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 asked you a simple question and you failed to reply.
You do realize that you posted this immediately below my reply, don't you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
Actually, you don't need too because you've said earlier that taxes are extortion.
It's a shame you can't recognize when hyperbole is used to make a point. Legally speaking, taxes are not extortion, but taxes and extortion are functionally equivalent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
The only philosophy consistent with your reasoning is anarchy, or no government at all.
As I previously stated, "we should have only the minimum amount of government necessary to protect American citizens from external threats." I do not advocate anarchy nor a complete lack of government. I do advocate for a small government, one that is NOT self-serving and that is directly accountable to the citizens who grant its power and authority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
those bound by the social contract with the state are not victims of extortion either, when called upon to pay their share of taxes that are set by Congress and by local governments.
It is precisely because tax rates and policies are set by government and then imposed upon the public that I oppose the current tax system. Any member of the American public has no direct control over how much he/she pays in taxes, save for sales tax. Furthermore, and even more importantly, government sets tax rates for its own benefit, not for the benefit of the taxpayer. This undermines the very notion of federalism, tilting the balance of power away from the citizen and toward the government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
What this argument really comes down to is simple. Our elected representatives made choices you don't like. They have chosen a larger government than you personally prefer. They have chosen to tax wealthier groups more money than other groups, primarily because (as I said in an earlier post) there is no other practical way to finance the type of government that is necessary to run a modern state.
The flaw in that line of reasoning is that the government, not the citizen, has determined what constitutes a "modern state," and thus, what level of government is necessary to maintain such. This is exactly what the late President Reagan was referring to when he said "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size." And spare me the "you choose your elected representatives" spiel - elected representatives serve their own self-interest and that of their donors; they do not, in actuality, act as proxies for the citizens of their districts.
Exactly... that's why they are residents of Alaska 6 months and 1 day a year on the most gorgeous water front acreage I have have seen not a National Park...
They own quite a bit of income property in Alaska too in addition to their Pebble Beach Home with Ocean View in California...
They have no California derived Income yet this has not stopped California from trying to collect Income Taxes... so much so they have to document their time in and out of the State...
Same for my High School friend that went on to the NBA... all it took was one year paying California Taxes as a pro for him to pack up and move to Incline Nevada.
Anyone can say taxes have no consequence... doesn't make it so.
Many... no make that just about all of my Law Enforcement friends leave once they retire... a few years back California tried to collect taxes based on the premise their retirement was California derived and it did not work.
I'm 4th generation Californian and time will tell what decisions I will make in the future to minimize my taxes...
Many people are unduly influenced in behavior by tax consequences, e.g. driving across a state line to avoid a higher sales tax. I call it Tax Derangement Syndrome.
Try NOT PAYING for your groceries. You'll be clapped into irons and jailed for that a lot faster than for not paying your taxes. Taxes are like the check that the waiter leaves on the table at the end of the meal. They are what YOU OWE for goods and services that were produced on your behalf. These are a DEBT. Pay it, piker!
You couldn't be more wrong. People are legally obligated to pay taxes, but no person is legally obligated to purchase groceries or restaurant service. You really shouldn't compare apples to oranges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Barbara
You are definitely a very long way from being qualified to speak for James Madison.
You're qualified to speak for no man, with the possible exception of the most government-loving among the Founders, Alexander Hamilton.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Barbara
Meanwhile, one of the roles of government is to maintain a healthy environment in which individuals and businesses can operate safely and profitably.
If government was fulfilling that responsibility, then there would be no need for businesses and non-profits to lobby, nor for private citizens to exercise their right to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Hey major b, why don't you work harder so you can become wealthy? Then you can give it all away to all the people who watched you bust your ass becoming successful! Good idea, right?
Well, I'm already retired and well more than wealthy enough, thanks. I did sometimes anyway, but I really didn't have to work all that hard to get here, and indeed, I do spend the majority of my time these days in charitable work. Anything else I can help you with?
