action problems — to do those things that can’t be done by individuals, or by individuals organizing themselves voluntarily. Few things come to mind: setting weights and measures, negotiating treaties with foreign countries, national defense. Providing health care for charity cases is not one of them. Private charity is perfectly competent to do so to the precise extent the public wants it done. You don’t see the government in the blood donation business, do you? The organ transplant business?
The plain illogic and inconsistency of the Modern Left’s position on what government should and should not do makes it clear they have no consistent philosophy. They just work the sympathy angle because they know it appeals to people with a conscience — e.g. conservatives — and it gives them access to lots of power and money to distribute.
The 15-20% figure obviously only applies to federal tax, state tax is extra.
At another level different countries compete for the best citizens, one method of establishing what the optimal tax rate is is to let citizens freely choose between living in low or high tax countries. The US used to be the exemplar of a successful low tax country, but not so much anymore, immigration of high quality citizens to the US has recently decreased substantially. The Scandinavian countries seem to do reasonably well for their citizens, even though being high tax economies.
This leads me to consider that what really matters is the efficiency and effectiveness of government taxation and spending. If the government is competent then the relationship between taxation level and economic prosperity is fairly soft. Apparently the competence of the US government is decreasing fast and striving for the bottom end of the OECD standings in terms of efficiency, competence and accountability, as indicated by reducing economic performance.
So it seems to me that the US can either vote in a more competent government or starve the existing one to minimize its influence. The latter option perhaps having greater chance of success. A small government has far less ability to stuff a country up.
The Scandinavian countries seem to do reasonably well for their citizens, even though being high tax economies.
Are they, really? Ken and Larry have a very good point, that the Federal tax bite is at best only half what a typical person pays. Throw in state and local taxes, SS/Medicare taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, corporate taxes, estate taxes, real estate taxes — are all these things true in Sweden, too? I wonder. Maybe they have one or a very few taxes, with higher rates than our typical Federal rate — and then the US compensates by having about fifty zillion other taxes. I’d rather be taxed once at 30% than 50 times at 2%, ha ha.
I think that the term “giveaway” originates from a position that the tax cut is a [virtual] handing back of taxes that would otherwise have been due and payable. I don’t think it refers to the entire tax, just the reduction. It’s a giveaway if you agree with the view that we (the people) don’t get anything in return for “giving back” a portion of taxes otherwise payable. Arguably, increasing a wealthy person’s bank account doesn’t benefit the general public (unless the goal is easing the money supply, in which case the amount is not enough to matter).
As an engineer I generally strive to use language that clarifies meaning and makes distinctions. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the M.O. of our politicians, who seem to use words that best promote an agenda rather than to be clear and explicit.
It would be much better if we could just represent taxes and programs as they are (that is, net, rather than a tax plus a tax cut plus another tax plus… ad infinitum). Imagine if Congress were required to enter all of their taxes and tax cuts into a spreadsheet that sums all, and hit the update button each time a new one was passed.
Yes, the US is becoming a high tax country with low tax benefits – the worst of both worlds.
What needs to be done is fairly obvious to most everyone (balance the books, tax reform, tort reform, abolishment of business and union monopolies, end entitlements, pork, special interests, a general regulatory clean out, etc.), but none of this is really doable.
Some critical balancing force now seems to be missing in the US political system, some driving force for accountability and economic success that can cut down regulation and trump special interests. Unless it can be found the US is in big trouble, and I am not sure if firing all the politicians every election cycle is going to be enough to find it.
Decimating the federal government and forcing states to again compete for citizens might work – but I see no real way to accomplish that.
Beyond this, maybe the US can hold on long enough for another tech boom that opens up a new frontier and changes the face of civilization – say the opening of space, disruptively cheap energy/transport, large scale automated production that bypasses low cost labor, medical advances/automation, etc. The US still leads the world in R&D and the US is likely where the next breakthrough will come from. If technology can out pace bureaucracy, there is hope.
changes the face of civilization – say the opening of space, disruptively cheap energy
We have disruptively cheap energy. They just made sure that by the time it reached the folks it wasn’t anymore. “Too cheap to meter” was the absolute truth.
Opening space isn’t going to happen fast enough to change things for almost anyone alive today.
The traditional method might be best. Most of us die in a horrible war and those left take a serious look around. Have you ever wondered what makes dystopian literature popular?