NationStates Jolt Archive

On this date [Aug 5th] in 1861 the United States levied our first ever income tax to help pay for the Civil War. The tax was a flat tax at 3% of incomes over $800, and was passed under the Revenue Act of 1861 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1861). It was rescinded 11 years later, in 1872.

It's interesting to see that we went nearly 100 years without taking dime one from our citizens. Now we've passed 46 Tax acts in the last century. Why is it that so many politicians and citizens claim to revere [heh] our founding fathers and then turn around and pull off the same kind of shit that we were rebelling against in the first place?

229 years ago, our ancestors were putting holes in British britches for a negligible tax on tea and stamps. Oh, how far we've come.

Oh, how far we've come.
Well you've got Route 66, big railroads, the internet and the like. That's gotta be worth something.

If you hadn't started levying taxes, you would have remained the ex-colony shithole you were pre-civil war. Were it not for taxes, you never would have been able to support your military and therefore you never would have been able to project power like you did during the 20th century, and continue to do today...

... hmm, maybe you're right! American people, stop paying your taxes! ;)

(I'm not-American, so it's not illegal for me to urge you to do that. If you heed my advice, you're on your own though. :fluffle: )

Well you've got Route 66, big railroads, the internet and the like. That's gotta be worth something.
The first two, yes: but suggesting the internet has anything to do with the government or taxation is ridiculous. If anything, the Internet is a testament to the advances brought to us by private interests. If turnabout is fair game, then I can compare cell phones to nuclear bombs, with the understanding that the former was made to make a buck and the latter was made in the name of the greater good.

Neither example proves anything in the grand scheme of things: advancements would have been made taxes or no taxes, don't be silly. I'm talking about the moral implications of these actions.

Also Fass, I don't happen to think we've done a good job with that massive military we've built up either: I think history has proven that people with gigantic, uber pimped out armies aren't very responsible with them.

Also, taxes were hardly the catalyst for the advancements we saw shortly thereafter, I can't believe this has already been insinuated twice. Somehow I think the Industrial Revolution had a great deal more to do with it :rolleyes:

I just wanted to bump the thread back up then.
I'll post again once there's lots of agro conversations going... :D

I just wanted to bump the thread back up then.
I'll post again once there's lots of agro conversations going... :D
It shouldn't take long, but every once and a while I get ignored completely. I like to think people are scared of me. Especially when I post something like this to try and egg them on.

Melkor, I don't know how you'll take this. But could you tone down the language?

I like to think people are scared of me.
Maybe it's your name?

Melkor, I don't know how you'll take this. But could you tone down the language?
In the words of Jeffrey "The Dude" Lebowski from the classic 1998 film The Big Lebowski: "....The fuck you talkin' about?"

To answer your question, I generally deploy invective very sparingly, and when I do it's not aimed at people. There are no current site regulations restricting this area of speech, so I am under no obligation to choose my words according to anyone else's standards.

Honestly, if swear words get your goat, the internet is not the place for you.

The first two, yes: but suggesting the internet has anything to do with the government or taxation is ridiculous.

So arpanet wasn't created by the government?

If anything, the Internet is a testament to the advances brought to us by private interests.

So CERN, Centre Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire (European Centre for Nuclear Research, where the world wide web was conceived, is all of a sudden privately owned?

Also Fass, I don't happen to think we've done a good job with that massive military we've built up either: I think history has proven that people with gigantic, uber pimped out armies aren't very responsible with them.

I don't know, using the army to help be victorious in several, some very large indeed, conflicts and using military superiority as a means of establishing foreign markets, not to mention the huge boost for the internal economy all those government military contracts meant, many people would say was "good job" indeed, introducing the people you came to dominate to your crap (and by "crap," I of course mean durable products of the utmost quality - the kind "made in the US" has always been assoc... oh, god, I can't even write that with a straight face :p) and establishing a new dominance on world markets, and staving off ideological competitors and so and so forth. You are, at heart, a militaristic country. All the large empires have been.

Also, taxes were hardly the catalyst for the advancements we saw shortly thereafter, I can't believe this has already been insinuated twice. Somehow I think the Industrial Revolution had a great deal more to do with it :rolleyes:

Yeah, the industrial revolution built the infrastructure needed for it to take root and accelerate alone (congress chartered transcontinental rail road ring a bell? Government credit and land grants to Union and Central pacific respectively?), and it's not like large government contracts fueled many of those start-ups like Eli Whitney's little musket business... :rolleyes:

Meh ... I like taxes ... gives Libertarians something to bitch wildly about. It's so cute ... their ears turn all red and their brows get all furrowed.

I'll agree, though. Let's bump taxes back to 1860s standards, but let's do the same for the rest of it, too. 2nd amendment now means muzzle loading Whitworths and Spencer Carbines - maybe Colt repeaters - abolish all amendments put in the Constitution after, say, 1865.

How about we just let the past be the past and pay our taxes, mmkay? Mmkay!

You want to know why taxes are high?Well for starters theres the 145 billion spent on welfare(in one year mind you, and this started around 1932) So then of course there is the military. Whcih has state fo the art equipment and is relativly well equiped. And since the civil war there has been the Spanish American war, WWI, WWII, Cold War, Korean War, Vietnam War, Desert Storm, and the War on Terror,(i know some arn't wars, some are UN resolution and battles, but cut the Bull they're wars) so military spending is obviosly justified. Then of course there is the space program, which costs about 13 billion a year, and has lead to the development of Fetal Heart monitors, Smoke detectors, invisible braces, medical imagary and many other things, so thats also justifyed. Then of course there is FBI, CIA, and NSA, which save hundreds of lives a week. then there is senators and representatives, thats about 120,000 a person, and thent he prez with 330,000 a year plus about 200,000 in perks, such as Air-Force One. So theres money to ensure democracy, thats well spent. So all in all i say taxes are a bit high, but look at what you get. The end(democracy, and a generally good lifestyle for the majoraty, and protection for the minority) justifies the means(taxation) :cool:

In the words of Jeffrey "The Dude" Lebowski from the classic 1998 film The Big Lebowski: "....The fuck you talkin' about?"

To answer your question, I generally deploy invective very sparingly, and when I do it's not aimed at people. There are no current site regulations restricting this area of speech, so I am under no obligation to choose my words according to anyone else's standards.

Honestly, if swear words get your goat, the internet is not the place for you.
I ahve no issue with appropriate use of curse words. They are after all in the Oxford Complete Dcitionary. I do however, have an issue with Moderators not holding themselves to the highest standard of behaviour/ you set the standards that we follow.

So arpanet wasn't created by the government?



So CERN, Centre Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire (European Centre for Nuclear Research, where the world wide web was conceived, is all of a sudden privately owned?
I think this was actually the first debate I got into when I decided to foray into General. I'll tell you what I told the first guy I argued this with: regardless of its origins, you cannot possibly look me in the eye and tell me that the internet would be anything without private interests.

Also, the internet was not conceived by CERN, not by a damn sight. It was originally envisioned by MIT technicians in the early 60's [the first paper outlining packet switching theory was written in 1961]. The first connection did not occur in Europe [and I honestly can't believe that someone's actually suggesting it did], but rather from two computers in the States, one in Massachussetts and the other in California.

Very technically, the internet is a product of neither the private sector or the government, but rather the scholastic field. However, the corporate sector has had a hundred times the influence over the development and refinement of the internet than the government ever has. Telling me that the Internet is a primarily government influenced institution because ARPANET was govenrment owned is ridiculous. If our Glorious Government is so great at this sort of thing, how did the internet make more progress in the last 5 years than it did in its first forty?

