American Gimme-ism
[Guest post by DRJ]
Are we becoming a nation of “Give Me” Americans?
“Questions reflecting confusion have flooded insurance companies, doctors’ offices, human resources departments and business groups.
“They’re saying, ‘Where do we get the free Obama care, and how do I sign up for that?’ ” said Carrie McLean, a licensed agent for eHealthInsurance.com. The California-based company sells coverage from 185 health insurance carriers in 50 states.
McLean said the call center had been inundated by uninsured consumers who were hoping that the overhaul would translate into instant, affordable coverage.”
Almost half of us don’t pay federal income taxes and many receive more than they pay:
“About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability.
***
The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment.“We have 50 percent of people who are getting something for nothing,” said Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.”
Free people should depend primarily on themselves, not their governments, if they want to stay free.
— DRJ
Bread and circuses.
Once a plurality discovers that they can vote to enslave the productive, why should they continue to work themselves?
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 4/7/2010 @ 12:24 pmI guess we’re lucky they still have payroll tax, eh? Or do they get out of that too?
carol (5a5d33) — 4/7/2010 @ 12:38 pmSo, for the people that don’t pay taxes and only get refunds, is the IRS going to keep their refund to pay for their health insurance? As they have threatened to do? Just wondering.
PatAz (9d1bb3) — 4/7/2010 @ 12:49 pmusually when i get unsolicited advertising in the mail, i simply return as much junk as i can fit into the postage paid envelope to the sender as my personal protest.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 4/7/2010 @ 1:14 pmhowever, for the last year or so, any insurance related offer has been returned with a scrawled moonbat diatribe about how “Obama is going to give me free insurance and finally stick it to you greedy bastards…” 😀
I already have health insurance. I want a case of Jack Daniels and 36 cartons of Marlboros. Where do I sign up for that?
nk (db4a41) — 4/7/2010 @ 1:33 pm‘becoming’? I’m afraid you’re a couple of decades late on that.
steve sturm (369bc6) — 4/7/2010 @ 1:36 pmI wonder how the woman in Florida who thought Obama was going to pay her rent is making out ?
Mike K (2cf494) — 4/7/2010 @ 1:42 pmOnce a plurality discovers that they can vote to enslave the productive, why should they continue to work themselves?
— Remember those man-in-the-street interviews during the ’08 campaign? People looking into the camera and saying “I like Obama because he’s gonna gimme health care”.
I guess we’re lucky they still have payroll tax, eh? Or do they get out of that too?
— That’s what they get back, plus interest. And a case can be made that: if the guvmint is gonna hold onto some of your money for awhile, then they should pay you interest when they give it back.
The larger case to be made, of course, is that guvmint can reduce its spending, and just not take so much of your money to begin with.
I’m a unit manager for a national retail chain. I have had several minimum wage workers come up to me and ask, “How come they’re not taking out so much for taxes anymore?” When I tell them that this was one of the first acts of the Obama administration, intended to put more money in their pockets with each paycheck, the response is always, “You mean my tax refund will be less this year?” And they walk away, dismayed.
Icy Texan (c52181) — 4/7/2010 @ 1:59 pmIt wasn’t just rent, it was her mortgage, and her gas.
Machinist (9780ec) — 4/7/2010 @ 1:59 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
I suppose the side effect of telling some people that they’re going to pay for other people’s health care is that other people will get the idea that their health care will be payed for. No reason why one side of this should be more immune to misunderstanding than another.
imdw (c5488f) — 4/7/2010 @ 2:12 pmFree people?
Where do I get one?
Steve G (7d4c78) — 4/7/2010 @ 2:20 pm“I’m a unit manager for a national retail chain. I have had several minimum wage workers come up to me and ask, “How come they’re not taking out so much for taxes anymore?” When I tell them that this was one of the first acts of the Obama administration, intended to put more money in their pockets with each paycheck, the response is always, “You mean my tax refund will be less this year?” And they walk away, dismayed.”
They were dismayed when you explained how the tax credit works?
imdw (c5488f) — 4/7/2010 @ 2:21 pmIcy Texan,
Typical Democrat “benefit”, buy you a present and charge it to you.
