SevenRoundMags
New member
Income tax seems to be wealth distribution at a base form...does this not appear a little bit communist to you guys? What's a better way to tax people? Something about income tax doesn't seem right.
Income Tax
- Thread starter SevenRoundMags
- Start date
Income tax has a shady existence at best. Lots of dissent on whether it's even legal or not.
However, we all like nicely paved highways. Fire hydrants, street lights, snowplows, etc. Income taxes pay for all that stuff and without it, we'd still be trying to travel on muddy, rutted tracks and waiting on the mailman/UPS to deliver our xmas packages from 1965.
However, we all like nicely paved highways. Fire hydrants, street lights, snowplows, etc. Income taxes pay for all that stuff and without it, we'd still be trying to travel on muddy, rutted tracks and waiting on the mailman/UPS to deliver our xmas packages from 1965.
So you think there's no market for nice highways, fire hydrants, street lights, and snow plowing? That nobody will bother to buy such services unless they're forced to under threat of imprisonment?
FedEx became a world-leading corporation by doing package delivery far better than the characteristically pitiful government-monopoly postal service. DHL can get a letter from New Hampshire to a thousand miles east of Moscow in 3 business days.
Check your premises, my friend.
The way in which this country taxed people for over a hundred years prior to the enactment of the income tax - excises and duties.
The taxes on gasoline and liquor are two examples of this. If you don't buy gasoline, you don't pay the tax, and if you do, you don't have to "voluntarily" submit your entire private financial life, consisting of "papers and effects," to the scrutiny of the government.
"But how could the federal government afford to operate with such limited revenue," you ask?
By abolishing the NEA, the BATF, the FCC, the DEA, the BLM, and a long, long list of other unconstitutional government agenices... By selling off the 80% of Nevada it owns which are not being used for "Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings," and other measures too numerous to mention here.
A way that doesn't require the government to spy on those who work or have investments. A way that doesn't require citizens to waive their 4th and 5th amendment rights. A way that doesn't leverage nickel-and-dime tax credits and deductions in an effort to control behavior.
Even a flat, income tax would be better than the current monstrosity, but I'd like all income taxes to go away.
Rick
Wildalaska
Moderator
Yeah but can they do it for $12?
WildanythinganbehadforapriceAlaska
Nope, not at all. A flat tax would be fair and equal for everyone-no exceptions.
I would also support a national sales tax of no more than 3%. It would have to be one or another, not both.
Either way doing one or the other will do two things:
1) Put more money in your pocket.
2) Stimulate the economy like never before because the more disposable income you have the more you spend on stuff, the more businesses make, the more employees make, the more the govt takes in as tax revenue, the more................Some how not many can make the connection.
Given that the code on a flat tax would be 1/10,000th as long, it would be a vast improvement, as every page in the code is the result of a lobbyist and/or congresscritter trying to exert power over individuals for his own benefit or the benefit of his client.
However, before one talks about the flat tax or the "fair tax" or the "national sales tax" one has to know a few things about them.
The flat tax is still and income tax. But it, in it's purest, and thankfully, most common form, has no deductions for anything accept for members in your family.
A common flat tax (with numbers reflecting year 2000 realities) would have a $10,000 individual deduction. Another $10,000 for the spousal-unit. Another $7,000 per child.
A family of four would have a deduction of $34,000. And, as the plan goes, nobody pays income tax if they make under $34,000. Any dollar above that gets taxed at a 17% rate.
So, a family of four making double that, ($68,000) would pay 17% on the amount above $34,000 that would be $5,780 (for an effective rate of 8.5%).
A fam of 4 making $134,000 would pay 17% on $100,000 or $17,000 tax (12,7% effective rate). A person making $234,000 would pay on $200K = $34,000 tax (or 14.5% effective rate). Note how the effective rate increases.
Some detactors say that the flat tax is not "progressive" that is, the rate doesn't increase as Karl Marx wanted. They are, of course, lying. What they mean is, it doesn't increase fast enough for their liking and it doesn't grant them as much power as legislators.
Many of the proposals have no withholding but, and the Demos fear this, require folks to write a check (maybe just before election day).
Pretty easy to see how much of your money is going to fed.gov and just in time to do something about it while it's fresh in your mind.
-------------------
A national sales tax proposal (which is not the same as Europe's "Value Added Tax or VAT) is (or should be) associated with a repeal of the 16th amendment and the entire income tax code (so as not to have the two tax systems in place at the same time.
The Demos freak on this system by saying that it is not only not "progressive" but it is "regressive" toward the poor who pay a higher percentage of their money in sales tax than do the rich.
This is a lie as well.
