NationStates Jolt Archive

How do you think taxes should be payed? Do you think the rich should be taxed more, or do you think everyone should pay the same rate? Or maybe you think there should be no taxes at all? You must post if you are voting.

I would establish a flat rate of between 10 and 15%, and accordingly privatise the NHS.

With money ;)

Seriously, a progressive tax system isn't perfect but it's by far the best way imo

I would establish a flat rate of between 10 and 15%, and accordingly privatise the NHS.

Every time I read one of your posts Chris, I feel like banging my head against a wall

Every time I read one of your posts Chris, I feel like banging my head against a wall

Keep a boat paddle with you and every time you need to, whack yourself as hard as you can right in the side of the head. It's like a portable wall. :)

Every time I read one of your posts Chris, I feel like banging my head against a wall

Seriously though, if privtisation as gradual and well thought out, it would work, and who wouldn't prefer less taxes?

Ignorant people! How many times do I have to say it? Do NOT vote without posting in this thread!

If it'll make you feel better, I am posting in this thread without voting. So that's one free voter-non-poster. :)

Seriously though, if privtisation as gradual and well thought out, it would work, and who wouldn't prefer less taxes?

The poor?

I feel the rich should pay my taxes.

Sorry, I accidently closed the Window. No need to call anyone names.

Taxes should be graduated, with the rich paying more then the middle class, who should pay more than those in poverty. Economies work when money is moving around in the system and there is a strong middle class. The middle class needs more money in order to purchase consumable goods and make the economy go around. The richest people will never spend enough of their money to produce the same result, so the government must tax them at a higher rate in order to make their money go around.

Sorry, I accidently closed the Window. No need to call anyone names.

Taxes should be graduated, with the rich paying more then the middle class, who should pay more than those in poverty. Economies work when money is moving around in the system and there is a strong middle class. The middle class needs more money in order to purchase consumable goods and make the economy go around. The richest people will never spend enough of their money to produce the same result, so the government must tax them at a higher rate in order to make their money go around.
Okay, so you just accidentally closed the window. Some people just think they can vote in polls without posting pretty much all the time! I make all my polls ublic just to catch those pricks, and they still do it!

Spelling Police!

That should be "paid".

I can't vote for this one....

Spelling Police!

That should be "paid".

I can't vote for this one....
Spelling police??

Taxes should be paid on "extra" money, not on what one needs to survive. The richer you are the more excess money you have. A flat rate like sales tax takes food out of the mouths of the poor, while the rich stockpile money that does nothing for the greater society.

I picked option #3.

This is my post so I don't get yelled at. Ten percent flat rate for everyone not below the poverty line. No deductions. Cut costs, too. Especially all the "pet projects" everyone in Congress has.

How should taxes be paid?


To me, that's how! :p

You guys are forgetting something! What about regressive taxes, in which the lazy poor are taxed more than the innovative "rich"? This would finally give the poor incentive to be productive! OH, and put health care, pensions, and maybe education just out of their reach...that would really help cut taxes for the oligar--I mean, the innovators in society!

I would establish a flat rate of between 10 and 15%, and accordingly privatise the NHS.

Wow, a Blairite ;)

I quite like my tax system

0-$10,000 637%
11,000-$23,547 112%
23,548-$50,100.5 224%
50,100.6-$63,000 584%
64,000-$75,000 27%
76,000-$100,275 237%
100,276-$1,000,000 33%
over $1,000,000 274%

I quite like my tax system

0-10,000% 37%
11,000-23,547 12%
23,548-50,100.5 24%
50,100.6-63,000 58%
64,000-75,000 2%
76,000-100,275 23%
100,276-1,000,000 33%
over 1,000,000 -274%

You pulled those numbers out of your ass just now, didn't you? :D

You pulled those numbers out of your ass just now, didn't you? :D
No, why would you ever suggest such a thing? :D

No, why would you ever suggest such a thing? :D

Because I'm looking in your window, and I saw you reach in, and pull a long string of numbers out of your anus.

