NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think there should be an even tax rate for everyone? Even if your a millionare should you pay the same tax rate as say, a middle class person?
Personally, I think that there should be an even tax rate, just because your rich, you shouldn't have a higher tax rate. Why should you be penalized because you worked harder than other people, and are richer because you work harder? While some people are rich because they inherit it, they still shouldn't have a higher tax rate.

I have always supported a flat tax rate :)

People bitch and moan about equality, but for some reason when it means the rich get to pay the same % as they do, it's apparently "not fair".

It simply makes the most sense... why punish people for being successful?

A flat tax would strip a lot of power from the special interest groups who lobby politicians. The govt wouldnt be able to give special tax breaks for certain industries/groups ect. They could still give subsidies, but giving actual money is a lot harder than giving "special" tax rates.

Politicians would also have to be more frugal with their spending(less pork) because it would be much harder to raise taxes(because they would be raising taxes on everyone).

The difference is that the rich can afford higher taxes. They may not like them, but neither do poor people. And poor people often have a hard enough time making ends meet as is. Now, some people have little/no sympathy for their plight, and want to keep their money. I'll respect that. I don't agree, but I'll respect it.

This whole thread seems somewhat stupid in light of the growing gap between the 'rich' members of society and the 'poor'... Why the heck would the majority work their guts out so a small minority can enjoy all the fruits of their labour?
If with uneven taxes, the minority at the top are increasing their ownership of the world's finite resources, what would the situtation look like without such tax brackets, and how long is your average human being going to put up with that? How many middle income Americans would allow their children to grow up in economic servitude? Have a look at a third world country where children starve to death in front of their parents' eyes and ask yourself how many Americans you know who wouldnt adopt violence to ensure their children lived, to spare their children the horrorific and miserable death that results from starvation? And then ask yourself with the current tax brackets and with the accumulation of finite resources by a very small group of people, how long it would take to get to that point without governmental intervention in the form of wealth redistribution? Would you let your child starve to death in front of you while a bunch of 'rich' folk toasted each other with champaign?

It is a fact that the accumulation of wealth by small groups is already presenting intolerable problems between societies and in many instances within societies. Remove the minimal mechanisms for wealth re-distribution, and the system will collapse. Just how meek do you think the majority is?

Err so basically you're saying it's okay to take from people if they can live without what we are taking?

Is it just me or does that seem to be very very very wrong?

And peopleandstuff, are you suggesting that under a system where everyone pays the same tax rate, America (or any other developed country for that matter) would turn into a 3rd world country? If so then you must think very very poorly of the capabilities of people in said country. If you believe that everyone save a small handful of people live in absolute prosperity will be living in poverty and starvation, then you must believe that only a small handful of said people are capable of working hard and working well.

Somehow I just don't see a flat tax rate turning the majority of a developed nation into a 3rd world country-like state.

In fact, the economy would actually improve. Think about it, has the economy, in any part of the world, ever gotten better through steeper progressive tax rates? (I really hate that term btw, I think "progressive" tax rates is a horrible and worthless idea, and the term "progressive" makes it sound good)

Err so basically you're saying it's okay to take from people if they can live without what we are taking?

Is it just me or does that seem to be very very very wrong?

And peopleandstuff, are you suggesting that under a system where everyone pays the same tax rate, America (or any other developed country for that matter) would turn into a 3rd world country? If so then you must think very very poorly of the capabilities of people in said country. If you believe that everyone save a small handful of people live in absolute prosperity will be living in poverty and starvation, then you must believe that only a small handful of said people are capable of working hard and working well.

Somehow I just don't see a flat tax rate turning the majority of a developed nation into a 3rd world country-like state.

In fact, the economy would actually improve. Think about it, has the economy, in any part of the world, ever gotten better through steeper progressive tax rates? (I really hate that term btw, I think "progressive" tax rates is a horrible and worthless idea, and the term "progressive" makes it sound good)

It is my belief that those of society who are "better off" through work or not (mostly not) have greater responsibility for the well being of society as a whole, by sharing some of their wealth (which they got by exploiting the society) so that their exploitable resource stays healthy. If the rich of the world would not pay as much as they do, they'd lose their means to be rich and would pay for it with the government taking what it needs forcefully.

by sharing some of their wealth (which they got by exploiting the society)

Ok, what about someone like Peter Jackson? Who because he made a good movie, by working hard, he's making some money; should he be penalized for working hard? I just don't see how it's right to tax someone thats rich with a higher rate than a middle class person. I'm middle class and I don't think it's right that the rich have a higer tax rate than I do. And I honestly don't think that a flat tax rate would turn this country into a third world nation, I'd think it would help it. If everyone's taxed the same, than that means alot of people (not just rich ones) would have more money to spend or do whatever with.

What you people don't seem to get is that being wealthy and successful does NOT mean you are a greedy pig.

I don't mean to try and seem arrogant or anything, however I am fairly certain I will be at least somewhat wealthy, or well-off (probably ~200k/year or higher), although I don't think I'll be one of those multibillionaires or anything.

I would however be quite willing to donate to charities that I feel are worthy, or even fund the beginnings of a new one if a good existing one isn't already there for that particular problem.

However, how could I do that if the government is taking all of my money and wasting it?

Remember, private always works better than the government. This is true in virtually every single economic sense, so why should helping the less fortunate be any different?

See my opposition to flat tax rates and to high taxes are not because I want to keep all my money to myself, it's because I feel if I want to I should have the right to, and because I feel private charities are far more efficient than public.

A private charity will manage money better than a public one any day.

Also, a private charity can pick and choose, meaning that it can elect to help on those who are truly less fortunate (i.e. if they broke their leg or something and are unable to work, as opposed to a alcoholic that's addicted to cigarettes) rather than the government, which often gives tax dollars to those who really don't need it or those who don't deserve that help.

Some might argue that people would not start up private charities. Well you know, maybe if they had that extra few million, or few hundred thousand, or even few 10s of thousands (depending on what their income is), then they WOULD put it into charity.

Actually, I favor a national sales tax. It allows us to exempt the staples of living like food and clothes and thus, keep taxes low for the poor, while the Middle Class pay their share as do the rich. Imagine a 6% sales tax on the AOL Time-Warner merger. :)

Ok, what about someone like Peter Jackson? Who because he made a good movie, by working hard, he's making some money; should he be penalized for working hard? I just don't see how it's right to tax someone thats rich with a higher rate than a middle class person. I'm middle class and I don't think it's right that the rich have a higer tax rate than I do. And I honestly don't think that a flat tax rate would turn this country into a third world nation, I'd think it would help it. If everyone's taxed the same, than that means alot of people (not just rich ones) would have more money to spend or do whatever with.
Quite at the contrary. Tax - especially for the insanely rich - should not be seen as "penalty" or "punishment" for being rich. It is rather a means to contribute to society in the most basic way and making sure that it can continue to exist. Taxes exist for a reason and selfishness ruins society. If everyone only cared for him-/herself, we would not be mankind, but a group of individuals, which we are not, although the emotional bond between humans is greatly weakened by the anonymity of modern societies.

Err so basically you're saying it's okay to take from people if they can live without what we are taking?
No.

And peopleandstuff, are you suggesting that under a system where everyone pays the same tax rate, America (or any other developed country for that matter) would turn into a 3rd world country?
I'm suggesting that under any system where ownership of resources is accumulated over time by an ever small group at the expense of the majority, is not feasable in the long term.

If so then you must think very very poorly of the capabilities of people in said country. If you believe that everyone save a small handful of people live in absolute prosperity will be living in poverty and starvation, then you must believe that only a small handful of said people are capable of working hard and working well.
No, I need not believe that at all. But to suggest that I do, you must be reasoning from a false premise such as 'what you own represents what you have contributed'.

Remember, private always works better than the government. This is true in virtually every single economic sense, so why should helping the less fortunate be any different?

objectively false. enron, anyone?

neoliberal dogma is so sad

No.


I'm suggesting that under any system where ownership of resources is accumulated over time by an ever small group at the expense of the majority, is not feasable in the long term.
.

Is that why the top ten richest people in America is made up almost exclusively by self made people?

If you think about it clearly, a progressive tax system makes it harder for people to move up the ladder. Remember, income is taxed, NOT WEALTH.

This is roughly analygeous to why campaign finance reform almost always protects the incumbant politician. You need to think a little deeper.

objectively false. enron, anyone?

neoliberal dogma is so sad

What does enron have to do with a progressive vs a flat tax structure?

I don't mean to try and seem arrogant or anything, however I am fairly certain I will be at least somewhat wealthy, or well-off (probably ~200k/year or higher), although I don't think I'll be one of those multibillionaires or anything.


The federal government considers "wealthy enough" to be in the upper income bracket to be 150k/year of family income. Meaning even modestly successful professionals will face the big axe.

A Journeyman Tool & Die worker and a Registered Nurse (for example) being married and totalling 150k between them faces the same high brackets as multimillionaires.

A small flat tax is fair and workable, especially if combined with national sales tax (singular) If everyone pays 10% for example (for the easy math) a 300k family pays 30k and a 30k family pays 3k. And if the sales tax only applies to non-staple and non-household items, and is heftier for "luxury" items the "rich" are taxed for their expensive purchases. This along with a federal government whose scope is limited to it's constitutional mandate, and with the states being responsible for it's citizens social welfare, (as it was intended) would be an excellent system. But since it devolves power from the DC bureaucrats and lessens the grip they have on every facet of your life, it probably will never happen. If the citizens would put some balls on and challenge the government on these issues, good things could happen. And also bad things when you piss them off, due to that power over your very life thing.

The federal government considers "wealthy enough" to be in the upper income bracket to be 150k/year of family income. Meaning even modestly successful professionals will face the big axe.

A Journeyman Tool & Die worker and a Registered Nurse (for example) being married and totalling 150k between them faces the same high brackets as multimillionaires.

A small flat tax is fair and workable, especially if combined with national sales tax (singular) If everyone pays 10% for example (for the easy math) a 300k family pays 30k and a 30k family pays 3k. And if the sales tax only applies to non-staple and non-household items, and is heftier for "luxury" items the "rich" are taxed for their expensive purchases. This along with a federal government whose scope is limited to it's constitutional mandate, and with the states being responsible for it's citizens social welfare, (as it was intended) would be an excellent system. But since it devolves power from the DC bureaucrats and lessens the grip they have on every facet of your life, it probably will never happen. If the citizens would put some balls on and challenge the government on these issues, good things could happen. And also bad things when you piss them off, due to that power over your very life thing.


Tis a nice dream I suppose. Unfortunately, there is a large chunk of our society that views any tax cut as theft.

