Is There Any Limit to How Much We the People Should Be Taxed? ... Or Is the Answer Always More?

Other than 100%, is there any limit to the amount of taxes we should pay? What's "fair," in other words?

Simply stated, the amount of taxes we pay reveals how much government we sponsor in comparison with the individual freedoms and responsibilities we retain. In essence, it's socialism or collectivism versus individualism and freedom.

If we keep 100% of what we earn, we have complete freedom to do with it as we choose. That's MOM to the hilt.

However, when government takes a portion of MOM, however large or small, and for whatever reason, that MOM becomes OPM. OPM is the lifeblood of collectivism, socialism or whatever else we may name it.

So federal, state and city income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, gasoline taxes, Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, unemployment compensation taxes, utility taxes, the indirect impact of tariffs on consumers, and other forms of coerced payments are all deductions from the MOM account.

Of course, many of those government services we receive are worth what we pay. In addition, much of what some of us pay for isn't received by us but by others, and vice versa, through "redistribution" or "transfer" payments. Still, in the end We the People pay for 100% of what government spends, even if we borrow the money from China.

So we may or may not be getting a "good deal" from our various governments when we add up all the taxes paid. That's "fairness" as we each see things. 

In any event, when viewing the role of government and what are "fair" taxes to pay, Scott Brown's Tax Tutorial is well worth reflecting upon:

"Mitt Romney might want to pay closer attention to another Massachusetts Republican, Scott Brown, when it comes to stump speeches. . . .

On Mrs. Warren's assertion that taxpayers need to "pay it forward" for services government provides (an argument similar to President Obama's now-infamous "you didn't build that" charge), Mr Brown was direct. "This philosophy is a dangerous one, and it turns the American idea on its head. Because once you accept the premise that government is responsible for success, there is no limit to what you can justify taking because there is no restraining principle that says, 'that is not mine to take.' ...

On larger, ideological questions of tax and fairness: Taxes are "money taken out of the private economy and sent to Washington where politicians with an insatiable appetite for squandering other people's money are sure to spend that much and more. It has to stop." And: "We hear candidates talk about raising taxes, and you can never quite pin them down on how much is enough. What limits do they accept? If total taxes of 40% or 50% of your income isn't the limit, then what about 60%, 70%, or even more? How much, exactly, is too much?" . . .

Senator Brown's tax tutorial should serve as a model for how other Republicans on the stump explain the Democratic Party's tax-and-spend agenda."

Summing Up

Government's propensity to spend is analogous to a child who has an unlimited allowance and still manages to overspend it.

When it comes to government, there's never enough of OPM.

So exactly how much is enough?

Well, that depends on how much freedom Americans are willing to relinquish and turn over to the government knows best gang.

They'll happily spend everything we give them to spend and then always ask for more in the name of fairness.

As Senator Brown put it, is there any limit? Is there ever enough? What's fair?

One thing is certain. Giving government more means leaving less in the hands of We the People.

And that means less freedom for each and all of us.

Who's in charge around here anyway?

Thanks. Bob.