This will be my column in Monday’s Gazette.
As tax deadline approaches and you curse that bottom-line (Line 44, actually) figure, ponder what you get for your money.
Bashing government and griping about taxes are popular pursuits, especially this time of year.
I could write at length about the need for reform in each of the areas I will cite below. Government has failed us in a lot of ways in recent years. And we need to do something soon to reverse the irresponsible deficits that accelerated beyond reason under former President Bush and the Republican Congress, then accelerated beyond insanity under Bush and the Democratic Congress and now have accelerated beyond imagination under President Obama and the Democratic Congress. But even with all that, taxes are the best spending I do.
The nuttiest moment of a nutty campaign last year was when Republicans got up in arms about Joe Biden saying that wealthier Americans needed to be patriotic about paying more in taxes. We can debate tax policy and who pays how much, but which is more patriotic – wrapping yourself in the flag and mouthing platitudes at no personal cost or sacrificing a few bucks for the country that has showered you with blessings? Of course paying taxes is a patriotic duty.
And if you’re a Christian, as many who bashed Biden last year were, it’s a religious duty, too. At the risk of reigniting all those who didn’t like my Bible interpretation last week, Jesus had a pretty simple tax policy: Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.
Here’s what my local, state and federal tax dollars have done for me:
Taxes build roads and streets for me to drive on. They assure me of quality gasoline to put in the car I drive and limit the poisons my car pumps into the air I breathe. They ensure that the car has seat belts and other safety devices (one of those seat belts saved my oldest son’s life 16 years ago).
Taxes educated me, my wife and all three of our sons. I say that even though two of the sons spent some years in parochial schools and all three graduated from private universities. Any school supported by tax-free donations is subsidized heavily by taxes. And each of those sons racked up some student loans provided by tax dollars. Taxes also educated my staff, my readers, my community, my nation, so they support my work as well as giving me a better place to live in countless ways.
Taxes ensure the safety and supply of the food I eat and ensure I can get that food for a reasonable price.
Taxes ensured that the surgeon who sliced into my abdomen nearly 10 years ago to remove cancer was qualified. Taxes also funded the medical school where he learned to diagnose and heal. And I’m guessing the surgeon racked up some student loans, too.
Taxes provide a strong enough defense that our nation has been attacked only once in my life and once more in my parents’ lives. Whatever my opinions about the wars we’ve fought in my life, I’m grateful that taxes have allowed me to live without fear.
Taxes also protect me in my community. I’ve never been a victim of violent crime and only rarely a victim of minor property crimes and vehicle accidents. I’ve never been a victim of fire and I’ll credit tax dollars with ensuring that I live in safe buildings. When one of my sons was a victim of fire, taxes ensured that crews and equipment extinguished it quickly to limit the damage.
Taxes paid my father’s salary when I was growing up and he served in the Air Force and later paid salaries for two of my sons, working for the U.S. Senate and the Commission on the National Guard and Reserve.
Taxes provide a significant part of the income that allows my mother to be self-sufficient in retirement.
The truth is that taxes are a bargain for all of us. The bigger a tax bill you have to gripe about, the more blessings you have that are tied somehow to the security and systems our governments provide.
Benjamin Franklin said nothing is certain but death and taxes. I’ll try to avoid death a few more years. And I always wince when I look at Line 44. But I know taxes are my best investment. Especially now.
Steve, good column. Americans need to learn that tax is not a bad word — especially for middle- and lower-income folks. I can’t afford a swimming pool, but our municipal taxes help support one. Our tax money isn’t always spent wisely. We should work hard to make certain taxes are spent prudently and fairly. But taxes themselves aren’t bad.
LikeLike
Finally, somebody gets it at the Gazzette
LikeLike
Nice Line, Steve,
Just did my taxes today
it’s a “count your blessings” moment-
Albeit:
Sometimes in disguise….
I saw that some of the charities were “midwest disaster” related as I plugged away on the software..
And then I remembered that I was proud to have helped a flood family; feed a few in the time-check area, and give what I could, when I could, and how I could.
There’s no disguise;
It is hardware and appliances-
Software and “we care.”
Medicaid came through for my mother, exactly one year ago.
I feel fortunate to be able to repay the state for the gift
and to be able to share her last moments in life.
LikeLike
Wow – that’s incredible. The Federal Government has just authorized spending more money than the country can earn, and you still don’t see a problem in that.
As a leader in a struggling industry, can you really afford your business taxes to go up regardless of what “Caeser” wants? Isn’t the Gazette in enough trouble already?
So let’s add it up for Iowans in this area: Increased local Sales tax, Increased property tax, Increase State tax, increased Federal tax. And it all adds up to more than can be earned by the people who pay the bill.
