Business owners pay no more federal taxes than anyone else. They often must collect taxes in the form of withholding taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes etcetera and remit them to the appropriate agency. In this case they are just a pass through. They are remunerated for their efforts in collecting sales taxes. The rest of their income tax calculations is no different than for an individual, add up your income subtract your costs and pay your taxes. It ain't rocket science. "Small business" always crying the blues if BS in my book.

This fear gig is a false one. I fear that if I don't pay my utility bills I will not have water, electric, or gas service. I FEAR that if I don't pay my mortgage I will lose my house. So really lets all PUT A SOCK IN IT ABOUT THIS FEAR THING.

There is two ways to collect money that you are owed. The reasonable person approach and the legal approach. Most people submit to the reasonable person approach. You all have not been paying attention if you have not heard of tax liens, government garnishments etc. If it is all bluff why are hundreds of lawyers making so much money representing and advertising for clients who have tax problems. The fear is real just like the fear of not paying your mortgage is real.

Thank goodness ours is limited by us the people. We have one of the lowest rates in the industrialized world. Unfortunately it is so low that we don't pay the bills we incur and we send off our sons and daughters to die for us in war but don't even pay for that. What terrible people we really are!

It is really great to read that some are taking on the hypocrisy on this site.

So it is that the Repulican tax regimen under Reagan/Bush/Bush has been overthrown. The rich undertaxed could no longer defend themselves against the downtrodden of this great country. A new tax regimen is coming. May the Clinton regimen last at least until the debt is paid off!

You are so astute today Terry Berg. So many rail against the word "social" "socialism" etcetera while taking advantage of the benefits of living in a society everyday. Taxes have been structured to beneft a class ever since Ronald was President.

Clinton got a surplus and paid down the debt. Proof that it can be done we just need the right people. While Reagan BSed us and sounded good to the simpletons among us he ran the debt sky high. Now Obama is the one to get us back into the intelligent and thoughtful Clinton groove.

I have never seen such great honesty and wisdom expressed by others on these pages. It has obviously not occurred to some that there are people who care about something other than self. Carlton, Jim K, Mike, Archer why is it I am never surprised by your non thinking robotic answers.

Ronald Reagan was a confused alzheimer infected sometime poet. To answere his question; no government does not have a presumptive right, the taking of money from individuals for the common good is decided by the individulas together via the political process known as democracy or the republican form of government. It is refreshing to see so many this AM who know the truth about the Reagan/Bush/Bush scam. When Reagan virtually doubled the Social Security Tax in 1983 he then drastically cut the income tax rates in 1985. We have been running things on excess social security and borrowed money from the sale of bonds ever since them. Anonymous from Reston has it exactly right, it is easy to be run by simpletons when you have one leading the pack as Reagan did. I give it a thumbs down because Reagan has not said anything here he is just asking a question.

Please read my comments on the first quote on this page M Brown. I don't know if I understand the drift of Jesus' words here. In the first quote he is berating the Jews for not being as good in personal qualities as they are in paying their tithes or taxes, the required 10%. He does not say for them to stop paying the 10% dutifully but to start doing the other things just as dutifully. In this our country I think the 20% or son of persons who cheat the Treasury out of 200 to 300 billion a year in taxes need to read and heed Jesus' lecture concerning these duties. Mike of Norwalk who always berates the idea of abiding by the law (like in riding on the "correct" side of the street or stopping at stop signs) would have a wonderful conversation or disputation with Jesus in regards to these matters. Maybe we can all observe it one day in heaven. Sorry Archer will not be able to attedn.

Often the super rich, super successful tire of the game of trying to gain the whole world and give back to the society that gave them such a great ride. I can think of philanthropists in every town. But we all know of Carnegie, Buffet, Gates etcetera. Somewhere in the Bible it says "it is better to give than to receive". Hiring more government employees will result in more spendable income which will generate more jobs to earn that spendable income etcetera. and thus the economy expands. As was put forth in the last campaign American infrastructure of roads, bridges, mass transit is low among industrialized countries. Putting folk to work in these endeavors is long overdo. The investments in these matters will create incomes for years and improvements that will last much longer.

I repeat Jesus said "don't leave the other undone" that is the meticulous accounting for your taxes. In those days it was 10% of everything including herbs like mint, anise, and cummin. Jesus used the herb anology in order to be just a little bit facetious about how exacting the Jews were in this regard while neglecting the other things. PS: Read closely Jesus had a sense of humour.

Here Jesus is saying one should not only pay their taxes but also obey the laws concerning these other things concerning relationships with their fellow man and woman. Unfortunately many today teach that not paying your taxes is okay also. Pay your taxes and move on to the other wonderful teachings of Jesus.

You would make a good son of Samuel Johnson I think. He is the one who supposedly made the first English dictionary. It is laughed at lampooned for its personal and subjective rather than professional. fair, or objective definitions. For example he defined oats as "a grain food fed to horses in England and to Scotsmen in Scotland". People who share a sewer system are being "social" period. I don't believe that having a septic tank in many neighborhoods is legal, does that then make that neighborhood somehow communist or fascist in your view? There are such things as Standards of Practice in plumbing, electricity, weights and measurs. These standards may vary from nation to nation around the world, but within jursidictions they are often enforced by law. Are these jurisdictions therefore socialist, communist or fascist? I think you ned to study the terms that you are so fond of attacking so that you might understand exactly what you are saying?

