E. Field: Pay fair share in taxes

Many people complain bitterly in letters to the Sun Journal about the government, taxes and “freeloaders” living off the system.

We all benefit in some way from government functions such as Social Security, laws and law enforcement, courts, Homeland Security, transportation, food safety, school lunches, a clean environment, national parks, Head Start, Medicaid and Medicare, national defense, veterans' programs, civil rights, unemployment compensation, worker safety regulations, minimum wage laws, roads and infrastructure, education, a civilized relationship with other countries, and all of the other advantages of living in the U.S.

State governments cannot handle those matters. State taxes would be incredibly high and there would be chaos, with each state going in different directions and passing conflicting laws.

Instead of trying to destroy the government, government officials need to root out fraud and corruption in all programs and ensure that taxation is fair.

This country became great because of people working together for the common good and “promoting the general welfare,” as the U.S. Constitution says.

One way to support this country is for everyone to pay their fair share of taxes. If people receive all the benefits of living here but dodge taxes, they are freeloaders themselves.

Ellen Field, New Gloucester

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...

In order to make comments, you must verify your account.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your profile. A member of our staff will call you to verify this information. To join in, fill out your user profile completely and check the box "please verify my status." We'll get back to you within one business day to verify your account.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned.

Advertisement

Displaying comments, from newest to oldest

mgr's picture
verified

Ellen, How much would you be

Ellen,

How much would you be willing to pay for those services? Would you be willing to sacrifice 100% of your income for those services?

You see, what is always lacking in this type of discussion is how much should the Government send on these services? How much of the GDP should the Government spend? How do you measure the effectiveness of these programs?

You cannot answer those questions because your message is based on emotion - what feels right. No quantitative measure needed.

Do you know that about $0.40 of every dollar the Government spends is borrowed? How long do you think we as a nation can keep that up?

Perhaps you would think a bit differently if you took the time to put numbers to your claims. We are broke as a nation. You’ll figure that out sooner or later.

jalbrecht's picture
verified

Ellen, close and I like it

But the primary recipient of Federal and State government welfare and entitlements are corporations and the very rich. Not focusing on the cause prevents the correct solution. Federal Revenues are at the lowest they have been since the Second World War. If they were returned to just the average we would have no federal deficits and the national debt could be wiped out in a few years.
While we all benefit from this truely unique and exceptional government founded by the US Constitution, we do not benefit equally and as long as we don't those who benefit most (the rich) should pay the most.

tron's picture

Correct Ms Field, however

Correct Ms Field, however many have be brainwashed into believing that the wealthy already pay their fair share, despite the fact that we all know different.

mgr's picture
verified

Dan, I have one simple

Dan,

I have one simple question for you. Given 100 pennies, how much should go to pay for the Government and the services government provides?

A. 5 pennies
B. 10 pennies
C. 20 pennies
D. 30 pennies
E. 50 pennies
F. 75 pennies
G. 100 pennies

tron's picture

mark, i'm not going to fall

mark, i'm not going to fall into your trap, but i will tell you this. we should pay for the services we use, not throw some money in the pot then decide what we can spend it on. THAT is what lepage and all other republicans are doing. THAT is why we have a huge debt, because republicans REFUSE to pay for the government we have. It's really that simple. You may reasonably argue against some services, but once services are provided we should pay for them, not borrow.

mgr's picture
verified

Dan, I would say I’m

Dan,

I would say I’m disappointed in you, except you did met my expectations in your response.
I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but the following comment is meaningless:
“we should pay for the services we use”

That statement is ostensible; what is the correct level of services you are willing to fund?

Let’s take the discussion up to the 100k foot level. Using my penny analogy, 100 pennies meaning 100% of GDP, how much of the GDP should the U.S. spend on public services?

tron's picture

Again it should depend on

Again it should depend on what we provide for services. If you don't like providing a service, don't do so and then we will not have to fund it. It's so simple, why can't you grasp the concept. Pay for the services that are provided, if you don't want the services then have them voted down. When bush slashed taxes for the wealthy, he did not slash any spending, so he refused to pay for what he was spending. President Obama has tried to pay for the services he is providing, but republicans REFUSE to fund the government. They are so unpatriotic.

mgr's picture
verified

You could pretend to be the

You could pretend to be the man who as to make the decision of how much to spend on public services and try to provide a number.

I’m not shy, so let me give you an example. Federal, State, and Local governments combined should not spend more than 10-15 pennies out of 100 GDP pennies for public services.

When you do a personal budget at home, is it bottoms-up or tops-down? That is, do you say I’ll budget my car expenses once I figure out how much I send on the car, or do you say I can only afford to spend $xyz on my car, and keep expenses within the budget?

Your brand of government budgeting is more in line with the bottoms-up approach, which is kind of foreign to me and to most of us.

tron's picture

Except my brand of government

Except my brand of government is the most basic one used. All city, or towns, county governments decide what to spend, budget it, THEN decide what the tax rate will be to pay for the budget. They pay for what they spend, a concept that is foreign to people once they reach Congress.

mgr's picture
verified

Dan, Another way to look at

Dan,

Another way to look at this is to consider you going out and buying stuff, and then you try to figure out how to pay for it. It just doesn’t sound responsible. I don't think you operate that way, or you can't for very long.