Seriously, that has got to be one of the weakest debating positions I can think of.

I don't know, using the army to help be victorious in several, some very large indeed, conflicts and using military superiority as a means of establishing foreign markets, not to mention the huge boost for the internal economy all those government military contracts meant, many people would say was "good job" indeed, introducing the people you came to dominate to your crap (and by "crap," I of course mean durable products of the utmost quality - the kind "made in the US" has always been assoc... oh, god, I can't even write that with a straight face :p) and establishing a new dominance on world markets, and staving off ideological competitors and so and so forth. You are, at heart, a militaristic country. All the large empires have been.
I'm sorry, but I cant' say as I agree with any of this philosophically. In my opnions, the United States has not been making anything even remotely resembling good foreign policy decisions [for the most part] since 1917. If you ask me, World War 1 was when things got bad for us.

Yeah, the industrial revolution built the infrastructure needed for it to take root and accelerate alone (congress chartered transcontinental rail road ring a bell? Government credit and land grants to Union and Central pacific respectively?), and it's not like large government contracts fueled many of those start-ups like Eli Whitney's little musket business... :rolleyes:
Right, but see that's sort of my point: without steam engines and railroads there's no transcontinental railroad to charter in the first place. I think you're missing the forest for the trees.

It shouldn't take long, but every once and a while I get ignored completely. I like to think people are scared of me. Especially when I post something like this to try and egg them on.
Na. We all just want to get jiggy with you, and don't want to make you hate us when we take the bait, thus ending any chances of said jigginess happening...

...question though, if you stopped the taxation system, where would the monies come from to maintain infrastructure? (leaving social systems aside for the time being)

I ahve no issue with appropriate use of curse words. They are after all in the Oxford Complete Dcitionary. I do however, have an issue with Moderators not holding themselves to the highest standard of behaviour/ you set the standards that we follow.
:rolleyes: If you are implying that Melkor is somehow breaking the rules, perhaps you should read the rules thread?

Take it to the OTHER mods if you have an issue. Otherwise, quit berating a poster, and hijacking a thread.

The other question I had for you Melkor was about the US's military...without taxes, how would your country remain militarily significant?

Why thank you, happy income tax day to you, too. It's a million times better than the sales tax.

Na. We all just want to get jiggy with you, and don't want to make you hate us when we take the bait, thus ending any chances of said jigginess happening...

...question though, if you stopped the taxation system, where would the monies come from to maintain infrastructure? (leaving social systems aside for the time being)
Generally, infrastructure costs are shared in by the folks who use them: roads are an excellent example. I could be wrong but I don't believe that much tax money is really used for them; rather I'm under the impression that most roads [state routes at least] are funded by ticket costs, license fees, and pretty much just about every dollar the state DMV gets its hands on.

If I had been running things from the start, obviously things would have happened a lot differently, but I will admit that my attacks on taxation are somewhat heavy-handed, but I do it to prove a point: I'm willing to pay for some things so long as I have an option to do so: water lines and electrical lines are worth my money for example, while things like Welfare and so forth, are not. I'm not particularly enamored with the idea of tax funded infrastructure, but it's not a system you could really think about changing overnight, if at all.

Philosophically, I don't believe the government has any legitimate purpose beyond punishing people who initiate force on others, be it physically or through less overt means like breaking a contract or stealing a Ming vase.

EDIT: and at this point, Sinuhue, I'm not very interested in keeping my country "militarlily significant." As far as I'm concerned, all it has to be able to do is repel an invasion: I'm not a big fan of this interventionist shit we've been pulling for the last 88 years.

Why thank you, happy income tax day to you, too. It's a million times better than the sales tax.
Na. Those 'hidden taxes' are nicer, because you don't notice them all at once:)

Frankly, sales taxes ARE income taxes...the more you buy, the more income you clearly have, the more tax you pay...so the income tax itself is a little redundant, is it not?

Generally, infrastructure costs are shared in by the folks who use them: roads are an excellent example. I could be wrong but I don't believe that much tax money is really used for them; rather I'm under the impression that most roads [state routes at least] are funded by ticket costs, license fees, and pretty much just about every dollar the state DMV gets its hands on.

If I had been running things from the start, obviously things would have happened a lot differently, but I will admit that my attacks on taxation are somewhat heavy-handed, but I do it to prove a point: I'm willing to pay for some things so long as I have an option to do so: water lines and electrical lines are worth my money for example, while things like Welfare and so forth, are not. I'm not particularly enamored with the idea of tax funded infrastructure, but it's not a system you could really think about changing overnight, if at all.

Philosophically, I don't believe the government has any legitimate purpose beyond punishing people who initiate force on others, be it physically or through less overt means like breaking a contract or stealing a Ming vase.
So if you had the choice to delegate what taxes you pay to certain projects (infrastructure over welfare, for example), would you be more content (as though anyone can be content to be robbed of half their income every year)? I'd also add in the caveat that you get OUT of social systems what you put in...for example, if you decide not to pay into unemployment insurance, you should be ineligible for it if ever you are unemployed. (frankly, something I think that would only bite the poor in the ass, because the rich would be unlikely to need that sort of safety net in the first place, but the poor would...and yet who could resist the temptation to put more money in your pocket and NOT pay for unemployment insurance? I don't know...I'd just like to actually have what my paycheck says I made instead of that diminished number on the very bottom....)

EDIT: and at this point, Sinuhue, I'm not very interested in keeping my country "militarlily significant." As far as I'm concerned, all it has to be able to do is repel an invasion: I'm not a big fan of this interventionist shit we've been pulling for the last 88 years.
This just makes me love you even more :D

So if you had the choice to delegate what taxes you pay to certain projects (infrastructure over welfare, for example), would you be more content (as though anyone can be content to be robbed of half their income every year)?
In a lot of cases, we already do. When I went to go vote in November, for example, there were some bond issues up for vote on city infrastructure. It just so happened that we actually needed new storm sewers, so I voted for it. What I have a problem with is tax acts being passed with the assumption that none of us have any idea what's going on: I don't like the idea of other people deciding how much money to take, especially considering that the vast majority of them are utterly irresponsible with it.

So, to answer your question: yes, at least nominally.

I'd also add in the caveat that you get OUT of social systems what you put in...for example, if you decide not to pay into unemployment insurance, you should be ineligible for it if ever you are unemployed.
Fine by me. Hell, I think I'm unemployed right now [my boss is such a chickenshit she won't tell me; she's waiting for me to come in and read the schedule]. I lived in Akron Ohio for about 2 months without a job or unemployment benefits and I made it out OK.

In fact, I've heard some rumors that there's some manner of IRS form that I can fill out in order to renounce all government services and become tax exempt. I hope I figure out how to do that someday.

3% income tax? Oh. My. God.

Well, that was before taxation became the government's pet industry.

In a lot of cases, we already do. When I went to go vote in November, for example, there were some bond issues up for vote on city infrastructure. It just so happened that we actually needed new storm sewers, so I voted for it. What I have a problem with is tax acts being passed with the assumption that none of us have any idea what's going on: I don't like the idea of other people deciding how much money to take, especially considering that the vast majority of them are utterly irresponsible with it. Sheesh, I wish we got a say in things like that.