Machinist (9780ec) — 4/7/2010 @ 2:31 pmThey were dismayed because they track how much tax is taken out of each paycheck with the mindset of planning out what they are going to purchase with their refund check. They see the refund as an entitlement; they do not see the few extra dollars in each paycheck as an opportunity to put money aside — say for emergencies, in a savings account.
Icy Texan (c52181) — 4/7/2010 @ 2:32 pm““We have 50 percent of people who are getting something for nothing,”
– Curtis Dubay
The solution, to my mind, is to charge them something, not to give them nothing. A co-pay system would’ve been a welcome addition to this bill.
Leviticus (b987b0) — 4/7/2010 @ 2:35 pmLeviticus,
Machinist (9780ec) — 4/7/2010 @ 2:43 pmI think he is referring to federal taxes in general, not just health care insurance. No person should be able to vote themselves public money who don’t pay taxes. It ends up enslaving 49% to 51%. This is just wrong and always leads to failure. I believe the failure rates for Democracy in history is as high as for Socialism. The only form that has shown the potential for long term freedom is a Republic, a rule of law rather than men. It worked well for us until we sold it for beads and trinkets.
An income tax, especially one paid only by a minority, is slavery and is not compatible with freedom.
Machinist (9780ec) — 4/7/2010 @ 2:46 pm“An income tax, especially one paid only by a minority, is slavery and is not compatible with freedom.”
Is there a tax that is not slavery?
“I think he is referring to federal taxes in general, not just health care insurance. ”
No he’s not, because there are still social security and medicare taxes. He’s referring to just one line on the paycheck.
imdw (fff2cd) — 4/7/2010 @ 3:06 pmMachinist – you do realize the iamadimwit is going to direct a monsoon of mendacity at you., no?
JD (3e47ac) — 4/7/2010 @ 3:12 pmMachinist,
I agree wholeheartedly with your comment. I linked Dubay’s remark to healthcare because that was the context in which it was discussed in the post, but I agree that he was speaking more generally.
Leviticus (b987b0) — 4/7/2010 @ 3:41 pmI want me some Obama money so I can go get me an Obama car and then some Obama laser eye surgery and the next day I’m gonna go to work at my new Obama job looking up people to help the IRS bust their balls if they don’t feel like having the government trampling into their lives.
Such a bright future!
skwiself (b69230) — 4/7/2010 @ 4:21 pmWhere is my free Obama X-bot 360 ?
Neo (7830e6) — 4/7/2010 @ 4:25 pmAnd where do the vast majority of the 47% who don’t pay federal income taxes get educated? In government schools run by unionized government employees.
BT (74cbec) — 4/7/2010 @ 4:27 pmWe have 50 percent of people who are getting something for nothing,” said Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.”
This is classic, modern “conservative” thinking. Sales tax, personal property taxes, hotel and airline taxes, all the fees and taxes we pay to do everything from driving to fishing, now Internet sales taxes — all that’s “nothing.”
He’s looking strictly at the income tax, and then from the perspective that the government has some kind of right to our money. He can go screw.
Myron (3d5c6b) — 4/7/2010 @ 4:31 pm“They’re saying, ‘Where do we get the free Obama care, and how do I sign up for that?’”
And these people vote.
“I suppose the side effect of telling some people that they’re going to pay for other people’s health care is that other people will get the idea that their health care will be payed for.”
“Payed”? You should be flaid (heh) for that one, IMDEEDOUBLEDOO.
GeneralMalaise (139767) — 4/7/2010 @ 4:32 pmThe only check against this kind of creeping expansion of government through voter demands is to either limit voting to legitimate tax payers or property owners.
A better fix to the entire tax code mess is to enact a national sales tax and then the feds can mind their own business about how much I earn. Folks that earn money illegally currently pay no income tax. However, they do buy stuff (often referred to as bling). If you buy a car you pay sales tax. One argument against this is a claim that it is excessively regressive. An easy fix for that is to exempt groceries and to have higher taxes on luxury items.
Largebill (1d1579) — 4/7/2010 @ 4:52 pmMost of which go to local and state governments, not the federal government.
You did know we were talking about the federal government, right? Right?
