NationStates Jolt Archive

What? Which? Why?

Moderation in all things.

Taxes. Lots of taxes.

Taxes. Lots of taxes.
Wow. Its Temme. Not in the spam forum. Interesting...

I think there need to be taxes to fund government services that people want. However, I am in support of a flat national sales tax as opposed to an income tax (which I would remove at the same time as passing a national sales tax). In this way, everyone regardless of their social class will be taxed exactly in proportion with what they choose to spend, both rich, poor, and middle-class. Furthermore, private citizens would no longer have to put up with the incredible hassle of filing income tax returns, with their various rules, credits, and exclusions. Simple solution--you bought it, you pay X % on it. End of story. If anybody would need to retain counsel at all, with regards to this national sales tax, it would be retailers who probably already have or have easy access to legal counsel.

If imposing such a tax did prove to be a severe burden upon the poor, I might look at making certain essential items tax-free to everyone, such as food, medicines, and clothing. This does NOT making a special exclusion for one class over the other, but a universal one. Certain states like New Jersey already use this policy with their state sales taxes, and that could be used as a model for a national system. Thus, anything that a person chose to spend money on beyond those items would be taxed at the flat national sales tax rate. While this tax would raise the overall price of consumer goods, look at this in light of the fact that you're taking home all of your income. Therefore this hike in prices would not have a major impact upon your spending power.

With nationalisation there is no need for taxes :)
Look at the USSR from the mid-70s onwards; income tax was pretty much eliminated because the Government could operate on the revenues from the state-owned industries.

Taxes for all.


Except me.

With nationalism there is no need for taxes :)
Look at the USSR from the mid-70s onwards; income tax was pretty much eliminated because the Government could operate on the revenues from the state-owned industries.
Yea, but... COMMUNISM SUX0rs!

Taxes are an essential way to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. They also pay for important social services, such as health care, welfare and education.

BTW, Susa, I do hang out in places other than the spam forum.

With nationalism there is no need for taxes :)
Look at the USSR from the mid-70s onwards; income tax was pretty much eliminated because the Government could operate on the revenues from the state-owned industries.

How efficiently did it do so, though? Efficiently defined as no waste, no kickbacks, and both sufficient income for the government AND sufficient production to meet demand.

Taxes are an essential way to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. They also pay for important social services, such as health care, welfare and education.

BTW, Susa, I do hang out in places other than the spam forum.
That makes two of us :p

How efficiently did it do so, though? Efficiently defined as no waste, no kickbacks, and both sufficient income for the government AND sufficient production to meet demand.


Evidently, not very efficiently. As we all know, the U.S.S.R. is gone, gone, gone.

How efficiently did it do so, though? Efficiently defined as no waste, no kickbacks, and both sufficient income for the government AND sufficient production to meet demand.

Heh, I don't like to use the USSR as a model of efficiency ;)
Especially after Stalin and Krushchev's total mismanagement of the economy.

Heh, I don't like to use the USSR as a model of efficiency ;)
Especially after Stalin and Krushchev's total mismanagement of the economy.

LOL, so long as we understand that. ;)

Taxes for all.


Except me.


Let's say a same % for every taxpayer (so no reduction for the super rich anymore since they did not invest it in the economy like Bush lied to the public).

Bush: in a speech to some of his superrich sponsors: "Some people call you the rich elite, I call you my base". :rolleyes:

Taxation is armed robbery.

Taxes are an essential way to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor.

They don't fix the root problem, property laws, that create social classes. The government basically comprises a social class and can't be trusted to do anything about social class.

Taxes are an essential way to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. They also pay for important social services, such as health care, welfare and education.
Translation: Taxes are a way of making rich people poor. Would-be rich people pay for hypochondria, laziness, and state indoctrination, on penalty of imprisonment and seizure of property.

They don't fix the root problem, property laws, that create social classes. The government basically comprises a social class and can't be trusted to do anything about social class.
What are the characteristics of social classes? Why is their existence a problem? Were there social classes before property laws?

I would love to see the 16th Amendment be repealed. Seeing the income tax die and go to the hell from which it was born would be a dream come true. :)

Taxation is armed robbery.



They don't fix the root problem, property laws, that create social classes. The government basically comprises a social class and can't be trusted to do anything about social class.