I’m not real happy that you seem to indicate that Jesus thinks we should check our brains at the door, and let the leaders of out of control governments do what they wish…
Hope to see you at the Tea Party on Tax day…
LikeLike
JP, thanks for your response. However, I must add that your comment is an example of how so many people read and see what they want to see. What in my paragraph about “irresponsible deficits” led you conclude that I don’t see a problem with spending more than we earn. Of course we should balance spending and taxes.
You also mischaracterized my reference to Scripture. I’m find it interesting how selective some people are in letting Jesus’ teachings guide their political views. Certainly our government is more deserving of tax money from its constituents, who actually elected the people running up the irresponsible deficits, than the government of Caesar was.
LikeLike
You are an idiot.
Why don’t you just donate the rest of your paycheck to the gov’t as a thank you for all the great things they do for you?
what about all the money the gov’t wastes every year??
i don’t feel thankful… i feel ripped off and unheard.
and to bring in religion to your reasoning why we should be grateful to pay taxes… insulting.
you seem to be a follower and not a real visionary.
LikeLike
Wow,
I normally don’t respond to messages that start with name-calling. And I addressed the waste issue in my response to JP, noting that some people just see what they want to see. I will, however, address your reference to my Bible citation. You also mischaracterized it. I did not say that Jesus said we should be grateful to pay taxes. The gratitude for this great nation that our taxes support comes directly from me. But I am constantly mystified by Christians who blame their faith for their personal passions about matters Jesus never addressed but then forget about their faith when their personal opinions conflict with Jesus on topics where he was quite explicit.
LikeLike
Steve…I don’t have a problem with paying taxes…when they are Constitutional. The federal government is paying for things that would not even be fathomable to the founding fathers, who wrote the Constitution and meant for this country to have a very limited federal government, as the enumerated powers suggest. The 10th Amendment is forgotten amongst most people.
Regardless, we are overtaxed. Big time. I would like to see you write a column about just how irresponsbile the feds have been in utilizing those “patriotic” taxes to pay for programs which have gone nowhere and are dead-ends. Not to mention the fact that we are becoming a nation of haves and have nots. Nearly 50% of the people in this country are not paying federal income taxes when it’s finally said and done. Is that alright with you?
I take it from your article you will not be joining the Tea Party on Wednesday. Perhaps, for balance, it would be a good follow-up to this article. Interview a few folks like me who differ from how you perceive things.
A final note. I served in Iraq for a year. I considered that my patriotic duty. I cerainly do not consider “over” paying taxes as a patriotic duty. The real patrtiotic duty would to have our federal government involve themselves with our tax money in things they were actually charged to do.
LikeLike
[…] Transforming the Gaz Steve Buttry, Information Content Conductor at Gazette Communications « Death and taxes? I’ll take taxes […]
LikeLike
Thank you for your comment, Ray, and for your service to our country. While I welcome statements of opinion in the comments, I cannot allow misstatements of fact to go uncorrected. The 16th Amendment to the Constitution specifically authorized income taxes.
Your 50 percent figure is also incorrect. The correct figure is 40 percent: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/dec/13/fred-thompson/thompsons-tax-numbers-add-up/
I should add, though, that that figure should go up with the decline in personall incomes caused by the recession, so it may reach 50 percent.
And since the people in the lower 40 percent to 50 percent pay a higher percentage of their income in FICA taxes than the wealthiest people, and since the FICA surplus has been subsidizing the federal operations that should be supported by income tax, that statement is at best misleading.
LikeLike
Mr. Buttry,
Your paragraph which points out that “Joe Biden saying that wealthier Americans needed to be patriotic about paying more in taxes” changed Sen. Biden’s thought into the thought “Of course paying taxes is a patriotic duty.” I am not aware of anyone saying that it would be unpatriotic to pay taxes. It is the idea that “wealthier Americans needed to be patriotic about paying more in taxes” that was at issue.
So you have set up the straw man, “Of course paying taxes is a patriotic duty”, which implies that it is the act of paying of taxes to which people critical of Sen. Biden objected. It is not.
I do find it refreshing that you have listed the principles of government obligations to its citizens (i.e. to ourselves) to which most conservatives would agree. That is, national defense, protection of its citizens, education (although I do not think the federal goverenment should be involved, too much control), taking care of people in time of need. I think most people would agree with you about the necessity of paying taxes for those things and to give thanks that we live in a country in which the citizens, most of them willingly. have agreed to do so.
In regard to ” reigniting all those who didn’t like my Bible interpretation last week”. It is not that I disliked it. People (myself included) were merely being helpful in pointing out that you didn’t know what you were talking about.
What about this interpretation? “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” could be though of as a religious teaching and therefore paying taxes would not be permissible under the separation of church and state clause of the Constitution as presently interpreted. My interpretation makes about as much sense as many other court decisions relying on the the church-state clause, but it will probably end up on right wing blogs, now.