Is that why the top ten richest people in America is made up almost exclusively by self made people?
How does the fact that 'self made people' were able to accumulate wealth in a system characterised by uneven tax rates, contradict my claim that wealth accumulation/ownership becomes concentrated without some form of re-distribution?
If you think about it clearly, a progressive tax system makes it harder for people to move up the ladder. Remember, income is taxed, NOT WEALTH.
Actually I have not advocated or endorsed any particular form of progressive taxing. What I am stating is that there must be some mechanism for wealth re-distribution, and it's better that we adopt one we can control.

The federal government considers "wealthy enough" to be in the upper income bracket to be 150k/year of family income. Meaning even modestly successful professionals will face the big axe.
Some people think that responsible driving means not going over the speed limit when you are drunk. That doesnt mean that cars are necessarily wrong.

WTF?

Some people actually want to have flat tax?
RICH PEOPLE CAN AFFORD TO PAY HIGH TAX
POOR PEOPLE CAN NOT AFFORD HIGHER TAX

Flat tax is such a quasi-equality (yeah 2 q's in one word). Do you want to make things fair? Even the income

How does the fact that 'self made people' were able to accumulate wealth in a system characterised by uneven tax rates, contradict my claim that wealth accumulation/ownership becomes concentrated without some form of re-distribution?


well, if your theory of wealth concentration were true, then families/people with a long history in the US(history + wealth) would dominate the lists of the richest people. However, we live in a society that, relatively, rewards merit so old money families/people move down the list while newer more able people move up.


Actually I have not advocated or endorsed any particular form of progressive taxing. What I am stating is that there must be some mechanism for wealth re-distribution, and it's better that we adopt one we can control.


Wealth redistribution...

what a horrible concept. What gives any group any rights over anothers property? Because we are a gregarious species, I want the weakest members of our society to be guranteed some minimums, but I cannot imagine a reason why unproductive people(for whatever reason) should be rewarded the same as productive ones.


Some people think that responsible driving means not going over the speed limit when you are drunk. That doesnt mean that cars are necessarily wrong.

While I completely agree with this last statement, I dont begin to understand what it has to do with flat taxes or wealth redistribution.

well, if your theory of wealth concentration were true, then families/people with a long history in the US(history + wealth) would dominate the lists of the richest people. However, we live in a society that, relatively, rewards merit so old money families/people move down the list while newer more able people move up.
Right...I'm sorry but I still dont understand how the fact that people can make their own fortune in a society that practises wealth re-distribution, disproves my theory about what would happen in a society that doesnt practice wealth re-distribution. Why would the fact that people can be 'self made' in a society that practises wealth re-distribution prove that they could do likewise without such re-distribution?

what a horrible concept. What gives any group any rights over anothers property? Because we are a gregarious species, I want the weakest members of our society to be guranteed some minimums, but I cannot imagine a reason why unproductive people(for whatever reason) should be rewarded the same as productive ones.
What gives anyone any rights? What is property? What is ownership, how are such things maintained? Socially.

While I completely agree with this last statement, I dont begin to understand what it has to do with flat taxes or wealth redistribution
It was an example of the fact that things which are useful and functional can be misused.

what a horrible concept. What gives any group any rights over anothers property? Because we are a gregarious species, I want the weakest members of our society to be guranteed some minimums, but I cannot imagine a reason why unproductive people(for whatever reason) should be rewarded the same as productive ones..
republicans pretend they care about people, what bullshit. especialyl with beliefs that everyone that isnt earning 200+k a year is like that because they dont work hard.

It all depends upon what you mean by "flat tax." Do you want everyone to pay the same tax rate overall, or are you excluding consumption taxes and payroll taxes that overwhelmingly penalize the working poor and lower middle class?

It all depends upon what you mean by "flat tax." Do you want everyone to pay the same tax rate overall, or are you excluding consumption taxes and payroll taxes that overwhelmingly penalize the working poor and lower middle class?

I would get rid of payroll taxes. Find a way to eventually phase out social security taxes. Install a tax structure that is 1)easy to comply with 2) encourage work, savings and investment , 3)easy for the govt to oversee and 4) get rid of the class warfare that many politicians continue to exploit. Remember, it should be all the people making sure the government stays in line, not the government playing one group of people against the other.

If the government had incentive to spend the peoples' money wisely(instead of to ensure politicians re elections), there would be more money available to fund truly needed programs.

I think some sort of flat income or consumption tax might fit the bill.

I think that any government should determine the cost of living for each person and then only tax them what they can at a flat rate that stops at the point where the familiy can no longer afford to support themselves. If the family has two parents and can't meet the percent rate they are required to, then both parents will be required to work. This will work its way up the tax brackets until only the rich can pay for what's left. But there will also be a ceiling for the rich, to encourage the limitations of special interest programs.

On a side note, minimum wage would be split into two groups: legal adults and minors. This could cause many minors to be hired for many positions, but this would also encourage the importance of college education so omre people can contribute actual skills to society rather than jobs that only require a high school education or less.

WTF?

Some people actually want to have flat tax?
RICH PEOPLE CAN AFFORD TO PAY HIGH TAX
POOR PEOPLE CAN NOT AFFORD HIGHER TAX

Flat tax is such a quasi-equality (yeah 2 q's in one word). Do you want to make things fair? Even the income

In what way does that make things 'fair?'

Two of the biggest problems with the argument for "progressive" tax rates are the assumption of "finite wealth" and that is has to be "redistributed."

Conservative reasoning argues that with the reduction of taxes on income, more will be spent and invested, thus growing the economy and creating more wealth (and more jobs) to be spread around, rather than the "zero-sum game" that assumes there are only so many dollars/euros/rubles in the world, and that they are neither created nor destroyed. Thus, the only way to give money to the poor is to steal it from the rich.

Robin Hood is a legend, y'all. It doesn't really work that way. Think about it.

Right...I'm sorry but I still dont understand how the fact that people can make their own fortune in a society that practises wealth re-distribution, disproves my theory about what would happen in a society that doesnt practice wealth re-distribution. Why would the fact that people can be 'self made' in a society that practises wealth re-distribution prove that they could do likewise without such re-distribution?


They can currently because the current wealth re-distribution system is not absolute. If you make more money, you are still allowed to keep more, although the amount is much less. If the wealth redistribution system is removed, then there will be no wealth redistribution system, thus meaning that people will truly be able to achieve their best.

As to whoever it was above me with the broken caps lock key who seems to think that equality means everyone having the same income, it depends whether you mean equality in opportunity or equality in physical possessions. If you mean equality in physical possessions, then yes, everyone having the same income makes sense.

However, most of us believe in equal OPPORTUNITY, not equal physical possessions. Equal opportunity means that your capabilities, how hard working you are, what type of person you are, and maybe a small element of luck thrown in for good measure will determine how successful you are.

ahh too many liberals on this site (and probably most of them 12-15 years old)..... so ill try and not turn this into more of a flamewar than it is becoming... flat taxes.... say 10% as was mentioned earlier (for easy math)... rich people make more money, therefore they pay more money, poor people make less money, therefore they pay less money.... it is not that bad... it would be most "fair" and now feel free to bash me for my flat tax belief, as i know i can never convince anybody on here (buncha flaming liberals)..... oh damn let the flame war commence

edit: oh and redistributing wealth? what a bad idea, i made my damn money, now farking stop trying to mooch off of my money and make your own

A flat tax burdens people more the less money they make.

The reason for this is that the smaller one's income, the larger the proportion of it which is spent on life's necessities.

If 70% of a middle class or 95% of a poor person's income is spent on the things in life they need, they are left with a smaller proportion of their money after a 10% flat tax than a wealthy person who needs only to spend 15% of their income.

The christian, compassionate, reasonable or moral thing to do is lower tax rates as incomes go down and make up for the lost revenue by taxing the wealthy.

A flat tax is essentially sadistic because it is designed to harm most those who are most vulnerable.

In what way does that make things 'fair?'
Every man is equal.
Ring any bells? Not that I'm religious, but that's one truth I hold very dear.

Every man is equal.
Ring any bells? Not that I'm religious, but that's one truth I hold very dear.

So a person who sacrificed and trained and has natural talent shouldnt be paid more for putting a ball into a basketball hoop than a talentless, lazy idiot like myself?

Equal means that we all play by the same rules, it doesnt mean we all will have equal results. Or even equal staring points for that matter.

Should the govt "equalize" me because I am only 5'7" instead of the 6 foot I want to be?

So a person who sacrificed and trained and has natural talent shouldnt be paid more for putting a ball into a basketball hoop than a talentless, lazy idiot like myself?
People should not be paid for their hobbies.
Equal means that we all play by the same rules, it doesnt mean we all will have equal results. Or even equal staring points for that matter.
Of course the results don't have to be equal, but the result is not the money you get. It is the things you do with it
Should the govt "equalize" me because I am only 5'7" instead of the 6 foot I want to be?
Don't be a baby

The thing that most critics of the flat taxe don't realise is that the lower income brackets under a flat taxe would pay no taxes at all. If one realy wants to know what a flat taxe would be like, the should read" A New Birth of Freedom", by Steve Forbes. Remember a flat taxes means equal percentage of taxes, not equal emount. I myself feel that the only taxes that people should have to pay is a flat federal income taxe and a state sales taxe.

I support a flat tax of 0%. Taxation is armed robbery.

Well, the neo-arch liberal witch Margret Thatcher decided to have a crack at this with British local taxation (The tax which essential pays for the local services used by the local council, emptying bins, road repairs etc.).

She introduced something called the local community charge (called the poll tax, for reasons too complicated to go into here) a flat rate for each person; result: mass civil uprising, mass non-complience, and a U-turn a year or two later (to replace it with a quasi-progressive taxation). This policy was so unpopular that it still frames discussion about taxation in the UK today.

Flat taxation means the rich pay the same proportion of their income to maintain a society where they benefit proportionally more. Democracy is about the will of the people. Most people think this is unfair. I agree.

Calling someone who started a new tax a "neo arch liberal" is just silly. Thatcher was a conservative, not a Libertarian.

WTF?
Some people actually want to have flat tax?
RICH PEOPLE CAN AFFORD TO PAY HIGH TAX
POOR PEOPLE CAN NOT AFFORD HIGHER TAX


Actually, under a 10% flat tax, my income as a lower middle class (read, nearly poor) person would remain the same. As stated previously by another poster, truly poor people within 10k/year of the poverty line (under 25k/year) would pay NO TAXES. Additionally, the "rich" currently pay taxes on only about 3% of their income due to the use of exemptions and arcane accounting, which would be eliminated under flat taxation.