Local and state laws and regulations can never hope to approach the level of disruption the Obama Magical Money Miracle Tree is going to cause. And as we have seen and are seeing, state governments that begun to encroach too far have been seeing a backlash in their elections as well.
Another home run about “thinking” from Myron.
skwiself (b69230) — 4/7/2010 @ 5:02 pmskwiself – Myron has never been known to sweat the details.
daleyrocks (718861) — 4/7/2010 @ 5:12 pmA better fix to the entire tax code mess is to enact a national sales tax and then the feds can mind their own business about how much I earn.
Oh, don’t worry–they’ve got that covered too:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6355N520100406
I wonder what genius let Volcker float this to the media right before Tax Day.
Another Chris (35bdd0) — 4/7/2010 @ 5:12 pm#19 JD,
I find it easier to ignore then some.
Machinist (9780ec) — 4/7/2010 @ 5:23 pmA National Sales-Tax is one thing, the Value-Added-Tax, is quite another.
The sales tax is a tax on consumption, the VAT is a tax on everything from production, to manufacturing, distribution, and consumption.
Plus, all VAT’s are in addition to the income-tax.
In the 80’s, some economist wrote that the country needed to revamp how it financed itself.
AD - RtR/OS! (a87d65) — 4/7/2010 @ 5:27 pmHe proposed that, through Constitutional amendment, each level of government be financed solely by one tax:
Feds…The Sales Tax;
States…The Income Tax;
Municipalites…The Property Tax!
Soon we will live in a country where everything is free, except the people.
Huey (efe02b) — 4/7/2010 @ 5:30 pmGovernment should be financed by fees and tariffs. If the fees are excessive I can avoid the services. This puts a check on government greed just as it does on business (unless you can get the government to pass a mandate to buy your service or go to jail). If the government claims that half my work and creativity is theirs, they are claiming half of me. I can not escape this unless I am born rich or live by theft. If the government owns half of me this is slavery, as much as if I was entirely their property. I can not separate that which they own from my personal half. To enforce this state of servitude they claim the right to examine and regulate every aspect of my life, my spending, savings, investments, lifestyle, gifts I give and gifts I receive, in order to insure I report all income. What grievance did our founders claim that came close to the intrusions our present state makes in our lives? They took up arms and took the field over very much less.
Our problem is not what people want the government to give them but what people are willing to allow the government to take from them. We have always had freeloading bums, the problem is the number of sheep.
Machinist (9780ec) — 4/7/2010 @ 5:37 pmLike Larry Niven wrote: freedom times security equals a constant. The more of one, the less of the other.
Also, my father always said that the highest prices he ever paid were for “free” things.
Eric Blair (ce930c) — 4/7/2010 @ 5:45 pm#18
Medicare and SS payments are “contributions” in return for a future benefit.
Income taxes go towards funding things every day people use every day… and 50% of the people don’t participate in paying for what they use.
Think of it like splitting up the pizza tab amongst yourself and three of your college mates.
Steve G (7d4c78) — 4/7/2010 @ 5:49 pmYou and your art major buddy of course put in zero… just like every time before.
Fast forward to your 40 year reunion where for 40 years straight you’ve contributed zero to the pizza pool… because after all, you are tapped out from the strain of putting 9% of the $1,000 you made beyond welfare and food stamps into two lifetime benefit programs where you will realize a percentage return on your $90 annual contribution that is in the %1000’s.
But hey…. you contributed your “share”… not that the people buying the pizza can discern your economic heft..
“The only check against this kind of creeping expansion of government through voter demands is to either limit voting to legitimate tax payers or property owners. ”
Just about anyone pays tax. And just about anyone owns property. Specially if we include intellectual property.
“Government should be financed by fees and tariffs”
So I guess the answer is.. there is no tax that is not slavery? Or what?
“Like Larry Niven wrote: freedom times security equals a constant. The more of one, the less of the other. ”
So where is Iraq, or Somalia, or Afghanistan on this axis? There’s some definite non zero-sum going on here.
imdw (cbc3e9) — 4/7/2010 @ 6:09 pmTo someone who can’t see the difference between choosing to pay a fee for a service and having someone take your money at gunpoint on pain of prison or death, it might seem that way. I can’t begin to imagine how you see the world.
