Liberty
Libertarian Minded
How about we get rid of the income tax all together?
That sounds like the best thing to do.
What do you think?
Gallup: More Americans Don't Want Reps To Vote For Raising Ceiling
- Thread starter Annie
- Start date
How about we get rid of the income tax all together?
That sounds like the best thing to do.
What do you think?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
our government would collapse.
the small research i've done on the issue leads me to believe, that any government our size or similar in nature (canada for example) cannot survive without an income tax. there are far too many people and far too many needs of the civilization to survive without it. what i mean is...we can get rid of income tax, but the government will simply raise other forms of taxes or "fees". which might make sense, but the glaring fact is, we make our living because of our government. that is not to say our government is responsible or necessary for our living, only that, the machination we call the US government, allows us relatively safe and opportunistic employment compared to many other countries. that could not be done without some level of taxes. be it income or some other tax. that is why i do not have a problem with the graduated tax system we have and do not support the flat tax rate. that does not mean i support the system as is, only that, we need to have a government that can build freeways etc....and we need to support that.
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
I here what you're saying.
I know the problems associated with getting rid of it.
I also know that the consumption tax has it's problems, but I would sure like the consumption tax over the income tax.
The income tax takes away the right to my property in my opinion. It really gives the government powers it shouldn't have.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
i'm not sure what you mean. you said "the income tax takes away the right to my property"....on its face is not true. did you mean that the income tax takes away your "right" to own more property? because there is no right to own "more" property.
the consumption tax is a huge issue in canada. and should our federal government implement the same, we will feel its pain.
poet
Banned
There you have it.
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
Good points.
The issue of property is that my income can buy property. It repsesents my food, my car, etc.
The supreme court ruled it unconstitutional as well. That's why the government needed a 16th amendment. There was a reason for that. A reason understood far over a hundred years.
I look at it like trading liberty for security. Which means we lose (most) everything because of the 16th.
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
Nothing anyone writes could reflect on what you wrote, since you wrote NOTHING.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Of all the gaps between elite and mass opinion in America today, perhaps the greatest is this: The elites don't really believe we're still in recession. Or maybe, they just don't care.
How else to explain the continual harping on the deficit by editorialists, centrist think tanks and the like when the nation is still enmeshed in the most serious economic downturn since the 1930s?
It's not that the American people aren't concerned about the deficit.
But in poll after poll, they make clear that their No. 1 concern is jobs.
Forty-seven percent of respondents to a Fox News poll, for instance, said they were concerned with the economy and jobs, while just 15 percent acknowledged concern over the deficit and spending.
Eighty-one percent of respondents to a Pew Research Center poll thought it "very important" for Congress to address the jobs situation -- more than for any other topic. "There is no significant difference across party lines," Pew reported…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/25/AR2010052504438.html
How else to explain the continual harping on the deficit by editorialists, centrist think tanks and the like when the nation is still enmeshed in the most serious economic downturn since the 1930s?
It's not that the American people aren't concerned about the deficit.
But in poll after poll, they make clear that their No. 1 concern is jobs.
Forty-seven percent of respondents to a Fox News poll, for instance, said they were concerned with the economy and jobs, while just 15 percent acknowledged concern over the deficit and spending.
Eighty-one percent of respondents to a Pew Research Center poll thought it "very important" for Congress to address the jobs situation -- more than for any other topic. "There is no significant difference across party lines," Pew reported…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/25/AR2010052504438.html
poet
Banned
Ahh. Thank you.
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
Careful,,,, or I may just ignore you
Mr. T
Verified User
Oh there are a lot of people sitting around waiting on their wealth redistribution checks.
The way small businesses are attacked by liberals is nothing more than tyranny.
I work my ass of to earn a living and get kicked in the ass by the federal, state and local government with their hands in my pockets every month.
Good Luck
New member
A lot of people do little more than sit around waiting for their social support benefits. However, much of that is due to the way the system is - deliberately - set up, as opposed to willing laziness. What is a person, say a single mother of 2 (of which we have WAY too many, but that is another topic) supposed to do if the system is set up so she can get $600 housing assistance, $300 in food stamps, $200 in child care assistance while working part time and making $800/mo, but if she works full time, increasing her income to $1200/month, her housing assistance drops to $300/mo, food stamps drop to $180/mo, child care drops to zero? She stays at part time employment, and spends the rest of the day waiting for her benefits.
The system is deliberately set up to force the poor into dependence on government programs, so the liberal democrats can come around at election time and tell them to vote D or they will lose all their benefits to the mean, nasty hate-the-poor republicans. The figures used are very rough approximations, but the end result is very real. People are literally punished for trying to do more for themselves (ie: lose more in assistance than they can make up for by working more). And since the welfare reforms that took place under Clinton and the Gingrich Congress, they are sneakier about it. Used to be a single program would cut more than a person made by working more - and the people caught them at it, and called for "hand-up, not hand-out". Now they make sure they spread assistance over many programs, with low cuts in EACH program, so they can still keep social assistance programs an economic trap for the poor.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Then would you care to take a stab at explaining how some of the single mothers of 2 are able to get off the handout program and make their lives better?
Bush would not have gotten his two wars with a balanced budget amendment, but isn't it sad we need an amendment to make Congress responsible.
Good Luck
New member
Explain to me why a person with an annual income of $1,000,000 not only deserves to pay 20 times the taxes as a person with an annual income of $50,000, but should pay 30, 40, or even 50 times the taxes? Because they "can afford it"? Graduated tax systems are nothing more than wealth redistribution systems, which are, ultimately, unsustainable in the long term by punishing success.
I think we all agree SOME kind of taxation is necessary for any government to function. But there are many taxation systems. Consumption tax (unless they tax the purchase of stocks) is inherently unfair because it hits those who spend the majority of their income on necessities hardest. Leave out necessities, and you have little more than a luxury tax.
Flat tax (with appropriate deductions) is the more fair taxation system, as long as there are not a bunch of loopholes for income derived from sources not available to those living paycheck to paycheck. Everyone is allowed a base income on which they pay no taxes, and then everyone pays the same rate for ALL income above that base. Can't be more fair than that, AND it gets rid of all the loopholes the democrats (who wrote most of them, if the truth be known) are screaming about, as well as the hyper-complex tax laws that keep way too many IRS agents employed on our nickle.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s32.html
Thomas Jefferson was for taxing the rich.
Thomas Jefferson was for taxing the rich.
Good Luck
New member
Some, by biting the bullet and working the better hours, take the hit in benefits, with the understanding that by working more they will get more job experience as well as better performance reviews, which leads to better paying jobs.
Some tell the government to stuff their little traps, and using help from family, friends, church, and other private organizations, work their fannies off to get them in better condition.
Others get the better jobs through education and/or jobs training programs (which you notice I did not deride as traps).
In all cases, they are willing to work the harder route in the now in order to get themselves a better future. Unfortunately, the social assistance system is set up to quite literally DISCOURAGE that attitude. the people that set up these programs are NOT so stupid as to not understand that if they cut more in benefits than a person's increased income makes up for, they are discouraging the motivation to work harder. They DELIBERATELY set it up so a person can literally make more (total) by working less. If it were not set up that way, a far higher percentage of poor would be getting off the roles, instead of seeing assistance programs turn into a multi-generational way of life. And the problem with that is if people are NOT dependent on the government, there goes a whole locked-down voting block for the democrats.
Yeah, because we all know, no liberals are small business owners.