The current mothod of budgeting is so unnatural.

tron's picture

you cannot compare individual

you cannot compare individual budgeting with the government. We must live by what we earn, and if we want to spend more we must find a way to get more income. The government can get all the income they need, so what must be done at that level is figure out what you want to spend, then tax at the appropriate rate. I understand you want to slash spending, but you want to do it backwards. Instead of electing people to cut spending, you elect people who just cut paying, requiring the government to borrow. Local and State governments cannot do this, but the Feds can get away with this all they want. THAT's the problem. Republicans REFUSE to pay for what we spend. When they slashed taxes under Bush, they didn't lower spending, the tax cuts were all paid for with borrowing, as were the wars republicans started, and all the other spending programs they started. So the natural thought is that conservative don't want to cut spending, they just want to eliminate paying. It's a dangerous way to go.

In Maine, the republicans and the governor are doing things backwards. They passed a phony budget that did not bring in the necessary revenues to pay for what they budgeted. NOW they're bemoaning that massive 'deficit', which they made and insist on slashing spending. The time to cut spending was BEFORE they passed this budget, now afterwards.

mgr's picture
verified

Dan, The fallacy is in

Dan,
The fallacy is in thinking the government can take as much money as it wants. It certainly cannot take 150% of GDP? So there is a limit. The government can only take what the people are willing to tolerate and nothing more. An attempt to take more money than people are willing to tolerate will just drive people to an underground economy or at a minimum drive the producers (i.e. individuals paying the bills) to move, hide their money, or falsify tax returns.

Take for example the attempt to cap property taxes in Maine. Property owners reached their threshold. Unfortunately, citizens were convinced into not passing the proposition. It was like the fox promising the chickens to take fewer of them. I was actually ashamed for Maine when the proposition failed.

In closing, I applaud the Governor for slashing spending. I hope to see more of it in the future.

tron's picture

this is one reason it is so

this is one reason it is so difficult to debate with the right, they always take things to the extreme. The point I made and will continue to make, is to cut spending BEFORE you cut taxes. It is foolish to cut revenue BEFORE you cut spending, do so results in the situation we're in, both on the national and state levels. You appear to believe that spending cuts are more palatable when they're 'forced' then when you calmly and rationally decide. That premise if false.

mgr's picture
verified

Dan, I have no objection to

Dan,

I have no objection to Gov. LaPage’s approach to cutting spending. Unlike the Federal Government, the state cannot print money. That state is now forced to cut spending, and I’m good with that.

tron's picture

lepage is NOT cutting

lepage is NOT cutting spending, he's destroying a safety net. If that's what you want, fine, you've got yours and he's your governor. Enjoy. No sense debating with someone who refuses to see what's right.

mgr's picture
verified

Dan, Just because I don’t

Dan,
Just because I don’t envy what is not mine, does not mean I’ve got mine.

Personally, this topic has more to do with freedom than longing for riches. The freedom is for me to make my own decisions without government intervention.

Benjamin Franklin said: “He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.”

LaPage is not my governor for I don’t reside in Maine anymore. I chose to leave the state for a location where jobs are more plentiful, winters are milder, and my tax burden is overall less. I am not obligated to any state.

Wanting lower taxes and responsible sending does not mean a collapse of the safety-net, but breaking the bank of the taxpayer is almost certain to destroy the safety-net.

Right in this case is a matter of perspective – is your palm up or is your palm down?

mgr's picture
verified

Dan, Perhaps that is why

Dan,
Perhaps that is why people are so upset with the property tax mill rate. I recently chatted with a woman from Jay who had an assessed home value or $129K; she was shocked that home sold for $89K.

In my opinion, that way of thinking is exactly how the nation put itself in the debt crisis we are in today. It is bottoms-up.

On the one hand, my current state of residence caps how fast property taxes can grow per year just for this reason. Maine on the other hand, has failed to do the same. I have friends who pay almost twice the property tax amount that I do for a home worth less than half of mine. This is yet another reason for not returning to Maine.

Another way to put it is that Maine’s tax system is upside-down. The bottoms-up is now the tops-down in a perverted way.

Rev Jim's picture
verified

Monsieur Breton,

With 50% not paying any Income Tax, what do you call "Fair Share" when that 50% reaps many bennies that they have not even contributed for ???? Down with the "Progressive Movement".....

tron's picture

the 50% that do not pay

the 50% that do not pay income taxes, still pay property taxes, excise taxes and sales taxes, so they contribute more of their income than you do. But you knew that and still decided to lie. Nice try.

Frostproof's picture
verified

Danny's new schtick.

In every comment, it's "but you knew that ...". At least it's a break from "your clan".

Property, excise and sales are taxes within a state. They contribute nothing to running the federal government. Employment taxes are supposed to fund Social Security and Medicare, but they really go into the general fund so politicians can buy votes - and the rates have been reduced to buy more votes and hasten the demise of those bloated programs. Federal income taxes fund the federal government, so the half who pay nothing are getting an unfair share of federal services. But Dan already knew that.

rdarluv's picture
verified

Geesh, I've been gone so

Geesh, I've been gone so long, I missed being able to congratulate you on your 10 thousandth "disagree" Dan......congratulations! Your 2.6:1 disagree ration is impressive!

tron's picture

It's interesting that you

It's interesting that you take so much interest in the agree-disagree stats, especially since they're meaningless. People push those buttons merely based on who's posting, not what is being posted. I don't know why the SJ has them, except to excite people like you.

Advertisement