My 2010 income tax exceeds the average household income

[Westernskies]

Private property is a creation of society.

Not sure I follow you on this one Martha (not surprising ) but this is one of the fundamental areas where we differ: US Constitution, Fifth Amendment:..nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. I believe that this was enacted to protect private property rights from the whims of society, and those who would subrogate private property rights for the "greater good of society" in the name of(insert favorite cause here)without due process or compensation.

I'll admit that the Constitution isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than what we're using now.

 

[Westernskies]

I just contributed to the off track discussion.

...like a moth drawn to a flame.

 

[Gumby]

Not sure I follow you on this one Martha (not surprising ) but this is one of the fundamental areas where we differ: US Constitution, Fifth Amendment:..nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. I believe that this was enacted to protect private property rights from the whims of society, and those who would subrogate private property rights for the "greater good of society" in the name of(insert favorite cause here)without due process or compensation.

I'll admit that the Constitution isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than what we're using now.

I'm sure you will find great comfort in reading the Constitution while riding in the tumbrel to your meeting with Madame Defarge.

 

[haha]

I'm sure you will find great comfort in reading the Constitution while riding in the tumbrel to your meeting with Madame Defarge.

"Give it to us now, or off with your head!"

Ha

 

[Gumby]

"Give it to us, or off with your head!"

Ha

My intention was to illustrate Martha's point -- our Constitution and the laws that flow from it represent a mutual agreement among the people as to the operative principles by which our society will function. But it's just that - an agreement, not an ineluctable law of physics. We have the concept of private property solely because we, as a people, agreed to have that concept. That agreement is subject to change, as has occurred at many times and places around the world. Thus, if everyone else in my town suddenly decides that my house is not my private property and they show up on my front doorstep with rifles to take it, then it's not my private property. Waving a copy of the Constitution at them won't change that reality.

Obviously, I prefer to live in a land governed by laws that are predictable and fair, but I never forget that, underneath it all, I hold my private property at the sufferance of my neighbors who have agreed to respect it as such. And, as Martha pointed out, they can condition that respect. In fact, this latent threat already exists in the form of real property tax. Every year I must pay around $10k in tax or the town -- my neighbors -- will take it from me.

 

[haha]

My intention was to illustrate Martha's point -- our Constitution and the laws that flow from it represent a mutual agreement among the people as to the operative principles by which our society will function. But it's just that - an agreement, not an ineluctable law of physics.

My godness- not physics? Why I never could have thought of that on my own! So where does Madam Defarge come in? It seems that that you are saying might is right, which was certainly the working reality during the Fr. Revolution. But the differences between the French Revolution and the American Revolution are dear to many Americans, and in fact are likely central to our country as it has been and I hope will continue to be. Your conception sounds much more like modern Russia or most African nations.

This discussion has helped me to commit to working for some conservative causes in 2011.

Ha

 

[Martha]

Not sure I follow you on this one Martha (not surprising ) but this is one of the fundamental areas where we differ: US Constitution, Fifth Amendment:..nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. I believe that this was enacted to protect private property rights from the whims of society, and those who would subrogate private property rights for the "greater good of society" in the name of(insert favorite cause here)without due process or compensation.

I'll admit that the Constitution isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than what we're using now.

We are using the Constitution now. There was due process. Elect your representatives and senators and they pass a tax law, which they are specifically allowed to do by the Constitution. Just as they are allowed to spend money for the common welfare.

But you missed my point. My point is that everyone feels that they are entitled to something and I do not believe that the rich have any less a sense of entitlement than the poor. With, of course, substantial individual differences.

 

[Martha]

This discussion has helped me to commit to working for some conservative causes in 2011.

Ha

Are you feeling insecure in your sense of entitlement?

 

[Martha]

...like a moth drawn to a flame.

You and me both, honey! I thinking of a new years resolution.

 

[Gumby]

My godness- not physics? Why I never could have thought of that on my own! So where does Madam Defarge come in? It seems that that you are saying might is right, which was certainly the working reality during the Fr. Revolution. But the differences between the French Revolution and the American Revolution are dear to many Americans, and in fact are likely central to our country as it has been and I hope will continue to be. Your conception sounds much more like modern Russia or most African nations.

This discussion has helped me to commit to working for some conservative causes in 2011.

Ha

I'm not saying what is right or wrong, merely what is -- the concept of personal property is a social construct, as are notions as to what conditions might be imposed on ownership of such personal property. I enjoy our current construct, but I am not blind to the reality that it can change.

 

[Nords]

I wasn't crying crocodile tears over the taxes I will pay nor grousing that they are too high.

Soup, we don't have to get frustrated by the crowd's reaction.

Instead you could pick up a copy of Richistan (from the library, of course) and start thinking about next year's tax brackets!

 

[Meadbh]

I generally pay 7 figures of tax each year. As you can imagine Life is really good. No complaints from me!

Thanks Danmar. Your contribution matters to other Canadians!

I pay 5 figures in tax annually and am happy to do so. We're all in this together.

 

[calmloki]

Thanks Danmar. Your contribution matters to other Canadians!