Machinist (9780ec) — 4/7/2010 @ 6:18 pmTo someone who can’t see the difference between choosing to pay a fee for a service and having someone take your money at gunpoint on pain of prison or death, it might seem that way. I can’t begin to imagine how you see the world.
Probably the same way Veruca Salt did.
Another Chris (35bdd0) — 4/7/2010 @ 6:43 pmGimmecrats.
matador (176445) — 4/7/2010 @ 6:44 pmimdw
cheap joke at your expense would be a mean one about the “value” of that “intellectual property”.
What is that old song’s lyrics?
“Nothin from nothin leaves nothin” ?
when it comes to property, do we count the flat screen TV you looted from costco after Katrina?
Steve G (7d4c78) — 4/7/2010 @ 6:52 pmAs was said on PJM a while back – Some people work for a living. Some people vote for a living. When more people don’t pay taxes than pay them the incentive to work is constantly eroded until no one wants to work or excel.
paul s (8ce79d) — 4/7/2010 @ 6:59 pmThat’s how Hugo Chavez and Obama retain their popularity.
Patricia (fa8e06) — 4/7/2010 @ 7:04 pmI hear you sign up for free care at your local Democrat headquarters. AND DON’T LET THEM GIVE YOU THE RUN-AROUND!!! They’re trying to save the first slots for themselves and are telling everyone “there is no free medical program.” Don’t be fooled! Demand your rights!
Kevin Murphy (5ae73e) — 4/7/2010 @ 7:05 pm“To someone who can’t see the difference between choosing to pay a fee for a service and having someone take your money at gunpoint on pain of prison or death, it might seem that way”
It’s just that I know what slavery is. We’ve had slavery. McDonnell just had to apologize for forgetting it (though I suspect he wasn’t forgetting it). And frankly, paying taxes on work (or capital gains etc…) so that we can have public goods isn’t quite like slavery. I mean, I do see the difference. You just don’t want any public goods. That’s not how our founders set up our system, and frankly I don’t see how we can set up that system. Though it might be neat to try — those that want iraq invaded can just pay a fee for that service… and the rest of us will just free ride on that.
[Released from filter. — DRJ]
imdw (4dfefb) — 4/7/2010 @ 7:08 pmRepeal the 16th amendment. Then switch to a VAT.
DeCarlo Flyte (737e1b) — 4/7/2010 @ 7:15 pmA VAT is an economy killer. It punishes production.
Machinist (9780ec) — 4/7/2010 @ 7:19 pmIt punishes consumerism. We have no production. Ok, ok, it punishes Chinese production.
nk (db4a41) — 4/7/2010 @ 7:24 pmTaxes should go back to fees for services and tariffs. Spending should be reduced to to where this could work. It tends to be self limiting on the size and power of government. If there must be a tax on commerce it should be a sales tax that does not apply to food. Almost any other tax on basic living like a VAT or income tax provides unlimited income to government and allows and encourages cancer like growth and the death of prosperity and freedom. When the state has you in a choke collar instead of the other way around, you are not free.
Machinist (9780ec) — 4/7/2010 @ 7:30 pmCalifornia is an example of a state now run by the public employee unions. There will be no reform and the state government will continue to fleece and herd the taxpayers like livestock until a virtual revolt takes place and as the economy there is already approaching collapse I don’t think it will be pretty. The state can not sustain the burden it has assumed and to correct it, many state dependents will be left in a bad way.
Our federal government seems to be in a rush to put the country in the same position. I can think of reasons to do this but none of them are honorable or laudable.
Machinist (9780ec) — 4/7/2010 @ 7:37 pmWe have a very large number of VAT type (flat, regressive) taxes. The first and foremost being the Fed rate. As a practical matter, that’s where the money is. When people spend their money, get a piece of it. Whether they earn any it’s kind of catch-can these days. As a philosophical matter, if you can afford $2,000.00 for a big screen TV, you can afford $200.00 for … a few MREs?
nk (db4a41) — 4/7/2010 @ 7:51 pmWe rose to a world power without the welfare state and entitlement culture. These do nothing to advance those government functions allowed and called for in the constitution such as maintaining our military and protecting our borders. The ruinous spending put in place and proposed for the next decade has nothing to do with our military or our security except by bleeding them and leaving us vulnerable. Most of the “public goods” are things the government should not be giving out or controlling anyway.
