If no taxes, what?

Gern Blansten

hedonist wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

The flat tax and fair tax are just schemes to allow the wealthy to pay less. We need the income tax....we simply spend too much money and blow up too many foreigners to not have an income tax.

The inheritance tax is nothing. The federal exemption now exceeds $5million per individual so it effects very few people. Many states are doing away with their state level taxes.

I don't understand how it's a scheme. If I work to eventually make, say, $500K a year (which deems me "wealthy"), but I'm still paying the same percentage as someone who makes a tenth of that, how are they paying less from a ratio standpoint? Unless the thinking is that the more one makes, the more they should pay, dollarwise vs. actual percentage?

(and to spending too much money - that's part of my point! Stop over-spending and frittering shit away)

Our system is a "wherewithal to pay" system....progressive tax rates. The more you make the more you pay because you are able to.

hedonist

Gern Blansten wrote:

Our system is a "wherewithal to pay" system....progressive tax rates. The more you make the more you pay because you are able to.

I'd rather it be on me to give more if I earn more; it's no one else's say, really.

(and FYI, I have no desire to get into the wealth distribution discussion )

But it still ties back to my earlier comments about irresponsibility on the part of those who are handling our taxes, regardless of the specific amount any individual pays.

Gern Blansten

hedonist wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

Our system is a "wherewithal to pay" system....progressive tax rates. The more you make the more you pay because you are able to.

I'd rather it be on me to give more if I earn more; it's no one else's say, really.

(and FYI, I have no desire to get into the wealth distribution discussion )

But it still ties back to my earlier comments about irresponsibility on the part of those who are handling our taxes, regardless of the specific amount any individual pays.

Right....if we had surpluses and didn't try to blow up all the brown people the top rates would be much less.

unsung

Or not needed at all.

Last-12-Exit

the country was doing quite fine before income taxes were forced upon the working class.

Godfather.

a bonus check from your employer is taxed 48% WTF is that all about ? if you win over $1200 at a casino in california you pay 35% in taxes...I am not aginst taxes but the amount we are taxed is friggin crazy, a person earning $1200 to $1400 a week pays about $300 to $400 a week in taxes and it goes up from there, our government does what they arrest the mafia's for but I guess that's just part of the golden rule.

Godfather.

vant0037

Last-12-Exit wrote:

the country was doing quite fine before income taxes were forced upon the working class.

You're saying this from 200+ years into the future?

I'm not interested in arguing about the merits of taxes, but it's worth noting that the first income tax was introduced in the US around 1813 (based on British treaties), and from there, introduced or imposed in some fashion up through present day. If you really want to quibble about dates, I'll grant that the progeny to the income tax that we're discussing didn't come until the Civil War.

The point is, it's sort of ridiculous to say that the "country was doing quite fine before income taxes," when the before referring to is hundreds of years ago. Income taxes have been around throughout American history. If you want to challenge or critique the tax system, fine. But history won't provide you with the "time before" that you're looking for.

mickeyrat

unsung wrote:

End these unconstitutional wars, end the police state, close some of the 900 bases around the world, stop buying $2B planes and ships, etc. That should fund one heck of a firefighting team.

largely paid for by income taxes, yes? Soooo,

Last-12-Exit

vant0037 wrote:

Last-12-Exit wrote:

the country was doing quite fine before income taxes were forced upon the working class.

You're saying this from 200+ years into the future?

I'm not interested in arguing about the merits of taxes, but it's worth noting that the first income tax was introduced in the US around 1813 (based on British treaties), and from there, introduced or imposed in some fashion up through present day. If you really want to quibble about dates, I'll grant that the progeny to the income tax that we're discussing didn't come until the Civil War.

The point is, it's sort of ridiculous to say that the "country was doing quite fine before income taxes," when the before referring to is hundreds of years ago. Income taxes have been around throughout American history. If you want to challenge or critique the tax system, fine. But history won't provide you with the "time before" that you're looking for.

my apologies for being vague. the income tax was used to fund wars before the 16th amendment. but they were revoked shortly afterward. when congress attempted to create an income tax in the late 1800's, it was ruled to be unconstitutional. my point being, that the country didn't need the income tax until wartime. progressives in the early 1900's found the loop hole in the supreme courts ruling, resulting in the income tax amendment.

vant0037

Last-12-Exit wrote:

my apologies for being vague. the income tax was used to fund wars before the 16th amendment. but they were revoked shortly afterward. when congress attempted to create an income tax in the late 1800's, it was ruled to be unconstitutional. my point being, that the country didn't need the income tax until wartime. progressives in the early 1900's found the loop hole in the supreme courts ruling, resulting in the income tax amendment.

