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.
In other words, the amount he's taxed, should depend on how much money he earns?
A baseless assertion. What does his salary have to do with how much the government does for him?
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" - Karl Marx
you're a Marxist, right? I can tell from your comments.
Quote:
Taxing based on income makes no sense at all.
I would prefer a federal land tax, personally, based on land value.
But we can't do that bc the farmers in the rural states (i.e. the states with the most political power) will moan and complain that they would actually have a net positive tax burden.
this is such a weird interpretation of what taxes are
as if the government just keeps what you send it, rather than providing you with military protection, roads to get where you need to go, firemen, medical services, etc
It provides everyone else those same things, so just tax everyone the same.
Why do 47% of 1040 tax filers pay no federal income tax whatsoever while others have an effective federal income tax rate of 27%?
Why do 27% of 1040 tax filers actually get more FROM the federal government (in the form of refundable tax credits) than they pay in federal income and payroll taxes combined?
Per thread title question - whatever the individual decides they want to donate to the state for the purpose of the state holding and exercising a monopoly on force & violence.
For me, "fair" individual tax is $0. I abhor the state and the tyranny that is paid for with the money that the state steals. Can't speak for the individual in the OP and how much of their property they should be comfortable with handing over at gunpoint.
Per thread title question - whatever the individual decides they want to donate to the state for the purpose of the state holding and exercising a monopoly on force & violence.
For me, "fair" individual tax is $0. I abhor the state and the tyranny that is paid for with the money that the state steals. Can't speak for the individual in the OP and how much of their property they should be comfortable with handing over at gunpoint.
Anarcho capitalism is the best system to achieve feudalism.
Whatever. You're on record countless times defending tyranny and harming your fellow man.
You simply want to replace taxes with fees, fees which must be paid if you want a good quality of life. Tyranny comes from many sources not all from a state. You simply want the tyrants to be capitalists and the wealthy.
How about "the stone" gets by with what they can afford to pay for and stops taking money from others, taking people's time away from their families (1/3 of the year has been cited, and that's not too far of a stretch)? Excluding the genuinely incapacitated, of course.
Here's the average percentage of the year those in the following income groups must work for free. That's time away from family/friends/their children, etc. It's tax slavery, and it is FAR from evenly distributed:
Quote:
Data sources for chart: Tax Policy Center and Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy...
What would be taxed under a flat tax if not income?
Usually it's a consumption tax, akin to state sales taxes. The idea is that there is a percentage of all sales set. I have heard 23% bandied about. There is no paycheck withholding, at least for Federal income taxes, FICA, etc. State and local taxes still would be withheld. Each household would then receive at the end of each year a rebate check equal to the designated poverty level for that household size multiplied by the set rate of taxation. For instance, (I am making these numbers up to illustrate; please don't castigate me for getting it wrong), if the poverty level is designated as $30,000 for a given household size, all households of that size would receive a rebate check of $30,000 x 0.23 = $6,900, the idea being that this rebate is to cover the taxation paid on basic necessities, thereby making those necessities effectively tax free.
I personally am really not sure about the merits or drawbacks of this type of proposal. It's likely a moot point anyway as making such a drastic change is really not something that is realistic in our current political climate. It does have its merits in that it does encourage savings rather than spending; there would be no tax paid unless something is purchased. It would provide taxation on the underground economy that income taxation does not. Drug dealers and other criminals have a habit of not reporting their income on their tax returns, but they do purchase things. Those purchases could be taxed. Wealthy people do tend to spend more than poor people, so that would ensure that wealthy people would indeed shoulder a higher degree of the tax burden. On the other hand, I would think that the poor spend a greater percentage of their income than the wealthy do, so such a tax would tend to be less progressive than the current system. It's also unclear that the given percentages would be sufficient to cover Federal expenditures. There also is nothing that would prevent a future Congress from imposing an income tax in addition to this consumption tax, which would defeat the purpose of the plan and result in it simply becoming another tax increase rather than a fundamental change in the method by which taxes are imposed.
First you have to define the concept of "fair" as it relates to taxation. Fair to the individual citizen? Fair t the states? Fair to Leviathan's insatiable appetite for buying votes with taxes? What is fair?
That is the biggest problem. Politicians are largely allowed to be corrupt, and use our money to buy votes. Bureaucrats are allowed to grow their fiefdoms, and are incentivized to spend their entire budgets so they can get that 5% or more increase the next year, even if they don't use it. I've been there, and witnessed it personally under both Republicans and Democrats, but the Democrats were worse by far.
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.
