Splinter Therapy

List of Taxes

I am all for paying taxes.  In my opinion they should go toward protecting and maintaining freedom and very little after that.  The amount of tax we pay, however, and how our tax dollars are used is absolutely ridiculous.  Here is an incomplete list of taxes we pay (recently emailed to me from a friend).  This same email stated that none of these taxes existed 100 years ago and we had no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and families were not dependent on having two income sources - and we were the wealthiest nation in the world.

How long before we realize that the government should not be in the solutions business but in the protection of freedom busines?  Anyway, here is the list:

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax (often a local municipality tax)
Estate Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax,
Fuel permit tax
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Interest expense
Inventory tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service charge taxes
Social Security Tax
Road usage taxes (tolls)
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes
Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and no n-recur ring charges tax
Telephone state and local tax
Telephone usage charge tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

Dealing with Immigration

I heard a good line this week; I can't remember who said it.  It was, "I bet the Native Americans wished they had come up with a better immigration policy".

Pretty funny, but like all things humorous it is funny because there is some truth behind it.

Here are some of my musings regarding the immigration situation:

1.  I think it says a lot about the United States of America that we are even considering putting up walls on our borders.  What a great contrast between East Berlin and the former Soviet Union.  They had to build walls to keep people in.  We are considering building a wall to keep people out.  There is something very telling about that.

2.  With very few exceptions (convicted felons, terrorists, certain people seeking asylum, etc.) I am all for open borders.  I think people should register or have some type of ID when they cross borders, but in no way should we restrict anyone who wants to come here seeking a better opportunity for themselves. 

3.  Isn't there a quote at the foot of the statue of liberty that says, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.  Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"  Did somebody remove that when I wasn't looking?  Maybe someone added a line that says "except for the Mexicans".  When did we stray from this philosophy? 

4.  Why are we so uptight about allowing new immigrants here?  I understand the need to have them be registered; I realize that there are some national security threats associated with unmonitored borders, but why do most of us feel threatened by Mexicans migrating here?   Is it that they upset the economy?  Do we feel like they will put too heavy a burden on our government and/or health-care system (especially as the two become one in the very near future)? 

5.  My backyard borders a city park.  It is full of Mexicans every afternoon (Unfortunately, unlike Stephen Colbert, I still notice race).  They are either playing soccer in a big field or using one of the baseball fields to play softball.  I would have to guess that most days that there are between 30 - 40 of them in the park.  On the weekends there are even more - the entire family comes out.  They have picnics, have day-long softball games, etc.  I have to admit I am jealous of the community that they seem to have.  Families playing together in the fresh air.  Lots of laughing and meal-sharing.  And, BTW, they could not be nicer to me and my family.  We can't communicate very easily, but they always smile at us as we walk past and have even attempted kicking the soccer ball around with my boys a few times.  Something very right is happening in the park behind my house each day; I am guessing that this scenario is duplicated thousands of times all across our country.

6.  So, here is my solution to the "immigration problem":

a.  Open the borders, but have people register as they enter and leave with government issued, secure ID cards of some kind.  We don't want known terrorists, spies, and/or felons seeking asylum entering our borders, but we should never restrict anyone coming here seeking a better life for themselves.

b.  Get rid of the minimum wage.  What business does our government have in adjusting wages?  Anytime the government attempts to control wages and/or fix prices, the entire free market is compromised.  Let the market decide what wages should be - if someone doesn't feel like they are being paid fairly, let them find a new job that pays them what they think they are worth, or heaven forbid, start a business themselves.  The market will always figure a way to correct itself; in fact, in my humble opinion, the entire Mexican immigration issue is a result of the minimum wage.  The market demanded a way to pay lower wages, and the Mexican immigrants became the supply.   I truly believe our economy would collapse overnight if we removed the illegal Mexican workers from our capitalist engine and/or were forced to pay them minimum wage.

c.  Get rid of the income tax and replace it with a national sales tax like the proposed Fair Tax.  Is it fair that these Mexican workers get benefits from our government without paying any income taxes (state or federal)?  Is it fair that we pay for their education in public schools?  Is it fair that they receive welfare benefits?  No way, Jose (pun intended).  However, if we had a national sales tax, they would be paying for the services they are given.  Every time they buy something, they are helping to carry their own weight.  Doesn't that make more sense?  Doesn't that seem fair?  There are many reasons to go with a national sales tax, but this is one of the best ones.

d.  Of course, I say we get rid of all the government social programs anyway.  Our government exists to protect our freedom.  Why is it even in the business of providing social services?  History has shown us that no social program has been effective - all the problems they were designed to fix/solve have only gotten worse, and more importantly the government does not have the moral authority to implement any social program.  They are forcing me to contribute to charity-like activities, and force is the opposite of freedom.  So, if we get rid of all these social programs, then we really have nothing to worry about in regard to immigration - they won't be a drain on society by receiving all these government benefits - there won't be any government benefits to receive.

