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.
SCOTUS has not protected the Constitution OR our rights. It has a history of completely ignoring the Constitution.
It has and hasn't over time. Remember Brown vs. The Broad of education was a reversal to a different segregation in school lawsuit that allowed it under the idea of separate but equal. The constitution is not a static document and the amendments allow for this. Right now, there is an amendment that allows for taxing based on income. How we tax income (entirely flat, modified flat or progressive) is anther story but until we repeal it, that is the constitution and laws cannot contradict the constitution which is why like it or not, Obamacare is a legal law.
Shifting all tax burdens to consumption would have a dramatic effect on the economy. It would discourage consumption and promote savings (investment). I'm not saying this would be good or bad, but it certainly needs to be discussed.
I prefer having an income tax rather than being nickeled and dimed every time I buy something.
So, you want to punish those who are prosperous, instead.
If taxation is punishment, then it is punishment. You want to punish the achievers, the ambitious, the industrious, the producers.
I cannot think of a more irrational thing to do.
I thought that libertarians were supposed to be rational-- so why does it always seem to come down to 'b-b-but that's not fair!'? It doesn't matter if it's 'fair' or not, the problem is that people are still people and if you keep pushing them and taking things from them, they're going to get desperate... that's how civil wars begin. Wealth imbalance isn't good for anyone.
And it's absolutely ridiculous to think that because someone is making 10 billion instead of 15 billion that they're being 'punished'. When someone has that amount of money, most of it doesn't even mean anything. What exactly are you going to buy with that? Are you saving up for something special? Most of it just sits there in a stock portfolio or something, making even more money... forever. It doesn't get spent, it just sits there depriving other people of a significant improvement in their overall quality of life. There is absolutely no logical reason for anyone to have $10 billion to their name. The most expensive house ever built costs $1 billion-- and if for some reason you felt the need to buy it, it still leaves you with more than enough money for your entire lineage through until America collapses or humanity wipes itself out. The only thing you're really doing is driving up the price of real estate, childcare, university, property, etc.
But if you're making $25,000 per year and suddenly you have to pay $5000 in taxes, that is a massive blow to your quality of life... it's the difference between an education and no education, children or no children, life or death. This has already been explained in this thread, but I guess I'll say it again-- there is no logical reason for anyone to come up with a tax that will essentially force everyone to depend completely on the rich, ie: the corporations.
And furthermore, I didn't once say that taxation was punishment-- that's either a strawman or you're incapable of seeing that the situation is more complex than just taxation is good/taxation is bad.
What I'm saying is that taxation doesn't work unless it empowers people-- and that's not happening now, not to the extent it should be. We are not empowered, we are pacified, and the government is complicit because it is pushing that mentality forward by prioritizing profit over people and allowing the corporations to completely control every aspect of our society-- the economic, the psychological, the social and the cultural. The system we have doesn't want us to be better, it wants us to consume mindlessly, always spending money... it wants us to be worn down zombies filling our lives with crap that only makes us happy for a few days or weeks if we're lucky. It makes people comfortable or amused enough that they don't feel the need to break free, while also weakening and confusing people enough to make sure they're afraid to.
A large part of that pacification is this sick mentality that if someone buys something, they deserve to have it and you're not allowed to argue... and the overall commodification of pretty much everything you can think of. It's basically the same jungle law that justifies colonialism, slavery, war, rape, and racism. Whoever is strongest-- whether it's economic strength or physical strength or technological strength-- wins. It doesn't matter if it's an overall destructive pattern, if it means widespread suffering, if it degrades people or kills people or causes a lot of unnecessary suffering or even if it destroys the world-- all that matters is that the strongest, so-called 'best' person wins.
It's a barbaric, primitive and utterly irrational mindset, and if we don't move away from that we're going to be destroyed. How some people have managed to convince themselves that I'm the irrational one, I'll never know.
That sales taxes aren't regressive, they are. This is why for the proposed fair tax, they needed to have a prebate added in. As for if that is why we have an income tax over a national sales tax is partial. Plus the fact that without changing spending, we need a revenue to be equal to the current income tax set up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
What does "necessities" have to do with taxes?