I pay 5 figures in tax annually and am happy to do so. We're all in this together.

keep your stick on the ice... "Quando omni flunkus moritati"

Red Green

 

[youbet]

. I do not believe that the rich have any less a sense of entitlement than the poor. With, of course, substantial individual differences.

Isn't there a difference between a person feeling entitled to retain enough of her own earnings to support her family in a modest fashion and someone feeling entitled to have another person's earnings support her family in a modest fashion? And this despite the measured level of sense of entitlement (measured in units of "entitlement sense") being the same for both?

It isn't how much of a sense of entitlement you have, it's what you sense you're entitled to.

 

[retire@40]

I remember the year I paid as much in taxes as I had made working a full 12 months at my first job.

Did I like paying all those taxes? No.

Did I like making all that money and paying those taxes MORE than working a full year at that low pay? Absolutely.

 

[haha]

Are you feeling insecure in your sense of entitlement?

You slay me Martha. If you weren't so cute I might be offended, but you are, so I'm not.

Ha

 

[Westernskies]

But you missed my point. My point is that everyone feels that they are entitled to something and I do not believe that the rich have any less a sense of entitlement than the poor. With, of course, substantial individual differences.

Your entitlement perspective depends, I suppose, on whether you are the payer or the payee.

 

[lets-retire]

Isn't there a difference between a person feeling entitled to retain enough of her own earnings to support her family in a modest fashion and someone feeling entitled to have another person's earnings support her family in a modest fashion? And this despite the measured level of sense of entitlement (measured in units of "entitlement sense") being the same for both?

It isn't how much of a sense of entitlement you have, it's what you sense you're entitled to.

To kind of piggyback: I agree with Martha that the wealthy do have as strong a feeling of entitlement as the poor. I believe that the wealthy's sense of entitlement is correct while that same sense is misplaced in the poor. The rich have worked and sacrificed their time for the things they possess. The poor have turned O2 into CO2 to get their feeling of entitlement. This is no different than a person earning all A's on their report card in school felling entitled to those grades, because they studied, worked, learned and generally remembered the information, while the person who simply enrolled in the classes feel they should automatically receive a passing grade for paying the money for the class.

 

[chemist]

I will pay over $250K in federal income tax for 2010. Have only had about $180K withheld so will have to write a check for $70K come April 15, 2011.

I have mixed feelings about this. Part of me hopes I never pay that much in taxes again. The other part of me says, wait, if I have another year of near-7 figure income it would be a good thing.

Figures were distorted by a lump sum pension distribution and cashing in of two years stock options at once.

I have two more years of big income due to taking all my deferred bonuses in 2011 and 2012, then it is just my $48K pension, dividends and interest. Boy was I happy when they extended the Bush tax cuts for two more years.

 

[Westernskies]

My intention was to illustrate Martha's point -- our Constitution and the laws that flow from it represent a mutual agreement among the people as to the operative principles by which our society will function. But it's just that - an agreement, not an ineluctable law of physics. We have the concept of private property solely because we, as a people, agreed to have that concept. That agreement is subject to change, as has occurred at many times and places around the world. Thus, if everyone else in my town suddenly decides that my house is not my private property and they show up on my front doorstep with rifles to take it, then it's not my private property. Waving a copy of the Constitution at them won't change that reality.

Not even sure where to start, this thread has indeed taken quite a detour from "my taxes exceed the average US Income" but these recent posts shrugging off our private property rights are quite unsettling.

Our Constitution and Bill of Rights form the very basis of our System of Government; the envy of the free world. It may be "just an agreement" to some, but the majority of Americans hold these documents and principles dear, and many have died defending our country so our citizenry can enjoy the inalienable rights outlined therein. Shrug off the significance of these documents if you will, but I can assure you, if everyone else in my town suddenly decides that my house is not my private property (without due process and compensation) and they show up on my front doorstep with rifles to take it, under the Fifth Amendment it is still my private property. Waving a copy of the Constitution at them as you suggest won't change that reality, myself and a plurality of like-minded citizens exercising our second amendment rights will. At the point we will be facing a complete failure of government, and that isn't going to happen-We're not going to accept a Cuba, Venezuela, or Zimbabwe situation here in America (or Canada), despite the best efforts of some to create a entitlement state with government-sanctioned (re)distribution of private wealth and resources. Our election process, in the hands of an informed citizenry will prevent the pendulum swinging too far in either direction, as we experienced recently. Are we in for some rocky times ahead?- sure, but we've been there before, and always came back better and stronger because our people and government are guided by these mere "agreements" and the freedoms, opportunities, and quality of life they foster and protect.

Agree with Ha, the very notion that there are those who hold our guiding principles of government in such flippant regard has prompted me to get more involved in 2011 with causes I admire to keep the ones I loathe in check.

 

[Bestwifeever]

Where's that icon when I need it? Oh, here it is:



This topic is moving right up there with the pay off the mortgage discussion.

(And soupxcan, congratulations on your hard work paying off this year--thanks for posting your followup that you were not complaining about the taxes that result from your income this past year.)

 

[Alan]

I think this thread has now wandered permanently off course to purely political discussions so I'm closing it.

Happy 2011 everyone.

YouTube - Porky Pig Cartoon Ending "That's All Folks!"