*sigh* Bill O'Reilly is right

No, that's simplistic, because combat is not the only sacrifice made for war. War costs a ton of money, which even people who don't believe in the war have to pay. My example is an equivalent posture.

And who determines the correct minimum?

 

Income taxes weren't part of the constitution, yet you're still legally required to pay them.

You can have whatever opinion on public tax policies you want. But discounting someone else's tax policy opinion primarily because of how they donate money is ignorant, IMO

 

Are you really trying to argue that SS payout is not proportional to amount paid in over time? REALLY?

 

Check the 16th Amendment.

 

Again, our Constitution says we're both to provide for the common defence and pay income tax. Congress determines the spending level of both. I know plenty of people who volunteered or re-enlisted after 9/11 because they wanted to be part of defending our country. Until people who wish to pay more tax show the same commitment, they're doing nothing more than flapping lips.

Congress determines the absolute minimum. Individuals are free to determine their own "correct" minimum over the absolute minimum set by Congress. It seems to me many folks are saying their "correct" minimum is higher than the absolute minimum. I'm just saying they should send some extra money. I think the idea of tithing is a correct one, and set aside a percentage of my income and bonus for religious and charitable organizations. I don't smugly call someone who doesn't follow the same path "greedy" or "selfish", which is what I hear all the time from those who think we should pay more in taxes.

 

The literal minimum is zero. The only reason Congress sets it higher than that is because the American people want it higher. What our society deems the correct "absolute minimum" is fluid and will change over time. Why shouldn't people advocate Congress increasing it? Why should we believe that the current absolute minimum is in the right place for all time?

Giving on your own is always great, for anyone. In addition, we have public policy for taxation and use of those revenues. Just as one doesn't need to enlist in the army, or donate money to the Department of Defense, to have the (ethical) right to advocate for a war, one doesn't need to donate extra to the IRS in order to have the (ethical) right to advocate for a tax increase.

 

Sending additional cash to the gov't would't even be an additional drop in the gov't bucket. But many of us are doing "something about it" by voting for a president we know is going to make us pay more money to the gov't . . . that is putting money where are mouth is.

Would be a lot easier to vote for a president who was going to put more money in my pocket . . . but I'm williing to vote for a president who I think will be good for the county even if it cost me more money.

In fact when I hear all the complaining about the president, I notice many of the same complainers are really vocal when it comes to taxes and money out of their pocket. I personally think that is what drives many to dislike Obama (because it will cost them more) . . . so they spin every topic against Obama because they really hate the idea of giving more of their money to gov't.