Please note, that my solution eliminates some existing government policies and programs; it does not create more.  We don't need a new "Immigration Policy"; we just need to dispose of some of our existing policies and let things take care of themselves.

The underlying problem here is our lack of respect for freedom.  Many people have died to give it to us, but we so willingly give it away, allow it to be taken away, and/or prevent others from experiencing it:

-why are people not free to come here to seek a better life

-why does the government force us to pay certain wages - why are we not free to determine someone's wages ourselves?

-why is the government forcing me to contribute to social-services and thus taking away my freedom to choose where I think my money should be invested?

The immigration problem is the perfect example of what a powerful force freedom is.  Despite our government's attempt to control and manipulate us through governmental programs and policies, freedom pushes through.  In this case from both sides - the Mexicans desiring the opportunities a free society offers and the free market demanding a less expensive labor source.  Freedom will always prevail - we either embrace that fact and have it manifest itself peacefully, or it will force it's way into our lives through conflict, strife or even violence.  Personally, I prefer the former over the latter.

 
 

Give Me Some Money

I am in sales.  It has been a very bad year.  For reasons completely outside of my control (customers moving to different cities, bad housing market, bad weather) my sales are down significantly.  I am not sure how I will be able to pay all of our bills.  It really is just not fair.  I am not at fault, why should I suffer the consequences like this.  My government should give me some money to make up the difference.

Huh?

None of the above is true; I am simply hoping to make a point.  The place where I live is experiencing the worst drought since the 1880's.  Crops are not growing as they normally do.  Local farmers are suffering.  I am very sympathetic to them, but I disagree with them crying out for federal aid.

Why is it the government's responsibility to bail them out?  How did we get to the point where the federal government has become some huge charity?  In essence, if the government gives them any money (which I am sure they will), then my government is forcing me to give handouts to these farmers.  Don't get me wrong, we should want to help each other in times of need, but it is not the government's role to serve this function.  By forcing me to participate in this type of charity activity, then they are taking away my freedom to give willingly.  Therefore, the government is violating the one thing it was created to protect - freedom.

In my opinion, it is morally wrong for the government to give out any subsidies - farmers, airlines, etc.  Not only does it violate our freedom by forcing us to participate in charitable activities, but it is not fair for the farmer down the street who "stored his hay in barns for such a time as this". 

If farmer A invested in a very expensive irrigation system just to prepare for a situation like this and Farmer B did not, then why should we reward Farmer B?  We are providing a disincentive to be proactive in their business.  The irrigation system is a huge expense for Farmer A which he was hoping to recoup when his competitors, who did not invest in such a system, were not able to produce as he has (such as in a drought condition).  But now, the government puts the proactive farmer at a disadvantage by giving his competitor money.  Farmer B is happy, but now Farmer A suffers because his prices have to be higher to pay for his irrigation system.  Thus, despite being prepared for the drought, he now suffers financially when he should have been rewarded.

Southwest Airlines came up with a business model that has proved to be successful in an industry that has lost money year after year after year.  Is it fair that the government gives money to their competitors (Delta, United, Northwest, etc.) because their business model is not as effective?  No.  This is craziness in my opinion.   By bailing out farmers, airlines, etc., they are in effect providing a disincentive for these businesses to do what is necessary to become profitable on their own.  Why invest the money yourself when you know the government will give you a nice, fat check to get your bottom-line in the black for you?

Why stop at farmers and airlines?  Seriously, if I have a bad year in sales due to conditions beyond my control, why won't the government send me money?  Why is the farmer and airline stockholders given such preferential treatment? 

So, our government giving subsidies is both morally wrong and practically ineffective. 

Heartless you say?  By no means.  My heart does break for the farmers and their families.  I just don't think the government should have any role in providing relief.  So, what should be done?

1.  As mentioned before, the farmers could have proactively prepared for a drought.  What if they would have installed the irrigation systems necessary to give them the water they needed.  Of course, the cost to install and operate them will create higher food prices.  Fine.  Let the market dictate what the prices should be.  That is how it should be in a free society.  (I am no farmer, and maybe an irrigation system is not the answer, but I would guess that something could have been done proactively to produce good crops even in a drought - irrigation system, special fertilizer, special crop rotations, etc.)

2.  What about some type of coop. What if farmers all around the country banded together.  Each year every farmer contributes to some kind of "drought relief fund" so that in times of need, the coop decides to pay out to farmers who they deem to be in need.  This is not an unrealistic option - we see it at work everyday in our society.  Just look at labor unions.  When the workers in a particular plant go on strike, their union is able to pay out some relief to them in the absence of a paycheck from their employer.  This money comes from the dues they have paid over their careers and from the dues being paid by the workers in their union who are not on strike.

3.  Isn't there some type of insurance a farmer can buy for times such as this.  Instead of investing in an expensive irrigation system, what if a farmer decides to put a significant amount of money toward an insurance policy that paid out when the accumulated rainfall dips below the average by a predetermined amount.