Finally, it is not so much the “render unto Caesar” with which I have trouble. My struggle is with “render unto God that which is God’s”. I’m a bit behind in those payments and might end up in Hell yet, if I’m not careful.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to share in your paper.
LikeLike
I never argued that income taxes were not authorized, Steve.
Here is what I said:
“The federal government is paying for things that would not even be fathomable to the founding fathers, who wrote the Constitution and meant for this country to have a very limited federal government, as the enumerated powers suggest.”
And you can point out a “mistatement of fact” all you wish, but whether it be 40 or 50 percent, once again, doesn’t the fact that those folks do not pay a net income tax bother you? Social Security is a whole other issue, but I digress. I would like to see someone do a study on just how much money we are talking about with their FICA taxes, Steve. And it is separate from federal income taxes anyway.
If we wanted to play the game many progressives seem to want to play, why not tax the “rich” at a 90% rate again, like we did prior to JFK cutting taxes in the 60’s?
You didn’t address the other part of my post about enumerated articles and what the feds are charged to do on our behalf. Since your article touched on patriotism, I would think the true patriots are people who would argue the Constitution be utilized as it was suppose to be, and that the 10th Amendment to the Consitution meant something, which it doesn’t to many people.
LikeLike
Ray, the enumerated powers (including the power to tax) actually were intended to create a strong federal government to replace the weak government under the Articles of Confederation, a fact I have written about before: http://www.gazetteonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080928/NEWS/709289944&SearchID=73339671374934
I don’t favor a 90 percent tax rate on the rich, but I will note that they prospered in spite of it in Eisenhower’s time, so I think today’s rate, which is less than half that, is reasonable.
Yes, I do think too many people pay no income tax. I just wanted to point out that they do support the federal government. And any complaints about the supposedly high income-tax rate on the rich or the fact that people with lower incomes don’t pay income taxes are not reflecting the full story unless they note the lower FICA tax rate on the rich.
I am glad our founders created a Constitution that would last through the ages, flexible enough to still be vibrant and strong in an age of things they never could have imagined, such as computers, automobiles
LikeLike
Mr. Buttry: this morning I read with some bemusement an editor of the Cedar Rapids Gazette discussing the need to pay taxes and the reasons for it. Frankly, I hate to admit it, but you’re absolutely right. This is the reason Americans pay taxes. He must be one of those socialistic, Marxist, liberal, Democrats that we are so afraid of.
As I read the responses the complete bewilderment of those that respond is beyond belief. Most of these people wouldn’t understand the Constitution if they read it. Most of them have never read the Declaration of Independence. Are they in for a big surprise if they do. Their constant misinformation and ditto responses confirm that they are totally uninformed and essentially ignorant of the process. Truly, most of them don’t want to be informed or to pay attention to what is really happening. God help us all from this amazing ignorance.
I’m still totally surprised that a man in your position hired by the Gazette would publish such truth. Thanks, I will continue to read your posts with another insight.
LikeLike
we get to fund abortions, ACORN, UN and a whole host of pet projects for the politically connected. We get to bailout Freddie-Fannie-AIG-GM, we get to subsidize useless ‘alternative’ energies that will end up harming the environment.
YUP, we sure get our moneys’ worth
I’d rather abolish the whole structure of government and starft over and this time follow the Constitution.
LikeLike
Jack, what Constitution did you read? Have you ever heard of limited government. The Constitution is very specific on limiting government power, and that includes the purse strings and property rights of individuals! And Steve Buttry is just plain ignorant of the Constitution as he has shown in previous columns on the subject. Remember the Welfare clause Steve? You were totally discredited on that one! A flexible Constitution? Oh, I see, you are of the living, breathing Constitution so you can disregard what you don’t like. Jesus did not advocate theft, which is exactly what you advocate, but you would prefer the government do it for you. Courageous Steve! Having the government reach into my wallet and take my money is not charitable. I will be waiting for next weeks column where you make public your tax return that shows all of the deductions you refuse to take and the extra taxes you pay in the name of patriotism and religious piety!
LikeLike
“Jesus had a pretty simple tax policy: Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.”
Yeah, well historically, Caesar collected taxes from his subjects, and, as I have read, he didn’t have a Marxist wealth redistribution program that stole from the rich to buy votes from the poor. I don’t recall being subjugated by the Obama administration. And I don’t believe that Jesus was commenting on the equity of the Emperors tax and spend programs, but rather reiterating that His Kingdom was not an Earthly one. Finally, no one disputes that some level of government and taxation is necessary, but I highly dispute that everything belongs to and is owed to the government. Government does not and can not create wealth, it tak
LikeLike
Steve, it might do you well in the future to not link to an article so short on facts and truth regarding the intent the founders had for this country. Indeed, James Madison discussed it pretty profoundly:
“I, sir, have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived, and it is still more fully known, and more material to observe that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this is not an indefinite Government, deriving its power from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers, but a limited Government tied down to the specified powers which explain and define the general terms. The gentlemen who contend for a contrary doctrine are surely not aware of the consequences which flow from it, and which they must either admit or give up their doctrine.”