:eek: I thought you were a communist!? Plank two of the Communist Manifesto called for an income tax. And yet, you seem to be against taxation. :confused:

:eek: I thought you were a communist!? Plank two of the Communist Manifesto called for an income tax. And yet, you seem to be against taxation. :confused:
Taxation by the bourgeois government is theft from the people. Only a proper consentual proletariat government could rightfully administer a system of redistributive taxation. Better yet, end all property. It is impossible to steal from someone who doesn't own anything!

/Letila

Remember that Letila, during his most coherent times, styles himself an anarchist, not a Lenin-style communist. The difference is the use of force. Leninism works, just badly and for evil. Anarchist collectivism simply doesn't work at all.

I think there need to be taxes to fund government services that people want. However, I am in support of a flat national sales tax as opposed to an income tax (which I would remove at the same time as passing a national sales tax). In this way, everyone regardless of their social class will be taxed exactly in proportion with what they choose to spend, both rich, poor, and middle-class. Furthermore, private citizens would no longer have to put up with the incredible hassle of filing income tax returns, with their various rules, credits, and exclusions. Simple solution--you bought it, you pay X % on it. End of story. If anybody would need to retain counsel at all, with regards to this national sales tax, it would be retailers who probably already have or have easy access to legal counsel.

If imposing such a tax did prove to be a severe burden upon the poor, I might look at making certain essential items tax-free to everyone, such as food, medicines, and clothing. This does NOT making a special exclusion for one class over the other, but a universal one. Certain states like New Jersey already use this policy with their state sales taxes, and that could be used as a model for a national system. Thus, anything that a person chose to spend money on beyond those items would be taxed at the flat national sales tax rate. While this tax would raise the overall price of consumer goods, look at this in light of the fact that you're taking home all of your income. Therefore this hike in prices would not have a major impact upon your spending power.
Just read a story talking about a national sales tax plan with the idea of replacing the income tax--it noted that in order to replace the revenue from income taxes, a sales tax would have to be somewhere around 53%.

Just read a story talking about a national sales tax plan with the idea of replacing the income tax--it noted that in order to replace the revenue from income taxes, a sales tax would have to be somewhere around 53%.

Certainly makes a nice case for significant reduction in government spending.

Which I also support. I have a feeling more people will fall in line if they do see so directly the effects of all the programs and infrastructure they keep crying for. ;-)

Well, let me tell you about two people.

Eugene Upper was a Toronto man who froze to death in a bus shelter. He was homeless because he couldn't afford shelter. Died.

Belinda Stronach is an Aurora native who dropped out of university. She became CEO before she was 40 years old of her father's company. She resigned her CEOship to run for leadership of the Canadian Conservative Party, but lost.

Is it fair that Eugene Upper should die so that Belinda Stronach can wear more designer shoes? Is that a civilized society?

Now, let's try taxing Belinda a lot of money, and put that money into social housing. Although it's too late for Eugene Upper, it would help others like him.

Certainly makes a nice case for significant reduction in government spending.

Which I also support. I have a feeling more people will fall in line if they do see so directly the effects of all the programs and infrastructure they keep crying for. ;-)I'll just repeat what Paul Krugman said in an interview last week. If we're going to really talk about reductions in government spending, we're talking about three things--Social Security, Medicare, and National Defense. As Krugman put it, the US government is essentially a big insurance company with a sideline in national defense. Everything else is chicken feed.

Now here's the problem. You can argue till you're blue in the face about the need to get rid of Social Security or the need to privatize it; you can do the same with Medicare, but one thing is absolutely true and will get only truer as the baby boomer generation gets older. No politician of any real power will ever stick his neck out and say that we have to do it, or even that we should do it. Won't happen. It is not a politically viable idea. And national defense is even more off limits. So where do you make the spending cuts? Nothing else even comes close to those big three in terms of percentage of revenue. Everything else combined doesn't come close to those three.

Taxes are obviously necessary, to a certain degree. To point out that we need higher taxes because poverty exists is very simple minded. Poverty will always exist, there is no way to eliminate it because people will always make bad decisions. The only way to make poor people not as poor as others would be to make all saleries equivalent, but as most capitalists know this would be devastating to the big economic picture. Should we help the poor? Absolutely, through charity and efficient government programs they can be helped, but to overtax the working people would hurt the general economy and put more people out of work and homes. Taxes must pay for all that keeps people alive and generally well, defense, and few other necessary programs like roads, foreign aid, education, etc.

