The biggest illegality against US citizens

D

Danindetroit

New member
If you walked into a store picked up a loaf of bread and asked how much it cost and the clerk relied how much do you make, or how much do you have my guess is that you would at the minimum walk out. How come that same question comes up when we pay taxes? We are bascially paying for services. The even bigger crime is that if you make more you pay more. If taxes were 10% a person making $100,000 still has to pay 10 more than a person making $10,000. Why is it fair that they have to pay 25 times more. Back when FDR became president there were no income taxes. Then he must have read lenin and decided to have a tax on millionaires. Now today I bet 99% of people will tell you there has always been an income tax. I was taught in school that FDR was one of the greatest presidents, wrong. I was taught that Joe McCarthy was an evil man. He wasn't the best person in the world but most people agree that communists were(are) rampant in our government. A teacher had the nerve to tell me as an 18 year old I did not have the right to own a gun I wasn't in a milita(I wonder what that draft registartion card in my wallet meant then), nobody needs to hunt, and the police will protect you. I urge parents to read there kids school books and find out what the left is teaching your children.
 
seriously. i was reading one of the influential threads here and what interested me was "learned by the woodlands, not the textbook"

something is wrong with textbooks. who ever said they did any good after all?
 
Well Dan, I don't know if 99% of folks think we have always had income tax or not, but since you are talking about ignorance of American History, maybe you should reread your history. Income tax was in place long before FDR and continually in place since before FDR. So your musings on FDR reading Lenin are pretty moot.

Income tax has come and gone in the US, but the current run of income tax started after a special session in Congress in 1913. In 1913, FDR was Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy, a position in the Woodrow Wilson administration, in a position that could not levy taxes. Sorry, but you are dead wrong that the US didn't have taxes before the FDR administration.

Knowledge of history can be very powerful. Misuse or ignorance of history can be very powerful in the wrong ways. The stated information that the US didn't have an income tax before the FDR administration is a classic example of trying to make a big political statement talking about the ignorance of history and basing the argument on incorrect information and becoming another example for ignorance of history.

For history of income tax, see a brief review here ...
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1597
 
The problem is not the progressive nature of the federal income tax, it's the fact that we have one at all, since it was only a "temporary measure" to fund WWI, and was, I believe under 2% of income at the time, and was not properly ratified as an amendment to the Const.

But BTW, it's much LESS progressive (richer pay more) than at times in the past. It peaked in 1969, when the richest Americans paid 90% of their income in taxes. It's decreased now to 40% tops (IIRC). As you go down, then 28%. Then 15%. Then none, if you're poor enough.

I think the best idea right now is a federal sales tax (flat rate, ad valorum). Then you're not taxed until you spend, and this will therefore encourage saving (and thus investment in business). And the rich who buy expensive stuff will pay more if they choose to spend, but not if they don't. I'm not an expert in the subject however...

And FDR and Lyndon Johnson rank as among the worst Prezes in history. FDR bordered on being a tyrant to our Constitutional system of gov't, with his threat to pack the supreme court if his (unconstitutional) laws weren't passed.
 
FDR bordered on being a tyrant to our Constitutional system of gov't,
Click to expand...

Yeah, kind of like Canada borders on the United States. It borders it, all right, but it's on the wrong side!
 
I haven't found the politician who has the guts to do it, . . . but I'd sure vote for the one that said we need a simple tax system, . . . and installed it.

Income tax is the wrong way to do it, . . . sales tax is the only way. If each and every consumer sales transaction was taxed at 10%, . . . wouldn't need any other tax at all anywhere.

I would make no material exceptions: General Motors buys a 7 dollar piece of lumber, also pays 70 cents tax. Half goes to the state, other half to uncle sam. If you don't want to pay taxes, . . . don't spend your money. If you want to invest your money, . . . 10% up front on those stocks & bonds. Make people hang on to them a while instead of buy today, sell tomorrow, screw the market.

Grocery stores alone would be exempt, and only if they were a bonafide grocery store. Super WalMart, Meijers, etc. would be taxed on everything they sold, regardless who bought it. Restaurant food, would be taxed. Bars would be taxed. Bet a 2 dollar bet on the ponies, pay 2 dollars and 20 cents.