The flat tax as proposed would:
Tax the poor not at all.
Tax the middle class fairly across the board.
Tax the Rich x3 of current levels on their income(whose opposition is keeping it from happening)

Percentages naturally increase as the incomes increase. It's the "bracket" system where someone who makes 35k a year pays the same rate as someone who makes 85k a year that is truly unfair and holds people down. Think of all the small businesses (still america's largest employer by far) that could be created if people were allowed to keep more of their money, causing incomes to rise and more "rich" to tax at x3. Elimination of "classes" and a truly even taxation system that creates more federal income is bad why? Also, flat taxes "stick it to the rich" well in excess of the current scheme while the poor pay no taxes. The rich pay 80% of all taxes while only taxed on 3% of their income, so imagine the federal windfall from taxing them at 10%! Finally there will be enough money to pay for all your pet social programs, so why are socialists/redistributionists against it again?

Flax taxation is a win-win and the common arguments against it are fallacious.

Flax taxation is a win-win
Except when they're higher.

and the common arguments against it are fallacious.
What about the true but uncommon argument that it is armed robbery?

I myself feel that the only taxes that people should have to pay is a flat federal income taxe and a state sales taxe.

I feel that the majority of taxes should be collected by the state, while they also handle their own social programs. Only a relative pittance should be collected by the feds to keep them doing only the things their supposed to be doing. But that's another discussion entirely. Let the states collect income taxes and make the feds live off of a fixed percantage sales tax.

The tax thing depends on your point of view. If you want to have a society that looks after the poor, and those in need, and generally gives a helping hand to those at the bottom then differing tax brackets are the answer.

If on the other hand, you wish to see Dawin play a major role, then a flat tax should eliminate all those pesky poor people from getting in the way.

Being fair is one thing. It is not the same as being nice.

Except when they're higher.

They are only higher if the income is higher, and only by a set percentage.
Someone who makes 3k/year more than you pays 300 more, someone who make 30k/year pays 3000 more. Why is this so difficult? The most important thing is it fixes a percentage and puts the feds on notice that 10% of net american income is all they get. No chicanery, no BS, no breaks for their buddies. Raise more taxes only by increasing net incomes. Tell the feds that they get no more money except by getting us more money. That the percentage is equitable and set in stone is crucial, however.

Why are punitive rates increases such a sacred cow for some?
Is it that important that your neighbor who makes 10k/year more than you pay $1200 more in taxes as opposed to $1000 when a flat precentage makes the truly wealthy pay so much more?


What about the true but uncommon argument that it is armed robbery?

I agree that all federal taxation is armed robbery. Income taxes were said to be a temporary 2% (as I recall) on it's inception. (90 years ago) (http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/taxationtale.htm) It shouldn't be nescessary except that the fed has it's hands on many things that are not constitutionally it's domain. But money begot greed and laws were changes or corrupted to ensure their hands stayed in our pockets.

http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/taxationtale.htm

Shall levy no direct taxation sounds pretty definative to me, yet Uncle Sam gets his cut of my paycheck before I even see it. It's a travesty, no doubt about it.

EDIT: Inserted link

The tax thing depends on your point of view. If you want to have a society that looks after the poor, and those in need, and generally gives a helping hand to those at the bottom then differing tax brackets are the answer.

If on the other hand, you wish to see Dawin play a major role, then a flat tax should eliminate all those pesky poor people from getting in the way.

Being fair is one thing. It is not the same as being nice.
What rubbish! The poor would be much better off without taxes. Firstly, they pay a much higher % than anyone else on net. Also, there are other, better, ways of helping them than govt welfare. E.g. giving them a job or private charity to get them back on their feet rather than a welfare check where they're in the same boat next week.

It was China, not Hong Kong, where families had to resort to cannibalism to stay alive.

Of course the results don't have to be equal, but the result is not the money you get. It is the things you do with it


Exactly. If you don't scrimp and save to go to college or some other school that will teach you something (or better yourself through some other means like trade certifications), other than to ask, "Would you like fries with that?", you don't deserve a helping hand.

People keep quoting morals and/or religious statements--how about this one: God helps those that help themselves. Now, I'm not a religious person myself, so this is just to quell the those that are monkeying with Christian values/morals.

I firmly believe that you have to work to attain much of anything (other than the small percentage of those that inherit). And, since I'm working, why is it my job to support those that are not? When I was younger, and nicely poor, I thought as you did. It wasn't until I got off my lazy ass and worked for something, did I attain anything. I'm not implying you don't do anything--this was just me at the time. I keep seeing it all around me. Those that work to excel tend to do so. Those who don't, dont.

You mention choices. How about not having children at an age you can't afford any? How about not having an expensive wedding when you can't afford one? How about being responsible with the finances at your current disposal, instead of using a boatload of credit? How about not trying to do everything someone who makes more than you can, due to the extra income? How about not buying that car that's beyond your current means? How about not renting that apartment that's beyond your means, without a roommate?

You aren't guaranteed anything in life, but you have the option to work to change your circumstances. Much of anything else is tantamount to theft from others.

They are only higher if the income is higher, and only by a set percentage.
So its "win-win, except when you lose" then?


I agree that all federal taxation is armed robbery. Income taxes were said to be a temporary 2% (as I recall) on it's inception. (90 years ago) (http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/taxationtale.htm) It shouldn't be nescessary except that the fed has it's hands on many things that are not constitutionally it's domain. But money begot greed and laws were changes or corrupted to ensure their hands stayed in our pockets.

Shall levy no direct taxation sounds pretty definative to me, yet Uncle Sam gets his cut of my paycheck before I even see it. It's a travesty, no doubt about it.
What has the constitution to do with it? Tax is armed robbery, constitution or not. If the constitution allowed income tax would it cease to be robbery? If the govt kills you where a private citizen would not be permitted to would that not be murder?

What rubbish! The poor would be much better off without taxes. Firstly, they pay a much higher % than anyone else on net. Also, there are other, better, ways of helping them than govt welfare. E.g. giving them a job or private charity to get them back on their feet rather than a welfare check where they're in the same boat next week.

It was China, not Hong Kong, where families had to resort to cannibalism to stay alive.

I said differing tax brackets. 0% tax for poor is okay. I didn't mention welfare, after all taxing those without an income is stupid. Just wealth distribution through taxing the rich more, and using the money to ensure that those at the bottom of society can survive.

Calling someone who started a new tax a "neo arch liberal" is just silly. Thatcher was a conservative, not a Libertarian.

Actually at that time, the conservatives were following a economical liberal agenda, tax cutting, small goverment, privatisation, simply because they are called conservatives doesn't mean they can't be following a liberal agenda.


I support a flat tax of 0%. Taxation is armed robbery.

Tax is only armed robbery if you don't benefit from any of the services the state provide. Tax is basically a monopoly of social services. But you do get a say in how much it is and what it is spent on.

If you don't want to pay taxes then you have every right to find a small island where the goverment doesn't care about you living and set up your own colony. Or go and live on the outskirts of a war zone, where you expect to get nothing and contribute nothing.

Somehow, unless you live in either of these places, you have benefited from society therefore you owe a debt to it. Saying taxation is armed robbery is just silly.

Actually at that time, the conservatives were following a economical liberal agenda, tax cutting, small goverment, privatisation, simply because they are called conservatives doesn't mean they can't be following a liberal agenda.

They preached it, but since they introduced the poll tax they can hardly be called Libertarians (or "Neo-Liberals" or whatever)


Tax is only armed robbery if you don't benefit from any of the services the state provide. Tax is basically a monopoly of social services. But you do get a say in how much it is and what it is spent on.
No, that is still a form of armed robbery called "extortion", exactly like a mafia protection racket. Imagine if Bill Gates supplied windows like the govt would. It would be much worse, more expensive and everyone would have to pay for it whether they used it or not (although it might be openly available for everyone after an 18 month waiting period).

If you don't want to pay taxes then you have every right to find a small island where the goverment doesn't care about you living and set up your own colony. Or go and live on the outskirts of a war zone, where you expect to get nothing and contribute nothing.
So? I want to live here, in my home. That's akin to saying to the Jews that they should've left Germany if they didn't want to be murdered. This is my home and I want to live here without being forced to pay for things I don't want from a supplier who uses police powers to monopolise it's "services".

Somehow, unless you live in either of these places, you have benefited from society therefore you owe a debt to it. Saying taxation is armed robbery is just silly.
That's rubbish. By that argument your parents could force you to reimburse them for all the money they've spent on you. Further, society and govt are not the same thing, if anything they are opposites.

Flat Tax - VERY bad idea.

Imagine a world of flat tax. Let's just make it a flat 10% for the sake of discussion.

Wage earner "A" earns $20,000. Tax = $2,000.
Wage earner "B" earns $36,000. Tax = $3,600.
Wage earner "C" earns $150,000. Tax = $15,000.
Wage earner "D" earns $10,000,000. Tax = $1,000,000.

Seem fair?

If so, you aren't looking far enough.

These wage earners live in a world where the poverty level is $25,000 per year. Where it takes between $35,000 and $60,000 a year to live reasonably comfortably.

So...

Wage earner "A", already below the poverty level, is forced into even more abject poverty by the "fairness" of a flat tax. That $2,000 perhaps means the difference between living in a shared crappy apartment to living in a private cardboard box.

Wage earner "B", just above the provertly level, is forced into poverty by the "fairness" of a flat tax. The $3,600 represents the difference, possibly, between three meals a day and two meals a day.

Wage earner "C", well $15,000 for this guy seems fair enough. Provided he (she) isn't supporting two parents in nursing homes with degenerative and costly diseases as he (she) tries to raise 3 kids, one of whom also has serious medical problems at great cost. IF this wage earner is just a normal Joe (Jane), then he/she could probably afford a little more. Might mean hot dogs for dinner once in awhile instead of steak (apologies to vegetarians).

Wage earner "D" barely notices the $1,000,000. He's (She's) still got $9,000,000 a year to play with. Maybe he/she can't afford that 3rd Rolls Royce/Bentley and has to settle for a Lincoln Town Car. This guy/gal could afford to pay three, four, five or more times this amount in tax and still live an incredibly comfortable and secure life.

ALL of these wage earners are part of a society that, for whatever reason, places values on the contributions of each.

Wage earner "A" could be a teachers aide that can only get a part time job at this time - or someone who flips burgers because that's the job they can find.

Wage earner "B" could be an accountant, or a farmer...

Wage earner "C" could be a financial manager, a doctor, the owner of a car dealership...

Wage earner "D" could be an actor, football player, CEO, lawyer...

It really doesn't matter. What matters is that they are ALL members of the same society, and it is that society that gives them the opportunities they have, and then asks for "taxes" to help support the society.

If we had no entertainment/sports industry, where would the actor and/or football player be? What kind of living would they be earning? These kinds of questions apply to all wage earners at all levels.

The bottom line should be this: What does the TAX rate of each individual require them to GIVE UP in order to pay the tax? If it's food and shelter, then we are OVER TAXING them. If it's luxury items, then we're in the right ball park and should adjust down until the society is getting just barely enough. If it's ADDITIONAL luxury items, then we are UNDER TAXING them.

Think about it for a while...