I'm more and more disillusioned each day with the waste of our tax dollars. It's not even that I think private interests could do it better, just that I think the people making the decisions are friggin idiots who think that a fair price for a screwdriver is $250. We don't have a process to keep government fiscally responsible, which is my biggest annoyance. I could certainly do better things with that half of my paycheck that gets flushed down the toilet every month than piss it away in the hands of incompetents.

But I'm all for autonomy of municipalities. I'm just not exactly sure how the funds would be raised for necessary projects. And I would want some sort of system in place to help out those who are temporarily in dire straits.

Frankly, sales taxes ARE income taxes...the more you buy, the more income you clearly have, the more tax you pay...so the income tax itself is a little redundant, is it not?Not at all. A poor person is going to be spending a higher percentage of their income on things they need to live, such as food and the like. A rich person, while they need the same things to live, will have a lot of money left over to spend, or not to spend. They could easily put their extra money into a bank, and thus, not pay sales taxes on it. The income tax doesn't allow such a scenario to occur. Well, not in theory, anyway. There are far too many loopholes in the U.S. income tax system. Closing the loopholes is what should be done, and then perhaps after that happens, looking into lowering the income tax might be an idea.

3% income tax? Oh. My. God.

Well, that was before taxation became the government's pet industry.
I hate that we get whammied so much...income tax, provincial and federal tax, sales tax, GST, HST...and every other little hidden tax we don't even know about...when all is said and done, the amount of actuall income you earn is negligible at best. And all taxes are 'temporary' measures that never stay temporary...

Not at all. A poor person is going to be spending a higher percentage of their income on things they need to live, such as food and the like. A rich person, while they need the same things to live, will have a lot of money left over to spend, or not to spend. They could easily put their extra money into a bank, and thus, not pay sales taxes on it. The income tax doesn't allow such a scenario to occur. Well, not in theory, anyway. There are far too many loopholes in the U.S. income tax system. Closing the loopholes is what should be done, and then perhaps after that happens, looking into lowering the income tax might be an idea.
Yeah, I'm assuming that rich and poor would be spending at the same ratio, which is of course, not realistic.

Sheesh, I wish we got a say in things like that.

I'm more and more disillusioned each day with the waste of our tax dollars. It's not even that I think private interests could do it better, just that I think the people making the decisions are friggin idiots who think that a fair price for a screwdriver is $250. We don't have a process to keep government fiscally responsible, which is my biggest annoyance. I could certainly do better things with that half of my paycheck that gets flushed down the toilet every month than piss it away in the hands of incompetents.
Well, I think what's really happening when we see things like the Pentagon paying $600 for a hammer or $800 for a toilet seat is that the government is balancing out the receipts for things that it bought and paid for, but doesn't want to tell us about. If, for example, we happen to buy yellowcake from Niger [even though this is a bad example, I'm sure we make more of it here], it probably wouldn't be something that the government would be too thrilled with us knowing about. However, it still has to make the amounts add up.

But I'm all for autonomy of municipalities. I'm just not exactly sure how the funds would be raised for necessary projects. And I would want some sort of system in place to help out those who are temporarily in dire straits.
It depends on just what those projects are and what the values of the communnity have to say about it. If, for example, you lived in a city of Objectivists, there would be no poor population to speak of; the vast majority of them would find a more 'generous' municipality to feed the Miller High Life monkey.

I don't necessarily have any problems with these ideas in and of themselves, but I do have a problem with the notion that the only way to do anything about it is to sanction theft. Honestly, I really expected humanity to find a better way to raise money for its governance than 'Tax and Spend.'

I think this was actually the first debate I got into when I decided to foray into General. I'll tell you what I told the first guy I argued this with: regardless of its origins, you cannot possibly look me in the eye and tell me that the internet would be anything without private interests.

It was a lot already before private interests. Then Internet porn came, and, well, there ya go.

Also, the internet was not conceived by CERN, not by a damn sight.

Hello? Did I write the Internet? No. I wrote "the world wide web" - you know, that whole thing where the porn is at nowadays mostly accessible to the common user (usenet, is, however a good source too). Don't tell me you don't know the difference between the Internet and the World Wide Web?

It was originally envisioned by MIT technicians in the early 60's [the first paper outlining packet switching theory was written in 1961]. The first connection did not occur in Europe [and I honestly can't believe that someone's actually suggesting it did], but rather from two computers in the States, one in Massachussetts and the other in California.

Again: WWW != Internet. What you are thinking of is ARPA and what later became "Arpanet" which was a sort of precursor to the Internet. Add e-mail, gopher, ftp, and things like the world wide web, and then you'll have the Internet of today.

Maybe you need to brush up on your terminology? Because nobody said the Internet was invented in Europe. The World Wide Web was, though, by a man working for publicly funded research centre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web).

Very technically, the internet is a product of neither the private sector or the government, but rather the scholastic field. However, the corporate sector has had a hundred times the influence over the development and refinement of the internet than the government ever has.

We have porn to thank for that. Porn and warez. After the US government released the Internet, those were the things that grew. BBS and many older parts of the Internet have withered because, well, porn was hard to find there and use.

Still does not negate that without government and taxes, there would be no Internet, and there would be no World Wide Web. Why? Because we'd still have private actors bitching about which system to use to plug it all together and which protocols to use for what TCP/IP does today.

Telling me that the Internet is a primarily government influenced institution because ARPANET was govenrment owned is ridiculous. If our Glorious Government is so great at this sort of thing, how did the internet make more progress in the last 5 years than it did in its first forty?

Because it had been kept from the public during those 40 years. The government didn't need it to be what we, the public, in the future wanted it to be, so it simply didn't become it. Nevertheless, no government and taxes = no invention of the Internet at all, so all those private venturers you speak of would not have had any means to supply us with porn, warez, gambling and the occasional e-mail that's not spam.

Seriously, that has got to be one of the weakest debating positions I can think of.

No, what seems even weaker is you not knowing what you're talking about in the first place when it comes to the Internet and its parts, and forgetting that without the inventor, there is no invention.

I'm sorry, but I cant' say as I agree with any of this philosophically. In my opnions, the United States has not been making anything even remotely resembling good foreign policy decisions [for the most part] since 1917. If you ask me, World War 1 was when things got bad for us.

On the contrary, if you want to look at your economy, the World Wars and all those huge military contracts going to your domestic market were quite the boons for your economy. At least WWII was - it finally ended the recsession, and left you as virtually the only Western power standing, and it gave you nukes and nuclear power, not to mention a brain drain from Europe through all the scientists moving to where there were opportunities to get grants - again with the government - to do research.

Right, but see that's sort of my point: without steam engines and railroads there's no transcontinental railroad to charter in the first place. I think you're missing the forest for the trees.

And without infrastructure, your steam engine stands still. It was, and is, a symbiosis and cutting government and tax money out of the equation would be sheer revisionism.

Not at all. A poor person is going to be spending a higher percentage of their income on things they need to live, such as food and the like. A rich person, while they need the same things to live, will have a lot of money left over to spend, or not to spend. They could easily put their extra money into a bank, and thus, not pay sales taxes on it. The income tax doesn't allow such a scenario to occur. Well, not in theory, anyway. There are far too many loopholes in the U.S. income tax system. Closing the loopholes is what should be done, and then perhaps after that happens, looking into lowering the income tax might be an idea.
Actually, my main beef with the sales tax is that it's a double tax. The government doesn't seem to be doing a very good job of realizing that if you tax all money as soon as it's made, you can't/shouldn't be able to tax it again because that would consitute tithing from the same source twice, or in some cases more than twice [note the Death Tax, which is pretty much a triple tax, unless you never had to pay for the Sales Tax, which is immensely unlikely].

