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 understand the theory behind the income tax and I think it can work. I understand the theory behind consumption taxes and think that could work too. The problem with any tax system are the politics involved.
High income tax rates are a farce because the politicians also write in deductions that keep their rich buddies from paying the actual rate. On the other end, the politicians exempt the poor from paying taxes for the votes. I don't think the poor should be taxed heavily, but they should be taxed a small amount to have skin in the game. It's really the middle class that gets the tax shaft.
If we are going to have an income tax, it should be a simple one with no deductions.
The income tax is theft of peoples money by force. What is ethical about that?
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom
It is theft by force. If you do not believe me try not paying, and soon some men with guns will put you in a cell by force. That is because you are their slave and they can do with you as they please.
Try not paying property taxes, or try not paying sales taxes, or try not paying rent, any of those will result in forcible action against you. The fact that the government enforces taxes (whatever tax scheme it uses) by force is not an indication of whether those taxes are "ethical" or not. Tax is a matter of law, and ALL law is ultimately backed by the threat of force, it is, in fact, the definition of the "rule of law" that laws are backed by force because otherwise the laws are worthless and no one wants to live in a society with worthless laws. Now, ideally, you have a culture where the vast majority of people willingly adhere to laws so that the use of force is a rare thing, however even in those societies there is ALWAYS a still-existent, if latent, threat of force for non-conformance.
Framing discussions about tax in the terms you do is counter-productive. People write you off as being in the lunatic fringe and tune you out, even if you may have some points that would add to the discussion of the best ways to fund government and, indeed, what "government" should entail. Ultimately we, as people, are a social species and having laws, traditions and, yes, tax structures, that support the social aspect of our humanity benefits us all. I would rather complain about the government subsidizing things that are detrimental to society than about what sort of taxes we use to fund the government.
Ultimately we, as people, are a social species and having laws, traditions and, yes, tax structures, that support the social aspect of our humanity benefits us all.
The highlighted portion is where agreement breaks down. The vast majority of people on the right and left agree that we have to have a social compact that restricts our freedoms to some degree. I also agree that the idea is that the social compact theoretically is supposed to better society. The problem is that Americans no longer share many common values with one another; thus its hard to agree on what "benefits us all". This wouldn't be a big deal if the states could make decisions for themselves. Unfortunately, whichever party controls DC tries to force their program on the states.
The other major mistake that the US makes is that we means-test so many public services. Generally speaking, the services that the government provides for everyone are either popular or not all that controversial, e.g. the road network, food safety, social security, etc. Unlike many of the Scandinavian countries, many benefits are either means-tested or targeted at specific groups. The result is resentment, dysfunction and hate. For example, welfare is one of the most contentious programs in the country because it is means-tested. Many of the people that pay for a benefit for others but don't receive it themselves, grow to resent the recipients.
As I see it, these arguments will only get worse as identity politics continue to grow and segment the population. The more heterogeneity there is, the most resentments will grow.
Aren't sales taxes unethical to the extent people must consume in order to survive? i.e. isn't taxing the subsistence component of consumption unethical?
This is exactly why I like the component of the FAIR TAX that pays the tax up to poverty level for all citizens. If one if living at poverty level, they pay nooooooo net tax.
I think a simple 3 step flat tax on income with everyone, every company, so called non-profits, and churches,, EVERYONE pays. 5, 15, 25 with at least a 5 percent tax being paid. No deductions. Just pay.
I think a simple 3 step flat tax on income with everyone, every company, so called non-profits, and churches,, EVERYONE pays. 5, 15, 25 with at least a 5 percent tax being paid. No deductions. Just pay.
Agreed. The deductions are really what messes up the tax system in my opinion.
No taxes. Government is funded strictly through a fee system (licensing fees, filing fees, court fees, utility fees, etc)
Taxes only on profits and commercial activity (Corporate tax, capital gains tax, sales tax, VAT, stamp duty, tariffs, etc)
Flat tax rate on income and commerce
Progressive tax on income and commerce
Negative Income Tax
The tax system should encourage as little government waste and bureaucracy as possible. Ironically, lower tax burden usually results in more compliance. Also I think if government safety nets were provided regardless of income (e.g. free education and health care for the rich and poor) there would be less resentment towards paying taxes.
