jump to last post 1-24 of 24 discussions (49 posts)

Tax Increases In The United States What's your response to Higher tax?

  1. safiq ali patel profile image71
    safiq ali patelposted 3 years ago

    From January 1st 2013 Taxes in the United States of America go upwards. People in the United States of America will pay higher taxes from this day. What is your opinion of these Tax Rises?

    1. 60
      lifegamerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It is obvious, looking at history, that 'Taxing' simply does not work...That governance does not do well with handling individual savings...That humans need to have their personal responsibility unleashed by such things.

      History also proves that when there was need, humans have answered the call over-whelmingly...every time.  Ask any successful NFPO, church, shelter, etc., what donations of a do-nation can do...Millions in Minutes IS what they DO!!!  And income comes from All over the globe, not just locally.

      Personally, rises in taxing only proves that the idea is not functional, nor sustainable.  As well, those placed in charge of such funds reflect the same dysfunction in management of them.  To support this continuance far-crosses the line of absurdity...and proves poor consumerism at it's finest...I choose to uphold neither.

      Fear the IRS?  Silly you!  This business is no-government ratified, they are a private entity, & 'collect' for many countries now, & are basically, 'allowed' money launderers...which, last I checked, is a federal felony...I choose to no longer be an accomplice or abettor of such.  Didn't our fore-parents leave their roots because of this stuff???

      Personally, I find this 'evil' no longer 'sufferable' (Declaration of Independence)...What say you?

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I like how you claim history and then completely ignore it, these schemes exist precisely because charity as a voluntary non structured method simply does not work for the sustenance of a population and people of the era realised precisely this and passed legislation to care for those who were not being cared for otherwise, charity is a laughable replacement for organised welfare and there is plenty of literature from the period to prove it, there is a reason why the average lifespan for a working class man was just over half of a wealthy man in the industrial era.

        How quickly some forget.

  2. psycheskinner profile image82
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    I started saving for a higher tax bill a few months ago just in case.  By the time I need to pay it, assuming no last minute deals, I'll be ready.

  3. 70
    logic,commonsenseposted 3 years ago

    Same old thing.  Politicians do not work for the country, they are just out to line their own pockets.
    Someday the people might actually rebel against the "king and his court" in Washington.  But I wouldn't hold my breath, as long as they keep sending checks, too many morons will buy into their malarkey.

  4. A Driveby Quipper profile image59
    A Driveby Quipperposted 3 years ago

    The tax system needs total reformation. 10% across the board, very few deductions. Okay Washington DC, or Cairo for that matter, there is your federal budget. Spend wisely.

    The private sector of a successful democratic society must accept responsibility for meeting the needs of the unfortunate minority who need assistance to participate productively in the community. Government should not fund or control these community based efforts, government should help to organize and facilitate.

    There should be no shortage of eager participants among the well to do, who will find greater riches by applying their talent and financial expertise to better the quality of life for their fellow citizens.

    Anything short of this, or a similar approach, has no chance of success.

  5. Greekgeek profile image96
    Greekgeekposted 3 years ago

    My parents -- including, especially, my old school Republican father -- were quite willing to pay the Buffet Tax, and we're distinctly disgusted that the GOP has abandoned fiscally sane principles to hold the country to ransom in order to demand tax breaks for the wealthy (not to mention taxpayer-funded subsidies to the tune of billions for Big Oil, the most profitable industry on the planet.)

    We* were prepared to pay higher taxes so that my friends who aren't so lucky as to be born wealthy would NOT have their taxes go up.

    We were prepared to revert back to the pre Bush tax levels, when the country was prosperous. Was that really such a horrible thing?

    Now, our tax rates will go up not because of fiscal planning, but because of a refusal to take responsibility on the part of my Dad's and Granddad's old party. Sure, we can handle it. But all my friends who are less well off than I am are going to suffer.

    This stinks.

    *"When I say 'we' it's more the previous generation than myself, since I don't make much. But I'd certainly be willing to hsve capital gains tax raised to match wage tax. People with investments never pay much taxes because their income comes from dividends and cap gains, not wages.