First thing would happen, lots of lawyers would be looking for work, . . . then the BATF, . . . whoops I meant IRS, . . . (kinda hard to tell the difference most of the time & I get em confused).

All imports, . . . flat 10 percent tax on total retail value of load. Must be paid before unloading.

Anyway, . . . just the musings of an old red neck who is tired of the tax & squirm game from Washington.

May God bless,
Dwight
 
Just curious ...

Would you all apply your national sales tax to real estate purchases?
(that wouldn't seem right because you would be taxing the same thing over and over each time it changed owners)

And what about property tax...? Eliminate as well as income tax?

:confused:
 
Time warp

"The problem is not the progressive nature of the federal income tax, it's the fact that we have one at all, since it was only a "temporary measure" to fund WWI..."

No, YOUR problem is misinformation. World War I did not start until August, 1914; we did not enter it for another three years.

Neat trick, passing and ratifying an amendment for a tax to pay a war that hadn't even started yet...... :eek:
 
Would you all apply your national sales tax to real estate purchases?
(that wouldn't seem right because you would be taxing the same thing over and over each time it changed owners)

And what about property tax...? Eliminate as well as income tax?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't tax property at all. Nor real estate sales. Too many people wouldn't be able to afford homes. In fact, I'd like to see a Constitutional amendment that would recognize property rights as being more important than any governmental "right" to raise taxes - state, county, city, whatever. Haven't thought about what the wording would have to be, but the result I'm looking for is to make it impossible to tax property. Too many people have lost property to taxation.

Every tax should be on some kind of transaction. EVery tax should be paid right then and there, and every tax should show up clearly on a receipt so that everybody knows exactly what they are paying.

The retail sales tax works well enough in most states to be the model, with some tweaking. These folks have the right idea, but I dont' agree with all of their approach.

http://www.fairtax.org/

BTW, taxing materials is just another hidden tax on the consumer. If General Motors pays a tax on steel for building cars, they just add that into their price. They guy who buys it pays the tax. Businesses don't pay taxes - they just collect hidden taxes. you can say it isn't fair if you like, you can scream if you like, but that's just the way it works in the real world, and there's nothing you can do about it. Better to recognize the reality of it and stop pretending that you are taxing businesses. Hidden taxes are the worst taxes.

Yes, you can find holes in this system. No system will be perfect. But a flat sales tax, with all its imperfections, is far better than anything else.
 
No, YOUR problem is misinformation. World War I did not start until August, 1914; we did not enter it for another three years.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, K. I'll look into that - that had been my understanding - perhaps it's a misunderstanding....True that we did not enter the war until '17...
 
Mr. Spy what is your point? Do you like the current tax system? Do you think the Rich pay all sorts of taxes? Your report seems to say that they tried to tax incomes many times failed until FDR started Social Security #'s and Buracracy.

#1 point with a progressive income tax you can just about make everybody have the same amount of income. Sounds like a communist, socialist philosophy. I like to look at taxes as paying for goods and services. Because you make the most amount of money are you in reality using the most amount of the FEDS sevices. It also gives the Feds more power over the states, something the framer of the constitution did not intend. The drinking age used to be 18. The feds said move it up to 21 or we will not give you fed highway money. I guess you are old enough to die for your country or make the decision to make someone else die for theirs, but you can't drink a beer. The funny thing is that on a FEDERAL army base 18 year olds can drink. If it was not sad it would be funny. We should star a pool on when the age to buy tobbaco moves to 21. That might not work the tobbaco people have a lot of lobbyists. I love it that it is heavily taxed and then adds to not smoke are paid for by the feds then they subsudize the farmers.

My neighbor told me about Iaccoca's book. He told of Henry Ford coming into his office and asking him if he paid any taxes. Iaccoca said yes about $50,000? a year. Henry Ford looked at him and said the IRS said that he needed to pay $300? for the entire last year. He was outraged, he had never paid a dime of income tax before. I believe this is from the 50's. Please correct any mistakes never read the book never liked the k-car. It is a third hand.
 
Last edited:
The problem is not the progressive nature of the federal income tax, it's the fact that we have one at all, since it was only a "temporary measure" to fund WWI,
Click to expand...

That was pretty smart of them to pay for the war in 1913. That way they could pay it off at a lower interest rate before they sent the first troops "Over There"!!!
 
