The inconvenient truth about taxes
In a saner world, conservatives would be rallying around people such as Bruce Bartlett. His conservative pedigree is impressive: domestic policy adviser to Reagan, congressional staffer to Ron Paul and Jack Kemp, Treasury official under the first President Bush. In 2005, he was fired from the right-wing National Center for Policy Analysis for daring to criticize the spending policies of the second George Bush, a position that, with Bush safely gone, the entire conservative movement has now come to embrace.
I disagree with Bartlett on many things, but I’ve long respected him as someone who at least tries to deal in the world of reality rather than illusion. He does so again in a recent column in Forbes magazine. Noting the rising tide of conservative anger over taxes, culminating in the various tea parties of this week, Bartlett writes:
“The irony of these protests is that federal revenues as a share of the gross domestic product will be lower this year than any year since 1950. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal government will take only 15.5% of GDP in taxes this year, compared to 17.7% last year, 18.8% in 2007 and 20.9% in 2000.
The truth is that the U.S. is a relatively low-tax country no matter how you slice the data. The following tables illustrate this fact by comparing the U.S. to other members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a Paris-based research organization.
As Table 1 shows, total taxation (federal, state and local) amounted to 28% of the GDP in the U.S. in 2006. Only four of the 30 OECD countries (Japan, Turkey, Korea, Mexico) had a lower tax ratio. Taxes averaged 35.9% for the OECD as a whole and 38% in Europe. Citizens of Denmark and Sweden paid very close to 50% of their total income in taxes.
The rest of the piece is interesting as well. For instance, until the collapse of its economy, Ireland was lauded by radio gabmeister Neal Boortz and others as the shining example of what low taxes will produce. And maybe it is. The conservative Economist magazine, in a recent assessment of Ireland’s situation, notes that its GDP fell 2.5 percent last year and is predicted to fall 6.5 percent this year, a stunning decline that dwarfs the contraction here in the United States.
“Cuts in income tax left public finances too dependent on windfall revenues from VAT on new homes, capital-gains tax and stamp duty. Those revenues dried up swiftly once house prices and sales slumped, pushing the budget into deep deficit,” the Economist writes. “The fragile economy and a continuing loss of competitiveness have made bond markets nervous about Ireland’s ability to dig itself out of its fiscal hole.”
Bartlett notes that in Ireland and other countries, the government sends cash payments to families regardless of income. “In Ireland, workers get back more than 200% of their tax payments,” he writes. Mr. Boortz, that smells like socialism to me.
But the core of Bartlett’s piece is a common-sense observation:
“The point is that one can’t look just at the taxes people pay here or elsewhere without looking at what they get in return. It doesn’t automatically follow that the places with the lowest taxes are the best places to live and work. This is obvious when we think about where to buy a house. We always look at the quality of local schools as a major factor and are willing to pay higher property taxes in return for good schools. The same is true at the national level as well. Higher taxes may pay for services that people value and thus are not as burdensome as they might appear at first glance.”
I wonder where Sean Hannity lives? In a low-tax, low-service neighborhood? Or in a high-tax neighborhood where the streets are beautifully paved, the police protection is effective and the schools are top-notch?
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
50 comments Add your comment
Corporal
April 18th, 2009
9:07 am
Jay:
1) There is “some” merit to your/his points but here is the larger issue. We have reached the point of “de facto” taxation without representation because those who pay ZERO income taxes outnumber those who do and therefore those who do are “outvoted”. People will not stand for that long. We must find another tax system that is FAIR to all. Ours is a “voluntary” system but it is very tenuous. It won’t take much to make it a farce.
2) Would this be your thread this morning if Bush was still in office and what would your postition be ?
HEADLINE: Judge Skeptical Of State Secrets Privilege For NSA/Charity Case …
“The Obama administration suffered a bit of a legal setback this afternoon: a federal judge in California rejected the administration’s assertion of the state secrets privilege in the civil suit brought by an Islamic charity that was allegedly subjected to illegal NSA surveillance. The order, in Al-Haramain v. Bush, requires the government to come up with a way to safeguard the classified information it plans to present in the NSA’s defense by May 8. Judge Vaughn Walker noted that the government has elsewhere made provisions for the discussion of Top Secret/SCI information. It so happens that the plaintiffs attorneys have been cleared to that level. Walker crafted his order narrowly to prevent the government from appealing it immediately to the Ninth Circuit. On May 8, it will be interesting to see whether the administration presents a plan for safeguarding classified info — or whether it re-asserts the state secrets privilege.”