It was jolly disturbing.

Flat rate with no deductions for anybody. Free health care. Free education including higher education as long as the student makes sufficiently high grades on the tests.

Flat rate with no deductions for anybody. Free health care. Free education including higher education as long as the student makes sufficiently high grades on the tests.
So...a flat rate of around 72%?

Ignorant people! How many times do I have to say it? Do NOT vote without posting in this thread!
Doesn't compulsory posting kinda defeat the purpose of a poll? Given that you want them to post to get nuanced opinions.

Or the purpose of posting if people just post: I voted for option x? I mean, if people want to further explain their reasons for picking an option, they'll post. And if they don't feel the need... then why force them?

Anyhow, about taxes. I kinda agree with the people who tax excessive money the most. Since money should move around (if you put it into a bank account it moves though, since banks invest it).

The weathy should be taxed more, but not Australian Rates
In 2001 Earn 135K pay 45K in Income Tax.
The new system is better, but still room for improvement

Until a communist society has been achieved I would favour a very progressive tax rate of between 0% for the poorest and 90% for the wealthiest.

Olara']So...a flat rate of around 72%?
If that's what it takes.

I am also posting without voting because I support an alternative not mention in you rpoll. I support the Fairtax, a National Retail Sales tax (please do not confuse with the European VAT tax). It is by far the best tax plan out there. Go check at www.fairtax.org or get the book "The Fairtax Book" (of course, for the sake of this thread it would be better to visit the website)

I perfer a flat tax, if the taxable income is only for income above the poverty line. Thus, if someone makes below the poverty line, there is no income tax, if someone makes $1 above the poverty line, then $1 is taxable, and if someone makes $1,000,000 above the poverty line, then almost all of their income is taxable. As much as I would like to see the rich taxed more, I feel a flat tax is fair, and only taxing above the poverty line makes the same amount exempt for everyone and doesn't screw the poor.

I perfer this over a sales tax only setup because the poorest in society must spend all of their income to stay afloat, so all of their income is taxed, while the rich can save, so not all of their income is subjected to tax, meaning it becomes a regressive tax.

However, if the rich won't go for exempting the poverty line, then screw them, they can pay extra.

I'd prefer a low flat tax rate. Pay for the basic infrastructure of the country and its up keep, no government funding of things that are not essential (arts, sports, politicians superannuations ect.). Fairest on everyone.

If that's what it takes.
Yay! Why don't we just not have income at all? I mean, redistribution of wealth works so well. You've made me change my mind: a flat rate of 125% for everyone until all savings and other investments are dried up. Then we can give the people a tax cut to 100%. Who needs to work, anyway?

EDIT: I've just realized that this leaves a loophole for those who already have money to just quit working and spend their savings. So here goes: all properties, foreign and domestic, will be seized by the government. Every person within the government's jurisdiction will become property of the government. We will all engage in various forced labor--skilled and unskilled--in three-year rotations. Everything you need will be provided by the government. If you don't work, though, you won't eat. If you do work, you still probably won't eat, but you'll smile while you work or be killed. I mean, wow, why did no one ever think of this before?

do people even realise that with a flat rate tax the rich pay more than the poor anyway?

I support a low progressive tax rate with 0% for under $20,000 income ranging to about 15% for those with $1,000,000 plus.

After all, the rich do deserve to keep their money, but they can also afford to pay more than the middle and lower classes and should be taxed accordingly.

Seriously though, if privtisation as gradual and well thought out, it would work, and who wouldn't prefer less taxes?

who wouldn't prefer less taxes?

people on welfare

let's face it... the rich and middle class get raped by those among the poor who are lazy.