What is Mr. Spy's point? Simple. When you start to complain about what is wrong and about people's ignorance, you look rather silly getting the facts wrong.

I think you need to reread. The link I sent provides information about various tax programs preceding and after FDR. Some were set up with a limited basis, some not. Income tax was consistent since W.Wilson and income tax was in place when FDR took office. You specifically stated that when FDR took office, there were no income taxes. That is completely wrong. In fact, the top income tax rate in 1932, when FDR was first elected, was 63% and income taxes continued to be in place when FDR took office. They didn't just all of a sudden go away.

Do I like income tax? Hell no. Even so, there is no reason to fabricate facts to make your point seem somehow stronger. I don't think you will get much argument about dislike for income tax, but when you state things that are blatatantly wrong, it makes your point weak.
 
More than one interesting change in 1913; interest - and taxation - on the use of our money payable to a private corporation that masquerades as a government bank called the "Federal Reserve".

But the aggregate rate of taxation in this country - especially some particular States - is almost on par with the socialist state of Europa. This is one of the reasons I do not get excited (or even interested in) about "tax cuts" and "tax increases" as it is thrown back and forth between the WWF stars in the ring. Except in percentages of large budgets or sums of money they are practically meaningless.

Taxation on private income and property is an abomination. Of course a "warranty deed title" amounts to a glorified lease - not ownership.
 
If I recall my history correctly, FDR at one point seriously contemplated having the populist Huey Long assassinated when Long was making some noise about running against him.

FDR crossed the line into outright tyranny on at least that occasion.

Attempting to pack the Supreme Court and ordering the internment of Americans of Japanese origin are another two examples.

He's still the most significant President behind Lincoln IMO.
 
But the aggregate rate of taxation in this country - especially some particular States - is almost on par with the socialist state of Europa
Click to expand...

Very true. Putting it all together: Federal Income tax, Social Security, State Income tax, Federal taxes on gasoline, local property taxes, user fees, etc..., I estimate that I am sending well over 60% of my income to the "government."
 
It's probably impossible to accurately calculate the tax burden, coolhand. I'm not disagreeing with your estimate, just pointing out that an estimate is all we're going to get.


Why is that?

Hidden taxes. The best thing we can do to reduce the size of gummit and the level of taxation is to get them ALL out where we can see them - where Joe Sixpack and Maude SocialSecurity really have to face just how much we're paying.


Hence a retail sales tax.
 
I've found this a pretty interesting topic since the first grumblings about "flat" tax systems. I do agree that the only tax system that could honestly be called "fair" is one that taxes the use of money, rather than the accumulation. But there are some things to consider with that:

1. Sales tax, as the only tax, would likely have to be well over 25%, and probably 30%.

2. As a tax dodge, bartering might become a common practice, especially if items like food were exempt. Maybe, maybe not, but something to consider. If I can trade $20,000 worth of tax free groceries for a car, I would. Even without bartering, the creation of black markets and the crime attached to them is going to be a given.

3. Consumerism. If you compare our economy and that of Japan (a very similar nation, in many respects), you'll find that our robust economy is due in large part to our penchant for spending and borrowing money to spend; while the Japanese economy languishes as their citizens tend to invest. When spending becomes highly taxed, this may have the unintended consequence of ramping down our own consumerism and plunging us into the same kind of recession the Japanese have had for decades. (They're dealing with it by making laws mandating new car purchases every 3 years, for instance.)

But the money to run the country will still need to raised, so the sales tax will just keep climbing to satisfy the need. On the other hand, you can then dissolve the IRS. :)


Here's a thought: Aside from a philosophical point, what is the problem with the current system? The usual complaint is that it unfairly taxes the wealthy, but with the wealthiest people in the country only growing measurably more wealthy, why is that a problem that any of us should care about? The rich seem to be handling it quite admirably.

Our tax system is hideous in its complexity, but will any of the other proposed tax systems actually help anyone who could use a tax break, or bring greater prosperity to more people? If not, leave it alone, rather than face the unexpected consequences of changing the fundamental nature of how money is used in the US.


And the idea that we pay similar taxes to socialist Europe is breathtaking. Wealthy Europeans often become US citizens for the lower tax rate. Europeans pay income tax, property tax, and up to 50% sales tax on automobiles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top