In Defense of Taxes

It is not at all uncommon nowadays to hear people upset about the state of taxes.  People throughout the USA yell it loud and often: “Taxes are too damn high!”  The stand I propose to take here is unusual and antithetical to many, but I believe logic is on my side, and with a little luck, I just might be able to convince you where our true problem lies.

Taxes as you and I pay them are fine, and if they are to be adjusted, they should be increased.  Our current tax rates are quite low, both historically and in comparison to other, modern, 1st world, non-socialist countries.  Not too long ago, taxes were different, and, at times, exceedingly high, but in the last few decades, taxes have fallen dangerously low.  The average American pays about 27% of their income in the form of various taxes.

“FOUL!” I hear you cry, “How dare you call 27% ‘dangerously low?’ 27% is almost ⅓ of my income! How can that be dangerously low?” Consider this:  Worldwide, America is the leader in terms of a combination of economic power and low taxes on its citizens.  Germany, as a counter-example, taxes not at 27%, but at 36%,  and Switzerland taxes at 44%.  Other European countries tax similarly.

“That’s why we’re the best!” you cry, “We’ve the lowest taxes and an enormous world economy!”  And yes, I reply, It would seem so, but one crucial aspect doesn’t quite line up: Americans claim to have already cinched their financial belt as tight as possible.  How is it that Europeans, taxed at 8-15% more than us, still have wiggle room, still take vacations to Thailand, and still have as much as or more that we do?  How can we not take a 2% tax hike?  The Europeans pay 10% more on taxes, pay $7.00+/gallon for gasoline, and stay out of debt.

“Impossible…” I hear you mutter, and now I’ll tell you exactly what the problem is; you don’t have enough money in your pocket.  You don’t have enough money in your bank account.  You don’t have enough money squirreled away for retirement, for your kid’s college fund, to pay off your debts and leave this world in the black.  To be concise: you don’t have enough disposable income.  Disposable income is your salary minus taxes.  You use it to pay your bills, buy food, clothe your children, gas your car, save for retirement, and have fun pursuing your hobbies.  Disposable income is how much money you have after taxes but before you do anything else, and the problem is that taxes take too much of it, right? Wrong!  As I’ve already explained, Europeans pay 10% more on taxes than we do.  Is stuff cheaper over there? Hardly.  $7.00 or more per gallon of normal gasoline. Keep that in mind.  No, the secret is that there are not one, but two ways to increase disposable income.  The first is to lower taxes.  The second is to increase the number you start with before taxes.  To be blunt: get a raise.

“FOUL!” I hear you cry, “Companies don’t have the money to pull all of their employees out of the red and to keep them safely in the black!  If they had that much money, we’d see record profits, rapid expansions, and (if it’s specifically an American thing) an over representation of American companies worldwide!”

Exactly.

 