Lastly, whoever put the Bush quote, you don't know what context that was said in. This was at a dinner where people like Bush and Gore were present giving joke speeches that made fun of what they are criticized for. This has been a tradition to do so. Therefore, since Bush had proposed a tax cut (not just for the rich) and was attacked because it did indeed help the rich he made a joke about saying that his doners are rich.

You have to have some taxes, but you can't go overboard.

I'm sorry.. I have to say a quick tangent, then you may return.

Everytime I'm scrolling through the list of threads, I always see this one and misread it as "Texas: Yay or Nay" to which my answer is obviously yay..

but it just was funny to me... texas... yay or nay...

*laughs profusely, shuts up, and leaves before she is stoned to death by pennies from tax thrown at her*

I definetly want to pay less than the current 47% rate of your overall income I would like to pay none at all.

I definetly want to pay less than the current 47% rate of your overall income I would like to pay none at all.
I agree that taxes are good, but I too wouldn't mind paying no taxes. Let someone else pay them!

Taxes are good as long as the money goes to public goods, such as defense, infrastructure and police. If we had a private army that people would have to pay to in order to receive protection from a hostile country, then the problem would be that if I didn't pay and everybody else did, then I'd still be protected just the same as everybody else. It's impossible to leave someone undefended when he's living in a city. It would be another matter if I lived right next to a border though. The same thing with street lamps. If everybody else pays for the lamps on your street then you're going to get lighting too, 'cause how are they gonna charge you for using it.

Taxes are good. Needed for certain services, and so a minimum level of tax is always required. In addition to this however income taxes are a convenient method of wealth re-distribution.

I beleive therefore in a progressive income tax from 0-50%, so the more you aren the more you pay. Also an inheritance tax of 50% and a sales tax of about 10-20% Tax also certain goods even more, to reduce consumption. 200% tax on cigarettes, 100% on alcohol, 400% on private fuel, 100% on commercial fuel.

Seem a little harsh to you americans? Welcome to europe. You can go bleating on about the state of your economy blah blah blah, but I know if I gert sick, I can get treatment. If I want to further myself and work hard at it, I can go to university. I don't have to pay for these things.

I believe in liberty, I am not a communist, but people are enslaved as much by ignorance and poverty as they are by governments, and it is the responsibility of western governments, especially ones like America's, who harp on about freedom and justice, to uphold liberty, and to free people form the bonds of ignorance, poverty and conformity.

Just a simple question to everyone who argues that taxes are theft--do you really expect private enterprise to take care of everything that the federal government does that you take for granted? And why are you willing to trust your health and safety to groups that are more concerned with what's in your wallet than with your health and safety? Or are you under the delusion that industry will self-regulate when it comes to safety, pollution, and the health of populace?

Just a simple question to everyone who argues that taxes are theft--do you really expect private enterprise to take care of everything that the federal government does that you take for granted? And why are you willing to trust your health and safety to groups that are more concerned with what's in your wallet than with your health and safety? Or are you under the delusion that industry will self-regulate when it comes to safety, pollution, and the health of populace?

If I trust my money to a group that fails to take care of my medical needs, then I will take my money to another group providing the same service at a higher level of quality, and I will advise other clients of the first company to do the same. If they fail at what they are paid for, they will lose my business and my money. Therefore, their priority is to make their service as good as is possible. With the government, however, there is no such regulation. If they fail at their service, they still get paid. I could vote the people responsible for the failure out of office, but that only comes around once every two-four years. Private enterprise is a much more trustworthy and efficient provider of anything than the government.

My stance on taxes? They are a necessary evil, but not as much as there are right now. Taxes should pay for a defensive military force, a police force, and a small legislative body. Taking half of my paycheck to pay for someone else who did not try in school and who got a crappy job paying minimum wage is just stupid. Why should my earnings pay for someone else's failures?

With nationalisation there is no need for taxes :)
Look at the USSR from the mid-70s onwards; income tax was pretty much eliminated because the Government could operate on the revenues from the state-owned industries.

Yes, income tax was eliminated because THERE WAS NO INCOME!