Amd what is the socio-political baggage if you will that informs your various opinions Logan? If all of those other guys had baggage and thus I assume you think we all have baggage. How about you are you the only one who is free of baggage? Even some one as apparently an individualist and of a creative mind as Edison for example had someone to build his house, wash his clothes and cook his eggs. A silly example maybe but proves my point that none of us are as individualist as we think we are. In fact the brillance, if you may accept that term briefly, of American society and industry has been the division of labor and the invention or engineering of interchangeable parts for rifles and machinery for instance, enabling massive cost reductions in the production of everything. This industrial revoulution is what has brought prosperity to the masses. It is a community based prosperity. Return us to so called rugged ndividualism but be prepared to give up vlrtually all of the things we have today. Now I love pack backing, canoeing and living off of the land as a rugged individual and then coming in and getting in the spa and being panpered in luxury by the community so to speak or at least the hospitality industry. Does this make me a socialist by enjoying the fruits or benefits of society?

Well Mike as long as you don't oppose the most universal sign of socialism and progressivism as public sewers, and that progressive thing called "the internet". The village west of Chicago named Westmont has for its slogan "The Progressive Village". Historically that is a Republican area. What do you mean when you throw around words like "socialism" and "progressive dogmas"?

Mike I think you meant inviolate. I like violet it is sort of like color. Most people want themselves and their progeny to fare well. From the point of view of the receipient it matters not from whence their well fare comes. I agree that it is not the best way for an individual to succeed. Each individual such make it on their own. But those who oppose any handoutl programs of helping people in your town, state, nation or world, people who you don't even know do not oppose handouts to people you know especially ones own kids. So if from the point of the recipient a handout is a handout. It spoils ones good nature to which he was born. Inheritance is welfare for people you care about. The other stuff called welfare that many oppose is simply because they don't care about thpse particular recipients. Some might disagree Logan with your "individual existing independently in nature". concept. We all know of animal life as thriving first due to motherly love, then in packs, herds, schools etcetera. Their are few examples I know of human life existing in solitude. Plato or one of those Greeks said "man is a social and politcal animal". Saul Bellow in his novel "The Dangling Man" wrote concerning the sad situation of death in war, "It seems that on occasion a small segment of the population must be sacrificed for the benefit of the whole. When they are we seldom give them much thought. If it were us rather than them who were killed they would not give us a thought either." These words by him express the interconnectedness of the human family like no other words I know. While being an independent and self-reliant person is commendable none is absolutley independent and self-reliant even in Amazonian or aboriginal stone age villages.

Your village, your city, your county, your state cannot run deficits year after year. If they do their will be a cut in services (street lights, paving, police, etcetera). In what type of logic do you all believe that you think it is okay for the Federal Government to do what no other government can do. We have debt and deficts because spending is too high and taxes are too low. We let 4000+ of our men and women be killed in a war we have not paid for (thanks to the policies of George Bush). Get real folks, get serious folks, become true and honest adult men and women and demand that we all become responsible about this stuff. Enough tongue and cheek childish dribble about far out politcal agendas and weird philosophies. STAND UP FOLKS FOR RIGHT AND HONOR!

Unfortunately I agree with Archer on this one as to its astuteness. A common enemy brings people together. Like all you guys that rally together in "love" to oppose "socialists" (hell you don't even know what the word means) or Obamunists etcetera. If you are really so much for individuality and freedom why do come on this site like Archer, the biggest prosyletiser I know, trying to convine others of his sick thinking..

Five stars to Anonymous from Reston. You put it so succinctly sir. Much better that Bastiat The Jerk.

So shallow. Inheritors of wealth did nothing to get it except to be born. That some can be so shallow as not to see that inherited wealth is simply welfare for the rich or well connected is shamefull. That many people born into poverty will remain in poverty not only here but around the world is a fact. To see them as lazy or ignorant or some how stupid I think is a little bit insensitive. To call them greedy or jealous is insensitivity to the exteme. Societal systems around the world that help to level the playing field and give all human kind a chance at a fulfilling life are praiseworthy. The Native American could not understand the idea of ownership of the land, maybe we need to restore their phiolsophy concerning land ownership.

Carlton get real, the treasury owes China, Russia, Japan and others trillions. The tax system owes the Social Security System 1.5 trillion. If Jim K is correct it would seem that cutting taxes to zero would bring in more money. In fact their is a balancing act, a law of diminishing results whether taxes are to high or to low. Clinton had it just right and the budget was refreshingly in surplus for a number of years under his watch. With all of the years in the red we need to have surplus years for the next twenty. We can do it but first of all y'all got to get educated on reality. Carlton anyone who has government bonds is part of the debt owed by the US. I know I have a bundle of it myself.

Archer says "government is a coterie of the power hungry" then he says that "it is held together by our consent" which pronoun "our" would presumably include himself. Thus he is apparently one of the power hungry. If he is not interested in influencing people and the power that influence brings why does he waste his time on a sight like this which is ostensibly for the purpose of influencing people with ones insights. Archer is a prime example of whata Churchill spoke of: an enigma inside a mystery inside etcetera.

How do you know that you have a "right wing fanatic" in your midst? They will call every one else especially anyone who thinks for themselves (really is there any other way to think than for yourself) a socialist.