If you remember your history classes you remember the cry, "No taxation without representation." If you don't, see the links provided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxation_without_representation
http://www.constitution.org/bcp/vir_res1765.htm

Before the Revolutionary War, one of the great complaints of the colonists is that they were being taxed, and yet they did not have the proper representation in the British parliament.

In our day and age many of our most important social decisions are being made for us by judiciaries that we did not elect (such as decisions over eminent domain). Many of these decisions go largely unreported in the media, but over the years can have significant effects. Just consider the Roe v. Wade decision which in the last 30 years has resulted in a far greater death toll than the Holocaust, and yet the vocal opponents of doing away with this dreadful decision make many false claims, including the idea that it's all about a woman being able to do with her body that which she pleases (which is a terribly selfish claim). As I note this, I want to make clear too, that not only are the unborn the victims here, but many of the women who are encouraged to go through with this are being exploited too.

It's not just the judiciary though. As I hear things in the news being reported, more often than not, it seems like the people we elect aren't representing our views. I understand that they make decisions for many people. It just seems that sometimes the decisions the majority would make get ignored. Yes, politics at its finest.

Today I was listening to the Rush Limbaugh Show. [Here comes a bit of a disclaimer. I hope some of you readers won't tune out just because I've mentioned this name. Believe me, I used to listen almost exclusively to NPR. I understand that each of these sources have their limitations, but whether a person likes it or not, there is no source of information that doesn't have some sort of bias.] Whether or not you like Rush, he brings up much important political commentary, and one of the things that he brought up today was a link on his homepage to historical tax rates from the National Taxpayers Union. I have linked to the NTU site rather than Rush's site; both the tax information itself, and information about that organization.

Before you head off to that site to check it out, I want you to imagine something. Imagine that you live in medieval times and there is a troll exacting regular payments from your village. The troll comes every year and takes 75% of everything you work to obtain that year. If 4 goats are born, you had better be ready to give the troll 3 of those goats. If 8 bushels of barley or whatever crop you raise are produced, you had better be ready to give 6 of them to the troll or who knows what would happen to you?

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=19
http://www.ntu.org/main/misc.php?MiscID=3

Well, here's the kicker. If you made 5 million dollars from 1936-1939, that troll was the American Federal Government, and he (she, if you are for feminist troll equality) took 79 percent of your income! Even by today's standard a person worth 5 million dollars is a relatively wealthy person.

Perhaps you're one of those that think, "Well, it serves rich people right. They deserve to be taxed at a rate like that while I work my tail off down in the middle or lower class!" Sure, they were still taking home $1,050,000, which back then was an enormous amount. Most anyone if wisely investing could live off that for the rest of their lives even today. However, since when is confiscating other people's wealth what America is about? To put it in perspective, how ticked off would you be if you made 50,000 a year and 39,500 of it went to the government? Would that not be outrageous to you?

Fortunately, that burden has been lowered for the higher tax bracket. In 2000 it was 39.6 percent. I don't know the exact burden now. However, during Reagan's presidency, in 1987 the burden for the highest bracket was 38.5 percent. Still a lot, but a lot better than 79% which mind you still wasn't the highest rate!

If you want to know dates of presidents and who controlled congress during the various periods of high or low taxation, you will notice that at various times both Democrats and Republicans have been responsible. However, in recent times, it has been Republicans who have lowered taxes, and not just for the rich as the mantra in recent years has proclaimed (by no means am I in one of the higher tax brackets, and I benefitted from the second Bush's tax cuts). I understand that not all Republicans have been of this mindset, and I am happy to disagree with any Republican or Democrat who believes we all need higher taxes right now (for any economic bracket).

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidents_and_control_of_congress

And yet, what about Joe Schmoe who worked his way up from the bottom rung on the ladder all the way to the top? Do you not think it a huge initiative killer to know that once you get there, an even greater portion of your income is going to be confiscated? (It's called taxation, but confiscation is what it really amounts to.) Yes, I know, life isn't fair. Some people think it's not fair that others make 5,000,000 a year. I'm for everyone making the most they can and living comfortably from the poorest to the richest. Anyone with some ability and initiative can achieve that dream in this country. Anyone. That includes any person of any color or any background.

There are sound arguments for keeping taxes low. Historically and paradoxically, lower taxes even on the rich have led to higher revenues. You see, when the rich grow wealthier, they are still paying a percentage of their income, so that their greater income translates into more tax revenues.

If I haven't explained this very well, check out an essay from The Heritage Foundation I've linked. It's from 1996, but it still makes sense.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1086.cfm

I am one who believes that if we can find the right information, it speaks for itself. There will always be leftists and Communists spouting all kinds of gobbledy-gook about how tax cuts increase deficits and hurt the poor and all of that kind of nonsense. If you still think Communism works, please recall how wonderfully the Soviet Union and the Eastern European countries worked. By the fall of the Soviet Union there were long lines for the meager amounts of goods we find plentifully in our grocery stores. If you think it's a better system, you can also give up your big screens, cell phones, dvds, cable television (forget the free speech too), and all your time-saving appliances. Good luck finding them.

I am sure there are plenty of people who disagree with what I write here. Not many of them write in, but I do post what even naysayers write. They are entitled to disagree, but I really do believe that the quality of ideas speak for themselves, and that some ideas are superior to others.

I understand that government needs monies to take care of national defense and interstate commerce (I'll include the national parks in this grouping because I think they're worth protecting too). By the way, those are really the only things federal government should be involved in, but why should Joe Schmoe not be enabled to more generously give to his church, or the charity he wants to support? Why should Mr. Schmoe not be able to put more money into improving his home, sending his children where he wants to send them to school, or putting more money into his community and the local economy? Why should government choose which doctors or medical services he should have to go to?

And for those who love the idea of increasing the minimum wage, here's one last thought. What if companies had to compete for employees? In other words, what if the marketplace has the ability to set their own minimum wage rather than the government? If you want good employees, you're going to have to pay for them. Of course, if you want lousy employees you can pay them a pittance. I would suggest that most people affected by the minimum wage are high school and college age students. However, no one actually has to settle for the minimum wage. A good worker with the right skills can do what he or she wants and make good money. Therefore, it is a fallacy to suggest that raising the minimum wage is necessarily going to improve the lot of the low-income wage earner. Sometimes, the difference is when that worker decides he or she is no longer going to settle for that wage, and find something else. Many people who are stuck at a low wage don't realize it, but they can earn a better wage by using their heads and making the choice to do something else. There are employers out there who reward hard work, well done (and if they don't have to pay such high taxes, they can afford to pay you more mind you). Yes, it might actually require more education or a higher level of initiative, but boy is it worth it! God bless this country, and long live free market capitalism! -Cal Samuel August