Even still, are you really willing to base your critique on the income tax system on a claim that "the country was doing fine prior to 1907?"

By saying that the country was doing fine prior to the income tax (1907), you're picking out a century of civil war, campaigns against Indian nations, Reconstruction, slavery, and bloody expansionism, and saying that is a time period, prior to the income tax, when things were going well. Are you sure that's what you mean? Whether or not the taxes levied during the 1800s to fund wars were unconstitutional or not, are you sure the 1800s are a great example of America "doing quite well," simply because it didn't have the income tax? I'm not implying at all that there's a connection between those things and the existence of an income tax, but your statement does imply America was doing "quite well" prior to the income tax (which by all accounts, was truly implemented in 1907).

Like I said, I'm staying out of the larger argument about taxes, so please don't take offense. But I think its very unpersuasive when you point to inarguably the most internally timultuous century in American history and claim that it represents the "country doing well" because it lacked an income tax.

Last-12-Exit

I said my apologies for being vague. This is a thread about taxes. I didn't feel the need to add financially in my incredibly vague statement. I obviously should have. That is not to say the economy was perfect and there were never any problems with the US in the 100 years I was talking about. Congress used the income tax to fund war, which in turn, boosted the economy. Which lead to revoking the income tax.

I'm well aware of the wars and social problems this country dealt with in the 1800s.

cincybearcat

Gern Blansten wrote:

It's ridiculous to say that an income tax is theft and a consumption tax isn't. Absolutely ridiculous.

While I don't agree with the comment 100%, I don't get yours either. For a consumption tax, the buyer has a choice on whether or not to buy it, most items anyhow. Do you have a choice on whether or not you work?

vant0037

Last-12-Exit wrote:

I said my apologies for being vague. This is a thread about taxes. I didn't feel the need to add financially in my incredibly vague statement. I obviously should have. That is not to say the economy was perfect and there were never any problems with the US in the 100 years I was talking about. Congress used the income tax to fund war, which in turn, boosted the economy. Which lead to revoking the income tax.

I'm well aware of the wars and social problems this country dealt with in the 1800s.

That's fair. Like I said, I'm staying out of the broader debate about taxes. My point was more of an aside: there are probably better examples to critique a tax system with than saying "things were better before 1907." That's all.

Carry on.

brianlux

Lots of interesting thoughts on a tough subject here. So it seems that most everyone agrees some form of taxation is necessary. My wife has a crazy (crazy as in it will never happen) idea. She thinks everything should be taxed except primary residence and food. Kinda makes sense the way she puts it.

lukin2006

of all the taxes that we are forced to pay property and education taxes are the worst ... by far.

Godfather.

lukin2006 wrote:

of all the taxes that we are forced to pay property and education taxes are the worst ... by far.

we are grossly over taxed because of goverment over spending and aid to other countries in my opinion.


Godfather.

Pingfah

cincybearcat wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

It's ridiculous to say that an income tax is theft and a consumption tax isn't. Absolutely ridiculous.

While I don't agree with the comment 100%, I don't get yours either. For a consumption tax, the buyer has a choice on whether or not to buy it, most items anyhow. Do you have a choice on whether or not you work?

In the literal sense, yes of course you have a choice, in the same sense as you have the choice to starve and not wear clothes. That either is truly a choice is nothing but a glib throwaway observation with no basis in reality. In reality, for a low income family, this choice means nothing at all. Families in poverty spend almost all of their income on essentials, things you have no choice but to buy.

polaris_x

taxes are fundamentally not the problem ... the use of those taxes and the philosophy on the purpose of those taxes are ...

if i told everyone there was a place with 50% income tax but everyone had access to the best healthcare, education and a very high standard of living with very little crime - where everyone worked hard but had like 8 weeks off a year and had the means to travel and do things ... who wouldn't take it? ...

backseatLover12

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Taxes are completely necessary.

C'mon, man.

I agree.

lukin2006

polaris_x wrote:

taxes are fundamentally not the problem ... the use of those taxes and the philosophy on the purpose of those taxes are ...

if i told everyone there was a place with 50% income tax but everyone had access to the best healthcare, education and a very high standard of living with very little crime - where everyone worked hard but had like 8 weeks off a year and had the means to travel and do things ... who wouldn't take it? ...

Norway? Am I correct? Now is that 50% income tax or is that 50% of all taxes paid.