House of Eratosthenes

Let us buy things, not pay taxes

Would the Democratic Assembly please tell citizens why paying taxes is more important than spending one’s money as one chooses? Why are government programs more important than consumer items that actually generate tax revenue?

When tax revenues fall, hello, there is a reason. Why should we, and especially those on limited incomes, be forced to pay higher taxes rather than on goods and services of our choice?

Just asking for clarification.

– Cynthia Van Auken, Chico

An eyeball-rolling fan of big government responds with mock patience, today. Like, what the hell is the matter with this beleagured taxpayer, is she stupid or something?

Tax dollars benefit the economy

Apparently, Cynthia Van Auken is the product of private schools, uses an autogyro for transportation, has a private security guard and a superior fire retarding system for her home. Otherwise, like most of the rest of us, she has benefited from the taxes we all, including the employees of civil service systems, pay (“Let us buy things, not pay taxes,” letter, Aug. 26).

When we build roads, the private sector, under the supervision of civil servants, makes money that goes directly back into the economy. When we hire teachers, our children grow up able to make a decent salary, and the teachers’ salaries go to purchase products and pay taxes. These tax dollars benefit the economy just as much as the dollars spent by those who don’t pay taxes. I suggest Van Auken could benefit from a short course in economics. We must pay for services we want to use, be they airports, highways, police departments or fire departments.

– Joy M. Doyle, Sacramento

I couldn’t resist adding to the melee. Being evil, and all.

Lady,

Just what do you think people do with money when they are allowed by their gracious and benevolent state government to keep it? Stick it up their butts, or something?

Whereupon I yanked that virtual draft out of my virtual typewriter, crumpled it into a virtual ball, and tossed it in the virtual wastebasket.

Rolling a fresh virtual sheet of virtual paper under the virtual platen, I began anew:

Cyntha Van Auken was “just asking for clarification” but Joy Doyle bit her head off. I hope she enjoyed doing it.

Ms. Doyle, can your argument take on merely the appearance of merit, if it’s presented in a civil tone? I think it could; evidently, you disagree. That’s a shame. I’ve found ideas consistently presented in haughty and condescending tones tend to be bad. I also notice Keynesian theory is often presented this way.

One other question: On your next job interview, when your prospective employer asks why you should get the job, do you intend to say something like “when you pay me money, I spend it, and that benefits everybody”? If so – that, of course, would be very silly. If not, then I’m afraid I need some enlightenment: Why should our state government get credit for spending money, when individuals don’t?

I think that’s the issue Van Auken was trying to raise. I see you pretty much sidestepped it. That’s probably because you felt the need to.

I should add that today’s letters section carried another letter making the same point as Ms. Doyle’s, but exhibiting an exception to this rule about advocating Keynesian economics in snarky, snotty tones.

Paying for our quality of life

Allow me to answer Cynthia Van Auken’s question of why paying taxes is sometimes more important than spending one’s money as one chooses.

There are things that can’t be bought but instead require the ongoing investment of all of society. The basics include roads, police and fire protection.

Then account for the fact that bad things can happen to good people. If your spouse has a stroke or your child has a disability, do you want there to be programs so that you can work, go shopping and have respite from caregiving? If you get cancer and your insurance doesn’t cover all the bills, should you face bankruptcy and foreclosure? Do you really want the kids down your street to lack quality education and job opportunities, leaving them so hopeless that they’re willing to shoot each other over the color of a jacket?

Government services to address those needs are not charity but investments in our quality of life. We can argue about which investments and how much, but let’s stop pretending that we can have something for nothing. Part of being a responsible citizen means being willing to pay for the quality of life we want.

– Kathy Campbell, Sacramento

However, I have a bone to pick with Ms. Campbell too (although I’ll not further burden my poor local letters-to-editor guy with it today).

I keep seeing the same bullshit used to defend our ravenous state government’s insatiable apetite for money.

Roads.

Schools.

Police & Fire.

Educating our chiiiiilllllddddrrreeeeeennnn…

I’ll not tear into the entrails of our state’s budget to demonstrate how off the mark this is. For one thing, I don’t have a budget I could inspect in such a way just yet! That’s part of the reason, I’m sure, Van Auken wrote her letter in the first place; there are few state-level boondoggles bigger than California’s annual clown-puppet show.

Just take it from this Golden State citizen — take my word for it.

This state spends money on a lot of other things besides schools, roads and fire departments.

I couldn’t resist adding to the melee. Being evil, and all.

Lady,

Just what do you think people do with money when they are allowed by their gracious and benevolent state government to keep it? Stick it up their butts, or something?

Whereupon I yanked that virtual draft out of my virtual typewriter, crumpled it into a virtual ball, and tossed it in the virtual wastebasket.

Good for you, Morgan, as your rhetorical skills are far above that.

On the other hand, I understand your first impulse, and fell out of my chair lauging when I read it. So I could hardly blame you if you had posted it instead. 🙂 Still, I know you’re a better man than that.
- philmon | 08/29/2008 @ 23:31
And about those schools and roads and safety net programs….

There is merit in government, or we wouldn’t have one. And government costs money. I get that. I actually do see merit in these programs (I’d still rather have private schools with perhaps government assistance for those who cannot afford the minimum tuition for the least prestiegeous schools — public schools are as bad an idea as repealing the religion clause of the first amendment — because that is excactly the effect it is having).

Here’s what I don’t get. Why do we need to give ever-larger percentages of our hard-earned money to these programs or be accused of being “against” them?

How about a flat tax rate? We’ll figure a minimum of what a family needs to live on, and tax a flat percentage of anything above that. That’s what the government gets. Period. N%, where N is a constant. If the GDP goes down, then the government collects less money, and it has to make choices like the rest of us do. If the GDP grows, it gets more money because N% of a bigger number is more. I know the math challenged don’t get that.

Thus, government is encouraged to persue policies that protect and nurture the GDP. It’s win-win.

We can have a big discussion about what “N” will be. I’m thinking something under 20%. But that would be a big improvement. No more politicians promising “more” by taking more from somebody else … because N% is N%, and that’s the budget.

I have another idea about safety net programs, but we won’t get into that here if I can just get people to compromise with me to this point — I’ll accept a limited government safety net program if that’s what it takes.
- philmon | 08/29/2008 @ 23:44
Good for you, Morgan, as your rhetorical skills are far above that.

It’s like, when your girlfriend elbows you in the ribs and it doesn’t irritate you…then she does it ten more times, until you’ve got a bruise there. And then she does it again and you SNAP.

That’s where I am with this stupid brain-dead argument. “When the government spends money to pay a teacher’s salary and to build roads…” Why, in tarnation, TEACHERS and ROADS? How come when we debate the merits of letting the taxpayers keep it vs. stuffing more of it into the treasury, we’re not talking about buying needles for heroin addicts? I mean, that’s what the politicians want to sign with their good names when they want to be all big’n bad “progressives” and all. I don’t hear anyone saying bubkes about teachers/roads/police/fire (trpf) until the debate about big vs. small government comes up; and then, you’d swear on your mother’s grave, government must be made up of only those four.

And, you and I have this magical power TOO. When we spend money, good things happen TOO. It’s just a completely freakin’ flippin’ false lying insincere phony argument. Gah…I’m just paving over old ground here.
- mkfreeberg | 08/30/2008 @ 11:25

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

How About Letting the Taxpayers Keep It?Friday, August 29th, 2008

How About Letting the Taxpayers Keep It?
Friday, August 29th, 2008