Christians

With this piece, Salvation, I’m about to broach a serious topic:  religion.  The story is that of Langston Hughes, when as a boy, he was told to accept Jesus into his life, told that he would see Jesus and would be happy for the rest of his life, knowing that God’s only son was there with him.  The story ends with Langston crying into his pillow, for Jesus had not come to him, and he now believed that Jesus was a thing of fantasy, not truth.  He had lied to his entire church and lost his faith in one fell swoop.  My loss of faith in the Christian God and Jesus was not so abrupt, but just as complete.
It’s an interesting thought and comical in retrospect.  I disbelieved the Christian God before I disbelieved Santa or the Easter Bunny.  Most of my family were comfortable in their belief system, but I was not.  From as far back as I can remember, I doubted the existence of God and of Jesus.  Eventually, I realized that the cause was one message blinking in my head whenever Jesus came to mind: Does Not Compute.  I don’t mean to say that I think only as a computer or that logic is the supreme force in my life.  I’m a very spiritual person, but something about Christian theology and dogma simply didn’t pull through when put to the test.  I think the word closest to what I now consider myself religiously is ‘Druid,’ but there are elements of many other faiths smashed in with that one, so it’s all become quite complex.
This brings me to my theme: People.  These people are Christian, and that’s fine.  The people I want to talk about are the Traditional Conservative Christian Right.  These people disgust me, truly.  They are a people ruled by fear of change, god, thought, freedom, and most things that I hold dear.  These people are exactly the kind of people that the Pilgrims and other people fearing religious prosecution came to America to avoid.  They think that they can take their opinions on social issues (like abortion, marriage, etc) and turn them into law in a country that was built on the idea of separating religion from government.  They’re so wrapped up in their dogma that they reject logic, reason, and free thought as the workplace of Satan.  Sayings like “An open mind is the devil’s workshop,” “The devil is a being of thoughts,” and “If your mind is too open your brains will fall out” are just a few of the resulting tokens of “wisdom” passed around their close-minded circles.
I’d like to give you a quote now, a quote by none other than Mahatma Ghandi.  He said, “I like your Christ.  I do not like your Christians.  They are so unlike your Christ.”  In this, I believe he was absolutely correct.  Jesus was a being focused on loving thy neighbor like thy brother.  He believed that sharing and selflessness and tolerance and (most crucially) love were the center of all things.  These Christians (I even have trouble calling them Christian) use politics and nonsense logic to smother all other ideas, promoting instead their own ideas not only in cultural practice, but in government and law as well.  I’ve never understood how someone could read the Bible and emerge with their point of view.  In my mind they aren’t truly Christians.  They are cowardly, fear-driven people who fear change and non-conformity.  They are warmongers and spreaders of hate, all squabbling tooth and claw to give Christianity a bad name… all in the name of Jesus, the Messiah, our Lord and Savior.  Ha.  The Bible (and specifically the gospels) is(are) better read as a series of fables… didactic stories.  They show us how to live and treat one another:  with love and caring above all else.
My own personal experience with them is not nearly as extensive as others, but here in Virginia, USA, in the year 2009, it’s difficult to remain untainted by the foul taste they leave on government.
So that’s the problem; where’s the solution?  That’s the most infuriating part of it.  They take any attempt to make them think logically as an attack on their faith.  They start getting offended and yelling incoherently, then, amidst the yelling, they start offering poor arguments, poorer examples, and absolutely no concrete reasoning.  They make arguments from ignorance, and considering my affinity for debate, this is appalling to me.  It’s like someone upending a chessboard before they lose and claiming they have won.  I then reset the board and soundly crush them a second time, but again instead of admitting defeat, they upend the board one move before checkmate.  And the number of people watching who agree with the board-thrower’s logic is stunning.  My faith in humanity slips another notch, and the question bubbles to my lips, “How can so many people be so A) stupid, or B) ignorant of the rules?”  It baffles me.  They are a plague, a cancer of this planet, of our society, and we just haven’t figured out how to get rid of them yet.

Marriage

Marriage is a tricky subject and well established in society, but the problem is that it (largely) stems from religion and has therefor become a tool of manipulation wielded by the Church.  This extends into the homosexual debate as well as the sex debate.

First is the homosexual debate.  My opinion is very blunt in this area:  nobody has any right to prevent anyone from marrying anyone (with the obvious exception of parents restricting the marriage of their children before the age of 18).  You might not like homosexual marriage, but would you be so arrogant, overbearing, and controlling that you would prevent others from doing something that doesn’t hurt anyone simply because you don’t like it?  That’s one of the most selfish things I’ve ever heard.  Also, if two men being able to say “we’re married” makes your marriage feel less significant, then maybe you should rethink marriage in general (and Britney Spears’ 55-hour-just-for-fun marriage in particular).  To wrap it up in a sentence, if you think you can extend your personal likes and dislikes onto other people in the form of restrictions, stop.  It’s a free country and I can engage in something “sinful” if I want to.  You have no legal right to stop me (unless I’m causing harm to someone).