Melkor, honestly, we need the income tax just to pay for the military, which is off in timbuckthree fighting...two wars, holding down many places over seas to keep the NKs and the Commies down, and the like. I forgot, are you for or against the military that we have?


Oh, and there were taxes before the 1861 income tax. You know that. Don't misrepresent, it isn't nice. It was the first income tax, the first direct tax, but indirect taxes had existed through the founding of the country (shay's rebellion). That and we revolted because we had no representation when we were taxed, not because of the tax itself.

SNIP
I have no interest in this debate. You win, if you want to think of it that way. If you want to continue thinking the Government has done more for the internet [or www] then you're more than welcome to do so.

Everyone's entitled to the wrong opinion.

Melkor, honestly, we need the income tax just to pay for the military, which is off in timbuckthree fighting...two wars, holding down many places over seas to keep the NKs and the Commies down, and the like. I forgot, are you for or against the military that we have?


Oh, and there were taxes before the 1861 income tax. You know that. Don't misrepresent, it isn't nice. It was the first income tax, the first direct tax, but indirect taxes had existed through the founding of the country (shay's rebellion). That and we revolted because we had no representation when we were taxed, not because of the tax itself.'

Uhhh.. I do specify that it's the first income tax. Try reading the thread title.

And no, I am not a fan of US militarism.

Well, I think what's really happening when we see things like the Pentagon paying $600 for a hammer or $800 for a toilet seat is that the government is balancing out the receipts for things that it bought and paid for, but doesn't want to tell us about. If, for example, we happen to buy yellowcake from Niger [even though this is a bad example, I'm sure we make more of it here], it probably wouldn't be something that the government would be too thrilled with us knowing about. However, it still has to make the amounts add up. I don't know about that...I think you're giving the bureaucrats too much credit. I think there is an incredible amount of waste because of ridiculous funding rules and ways of doing business that are expensive and taken for granted. For example, in my office (a public school, directly funded by the provincial government rather than through property taxes), we have a certain budget for office supplies every year. If we don't spend the full amount, we get LESS money the next year. To keep the funding up, we end up replacing things that don't need replacing. This is a pretty common practice. As well, the higher up you get on the ladder, the more expenses you are able to rack up...mileage, dinners, business meetings in Peru and such. Not really things that serve a purpose in the sense of increasing our profits. Not that balance out.

And then you have people making purchases who have no idea of the actual value of things, not bothering to shop around, just picking the 'sanctioned' catalogue and paying ridiculous prices for things....like $4 dollar pens instead of a bulk box that would bring the price down to 56 cents a unit. And patronage...you scratch my back, I'll give you this overpriced cleaning contract.

I don't think there is deliberate government policy to create this sort of waste...I just think that everyone in their individual little positions does their best to get as much as they can out of the ministry, or whatever. And that kind of shit adds up to ridiculous proportions.

'

Uhhh.. I do specify that it's the first income tax. Try reading the thread title.

And no, I am not a fan of US militarism.
"It's interesting to see that we went nearly 100 years without taking dime one from our citizens. Now we've passed 46 Tax acts in the last century. Why is it that so many politicians and citizens claim to revere [heh] our founding fathers and then turn around and pull off the same kind of shit that we were rebelling against in the first place?"


I fail to see how every other damn indirect tax we had failed to take "[a] dime [from] our citizens"

Actually, my main beef with the sales tax is that it's a double tax. The government doesn't seem to be doing a very good job of realizing that if you tax all money as soon as it's made, you can't/shouldn't be able to tax it again because that would consitute tithing from the same source twice, or in some cases more than twice [note the Death Tax, which is pretty much a triple tax, unless you never had to pay for the Sales Tax, which is immensely unlikely].Oh, I agree, I think we should abolish the Sales Tax completely.

Stuff
That sounds pretty reasonable; I hadn't thought of that.

And CSW, I meant 'dime one from our paychecks.' I probably should have specified.

I would be happy if I paid 3% income tax where I live! :D

I have no interest in this debate. You win, if you want to think of it that way. If you want to continue thinking the Government has done more for the internet [or www] then you're more than welcome to do so.

Everyone's entitled to the wrong opinion.

As everyone is entitled to cower out of a debate with a bunch of straw men.

That sounds pretty reasonable; I hadn't thought of that.

And CSW, I meant 'dime one from our paychecks.' I probably should have specified.
And the difference between getting it from the money when it's been put into a bank and later withdrawn and taking it directly from our paychecks is?

Okay, let's imagine that the income tax was revoked. Governments still have many other ways of raising revenue. Let's even just get rid of the Sales Tax, and the GST (in Canada). There are still all those 'hidden' taxes, like the 'Sin' taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, transport taxes on automobile sales and so on and so forth. Lottery ticket sales, raffles, the money coming from these things are no laughing matter. Surely we are capable of achieving more fiscal responsibility and making use of these monies to the same effect? What would that take though? More citizen involvement, clearly...are we just too lazy? Is THAT why we just pay, and complain in bars?

And the difference between getting it from the money when it's been put into a bank and later withdrawn and taking it directly from our paychecks is?
One you notice more (look at that big number on my tax return) and the other bleeds you dry slowly.... :D

As everyone is entitled to cower out of a debate with a bunch of straw men.

Excuse me?!

I spoke not one inaccuracy in my post. I also did not imply that corporate interests were the sole factor in the internet's creation/development, only that it was the prominent one.

Furthermore, I'm not 'cowering' out of a God Damned thing, since this is not a thread intended to debate the development of the internet. If you want to talk about that, you go ahead and make your own thread about it. Don't crash mine with your spiteful phrasing and inscrutable hostility.

If you can't discuss things civilly, I suggest you refrain from discussing them at all.

Mmmm...Melkor getting bitchy...this is better than the Sex thread :p

And the difference between getting it from the money when it's been put into a bank and later withdrawn and taking it directly from our paychecks is?
As a point of fact, the main difference is that we aren't obligated to put money in the bank, but we are obligated to get paid. If there were no practical difference, it is unlikely the Tax Code would have been amended to the degree that it has been today.

Back in those days, banks didn't have quite the volume they have today. If there were truly no difference and everyone in the country banked their entire paychecks all the time, we probably wouldn't have ever had to develop the income tax, and I'd be bitching about that instead.

Melkor, I don't know how you'll take this. But could you tone down the language?
Oh, my. If you find MU a bit bristling, I must drive you into a fit of fucking frenzy. :p

In fact, I've heard some rumors that there's some manner of IRS form that I can fill out in order to renounce all government services and become tax exempt. I hope I figure out how to do that someday.
Okay, I've got a stiffy! Really, if you ever find out exactly how to accomplish this feat with a form, please help a brotha out and send me a TG.
As a self-employed individual, I have no chance of even collecting unemployment, or any other help from the gov should business dry up for an extended period of time. I wouldn't even qualify for welfare or food stamps because, frankly, I'm white and have no illegitimate children. I honestly have no reason to participate in these programs whatsoever.

As a point of fact, the main difference is that we aren't obligated to put money in the bank, but we are obligated to get paid. If there were no practical difference, it is unlikely the Tax Code would have been amended to the degree that it has been today.