The Natl Sales Tax (NST), as proposed by most, contains a system (perhaps clunky), where every head of household who pays into the NST system gets a refund check at certain time intervals the sum of which would equal the poverty level. So, say $17,000 (or $25K, or...) is the povery level for a particular family, an amount approximating that level of sales tax will be given back to the poor, and the rich. The Demos hate that, too.
This NST can be tweaked to cover everything excluding Social Security, or, by bumping it up, SS as well.
And no spying required.
Despite its clunkiness, the NST has my vote due to the fact that it levels the playing field for American producers who must pay income tax on goods (or attach them to the cost) when they export. This puts them at a competitive disadvantage as importers here sell at a low price and make American consumers pay the tax (as all taxes are inevitably passed down to us).
Rick
<-- raises hand and says,,,
The present tax system allows me to control where my funds are directed, and to direct them where I will gain the most - long term.
A flat tax with no exemptions/deferments would remove that.
It would result in a far higher tax liability.
It would remove any incentive to invest/reinvest, and keep the money in circulation.
Bear in mind - that's simply my situation.
Also bear in mind, my situation is such because I planned it that way.
Honestly, I would support a true mixed tax structure. One that would allow those of us that planned under the present system to retain it, and those that wished a flat tax to use that route.
Yes. I do.
The present tax system allows me to control where my funds are directed, and to direct them where I will gain the most - long term.
A flat tax with no exemptions/deferments would remove that.
It would result in a far higher tax liability.
It would remove any incentive to invest/reinvest, and keep the money in circulation.
Bear in mind - that's simply my situation.
Also bear in mind, my situation is such because I planned it that way.
Honestly, I would support a true mixed tax structure. One that would allow those of us that planned under the present system to retain it, and those that wished a flat tax to use that route.
Actually, no I don't think there's a market for that stuff without a tax structure of some sort.
You see that sort of thing all the time in situations where people are supposed to do the right thing but won't/don't/can't. For instance, (everyone should be able to relate to this) say you want to give a birthday party for someone in the office. One person will go buy a cake and everyone else is supposed to "chip in" for reimbursement. How many times have you seen/known/heard of the reimbursement being way way short of the full amt? Yet everyone ate the cake at the party. Another instance would be a dinner with friends where everyone is supposed to pay for their own meal - usually results in the tab being short and the "host" makes it up out of their own pocket.
Same deal with public services. Someone will ALWAYS short change the system and when it comes to streets and stuff, the only way to get people to pay their share is to tax them for it. Making it voluntary would mean that some people wouldn't pay or couldn't pay their full amt owed (the "I don't use it that much" or the "I can't afford it" syndrome).
My problem with the flat tax is that gov't will also stick us with the VAT system in order to get more money for pork. And the flat tax makes no provision for SSI so some sort of arrangement would have to be made to fund the SSI trust fund from the gen fund (like the defense dept budget is done). An example of this is everytime someone is hit to repay the "costs" of providing public service like the fire dept or search and rescue. WHY would anyone have to pay an additional fee if they already paid their taxes which fund that sort of thing? It's a way to double tax the people. And the gov't is already trying to find ways to do just that as much as they can.
Plus people will scream because they won't get a home mortgage deduction under the flat tax system.
That is one proposal. You can go with one plane with a code that takes books the size of two library-sized dictionaries, or one that you can fill out on a post card.
I don't see how this relates to the discussion.
That's conjecture. They can stick us with a VAT now.
Yes it does. It depends on the rate of taxation for which programs will be funded.
Social Security is a socialist Ponzi scheme that needs to ended ASAP.
Yet another example of the tax system influencing behavior. YMMV, but these replacements for the income tax are designed to be revenue-neutral.
Rick
I think everyone would it agree that it takes money, usually in the form of taxes, to run the government. The present income tax has two great evils. Its greatest evil is that it opens up your, what should be, private financial records to the government. Your financial records should be no one’s damn business, especially the governments, unless they have a PROPERLY SECURED search warrant via a criminal investigation. The second great evil is the IRS’s ability to completely reverse the standard of “innocent until proven guilty” by seizing property, bank accounts, pay checks, placing liens, etc. and then putting the burden of proof on the accused. And this is on just perceived miscalculations. There does not have to be any suspicion or accusation of tax fraud. The IRS is, despite laws to the contrary and its own rules, ABOVE THE LAW when it comes to dealing with slim ball citizens (that would be me and you)
Other big problems with the present income tax system are; that it creates a legislative system fond of tampering with the tax code as favors to supporters or in an attempt to create social change, it is life support for a butt load of unnecessary government employees, it creates the need for many citizens to spend money on tax professionals that do not generate any real wealth for the country.