Libertovania: Are you really saying you would like to live in an anachist "state" where there were no laws, as laws would require policing and policing requires tax and prisons or executioners or whatever.

That's an intresting argument, it sort of follows from that you feel aggrevied that others in your country don't want that. Do you think that you should be exempt from their rules/taxs/whatever simply 'cause you don't like them?

No one likes paying tax, but you have to recognise you need it at some level for a coherent state.

Libertovania: Are you really saying you would like to live in an anachist "state" where there were no laws, as laws would require policing and policing requires tax and prisons or executioners or whatever.

No. Without a govt there would still be, have in the past been, coherent law systems with effective enforcement, courts and punishments. The idea that there could be no police without the govt is as silly as a Russian in 1980 thinking that there could be no farms without the govt. To see how this could work see below. (and I thought it was crazy too until I read this)

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html

and here's a reply to some objections

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Law_as_a_private_good/Law_as_a_private_good.html

Flat Tax - VERY bad idea.

Imagine a world of flat tax. Let's just make it a flat 10% for the sake of discussion.

Wage earner "A" earns $20,000. Tax = $2,000.
Wage earner "B" earns $36,000. Tax = $3,600.
Wage earner "C" earns $150,000. Tax = $15,000.
Wage earner "D" earns $10,000,000. Tax = $1,000,000.

Seem fair?

If so, you aren't looking far enough.

These wage earners live in a world where the poverty level is $25,000 per year. Where it takes between $35,000 and $60,000 a year to live reasonably comfortably.

So...

Wage earner "A", already below the poverty level, is forced into even more abject poverty by the "fairness" of a flat tax. That $2,000 perhaps means the difference between living in a shared crappy apartment to living in a private cardboard box.

Wage earner "B", just above the provertly level, is forced into poverty by the "fairness" of a flat tax. The $3,600 represents the difference, possibly, between three meals a day and two meals a day.

Wage earner "C", well $15,000 for this guy seems fair enough. Provided he (she) isn't supporting two parents in nursing homes with degenerative and costly diseases as he (she) tries to raise 3 kids, one of whom also has serious medical problems at great cost. IF this wage earner is just a normal Joe (Jane), then he/she could probably afford a little more. Might mean hot dogs for dinner once in awhile instead of steak (apologies to vegetarians).

Wage earner "D" barely notices the $1,000,000. He's (She's) still got $9,000,000 a year to play with. Maybe he/she can't afford that 3rd Rolls Royce/Bentley and has to settle for a Lincoln Town Car. This guy/gal could afford to pay three, four, five or more times this amount in tax and still live an incredibly comfortable and secure life.

ALL of these wage earners are part of a society that, for whatever reason, places values on the contributions of each.

Wage earner "A" could be a teachers aide that can only get a part time job at this time - or someone who flips burgers because that's the job they can find.

Wage earner "B" could be an accountant, or a farmer...

Wage earner "C" could be a financial manager, a doctor, the owner of a car dealership...

Wage earner "D" could be an actor, football player, CEO, lawyer...

It really doesn't matter. What matters is that they are ALL members of the same society, and it is that society that gives them the opportunities they have, and then asks for "taxes" to help support the society.

If we had no entertainment/sports industry, where would the actor and/or football player be? What kind of living would they be earning? These kinds of questions apply to all wage earners at all levels.

The bottom line should be this: What does the TAX rate of each individual require them to GIVE UP in order to pay the tax? If it's food and shelter, then we are OVER TAXING them. If it's luxury items, then we're in the right ball park and should adjust down until the society is getting just barely enough. If it's ADDITIONAL luxury items, then we are UNDER TAXING them.

Think about it for a while...


Food and shelter can EASILY be done for under $16K a year, in the US. It's all about the decisions you make with your cash. If you want the 2000 sqare foot house, you need to make more. Doesn't mean you can't get a $400 a month one-room studio to live in (this is mid-size city in Wisconsin economics, that I'm quoting--around 200K population). $200-$300 a month for food. You're still just over half of your income.

Oh yeah, don't immediately have children, if you can't support them. Make some logical decisions.

Flat Tax - VERY bad idea.

Imagine a world of flat tax. Let's just make it a flat 10% for the sake of discussion.

Wage earner "A" earns $20,000. Tax = $2,000.
Wage earner "B" earns $36,000. Tax = $3,600.
Wage earner "C" earns $150,000. Tax = $15,000.
Wage earner "D" earns $10,000,000. Tax = $1,000,000.

Seem fair?

If so, you aren't looking far enough.

These wage earners live in a world where the poverty level is $25,000 per year. Where it takes between $35,000 and $60,000 a year to live reasonably comfortably.

So...

Wage earner "A", already below the poverty level, is forced into even more abject poverty by the "fairness" of a flat tax. That $2,000 perhaps means the difference between living in a shared crappy apartment to living in a private cardboard box.

Wage earner "B", just above the provertly level, is forced into poverty by the "fairness" of a flat tax. The $3,600 represents the difference, possibly, between three meals a day and two meals a day.

Wage earner "C", well $15,000 for this guy seems fair enough. Provided he (she) isn't supporting two parents in nursing homes with degenerative and costly diseases as he (she) tries to raise 3 kids, one of whom also has serious medical problems at great cost. IF this wage earner is just a normal Joe (Jane), then he/she could probably afford a little more. Might mean hot dogs for dinner once in awhile instead of steak (apologies to vegetarians).

Wage earner "D" barely notices the $1,000,000. He's (She's) still got $9,000,000 a year to play with. Maybe he/she can't afford that 3rd Rolls Royce/Bentley and has to settle for a Lincoln Town Car. This guy/gal could afford to pay three, four, five or more times this amount in tax and still live an incredibly comfortable and secure life.

ALL of these wage earners are part of a society that, for whatever reason, places values on the contributions of each.

Wage earner "A" could be a teachers aide that can only get a part time job at this time - or someone who flips burgers because that's the job they can find.

Wage earner "B" could be an accountant, or a farmer...

Wage earner "C" could be a financial manager, a doctor, the owner of a car dealership...

Wage earner "D" could be an actor, football player, CEO, lawyer...

It really doesn't matter. What matters is that they are ALL members of the same society, and it is that society that gives them the opportunities they have, and then asks for "taxes" to help support the society.

If we had no entertainment/sports industry, where would the actor and/or football player be? What kind of living would they be earning? These kinds of questions apply to all wage earners at all levels.

The bottom line should be this: What does the TAX rate of each individual require them to GIVE UP in order to pay the tax? If it's food and shelter, then we are OVER TAXING them. If it's luxury items, then we're in the right ball park and should adjust down until the society is getting just barely enough. If it's ADDITIONAL luxury items, then we are UNDER TAXING them.

Think about it for a while...

Again, and again, and again.
Wage earner A pays NO TAXES AT ALL.

Wage earner B (the best approximation to myself) is already paying more than 3600, so 10% would be a decrease. Never has my tax rate been only 10% in my entire life.

Wage earner C. Please give me the measly challenge of providing for TEN kids on 135k a year. Netting 135k and eating hot dogs? Puh-leeze! Not to mention that currently, Mr.C ;) presently pays the same tax rate as Mr. D, netting only about 110k.

And again, the punitive nature of your design is disturbing. Why must someone "notice" taxation? Why is it important to hurt people? One million of ten is far more than Mr. D. pays now.

You are responding with hard set (and incorrect) opinions, I fear.

Ok, what about someone like Peter Jackson? Who because he made a good movie, by working hard, he's making some money; should he be penalized for working hard? I just don't see how it's right to tax someone thats rich with a higher rate than a middle class person. I'm middle class and I don't think it's right that the rich have a higer tax rate than I do. And I honestly don't think that a flat tax rate would turn this country into a third world nation, I'd think it would help it. If everyone's taxed the same, than that means alot of people (not just rich ones) would have more money to spend or do whatever with.

You are just looking at income tax rate. The Flat tax is the most recressive type of income tax. The issue is not to pay the "fair share", but to pay for the amount of government that is used. With a flat income tax the people with less wealth, not income-wealth, do end up paying more of their income by percentage for the services provided by the government. If the flat tax were introduced at say the lost income tax bracket then all of the people who did not pay income taxes would then have to pay taxes. The short fall to the government budget would be about $50 Billion/year more than we have now. The government would not stop spending the money it would just make the deficeit bigger.

You are just looking at income tax rate. The Flat tax is the most recressive type of income tax. The issue is not to pay the "fair share", but to pay for the amount of government that is used. With a flat income tax the people with less wealth, not income-wealth, do end up paying more of their income by percentage for the services provided by the government. If the flat tax were introduced at say the lost income tax bracket then all of the people who did not pay income taxes would then have to pay taxes. The short fall to the government budget would be about $50 Billion/year more than we have now. The government would not stop spending the money it would just make the deficeit bigger.

Then maybe it's time to vote in those that actually want to spend less, instead of buying votes.....

I love paying tax. I pay my taxes cheerfully and willingly, and I'm grateful to all the people so much richer than me that pay so much more tax than me. Whenever I get a raise, I'm pleased to be able to pay more tax. I like a lot of the stuff that taxes buy, and I'd never be able to afford it myself if I was given my tax back and told to sort it out personally. I love living in a welfare state where sick people are cared for by society and those who suffer misfortune anre supported until they can sort themselves out.

No, that is still a form of armed robbery called "extortion", exactly like a mafia protection racket. Imagine if Bill Gates supplied windows like the govt would. It would be much worse, more expensive and everyone would have to pay for it whether they used it or not (although it might be openly available for everyone after an 18 month waiting period).
extortion is not armed robbery, armed robbery is armed robbery, extortion is extortion. and no, thats wrong, people dont pay if they dont receive the "services". stop pretending you know how things work then playing see how much you can twist reality

So? I want to live here, in my home. That's akin to saying to the Jews that they should've left Germany if they didn't want to be murdered. This is my home and I want to live here without being forced to pay for things I don't want from a supplier who uses police powers to monopolise it's "services".
yes, if the jews didnt want to be murdered, they left germany, thats why a crapload of jews fled germany. do you even read what you type? no, you move, taxes are a requirement of a stable society, you pay the government money, they make sure the roads you drive on are k, they make sure you are defended and safe, they makes ure you have an education, etc etc

That's rubbish. By that argument your parents could force you to reimburse them for all the money they've spent on you. Further, society and govt are not the same thing, if anything they are opposites.
not..getting..the..idea *stabs*

I love paying tax. I pay my taxes cheerfully and willingly, and I'm grateful to all the people so much richer than me that pay so much more tax than me. Whenever I get a raise, I'm pleased to be able to pay more tax. I like a lot of the stuff that taxes buy, and I'd never be able to afford it myself if I was given my tax back and told to sort it out personally. I love living in a welfare state where sick people are cared for by society and those who suffer misfortune anre supported until they can sort themselves out.
Fine. You can go join a commune that does this. If you like it so much you don't need to be forced to do it. On the other hand, maybe you are just looking for an excuse to force other people to pay for things you'd like done.