4.  Save for a rainy day.  Why not just put money back each year so that you can pull from your own reserve fund in times of drought - simply, become your own insurance company?    If I decide to go into farming, I would know that my income is probably going to fluctuate significantly from year to year.  Instead of spending all the money I make in the good years, why not put some back for the lean years?

5.  Their community should step up.  If I were in a relationship with a farmer and his family and I saw them suffering due to such extreme conditions, then I would want to do all I could to help.  The churches and neighborhoods should provide the safety net - not our government.  If our churches and neighbors step up in times like this a lot more happens than just money being passed around - relationships are built, hearts grow bigger, and the kingdom of God expands just a little more.

Yet, we watch the news.  We see the cracked soil, the short stalks, the two second shot of the scorching sun beating down, and then the farmer and his family standing near their idle tractor.  Our hearts break as they should.  We feel compassion as we should.  But why do we automatically assume the government should provide the relief?  What has that farmer done to prepare for a time such as this?  Why are the members of his church and community not stepping up to give them the relief they need?  I think we are in very dangerous waters whenever our government starts serving the role reserved for ourselves, our churches, and our neighbors.  It is a slippery slope that will eventually lead to collapse from within.   

Pondering the Lottery - Part 2 of 4

I will give my strategy for winning the lottery tomorrow.  On Sunday, I will complete my lottery ponderings when I disclose what I would do with the money if we won.  Today, I wanted to give my thoughts on the lottery itself.

I LOVE THE LOTTERY
First, let me start by stating that I love the lottery!  I voted against it, but I often participate in it.  I enjoy looking at the billboards and watching the jackpot number climb.  Although I know it is unhealthy to my soul, it is fun to think about winning and what you would do with the money. 

THE POOR AND THE GAMBLING ADDICTS
Ethically and morally I don't see anything wrong with a lottery.  Participation is strictly voluntary.  I have heard that most studies show that it is the poor who spend an unhealthy amount of their resources on lottery tickets.  I don't doubt that is true.  Here is my assumption, almost all of the people who do this are not poor because they lose their money on the lottery; they are probably poor because they make decisions like this.  If the lottery wasn't there, I would guess that these same funds would not go to any greater purpose.

But what about the gambling addicts.  Aren't we enabling them.  15 years ago this may have been an argument, but with the availability of internet gambling sites it is much easier to bet online than it is to buy lottery tickets.

Despite all this, even if the poor person would have spent his money on something more productive, and even if the gambling addict is brought into his addiction through the lottery like a drug addict is brought in through recreational drugs, I still don't think lotteries are bad things.  They are neutral things - like money, time, food, etc.  Like every other neutral things, the lottery can be used for good - such as cheap, meaningless entertainment - or bad as in the two examples above.  If we get rid of lotteries (or gambling, in general), we have done nothing to change the hearts of the people who are abusing themselves with it.  Whatever is in their heart that makes them susceptible to abuse is still there and will manifest itself in some other unhealthy way.  Until someone's heart is transformed their actions will continue to display depravity.

THE GOVERNMENT AND LOTTERIES
After reading what I wrote above, you may be surprised to learn that I voted against the lottery.  Although I think lotteries are morally neutral,  I think it is completely absurd that governments are involved in sponsoring them.  Assuming that our governments should be involved in education (topic for another post), is this really the best way to fund our lack of money for public eduation?  Governments and lotteries - I may be wrong here, but I look at this and think how far we have strayed from what the role of government should be in our lives.  The fact that lotteries exist just show how screwed up our entire governmental infrastructure and tax code are.

That being said, I think private businesses should be allowed to start a lottery if they so choose.  I can't understand how we all so blindly accept how the government forces its morality on us.  By making gambling illegal, they government is taking my freedom away - who are they to say how I choose to spend my money?

The idea of government sponsored lotteries is very interesting to me - in most states gambling operations are illegal (I am not even legally allowed to host poker games in my house).  So, here is the message state-sanctioned lotteries are sending us:  "As your government, we know what is best for you; so, we are going to restrict your freedom in how you choose to invest/spend your money - gambling is bad - therefore, we are going to make it illegal.   However, we need more money to fund our government - therefore, we are going to start our own gambling operation.  Please ignore our hypocrisy and double-speak."

In summary, here is the message of the state-sanctioned lottery and the question that flows from it:  Immoral activities (as decided by our government) should be illegal unless they are initiated and controlled by the state.  So, if we want be consistent here, we must ask why we don't have state sponsored casinos and/or prostitution?  Really, why not? 

SUMMARY
-Lotteries are neutral things - not good nor bad.  If played responsibly for entertainment purposes - good thing.  If played for financial investment purposes - bad thing.
-The government should not be involved in lotteries
-Private business should be allowed to start any type of gambling operation they so choose.  The government making moral decisions about our lives - such as how we spend or invest our money - is very dangerous.