I Report/ You Whine
April 18th, 2009
9:15 am
How many Republicans do you see left in Government?
Boy, didn’t we come out for them in 2008?
What a childish argument, he jumped off the bridge so we all should, duh
Weak and diseased.
But the brainwashed will be like eewwww!!!, yeah!!!
jt
April 18th, 2009
9:15 am
” it doesn’t automatically follow that the places with the lowest taxes are the best places to live and work.”
The converse is true too. The cities that spend the highest amount of tax dollars per student is a good example.
Corporal
April 18th, 2009
9:24 am
HEADLINE/TEHRAN, Iran — “An American journalist jailed in Iran has been convicted of spying and sentenced to eight years in prison, her lawyer said Saturday, dashing any hopes for her quick release.
Roxana Saberi, a 31-year-old dual American-Iranian citizen, was arrested in late January and initially accused of working without press credentials. But an Iranian judge later leveled a far more serious allegation, charging her with spying for the United States.”
HERE’S THE BOTTOM LINE:
Any “sane” woman who travels to an Islamic state steps across a line.
Kind of like my scenario for walking through Perry Homes, at midnight, on a hot August Saturday night, with a $100 bill taped to my forehead and a Confederate Battle Flag on the front of my T-shirt. I have that “right” in this country but I must bear some responsibility for what happens.
David B. in Stone Mountain
April 18th, 2009
9:32 am
Your column strikes a particular chord with me this morning, after reading about the sanctimonious, Fox-News-driven tea parties. Americans have been told that they could get something for nothing for so long that many actually believe it. And now when the time has come to pay the piper, these Ayn Rand-ian miscreants don’t want to foot the bill with the rest of us. They “deserve more” because they “work harder” than the “looters” and “moochers” (Atlas Shrugged) they perceive to be all around them.
College Professor
April 18th, 2009
9:37 am
Jay: How come you never refer to the inconvenient truth about taxes that a professor of law and theology from Emory delineated in your newspaper about 6-8 months ago? That inconvenient truth was that the taxpayer has spent $110 billion a year every year for the past 10 years financing the personal irresponsibility of adults who have children they cannot afford. Do you think taxpayers may be justifiably angry over that waste of their hard earned money? Do you think the government should require these parasitical adults to lower their birthrate through the mandatory use of birth control? If so should the savings be passed along to the taxpayer in the form of tax cuts? What about it Jay?
Secondly, there is not a school board in the country that ever has enough money. The DeKalb or Atlanta school boards, for example, could have more money than the gross national product, and they would complain that still don’t have enough to do what they need to do. No school board has ever cut taxes or spending. After all it’s for the children, who are automatically more virtuous than the taxpayer. Based on my 20 years experience in education, I firmly believe that at least 10 percent of all administrators are so superfluous that their absence at the next meeting would not even be noticed. I also believe that that school boards could terminate at least 5 percent of all non-faculty personnel in every school building without affecting the quality of education at all.
Finally, Jay, what about the increased costs of just about everything–food, transportation, energy, clothing–that taxpayers will have to pay because of the coming environmental regulations? Jay, will government use its coercive power to tax to force taxpayers to pay these increased costs for the beloved poor through higher taxes? Or will government require the beloved poor to do anything by and for themselves?
Jay, the inconvenient truth about taxes is not that taxes are too high; the inconvenient truth is that taxes are too high because government wastes way too much of the money it collects from the taxpayer.
Kamchak
April 18th, 2009
9:39 am
Humans have been complaining about taxes throughout recorded history. Advocating that some citizens don’t have the right to vote because “they” pay less taxes than “us” is tribalism of the worst sort. Elections were held last November where a president, senators, and representatives were voted on. To suggest taxation without representation is ludacris.
Corporal
April 18th, 2009
9:39 am
David B. in Stone Mountain:
Your cheerleading for “class warfare” is what’s wrong about all of this. You couldn’t be more wrong on your statistical analysis of who pays for what in this country (both taxes and voluntarily to charities) but you don’t seem to me to be a reasonable person to debate the subject. So, brace yourself for some tough times down the road.
Obambi's TelePrompter
April 18th, 2009
9:43 am
Aahhh, yes, my good buddy Hugo Chavez.
Come, give Big Daddy a kiss.
Uh, what’s that big jar of Vaseline for?
Stop it! Stop it!
I am not, uh, transgendered!
ew
Dave R
April 18th, 2009
9:44 am
Tea parties were protests about SPENDING, Jay. SPENDING. Just happened to be on Tax Day, Jay.