Do you “contend for contrary doctrine?” It appears so, Steve, and it takes one of the authors of the document to tell you so. Consequences. There are a myriad of reasons why the founders were brilliant men. The Welfare Clause absolutely does not mean what you think it means:
“If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may establish teachers in every State, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public Treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads, other than post roads. In short, everything, from the highest object of State legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called if Congress pleased provisions for the general welfare.”
Well, we pretty much do it anyway, huh? In spite of the admonishment of one of the authors of the document in question.
It would be best to admit, IMO, that you do not care that Madison said these things and he was wrong, rather then pretending this is what the founders meant with General Welfare. It obviously is not so.
LikeLike
Interesting that you quoted examples, education and roads, where the federal government to this day leaves primary responsibility to the states. And you chose an example where (because of disagreements even back then) the states demanded (over Madison’s objections) a Bill of Rights to ensure that the federal government would not establish religion. The indisputable historical fact is that our Constitution established a federal government precisely because the small government of the day was an abysmal failure.
LikeLike
Once again you spout opinion and not fact.As they say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You have little knowledge! Small government was NOT the failure you are trying to elude to that established the need for a centralized government. The need was not for big government, it was a need for the states to be able to work together more uniformly. The Founders would spit in your face today! They despised large government and warned repeatedly against it. I know YOU would never have said “Give me liberty or give me death.” You are so afraid of death you would be first in line to surrender your liberty, as you already seem more than willing to do. We’ve come to the point where a majority will trade freedom for free cable TV.
Caesar – where do you think the phrase “bread and circuses” comes from?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses
LikeLike
“I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived, and it is still more fully known, and more material to observe that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this is not an indefinite Government, deriving its power from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers, but a limited Government tied down to the specified powers which explain and define the general terms.”
James Madison was one of the authors Steve! For goodness sakes, it is not indefinite, as he said. LIMITED government. I have seen nowhere in writings where the founders have stated they wanted a larger government then what the Articles of Confederation would bring about. They wanted a few specific items, such as a judiciary and an executive branch. While this may fit your defintiion of “larger”, it certainly did not mean strong, and Madison’s words spell that out. LIMITED. Certainly not what we have today. And I would not call the small government experiment an “abysmal failure”. They accomplished a peace treaty with England, and set up several departments establishing the precedent for cabinet departments later mentioned in the Constitution.
There are reasons why there are TEA parties all across the country today, Steve.
LikeLike
Didn’t mean to say “strong” in my last post. I meant to say over-reaching.
LikeLike
I won’t continue this running debate. I had my say. You’ve had yours (and are welcome to continue). My last comment here will be to agree that the Articles of Confederation were not an abysmal failure. They were a failure (and that failure was the reason for the Constitutional Convention), but they were also a noble experiment that led us to the strong government that has served us well most of the time for more than two centuries.
LikeLike
Strong yet limited. We aren’t even close to that today. I will say this…a good suggestion for an article would be about orignal intent of the founders. You will find, as you research, that the founders overwhelminlgy favored a limited federal government ony responsible for a few things, spelled out in Article I, Section 8.
LikeLike
Ray, I appreciate your knowledge of this subject. I don’t understand why more people don’t educate themselves about their own Government. Thanks for your patient, thoughtful responses. I will admit, I’m not as patient:)
LikeLike
I think it was Jefferson who said that a government which took 10% of your income would be an obvious tyranny. I doubt he’d favor big government.
LikeLike
I generally delete comments with factual errors because I want this blog to be a place where people get accurate information, regardless of the opinions expressed. On a quick check, I could not find the quote GeronL says he thinks Jefferson said. I am doubtful of its authenticity and invite GeronL or someone else to provide citations to validate it. However, since GeronL did hedge and since I can’t disprove it, I’ll leave it here for now. But I must add the observation that the Constitution made no provision for acquisition of new territory, and Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase was the big-government controversy of his day.
LikeLike
Dude, if your deleted comments with factual errors, you wouldn’t be allowed to post. I might not know exactly what he said, it was a summation. Here is a better quote anyways.
“We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.
We must make our election between economy and liberty
or profusion and servitude.
If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and
in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and
our amusements, for our calling and our creeds…
[we will] have no time to think,
no means of calling our miss-managers to account
but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves
to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers…
And this is the tendency of all human governments.
A departure from principle in one instance
becomes a precedent for [another ]…
till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery…
And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt.
Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.”
LikeLike