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Tax increases are meaningless. The amount of extra tax revenue is effectively nothing, and our government is only showing, once again, that it can't be responsible with money.

  6. rebekahELLE profile image91
    rebekahELLEposted 3 years ago

    Obama is about to speak on any negotiations that have been made by Congress. It's absolutely unacceptable that Congress can't do their job effectively, once again waiting until the last minute.  Many members certainly did not deserve a raise.

    He is speaking now.

  7. Scottie Futch profile image75
    Scottie Futchposted 3 years ago

    The Taxes are still lower than they were in earlier parts of American History and lower than many parts of the world. With that being said, I find it deplorable that people do not understand that the problem isn't the tax base. It's the people who spend the money.

    We need to set a hardline and have a flat tax, either on sales or income not both.. or a lower overall percentage based on both mutually, that all people adhere to. The federal government should not be allowed to tax American citizens directly. Let them tax the states, and the states only should tax their citizens. The IRS will be dissolved or greatly reduced at the federal level by doing this as they only need to pay attention to 50 accounts, one for each state. Get rid of massive tax breaks with few exceptions, all charitable in nature, and have everyone pay the same basic flat tax amount.

    I get tired of people whining about how "It's not fair that the guy with $1,000,000 dollars gets tax breaks." They don't realize that most of the tax income from this country already comes from the highest income earners. Take a look at a random scenario. A man has 20% tax on his income and makes $20,000 per year. They pay $4,000 in taxes. A man who earns $20,000,000 who pays 10% pays $2,000,000. That one person has to pay the same amount as 100 other people in the 20,000 tax bracket, but it is sooooo unfair that his tax percentage rate is half of theirs. Pffft. Make everyone pay the exact same percentage of taxes on income or sales, or a lesser rate on both that is equal.

    If both the man earning $20,000 and the man earning $20,000,000 pay the same percentage, 10% then one pays $2,000 and the other pays $2,000,000. The rich man makes more, so he pays more, but the amount is equal on a percentage basis. If the man who makes less can't afford to live he either needs to earn more money or take a look at his finances and make changes. Does he NEED two cars? Does he need to have cable, high-speed Internet, trash pickup, high-priced food, the latest technological gadgets, or an HDTV? He can want them but it's not the other guy's fault if he can't afford them. I personally earned less than $1,000 per month this year at my regular job, but I eat well, have health insurance, get back and forth to work with my own vehicle and have both an HDTV and a Blu-ray player among other things. I'm technically living in poverty according to the studies but man do I need to lose weight. Weird...

    Just because we live in a consumer culture does not mean everyone has a direct right to own a house that costs 10 - 20 times their yearly income or must have the iPhone10,000 with extra digital enhanced smello-vision. Live within your means, if everyone did that then this country would have less issues.

    There are a LOT of ways that government spending can be reduced effectively, but people focus too much on partisan politics and reactionary news to really see that we are being snowed.

  8. Wayne Brown profile image86
    Wayne Brownposted 3 years ago

    Taxation is not going to solve the problems we currently have as a nation whether it is raised inclome taxes or a raise in capital gains rates.  The problem is spending and has been for quite a long time.  Just in Obama's first term the spending has increased by over three times the rate of revenue inflow although revenue has increased by more than 40% in that period.  Any prosperity or fiscal health which is referred to here in prior years is a function of the size of the gap between spending and revenue recovery.  A look back at those two numbers paints a very distinct picture as to the problem.  More revenue will only equate to more wasteful spending as politicians cannot keep their hands off the money.  In the end, we will be an overtaxed society in which the only ones who benefit are those on the welfare wagon.  ~WB

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      +1  Taxes aren't the problem, spending is.

  9. psycheskinner profile image82
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/tax … alculator/

    Not sure how accurate this is, but it gives an estimate of what you will need to put aside if we go over.

  10. psycheskinner profile image82
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    IMHO, both are.  Even with spending cuts, the wealthiest people should not be able to evade paying tax with loopholes and shelters.

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Just curious, who exactly is avoiding taxes, and how?