Typical liberal. Change the subject when you can’t make a logical argument.
Here’s something you might want to try as a journalist, if you can remember what that entails: Do your research before posting something as insipid as you just did.
And remember, Bartlett is no fan of the FairTax. He doesn’t even understand the basic premise. Kinda like you, Jay.
David B. in Stone Mountain
April 18th, 2009
9:51 am
Corporal,
1) I’d read every book Ayn Rand ever penned by the time I was 17, and I admired and revered her work. I still do, but I grew up.
2) The only people who cry class warfare would be you and your ilk.
3) I’m also a war veteran. I put myself through college, and my childrens’ college is already provided for. I have never been unemployed in my adult years, save for one month during the dot com crash.
Mr. Snarky
April 18th, 2009
10:04 am
Corporal, if fewer people are paying income taxes than before (non-partisan link needed to prove this), that is because income inequality has reached similar extremes to the late 20’s.
Some might say that this is the natural state of things, but most Americans seem to disagree and therefore voted for Obama.
http://lanekenworthy.net/2008/03/09/the-best-inequality-graph/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
It seems obvious to me that the way to remedy the recent changes in income inequality is to reverse the policies of the past 30 years of deregulation and tax policies that favor the rich. If most people make a decent living, then they will be obliged to pay income taxes. On the other hand, if we continue towards the developing nation model of high wealth consolidation and dirt low wages, the voters will eventually support an economic model like Venezuela, where the government forcibly re-distributes income in order to pacify the poor.
ByteMe
April 18th, 2009
10:05 am
College Professor says: “That inconvenient truth was that the taxpayer has spent $110 billion a year every year for the past 10 years financing the personal irresponsibility of adults who have children they cannot afford.”
Let me guess: you’re also against abortion on demand.
Dave R: the “baggers” are not about spending or they would have been demanding that military spending, social security spending, medicare spending should all decrease in dramatic proportions. Only 15% of the budget is everything else at this point (other than interest on the debt). This ain’t about spending or you’d see members of Congress happily talking about ways to cut spending right in your own hometown.
The baggers were a lobbyist created “flash mob”. You remember Ralph Reed? He was a lobbyist that whipped up opposition to a new Indian casino by using the Christian Right as a smoke screen. The money to fund whipping up the Christians was covertly provided by a competing Indian casino that was already in operation nearby. So you gotta ask yourself: who’s funding this and why? How are the baggers being used this time?
lwwmm7
April 18th, 2009
10:06 am
If a person receives a refund for more than he/she has paid in taxes, then he/she is no longer a taxpayer. So simple even an SSI disability TV lawyer can grasp it.
Paul
April 18th, 2009
10:12 am
Jay
I’ve always had a bit of a problem with using Gross Domestic Product in an across the board analysis in discussions of taxation. GDP is measured different ways, but is usually stated as the value of all goods and services produced in an economy (it also includes some government expenditures).
But the taxes we discuss are on personal income. I think a more meaningful analysis for the average person is a comparison among countries of personal taxes paid to personal income. In our country, most taxes are derived from individuals and families. GDP encompasses much, much more than that, the effect of which, for a country like the US, is to have a higher GDP give a much lower ratio when comparing personal taxes paid.
Maybe I just don’t understand the concept, but it seems to me if the percentage of federal (and local) revenues from taxing personal income rises over time that’s cause for concern. Haven’t you had one or two threads dealing with the shift in federal revenue from corporate to personal? So it seems to me if GDP grows, personal taxes rise at a slower pace than GDP and taxes from other sources decrease, well, the overall percentage of personal taxes as a function of GDP will be lower than it was, even though personal taxes for the average person have risen.
Again, I caught just a few interviews with people from those tea parties and I did hear a lot of concern over the level of spending, not just taxation.
I’ve also made the point that people in other countries seem to get much more for their tax dollar. But look at where ours go and where other countries spend. Or look at how they structure programs – which is likely why other countries can spend less on health care, overall, than we do but provide service to more people.
lwwmm7
April 18th, 2009
10:16 am
Eat the rich.
lwwmm7
April 18th, 2009
10:17 am
Tax the rich, feed the poor, till there are no rich no more.
Paul
April 18th, 2009
10:18 am
Jay
And it may be entirely possible people at various income levels in America pay less tax than people of corresponding income levels in other countries. But if people perceive they are being taxed at a higher rate, there is a problem. People on the Left seem to shy away from discussions of actual tax rates for various households, except for those at high income levels. So we could have a situation where people think they pay a lot, actually don’t, and want more services without paying more themselves.
