Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm the one taking the risk, if I make money the government takes a cut. If I lose money the government loses nothing. As the tax increases the incentive for me to take a risk decreases.
Quote:
But where do they get work?
I'll give them a job sweeping the floor, sorry but the argument that we need to "make work" for them is ridiculous. That is part of the reason we have so many people employed in those professions to begin with. Their labor is needlessly at the expense of everyone else, if you can eliminate those costs then it should be done.
I'll give them a job sweeping the floor, sorry but the argument that we need to "make work" for them is ridiculous. That is part of the reason we have so many people employed in those professions to begin with. Their labor is needlessly at the expense of everyone else, if you can eliminate those costs then it should be done.
In other words FOAD and you don't care about the economic drag from a million people losing purchasing power and not paying their fair share to the tax because they don't have a job any more.
In other words FOAD and you don't care about the economic drag from a million people losing purchasing power and not paying their fair share to the tax because they don't have a job any more.
Not when it's needlessly at the expense of others. The job market changes all the time and people have to adjust, there is nothing special about this situation. Keeping people employed just so they stay employed is never a good argument. If that was a good economic engine we could just start inventing jobs.
Not when it's needlessly at the expense of others. The job market changes all the time and people have to adjust, there is nothing special about this situation. Keeping people employed just so they stay employed is never a good argument. If that was a good economic engine we could just start inventing jobs.
A sales tax requires everyone to buy goods to fund the government. No jobs and there is no one to buy things and no revenue sent to the government. See the dilemma? Less buyers in the market (especially when it gets in the millions) and stores may shed more jobs meaning other places do too because of demand going down. Now less people have to pay more in sales taxes to cover government. Getting the picture now?
No jobs and there is no one to buy things and no revenue sent to the government.
The artificial creation of jobs is not an economic engine, if it were we could just make positions for 200 million IRS agents and be done with it.
Quote:
Getting the picture now?
When I'm paying tax to support IRS workers and have expenses for CPA's and lawyers I have less money to employ people in productive enterprise. You know, actually doing something that is in demand. Getting the picture?
The artificial creation of jobs is not an economic engine, if it were we could just make positions for 200 million IRS agents and be done with it.
When I'm paying tax to support IRS workers and have expenses for CPA's and lawyers I have less money to employ people in productive enterprise. You know, actually doing something that is in demand. Getting the picture?
And you'll have less with a national sales tax ontop of your local sales taxes. You'll just notice it anytime you go out or buy something online rather than each check to prepay it or at the end of the year.
The I.R.S. is the primary extortive agency of THE UNITED STATES corporation.
It is domiciled in Puerto Rico, a territory of THE UNITED STATES corporation.
I'm the one taking the risk, if I make money the government takes a cut. If I lose money the government loses nothing. As the tax increases the incentive for me to take a risk decreases. <<SNIP>>
That's not quite correct. Look into the deductibility and carryover provisions of Net Operating Losses for more info.
And you'll have less with a national sales tax ontop of your local sales taxes. You'll just notice it anytime you go out or buy something online rather than each check to prepay it or at the end of the year.
You're mixing apples and oranges. What you are replying too is the expense of the tax system itself. Taxes used to pay IRS agents, that expense would be eliminated in addition to other out of pocket expenses for CPA's and lawyers.
The tax expense itself is replacement for the income tax and is much more controllable because if I don't buy anything I don't pay tax.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Less buyers in the market (especially when it gets in the millions) and stores may shed more jobs meaning other places do too because of demand going down. Now less people have to pay more in sales taxes to cover government. Getting the picture now?