      IMHO, the wealthiest people shouldn't be responsible for paying 1200% more of every dollar they earn into federal income tax than other people.

      1. 59
        whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        They have been indoctrinated man, you may as well give up.

        1. safiq ali patel profile image71
          safiq ali patelposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          thank you everyone who has commented in this forum. Through the night matters have changed. It now looks like these proposed tax rises may not go ahead. it's now down to those in power on Capitol hill to take the final decision on tax rises. The world waits to see what will happen.

          Nevertheless thank you all who have taken the time to post their views here. You are as ever educated, informed and full of useful perspectives. Lets wait and see what happens to Tax rates in America over the next couple of days.

  11. American View profile image59
    American Viewposted 3 years ago

    Well it is several days since the new band aid fiscal package was passed. Everyone including the middle class got a tax increase. How do you fell know about the taxes going up?

    1. psycheskinner profile image82
      psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Indifferent.  Taxes are needed to support the standard of living here.  I can afford what I am being charged, easily.

      1. American View profile image59
        American Viewposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Most curious, how do taxes support Quality of living there for you?

        1. psycheskinner profile image82
          psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Roads, police, courts, control of pollution, inspection and food safety, the library, disaster relief, parks, schools etc. I can see my tax dollars at work everywhere I step and look.

          1. American View profile image59
            American Viewposted 3 years ago in reply to this


            Nice to see you, it has been a while. Hope all is well with you.

            Most if not all of what you posted is accomplished at the local levels. Road here are built locally, local police, local courts, local libraries, parks. Do you know how much money comes from the federal government to my local school district Zero,

            The point is it is not going to help. He has already spent the money he claims the tax increase is giving him. Did not pay down the debt, did not balance the budget, increased spending with no good benefits, I could go on.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Those things are accomplished at the local level, but they are certainly not paid for locally.

              Look up "Garvee" bonds; state bonds to build roads, paid for by future federal grant dollars.  Lower grade schools keep very good attendance records because they lose federal assistance for such things as free lunch if they don't.  Want a new park or library?  First step is to apply for federal grant money.  How long will the local college have students without federal tuition aid?

              We have become a nation of freeloaders, forever sponging off of our neighbor for things we want but don't want to pay for.  We all pay for all of it the end, of course, but in the meantime it keeps our politicians employed by bringing home the pork and serves to increase the size of government and it's hold over all of us.  When the state speed limits were dropped to 55 nationwide in the 70's it was enforced simply by declaring that any state that did not follow suit would lose federal road funding.

              1. American View profile image59
                American Viewposted 3 years ago in reply to this


                Garvee are bonds issued by states on the local level as an instrument to raise financing of state and local road projects. In the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 the act clearly states in  section 122 of Title 23 that if the state receives federal funding for that project the Garvee bonds must be repaid using those federal funds. But under no means does getting a Garvee bond mean the federal government is going to fund the project at all. They do not guarantee that the federal government will provide the expected financing, and they are not guaranteed by the federal government.


    2. tammybarnette profile image60
      tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      AV, I actually expected to see a more undivided country, but people have really dug their heals in, haven't they? Everyone said $200,000/250,000 was too low of a threshold...Boehner said $1mill...they settled in the center at $400,000/ $450,000...Sounds like compromise to me. And as far as the payroll tax, that was never supposed to be permanent in the first place. Now it's time to look into spending. My fear, the R's will hold the debt ceiling hostage to make too deep of cuts that any thinking person understands will drive the economy back into recession...I am hoping for compromise, but won't hold my breath smile

      1. American View profile image59
        American Viewposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Why do you believe deep cuts will send the country into a deeper recession than the one we are in now?

        1. tammybarnette profile image60
          tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Deep cuts in an already hurting society will slow the small reasonable growth we have had, 3%, to a crawl...maybe even negative growth. Economist have warned of this.Cuts are neccessary to be sure, even scheduled future cuts when growth is closer to 5%. When a household needs to make cuts they may choose to spend less on snacks at the grocery store, but not on the nutritious foods needed to stay healthy.