Fine. You can go join a commune that does this. If you like it so much you don't need to be forced to do it. On the other hand, maybe you are just looking for an excuse to force other people to pay for things you'd like done.

I have. It's called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If you don't like it, you're free to fuck off.

EDIT: I think there's a US state, is it Idaho or Iowa, that doesn't have any income tax. I bet the universities there just kick freemarket ass.

No. Without a govt there would still be, have in the past been, coherent law systems with effective enforcement, courts and punishments. The idea that there could be no police without the govt is as silly as a Russian in 1980 thinking that there could be no farms without the govt. To see how this could work see below. (and I thought it was crazy too until I read this)

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html

and here's a reply to some objections

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Law_as_a_private_good/Law_as_a_private_good.html

NO THERE WOULDNT

anarchy is ANARACHY. coherent law systems would of course FORM between groups who start working together to have a safe and orderly society, but then it wouldnt be anarchy would it?

NO THERE WOULDNT

anarchy is ANARACHY. coherent law systems would of course FORM between groups who start working together to have a safe and orderly society, but then it wouldnt be anarchy would it?


He does this all the time, argues with these two links that anarchy isn't necessarily disordered. In the end though he can't argue coherently about it and just says "Read it yourself, if you go away and think about it, it will all make sense".

extortion is not armed robbery, armed robbery is armed robbery, extortion is extortion. and no, thats wrong, people dont pay if they dont receive the "services". stop pretending you know how things work then playing see how much you can twist reality
Extortion is a form of armed robbery since it involves taking peoples' property against their will by using armed might. I am forced to pay taxes whether I use govt services or not.

yes, if the jews didnt want to be murdered, they left germany, thats why a crapload of jews fled germany. do you even read what you type? no, you move, taxes are a requirement of a stable society, you pay the government money, they make sure the roads you drive on are k, they make sure you are defended and safe, they makes ure you have an education, etc etc
This must be more of the infamous "chess logic". By this argument the holocaust wasn't a crime since the Jews who stayed obviously volunteered for extermination, since by remaining there they implicitly agreed to go along with the Nazis. As for taxes being necessary I have linked to articles (I could link more if you like) which show that they are not, the onus is on you to prove that they are.

not..getting..the..idea *stabs*
Clearly.

I love paying tax. I pay my taxes cheerfully and willingly, and I'm grateful to all the people so much richer than me that pay so much more tax than me. Whenever I get a raise, I'm pleased to be able to pay more tax. I like a lot of the stuff that taxes buy, and I'd never be able to afford it myself if I was given my tax back and told to sort it out personally. I love living in a welfare state where sick people are cared for by society and those who suffer misfortune anre supported until they can sort themselves out.

well said

Fine. You can go join a commune that does this. If you like it so much you don't need to be forced to do it. On the other hand, maybe you are just looking for an excuse to force other people to pay for things you'd like done.
yeah, i would love to make everyone pay a healthcare tax, that way we can provide free health care to everyone

republican: that is a ludicrous idea, i rather have to pay my money to a third party corporation who will pay PART of my cost for health care and raise my rates depending how many operations me or my family have or how many people without health insurance are using the same hospital i am

I have. It's called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If you don't like it, you're free to fuck off.

That's ridiculous. Does everybody in the UK pay taxes voluntarily? No. They pay because they don't want to go to jail. Your contention that govt is somehow voluntary is beneath contempt. If you believe your argument is valid then you have to think that the holocaust was valid by the same argument, otherwise you are falling prey to self deception.

He does this all the time, argues with these two links that anarchy isn't necessarily disordered. In the end though he can't argue coherently about it and just says "Read it yourself, if you go away and think about it, it will all make sense".
I obviously gave you too much credit to think you were capable of understanding it on your own. You failed to put a coherent argument against it and I figured you would see through your self deception if you had time to think about it.

Extortion is a form of armed robbery since it involves taking peoples' property against their will by using armed might. I am forced to pay taxes whether I use govt services or not.
NO, there is no requirement of an armed force to carry out extortion, thus it is NOT armed robbery, it is EXTORTION, a completely different illegalaity

This must be more of the infamous "chess logic". By this argument the holocaust wasn't a crime since the Jews who stayed obviously volunteered for extermination, since by remaining there they implicitly agreed to go along with the Nazis. As for taxes being necessary I have linked to articles (I could link more if you like) which show that they are not, the onus is on you to prove that they are.
no, thats not the point. i dont know what idea you had in your head when you typed it, but what i said is if the jews didnt want to be murdered they shouldve left germany, which they shouldve, that does not say it was "ok" to murder them, thats saying they shouldve left.

taxes are necessary for the government to do its job, of course we could just use a barter system, trade goods for services, throw out the monetary middle man. but that is still taxes or "extortion", items for service. damn walmart, extorting all my money when i buy food there.

yeah, i would love to make everyone pay a healthcare tax, that way we can provide free health care to everyone

Well, if you're comfortable with slavery I guess there's no arguing with you.

Extortion is a form of armed robbery since it involves taking peoples' property against their will by using armed might. I am forced to pay taxes whether I use govt services or not.


Not true. If you don't use the government money service (currency) you won't be income taxed, and none of your purchases will be taxed because you won't have any purchases. If you live in a building, you'll have to pay council tax, but then if you live in a building no doubt there'll be a road to that building which you use to get to it.


This must be more of the infamous "chess logic". By this argument the holocaust wasn't a crime since the Jews who stayed obviously volunteered for extermination, since by remaining there they implicitly agreed to go along with the Nazis. As for taxes being necessary I have linked to articles (I could link more if you like) which show that they are not, the onus is on you to prove that they are.

Clearly.

In fact you've linked to articles which argue that taxes are not necessary. Arguing something and showing it are two different things.

I obviously gave you too much credit to think you were capable of understanding it on your own. You failed to put a coherent argument against it and I figured you would see through your self deception if you had time to think about it.
and you conveniently ignore my obvious argument

I obviously gave you too much credit to think you were capable of understanding it on your own. You failed to put a coherent argument against it and I figured you would see through your self deception if you had time to think about it.

You obviously are a born-again because instead of arguing, you are again saying that anyone with intelligence will see the truth, and so those who don't see the truth aren't intelligent, etc.

Well, if you're comfortable with slavery I guess there's no arguing with you.
very clever, pick out one statement and completely ignore my related counter point of YOUR side

NO, there is no requirement of an armed force to carry out extortion, thus it is NOT armed robbery, it is EXTORTION, a completely different illegalaity
Try not paying your taxes and see what happens to you. THEN tell me it isn't armed robbery.

no, thats not the point. i dont know what idea you had in your head when you typed it, but what i said is if the jews didnt want to be murdered they shouldve left germany, which they shouldve, that does not say it was "ok" to murder them, thats saying they shouldve left.
Then neither is it ok to tax people.

taxes are necessary for the government to do its job,
That's why we should get rid of them.

of course we could just use a barter system, trade goods for services, throw out the monetary middle man. but that is still taxes or "extortion", items for service. damn walmart, extorting all my money when i buy food there.
Or we could go back to free banking with the gold standard or something similar and go back to inflation free prosperity and growth, whichever you prefer. Walmart doesn't practice extortion, either you shop there voluntarily or they leave you alone. They don't show up at your door, force a mars bar down your throat and then demand to be paid for it. Doesn't your head hurt from all the contradictory nonsense in it?

You obviously are a born-again because instead of arguing, you are again saying that anyone with intelligence will see the truth, and so those who don't see the truth aren't intelligent, etc.
When it is backed up with solid and simple economic theory and (elsewhere) with historical examples, I can't see why you wouldn't believe it other than stupidity or self deception.

Or we could go back to free banking with the gold standard or something similar and go back to inflation free prosperity and growth, whichever you prefer. Walmart doesn't practice extortion, either you shop there voluntarily or they leave you alone. They don't show up at your door, force a mars bar down your throat and then demand to be paid for it. Doesn't your head hurt from all the contradictory nonsense in it?

When was this golden age of inflation-free prosperity and growth?

Try not paying your taxes and see what happens to you. THEN tell me it isn't armed robbery.
i can go live in a cardboard box where there is no reason to pay taxes, then no one will bother me

Then neither is it ok to tax people.
point























your head

That's why we should get rid of them.
anarchy is anarchy, not some magic wonderland where everyone is happy going aobut their own business not worrying about what the other person does, thats against human nature.

Walmart doesn't practice extortion, either you shop there voluntarily or they leave you alone. They don't show up at your door, force a mars bar down your throat and then demand to be paid for it. Doesn't your head hurt from all the contradictory nonsense in it?your incessant ignorant babbling makes my head hurt

When it is backed up with solid and simple economic theory and (elsewhere) with historical examples, I can't see why you wouldn't believe it other than stupidity or self deception.

You can't see why because you're blinkered by your faith.

Not true. If you don't use the government money service (currency) you won't be income taxed, and none of your purchases will be taxed because you won't have any purchases. If you live in a building, you'll have to pay council tax, but then if you live in a building no doubt there'll be a road to that building which you use to get to it.
Except that I'm not allowed to use any other currency, and if I was they would find a way to tax that too. Plus I'd still have to pay council tax etc.


In fact you've linked to articles which argue that taxes are not necessary. Arguing something and showing it are two different things.
Except when the argument is successful and backed by historical examples, like this one.

When it is backed up with solid and simple economic theory and (elsewhere) with historical examples, I can't see why you wouldn't believe it other than stupidity or self deception.
you have yet to address the fact anarchy does not and will not ever exist or work. it is against human nature. anarchy might work for a year, then there will start being tribes, and there must be a leader. ocne a leader is elected, it becomes government and no longer anarachy, just warring governments

Except when the argument is successful and backed by historical examples, like this one.
was that historical example on a page before i joined?

You can't see why because you're blinkered by your faith.
I'm going away now. This has ceased to be productive. I've researched private law thoroughly and found the case to be unanswerable, you just dismiss it out of hand out of fear, ignorance and/or self deception. I feel sorry for you with your slave mentality, needing to be ruled.

Except that I'm not allowed to use any other currency, and if I was they would find a way to tax that too. Plus I'd still have to pay council tax etc.

As I said, you'd have to pay council tax if you lived in a building, but a building would have a road to it etc. And you can use potatoes or LETS for currency if you can find people to exchange them. Lots of people ise LETS, and nobody has yet been taxed on them. Chances are if your employer tried to pay you in potatoes, there'd be tax to pay, but then you'd have used the government services that allow your employer's existence.


Except when the argument is successful and backed by historical examples, like this one.

The argument succeeds in convincing you. That doesn't make it proof. Are there no historical examples of when anarchy was anarchic?