"Everyone work" and give most of the money you make to government. The tax em drones will be happy, they think everyone else will be happy and it will be settled.
Fact: The US has very low median net worth for a developed country.
But it has quite a high MEAN net worth, the ratio between the mean and median being about 6.75-to-1. This suggests that quite a lot of money has been diverted away from the poor and into the pockets of the rich. On quick review, I do not see any other country that has a ratio as high as 6.75-to-1 between mean and median income. We appear to be worst in that category according to these data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rruff
Fact: The US has very low taxes for a developed country.
Yes, we suffer from something of a private-sector obsession here and hence tend to forgo what would be useful pubic sector goods and services in favor of more private sector beads and trinkets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rruff
You are more *dependent* on the activity of everyone around you than you are willing to admit.
The John Wayne, Marlboro Man mythology of the "rugged individualist" is sappy childish nonsense. but a lot of people have bought into it anyway.
Your right there....they should have just eliminated the home mortgage deduction.
There isn't a good economic argument that would suggest introduction of a home mortgage interest deduction in the absence of one, but since we already do have one, there are various arguments against doing away with it, a major consideration being that housing markets (and much related wealth) would simply collapse. Would-be sellers who do have the deduction (because they were willing to pay for it) could not afford to sell to would-be buyers who would not have it and hence would not be willing to pay for it. There would be no more middle ground remaining in the market. Either party entering that mid-zone would be engaging in financial suicide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 509
BUT I am not sure that eliminating the personal interest deduction lead to the housing crises. That is almost two decades later.
First off, there wasn't a housing crisis, there was a credit crisis created through a lot of greed-based credit market abuse. Otherwise, I don't think I know anyone who does not concede that 1986 created a giant impetus to get all personal debt backed by home equity in order to preserve the deduction. This change was not a cause of the credit crisis, but was a precursor to it and aggravator during it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 509
Reagan and the Republicans were quite clear that the bill would be revenue neutral, but that it would lead to a significant increase in tax revenues due to increase economic activity.
Hmmm. It would have needed to be a tax CUT in order to generate positive national income effects. As I said above, it was intended to be revenue-neutral, but they missed the mark and ended up with a two-year tax increase instead. Tax increases have negative national income effects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 509
The only part that I noticed about the 1986 tax reform bill, was the elimination of the IRA deduction.
That's not what happened. One of Reagan's "revenue enhancements" was a phase-out of the IRA deduction for those above certain income threshholds who were covered by an employer-sponsored retirement plan. We have that same basic structure in place today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 509
Several rich people I knew got hurt real bad on the reform of the limited partnership tax rules.
Merely loophole closings. Uncle Ronnie said so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 509
Particularly those dealing with solar investments. NOW those were a real tax scam prior to 1986!
Well, one day, you could call up Sears and they'd come over and install solar heating/hot-water panels on your roof. The next day, the number was disconnected. A whole burgeoning industry was struck down that day and a lot of potential energy savings have gone unrealized since. Reagan's idea of a national energy policy was simply not to have one.
Do you recall the so-called Stimulus Bill passed in 2009? That legislation included the largest two year tax reductions in US history -- larger than Reagan's. and larger than Bush-43's. The "Make Work Pay" tax credits for instance were targeted to middle and working class earners who spend their money quickly, and they were paid out in small paycheck-by-paycheck pieces so they did not get put into savings or used to pay down debt, but instead bled into ordinary monthly spending patterns. These velocity-of-money effects were part of why Obama's tax cuts were so much more successful than what Bush's tax cuts for the rich had been.
[Of course, if your entire point here had been to suggest that tax "credits" should not be counted as tax "cuts", let me simply encourage you to behave more like an adult.]
"Everyone work" and give most of the money you make to government. The tax em drones will be happy, they think everyone else will be happy and it will be settled.
I'm not sure anyone is advocating everyone give most of their money to the govt, just seems more of you creating an argument
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.