          1. American View profile image59
            American Viewposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I know left economists do not want cuts after all they want to spend.But cuts even deep ones free up money that can be spent wisely. The left wants stimulus packages for infrastructure projects costing hundreds of billions of dollars, all of which goes onto the national debt. All economists on both sides of the aisle agree that the more the national debt goes up, the less growth there will be. This administration is jumpingfor joy and tossing a party for 2% growth. They have lowered the bar so low because they know they cannot get back to 4% or 5% growth.

            What would be wrong wit a 5% cut across the board? for every dollar the government spends, they save a nickel. DO not tell me a nickel is to much to save, anyone can cut a nickel. How about congress, all the cabinet members, czars, President, Vice President all take a 25% pay cut. How about we follow the part of the CBO and GAO report pointing out the duplication of government and make those corrections. How about were look at the NIS, just one part of the budget. Let's eliminate the shall we say stupid things like the study of the mating habits of bee's-$15 million per year, watching a shrimp run on a treadmill- $10 million per year, the reconstruction of the 1964 worlds fair out of clay-$12 million dollars, the study of how fast concert tickets sell on line-$8 million, and there is a whole lot more, more than I even have read in the budget.

            The few things I mentioned here would save over $300 billion dollars per year or $ 3 trillion over ten years. I just showed you 600% more in cuts than Obama is willing to make. I did not touch Defense, any entitlements, I did not touch SS, Medicare, Medicaid or the rest of the budget. Imagine if we did.

            So out of the cut items I mentioned above, how would any of it effect growth of the economy?

        2. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The US is not in a recession and the link between spending cuts and economic downturn is not even in discussion in any sane minds, less spending means less economic stimulation which means less economic growth it's no more debatable than 1+1= 2.

          You can track the causes easily enough, say John who gets unemployment benefits doesn't get as much as he used to so he no longer buys as much at the local grocery store, a grocery store in a poor area might have a massive percentage of it's clientèle relying on unemployment benefits and if all those people suddenly have less to spend that reduces business for the grocery which means lay off's or possible close down which means their supplies sells less etc. etc. this rolls all the way   up to the macroeconomic scale.

  12. A Driveby Quipper profile image59
    A Driveby Quipperposted 3 years ago

    My opinion? We need to lower taxes on the rich and poor alike to 10% across the board on net income with very few deductions.

    After collecting the taxes, we inform the legislature how much they have to budget and demand they spend it wisely. This is counter intuitive, but it will work. Our money is carried in a leaky bucket by the Federal Government. Waste, fraud, and abuse are the real culprits here and everywhere else. Until we learn to live within our means and act faithfully, we will never solve the problem.

  13. psycheskinner profile image82
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    I was speaking of tax in general.  But plenty of those things are fully or partially federal.

    The system can always be improved, but all in all I pay my taxes (in total) and feel satisfied with the results (overall).

  14. psycheskinner profile image82
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    And there is also direct federal support.  But in any case.  My focus is on lobbying for tax money to be spent wisely, not just reducing how much I have to spend.  Tax is about civic responsibility.

    1. American View profile image59
      American Viewposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You win the best answer award!

      You are right and the key word there is responsibility. Paying necessary taxes are a part of our civic responsibility, one 47% of Americans do not share with us. Also there is a responsibility for those we pay taxes to to spend it wisely and not ask for ore than they need. There is the problem in a nutshell, they are not being responsible with the allocation of the tax money.

      On a side note, if you are not worried about how much money you have to spend, then send i to me. Others do not share your view, you know, the ones who barley pay the mortgage or cannot  afford the cost of food increases due to all the taxes and regulations this administration is tossing around.

  15. Moderndayslave profile image60
    Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago

    Taxes are a percentage of income, period. If you want to pay the same as the next guy, go see a movie

  16. Reality Bytes profile image94
    Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago

    Taxes rise, prices rise, paychecks are dwindling.  How much of the money earned through physical labor should an individual be allowed to keep?

    At the same time the currency supply is inflated and the value of the dollar is dropping.  The governments candle is being burned at both ends!

