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.
fire 50% of every department and change the tax system to a sales tax of 12%-15%, as long as the IRS is banned and the 16th Amendment is repealed.
Any good manager will tell you that that's a foolish ordering. You get rid of the chaff first, and then that naturally reduces the cost. Your way just leads to additional debt. How would you like it if your boss stopped paying you a few weeks before he fired you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching
there is more chaff than you think.
The reality is that there is much less chaff than you think, and that why it is doubly important to keep your perspective honest by forcing you to identify what you consider chaff, first, then subjecting your identification to analysis and ratification by society as a whole through due process where everyone has a voice through their representatives, and then only if ratified would the expense be considered chaff and eliminated.
I've read this philosophy from different libertarians who talk about taxes being theft and that they should be illegal because of that. But what I don't understand is why do people want that? Don't people realize what taxes pay for?
The libertarian philosophy is against personal income tax, not taxation. A personal income tax was illegal in this country until the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
Define fair. Is it fair that a person who makes say 12.5K pay 17% of their income as well as costs that they may not be able to shake to someone who makes 125K and mitigates cost?
No one in the U.S. with a gross income of $12,500 pays any personal income tax. They are in fact probably getting money "back" from the government despite having no tax liability.
Warren Buffet is being disingenuous. He knows full well his personal income tax rate is well above that of his secretaries.
Because his income is derived from many different sources it has different taxation rates. Capital is taxed at different rates because it is a good thing to encourage capital investment to keep money moving through the economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
I am asking in general. Personally if you remove income based taxes, why should we remove all taxes. Why shouldn't it be an all or nothing issue?
Because taxes on property, gasoline, goods, etc are "optional". You can choose to not own land, buy gas or goods. You can not choose the same with the income tax unless you just refuse to earn any.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddyline
Here is a question. If you use the benefits of taxation (roads, schools, parks etc.) haven't you consented?
Roads are financed by gas tax and bond issues, schools and parks are financed by property tax and those are state and local taxes. The federal income tax doesn't pay for local roads, schools or parks.
If I were asked to answer the following question: What is slavery? and I should answer in one word, It is murder!, my meaning would be understood at once. No extended argument would be required to show that the power to remove a man's mind, will, and personality, is the power of life and death, and that it makes a man a slave. It is murder. Why, then, to this other question: What is property? may I not likewise answer, It is robbery!, without the certainty of being misunderstood; the second proposition being no other than a transformation of the first?
The libertarian philosophy is against personal income tax, not taxation. A personal income tax was illegal in this country until the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913.
No one in the U.S. with a gross income of $12,500 pays any personal income tax. They are in fact probably getting money "back" from the government despite having no tax liability.
Warren Buffet is being disingenuous. He knows full well his personal income tax rate is well above that of his secretaries.
Because his income is derived from many different sources it has different taxation rates. Capital is taxed at different rates because it is a good thing to encourage capital investment to keep money moving through the economy.
Because taxes on property, gasoline, goods, etc are "optional". You can choose to not own land, buy gas or goods. You can not choose the same with the income tax unless you just refuse to earn any.
Roads are financed by gas tax and bond issues, schools and parks are financed by property tax and those are state and local taxes. The federal income tax doesn't pay for local roads, schools or parks.
The libertarian philosophy is against personal income tax, not taxation.
That, too.
Taxing labor is bad.
Note that union dues are also a tax on labor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimTheEnchanter
Warren Buffet is being disingenuous. He knows full well his personal income tax rate is well above that of his secretaries.
Because his income is derived from many different sources it has different taxation rates. Capital is taxed at different rates because it is a good thing to encourage capital investment to keep money moving through the economy.
Buffet has admitted that he pays himself an annual salary of $1.
Therefore his earned income is $1 and he pays no federal income tax on that, but his unearned income runs in the $Millions and he pays Capital Gains taxes on that (plus other excise taxes).
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimTheEnchanter
Because taxes on property, gasoline, goods, etc are "optional". You can choose to not own land, buy gas or goods. You can not choose the same with the income tax unless you just refuse to earn any.
Good point.
That's why a sales tax in conjunction with a value-added tax is the fairest tax of all.
Unlike the Income Tax, you are taxed only on your disposable income vis-a-vis discretionary spending, over which you exercise 100% control.
Fairly...
The libertarian philosophy is against personal income tax, not taxation. A personal income tax was illegal in this country until the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913.
I am not pro income tax, I just think it is the best option. I think any consumption tax (like you post you are in favor of later) is just as much theft as you think it would be for the rich to bare the brunt of taxes. The reason this is, the lower income makers have to spend more and can't exactly chose to. You can only choose so much with a limited budget while the higher income people have more resources to induce choice. Think about it, lower income people may not be able to afford buying bulk at Coscto, Sam's Club, or BJ's Warehouse and may do so at say a WinCo (a non club based bulk retailer) while a higher income maker could.
Quote:
No one in the U.S. with a gross income of $12,500 pays any personal income tax. They are in fact probably getting money "back" from the government despite having no tax liability.