A national level sales tax would be the only way to do things fairly. Some say it would hurt the poor, but this can be resolved by not placing the sales tax or value added tax on essential items such as residential property purchases below a medium level, or rentals, food including some preared foods, gasoline (already enough), clothing items under a certain dollar amount, used cars more than 3 years old, medical items, utilities, etc. A comprehensive and fair list could be easily compiled. The entire tax could could be reduced to about a 1/2" thick manual, except for internal rules and regulations.
You could control your taxes by what you purchased and the wholesaler or retailer would be responsible for collecting the taxes (which can now days be automated without much fuss), and like here in Texas they would get to keep ½% (?) of the taxes collected as a way of paying for the cost of doing it. If I choose to buy that 40K SUV over the 15K econo model, then it is ABSOLUTLY 100% MY CHOICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I suspect, or perhaps I am just dreaming, that if you suggested the present income tax system to our founding fathers, one of them would lose control, take out a pistol or saber and kill you on the spot. Then grow weary accepting the many handshakes of those who were not quick enough to get in on the action. I wonder sometimes if McVeigh has bombed an IRS building instead of the one he did, would the sentiment about him be different. Should still get hammered for killing innocent people, I agree, but I wonder how many folks could better relate to his anger than they were able to relate to his anger over the Waco debacle. Sorry, getting a bit off subject ....
George Bush Jr. made rumblings of changing the tax system, but don’t hold your breath. Just like his mouthing about a school voucher system, you will never see it come to pass. I am NOT a Bush hater, but than again I am NOT a big fan. The alternative simply scared the hell out of me.
I detest having to keep a tax avoidance mindset all year about almost everthing I do financially, and then sitting down to do my taxes each year. It is a waste of time, or should be IMHO, and I find it a an insulting and direct violation to what the founders of the country intended. Over the past 35 years or so I have only had a couple of run ins with the IRS over minor items, but on each occasion I found their aloofness, and lack of tax code knowledge disturbing. By going to a sales tax system, I think we could reduce the number of IRS employees by 75%.
A national sales tax system, if implemented, should also be the death of capital gains tax, double corporate taxing, etc.
Guess I will get off my soap box now - TEX
Other big problems with the present income tax system are; that it creates a legislative system fond of tampering with the tax code as favors to supporters or in an attempt to create social change, it is life support for a butt load of unnecessary government employees, it creates the need for many citizens to spend money on tax professionals that do not generate any real wealth for the country.
A national level sales tax would be the only way to do things fairly. Some say it would hurt the poor, but this can be resolved by not placing the sales tax or value added tax on essential items such as residential property purchases below a medium level, or rentals, food including some preared foods, gasoline (already enough), clothing items under a certain dollar amount, used cars more than 3 years old, medical items, utilities, etc. A comprehensive and fair list could be easily compiled. The entire tax could could be reduced to about a 1/2" thick manual, except for internal rules and regulations.
You could control your taxes by what you purchased and the wholesaler or retailer would be responsible for collecting the taxes (which can now days be automated without much fuss), and like here in Texas they would get to keep ½% (?) of the taxes collected as a way of paying for the cost of doing it. If I choose to buy that 40K SUV over the 15K econo model, then it is ABSOLUTLY 100% MY CHOICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I suspect, or perhaps I am just dreaming, that if you suggested the present income tax system to our founding fathers, one of them would lose control, take out a pistol or saber and kill you on the spot. Then grow weary accepting the many handshakes of those who were not quick enough to get in on the action. I wonder sometimes if McVeigh has bombed an IRS building instead of the one he did, would the sentiment about him be different. Should still get hammered for killing innocent people, I agree, but I wonder how many folks could better relate to his anger than they were able to relate to his anger over the Waco debacle. Sorry, getting a bit off subject ....
George Bush Jr. made rumblings of changing the tax system, but don’t hold your breath. Just like his mouthing about a school voucher system, you will never see it come to pass. I am NOT a Bush hater, but than again I am NOT a big fan. The alternative simply scared the hell out of me.
I detest having to keep a tax avoidance mindset all year about almost everthing I do financially, and then sitting down to do my taxes each year. It is a waste of time, or should be IMHO, and I find it a an insulting and direct violation to what the founders of the country intended. Over the past 35 years or so I have only had a couple of run ins with the IRS over minor items, but on each occasion I found their aloofness, and lack of tax code knowledge disturbing. By going to a sales tax system, I think we could reduce the number of IRS employees by 75%.
A national sales tax system, if implemented, should also be the death of capital gains tax, double corporate taxing, etc.
Guess I will get off my soap box now - TEX