Or not. It would be fun to find out.
lwwmm7
April 18th, 2009
10:30 am
Paul
Your calm, reasoned approcach is most welcome. Beware, though, you are soon to be treated to the usual name-calling by the usual suspects who you happen to (even mildly) disagree with. Heads up, bucko, here they come.
Mr. Snarky
April 18th, 2009
10:31 am
What she said!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/opinion/18collins.html
Paul
April 18th, 2009
10:37 am
lwwmm7
No problem. I usually don’t look at it as ‘winning’ an argument – more seeing if there’s information that will cause me to change my mind. Or putting forth an idea and seeing if it has holes or strong points I hadn’t considered.
So when people do the namecalling thing I pretty much dismiss it as demonstrating they don’t have anything to offer.
Unless I’m in it to win. Then, I do. I win.
SuperDave
April 18th, 2009
10:37 am
Ok, I’ll admit I paid no federal income tax last year. In past years I’ve paid a lot, and some other years, paid none. However, for the past 10 years I’ve been self employed, so I usually pay at least $10,000 in Social Security and Medicare taxes (self employment tax).
I did pay state income taxes as well as property and sales taxes. My total tax burden last year was over 26% of my adjusted gross income.
I have never collected a penny in public assistance of any kind, or Social Security. I’ve never been unemployed or even collected unemployment compensation.
I resent being told that I don’t deserve a vote or a voice in my government or that I’m sponging off all the “productive” people in society.
ByteMe
April 18th, 2009
10:38 am
lwwmm7 @ 10:06, you are using flawed reasoning, which has been pointed out here many times before.
Other taxes you pay directly that aren’t accounted for on the AGR line in your 1040: payroll tax (7.65%) and sales tax. If you’re dirt poor, getting some of that money back can be a blessing.
Dusty
April 18th, 2009
10:39 am
Bookman writes”I wonder where Sean Hannity lives?”.. so said because Hannity is probably wealthy.
Well, I wonder where Bookman lives? Is he going to give all his money to the government so everyone can live in a place like his? I doubt it.
Bookman wants everybody to stop complaining about taxes and share their wealth. I think he should show us how it is done. Then he can tell us how well socialism works. He wants “socialism” through higher taxes but does not want to call it that.
I hope the IRS knows that Bookman really wants to give and give and give ’cause it is good good good. Go for it, Bookman! Give ‘em all you’ve got!!
Kamchak
April 18th, 2009
10:39 am
Mr. Snarky
Great link!
“And how, by the way, can you stand at a rally waving the American flag while yelling ‘Secede’?”
Priceless.
Paul
April 18th, 2009
10:40 am
Mr. Snarky
“Can you imagine how the conservative base would have reacted if she (Mrs. Obama) said that it was the first time she didn’t feel like renouncing her citizenship?”
Great link – thanks!
SuperDave
April 18th, 2009
10:44 am
I’d also like to add that I too respect Paul for his reasoned and sensible debate here. He can always back up his views and never calls names and never insults. I don’t always agree with him, but I always respect his opinions.
Mr. Snarky
April 18th, 2009
10:47 am
Thanks. I wish I was as smart as Ms. Collins.
I like the part about Cotton Farmers being tough individualists while demanding the federal govt pay for storing their crop.
Dusty
April 18th, 2009
11:08 am
Dear Paul,
I remember quite well what Mrs. Obama said even if the words were a little different from yours but meant about the same thing.
I remember also that my vote did not give me what I thought was best for the country. Amazingly, the press conveniently forgts the words of this lady as they gaggle and gush like she is the greatest thing since sliced bread and sushi.
Maybe the White House is the SECOND thing that Mrs. Obama found that she liked about the USA. But I doubt it. Digging in a garden just isn’t her cup of tea.
RW-(the original)
April 18th, 2009
12:00 pm
I wonder where Sean Hannity lives? In a low-tax, low-service neighborhood? Or in a high-tax neighborhood where the streets are beautifully paved, the police protection is effective and the schools are top-notch?
I bet Sean is paying many times more in taxes and giving many times more in charitable contributions than you are Jay B.
Corporal
April 18th, 2009
12:04 pm
David B. in Stone Mountain:
1) No. Since then you have been subliminally brainwashed by the left.
2) Those who recognize what’s happening. Yes.
3) “Brace yourself” meant the problems coming from “class warfare” not your personal financial condition. If you are a minority who through hard work and discipline has made a good life they are even more jealous of you because you don’t fit the pattern. They will come for you first.