Back in those days, banks didn't have quite the volume they have today. If there were truly no difference and everyone in the country banked their entire paychecks all the time, we probably wouldn't have ever had to develop the income tax, and I'd be bitching about that instead.
I was more referring to tarrifs, but...

Okay, I've got a stiffy! Really, if you ever find out exactly how to accomplish this feat with a form, please help a brotha out and send me a TG.
As a self-employed individual, I have no chance of even collecting unemployment, or any other help from the gov should business dry up for an extended period of time. I wouldn't even qualify for welfare or food stamps because, frankly, I'm white and have no illegitimate children. I honestly have no reason to participate in these programs whatsoever.
And I guess you never plan to use the police, firemen, roads, disaster relief, or many many many other services?

Sales Tax - is this the US equivalent of the UK's Value Added Tax? Whatever it is, it should go.

Excuse me?!

I spoke not one inaccuracy in my post.

This last one, or the one I responded to previously? Because equating WWW and the Internet was quite inaccurate of you, as was claiming I had somehow said "Internet" when I wrote "WWW". I do believe that you have to have at least a rudimentary knowledge of how the Internet was and is constructed before you try to argue about it inception and its evolution.

I also did not imply that corporate interests were the sole factor in the internet's creation/development, only that it was the prominent one.

In that you are incorrect, but we'll disagree about that I suppose, but the straw man lay in saying that I had somehow argued that the government was the big contributor, when, in fact, I ended my post talking about a symbiosis between private and public interests.

Furthermore, I'm not 'cowering' out of a God Damned thing, since this is not a thread intended to debate the development of the internet. If you want to talk about that, you go ahead and make your own thread about it. Don't crash mine with your spiteful phrasing and inscrutable hostility.

If you can't discuss things civilly, I suggest you refrain from discussing them at all.

Your grossly inaccurate simplification of what I was saying, coupled with your snide little remark about "everyone being entitled to their wrong opinion," after you misrepresent my opinion and hang yourself upon only one part of what I wrote (and as I said, was necessary to be dealt with if the inception and evolution of the Internet and its parts were to be discussed), leaves you with no standing to act indignant, as far as I am concerned, when you get a similar remark in return. Not so much fun to be diminished in such a way, is it?

So please, do practice what you preach next time, because you sure weren't doing it here. I hope you are able to appreciate my candour. You and I have nothing more to discuss here.

And I guess you never plan to use the police, firemen, roads, disaster relief, or many many many other services?
First of all, they're not going to take the trouble to verify your identity before responding to a 911 call: signing the form would not incur a cessation of these services because simply put, if your house catches fire others might catch fire too. No City Fire Department in their right mind would pass up an emergency call, IRS form be damned. It's not like they'd have the time to look it up anyway.

Same thing with police. If police stopped serving you when you signed the form, everyone that did would be immune from speeding tickets. Also, by this logic, such a person couldn't even be brought to trial or even arrested.

Roads aren't tax funded anyway, so that's out the window, and chances are most of us will be able to live our lives without using disaster aid.

You and I have nothing more to discuss here.
You're goddamn right we don't. And if your attitude here is any indicator, I'd prefer it if you would avoid me completely. I'm sure you won't see it as any big loss.

Okay, let's imagine that the income tax was revoked. Governments still have many other ways of raising revenue. Let's even just get rid of the Sales Tax, and the GST (in Canada). There are still all those 'hidden' taxes, like the 'Sin' taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, transport taxes on automobile sales and so on and so forth

None of these belong in a civilized society either. Eliminate all forms of taxation, strip the government to nothing but the courts, cops, and a small defensive military. Then fund it with contract insurance.

Inrastructure needn't be socialized at all. I don't understand why people are so stuck on the idea that the government is the only way roads can be built. As if governments from the beginning of time handed down to each new generation of rulers the divine secrets of paving and gravel.

It never cease to amaze how two intelligent people can turn something so small into something so large.

Sigh.

First of all, they're not going to take the trouble to verify your identity before responding to a 911 call: signing the form would not incur a cessation of these services because simply put, if your house catches fire others might catch fire too. No City Fire Department in their right mind would pass up an emergency call, IRS form be damned. It's not like they'd have the time to look it up anyway.

Same thing with police. If police stopped serving you when you signed the form, everyone that did would be immune from speeding tickets. Also, by this logic, such a person couldn't even be brought to trial or even arrested.I see your logic about the fire company, but if what you say about the police is true, then it's quite silly to have such a form in the first place. If you really aren't dropping out of all of society's benefits, then the form is inaccurate, and therefore shouldn't exist. Furthermore, it makes perfect sense for a person to be arrested or ticketed for speeding even if they're not paying for police protection because other people are paying the police to be protected from that person.


Roads aren't tax funded anyway, so that's out the window, and chances are most of us will be able to live our lives without using disaster aid.I'm sure some of them are. I realize there are many methods of funding, but it's difficult, for instance, for states to determine which of them funds an interstate, and how much funding each of them contributes.

You're goddamn right we don't. And if your attitude here is any indicator, I'd prefer it if you would avoid me completely. I'm sure you won't see it as any big loss.

I leave you glad that our positions have been disclosed. You being a moderator on this forum, I of course will not be able to avoid you completely, so I ask for forgiveness in advance if I am unable to entirely fulfil your request. We'll act as adults both of us in chance encounters, I'm assured.

Well the form, as far as I know, only handles things covered by Federal taxes; things like income tax and SS and so on, I'm not certain whether or not it covers ventures funded by the State. This would mean you're still paying into your local police force.

Hell, technically I'm not even sure the form even exists. I've never seen one or heard my stories verified by a tax expert.

EDIT: And Fass, I understand, but I was really scratching my head after reading posts 10 and 28, wondering just what in the devil I said that agitated you so much. I detected strong amounts of sarcasm and hostility, many of which were mirrored in my responses. I don't think either of us flamed/baited the other one, but I had a hard time understanding why things turned so sour so fast.

And I guess you never plan to use the police, firemen, roads, disaster relief, or many many many other services?
Funny you bring that up:

Police: Since I own a gun, I have no plans on "using" the police, who've only used me to pay into the system for a minor marijuana charge and several open container tickets. The police won't be saving my ass if someone breaks into my home or threatens me, I will. They might arrive after the fact, when everything has been stolen and I'm lying dead. Thanks, but I'm fine with the laws in Florida that state I can shoot you if you unlawfully enter my home with ill intent.

Firemen: If I ever need them, that's what my local and state sales taxes are used for... not my Federal Income Tax.

Roads: I don't drive, unlike all of these hypocritical econuts with GreenPeace stickers on their vehicles. People with cars should pay for those roads, not me. I work from home as well, so no tears here if they were privately funded by those who choose to drive on them. I don't know what hicktown you come from, but here in Tampa, you still have to pay to drive on the most efficient roads. It's called tolls. Why do you think that is?

Disaster Relief: I live on the Gulf Coast of Florida. Too many people I know had to move, or have no roofs, or have serious damage to their homes due to last year's hurricane blitzkreig. I'm afraid that the gov isn't rushing in to help them, their very privately funded insurance companies are.

Many other services: Of course, I could tell you whether I'd be willing to pay for them one by one, but this is too general to respond to.

BTW, I'm not one of those libertarians who believe that all taxation is theft (just most of it). I belive there should be a minimal flat tax that supports those services we are guaranteed under the constitution. That includes almost everything you've mentioned, roads and such services that could be privately provided aside.