Machinist (9780ec) — 4/7/2010 @ 7:54 pmYou’re right about California. A cautionary tale unfolding right before the country and no one is paying attention. The unions continue to hold us hostage, dictating to the pols while reminding them that it is *they* that are ultimately in control of our state’s financial future. Our pols, weak-willed at best, just want to be able to keep their perks – at any price to their integrity. But there is absolutely extraordinary taxation:
Like everywhere else, California has a progressive tax system, with the wealthy paying more than the poor. Unlike everywhere else, California has a really, really progressive tax system. When it comes time to raise taxes, we say, “Don’t tax me, tax the rich people who can afford it.” Residents earning north of $200,000 control 39 percent of the state’s income, but pay 66 percent of its income taxes.
Taxed more than half of one’s income yet control 39 percent of the state’s income? Heh.
Dana (1e5ad4) — 4/7/2010 @ 8:06 pm“About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009
I hope that actually includes a lot of people whose employer withholds so much from their paychecks each year that when April 15th rolls around they don’t have to pay more to the IRS but instead will receive a refund. IOW, they get back only a portion of what they’ve been turning over to the feds each month, but NOT the entire amount, much less more than that.
I’m guessing the statement of “47 percent” certainly does not refer to people getting a full return of all the miscellaneous taxes that most of them — regardless of their income level — have put into the system (via mandatory withholding), including taxes for social security, medicaid, not to mention state-mandated taxes like workers comp.
If not, than that means this country must be full of a lot of poor people or folks who by twisting and turning every deduction imaginable are making the rest of us look like the biggest suckers and patsies this side of the universe.
Mark (411533) — 4/7/2010 @ 8:08 pmCan there possibly be just one day when imdw doesn’t act like a drunk reflexively snarky troll? Just one?
I didn’t think so. “Pee-wee’s Big Adventure” continues.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 4/7/2010 @ 8:15 pmThe reason I would like VAT to replace the income tax, and the reason it will never happen, is because the consumer is in control. You can shop or you can “use it up, wear it out, make do, or do without”. Spend or save. But the government will never allow its budget to depend on Christmas shoppers.
Which is a different question on how the taxes are spent, admittedly.
nk who shops at Goodwill (db4a41) — 4/7/2010 @ 8:21 pmCalifornia is an example of a state now run by the public employee unions.
I don’t if the average person — Californian or otherwise — realizes that government-funded pension plans are eating up an increasingly huge amount of the cost of running government. Cushy, gold-plated retirement plans where some government employees can drop out of the workforce by the age of 55 (or even earlier) or 60 and receive up to 90% of the salary they received from their PEAK year of earnings.
So more and more taxes are going not to people who actually are working in a government office — possibly performing a valuable service, while NOT even factoring in all the employees who are prime examples of featherbedding that is far, far more likely to exist in a place (ie, a typical public-sector setting) dominated by feel-good registered Democrats/liberals. No, more and more taxes are going to pay people who departed from a government office some time ago.
I can understand why a voter in California who is employed by the government is so pathetically liberal and pro-Democrat-Party. But for anyone else who is eking out a living through the private sector to be responding in a similar way might just as well tape a “kick me” and “I bend over willingly and happily” sign on their backside.
Mark (411533) — 4/7/2010 @ 8:33 pmA married couple filing jointly with 2 kids with $44,900 of taxable income owes $0 in federal income tax. They get a complete rebate of any withheld income tax for the year. This is using the standard deductions / exemptions and child tax credit. Plus they get $88 bucks back as Earned Income Credit.
kaf (b8b0b7) — 4/7/2010 @ 8:47 pm“The reason I would like VAT to replace the income tax, and the reason it will never happen, is because the consumer is in control”
Aren’t you in control of how much income you earn?
imdw (19cd35) — 4/7/2010 @ 8:55 pmimdw said:
Aren’t you in control of how much income you earn?
Do you mean that in the sense that you are in control of how many Cheetos you eat? Or in the sense that you are in control of how many Cheetos you eat before the food-stamp card runs out? Or in the sense that you better eat more Cheetos before the boss finds out you’re posting on Patterico on company time?