To Snarky:
Obviously strongly disagree. Tax on spending not income.
It’s kind of like a great football team that has a super talented running back and they are winning all of their games. The other backs are jealous and want playing time. They get it but they can’t score so the game is lost.
Translation: You lose the rich in this country and the poor haven’t even begun to see what POOR looks like!
To Kamchak:
“And how, by the way, can you stand at a rally waving the American flag while yelling ‘Secede’?”
Maybe because they want that same flag with just a few less stars?
A flag is just a piece of cloth. Here are two things I wrote awhile back that you may find interesting ……….. take your best shots.
1) “As an aging veteran who fought under it, I will put up my faded “Old Glory” again this July 4 morning. As I do, I will ponder the original meaning of the symbols it contains: The stars —- a symbol of the heavens and the divine goal to which we first aspired; the blue field of vigilance and perseverance; the red stripes for those who gave their lives for freedom and the white stripes for purity of ideals.”
“However, I sadly see different symbols slowly emerging in that sacred piece of cloth: Falling stars representing a country that is carelessly abandoning its Judeo-Christian heritage; fading blue for a lack of vigilance and perseverance; red for the injustice done to millions of our precious unborn children and white representing a surrender to our borders and national sovereignty.”
“May God in His mercy sustain the United States of America.”
2) “In response to the recent Confederate flag editorial by Leonard Pitts, I was wondering how American Indians might feel about the United States flag – the Stars & Stripes – Old Glory. For many native Americans, it was the last thing they saw before the U.S. Cavalry, including the famed African-American Buffalo soldiers who were distinguished as tough Indian fighters, sent them to the “happy hunting grounds”. And by the way, that United States flag was also the first thing many slaves saw as they were loaded on “yankee” slave trading ships and again the first thing they saw when they reached their new “home”. It also flew over Japanese American internment camps during World War II, was flown when we siezed the Kingdom of Hawaii and flies over the U.S. Supreme Court responsible for the slaughter of our unborn children. Does Mr. Pitts believe the United States flag is another horrendous symbol to be done away with? I really would be interested in his opinion because I fought under that flag and that would make me very unhappy. It’s probably just a matter of time until the politically correct crowd call for a new “inclusive” flag.”
“May God help us.”
Kamchak
April 18th, 2009
12:12 pm
Corporal
I just call it as I see it.
Agree to disagree.
Thanks for your input.
TnGelding
April 18th, 2009
12:33 pm
Many of those present were protesting the spending instead of the taxes, unwilling to take off their blinders and see that when consumer spending and corporate downsizing occur you need a short stimulus to lessen the pain.
My comment from Atlanta Tea Party:
It was silly then and it’s silly now. Patriotism IS paying your taxes. If the wealthy folks would spend their money instead of hiding it in off shore tax havens and “investing” in Ponzi schemes, the government wouldn’t have to stimulate the economy. If anything, taxes are too low, especially for those of us that aren’t paying anything. You should be glad you’re earning enough to be taxed. Stay home and listen to what Obama is reading off of those teleprompters instead of obsessing about him using one. The FY2011 budget shuld be more to your liking. Give him a chance to clean up Bush’s mess.
The Tea Party was a blast! Let’s do it again…in 10 years.
Corporal
April 18th, 2009
12:33 pm
Kamchak:
…. and thank you.
TnGelding
April 18th, 2009
12:39 pm
Corporal
April 18th, 2009
12:04 pm
Did you miss the part about how low our taxes are, especially when compared to the services and benefits we receive?
Get you a new flag!
You don’t have to answer this if you don’t want to, but do you have any children?
Hillbilly Deluxe
April 18th, 2009
12:42 pm
I think the question here goes far deeper than Federal tax rates. We pay sales tax, gasoline tax, property tax, estate tax, State income tax, excise tax on tires, tax on cars (don’t even get me started on the birthday tax ruse), and other taxes we don’t even see. What matters to me and I’m sure most others is what percentage of my income do I pay for ALL taxes.
I’ve said before I think as many things as possible should be paid for locally. The average citizen can have much more input dealing with his local government than dealing with something at the state or federal level. Richard Nixon’s Revenue Sharing program was a major mistake in me view but I think he was more interested in getting things under his control than in what worked best for the country.
When I was a boy we paid 3% sales tax here in Georgia. We now pay 7% in my community (not all of it goes to the state). True we have more expenses now but we also have 4 to 5 times as many people in Georgia as we had then. Taxes are high enough in my view; we need to reign in spending at all levels of government.
