Wall Street Journal editor Stephen Moore recently called me a hypocrite because I am a rich American who favors higher taxes on the wealthy yet do not voluntarily pay more to the federal government than I legally owe. Mr. Moore wishes he "had a dollar for every time a wealthy liberal has declared he thinks he should pay more taxes," a wish I would be happy to oblige if he gave me a dollar for every time a wealthy conservative has declared he pays too much. While he notes that there are "patriotic reasons for strongly opposing higher tax rates," it is quite obvious that wealthy conservatives like Mr. Moore have compelling personal reasons for opposing them, too, and hence perfectly understandable why they might want to counter the perception that they are merely selfish and greedy by trying to impugn the character of those who disagree with them rather than focusing on the substance of our position.
So to be clear, I acknowledge that many opponents of higher taxes -- even rich ones -- legitimately believe that low taxes on the wealthy benefit all Americans. But I think that the claim that anybody who favors higher taxes is morally obliged to pay more than they legally owe shows a fundamental misconception about the basis for the social compact we call government.
The primary role of government is to provide public goods and services -- things that benefit all citizens but that commercial markets cannot or will not provide. While Ron Paul questions the size of the military, even he acknowledges that some level of defense spending is necessary to keep Americans safe, and most people go further in including things like the transportation system and public education as collective goods which benefit society as a whole.
Mr. Moore comments that some collective goods can be paid for voluntarily. Well, sure: as a resident of a wealthy suburb, I know that my neighbors are happy to donate money to the local public schools attended by their own children. But I wouldn't count on this largesse paying for school systems in nearby, poorer towns (just consider the long and tangled history of public school funding in my home state of New Jersey).
Game theorists have spent decades studying social dilemmas like this, when there is a cost to creating something which benefits all members of a community. Dozens of experiments have shown that when people have an opportunity to "free ride" by not contributing but still benefiting from the contributions of others, social cooperation will often be initially observed but then tends to break down with the end result that nobody contributes, and hence nobody benefits.
In fact, standard economic theory says that since it is perfectly rational to free ride, nobody will ever contribute to a public good in the absence of coercion. Fortunately, empirical evidence demonstrates that economists misunderstand human nature, since the majority of subjects in public goods experiments are not free riders but "conditional cooperators," willing to contribute as long as everybody else does, too.
So I feel no need to apologize for only paying what I owe in taxes -- I'm a human, not a saint (though I feel compelled to note that over the last five years, I have given an average of over 11% of my income to various charities). Why should I let rich conservatives like Mr. Moore free ride on my contributions? Are they willing to forgo the benefits of public goods like national defense?
After decades of failing to pay for the costs of government, the United States faces difficult choices. Avoiding disaster will require sacrifices from all Americans, and I personally think that the wealthy should be the first to contribute. But while I consider myself deeply patriotic, I don't think that wealthy liberals should bear that burden alone.
Heh Hah Anita ....... I got Ron Paul scared of me..........
Now honey can you help me understand this? What does it mean when they are saying I believe in capital cronisym. Honey I thought you told me that I had to play nice with my friends. Its not my fault that the 'oversees state job-stimulating funds that have provided almost $633 million to companies likeHome Depot Inc. (HD) and agribusinesses such as Tyson Foods only created 10,000 jobs and not the 60,000 they promised. And golly I can't ask those folks to give back their money, after it is Christian to forgive and forget. I did manage to employee, or give powerful postions to everyone who gave me lots of money to my campaign or let us in their fancy jets. Why are they made at me I am only doing what my momma taught me, share and be nice to all those nice people.
Honey I can't make all those decisions needed to run the country. Boy am I glad that you told me to eliminatel federal gov't agencies push all problems back to the state. Then I can blame them when the people are hurting. But how I am going to explain to all my , "friends"and benefactors I can't give them any more influence in running the country. Boy this job is tough............
Fact , fiction or an American nightmare. Slick Rick in the WH 2012. Vote America
Any research sponsored by the government can't be taken advantage of. No cops or firemen for you.
Add 'should not' to the end of that sentence please!
Unless, I miss understand, which I hope that I have…. The government is a center point organizer for the rights of individual states. Its primary function was foreign affaires, commerce, treaties, the defense of our sovereignty and protector of our constitution.
If you still believe what you said, it is obvious that you are a " GIVE ME, GIVE ME, GIVE ME PERSON that expects the government to wipe your a** when you are too lazy to go to the store and buy toilet paper.
As I said, I hope that I misinterpreted your post. I'm not up to speed of all of the "Would-a, Could-a , Should-a's, and even I can be wrong.
In the process of living I have learned that not every citizen has the same access or opportunities I had. Some are incapable of getting where I have due to disabilities, others because the educational opportunities or social support was lacking.
I believe that the government exists to protect its citizens. The oath I took was to protect the nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Poverty and ignorance are domestic enemies. Abuse of power and exploitation of citizens for profit are domestic enemies. I believe in using government to help those citizens get where I am, or as close as they can. I do not believe in using government to enhance the profits of those who are already doing well. I do not believe in Empire. I do not believe in pandering to the ignorant and the bigoted to advance my own self interest.
Nobody who succeeds in the United States does it on their own. We are in this together. We owe our fellow citizens a fair shot, and we should all be willing to pay our dues to keep America great!
No fair introducing math into the argument.
The government has specifically enumerated Powers, with strict limitations put on it by the 10th Amendment. So, while the military is a proper role for the federal government, paying farmers NOT to farm is NOT. This holds true for 80% of the rest of what the federal government taxes us for, including Social Security and Medicare. The government does NOT have that Power. If the citizens of a state wish their State to perform such a task, they may vote to have themselves taxed for it. The Interstate system, which I am sure you will bring up, was proposed by President Eisenhower as a National Defense requirement. You might research it, and you will find that the main legs of the interstate were required to be suitable for landing combat aircraft, requiring fairly long stretches of flat, straight, lanes. The Federal Government does NOT fund local police or fire, so please try to avoid them.
Semper fi
As for your so-called constitutional argument, the federal government is empowered to legislate for the common welfare of the nation, and the commerce clause grants pretty wide authority. The limits of the 10th amendment were tested in the mid 1800's, and federal authority was established pretty definitively.
The others have NO Constitutional authority, as in the Forest Service and BLM you cite.
Please read our Founders ideas of the strict limitations of the federal government, and their ideas of "common welfare". It is those strict limitations which we wish to reimpose on the fed.
The 10th was never amended out of existence. It is therefore still the operative restraint on the Federal government!
Semper fi
http://www.themonitor.com/articles/supports-42092-federal-local.html
Semper fi
http://doesthegopcare.blogspot.com/
People love to say that less taxes raise revenue because of increased spending and economic growth but the problem is we have less spending up to and including the national median income for a family of 4.
Mike
All once needs to do is look at the few publicly supported (i.e, as in voluntary contributions) TV and radio stations; they are lucky to get even 10 percent of their listener base to contribute.
Semper fi