Life is not fair, and the tax system is not fair, either. If I had my way, there would be a no deduction, graduated flat tax system per wage or salary earner. JUST FOR EXAMPLE, 3% tax on the first $10,000 of earned income, dividends, capital gains, etc.; 6% on the second $10,000 on income, etc., 9% on the third $10,000 on income, and so on, with a cap of $50,000 total for any single taxpayer. (So, if someone receives $20,000 in income, the tax would be $900, or 4.5%; and if someone earns $100,000, the tax would be $16,500, or 16.5%.) So, no tax breaks just because someone decides to get married and/or have a lot of kids or buy a house as opposed to remaining single and living in an apartment.
However, what bothers me more than taxes is the system of fines. To use a hypothetical example, a $100.00 fine for parking in a No Parking zone is probably a MAJOR deterrent for a person who makes $20,000 a year, but it is probably no big deal to someone who makes $200,000 a year.
Income taxes as a way to fund government is more about control (through complex tax codes) and maintaining social stratification, rather than just funding government.
The government could be funded annually, completely and without ever having deficits by:
01: A 2% tax on all contracts and transactions.
02: Combined with a 5 cent 'tax' on all emails (incoming and outgoing)
03: Ending transfer of income taxes, where money collected is not used to fund government but taken from some and given to others.
04: And since the Federal Reserve has a 100 year history of printing money out of thin air: The government can just print more to close in any gaps.
I've already spent a considerable amount of time running the numbers and have built effective and accurate models that show with absolute certainty that it would work.
Try not paying property taxes, or try not paying sales taxes, or try not paying rent, any of those will result in forcible action against you. The fact that the government enforces taxes (whatever tax scheme it uses) by force is not an indication of whether those taxes are "ethical" or not. Tax is a matter of law, and ALL law is ultimately backed by the threat of force, it is, in fact, the definition of the "rule of law" that laws are backed by force because otherwise the laws are worthless and no one wants to live in a society with worthless laws. Now, ideally, you have a culture where the vast majority of people willingly adhere to laws so that the use of force is a rare thing, however even in those societies there is ALWAYS a still-existent, if latent, threat of force for non-conformance.
Framing discussions about tax in the terms you do is counter-productive. People write you off as being in the lunatic fringe and tune you out, even if you may have some points that would add to the discussion of the best ways to fund government and, indeed, what "government" should entail. Ultimately we, as people, are a social species and having laws, traditions and, yes, tax structures, that support the social aspect of our humanity benefits us all. I would rather complain about the government subsidizing things that are detrimental to society than about what sort of taxes we use to fund the government.
You must struggle with logic, because I have given the logical and the legal reasons for every thing I stated.
For the record, property taxes are just as illegal as income taxes because they change the ability of citizens to own property, and I am not sure what your reference to rent is about unless you are under some illusion that rent is a tax.
You say tax is a matter of law. Then perhaps you would like to make the legal case that the Federal Government is given the power to usurp the ownership of citizen's and is empowered by the Constitution to make claim to their labor.
For the record, lunatics are people who blindly accept what is not proven, not people who examine the law and refuse to admit something is there which is not.
I have spent several decades researching these issues, I have studied the Constitution along with the Federalist Papers, and the writings of the forefathers who explained why the document was constructed in the manner it was.
The Constitution was constructed to strictly confine the powers of the Federal Government because the forefathers knew that government was corrupt and needed to be constrained.
There is a reason why there was no income tax for the first 137 years of the countries existence. There is a reason that Andrew Jackson fought and eventually defeated the first Central Bank of the United States.
There is a reason why the forefathers warned us against the formation of a Central Bank and that if allowed it would enslave and impoverish us. And there is a reason why the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax Act were enacted in tandem.
What has happened and is happening to us is nothing new. People have been being enslaved by bankers for hundreds of years. It is just that people today are too ignorant of history to understand it is happening to them now.
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.
