The Only Group in History to Request to be Taxed More

Categories: ,

Americans hate taxes. It’s not a right or left issue. It’s not a Democratic or Republican issue. It’s not an old or young issue. It’s strangely not even a rich or poor issue. It’s an American issue. It’s our biggest peeve. We all agree on some level: Our country is great, but we feel very cranky about forking over our money to the government.

Cartoon by Daryl Cagle - msnbc.com (click to reprint)
Cartoon by Daryl Cagle – msnbc.com (click to reprint)

This is an odd character trait in Americans. For example, we happily pay for cable even though television is free ““ we clearly have no problem signing up for more bills.

The average American credit card debt is around $10,000 and the average APR is 14% – we clearly have no problem doling out loads of cash with nothing to show for it.

We don’t even pay out that much of our income to the government when compared with other industrialized nations. An average family with children pays about 20% of their income to taxes. For singles it’s 37%. Belgians pay close to 55%.

But Americans hate taxes. We always have. We hate even the idea of them. We want to believe freedom and taxes absolutely contradict one other. Like improv and comedy.

Other colonies of Great Britain (e.g., Canada and Australia) simply asked for their independence. But not us. Americans were so outraged about the King’s raising taxes we started a costly and bloody revolutionary war lasting nearly a decade.

Yes, it all started with a tax hike. “No more taxes!” is the original American battle cry. In a way, our country’s birth was a giant scheme to avoid giving up a fraction of our salaries to bureaucrats.

We simply despise taxes.

Taxes are so loathed by Americans that politicians have to come up with new phrases in order to talk about them. That’s why “fees,” “tariffs” and “tolls” are used to “balance deficits,” instead of just putting it plainly: Taxes are needed to fund the government. It’s an attempt to make taxes palatable to American sensibilities. This prettier word tactic is combated by calling anything you disagree with the ominous “hidden tax.” A hidden tax is something lurking in the bushes that can jump out and bill you. Very scary.

Notorious tax-phobe Grover Norquist requests conservative candidates sign his heavy-handed pledge not to raise taxes. He wants them to be like 1981’s tax-cutter President Ronald Reagan. Not like 1982’s, 1983’s, 1984’s, 1985’s, 1986’s and 1987’s tax-raiser President Ronald Reagan. Because when it comes to taxes ““ always accentuate the cuts.

For politicians, raising taxes is taboo. It’s an unmentionable.

But if you talk with the average weed advocate ““ er, marijuana activist ““ er, cannabis enthusiast, one of their selling points is if pot were legal you could tax it.

Yes, a sin tax! A sin tax is what the government puts on things like gambling, booze or tobacco. It’s designed to discourage people from doing it – because taxes are just that revolting. A sin tax is punitive. It’s monetary punishment for being a sinner – quite literally “hell to pay.”

Could pot smokers be the only group in the history of the world to want to be taxed? To hope to be taxed? To specifically ask the government to tax them more?

“I can’t remember the last time an interest group volunteered to be taxed,” admitted councilwoman Janice Hahn of Los Angeles, the semi-legal weed capital of the country.

This might be a first. Historic. A group of Americans are actually lobbying the government asking to give more money to the government in the form of a tax. Weed is rumored to expand your mind in all sorts of unspecified ways. We may have found one of them.

Volumes of political theory have just been challenged. We’re witnessing history here. Someone notify the media!
“””“

Tina Dupuy is an award-winning writer, editor and columnist for Cagle Cartoons. Follow Tina on Twitter @TinaDupuy.

Want to run Tina’s column in your publication? Contact Cari Dawson Bartley. E-mail [email protected], (800) 696-7561.


Comments

15 responses to “The Only Group in History to Request to be Taxed More”

  1. SeaChris Avatar
    SeaChris

    A. The Revolutionary War was about being taxed the same as British subjects without having representation in paliament.

    B. Don't believe for a 2nd that weed smokers would be asking for the taxes to be rolled back as soon as pot was made legal

  2. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    SeaChris:

    A. You are correct. That doesn't invalidate her statement that "Americans were so outraged about the King’s raising taxes we started a costly and bloody revolutionary war…", it merely expands upon it.

    B. So, let 'em ask. I'm sure that cigarette smokers would like to see their taxes lifted too. The Dems wouldn't roll them back, they recognize that the gov. needs the money; the Reps wouldn't either, not unless the oil industry or the NRA lobbies for it.

  3. Kippersnax Avatar
    Kippersnax

    I'ved lived many places around the world- including Belgium- and I can say NO populace likes to pay taxes, not one. That some citizens are subject to crippling taxation reflects a lack of resistance when it could have moderated the burden and prevented 'creeping implementation'… and the pot people are hoping that taxation will lend credence and a vestige of government approval, hopefully leading to full-blown legalization. We're going through that here in Colorado right now.

  4. geoff Avatar
    geoff

    Kippersnax: I think it was a recent Pew poll which found that the Swedes like paying taxes, largely because they see what it brings them: good day care, health care, etc. Others aren't so happy, paying taxes but never seeing much come of it (weapons and wars, for example).

  5. JS Avatar
    JS

    Dupuy has clearly missed the point. She admits that taxes fund the government, but fails to note that most of what government does is outside its mandate. Further, government does almost nothing well. Governments need to be defunded down to the point where they only perform necessary functions and no more. Entitlements need to end, period.

  6. geoff Avatar
    geoff

    JS: "government does almost nothing well." What alternative would you like to offer? BP? Enron? GM? Lehman Bros? Citibank? AIG?

    "Governments need to be defunded down to the point where they only perform necessary functions and no more." Is funding medical research "necessary"? how about farm subsidies? invading Iraq? regulating BP?

  7. lois Avatar
    lois

    Hooray for the "Pot Smokers!!"