I voted yes, because the government has to be funded somehow. But I think it should be a minimal government exercising legitimate functions, not a government that is acting as a huge company in every major sector of the economy.

I would fund this minimal government with a national sales tax. I believe that taxing income is immoral and that consumption is what should be taxed. Tax people on what they take out in resources, not on what they contribute. Environmentalists should be thrilled with this idea, but for some reason most aren't. I wonder why?

I voted yes, because the government has to be funded somehow. But I think it should be a minimal government exercising legitimate functions, not a government that is acting as a huge company in every major sector of the economy.

I would fund this minimal government with a national sales tax. I believe that taxing income is immoral and that consumption is what should be taxed. Tax people on what they take out in resources, not on what they contribute. Environmentalists should be thrilled with this idea, but for some reason most aren't. I wonder why?

Woohoo, another Objectivist!

Taxes are good. Needed for certain services, and so a minimum level of tax is always required. In addition to this however income taxes are a convenient method of wealth re-distribution.

I beleive therefore in a progressive income tax from 0-50%, so the more you aren the more you pay. Also an inheritance tax of 50% and a sales tax of about 10-20% Tax also certain goods even more, to reduce consumption. 200% tax on cigarettes, 100% on alcohol, 400% on private fuel, 100% on commercial fuel.

Seem a little harsh to you americans? Welcome to europe. You can go bleating on about the state of your economy blah blah blah, but I know if I gert sick, I can get treatment. If I want to further myself and work hard at it, I can go to university. I don't have to pay for these things.

I believe in liberty, I am not a communist, but people are enslaved as much by ignorance and poverty as they are by governments, and it is the responsibility of western governments, especially ones like America's, who harp on about freedom and justice, to uphold liberty, and to free people form the bonds of ignorance, poverty and conformity.

See but you pay 50% taxes, you pay alot for gas, etc....

We have inneficient medicare and retirement programs that should imho be stopped.
If we eliminated another 15% of our taxes, Never have to waste precious senate time debating about 2 huge government programs that are gone, i believe we could make a way to have it be a persons choice wether they want. Social security should be a private issue. Medicare should also be a private issue. When our government gets involved it just stems more beaurocracy.
It would create higher paying jobs.
it would increase revenue in insurance programs, so we'd have cheaper insurance.
It may allow more companies to make their own retirement programs, or 401k, or something a person can roll over.
Government would be much less bloated and running much more effeciently.
Educate people when their young about retirement, and how saving 300 a year can compound in 20-30 years into alot more social security would ever give you.

But you wonder why we worry about our economy so much? Our economy Is one of the main driving forces of the world economy.
europes?
eh you dont see a world wide recession when europe is feeling a recession.
china? yeah you feel that.
America? o yeah you feel that.

So we have to worry about our economy : /
and one day europe will too...

Woohoo, another Objectivist!

Sssshhhhhh...don't say that bad word! :D

I see you've just joined up here. Put your thick skin on, for you will be flamed mercilessly.

Just a simple question to everyone who argues that taxes are theft--do you really expect private enterprise to take care of everything that the federal government does that you take for granted? And why are you willing to trust your health and safety to groups that are more concerned with what's in your wallet than with your health and safety? Or are you under the delusion that industry will self-regulate when it comes to safety, pollution, and the health of populace?


It is governments job to encourage competition, and make sure that a citizens rights are not being violated.
If someone feels violated they could always a. sue the company b. report the company c. spread bad news about the company, etc......

So i believe that a company cant be any worse then the government because they all want the most money and to win, and if government places certain regulations to make sure these companies maintain a level of respect, and dignity, that there should be no problems.

ALL taxes are paid by individuals....no corporation pays taxes. They collect the taxes from their customers and just pass that money to the various governments. So quit buying things new and quit paying taxes. ;)

So we have to worry about our economy : /
and one day europe will too...

And when that day comes, they will demand to make economic decisions for us, just as they are now demanding to make foreign policy and national security decisions for us.

They recently fixed a pothole on the road that runs by my house. The tab on that bill was $6,750.00. I could not have afforded that by myself.

Taxation is necessary.

Just read a story talking about a national sales tax plan with the idea of replacing the income tax--it noted that in order to replace the revenue from income taxes, a sales tax would have to be somewhere around 53%.