I’m kind of like Paul. I’d like to see total household income compared to total household taxes paid (not just Federal) for all the different income brackets. My guess is that the middle class is the one carrying the burden. Anybody have the figures?
Paul
April 18th, 2009
12:55 pm
Hi Dusty!
Regarding Mrs. Obama:
I was just observing another irony, piggybacking on an earlier post. Mrs. Obama took heat for her “first time I loved my country” (or words to that effect) by the same people (I’m assuming, here) who now talk of secession. I don’t think one secedes if they love the country.
Just stuck me as kinda humorous.
Corporal
April 18th, 2009
1:37 pm
TnGelding:
1) No, I think I’ll keep it because I fought (I mean actually physically fought as opposed to just being in) under it.
2) Two children and one grandchild and I shudder to think of the debt we are leaving them, not the mention the change in the moral fabric of this country.
TnGelding
April 18th, 2009
1:52 pm
Corporal
April 18th, 2009
1:37 pm
Just thought those bright, bold, new colors might restore some of the original meaning.
Give the little one a hug from us and a big salute to the older ones.
Look at the bright side. You’re going to leave them a large estate. Probably enough that the interest will at least pay their taxes that go toward interest on the national debt. If the economy can start growing again that will reduce the projected deficits some and some, if not all, of the “bailout” money will be repaid.
TUESDAY VANDY GIRL
April 18th, 2009
2:22 pm
The inconvenient truth about TAXES that Jay ignores is that while our taxes may be lower than other nations on a RELATIVE basis, that just means other countries taxes are even more horrendously budernsome to the Individual, and distribute even more from the earners to the slime , the leeches, the parasites at the bottom (and sometimes, thru tarp, at the top). Nobody elses needs, wants, desires, or even their life, is worth MY money, to me. YMMV
Corporal
April 18th, 2009
4:47 pm
TnGelding:
I hear you. Wish it were that simple. I honestly believe our country has seen its best days. There are a lot of reasons why that I don’t have the time to go into here …. but some can be laid at the feet of individuals, some just part of the “system” and others are just meant to be as time goes on.
Thanks for the input. Enjoyed the polite debate.
SuperDave
April 18th, 2009
7:25 pm
Corporal,
It saddens me to know you think that way. Remember the 60’s and early 70’s. If ever there was a time I thought this country was coming apart it was then. But we came through it then and we will again.
I believe in the the freedom and creative power of the American people.
I think we’re going to be OK.
Best wishes to you.
Corporal
April 18th, 2009
9:50 pm
SuperDave:
I am many things to many people but I am also a realist. You are forgetting one thing ……… in the 60’s and 70’s the radicals were in the minority. That has all changed.
Alea iacta est …
danjonglee
April 18th, 2009
10:32 pm
One good thing about all this is that we don’t get all the Federal services that we pay for…..
NRB
April 19th, 2009
7:59 am
Enter your comments here
NRB
April 19th, 2009
8:02 am
Oh Jay, you’re absolutely right.
Since as a country we pay less taxes than anyone else, I suddenly feel better about working 103 days out of the year for the government. I’ll stop complaining about them wasting money, now.
In fact, let’s not even discuss what they spend the money on, let’s just pay more every year and let them have it, since they know better.
GOP08_DOA
April 19th, 2009
4:52 pm
I want to know where the whiners were when Bush & Cheney were spending like thieves. Oh. Yeah… They didn’t give a crap because it was Bush & Cheney.
It'sTime
April 19th, 2009
5:33 pm
It’s time for the “Fair-tax” !!!
Copyleft
April 20th, 2009
9:28 am
Really? It’s time to demolish any attempt at a progressive tax system and a civilized society? It’s time to put the screws to the poor and working classes to benefit the rich?
I think that “time” was back when the Republicans were in charge… and yet, oddly, they took no action. I guess even they realized what a dog of an idea the UnfairTax really is.
Richard W. Walker
April 20th, 2009
3:20 pm
Bruce Bartlett was not fired by the National Center for Policy Analysis for disagreeing with Pres. Bush’s policies. Indeed, the NCPA’s president and its board chairman both had published columns critical of some of Bush’s policies long before Mr. Bartlett left the NCPA or published his book. I might also add that the NCPA isn’t a right-wing organization; rather, it is a classically liberal think tank. Should you wish to write again about the NCPA again, and I would encourage you to do so, please contact me. I’m happy to provide you with the facts. Richard W. Walker, COO, NCPA