A progressive tax is the only stable system in a democracy, because in a democracy with a flat tax sooner or later an election will be won by a party promising to reduce taxes on the poor and making up for it by increasing taxes on the rich. Whether it's a good idea or not is irrelevant - when an election is close, a policy that seems to provide some immediate benefit to the majority will decide it.

I reckon the rich should be taxed at a higher rate (a flat rate is NOT good, it's called the poll tax - look it up). After all, they are not going to miss it as much as someone who works their arse off to get minimum wage - necessary evil. There's little difference between having 9 million pounds and 8 million pounds - and taxes aren't likely to have even that much effect.

With the majority of the posters, They dont realize that THE POOR DO NOT CREATE JOBS!!!! Only people with excess capital can create a new business, or expand a business to create jobs. DUH! :headbang:

yeah we should tax the rich very heavily and corparations

privitising the NHS is a very bad idea

everything thats been privitised in britain is screwed

yeah we should tax the rich very heavily and corparations

privitising the NHS is a very bad idea

everything thats been privitised in britain is screwed

no i think you'll find it's the opposite, the school systems in a mess, the NHS is in a mess. basically, everything government operated is in a mess.

You guys are forgetting something! What about regressive taxes, in which the lazy poor are taxed more than the innovative "rich"? This would finally give the poor incentive to be productive! OH, and put health care, pensions, and maybe education just out of their reach...that would really help cut taxes for the oligar--I mean, the innovators in society!

not bad

it would really promote entrepreneurialism, which would lead to more jobs (so the poor would have no excuse but disability not to work) and more investment opportunities.

make the american dream attractive, that's the spirit!

...rather than punishing success, reward it!

yeah we should tax the rich very heavily and corparations

privitising the NHS is a very bad idea

everything thats been privitised in britain is screwed

yes, tax the hell out of the most productive people in the economy. take money away from them that they might otherwise put into new businesses (and jobs...). that's brilliant.

no i think you'll find it's the opposite, the school systems in a mess, the NHS is in a mess. basically, everything government operated is in a mess.
Our public services are not as good as in other contries like France or Sweden but that is only because they don't get enough government funding or because of increasing private involvement (eg. in hospital cleaning where the private companies have sacked half the cleaners and allowed the spread of MRSA). I think this along with the railways are a pretty good example of what happens when things are privatised.

I put no taxes because that was the closest to my ideal form of taxation. I disagree with both income and sales tax used in excess, and I think the best form of taxation would be a "land tax". In the U.S. it would generate enough revenue to fund about 20% of the government spending. If we get rid of all government transfer programs (which takes up about 50% of the budget), and privatize education a bit more (or at least use a voucher system), the entire U.S. could be run on purely a land tax. That would be brillant.

I perfer a flat tax, if the taxable income is only for income above the poverty line. Thus, if someone makes below the poverty line, there is no income tax, if someone makes $1 above the poverty line, then $1 is taxable, and if someone makes $1,000,000 above the poverty line, then almost all of their income is taxable. As much as I would like to see the rich taxed more, I feel a flat tax is fair, and only taxing above the poverty line makes the same amount exempt for everyone and doesn't screw the poor.

I perfer this over a sales tax only setup because the poorest in society must spend all of their income to stay afloat, so all of their income is taxed, while the rich can save, so not all of their income is subjected to tax, meaning it becomes a regressive tax.

However, if the rich won't go for exempting the poverty line, then screw them, they can pay extra.

I agree with you totally, I posted a similar argument in one of the previous threads on this topic.

My problem is I get round to reading and posting in a thread just before it disappears.

P.S Don't foreget that with flat tax it is an easier and cheaper system to run and discourages tax evasion (harder to hide and as system is cheaper to run so lower taxes, meaning less incentive to evade).

With the majority of the posters, They dont realize that THE POOR DO NOT CREATE JOBS!!!! Only people with excess capital can create a new business, or expand a business to create jobs. DUH! :headbang:
The Poor DO create jobs. They spend all the money they get. Then those they spend the money with spend the money, etc. until the rich get the money. Then the rich stockpile the money and the ripple through the economy ends. If the money were continually spent, it would continue to add to the wealth of the nation by creating jobs, produce, and services. When it gets stockpiled it does no one any good.