Funny you bring that up:

Police: Since I own a gun, I have no plans on "using" the police, who've only used me to pay into the system for a minor marijuana charge and several open container tickets. The police won't be saving my ass if someone breaks into my home or threatens me, I will. They might arrive after the fact, when everything has been stolen and I'm lying dead. Thanks, but I'm fine with the laws in Florida that state I can shoot you if you unlawfully enter my home with ill intent.So then if your stuff is stolen, you're saying you don't want it back? Or that you don't want the people who stole it to be prosecuted? Or that you intend to go for the militia system and prosecute them yourself?


Firemen: If I ever need them, that's what my local and state sales taxes are used for... not my Federal Income Tax.Fair enough, if that's how things are paid for there.


Roads: I don't drive, unlike all of these hypocritical econuts with GreenPeace stickers on their vehicles. People with cars should pay for those roads, not me. I work from home as well, so no tears here if they were privately funded by those who choose to drive on them. I don't know what hicktown you come from, but here in Tampa, you still have to pay to drive on the most efficient roads. It's called tolls. Why do you think that is?Well, tolls are one way of paying for roads, and that's fine. Here in PA, I'm pretty sure the only toll road is the turnpike.


Disaster Relief: I live on the Gulf Coast of Florida. Too many people I know had to move, or have no roofs, or have serious damage to their homes. I'm afraid that the gov isn't rushing in to help them, their very privately funded insurance companies are. So then was the disaster relief money the president promised something that never came, or was it just a token gesture?


Many other services: Of course, I could tell you whether I'd be willing to pay for them one by one, but this is too general to respond to.Fair enough.


BTW, I'm not one of those libertarians who believe that all taxation is theft (just most of it). I belive there should be a minimal flat tax that supports those services we are guaranteed under the constitution. That includes almost everything you've mentioned, roads and such services that could be privately provided aside.So then you don't advocate a complete separation from government. Fair enough. I'd argue against your views further, but I'm afraid of hijacking the thread too much. :D

Hell, technically I'm not even sure the form even exists. I've never seen one or heard my stories verified by a tax expert.Oh <whew> that's good. Perhaps it doesn't. But as you described it it would seem rather silly for it to exist.

This isn't to say that I don't think people should have the option to completely withdraw from society, but that if they do, it should mean withdrawing completely, not simply withdrawing from the things that are convenient to them.

EDIT: And Fass, I understand, but I was really scratching my head after reading posts 10 and 28, wondering just what in the devil I said that agitated you so much. I detected strong amounts of sarcasm and hostility, many of which were mirrored in my responses. I don't think either of us flamed/baited the other one, but I had a hard time understanding why things turned so sour so fast.

You know, as have I! I thought I detected the same things in you, so, it seems like we really didn't have any reasons for acting the way we did, and both our remarks ended up being harsher than necessary because of what seems to have been an unfortunate misunderstanding.

Chalk this one up to a full moon? (I don't know if it is the full moon, but we can pretend. :D)

EDIT: It's the new moon today! I think things can be chalked up to that, too.

You know, as have I! I thought I detected the same things in you, so, it seems like we really didn't have any reasons for acting the way we did, and both our remarks ended up being harsher than necessary because of what seems to have been an unfortunate misunderstanding.

Chalk this one up to a full moon? (I don't know if it is the full moon, but we can pretend. :D)
Heh. Fair enough. Full moon it is.
Sometimes I'm a bit abrasive with my wording, but that's intentional and I'm obligated to do my best to make sure it's not actually pointed at people, since flaming is even a bigger no-no for me than it is for any of you. Sometimes I attack a concept so vicioulsy that the people who believe in it become [needlessly] offended. Just be glad none of you have seen my opinions on Christianity.

Sometimes I'm a bit abrasive with my wording, but that's intentional and I'm obligated to do my best to make sure it's not actually pointed at people, since flaming is even a bigger no-no for me than it is for any of you. Sometimes I attack a concept so vicioulsy that the people who believe in it become [needlessly] offended. Just be glad none of you have seen my opinions on Christianity.

If they're anything like the ones I have to curtail to avoid the quickest bannination in history, then I hear ya loud and clear! ;)

So then if your stuff is stolen, you're saying you don't want it back? Or that you don't want the people who stole it to be prosecuted? Or that you intend to go for the militia system and prosecute them yourself?
Well, as I said before, I do advocate a minimal flat tax because I am constitutionally promised these services. My point being, I'm so not getting my money's worth. My Rottweiler and gun will do far more to prevent these things from happening, which is worth far more than the cure. Perhaps if more of our money was spent combatting violent crime, instead of victimless crimes (like prosecuting "evil" marijuana users), I might have a lot less to bitch about concerning the misuse of my tax dollars.

So then was the disaster relief money the president promised something that never came, or was it just a token gesture?
Sure, it fed a few desperate people. Much of that help came from privately donated funds as well (Red Cross). I'm not aware of a single person that was helped with publicly funded money though. The local churches helped out a lot, as did volunteers. The government has yet to get anyone a new home or fix the damages the hurricanes wrought on their houses, though. Doesn't seem like much bang for the buck. Again, that's why you shouyldn't depend on the government in a situation like this. Your insurance company however, is someone you can be glad you've given the money to though. ;)

Would I be correct in assuming that our dear Melkor may share an opinion or two with Ms. Ayn Rand?

Well, as I said before, I do advocate a minimal flat tax because I am constitutionally promised these services. My point being, I'm so not getting my money's worth. My Rottweiler and gun will do far more to prevent these things from happening, which is worth far more than the cure. Perhaps if more of our money was spent combatting violent crime, instead of victimless crimes (like prosecuting "evil" marijuana users), I might have a lot less to bitch about concerning the misuse of my tax dollars.I saw that at the end of your post. :) So as far as that particular argument goes, consider it to be dropped.


Sure, it fed a few desperate people. Much of that help came from privately donated funds as well (Red Cross). I'm not aware of a single person that was helped with publicly funded money though. The local churches helped out a lot, as did volunteers. The government has yet to get anyone a new home or fix the damages the hurricanes wrought on their houses, though. Doesn't seem like much bang for the buck. Again, that's why you shouyldn't depend on the government in a situation like this. Your insurance company however, is someone you can be glad you've given the money to though. ;)Ah, I see. I knew that the money was there, but didn't know how far it went or to who.

Would I be correct in assuming that our dear Melkor may share an opinion or two with Ms. Ayn Rand?
Oh my yes, just look at the quotes in my sig. I do in fact consider myself an Orthodox Objectivist.

I knew there had to be a reason why I agreed with you. :) In fact I teach a little class on Objectivism here in my community.

The difference between now and the 1760s when Great Britain levied the (minimal) taxes on the colonies is that the colonies had zero say in the government, so the principle of "taxation without representation" led to the riots.

Nowadays, Congress imposes ridiculous laws and budgetary constraints on Washington, D.C. and they have no voice in government, even though they pay taxes to support the government. So there's an example of our government's hypocrisy.

The Nowadays, Congress imposes ridiculous laws and budgetary constraints on Washington, D.C. and they have no voice in government, even though they pay taxes to support the government. So there's an example of our government's hypocrisy.Another example is that convicted felons have no say in the workings of the government (as they can't vote) but pay taxes once they're released.

I knew there had to be a reason why I agreed with you. :) In fact I teach a little class on Objectivism here in my community.
Oh, thank GOD, some backup! Finally!