I'm going away now. This has ceased to be productive. I've researched private law thoroughly and found the case to be unanswerable, you just dismiss it out of hand out of fear, ignorance and/or self deception. I feel sorry for you with your slave mentality, needing to be ruled.

I've never dismissed it out of hand. I've always argued against it until you get upset that you can't defend your beliefs and take your ball home, like now. I don't need to be ruled. I think society is better for having lots of people doing different jobs, some of which might look like ruling to someone with concerns about their own adequacy. I don't feel sorry for you with your disappointed-elite bitterness. I just wish you'd give me back all the money I've wasted on your education etc.

Ok, what about someone like Peter Jackson? Who because he made a good movie, by working hard, he's making some money; should he be penalized for working hard? I just don't see how it's right to tax someone thats rich with a higher rate than a middle class person. I'm middle class and I don't think it's right that the rich have a higer tax rate than I do. And I honestly don't think that a flat tax rate would turn this country into a third world nation, I'd think it would help it. If everyone's taxed the same, than that means alot of people (not just rich ones) would have more money to spend or do whatever with.

Where do you get the idea that someone that does'nt make a lot of money, does not work hard?

I don't like the idea of flat tax rate.

Lets say there are 3 people they all work 45 hours a week
1st makes 20,000$/year at tax rate of 10% = 2,000
2nd makes 200,000$/year TR of 10% =20,000
3rd makes 2,000,000$/year TR of 10% = 200,000

that 10% for the lowest income person, might mean the difference between enough food for the family or Malnutrition. but if they only pay 5% then thats more for things they need ( food, shelter, clothes..etc) Where as a the person who make 2,000,000 would have to pay lets say 20% = $400,000, which seems like a lot, but they still have 1,600,000. If you can't get by on 1.6 million then you have a problem.

The thing that most critics of the flat taxe don't realise is that the lower income brackets under a flat taxe would pay no taxes at all. If one realy wants to know what a flat taxe would be like, the should read" A New Birth of Freedom", by Steve Forbes. Remember a flat taxes means equal percentage of taxes, not equal emount. I myself feel that the only taxes that people should have to pay is a flat federal income taxe and a state sales taxe.
If the lower income brackets would pay no taxes then it would not be a flat tax. Who would set the level of income that would be exempted from the tax? Why do you believe that you should have to pay a flat income tax instead on none?

I have. It's called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If you don't like it, you're free to fuck off.

EDIT: I think there's a US state, is it Idaho or Iowa, that doesn't have any income tax. I bet the universities there just kick freemarket ass.

Actually, it's Texas, of all places. Fomerly run by that wascally Bush.

very clever, pick out one statement and completely ignore my related counter point of YOUR side

That's about all that ever happens here. I've pretty much given up.
Opinions=Facts
Logic=Propaganda

In america, we have the 2 party system where all things must be compromised. Neither side will ever be happy, nor should they be.
Why bother arguing about it.

I support a flat tax rate because why punish the rich for being rich.

I believe in flat tax for countries running a welfare state.

In the UK there are people having large families so that they can claim large benefits. They have huge houses paid for with housing benefit.
Who is paying for all this? The productive members of society also known as the rich.

This results in poor evolutionary stock producing large numbers of offspring whereas the better DNA, those productive members of society are in decline as they can't afford large families. The money that would pay for them to spread their valuable seed is going in taxes to allow scum to overbreed.

Is it any wonder the UK is in decline?!

Actually, it's Texas, of all places. Fomerly run by that wascally Bush.
Florida also has no state income tax, but they had Disney and a huge estate tax. Jeb Bush's state by the way

I don't like the idea of flat tax rate.

Lets say there are 3 people they all work 45 hours a week
1st makes 20,000$/year at tax rate of 10% = 2,000
2nd makes 200,000$/year TR of 10% =20,000
3rd makes 2,000,000$/year TR of 10% = 200,000

that 10% for the lowest income person, might mean the difference between enough food for the family or Malnutrition. but if they only pay 5% then thats more for things they need ( food, shelter, clothes..etc) Where as a the person who make 2,000,000 would have to pay lets say 20% = $400,000, which seems like a lot, but they still have 1,600,000. If you can't get by on 1.6 million then you have a problem.

Again, and again, and again.
Wage earner A pays NO TAXES AT ALL.


Under 25k=Zero Taxes
As far as the flat tax as proposed in America.

Edit: We seem to have cross-talk between UK'ers and Yanks, who would be arguing apples and oranges.

Does anyone here quite understand the graduated tax?

In the progressive system we use a marginal tax rate like this:

For a single individual
15% tax for income up to $26,250
28% tax for all income between $26,250 and $63,549
31% tax for all income between $63,550 and $132,599
36% tax for all income between $132,600 and $ 288,349
39.1% tax for all income at or over $288,350

So whether you make $30,000 a year or $30,000,000, you pay the exact same amount on the first $26k, meaning that both pay the same amount for every dollar they make.

This is based on the marginal utility of a dollar at these levels, every dollar under 26k has very little flexibility and must be spent on necessities. While a dollar above 288,350 has almost limitless flexibility and must be taxed based on this and on its earning power. Also, if taxes did not take a great deal out of the high income dollar, it would be most likely not be recirculated and used for savings and wealth building

Lastly, the wealthy are wealthy because the government protects their wealth. The more wealth you earn, the more it costs to protect it. The cost of universal healthcare is insignificant compared to the amount spent to limit the liability of a corporation and its owners. The wealthy also use a larger proportion of tax funded public works. Who benefits more from a highway, the person driving to his 20k a year job, or the corporation shipping millions of dollars in goods from state to state, who benefits more from an airport our blue collar working man, or a jetsetting CEO?

Does anyone here quite understand the graduated tax?

In the progressive system we use a marginal tax rate like this:

For a single individual
15% tax for income up to $26,250
28% tax for all income between $26,250 and $63,549
31% tax for all income between $63,550 and $132,599
36% tax for all income between $132,600 and $ 288,349
39.1% tax for all income at or over $288,350


Therin lies the outrageousness. Someone making 63k paying nearly a third of the 2nd part of their earnings? And why in hell would the government ever have claim to almost 40% of anyone's earnings?

I'm sorry, you must have only read the chart and not realized there was discussion to justify the tax system right below the chart, read that part and then make a point as to why the government has no right to tax that high, instead of asking rhetorical questions.

Also, according to the chart a person making 63k would pay an average tax of 23%, to make a flat tax plan feasible under our current rate of spending, he would be taxed nearly 30%.

I didn't include your entire thread in the quote for brevity's sake, but did read it. I've got to be missing something if you're saying the 2nd half justifies the 1st, because I don't see it.

Additionally, the flat tax as I've described it would net more money, not less.
The problem is that the rich don't actually pay the listed rate, but are generally only taxed on a small portion of their income. The shelters they use would not apply to the flat tax, that's why they oppose it. Everyone would pay 10% except for poverty level to PL+10k, netting much larger amounts from the upper income classes that your listed rates do.

Edit: and current spending is another issue, don't get me started, LOL.

I didn't include your entire thread in the quote for brevity's sake, but did read it. I've got to be missing something if you're saying the 2nd half justifies the 1st, because I don't see it.

Additionally, the flat tax as I've described it would net more money, not less.
The problem is that the rich don't actually pay the listed rate, but are generally only taxed on a small portion of their income. The shelters they use would not apply to the flat tax, that's why they oppose it. Everyone would pay 10% except for poverty level to PL+10k, netting much larger amounts from the upper income classes that your listed rates do.

Edit: and current spending is another issue, don't get me started, LOL.
How would you limit them from making use of tax shelters? The tax shelters limit the amount of income they are taxed on. If you lower the tax rated then they are just paying less on the same amount of income. Getting rid of tax shelters is not the same thing as a flat tax.

I support a flat tax rate because why punish the rich for being rich.
your opinion really doesnt matter, you've proven yourself to be nuttier than most people here, bigot

I didn't include your entire thread in the quote for brevity's sake, but did read it. I've got to be missing something if you're saying the 2nd half justifies the 1st, because I don't see it.

Additionally, the flat tax as I've described it would net more money, not less.
The problem is that the rich don't actually pay the listed rate, but are generally only taxed on a small portion of their income. The shelters they use would not apply to the flat tax, that's why they oppose it. Everyone would pay 10% except for poverty level to PL+10k, netting much larger amounts from the upper income classes that your listed rates do.

Edit: and current spending is another issue, don't get me started, LOL.
how would it net more money? especially if you are taxing people less. and you want to get rid of tax shelters? rework the tax forms and streamline them to throw out crap, and then KEEP the graduated tax.

ooh ooh, i know what will net LOTS of money likea flat tax! get rid of income tax and force everyone to pay a 100%+ sales tax to the federal government to make up for all the money they wont be getting in income tax :rolleyes:

Why should you be penalized because you worked harder than other people, and are richer because you work harder? While some people are rich because they inherit it, they still shouldn't have a higher tax rate.

Rich people do not, and never have worked harder than other people.

I have. It's called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If you don't like it, you're free to fuck off.

EDIT: I think there's a US state, is it Idaho or Iowa, that doesn't have any income tax. I bet the universities there just kick freemarket ass.

Florida doesnt have a state income tax either.

I have always supported a flat tax rate :)

People bitch and moan about equality, but for some reason when it means the rich get to pay the same % as they do, it's apparently "not fair".

It simply makes the most sense... why punish people for being successful?

The only way a flat tax would work in the US is if the Constitution were changed to insure there would be no more things like "exemptions" and "deductions." The entire system would have to be seen as trustworthy, without some loophole where the wealthy could avoid the same final percentage as everyone else. It would be tough to pass and empliment, but might be well worth it in the long run.

extortion is not armed robbery, armed robbery is armed robbery, extortion is extortion. and no, thats wrong, people dont pay if they dont receive the "services". stop pretending you know how things work then playing see how much you can twist reality


That is utter crap, Chess. I pay for schools (elementary, secondary) that I'm never going to utilize (yeah, state school budgets receive input from federal funds). Yes, you DO pay if you don't receive the service. You're the one that doesn't have to pay nearly the taxes the rest of us who have careers do. You're still in school, where philosophy and perfect principles seem to be able to thrive. They don't in the real world.

Until you get your own career out of school, you have a VERY limited perspective on how things work in the real world. Until you buy your own home, you can't speak to what someone who does own one may have to purchase or upgrade over the course of the year. The money does go. It's not just lying around, not used. It's used for kids, cars, wardrobes, retirement funds, heat, electricity, phone, etc.

All you see is someone who has more than you do, and you think it's yours to control. Not so. Once you make that kind of salary, you'll be thinking a flat tax, or no tax, doesn't sound so bad. When you're making it with your effort, and watching others who don't work, take from you, your perspective changes. I used to be a lot like you, Chess, in opinion and action. Your perspective will change greatly, over the years, as you attain higher and higher salaries.