The Poor DO create jobs. They spend all the money they get. Then those they spend the money with spend the money, etc. until the rich get the money. Then the rich stockpile the money and the ripple through the economy ends. If the money were continually spent, it would continue to add to the wealth of the nation by creating jobs, produce, and services. When it gets stockpiled it does no one any good.

The rich do not "Stockpile Money". They buy things. Big, expensive things. Big, expensive, Job creating things.

Olara']Yay! Why don't we just not have income at all? I mean, redistribution of wealth works so well. You've made me change my mind: a flat rate of 125% for everyone until all savings and other investments are dried up. Then we can give the people a tax cut to 100%. Who needs to work, anyway?

EDIT: I've just realized that this leaves a loophole for those who already have money to just quit working and spend their savings. So here goes: all properties, foreign and domestic, will be seized by the government. Every person within the government's jurisdiction will become property of the government. We will all engage in various forced labor--skilled and unskilled--in three-year rotations. Everything you need will be provided by the government. If you don't work, though, you won't eat. If you do work, you still probably won't eat, but you'll smile while you work or be killed. I mean, wow, why did no one ever think of this before?

nah...just what it takes for free healthcare and education. Not quite sure how you leaped to your other conclusions. Probably been listening to too many right-wing-whacko radio talkshows, FOX or something.
A purely socialist or purely capitalist society is a miserable society. You seem to be assuming that with free healthcare and education we'd somehow lose our right too vote also.

I picked flat tax, but you can create a flat tax system that remains progressive if you include a personal savings area where taxpayers get to keep everything they make.

According to John Hawksworth of PricewaterhouseCoopers, Great Britain could establish a flat tax rate of 30% with a tax free allowance up to 10,000 dollars, which is almost double the current tax-free allowance rate. This configuration would, in theory, provide Great Britain the exact same amount of tax revenue as it currently has. Unfortunately, this system is not a cure all. It would have winners and losers.

http://www.economist.com/images/20050910/CBR503.gif

That said, the estimates for revenue collected are based on the current system, which allows the extremely rich to hide loads of money through legal loopholes, something they would not be able to do under a radically simplified tax system. As such, government revenue would actually be higher than the system predicts based on current trends. This money could be used on extra social spending, or to raise the personal tax-free allowance even higher, which in turn would make the system beneficial to even more individuals.

Flat tax.

Give all the money to the government :)

But if you mean in an american, quasi-socialist govt, I still say flat tax. The rich invest their money, while the poor waste it. I have been converted to trickle down economic theory...

nah...just what it takes for free healthcare and education. Not quite sure how you leaped to your other conclusions. Probably been listening to too many right-wing-whacko radio talkshows, FOX or something.
A purely socialist or purely capitalist society is a miserable society. You seem to be assuming that with free healthcare and education we'd somehow lose our right too vote also.
Now, wait. I won't let you give credit for my idea to FOX. You practically have to tilt your head to the right just to watch that channel, don't you? ;) Seriously, though, I got a little carried away with the hyperbole. Please accept my apologies. I still don't think universal health care and free higher education are good ideas. Hence why I'm in favor of a flat tax around 10%.

Taxes should be paid in pennies. or whatever is the smallest denomination of currency in your country. If they're going to take my money, I don't have to make it easy for them.