Second is the issue of sex.  Time and time again I hear the idea of virgin marriages or “saving yourself” for the person you love.  This is generally seen as a good idea, and nobody’s going to look down on you for wanting to wait for marriage.  My point is that I believe that nobody should have sex until they’re ready regardless of possession of a marriage contract.  Marriage is a human institution.  It was thought up by humans and is carried out by humans.  It should in NO WAY influence when you have sex.  You might have sex before marriage or on your wedding day or (gasp!) wait a while after your wedding day.  That’s up to you, and not anyone else.  You have sex when you’re emotionally, physically, and financially ready to accept the possible consequences, and marriage has nothing to do with that.

Love

To be compared to the finest of Dreams,

It is for you that this mortal heart keens.

The swirling sands of time shift underneath,

But our special tree continues to grow,

Growing and growing until we both know

The exact timbre of what lies beneath.

Anarchy

When I try to explain my views on government to people, they assume I’m an anarchist.  This is false.  Anarchy doesn’t work.  It’s impossible.  It’s impossible for one very simple, very basic reason: government exists only in the mind and as long as there are minds to conceive it, there will be government.  Government is, at it’s most basic level, completely mental.  You don’t need fancy documents or anything to have a government.  A government is simply a system for the control of a people or group.  Let’s allow for a hypothetical situation.  Let’s say that overnight every government system is erased from everyone’s mind.  We all wake up one day and have no memory of there ever being a ruling body.  This is what most will readily call “complete anarchy,” but it’s not.  By the end of the first day, the most dominant force in each little group of people will take control.  Someone will be the leader (officially or unofficially).  We now have a system of control, a government.  People would kill other people, yes, but eventually someone with a lot of manpower and a few guns would start telling people, “Hey, I’ll shoot anyone who would hurt you and your family, but you have to give me 10% of what you grow in a year.”  That person agrees because 10% isn’t much to guarantee the protection of his family.  Suddenly we have a feudal system, an established and recognizable form of government.  Pretty soon two of these feudal lords come in conflict with each other, there’s a war, and one side is taxed as the “wrong” (losing) side.  This continues in the cyclical nature of history until something horribly upsets it.  The point is that anarchy would have dissolved into government before people even realized it was anarchy.  So, really, telling people you’re an anarchist is like saying the sun rises in the South and sets in the North… It’s ridiculous.  It only holds it’s own until someone comes along and pokes holes in your wet-cardboard argument.

SyphirX brings up several good points (see comments), so I’ll try to address them all.

1.  Just because one thing is true doesn’t mean the inverse is also true.  My point was that by the time people realized rules wouldn’t be enforced there would already be little governing bodies sprouting up.  Humans naturally create government where there is none.

2.  Government is defined as the system by which a nation, state, or community is conducted, regulated, controlled, or influenced. – New Oxford American Dictionary

3.  I agree that violence and crime are caused by a lack of necessity.  That seems logical.

4.  If someone acts wrong, and the community removes them, then we have enforced something.  We have created a “system by which a community is conducted, regulated, controlled, or influenced.”  This IS a government.  If someone is being removed without his consent, he is following the will of the government (in this case, the will of the people, the “body within an organization that has the authority to make and enforce rules.”)

5.  It might be a free-thinking blob, but if the ability to punish (banishment or otherwise) is in place, then there is a higher power based somewhere.  That power is a government.

6.  Governments can and do just “pop up.”  In fact, the average family is actually a small government.  The parents (traditionally the father) are the government, and the children are the governed.  The parents have the ability to “conduct, regulate, control, and influence” the family-community.  I won’t venture to guess your age, but chances are that you have a family and that someone in that family possesses more authority than another in terms of how the house is “conducted, regulated, controlled, and influenced.”  A family is a government on the most basic of scales.

