It's That Time of Year Again

And so it's upon us. Oh, greetings everyone, and welcome back to...well, my blog. One last continuation from last weeks "LOST" temper tantrum. Where did Vincent the dog go? OK, back to writing...

So today is April 15th, or tax day in America. I really, really, really try to leave personal politics aside and I try oh so hard to make this a New York experience blog, but since it's still ultimately my blog, I figure, let's just wax poetic on the good 'ole American tax system.

I don't think anyone in their right mind enjoys filing taxes. Seriously, it's a tedious, monotonous chore, where by you pay someone a nice chunk of money, only to find out you owe more money (not everyone of course, but you see where I'm going...by the way, many thanks to my friend Janet for knocking my taxes out so quickly this year).

I've been reading about a number of tax protests around the country. Most of these protesting involve teabags, or teabagging (I know, I'm laughing as well, but mind out of the gutter people). Every article or story I've seen or read has involved the word "conservative," as if to further divide this country and to depict people who genuinely want to see tax reform as a nut (not that conservatives are nuts, but I've noticed if people in New York think you're of the conservative mindset, they basically regard you as almost a pedophile). So of course, the little hamster upstairs got to running, and I got to thinking...

I get that we have to pay taxes. I think most reasonable (if not most all) Americans understand that in order for the government to function at its proper level, it needs money. No arguement here. We need to fund a military, take care of veterns, police, firemen, etc. Of course, last time I checked, we didn't have a federal police force (for now) thanks in part to that pesky 10th Amendment (and no, the FBI doesn't count). So with exception to a very small majority, we can surmise that people are willing to pay taxes. Now, let's take a serious look at how they're collected. Anyone want to take a stab at this one? In a nutshell, the US needed to raise quick capital to help fund WWII, since people had been paying income tax since 1913 (or thereabouts....oh, and it was like the wealthiest of the wealthy). Essentially, when April 15th came around, you figured out how much you owe, and you would cut a check to Uncle Sam. So since the military needed that cash quick, say hello to the era of "take home pay." It was supposed to be a temporary measure, just to help fund the war effort, and then we'd go back to writing a check once a year based on income. I understand we're the global police force and what not, and we're fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan right now, but we're not fighting the Axis, at least no one has consulted me on this matter, so I'm going to assume we're not. If you've gotten a pay check in the last 60 years (from an employer, not including anything off the books), you should see you're "take home" amount. OK, so they stretched the truth a bit. Who hasn't, but that little fib should stay in our minds. Remember, they make the laws, they can change them as they see fit (and if you think any member of Congress is benevolent and has your best interest at heart over their own...seriously take some time to answer that one).

Lately (and I'll go back over the last 10 years or so), Congress really wants your money. There was the Republican Revolution of '94, which was a promise to reduce the size and cost of government. Unless you're devoutly in love with the idea of the federal government being involved in every aspect of your life, again, it's a pretty good idea. Unfortunately, didn't really happen. Fast forward to the next guy in the White House, and he became the biggest (well, now 2nd biggest) spender since Lyndon Johnson. Also, the government GREW under W as well. So much for that promise, but still a good idea (the idea of shrinking the government and reigning in spending).

Speaking of reigning in spending, does anyone else hear alot of talk about this concept, yet zero action? Again, I'm a realist, and I understand that our founding fathers really couldn't forsee all of the great things we all take for granted on an everyday basis. Things like getting milk from a grocery store and not directly from a cow, penecilin, and living past the age of 40. However, they were able to forsee one thing specifically: there is no limit to the thirst for power some people and the government have. So, knowing this, they came up with a system based on economic liberty and personal freedom governed by the rule of law (your friend and mine, the Constitution). So yes, while it may be a "living document" in some senses, remember, these were smart guys that set this bad boy up, and they knew exactly how tyrants and despots operated. So anyway, back to teabagging...

Teabag protests, in honor of the Boston Tea Party. You know, the intruiging thing I always thought about the Boston Tea Party was that these dudes dressed up as Native Americans when they dumped the tea. So I imagine the thought process would be something along the lines of "OK, if someone sees us dumping tea in the distance, it's OK, because we'll just rock a few feathers in our hair, slap on some war paint, and go topless...BOOM! Let's frame some Indians!!!" Could you imagine the British riding into a camp the next day, "ah yeah, we got a report that some of your men dumped some tea into the harbor." How shocked would they be. And yet, I never heard of any Native American complain about it. So in the spirit of the 70's (1770's that is), people have been sending tea bags to their reps in Congress. Yeah, because that will get their attention. Right now, most of these guys are tripping all over themselves to lambast the AIG's of the world and every bank for A) giving tax dollars to executives as bonuses and B) banks actually being able to pay back the loans they borrowed from the tax payers. I can understand the frustration with A, since if a company is failing to the point of borrowing tax money, it's not in the best interest to turn around and shell out a few million in bonuses (then again, you have the government involved, and they're good at throwing money at problems and not really solving them, so what did you really expect). I'm a tad concerned about B. It seems that alot of the banks are finding ways to pay back the TARP money because they really don't want to be indebted/told how to run their business by the government (facism was never really all that popular anyway). Kind of scary if you think about it. Anyway, back to taxes.

I was reading an article on CNN.com today by Paul Begala. He was saying today should be "Patriot Day." Again, he made some fair points, as in taxes are inevitable, and we all need to pay. It comes down to what's "fair." I think people inherently want to be fair, however Begala goes to the extreme when he goes on to compare any one who has wealth to Paris Hilton. I think most people can agree that Paris really didn't work hard to get where she is, and she basically was very lucky to be born a Hilton. Hey, sucks, because I'm sure there are more deserving people out there, but that's life; it's not always fair, so there's no sense bitching about it. However, for every Paris Hilton, how many Tyler Perry's, or Oprah Winfrey's, or Warren Buffets are there out there? The biggest difference between the latter and the former is that the latter group worked hard, made sacrifices, and made good decisions to become exceedingly wealthy. To my knowledge, they've never taken advantage of anyone or anything ever. That also doesn't include all of the other people who aren't household names who worked hard, saved, and made difficult decisions to finally get to a point where they really don't have to worry about it. Honestly, I hope to get to that point some day, and you know what? I'll probably leave most of it to my family to spend on candy and shoes. I really don't want to government coming in and taking half of my money once I go belly up like some vindictive ex-wife. Seriously, 45%? That's fair?

I'm currently reading Neal Boortz and John Linder's book "The Fair Tax: Answering the Critics." I strongly encourage any one to read it (Neal, if you happen to be reading this, you're welcome for the plug). Even if you truly hate the idea of a national retail tax, the book is a very interesting read about our current tax structure, and how a 23% national sales tax would affect the economy and we'd still be able to fund the day to day functions fo tht government (for the record, no, 23% is NOT added to the final price of the good). The book does a great job of explaining how it could replace our current system and ultimately streamline our government and businesses. Wow, I never thought I'd be recommending a book on taxes. Oh well, almost time for "LOST." Until next time!