:p

Olara']Now, wait. I won't let you give credit for my idea to FOX. You practically have to tilt your head to the right just to watch that channel, don't you? ;) Seriously, though, I got a little carried away with the hyperbole. Please accept my apologies. I still don't think universal health care and free higher education are good ideas. Hence why I'm in favor of a flat tax around 10%.
No apology necessary.
There are a lot of people in the U.S. who simply can't afford healthcare, especially preventive healthcare drugs, tests and examinations. It's become a luxury, like a Lexus or something. I just don't think a person's quality of life, healthwise, should be determined by their income. The question sometimes becomes 'Do I destroy my familie's standard of living or do I bow out or even commit suicide?"
I think education should be based on merit. If you have the grades and ability to understand the the particular subject matter I don't believe having money should be the deciding factor. It's better for society to have the most qualified get the best education.

I think that there should be a flat 10% rate on all taxes. A 10% Tax rate would be low so it would help everyone. The Poor and Middle class would be able to manage more and they would have more money, the Rich would be able to start businesses to employ the Middle and Poor class.

I support a low progressive tax rate with 0% for under $20,000 income ranging to about 15% for those with $1,000,000 plus.

After all, the rich do deserve to keep their money, but they can also afford to pay more than the middle and lower classes and should be taxed accordingly.

Wow, what a great rationalization for stealing. Sorry, just because someone has more than another doesn't mean the person with less gets to just take it. Theft is still theft.

You should only have to pay for what you use. You use a road, you pay for the road. You use garbage collection, you pay for the garbage collection. You don't pay for your neighbor's use of garbage collection because they don't have enough left in their budget this month.

No apology necessary.
There are a lot of people in the U.S. who simply can't afford healthcare, especially preventive healthcare drugs, tests and examinations. It's become a luxury, like a Lexus or something. I just don't think a person's quality of life, healthwise, should be determined by their income. The question sometimes becomes 'Do I destroy my familie's standard of living or do I bow out or even commit suicide?"
I think education should be based on merit. If you have the grades and ability to understand the the particular subject matter I don't believe having money should be the deciding factor. It's better for society to have the most qualified get the best education.
First, prevention need not be based on drugs. Living a healthier lifestyle, ie, encouraging your children to exercise rather than sit inside and watch TV is a great idea for preventing health problems.

Second, your level of income need not lead to suicide. The decision to commit suicide indicates hopelessness on many levels.

Third, I agree that it is beneficial for the most qualified in a society being the ones who get an education, but isn't someone with a great work ethic who maybe scraped by with Cs in high school just as qualified as someone who was lazy and talented and got all As in high school?

Fourth, I know that assistance is often needed, but I don't think the government is the one who should handle this. I think that mainly because government projects tend to become bogged down in the bureaucracy and therefore be rendered ineffectual. There are many private organizations that are willing to assist those in need of health care and education, and I think on par they do a better job of it than the government. Which is another advantage of a low, flat tax rate. In addition to shrinking the government, it frees up resources for people to donate to private organizations which are better at what they do than the government.

Olara']First, prevention need not be based on drugs. Living a healthier lifestyle, ie, encouraging your children to exercise rather than sit inside and watch TV is a great idea for preventing health problems.

Good point, but I was referring to drugs and tests that the medical establishment recommend people having such as statins, colonoscopies, blood pressure medicine, etc. These have become luxuries and have gone out of the financial reach of many people.

Olara']Second, your level of income need not lead to suicide. The decision to commit suicide indicates hopelessness on many levels.
I disagree. When faced with high medical costs needed to stay alive sometimes people make the rational decision to commit suicide rather than put their family into severe financial situations. For instance, chosing which family members can afford medical treatment and which cannot. Or chosing between a college education or treating Mom's breat cancer, etc.

Olara']Third, I agree that it is beneficial for the most qualified in a society being the ones who get an education, but isn't someone with a great work ethic who maybe scraped by with Cs in high school just as qualified as someone who was lazy and talented and got all As in high school?
If the person with C's wants to pay for their higher education they should be free to do so. As a matter of fact, they should be eligible for a free education if they manage to prove themselves by raising their grade-point averages. This is a long detailed discussion, probably warranting it's own thread. IMO if you have to bet on talent or hard work, bet on the talent. Of course it's better to have talent and a work ethic. But it's been my experience that one can have the best work ethic in the world but without the talent and/or intelligence necessary for certain vocations that person is doomed to failure. Seen it happen hundreds of times in my own profession. If you have 24 hours in a day and it takes you 28 hours to do the work, you're screwed.