Fair enough but remember that is partially due to standardized deductions, especially for single individuals with no kids. Having kids or a non-working spouse can make it easier to get money back. Remember it is about 3,000 above the cut-off to file taxes (that being 9,750)
Quote:
Warren Buffet is being disingenuous. He knows full well his personal income tax rate is well above that of his secretaries.
Because his income is derived from many different sources it has different taxation rates. Capital is taxed at different rates because it is a good thing to encourage capital investment to keep money moving through the economy.
Do you know his income tax rate? Do you do his taxes? I don't disagree that he may actually pay a higher tax rate but unless someone shows the actual tax rate for him vs. his secretary, it's nothing but speculation.
Quote:
Because taxes on property, gasoline, goods, etc are "optional". You can choose to not own land, buy gas or goods. You can not choose the same with the income tax unless you just refuse to earn any.
Roads are financed by gas tax and bond issues, schools and parks are financed by property tax and those are state and local taxes. The federal income tax doesn't pay for local roads, schools or parks.
In other words, libertarians are for regressive taxation on behavior or "use" taxes that are behavior driven that the poor gets crushed on because they can't really avoid by saving while the rich can. This goes with sales taxes and gasoline taxes. The rich don't have to consume 90% of their income like a poorer person would. The rich may be able to get away with say 50%.
In other words, libertarians are for regressive taxation on behavior or "use" taxes that are behavior driven that the poor gets crushed on because they can't really avoid by saving while the rich can. This goes with sales taxes and gasoline taxes. The rich don't have to consume 90% of their income like a poorer person would.
That's how the European socialist democracies tax their populations, and Europeans don't seem to have a problem with contributing to society:
America's middle and lower classes, however, are too spoiled, selfish, and greedy, and always want more benefits/services but want someone else to pay.
Last edited by InformedConsent; 03-21-2015 at 11:56 AM..
sure thing, I could go along with most of those exemptions, but keep the sales tax between 12%-15%. cut all departments by 50% and get rid of the chaff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching
fire 50% of every department and change the tax system to a sales tax of 12%-15%, as long as the IRS is banned and the 16th Amendment is repealed.
These two don't sound much different except you dropped the "get rid of the chaff," remark and added repealing the 16th amendment.
You do realize that an IRS-like organization will need to watch and audit revenue from any form of replacement tax to the income tax correct? The Flat Tax would still require a 1040 or 1099 to show your income and you would still maybe audited if you are found to be under-reporting income to pay $17K rather than $20K. On the Fair Tax or any type of consumption tax, the IRS wouldn't go after you, it would instead make sure businesses give the federal sales taxes to the collecting agent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching
there is more chaff than you think. take for instance the department of education. the USA got along just fine without it until carter made another useless department. now it is just blows 60 billion a year and teaches nobody at all.
Well I think it is needed because Arizona slashes and cuts their education and can't decide if they should have schools be common core or not. They made common core for this year and there are several attempts to remove it. Newly elected and sworn in Superintendent of Public Schools Diane Douglas and Governor Doug Ducey both don't want it and there is a bill on the table despite the fact the tests will be administered in a matter of weeks.
I know states should have rights to chose some stuff but the issue is when they do things the wrong way, where do citizens effected go? Not everyone can get private school vouchers or pay private school prices.
Do you know his income tax rate? Do you do his taxes? I don't disagree that he may actually pay a higher tax rate but unless someone shows the actual tax rate for him vs. his secretary, it's nothing but speculation.
In other words, libertarians are for regressive taxation on behavior or "use" taxes that are behavior driven that the poor gets crushed on because they can't really avoid by saving while the rich can. This goes with sales taxes and gasoline taxes. The rich don't have to consume 90% of their income like a poorer person would. The rich may be able to get away with say 50%.
Warren Buffet increased his net worth by $13,500,000,000 in 2013. That is $37 million A DAY in "income". not sure, but I am pretty sure it puts him in the top tax bracket.
An 18.4 cents federal excise tax on gasoline is not regressive, it is fair because everyone pays the same amount.
Here is the liberal's perfect world:
Every year on January1 the U.S. government sends people a "can purchase" card. The Green Card is for people who make less than $30,000 a year, the Yellow Card for people $30,00 to $100,000 and the Red Card for those who earn more than $100,001. That tells people how much to charge you for goods and services.
So the three guys go into 7-11 to get beer. The Green Card guy grabs a six pack of Budweiser as do the Yellow Card guy and Red Card guy.
Instead of paying the $5.99 list price for a six pack of Budweiser, the Green Card guy gets the beer for free plus $5 more, the Yellow Card guys pays $2 for the six pack and the Red Card guy pays $25 for the six pack of Budweiser because his price has to subsidize the other guys.
What would the end result be? The Green and Yellow guy would buy more beer than was good for them and the Red Guy would stop buying the beer. Then someone else (government) would have to cover the subsidies and you'd have a federal program bleeding money with no end in sight.
Why would anyone think that people would not adjust their behavior because of artificial incentives, perverse or otherwise?
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.