It's always infinately gratifying to meet other Objectivists every once in a while. It reassures me that there are in fact some other sane minds out there ;)

Nowadays, Congress imposes ridiculous laws and budgetary constraints on Washington, D.C. and they have no voice in government, even though they pay taxes to support the government. So there's an example of our government's hypocrisy.

Are you STONED?! Oh god if only congress WOULD impose budget constraints on DC. If the socialists in this country will not give up their free bread and circuses, then cutting off their funding and slowly starving their social programs might be the only way.

In fact I propose a new freedom movement. We all know this socialist hell-hole will collapse eventually, we might as well get it over with. Everyone should get on as many social programs and take as many government hand-outs as possible. While at the same time avoid paying any taxes whatsoever. We'll suck the bitch dry and watch it fall apart! Then we can rebuild after all of those who suckled on the teet of big brother have shriveled up and died!

Are you STONED?! Oh god if only congress WOULD impose budget constraints on DC. If the socialists in this country will not give up their free bread and circuses, then cutting off their funding and slowly starving their social programs might be the only way.

In fact I propose a new freedom movement. We all know this socialist hell-hole will collapse eventually, we might as well get it over with. Everyone should get on as many social programs and take as many government hand-outs as possible. While at the same time avoid paying any taxes whatsoever. We'll suck the bitch dry and watch it fall apart! Then we can rebuild after all of those who suckled on the teet of big brother have shriveled up and died!You don't actually believe that the U.S. actually bears more than a passing resemblance to a socialist country, do you?

Heh, I knew you'd be all over that one, Jello. I think he's exaggerating just a tad; a mixed economy doesn't embody every aspect of socialism, only a few. Even if I were a socialist this would piss me off, either go the full nine or quitcherbitchin; a mixed-economy seems kind of half-assed to me.

Heh, I knew you'd be all over that one, Jello. I think he's exaggerating just a tad; a mixed economy doesn't embody every aspect of socialism, only a few. Even if I were a socialist this would piss me off, either go the full nine or quitcherbitchin; a mixed-economy seems kind of half-assed to me.Oh, I agree, especially because for every program that distributes money from the rich to the poor, there's at least one that distributes money from the poor to the rich.

You don't actually believe that the U.S. actually bears more than a passing resemblance to a socialist country, do you?

Ha! The U.S. is damn near a full blown socialist state! You can't tell me that where on average HALF of the money you earn is stolen from you directly, and most of the other half is stolen through the inflated costs of products and services due to regulations, tariffs, taxes, and fees imposed at every level of production, that you're NOT describing a socialist nation.

That creepy bastard on the infomercials at four in the morning with the question mark suit, Mathew Lesko, proves what kind of country we live in. He proves that one can get whatever one wants through the government.

Oh, I agree, especially because for every program that distributes money from the rich to the poor, there's at least one that distributes money from the poor to the rich.
Holy shit! Someone on the left finally gets it. Half-assed welfare states don't help the poor. They only help to foster a sub-class of dependancy because for every dollar spent on social welfare, there's 5 that goes to corporate welfare.

Go all the way baby, or don't traverse down the path period.

Actually, our income tax rate doesn't approach 50% unless you happen to make an uber-ridiculous amount of money. I'm working class, and my tax rate generally hovers around 20%. Aside from this and the 'full blown socialist state' assertation, however, I think the rest of the post is pretty accurate.

Consider, for example, that most socialist states levy significantly more taxes than we do, and have things like nationalised healthcare.

Ha! The U.S. is damn near a full blown socialist state! You can't tell me that where on average HALF of the money you earn is stolen from you directly, and most of the other half is stolen through the inflated costs of products and services due to regulations, tariffs, taxes, and fees imposed at every level of production, that you're NOT describing a socialist nation.Melkor addressed the tax issue already. Most of the stuff that the U.S. imports is tariff free (NAFTA, WTO anyone?)


That creepy bastard on the infomercials at four in the morning with the question mark suit, Mathew Lesko, proves what kind of country we live in. He proves that one can get whatever one wants through the government.Actually, most of the stuff he describes in his book is for racial minorites or women. I regret saying this, though, as this will probably start a discussion about how oppressed white men are.

Holy shit! Someone on the left finally gets it. Half-assed welfare states don't help the poor. They only help to foster a sub-class of dependancy because for every dollar spent on social welfare, there's 5 that goes to corporate welfare.

Go all the way baby, or don't traverse down the path period.I agree with you there. However, I don't think that the U.S. should go all the way. What I think should happen is that it should be legal to secede from the U.S. (except for the purpose of committing human rights violations) and so all of the people who want to go all the way can. (And the libertarians can have their paradise, too.) And the people who think they're better off partway can stay that way. It would work much better that way.

Actually, most of the stuff he describes in his book is for racial minorites or women. I regret saying this, though, as this will probably start a discussion about how oppressed white men are.
Heh. The irony of it is that we're the ones that pass these laws in the first place. It would be amusing to hear someone argue that the white man has somehow managed to enslave himself.

Well the form, as far as I know, only handles things covered by Federal taxes; things like income tax and SS and so on, I'm not certain whether or not it covers ventures funded by the State. This would mean you're still paying into your local police force.

Hell, technically I'm not even sure the form even exists. I've never seen one or heard my stories verified by a tax expert.

no mel, this form does not exist.

the only exemption from taxes that i can think of is the amish who under specific rules are exempt from social security taxes.

The finer semantic points of socialism aside, we are not allowed to prosper or perish based soley upon our own abilities.

I find it interesting that tree-hugging liberals are the most vehement opponents of capitalism. For capitalism is the structure of nature itself. By conducting all of the social engineering that the government does, we are screwing with natural selection. Let those who's natural tendencies lead them to be poor, be poor! And if they're such terrible pieces of shit that that can't find help through family, friends, or charitable organizations and churches, then who cares?

As for everything else, let the market decide. If it is needed (demand) then it will exist (supply). The government need never be involved.

no mel, this form does not exist.

the only exemption from taxes that i can think of is the amish who under specific rules are exempt from social security taxes.
Can I get some proof that it doesn't exist? If you're sure it doesn't you had to have read it somewhere, because I've heard numerous stories about people who have found and filled out said form. I trust those stories about as much as I trust some random person on the internet, so suffice to say I have no real information on the subject at present.

I'm not trying to egg you on or say you're wrong, I just want o know for sure one way or the other. If this form doesn't exist based solely upon your common sense, however, I'm afraid to say I can't accept that as any more valid than the stories I've already heard.

I find it interesting that tree-hugging liberals are the most vehement opponents of capitalism. For capitalism is the structure of nature itself. <shrug> Some people argue that ants are somewhat socialistic.

By conducting all of the social engineering that the government does, we are screwing with natural selection. Let those who's natural tendencies lead them to be poor, be poor! And if they're such terrible pieces of shit that that can't find help through family, friends, or charitable organizations and churches, then who cares?If you're going to go the social Darwinist route, then go all the way. Animals kill and eat each other all the time. So, by your logic, I should be able to kill and eat you. Or is it that you're saying that if "tree hugging liberals" liked nature so much, then we should be emulating it more, and they're being hypocrites if they don't?


As for everything else, let the market decide. If it is needed (demand) then it will exist (supply). The government need never be involved.Then what's the purpose of a government?

Heh. The irony of it is that we're the ones that pass these laws in the first place. It would be amusing to hear someone argue that the white man has somehow managed to enslave himself.
Lol. Good point. "White man's guilt" or somesuch, I'd imagine.

