Tax Protests and the Tea Party- Why Now?

There are masses of pissed off citizens protesting taxes that are the lowest in 60 years who have never even considered protesting taxes before until now. This warrants the thread and our discussion. There are many answers to my question of why taxes and why now.

That raises the question in my mind, if one was founding a new country, would it be created with all of the rules and regulations and big government which we have today? I think not. Gov't has a way of creeping up on you until it grows so large that suddenly it hits people over the head, and a revolution occurs. (I think the Tea Party is far from a revolution, but I expect one in the next 50-100 years.)

That raises the question in my mind, if one was founding a new country, would it be created with all of the rules and regulations and big government which we have today? I think not. Gov't has a way of creeping up on you until it grows so large that suddenly it hits people over the head, and a revolution occurs. (I think the Tea Party is far from a revolution, but I expect one in the next 50-100 years.)

I disagree. People stranded for life on a desert island would still have some form of government. The Skipper and Marianne would probably not draft a Constitution, but there would be unspoken rules that developed and consequences. Still governing in many respects.

I think part of the problem, and why we are seeing so many tea parties, is people do not feel sufficiently represented. In 1787, the year of the Great Compromise, the states were delegated the same proportion of Senators and Representatives we have now. 2 Senators for each state, and a certain # of Congressman based on population of the State. The census shows that there were 4 million people at that time.

Now, we still have two Senators and maximum of 435 total in Congress, and 309 million people. It's not that difficult to do the math to see that your voice is, in all likelihood, will never be heard; and I think people are feeling it now more so due to the drastic changes and decisions that are being made.

I don't disagree that even the Skipper and Marianne would have some form of Government. I simply don't think you could get all the people in the USA, if we were starting today, to agree to the current rules and regulations of today's government. It wouldn't fly. We would likely have an internal war.

I don't think the feeling that we are not being well represented is due to numbers, but $$$.

Obviously you cannot please everyone, but more and more it seems that the wishes of the majority of people are secondary to contributors and special interests who lobby.

I agree that there would still need to be rules and laws, but not so many and not so complicated. Though we must remember that one of the reasons we have so many is that we have been adding to them and revising them for centuries. So while you can start a new country and new rules, at some point you will be right back where you started.

Murray, thank you for the history lesson and refresher. It was very enlightening, and now if we can only get some to understand that in many ways, we are in exactly the same position we were in 1773. The Tea Party Movement is not based on taxes alone but on many other issues as well. I've reiterated what those issues are time and time again and it is useless to repeat them. The biggest difference is our population is much larger and diverse.
And Geo, I don't believe for a minute that taxes are the lowest they have been in 60 years. They may be for those who's income is below the poverty level since they don't pay anything and possibly receive a tax credit which means they get back money they didn't pay, but for those working and those who planned their retirement nothing could be further from the truth. It kind of falls in the same category as when Bill Clinton looked me in the eye through my TV screen, and with all sincerity, said "I did not have sex with that woman." I guess it depends on your definition of "sex", so I guess it depends on your definition of "taxes". As I said previously, I will go on what is affecting me personally and it certainly isn't lower taxes by any stretch of the imagination.

So, what do you think about financial reform?

Andy, you have always come off as honest and your first hand accounts of the tea party make you a credible source. You aren't viewed as being one of the uninformed nuts depicted in the videos of teapartiers that we post here.

That said, what troubles me is your acknowledgement that you aren't going to take the time to look at the tax data but yet you refuse to believe the data when presented to you. This is the behavior of the folks in the videos. They refuse to believe the historical data that is a matter of public record but they'll believe what Fox News says and Sarah Palin say.

You are exactly right, Andy A. I make pretty good money and I pay A LOT of federal taxes. No refunds or loopholes here. I pay over $300.00 per day on average, every day, to include weekends and holidays to the government. I am proud to be an American and to pay my taxes, but please don't tell me MY taxes are the lowest in 60 years. My tax liability was only low when I made very little money. And anybody that tells me I can afford it, have never paid the IRS over $100,000 in a year. It changes the way you think about taxes, I guarantee it.

