14 Jan 16
Originally posted by normbenignevery sane person would agree with you.
I would gladly opt out of all government services, even Social Security, which I could argue I paid for specifically, if I could opt out of taxation as well.
Oh, I know this is all hypothetical stuff, and I would still walk the sidewalks, breathe the air, get my garbage collected, etc.
14 Jan 16
Originally posted by normbenignThe first sentence is extraordinarily Constitutionally ignorant; have you ever read the Constitution? Take a gander at Article 1, Section 8 for starters. The Preamble is also a place to look for overall responsibilities of the Federal government.
The only responsibility of the Federal government that is Constitutional is the military, which stems from the right to self defence. The US military has so outgrown its Constitutional mandate, it is beyond recognition. And it is at or near the largest line item on the budget.
The rest of the paragraph is obviously true; the Framers, who disliked the idea of a standing army, would be appalled at the present situation where the US has bases and/or troops in most countries of the world and is at perennial war with someone or the other.
14 Jan 16
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, I've read it many times, have a copy on all my Kindle devices.
The first sentence is extraordinarily Constitutionally ignorant; have you ever read the Constitution? Take a gander at Article 1, Section 8 for starters. The Preamble is also a place to look for overall responsibilities of the Federal government.
The rest of the paragraph is obviously true; the Framers, who disliked the idea of a standing army, would ...[text shortened]... and/or troops in most countries of the world and is at perennial war with someone or the other.
Still, the article 1, sec8 items, though important, don't significantly spend federal money. Now the preamble, and the liberal view of the general welfare clause, tends to be a big time spender.
14 Jan 16
Originally posted by no1marauderIt has been observed that the Federal Income tax is a War tax, enacted to pay off WWI debt, and to finance the coming WWII, and it continues to fund all the wars we've come to know and celebrate. With the cost of war ever inflating, and more places to fight in, the tax just keeps on increasing.
The first sentence is extraordinarily Constitutionally ignorant; have you ever read the Constitution? Take a gander at Article 1, Section 8 for starters. The Preamble is also a place to look for overall responsibilities of the Federal government.
The rest of the paragraph is obviously true; the Framers, who disliked the idea of a standing army, would ...[text shortened]... and/or troops in most countries of the world and is at perennial war with someone or the other.
14 Jan 16
Originally posted by quackquackSo in my given scenario, you would say that the increased tax burden should go onto others, while your personal tax burden should remain the same. Which others do you think should pay the additional taxes?
This is 100% unrealistic because there is so much governmental waste that we could cut programs. We also could save money by increasing the co-payment people pay for any program that provides benefits or increasing eligibility requirements. But if you want an answer to your question, I certainly wouldn't volunteer to pay more than my burden of taxes ever.
14 Jan 16
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIf tax rates were totally flat on income, big earners would still pay much higher total taxes. Why are Progressive rates needed?
So in my given scenario, you would say that the increased tax burden should go onto others, while your personal tax burden should remain the same. Which others do you think should pay the additional taxes?
14 Jan 16
Originally posted by normbenignFed taxes aren't increasing: as already pointed out:
It has been observed that the Federal Income tax is a War tax, enacted to pay off WWI debt, and to finance the coming WWII, and it continues to fund all the wars we've come to know and celebrate. With the cost of war ever inflating, and more places to fight in, the tax just keeps on increasing.
The share of US GNP going to taxes is about the same as it was in the early 1950s.http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205
The first income tax enacted after the ratification of the 16th Amendment was passed before WWI.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1913
It is clearly true that most of our national debt is from wars though right wingers rarely admit that.
14 Jan 16
Originally posted by normbenignFor equitable and economic efficiency reasons.
If tax rates were totally flat on income, big earners would still pay much higher total taxes. Why are Progressive rates needed?
Personally, since the reality is that the tax system is effectively proportional anyway (or at most slightly progressive), I'd be willing to accept a modified flat tax that would replace all sources of Federal revenue if it included ALL income (including inheritances, dividends, capital gains) and had some type of standard deduction before any income was taxed (say the poverty line or some percentage linked to it like 150% of the PL). That would get you your tax simplicity, eliminate most strategies for tax avoidance (which mostly rely on getting ordinary income categorized as something else) and still retain a slightly progressive result.
14 Jan 16
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI never said that we should increase taxes on anyone. In fact we should cut taxes for everyone even if it means cutting services and let people use the extra resources they have to fund what they'd like.
So in my given scenario, you would say that the increased tax burden should go onto others, while your personal tax burden should remain the same. Which others do you think should pay the additional taxes?
15 Jan 16
Originally posted by quackquack"then the best solution would be to make cuts somewhere"
First of all, I don't demand anything. It's not appropriate. Second, I don't have favorite government services. But the first thing would be to see if the budget has savings elsewhere. The next thing would be to see if revenues have increased. If revenues have not increased and costs continually increase then the best solution would be to make cuts somewhere.
leaving aside for a moment the fact that it isn't always the "best" solution, where would you propose cuts be made. how much would you save? do you have numbers to back this up?
rand paul's flat tax proposal would increase deficit by about 15 trillion. carson's flat tax proposal would increase it by more.
what is your proposal?
15 Jan 16
Originally posted by ZahlanziPersonally, I kind of like this one:
"then the best solution would be to make cuts somewhere"
leaving aside for a moment the fact that it isn't always the "best" solution, where would you propose cuts be made. how much would you save? do you have numbers to back this up?
rand paul's flat tax proposal would increase deficit by about 15 trillion. carson's flat tax proposal would increase it by more.
what is your proposal?
http://thetransactiontax.org/overview/
Yeah, it would lead to a paperless society, but we are headed that way anyone. Bring on the mark of the beast.
15 Jan 16
Originally posted by quackquackagree with what? opt out of social programs and taxes? even he agrees he would still benefit from social programs.
every sane person would agree with you.
do you expect a police officer to ask you if you paid your taxes before stopping the guy mugging you?
do you expect to walk to work? because you can't use everybody's roads. you can't buy cheap food because somebody's taxes paid for farm subsidies.
so when you are saying "every sane person would agree with you", you are proving you haven't really thought this through.
15 Jan 16
Originally posted by quackquackso rather than pay 5 dollars more on taxes, you would love to pay 10 dollars more every time you buy food. you would rather pay 1000 dollars to fix your car because obviously your roads won't be fixed. they aren't being fixed now with today's taxes and you plan to slash them even more.
I never said that we should increase taxes on anyone. In fact we should cut taxes for everyone even if it means cutting services and let people use the extra resources they have to fund what they'd like.
you would rather pay 1000dollars for private security than whatever tax you are paying for local police force?
tell me, do you have an actual coherent idea of how you are going to pay for stuff in your utopia? or maybe you simply are ignorant of how much stuff must be made with public money.
15 Jan 16
Originally posted by ZahlanziIf the government can simply go further into debt, then would it require taxes to provide services like roads and bridges?
so rather than pay 5 dollars more on taxes, you would love to pay 10 dollars more every time you buy food. you would rather pay 1000 dollars to fix your car because obviously your roads won't be fixed. they aren't being fixed now with today's taxes and you plan to slash them even more.
you would rather pay 1000dollars for private security than whatever ...[text shortened]... your utopia? or maybe you simply are ignorant of how much stuff must be made with public money.