7.  Governments do allow for the abuse of power, but they are necessary for when the population grows too large.  The most simple government (and probably the best government) has every issue resolved by a vote, but pretty soon the population grows too large and they start sending one person to cast 100 votes for their village/town/neighborhood, then the population grows so large that they can’t afford to vote on everything. It’s too time consuming, so they choose someone to make a single decision and cast all the community’s votes that way.  Suddenly we have an elected official, a senator.  It doesn’t matter if it’s in writing or not.

Of Kissing

A kiss is such a special thing.  It’s a simple expression of love between two people.  It communicates so many emotions far too complex to explain in words and allows you to feel, to literally sense the subtle aspects of his or her personality.  I believe that physical body language is a hundredfold more efficient at communicating than spoken language, so in my mind to deny me (or yourself) that first kiss is almost abusive to a relationship; you aren’t letting me communicate with you, and I believe that communication is THE single most important part of a relationship.  This is the twenty first century, but we’re holding on to an outdated standard for kissing.  Anyone who has kissed a few girl or boyfriends can tell you that everyone kisses differently.  That first kiss can be absolutely vital.  If that kiss doesn’t go well, then that could spell immediate trouble in the relationship.  A friend of mine suggested that a couple could (and should) wait for months before kissing, so that by the time they actually do kiss, it’s not about the physical, and you already have a wonderful mental relationship.  That’s bogus.  It’s called “settling.”  I would rather have that horrible kiss right near the beginning, know that she isn’t exactly what I’m looking for, and move on.  I can still have a wonderful friendship with her.  I can still have a great mental relationship, but from that first kiss I’m suddenly privy to a number of the subtler facets of her personality, and if I don’t like what I find there, then she isn’t the girl for me.  In my mind there is no reason NOT to kiss her on the first date as long as the mood is right and she seems willing.  You don’t hold that back simply because it’s the first date.  “The mood wasn’t right,” “I was nervous,” “she didn’t look like she’d respond well,” and “I didn’t want to kiss her” are all valid reasons NOT to kiss her, but please, spare me the bull about not kissing because “it was the first date.”  If the mood is right, then you should kiss her.  If you find you like the subtler aspects of her personality, that’s great, and if you find you don’t like it, then it’ll be much easier to break it off early.  I’m not saying to dump someone because he or she is a bad kisser.  Instead I’m suggesting that you cannot truly know someone until you have done something as intimate as share a kiss with them.

I would fight for my honor.

Today’s society is soft.  We have reached a point where what is sometimes the best method of dealing with a problem is no longer acceptable.  I’m talking about fighting in an honorable situation.  There is something to be said for fighting for your honor.  In fact, I found myself in a debate with a friend of mine when I said that I would be willing to die for my honor.  I cited Former President Andrew Jackson who challenged a man to a duel and took a bullet a few inches from his heart because the challenged man had called his wife a whore and a bigamist.  I believe the man behind the face on the twenty dollar bill was entirely in the right, and faced with the same situation I would act in a similar fashion.  My friend then pointed out that fighting isn’t acceptable and dueling is illegal, so what’s a man to do?  What if a man called your wife a whore?  What would I do?  After careful thought, I replied that the response today is to sue that man or woman into bankruptcy for libel, slander, and the emotional distress to me and my wife caused by damages to her reputation.  This response was disappointing to me and utterly unfulfilling, so today, a week later, I revise my position.  In today’s society it is truly a shame that one man may not strike another given good reason.  If a man were to call my wife a whore in all seriousness, and if he were within striking range, I would hit him.  I would hit him, and I would hit him hard, but I would hit him only once, mind you.  This isn’t an assault.  This isn’t a brawl.  It’s a single punch followed by saying something to the effect of “My wife is a virtuous woman and until proven otherwise I will not have her spoken of in that way.”  Even in today’s benign society full of political correctness, soft language, and anti-violence, I would strike that person, male, female, black, white, christian, and atheist alike.  I would strike that person, fully willing to suffer the consequences because I know in my heart and in my mind that a throat that would utter such affronts to me or my wife’s honor deserves to be struck.