    Something has to give.


  17. Onusonus profile image85
    Onusonusposted 3 years ago

    I'm just glad that our benevolent government has found a better way to spend the money that I have earned. A social security program which I will never benefit from, welfare checks to people who have never put a dime into the system, and a nice big government bureaucracy to run our medical field.

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It never ceases to amaze me how some people can be so self interested as to be upset by paying a little more tax from their large income to help the elderly, veterans, the needy and the sick... I really don't understand that level of callousness.

      As for those programs they ALL benefit you and it takes a blind man not to see it, do you think all those needy would just quietly starve without the help you mention or do you think they might be inclined to just take all of what is yours by force, or institute a government that would do the same.

      Short sighted.

      1. Onusonus profile image85
        Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It must be very blinding to think that getting a negative 22% return on a social security program somehow benefits people. And it is astoundingly foolish to think that any government program is efficient at distributing money to people who truly deserve or need it. I understand that the intentions seem good on the surface however they are only truly motivated by political desires to usurp power.  Giving to a church is one hundred percent more charitable than any money that is forced out of the hands of a government's subjects. Hence I and my family will always vote for the man who speaks of less government, not more.

      2. American View profile image59
        American Viewposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Josak Says,

        It never ceases to amaze me how some people can be so self interested as to be upset by paying a little more tax from their large income to help the elderly, veterans, the needy and the sick... I really don't understand that level of callousness.

        It never ceases to amaze me how people can be so self interested as to be so happy to pay taxes on programs like mating habits of bee's, the mating habits of salmon, the study of how fast a web site can be built from the ground up, a study if water is a pollutant, having 4 people do the exact same job,  a squirrel robot realistic enough to fool a rattlesnake, NASA has no plans for a manned mission to Mars, but is spending nearly a $1 million a year researching what kind of food astronauts could eat if they ever get there,  funded a Chinese study on swine manure, a $1.2 million grant to the United Nations for clean fuel promotion.

        Do I need to go on? There can be big cuts to the budget that does not cost jobs or effect benefits to any entitlement program. The waste I showed here and cuts I showed earlier would only make the country prosperous.

      3. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        "I really don't understand that level of callousness."

        Fair enough, but at the same time I really don't understand the level of callousness of someone that will steal what I've worked a lifetime for to give it to some lazy slob that refuses to support themselves.

        Maybe, just maybe, the difference lies in the definition of such words as little more tax, large income, needy or all benefit everyone.

        My local paper says my own large income of $2500/month for two people will now pay a little more tax.  Tax that can go towards buying cell phones for those that need them much worse than I do.  Sure.

        Tax that can go towards feeding 1/2 of the school kids that need that free lunch so Mom doesn't have to make one for them.  Or the welfare mama that has never earned a dime in her life, instead using her uterus to work the system for ever more; she needs to sit home bombed on weed and TV rather than actually work.

        Tax that can support the disabled that need help to pay those green fees for a golf game they are too "disabled" to play, while they work under the table during the week.

        Tax that can provide food stamps for the 1 in 7 people that need them to provide high quality foods that I cannot afford myself, that need them to have enough left to buy cable TV and the flat screen.  One out of 7; 47 million people.  That's nearly every other family of four that can't feed themselves!  Anyone that believes every other family in the US can't feed themselves has their head in the sand.

        Of course all those things benefits me directly, too.  Those cell phones I buy for someone else really help me get by.  It really helps me to provide for the weekend warrior that is too disabled to work.  It does me an enormous amount of good to feed 1/2 the school kids in the country at school - Mom doesn't have to get up quite so early, after all.  Yeah, my taxes really benefit me there.

        We don't need increased taxes to help the truly needy in this country, we need to eliminate just a portion of the abuse.  We need to quit giving to those that don't need.  We need to give an incentive to support yourself.  Triple or quadruple the budget for inspectors looking for fraud - it will pay huge benefits.  Quit encouraging people to get on welfare and instead encourage them to get off it.  Quit taxing people to provide "needs" that those being taxed can't afford themselves.