Olara']Fourth, I know that assistance is often needed, but I don't think the government is the one who should handle this. I think that mainly because government projects tend to become bogged down in the bureaucracy and therefore be rendered ineffectual. There are many private organizations that are willing to assist those in need of health care and education, and I think on par they do a better job of it than the government. Which is another advantage of a low, flat tax rate. In addition to shrinking the government, it frees up resources for people to donate to private organizations which are better at what they do than the government.

Yes the government can be very inefficient. So can private business. I've seen no evidence to support the claim the private always does better than government. This is a popular mantra of the right and I'm not buying it.
All you have to do is look at all of the corporations renigging on their pensions and promises to their retirees to realize you can't leave this stuff up to business.
Don't want to have to depend on the whims of private charities for health care.

Wow, what a great rationalization for stealing. Sorry, just because someone has more than another doesn't mean the person with less gets to just take it. Theft is still theft.

You should only have to pay for what you use. You use a road, you pay for the road. You use garbage collection, you pay for the garbage collection. You don't pay for your neighbor's use of garbage collection because they don't have enough left in their budget this month.

And if you have no money to begin with...how are you going to get a job? Esp. when you are uneducated / can't afford to walk on road / etc. The ultimate poor get poorer - rich get richer scenario!

Only Myrth should have to pay taxes.

Well, the government needs money. Not paying taxes is defeated right there - Anarchism doesn't work with real people.

Flat Rate Taxes sound like a good idea, but unless you want to punish the poor, you have to set them pretty low - and thus give up a lot of income. That is not how I like my state.
At any rate, rich people in general benefit more from living in society. The police protects their increased assets, thus providing more value to them than to a poor bum.
Even with free education, the majority of kids at uni are from reasonably well-off parents.
Corporate Laws and Financial System regulation and guarantees help investors (read: rich people) moreso than poor people.
Same (although that is a little less clear) for economic stability through fiscal and monetary policy.
So a progressive system is best.

But I would make these ammendments to the current system:
1) Negative Income Tax.
Scrap welfare and all the other support schemes. Scrap the minimum wage. Instead, guarantee everyone a minimum income. If you don't make, say 15k, you get the rest paid to you by the government.
Simple system, much less bureaucracy = less taxes spend on maintenance.

2) Scrap the "Family Tax".
Currently two people who each earn 50,000 bucks get a free amount of, say 10,000 each. On that they pay no taxes. That is thus $20,000 of tax-free income.
Now take these two people, and put them into a family. Now the family income is 100k. They get $10,000 tax-free.
That is the "family tax". If you instead split family income evenly on everyone (including the kiddies), and give each the 10,000 tax free, then it suddenly is worth it to marry, and it might even help get rid of our aging population problem.

But I would make these ammendments to the current system:
1) Negative Income Tax.
Scrap welfare and all the other support schemes. Scrap the minimum wage. Instead, guarantee everyone a minimum income. If you don't make, say 15k, you get the rest paid to you by the government.
Simple system, much less bureaucracy = less taxes spend on maintenance.


No minimum wage but guaranteed income = wages lower more than they would normally (to make up the difference). Guaranteed income is as much as an extreme as zero welfare.
Both these things have their place and are crutches for imperfections in the system.

Pay taxes in baked goods!

2) Scrap the "Family Tax".
Currently two people who each earn 50,000 bucks get a free amount of, say 10,000 each. On that they pay no taxes. That is thus $20,000 of tax-free income.
Now take these two people, and put them into a family. Now the family income is 100k. They get $10,000 tax-free.
That is the "family tax". If you instead split family income evenly on everyone (including the kiddies), and give each the 10,000 tax free, then it suddenly is worth it to marry, and it might even help get rid of our aging population problem.