That makes the incredibly bad assumption that the government needs to be as big as it is now. It doesn't. They need to cut back their activities to a reasonable -- dare I say, proper -- level.

They recently fixed a pothole on the road that runs by my house. The tab on that bill was $6,750.00. I could not have afforded that by myself.

Taxation is necessary.

If you had done it, or hired a private company to do it, it would have been done for a LOT less.

If you had done it

Meh ... not enough time.

or hired a private company to do it

That's what is usually done by the State. Contractors make bids when a repair comes up ... job goes to lowest bidder.

it would have been done for a LOT less.

If the money were coming out of my pocket for the whole thing, well, it wouldn't get done. After car payment, various utility bills, food for a family of 5, medical, dental, clothing, and all the other little things that need to be paid for, my budget is already stretched pretty thin.

Yeah, I'd have more in my pocket if there was no such thing as taxation, but I still wouldn't be able to afford to fix a hole in the road, nor do I have the materials necessary to do the task.

Without taxes, my fix would have been to just bolt a piece of plywood over it ... my neighbors probably wouldn't like that too much.

Without taxes, my fix would have been to just bolt a piece of plywood over it ... my neighbors probably wouldn't like that too much.


Hey that works you just gotta keep changing the wood every once in a while
or put sum rocks in the hole :D

If the money were coming out of my pocket for the whole thing, well, it wouldn't get done. After car payment, various utility bills, food for a family of 5, medical, dental, clothing, and all the other little things that need to be paid for, my budget is already stretched pretty thin.

Yeah, I'd have more in my pocket if there was no such thing as taxation, but I still wouldn't be able to afford to fix a hole in the road, nor do I have the materials necessary to do the task.

Without taxes, my fix would have been to just bolt a piece of plywood over it ... my neighbors probably wouldn't like that too much.

Thing is, though, you and, if necessary, your neighbors could have gotten the money together between yourselves (and remember, you aren't paying taxes in this scenarion) and hired the lowest bidder with the best recommendations to do that job for you.

The fact of the matter is that the government is a wasteful thing, as is to be expected in a country as large as the US. It can not supervise all of its projects; it cannot police all of its employees all of the time. By contrast, the individual, working with a clear purpose and to achieve his/her own ends, will do it efficiently and with as little expense as is possible. The individual has a much higher interest in getting the job done well than the government, as the individual has earned the money to complete the project, and the government has somewhat arbitrarily taken it from the profits of its citizens hard work, and can, if it deems necessary, take more.

Thing is, though, you and, if necessary, your neighbors could have gotten the money together between yourselves (and remember, you aren't paying taxes in this scenarion) and hired the lowest bidder with the best recommendations to do that job for you.

The fact of the matter is that the government is a wasteful thing, as is to be expected in a country as large as the US. It can not supervise all of its projects; it cannot police all of its employees all of the time. By contrast, the individual, working with a clear purpose and to achieve his/her own ends, will do it efficiently and with as little expense as is possible. The individual has a much higher interest in getting the job done well than the government, as the individual has earned the money to complete the project, and the government has somewhat arbitrarily taken it from the profits of its citizens hard work, and can, if it deems necessary, take more.

Yeah just think about that one highway that the government is rapving. Yes i kno all of you can think of ATLEAST one? well think about how long that shits been goin on?
the government takes WAY TOO LONG and people just end up milking the government.

That makes the incredibly bad assumption that the government needs to be as big as it is now. It doesn't. They need to cut back their activities to a reasonable -- dare I say, proper -- level.As I said earlier in this thread--what are you going to cut? If you want to do any real cutting in government expenditures, it's not going to be found in the pork-barrel projects--that's chump change. If you want to see major cuts, there are three places to go--Social Security, Medicare, and National Defense. So what's it gonna be? Are you going to tell "the greatest generation" that they can't have their retirement money or their subsidized healthcare? Or are you going to tell everyone that they can't have the strongest, most technologically advanced military in the world? Or are you going to talk smack about government spending and not actually do anything? Because those are the choices.

hightaxes hurt the economy any way you slice it. whether on the rich, middle class, or poor, tax increases hurt everyone. when taxed heavily the poor die , the middle class becomes more poor, and the rich stop creating jobs that the middle class and poor work in. I think taxes should be kept down. the pig of government social spending can squeel itself to death for all I care.