<shrug> Some people argue that ants are somewhat socialistic.

[QUOTE=Jello Biafra]If you're going to go the social Darwinist route, then go all the way. Animals kill and eat each other all the time. So, by your logic, I should be able to kill and eat you. Or is it that you're saying that if "tree hugging liberals" liked nature so much, then we should be emulating it more, and they're being hypocrites if they don't?
I'm saying that they are very inconsistent in their philosophy.
Yes I do agree with social Darwinism. But one must carry it to humans in a logical manner. We are identical to animals on almost every level except that we have the power to use reason. Thus, social Darwinism applies on all levels except that, as reasoning beings, we must respect one another's rights to life, liberty, and property.

Then what's the purpose of a government?

To keep said rights from being infringed by the innitiation of force or fraud. And to uphold contracts. Nothing more.

I like this Teradise guy. With practice, he might approach my level of debate skill ;)

Ha! The U.S. is damn near a full blown socialist state!
This is where I tuned you out...I was laughing too damn hard to read the rest!!!!! :D

I like this Teradise guy. With practice, he might approach my level of debate skill ;)
Oh one can only dream. :rolleyes:
Though in my defense I'm trying to run a store while having this conversation. ;)

Are you STONED?! Oh god if only congress WOULD impose budget constraints on DC. If the socialists in this country will not give up their free bread and circuses, then cutting off their funding and slowly starving their social programs might be the only way.As a matter of fact, I live near Washington, D.C. so I actually know what I'm talking about.

Either argue against my points with some tact and civility or don't bother at all.

My appologies, but physical proximity has little bearing on your understanding of how the government collects and spends its loot.

Can I get some proof that it doesn't exist? If you're sure it doesn't you had to have read it somewhere, because I've heard numerous stories about people who have found and filled out said form. I trust those stories about as much as I trust some random person on the internet, so suffice to say I have no real information on the subject at present.

I'm not trying to egg you on or say you're wrong, I just want o know for sure one way or the other. If this form doesn't exist based solely upon your common sense, however, I'm afraid to say I can't accept that as any more valid than the stories I've already heard.
given my 21.6kbps connection, im not going to search the internet for you. BUT if it exists (and it doesnt) it would be possible to find this form on the irs pages. so go to www.irs.gov and give it a look.

Oh <whew> that's good. Perhaps it doesn't. But as you described it it would seem rather silly for it to exist.

This isn't to say that I don't think people should have the option to completely withdraw from society, but that if they do, it should mean withdrawing completely, not simply withdrawing from the things that are convenient to them.
It doesn't. It would be impossible to enforce (all highways are government funded, and by extention, most roads)

Here:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p501.pdf


There is a way to withdraw from our society. Move.

Topic title: Happy Income Tax Day, Americans For one brief, very horrifying moment, I thought it was rapidly coming time to file my income taxes, again.

You are (un)officially warned for scaring the living daylights out of me. Any further violations of my peace of mind will result in you being slapped with a very large trout. :p

--The Jovial States of Cogitation
"Laugh about it for a moment."
NationStates Self-Proclaimed Court Jester

For one brief, very horrifying moment, I thought it was rapidly coming time to file my income taxes, again.

You are (un)officially warned for scaring the living daylights out of me. Any further violations of my peace of mind will result in you being slapped with a very large trout. :p

--The Jovial States of Cogitation
"Laugh about it for a moment."
NationStates Self-Proclaimed Court Jester
Hehehehehehe...I admit, I thought the same thing when I saw the thread...and felt good for being a Canadian and not having to file squat until next year. My sense of superiority was quickly punctured:(

On this date [Aug 5th] in 1861 the United States levied our first ever income tax to help pay for the Civil War. The tax was a flat tax at 3% of incomes over $800, and was passed under the Revenue Act of 1861 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1861). It was rescinded 11 years later, in 1872.

It's interesting to see that we went nearly 100 years without taking dime one from our citizens. Now we've passed 46 Tax acts in the last century. Why is it that so many politicians and citizens claim to revere [heh] our founding fathers and then turn around and pull off the same kind of shit that we were rebelling against in the first place?

229 years ago, our ancestors were putting holes in British britches for a negligible tax on tea and stamps. Oh, how far we've come.

Well I'm not sure that is entirely accurate. We did not go 100 years without taking a dime from our citizens, that's quite impossible. We had MUCH that needed funding, from highways to canals to our fledgling military to the Louisiana Purchase. The only source of income for the government would have been taxes. I am not an expert on early US taxation, but I can recall several taxes on things like Liquor and Tobacco(the Liquer one caused a rebellion I believe), and also tarrifs and such(that almost caused an early civil war). The government has been taking cash from us since day one, it is simply not logical to say it did not, as no government could function without it.

Also, our ancestors were not objecting to the amount or existense of tax, but the circumstance. The American Colonies had no representation except one member of Parliament who was appointed, not elected. That's why the cry was "Taxation without Representation," not just "Stop taking my cash God-damnit!"

I for one don't mind the existence of tax, I mind where it is spent. I object to the use of the military in a jingoist, interventionist role, so if I could I wouldn't pay for that. I do however support social welfare, education, roads - I'm good like that - and would gladly pay income tax for stuff like that which helps ensure we all have better lives. I guess everyone is willing to pay taxes for things they support though.

And Happy Income Tax day to you too! Fluffles, Fluffles for all! :fluffle:

...as far as I know, the supposed laissez-faire paradise of the 1800's never existed. Limited welfare programs did exist, and governments did take money away from people to build roads, canals, and, eventually, railroads.

The essential difference between those types of taxes (and, Melkor, what you paid on your storm sewere system) is who is doing the taxing and the rebuilding; federal vs. state vs. local

Over centralization of power, which is what we have been seeing in the 20th century (hence the higher federal taxes), almost always breeds corruption. A few hundred men in DC simply aren't accountable to me, whereas my local village board can take my phone calls and here me bitch about the poor sidewalks whenever I like. :p
Over centralization pretty much leads to greater lobbying as well. It is a LOT easier to bribe and intimidate a few thousand that are all in one city as opposed to hundreds of thousands of leaders spread out across the nation.

Gah, I hate Big Government. All we see now is the transformation of capitalism into corporatism, the emergence of welfare-state-lite, and a bunch of handouts to states. (We elect Senators based on "state interest." Nice to know all our elected represenatives are focused on screwing the taxpayers 15 miles away because they live in West Virginia, ey?)

The awful irony of our tax day, April 15th, is that is is only four days prior to the anniversary of the Battle of Lexington. On April 19th, 1775, the British regulars were defeated in the first battle of a war that was probably about unfair taxation, as much as any other cause.
[shameless plug]
It's past time to end the income tax once and for all. The Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org) is a national retail sales tax that would provide a realistic alternative to the income tax. HB 25 would provide:

Simply put, the FairTax replaces the way we're currently taxed - based on our annual income - with a tax on goods and services. The FairTax is a voluntary “consumption" tax: the more you buy, the more you pay in taxes, the less you buy, the less you pay in taxes.
It's simple.

Everyone pays their fair share of taxes, and with the FairTax rebate, spending up to the poverty level is tax free. The Federal government is fully funded, including Social Security and Medicare, and you don't need an expert to determine your Federal taxes.
It's simple.

So don't delay, study the information at the Fair Tax web site and I think it will convince you to start writing to your Reps and Senators, demanding their support for the bill.
[/shameless plug]