Florida doesnt have a state income tax either.
who needs a state income tax when you have disney land? a land tax probably makes them all the money they need

A simpler way of explaining, a dollar at the 300k level costs a lot more to protect and is much more likely to be used to exploit Gov't works than a dollar at the 20k level.

For example:
a 300K level dollar:
1) will be very likely used in investment, the government uses taxes to protect investors from debt defaults, bank failures, and market dips, this is a very expensive part of the government.
2) will be used in expensive transportation, such as freight or flight which is also very expensive means of transportation as far as government is concerned. The cost of maintain a highway with large amounts of freight traffic is great.

a 20K level dollar
1) will be almost always be spent on necessities (food, shelter), which are open market goods and are provided by non-government funded agencies and are inexpensive for the government to guarantee.
2) will be used in inexpensive transportation, such as commuting to work, trips to local destinations, the cost to maintain roadways with mostly commuter use are small.

Taxes are not based on the specific income of the person (although they are pro-rated to income), but are based on the specific dollar and its utility and cost to insure it. All individuals are going to use their first 20k on the same thing, basic needs, and basic needs are insured by the market, not the government, so they are inexpensive to the gov't, and are taxed accordingly. While dollars made and spent at a higher level are usually spent on services and investments that are much more expensive to insure.

Finally, consider the military, in case of an invasion, who stands to lose more, the currency broker who trades millions of dollars, or the assembly workers and independent farmers?

You don't need a Constitutional Amendment to change taxes. There is no justification for federal income taxes in it. Since the beginning of the US, federal income taxes have been found to be unconstitutional no less than 3 times. It is prohibited for the federal government to repeat taxation already collected by the state. Since you already pay state income taxes, the fed's share is supposed to be booted up from what you've already paid to your state. The last ruling in 1913 declaring it unconstitutional has never been overturned. The 16th amendment also does not change anything to allow it, but rather clarifies government's rights to completely unrelated taxes. We have been illegally compelled to pay them for over 90 years.
Besides, I shudder to think of what would happen if we opened a constitutional congress.

That being said, even if a flat tax were to cause the Federal Government to have less money, (which it wouldn't) what's so bad about that? They confiscate and waste far too much as it is. Less money to Washington equals less federal government. Less federal gov't equals a good thing.

The arguments pro and con on this issue seem to boil down to the old arguments between Federalism and Republicanism.
The US was created as a constitutional republic.
The US was not created as a federal democracy.
Rather than corrupt the court to move towards social federalism, this time it's just being ignored.

That some form of taxation is nescessary to run a civilized government, I agree.
That the current form and method of taxation is nescessary and fair, I disagree.
That the current form and method of taxation is being collected in violation of the constitution and supreme court rulings is simply a fact.

Look it up before flaming please.

1) you dont need a constitutional congress to make an amendment
2) the tax system just needs to be redone and streamlined

That is nonsense Zaxon, you apparently never attended school, live outside all civilization, with no road, telephone, or transportation out of your desolation. You also must operate solely on a bartering system, or print your own currency. I suppose the job you have must be a at home business with no employees, that was funded by your bartering system or your counterfeit press, never makes any investments whatsoever, and trades solely out of your house. You must also be an army of one, since you maintain your own military to protect the family which also must have been homeschooled and never received medical treatment. It must have been hard on your wife giving birth to your children at home.

I'd say it was worth it so you don't have to pay that 5% of your paycheck that the government would use on welfare programs.

You don't need a Constitutional Amendment to change taxes. There is no justification for federal income taxes in it. Since the beginning of the US, federal income taxes have been found to be unconstitutional no less than 3 times. It is prohibited for the federal government to repeat taxation already collected by the state. Since you already pay state income taxes, the fed's share is supposed to be booted up from what you've already paid to your state. The last ruling in 1913 declaring it unconstitutional has never been overturned. The 16th amendment also does not change anything to allow it, but rather clarifies government's rights to completely unrelated taxes. We have been illegally compelled to pay them for over 90 years.
Besides, I shudder to think of what would happen if we opened a constitutional congress.

That being said, even if a flat tax were to cause the Federal Government to have less money, (which it wouldn't) what's so bad about that? They confiscate and waste far too much as it is. Less money to Washington equals less federal government. Less federal gov't equals a good thing.

The arguments pro and con on this issue seem to boil down to the old arguments between Federalism and Republicanism.
The US was created as a constitutional republic.
The US was not created as a federal democracy.
Rather than corrupt the court to move towards social federalism, this time it's just being ignored.

That some form of taxation is nescessary to run a civilized government, I agree.
That the current form and method of taxation is nescessary and fair, I disagree.
That the current form and method of taxation is being collected in violation of the constitution and supreme court rulings is simply a fact.

Look it up before flaming please.

I have never heard that 1913 it was declared unconstitutional, linky?

people that did not work for thier money snd have a lot of it should pay a higher tax rate.
:sniper: :mp5: :fluffle: :gundge: :headbang:

You don't need a Constitutional Amendment to change taxes. There is no justification for federal income taxes in it. Since the beginning of the US, federal income taxes have been found to be unconstitutional no less than 3 times. It is prohibited for the federal government to repeat taxation already collected by the state. Since you already pay state income taxes, the fed's share is supposed to be booted up from what you've already paid to your state. The last ruling in 1913 declaring it unconstitutional has never been overturned. The 16th amendment also does not change anything to allow it, but rather clarifies government's rights to completely unrelated taxes. We have been illegally compelled to pay them for over 90 years.
Besides, I shudder to think of what would happen if we opened a constitutional congress.

That being said, even if a flat tax were to cause the Federal Government to have less money, (which it wouldn't) what's so bad about that? They confiscate and waste far too much as it is. Less money to Washington equals less federal government. Less federal gov't equals a good thing.

The arguments pro and con on this issue seem to boil down to the old arguments between Federalism and Republicanism.
The US was created as a constitutional republic.
The US was not created as a federal democracy.
Rather than corrupt the court to move towards social federalism, this time it's just being ignored.

That some form of taxation is nescessary to run a civilized government, I agree.
That the current form and method of taxation is nescessary and fair, I disagree.
That the current form and method of taxation is being collected in violation of the constitution and supreme court rulings is simply a fact.

Look it up before flaming please.
Here is admendment to the Constitution.

Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

When they admended it it stopped being unconstitutional because it had been added to the Constitution.
The phrase "without apportionment among the several states" allows the federal government to tax what the state already taxes.

Also the Civil War laid to rest the idea of Federalism versus States Rights. The states lost the right to leave the Union. The Union and Federalism won.

You mean the FIRST civil war...
Damn you Custer!

You mean the FIRST civil war...
Damn you Custer!
I have not seen a second civil war. But I am up for one if you think we can win.

Not yet, you haven't.

January 24, 1916: In Brushaber vs. Union Pacific Railroad, the Supreme Court ruled: that the 16th Amendment doesn’t over-rule the Court’s ruling in the Pollock case which declared general income taxes unconstitutional; The 16th Amendment applies only to gains and profits from commercial and investment activities: The 16th Amendment only applies to excises taxes; The 16th Amendment did not Amend the U.S. Constitution; The 16th Amendment only clarified the federal governments existing authority to create excise taxes without apportionment.

Edit: It would be over in five minutes. Look at who has the guns and who's trying to take them away, now you know why.

Not yet, you haven't.

January 24, 1916: In Brushaber vs. Union Pacific Railroad, the Supreme Court ruled: that the 16th Amendment doesn’t over-rule the Court’s ruling in the Pollock case which declared general income taxes unconstitutional; The 16th Amendment applies only to gains and profits from commercial and investment activities: The 16th Amendment only applies to excises taxes; The 16th Amendment did not Amend the U.S. Constitution; The 16th Amendment only clarified the federal governments existing authority to create excise taxes without apportionment.

Edit: It would be over in five minutes. Look at who has the guns and who's trying to take them away.
Did you get this from " A Fairy Tale of Taxation"?

http://nesara.org/court_summaries/brushaber_v_union_pacific_rr.htm

No where in the admendment does it say anything about corporations. It says income. I know this does not jive with the idea of states rights but in 1913 states rights were gone.

That is nonsense Zaxon, you apparently never attended school, live outside all civilization, with no road, telephone, or transportation out of your desolation. You also must operate solely on a bartering system, or print your own currency. I suppose the job you have must be a at home business with no employees, that was funded by your bartering system or your counterfeit press, never makes any investments whatsoever, and trades solely out of your house. You must also be an army of one, since you maintain your own military to protect the family which also must have been homeschooled and never received medical treatment. It must have been hard on your wife giving birth to your children at home.

I'd say it was worth it so you don't have to pay that 5% of your paycheck that the government would use on welfare programs.

5%...yah....if it was only 5%, I wouldn't have nearly as much of an issue with the taxes that are taken out of my paycheck.

I'm in that 31%.

I see people all the time making horrible decisions with their lives, and each time, it takes more of the money I worked hard to make.

If I wanted to be a charity, I'd be a charity. Until that happens, keep your hands off the reward for my work.

Just because you may or may not have what I have doesn't give you any right to force me to give up mine. That's theft.

can't reason with the illogical.

http://nesara.org/court_summaries/brushaber_v_union_pacific_rr.htm
Thanks Chess. Did you see at the bottom of the page "Note also that Brushaber did not address the issue of personal income taxes, but only the tax levied on corporate income." So we still have no answer from this about personal income tax just that "That is, Union Pacific argued that the tax was in fact a tax on the privilege of doing business as a corporation, and was not a tax on property. The lower court agreed and Brushaber’s case was dismissed." the Federal government could tax business for their privilege of doing business.

That particular quote, yes.
supremelaw.org (http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:m2BGV4KrDY8J:www.supremelaw.org/fedzone4/doc/chapter1.doc+Brushaber+vs.+Union+Pacific+Railroad&hl=en)

However, all arguements seem to hinge on income taxes being delared as indirect taxation. But how can a tax that is deducted from my paycheck well before I see it not be a direct tax? The government is taxing me directly from my income with no middleman but a government employee.

can't reason with the illogical.

You're right, no one can reason with you.

That particular quote, yes.
supremelaw.org (http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:m2BGV4KrDY8J:www.supremelaw.org/fedzone4/doc/chapter1.doc+Brushaber+vs.+Union+Pacific+Railroad&hl=en)

However, all arguements seem to hinge on income taxes being delared as indirect taxation. But how can a tax that is deducted from my paycheck well before I see it not be a direct tax?
if it were a direct tax it wouldnt have been thrown out of court...THREE TIMES

give it up, you lose

Problem is, if God told me that income tax was not a direct taxation, then God would be lying.
It's a gratuitous assertion to say otherwise.

Again, and again, and again.
Wage earner A pays NO TAXES AT ALL.