People have to spend more on taxes and when someone has more money going to their taxes, they may not be able to afford necessities that before the change to a flat tax for "simplicity" and "fairness" they were fine paying. Remember, it isn't a straight percent of your tax bracket you pay, it is the amount from maxing out the previous brackets and THEN, remainder at the marginal tax bracket. Say you make 45k roadking, you only pay 25% on 8.1k plus about 5k from the 10% and 15% brackets. You pay about 7,000 while at a 17% flat tax you pay an additional $650. It starts paying off when you make say 50/60k.
So, you want to punish those who are prosperous, instead.
If taxation is punishment, then it is punishment. You want to punish the achievers, the ambitious, the industrious, the producers.
I cannot think of a more irrational thing to do.
No need to punish anyone. How about a nominal tax on low incomes up to a certain amount and then a flat rate on income above that amount. The poor pay something without getting soaked, and the rich are not punished.
No need to punish anyone. How about a nominal tax on low incomes up to a certain amount and then a flat rate on income above that amount. The poor pay something without getting soaked, and the rich are not punished.
But that isn't fair and equal. I want a 17% tax rate on everyone, that's the only tax that is truly equal. That or a fair tax where I can game it by not buying things and passing it onto those that are too stupid to not pay.
Fairness of taxation would be REAL nice - but for that, we may need fairness of government spending first - and that's up there with, 'if pigs had wings'. So, ok.....
The government needs money. LOTS and LOTS of money.
I'm likely revealing that I'm chemically blond, but, I like the Fair Tax. (And I can't believe that it took to post #36 to mention it!) It doesn't 'kick in' until you spend above poverty level (due to the rebate), and it incents the government to care about the economy (oy! ), and it encourages recycling (as used items sold are not taxed), and the list goes on.
Of course, it will never happen, but that's beside the point in a thread entitled 'taxation'.
Fairness of taxation would be REAL nice - but for that, we may need fairness of government spending first - and that's up there with, 'if pigs had wings'. So, ok.....
The government needs money. LOTS and LOTS of money.
I'm likely revealing that I'm chemically blond, but, I like the Fair Tax. (And I can't believe that it took to post #36 to mention it!) It doesn't 'kick in' until you spend above poverty level (due to the rebate), and it incents the government to care about the economy (oy! ), and it encourages recycling (as used items sold are not taxed), and the list goes on.
Of course, it will never happen, but that's beside the point in a thread entitled 'taxation'.
The Fair Tax isn't exactly that good of an option. The prebate helps but not as much as people think. I saw that in a source I used on another fair tax debunking post I made that the prebate only gives a poor person a 5% drop in spent income. So perhaps they spent 100% of their income, now they spend 95% and spend 23% of their income on taxes while a rich person who would not spend 100% of income would have a far greater tax percentage of their income, even without the prebate.
As for why we went until my mention of the Fair Tax, it is an occasionally popular tax on here. I guess when April 15th gets closer we will see more and more support for it.
But as to why the tax would never happen is because of the way the law is proposed. The Fair Tax is not written like traditional sales taxes you see in your state where in many cases it's 8 to 9 pennies extra per dollar spent and NOT on food and maybe clothing as a supplemental tax to other state taxes. The Fair Tax is a replacement tax replacing all forms of federal income tax and payroll taxes with a straight 23% tax on every item and unlike VATs like in Canada, the 23% is taken at the end and not at each phase of sale like VATs. Now yes people can win on it but it's on the ends of the goal posts where the rich have a tax cut and the poor do make out better (removed payroll taxes) due to the prebate. However the middle class (lower and upper included) bare the brunt of the burden. That and due to the tax replacing income and payroll taxes, the tax revenue would replace it which due to it being a smaller percentage of tax on most people, it can be a problem (Yes you can tax illegals, drug dealers, tourists, etc. but I doubt they will fill the hole lost through the loss of the payroll taxes for Medicare and Social Security the fair tax proposal calls for.)
Oh and before anyone professes their joys of no IRS, they'll exist but rather than go after "the little guy," they will make sure the stores pass on the taxes on the sales to the government. It might decrease the size, but the IRS wont be going anywhere if it was to ever be passed (which it wont because it would need to generate the same revenue as the current progressive tax system.)
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.
Sarcasm Alert