You should have just done your taxes, so if you don't know that there were several changes and credits that benefited you, I don't know what else I can say to convince you.

You have convinced me to fire my CPA, get a copy of TurboTax, and have a cup of tea.

Desso, nobody told YOU that YOUR taxes are the lowest they've been in 60 years. See post 1- paragraph 2.

Evidently, you are not among the 95 percent of middle class earners who received a tax cut. That's the bad news. The good news, however is that you made a great deal of money more than the folks with whom you'll be drinking tea and denying data. Good for you.

Not sure why I am bothering but,
Desso, I am fairly certain that if you took your current income and calculated your tax liability under the rates used for each president in the last 60 years that you would gain new appreciation for what you currently pay.

I am having tea with my wife, Geo. There are no "folks". And data can say many things, if proposed in a certain light. Data is not incontrovertible. And lastly, the 95% and 5% percent numbers are an illusion. I am surprised so many people believe such nonsense.

Such comfort. Don't bother next time, Geo.

Desso, I don't know your financial particulars, but I can definitively tell you that most of the people I know benefited in some way from the various credits and deductions and that per my CPA I did too.

Not sure why I am bothering but,
Desso, I am fairly certain that if you took your current income and calculated your tax liability under the rates used for each president in the last 60 years that you would gain new appreciation for what you currently pay.

Depends on how much he makes. His highest effective rate would definitely be before and including Carter. His lowest effective rate would be under Reagan. From there, slightly higher under Bush Sr., higher still under Clinton's first term, slightly lower under Clinton's second, lower again under Bush Jr., and then back up above Clinton levels starting next year. Tax rates will be higher starting next year than they have been in over 30 years. In 2014, he'll have to start the Obamacare tax, which will bump it up even further.

So, what do you think about financial reform?

I think we're going to get bi-partisan support on this once we strip all the hidden tax increases out of it.

Thx for injecting some fact, Shopper.

Hey Desso, u said for me not to bother. Fair enough. But last I checked this is a thread I started and it was about most people- not Desso until you bothered.

Thx for injecting some fact, Shopper.

That's primarily for middle to upper middle income folks.

Below around ~40K a year (not inflation adjusted), effective rates have been dropping for 30 years. Top marginal rates -

Carter - 44%
Reagan - 28%
Bush Sr. - 28%
Clinton 1st term - 28%
Clinton 2nd term - 25%
Bush Jr. - 15%
Obama - 15%

You own the thread, Geo. Congratulations and good evening.

Wonder why my returns are being scrutinized for 2009? The year I made a penance. And, someone's income is all relative. Can the IRS just not phathom that I have more going out than I have coming in? Really? They think I fabricated this? I thought they questioned you when you made a lot more money.....like you were going to hide it or something? Laughable!

Hey Desso,
I'll admit- I got snarky before u did and then I reacted to something u said with the whole- "it's my ball" move. I'm genuinely sorry. Truce?

Wonder why my returns are being scrutinized for 2009? The year I made a penance. And, someone's income is all relative. Can the IRS just not phathom that I have more going out than I have coming in? Really? They think I fabricated this? I thought they questioned you when you made a lot more money.....like you were going to hide it or something? Laughable!

The federal government's broke.

Not sure if you're doing your own returns Lynie, but if you are, FYI I haven't been audited since I started using a tax professional to do my returns. Using national preparation firms like H&R Block can help avoid scrutiny as well.

Andy, you have always come off as honest and your first hand accounts of the tea party make you a credible source. You aren't viewed as being one of the uninformed nuts depicted in the videos of teapartiers that we post here.

That said, what troubles me is your acknowledgement that you aren't going to take the time to look at the tax data but yet you refuse to believe the data when presented to you. This is the behavior of the folks in the videos. They refuse to believe the historical data that is a matter of public record but they'll believe what Fox News says and Sarah Palin say.

Did it ever occur to you that the sources on the right are just as creditable as the sources on the left. I have said at least three times my taxes compared to my income did not go down, they went up. So am I suppose to tell the IRS I'm an exception and don't deserve to have my taxes as high as they are? I go on what I see and know, not what someone tells me is so.