Wage earner B (the best approximation to myself) is already paying more than 3600, so 10% would be a decrease. Never has my tax rate been only 10% in my entire life.

Wage earner C. Please give me the measly challenge of providing for TEN kids on 135k a year. Netting 135k and eating hot dogs? Puh-leeze! Not to mention that currently, Mr.C ;) presently pays the same tax rate as Mr. D, netting only about 110k.

And again, the punitive nature of your design is disturbing. Why must someone "notice" taxation? Why is it important to hurt people? One million of ten is far more than Mr. D. pays now.

You are responding with hard set (and incorrect) opinions, I fear.No - I was responding with an example of what a FLAT TAX would look like. NOT an example of what our current tax code looks like.

In a discussion, it is necessary to shut one's mouth and open one's ears once in a while. Otherwise, it's not a discussion.

Food and shelter can EASILY be done for under $16K a year, in the US. It's all about the decisions you make with your cash. If you want the 2000 sqare foot house, you need to make more. Doesn't mean you can't get a $400 a month one-room studio to live in (this is mid-size city in Wisconsin economics, that I'm quoting--around 200K population). $200-$300 a month for food. You're still just over half of your income.

Oh yeah, don't immediately have children, if you can't support them. Make some logical decisions.A few points:
1. Currently I'm in the 2nd highest tax bracket.
2. Started out in the lowest tax bracket.
3. Raised 4 kids without having to resort to anything but our (me & wife)'s income
4. Your figures won't work in New York. Or California. Or in MOST of the more populous places in the United States.
5. My main point remains that we are ALL part of a society. It is rather a matter of luck what that society values. Some of us "get" more from the values society places on what we do. Some less. And those that can afford to pay more, ought to pay more.

Which is really a value judgement on my part.

I find it VERY difficult to accept that there really are people out there ("Compassionate Conservatives"?) who think it's ok to tax everyone at the same rate. Too conservative to be compassionate?

That particular quote, yes.
supremelaw.org (http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:m2BGV4KrDY8J:www.supremelaw.org/fedzone4/doc/chapter1.doc+Brushaber+vs.+Union+Pacific+Railroad&hl=en)

However, all arguements seem to hinge on income taxes being delared as indirect taxation. But how can a tax that is deducted from my paycheck well before I see it not be a direct tax? The government is taxing me directly from my income with no middleman but a government employee.

They are taxing us on the privilage of doing work not the work we do. Sounds very fishy but still is in the Admendment as income not property.

Let's crunch some numbers and see how much sense flat taxes make on paper. Let's say we've got a single-parent household (spouse dead to stave off debate bogus, unrelated debate about staying married). The parent works at a daycare center so his/her child can attend for free. His/her gross income is $18,000 (which is about right for my area) a year. Now we've got a middle-management HR person who'se making about $36,000 a year. Next, we have a lawyer making about $85,000 a year.

all three incomes at 30% taxes, just for argument's sake:

A single parent making $18000 only clears $12600
Government earns $5400
You, with an income of $36000 clear $25200
government earns $10800
That lawyer making $85000 clears $59500
government earns $25500

From all three, the government earned a total of $41700. That's not bad, right? Well, not unless you look at the total income of our single parent. That parent can't afford to live. Let's say this parent pays moderate rent for a one bedroom apartment (in my state). (S)He gives the child the bedroom and sleeps in the living room. After rent, this parent has $7200 for utilities, school clothes, food, health expenses, insurance, etc. That's not living wage at all. You can't raise a child on that kind of money.

The HR person and that lawyer are doing all right, but that 30% has just made our parent and his/her child(ren) homeless. Government assistance helps a bit with foodstamps and such, but government assistance takes government funding. So, basically, that single parent has paid the government to pay him/her.

Now let's bend the number just a little bit (let's say five percent).

Earns------Tax------Clears
$18000 --- 25% --- $13500 --- still not living-wage, but better...
$36000 --- 30% --- $25200 --- that one'll stay the same
$85000 --- 35% --- $55250 --- okay, that's a pretty big cut, but this lawyer is still making enough for a house payment and a savings to send his/her kids to college.

Total government income just earned $45050, the single parent can pay rent AND bills with less government aid, the HR manager had no change in his/her taxes (which is fine because that's the middle earning bracket), and the lawyer is still living VERY comfortably. We've also raised an additional $3350 to help pad the funds for government aid and maybe even ballance the budget on just these three people of varying incomes.

It doesn't take study, just simple math.

How much did the single person make off the life insurance?

who needs a state income tax when you have disney land? a land tax probably makes them all the money they need


Florida doesnt need a state income tax because it is a new receiver of federal funds. States like NY pay taxes that go to the federal govt that is then transfered to places like florida.

Is that why the top ten richest people in America is made up almost exclusively by self made people?
Of course you can prove this huh? Didn't think so.

If you think about it clearly, a progressive tax system makes it harder for people to move up the ladder. Remember, income is taxed, NOT WEALTH.
If you think about it clearly, who profits the most from the infastructure that was put in place by ALL the taxpayers? Obviously the wealthiest members of society, therefore, they should pay more taxes.

If you think about it clearly, who profits the most from the infastructure that was put in place by ALL the taxpayers? Obviously the wealthiest members of society, therefore, they should pay more taxes.
Social Security, Defense, and Health spending take up by far the most spending of any thing - amounting for over 1.5 trillion dollars - and the rich only benifit from one of those, defense, they could do the other two on their own very easily without the government.

Social Security, Defense, and Health spending take up by far the most spending of any thing - amounting for over 1.5 trillion dollars - and the rich only benifit from one of those, defense, they could do the other two on their own very easily without the government.

Well many others would disagree with you, even some of those wealthy individuals:

It Takes a Village to Make a Millionaire
New Report Blasts Myth of the Self-Made Man

http://www.responsiblewealth.org/press/2004/NotAlone_pr.html

The self-made myth
Societal support key to much wealth creation, report says

http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7BB4FBCBBD-1278-4421-889C-1D4B7982B9C3%7D&siteid=google&dist=google

"Pro-business economic policies and tax policies are often centered on the myth of the self-made man," the report says. But the myth of "self-made" wealth "is potentially destructive to the very infrastructure that enables wealth creation."

Forbes 400 Richest Americans: They Didn't Do It Alone

http://www.responsiblewealth.org/

Self-serving stories of 'self-made' success may nourish the ego, but they mask the real ingredients of wealth creation and a strong economy. Where would the Forbes 400 be without public investment and infrastructure – from Google founders building on the Internet to Ross Perot and government contracts?

There are many components to wealth creation and perhaps the unaware minds might not realize how much society contributes to this endeavour?

5%...yah....if it was only 5%, I wouldn't have nearly as much of an issue with the taxes that are taken out of my paycheck.

I'm in that 31%.

I see people all the time making horrible decisions with their lives, and each time, it takes more of the money I worked hard to make.

If I wanted to be a charity, I'd be a charity. Until that happens, keep your hands off the reward for my work.

Just because you may or may not have what I have doesn't give you any right to force me to give up mine. That's theft.

If you dont want to pay taxes move to Somalia or Haiti or Sudan or somewhere else that doesnt have taxes.
One the obligations that comes with the privilidge of living in a developed country is paying taxes.

Of course you can prove this huh? Didn't think so.

Take a look at the top ten. Except for the Wal Mart family, the rest were all self made.


If you think about it clearly, who profits the most from the infastructure that was put in place by ALL the taxpayers? Obviously the wealthiest members of society, therefore, they should pay more taxes.

How do you figure?

because a guy who started a company might use the roads more to deliver his goods? Well, he is paying a hell of a lot more in taxes. His company is ALSO paying a hell of lot more that say one of the employees working there.

How is a rich person using the Police or fire protection or public school, or public healthcare(medicade/medicare) than someone else? The electricty or telecom infrastructure you might say? well he is paying for what he uses. Does a rich man use the public parks more a middle class or poor man? How about the public golf courses, pools ect.

Maybe this would go better if you told me of a service that a rich man gets more of an advantage from than a poor man? Keep in mind than a flat tax applies to a flat RATE, not a flat amount.

Take a look at the top ten. Except for the Wal Mart family, the rest were all self made.



How do you figure?

because a guy who started a company might use the roads more to deliver his goods? Well, he is paying a hell of a lot more in taxes. His company is ALSO paying a hell of lot more that say one of the employees working there.

How is a rich person using the Police or fire protection or public school, or public healthcare(medicade/medicare) than someone else? The electricty or telecom infrastructure you might say? well he is paying for what he uses. Does a rich man use the public parks more a middle class or poor man? How about the public golf courses, pools ect.

Maybe this would go better if you told me of a service that a rich man gets more of an advantage from than a poor man? Keep in mind than a flat tax applies to a flat RATE, not a flat amount.

I guess you didn't bother to read the links I provided? :(

I guess you didn't bother to read the links I provided? :(


what links?

Ok, I pretty much give in to the density here. The force behind my argument is not metaphysically unstoppable and is certainly meeting with immovable objects here.

Pretty much every arguer against flat tax has has missed the point (or more likely chosen to ignore) that the incomes below 25k are not taxed at all in the proposed plan and noone would be taxed at 30%.
All figures from dissenters include how the lowest income earners are getting screwed because the flat tax is a larger percentage of their whole. But they would not be taxed at all.
(Again, this relates to the flat tax plan as has been proposed in the US.)

Someone please just humor me and run your figures again with those under 25k income paying zero taxes and then comment. It would make me feel so much better! You would then actually be commenting on the actual proposal.
(Mine if noone elses. Though I'm quite sure that it is also in the plan as originally proposed by Steve Forbes)

Ok, I pretty much give in to the density here. The force behind my argument is not metaphysically unstoppable and is certainly meeting with immovable objects here.

Pretty much every arguer against flat tax has has missed the point (or more likely chosen to ignore) that the incomes below 25k are not taxed at all in the proposed plan and noone would be taxed at 30%.
All figures from dissenters include how the lowest income earners are getting screwed because the flat tax is a larger percentage of their whole. But they would not be taxed at all.
(Again, this relates to the flat tax plan as has been proposed in the US.)

Someone please just humor me and run your figures again with those under 25k income paying zero taxes and then comment. It would make me feel so much better! You would then actually be commenting on the actual proposal.
(Mine if noone elses. Though I'm quite sure that it is also in the plan as originally proposed by Steve Forbes)

I think Forbes had it at $36,000 for a family of four or $9000 per person. So a single person who makes $20,800/year ($10.00/hour) under Forbes would pay 17% income tax on $11,800/year or $2006.00. This would leave them with $18794.00 to pay for Suta, Fica, rent, food, transportation etc.
Please check my numbers.

http://www.ctj.org/html/forbedis.htm
Ihope iam doing this right. Here is a link to a chart on the Forbes plan in 1996 based on income by household and net change in tax collected.