Aren’t you in control of how much income you earn?
Ag80 (f67beb) — 4/7/2010 @ 9:07 pm49.California is an example of a state now run by the public employee unions. There will be no reform and the state government will continue to fleece and herd the taxpayers like livestock until a virtual revolt takes place and as the economy there is already approaching collapse I don’t think it will be pretty. The state can not sustain the burden it has assumed and to correct it, many state dependents will be left in a bad way.
Comment by Machinist — 4/7/2010
I heard today (maybe Rush) that the CA govt employee benefits trust is $550 billion underfunded.
MD in Philly (59a3ad) — 4/7/2010 @ 9:43 pm#55, NK,
Machinist (9780ec) — 4/7/2010 @ 11:16 pmA sales tax would do what you describe but a VAT hits every level of supply and production. This hurts manufacturing and kills jobs. That is not what we need now. A sales tax would be bad but it is better than a VAT or income tax.
It seems the troll thinks that encouraging everyone to work and produce less. To not invest in or grow a business is the solution to our economic problems.
He might be qualified for Obama’s cabinet.
Machinist (9780ec) — 4/7/2010 @ 11:20 pmAren’t you in control of how much income you ear?
Most inane comment yet – could only be uttered by an individual with no relevant work experience in the private sector. Come to think of it, I’ll give that gambit a try for my next gig – “hey boss, I need to control my salary for next year.” Idiot.
Dmac (21311c) — 4/8/2010 @ 7:11 amI guess I have to agree. A point of origin tax is the most regressive because there is no guarantee that the goods will ever be sold. Moreover, it would violate our various agreements on tariffs, generally, and with our favored trading partners. The downside to a sales tax, or even a stamp tax such as cigarettes and liquor, is the tremendous bureaucracy needed to collect it at the point of sale.
nk who shops at Goodwill (db4a41) — 4/8/2010 @ 7:27 amThey should put a stamp tax on weed.
and everything else slackers (like some visitors) here consume… not as a punitive tax, but as a way of congratulating them for their participation in the paying for all of our great public programs.
Think “Meet the Focker’s” and Ben Stiller’s “Wall of mediocrity” filled with trophies and awards for being a “participant”.
Then there is the thrill that comes from knowing that you gave back $25 in return for thousands of $$ in food stamps, housing assistance, unemployment, disability….
I heard a Merle Haggard song yesterday that has a line that says “when a man who could work, still would”
Made me wonder if being employed equals an accomplishment beyond participant…
that said, wtf am I doing?
Steve G (7d4c78) — 4/8/2010 @ 7:46 amI got work to do……
That is a good point but it does not effect customers, most citizens, but only businesses. All food items should be exempt as well which should remove many smaller businesses. I don’t like it at all but it is better than what we have now with the IRS. Basically only a wholesale seizure of assets by some confiscatory tax will support current government spending, and that only for a while. We need spending reduced to a sustainable level and limits put on growth, limits the legislature can’t violate readily.
Machinist (9780ec) — 4/8/2010 @ 7:49 amAn advantage is that all people and therefore all voters pay the tax and will be less inclined to vote taxes on others as they will also have to pay them.
Machinist (9780ec) — 4/8/2010 @ 7:53 am“Most inane comment yet – could only be uttered by an individual with no relevant work experience in the private sector. Come to think of it, I’ll give that gambit a try for my next gig – “hey boss, I need to control my salary for next year.” Idiot.”
You can try to earn less. Just like you could try to consume less.
“They should put a stamp tax on weed.”
CA will be voting on this. I think it’s a good idea.
imdw (0aa3bf) — 4/8/2010 @ 9:47 amConsuming less is a way to control your earnings? So, if I spend less today, I can claim I got a raise? I swear, sometimes imanidiot, you should just acknowledge that in your attempt to divert, deflect, or snark, that you said something brain-jarringly stupid.
JD (d55760) — 4/8/2010 @ 10:12 amBut see, if you spend less . . . uh, then you can pretend that you earned more.
Yeah!
That’s the ticket
Icy Texan (6a2a76) — 4/9/2010 @ 5:29 am