        We need to eliminate the incredible callousness that declares it's OK to take from lifelong workers, ruining their "golden years", in order to give luxuries to those that are unwilling to earn them themselves.  Instead, take away the "entitlements" of those unwilling to support themselves; you'll find there is plenty to support everyone in this country that actually needs help.

  18. theodoresumrall profile image60
    theodoresumrallposted 3 years ago

    A key to sustainable economic development in the United States.

  19. ocbill profile image76
    ocbillposted 3 years ago

    I started saving early and finding more expenses to write off. Fortunately, I was in the process of moving out of a high cost tax state anyway.

  20. brimancandy profile image84
    brimancandyposted 3 years ago

    I would rather pay taxes then leave my fate to the church or a charity. Look at what Jim Baker did with all the money that was donated to his church. I'm talking about those charitable organizations that spend donated money advertising themselves. They keep huge amounts of donated money for themselves, and the people they say they are giving it to, get a fraction of a cent. Some groups are also total scams, and give nothing to anyone.

    I wrote a hub about giving to charity. Most of them work on Reagan's "trickle down" economics where the corporation sets an amount it need for it's costs, and has trickle down organizations that also have costs, and each take their share of donated money, and the people who need it, get very little. Which is why there are still so many poor and homeless people on the street. These companies get Billions of dollars every year, and nothing changes.

    So, I would not expect a charity based tax-less country, to be any different than what is wasted by our government spenders. You ever seen Jim and Tammy bakers house? No, because they didn't have just one house, they had summer mansions.

    1. Onusonus profile image85
      Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      If you don't like the Baker family then don't donate to them. That's the beautiful part about it, you have the ability to choose where your money goes. Not so with the government, they get to put the money where they decide it goes, and they are amazingly incompetent at managing the money that they get. I guarantee you will never find a church that owes 16 trillion dollars.

  21. Keith Engel profile image84
    Keith Engelposted 3 years ago

    Well figuring I have four hubs about the current financial situation, with two of them specifically on taxes and the punishing nature of the Direct Income Tax, any tax increases of any kind is economical suicide right now.

    Abolish the 16th Amendment and the 17th Amendment, restore the power structure that the Founders Intended.

    "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." - Ben Franklin


  22. Keith Engel profile image84
    Keith Engelposted 3 years ago

    "A Wise and Frugal Government shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned"
    Thomas Jefferson.

    Is it the employer who hires and pays the wages of an employee or is it the government who takes the wages of the employee?

    Who is keeping people from being able to advance further in life, the employer who through profits hires and employs workers or the government who takes the workers money and then spends it in whatever fashion it sees fit?

    It should be apparent that the tyranny that the Founding Fathers fought and rallied against is happening currently in the form of the income tax, and is the reason that Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 of the constitution was instituted.

    It should also be clear as to why the 16th amendment was instituted and why it needs to be repealed and abolished.

    The new rallying cry should be people over taxation, liberty over slavery, instead of people over profits because a workers wage is his profit and the government steals it before he even has a chance to pay a bill.

  23. Moderndayslave profile image60
    Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago

    Tax Wall St transactions,lets face it  they are selling things. Tax the interest the fed earns. You could eliminate the income tax,period.

  24. Keith Engel profile image84
    Keith Engelposted 3 years ago

    Life, Liberty, And Property

    Lost to those who wish to escape thee
    Interested with only the care free
    Frowning on the living purposefully
    Escaping the pursuit of responsibility

    Life is a miserable affair with out thee
    Increasingly being stripped of thee
    Because some don’t understand thee
    Too much emphasis on security
    Enough with the intense insanity
    Routing the task of responsibility
    Yonder over to the men of D.C.

    Poor think thee should be taken forcefully
    Requesting the rich to pay for irresponsibility
    Opportunity can’t abound if thee don’t belong to me
    Purchases to sustain life is lost when losing thee
    Especially when it is taken by the Men of D.C.
    Requesting it first before I even get to see thee
    Torturous is it not to be able to use thee freely
    Yelling ,what happened to life, liberty and property.