  8. Wilhelm Avatar
    Wilhelm

    Excuse me, there is a group that requested more taxes.

    Outdoorsmen.

    The outdoor shooting and hunting sports asked for taxes to be placed on their sport; these taxes support wildlife management and have saved a number of species from extinction.

    The funds are not used exclusively for species actively hunted; they benefit all wildlife.

  9. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    Geoff: "I think it was a recent Pew poll which found that the Swedes like paying taxes, largely because they see what it brings them: good day care, health care, etc. Others aren’t so happy, paying taxes but never seeing much come of it (weapons and wars, for example)."

    Ugh! The Sweden/US comparisons again. Beside the obvious canyon-wide difference in culture and history of formation . . . Sweden has roughly the population of New Jersey. I'd imagine it would be a little easier to manage a country that has a population smaller than some cities.

    And while some Swedes might say they actually "like paying taxes" . . . I know for a fact that Swedish corporations certainly like the LOW taxes levied on them (even lower than the US).

  10. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    Geoff: "JS: “government does almost nothing well.” What alternative would you like to offer? BP? Enron? GM? Lehman Bros? Citibank? AIG?"

    How about Exxon, GE, Ford, JP Morgan, AT&T, Wells Fargo, IBM, Cisco . . .

  11. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    Further, government does almost nothing well. ——–Obviously from someone that has never been associated with big business. The difference is that when government screws up it's public and the minority party (which ever one it is) makes sure everyone knows about it. Whereas in business when it screws up they just go on to the next project hoping that "something will stick to the wall". I have never seen a business that isn't constantly "putting out fires" and cutting losses and wasting money because of bad decisions and bad projects. Business just plays the odds that they will make more good decisions than bad. Certainly they are not perfect. And even small business screws up. While most growth and new jobs are in small business, the odds are that any given business will fail within 5 years. Which means the vast majority of small business people screw up and simply disappear without one word from Sean or Rush.

    We all go through life in this nation with very little thought to the protections our government is offering until something doesn't happen that should. Then it's major headlines.

    One of the basics of journalism (not commentary) is that news is the unusual. The usual is that everything works. It's when something unusual happens or doesn't happen that is news. I don't worry once in a day that my food, water, air, clothing, shelter, transportation, safety is on the line. I know that the usual is that every action of my life is relatively safe because someone in my government has taken the time I don't have to make sure I worry only about myself and my job and nothing else.

    If you go through life worried, you are simply paranoid without cause. If you think business doesn't waste at least the percentage of money that government wastes, you are grossly uninformed.

  12. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    "The difference is that when government screws up it’s public . . . "

    Yes. It is also the "public" that foots the bill.

    "I have never seen a business that isn’t constantly “putting out fires” and cutting losses and wasting money because of bad decisions and bad projects. Business just plays the odds that they will make more good decisions than bad. Certainly they are not perfect. And even small business screws up."

    True enough. And what happens when a business (large or small) continually screws up? Assuming the government doesn't bail them out . . . the leadership and focus is replaced. Still no change? They eventually go out of business.

    It is time to replace the nations leadership and focus.

  13. Phil Avatar
    Phil

    Mr. Lemon Lawyer,

    In any federal system of law, preemption refers generally to the displacement of a lower jurisdiction’s laws when they conflict with those of a higher jurisdiction.

    http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/preemption/

    Now let us read the contents of the Arizona Law.
    http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb107

    “ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS

    14 11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of

    15 immigration laws; indemnification

    16 A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR

    17 OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR

    18 RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL

    19 EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

    20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY

    21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS

    22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS

    23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,

    24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE

    25 PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

    26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).”

    Now if you are a real lawyer and not a lemon lawyer as your website suggests, you will find that a law enforcing federal law is by no means a conflict of intent with the federal law.

    🙂 Now I am not a lawyer, but I definitely can understand plain English,unless the law and the lawyers use a different dictionary to interpret meanings.

    I think you too belong to the category or Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano who start giving out opinions without knowing the facts. Oh I forgot you belong to the Sanctuary city of San Diego. No wonder you understand laws a bit differently than the rest of us. 🙂

    Sad that intelligent and educated people like you indulge in treating the rest of us as illiterates and uneducated.

  14. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    the leadership and focus is replaced.——-And so it is with government.

    The biggest flaw of the last 30 years has been a polarization. Usually the moderate position is the best and in the past a compromise of the opposing leadership brought about that moderation. Increasingly, compromise has become a dirty word which means a dictatorship of the majority which brings wild swings. Too much taxes, not enough taxes, too much regulation, not enough regulation. too much spending, not enough spending…….

    Will a change just for change sake solve the problem? NO. Will a reasonable electorate bring back a reasonable "board of directors"? YES. Is that likely to happen? Not in 2010. We will only get a reasonable, moderate, willing to negotiate, uniting "board of directors" when the electorate quits voting for "wingnuts" of both extremes.

  15. WMDFail Avatar

    “She admits that taxes fund the government, but fails to note that most of what government does is outside its mandate.”

    I disagree,

    First, I assume you are talking about the USA and our federal system (power divided between federal and state).

    Yet, you didn’t tell us what you think the government mandate is, only alluted to it, which is a problem.

    I though the basic USA government mandate was described in the first few lines of the constitution (lines: 1,2). Article 1 sec 8 gives congress the described the tools to carry out enumerated powers.

    So for example,

    Future Health care cost is great threat to our nations economic austerity.

    The constitutional mandate forces our current government to act. (For 8 years it didn’t and many states aren’t).

    It follows that, it would be a violation of the mandate for the federal government to ignore the safety of its public. Safety decreases when the public is exhausted by excessive costs for basic needs. A basic need is health care.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *