Tom Toles by Tom Toles

Tom Toles

Comments (13) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. braindead08

    braindead08 GoComics PRO Member said, almost 3 years ago

    Republicans are no more going to ‘reform’ taxes than they are going to make it illegal to hire illegals.
    Just like their laser-like focus on Jobs, Jobs, Jobs.

  2. Doughfoot

    Doughfoot said, almost 3 years ago

    One point of the American revolution was the rejection of hereditary titles and privileges. We talk a great deal about wanting America to be a land of opportunity where people get wealth by hard work and enterprise, by earning it. And yet the very people who rail against the deadbeats, moochers, and leeches who want something for nothing and expect other people to provide for them - object to any lessening of the wealth than people obtain unearned, without work, merely by the luck of inheritance. Why do conservatives, if they mean what they say, object to inheritance taxes? You can’t take it with you, we say. So who better to tax than the dead? They don’t need their wealth any more.

    My parents are better off than I am, my father’s career was certainly worlds above mine. When they die, they may very well leave a tidy sum. Why should I get it? I did not earn it, they did. I would love to have it, sure. But I can hardly complain that my parents have not yet already done enough for me. People talk about inheritance taxes as though one’s children were merely extensions of oneself, and that a parent’s wealth “belongs” to his children.

    Hereditary wealth is one of great springs of unearned inequality, and I think of the efforts made by our Founding Fathers to lessen the impact of it by abolishing entail and primogeniture. I am always reminded of the words of Thomas Jefferson: “The consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property.”

    Granted, it isn’t as simple as that: there is a difference between Junior who ran the family business for years before his father (the owner) died, and cousin Jake who hadn’t seen Uncle Bill in decades and is surprised to discover that he is Uncle Bill’s sole heir.

    Nevertheless, if you don’t like money going from those who earned it to those who did not earn it, then you should be opposed to inherited wealth, and should be all in favor of taxing estates to the hilt to prevent that, and to relieve living, earning tax payers of the burden of paying out monies they actually did earn.

  3. jack75287

    jack75287 said, almost 3 years ago

    Don’t forget to declare the pennies on the eyes.

  4. emptc12

    emptc12 said, almost 3 years ago

    When I was a high school senior, “Marcus Welby” was a hit on TV. As portrayed on the show, he could solve any problem. We liked to say that in the final month of the series he would eventually solve the worst problems of all, increasing in difficulty thus:
    Week One: Taxes
    Week Two: Cancer
    Week Three: Death
    Week Four: Senioritis

  5. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, almost 3 years ago

    During Mr. Romney’s campaign, we were told that Republicans would fix the tax codes by closing loopholes so that overall tax rates would be lowered. Asked to name those loopholes, we got no answers.

    Yesterday, I read about a plan by some Republicans to close tax loopholes, several of which were named, and this would help to justify lowering overall tax rates. “Finally,” I thought: “This ought to be good.”

    Until I read into the next paragraph, where Mr. Boehner said “Not so fast.”

    Another example of talking the talk, but not being willing to do anything to support it.

    To be fair, I don’t see the Democrats doing anything either, and talking about it is, I guess, the first step, But we’ve been talking about immigration reform since……when?

    Another reason to toss all incumbents and try again with a new bunch. How could it possibly get worse?

  6. Habenero Hound

    Habenero Hound said, almost 3 years ago

    The best tax reform would be to do away with income tax altogether and implement a national sales tax. Much simpler and much more fair – everyone pays based on their consumption. Even unreported (or illegal) income would end up pulling its share when it was spent.

  7. RevBobMIB

    RevBobMIB said, almost 3 years ago

    “Fair tax” – Just one more way to disproportionately tax the poor (whose income all gets spent and thus would all be taxed) over the rich (who can afford to save most of their money and thus avoid sales taxes).

  8. hippogriff

    hippogriff said, almost 3 years ago

    Habenero Hound: Yeah, that’s what the rich rulers’ little serfs always say – go for the second most soak-the-poor regressive tax there is. (The worst, of course, is capitation, like poll tax, which even Maggie Thatcher had to withdraw.) Just get rid of all exemptions above a living wage minimum and make the rich pay their fair share for a change. After all, the government enabled them to accumulate all that wealth, so let them show some gratitude, even if compulsory. [yes, irony there]

  9. Doughfoot

    Doughfoot said, almost 3 years ago

    Under the so-called “Fair Tax” only NEW goods are taxed, not second-hand ones. Thus, you are taxed when buying milk and bread, but not when buying Rembrandts, or a ten-thousand acre ranch in Texas.

    You are taxed when you buy services, as from a hired landscaper, but not (if I remember correctly) when you pay wages to an employee, such as a full-time gardener.

    But I urge anybody who is interested to real Neal Boortz’s book on the “Fair Tax” and see what it really is all about. It has its points. The prebate is a good feature of it.

    Of course the real reason behind it is to lessen the power of the Federal government. It would eliminate the power of congress to encourage or discourage anything by the indirect means of the tax code, which is one of the few ways they can act in many areas. In vast areas, the “Fair Tax” would leave the nation impotent. Of course, libertarians WANT potent individuals and impotent communities, states, and nations.

  10. Doughfoot

    Doughfoot said, almost 3 years ago

    When the income tax was adopted, the people were assured that only large incomes would be affected. For decades it was the conservative critique of the income tax that it had improperly and treacherously extended to include even middle class incomes. Now they have flipped, and do not claim that too many Americans have to pay income taxes, but that too FEW do.

  11. hippogriff

    hippogriff said, almost 3 years ago

    Harleyquinn: No taxes fr those in poverty? Any tax plan should have that. What your unfair tax would do is put the middle into poverty, then with no one left to fund the government, you have a plutocratic dictatorship like your masters demand – or as Jim Hightower calls it, a kleptarchy, and you serve the kleptarchs.

  12. Noreen Klose

    Noreen Klose said, almost 3 years ago


    " Why do conservatives, if they mean what they say, object to inheritance taxes? You can’t take it with you, we say. So who better to tax than the dead? They don’t need their wealth any more. "

    Since it’s MY money, why shouldn’t I be able to say who gets it when I “no longer need it”? Maybe the govt and the MOOCHERS are the last people on my list.
    First- – -family
    Second- – -my favorite charities
    Third- – -my church
    Fourth (and hoping there’s NOTHING left- – - the govt.

    I should be able to determine where MY property, money, estate goes, and who benefits. The govt has taxed me all my life. They have taken more than enough. What is left at the end should be dispersed free and clear.

  13. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, almost 3 years ago

    Simply put, take out the personal and corporate exemptions and “tax breaks”, and you remove over 98% of those tax “codes”.

  14. Refresh Comments.