I agree with giving $10,000 non-taxable to both parents. Seeing the family as a single-income unit harkens back to the olden days when women didn't work. But including the kiddies is such a bad idea...it would encourage families to have a lot of kids (exacerbating the problem). Maybe something like that could be used to reward foster parents, but that's a different issue and creates problems of its own (such as fueling anti-abortionists).

Pay taxes in baked goods!

That's actually a very socialist idea. Pay the government with the food that they need to eat in order to work.

No minimum wage but guaranteed income = wages lower more than they would normally (to make up the difference). Guaranteed income is as much as an extreme as zero welfare.
Both these things have their place and are crutches for imperfections in the system.
How come?
If people are guaranteed some sort of income, employers will have to offer at least that. But free choice must be guaranteed - no more "you have to take a job when it comes up".
At any rate, Germany doesn't have a minimum wage system, and people there aren't all sending their kids into coalmines.

I agree with giving $10,000 non-taxable to both parents. Seeing the family as a single-income unit harkens back to the olden days when women didn't work. But including the kiddies is such a bad idea...it would encourage families to have a lot of kids (exacerbating the problem). Maybe something like that could be used to reward foster parents, but that's a different issue and creates problems of its own (such as fueling anti-abortionists).
But we want people to have plenty of kids. All over Europe, pension systems are suffering from ageing populations, and the economy suffers from the work force getting smaller.

I support a regressive tax system, because we all know that people dying of starvation and easily preventable diseases or turning to crime out of desperation is far preferable to the great superiour elite rich from having a portion of his $500,000+ salary for doing little to no work taken away.

We should punish those who word hard for little return, damned poor - they surely had equality of opportunity anyway. When we've privatised healthcare and education - even more so...uh...somehow. Well, anyway, I can't see how having a rich family and thus access to a better education, healthcare, cultural experiences, more time with parents and so on is an advantage - everyone has the same chance in a purely capitalist society, right?

I like the idea of a flat tax of about 10%, with no allowances of any sort. You make a dollar, give the government a dime. If you made a penny last year, then you had better damn well figure out a way to give exaclly .1 cents to the government.
That said, I would also support the ability to make donations to the IRS, and perhaps even attach a "bonus vote" per $100,000-200,000 dollars per voting cycle. After all, think about it. Various groups within the U.S. try to buy elections every year anyway, why don't we just let them play it honestly and simply up end trash cans full of money into the government coffers every couple years. David McMegaRichPants gets 10 more votes than you and I, but the government also just gained $1 million dollars to paint fish on Alaskan planes.

EDIT: The bonus vote only comes from the extra donations. You fool's don't get nothing extra for your legally mandated 10%.

I like the idea of a flat tax of about 10%, with no allowances of any sort. You make a dollar, give the government a dime. If you made a penny last year, then you had better damn well figure out a way to give exaclly .1 cents to the government.
That said, I would also support the ability to make donations to the IRS, and perhaps even attach a "bonus vote" per $100,000-200,000 dollars per voting cycle. After all, think about it. Various groups within the U.S. try to buy elections every year anyway, why don't we just let them play it honestly and simply up end trash cans full of money into the government coffers every couple years. David McMegaRichPants gets 10 more votes than you and I, but the government also just gained $1 million dollars to paint fish on Alaskan planes.

EDIT: The bonus vote only comes from the extra donations. You fool's don't get nothing extra for your legally mandated 10%.


If you were any other person, I would be horrified. But, you are you, and I am amused.

1) Negative Income Tax.
Scrap welfare and all the other support schemes. Scrap the minimum wage. Instead, guarantee everyone a minimum income. If you don't make, say 15k, you get the rest paid to you by the government.
Simple system, much less bureaucracy = less taxes spend on maintenance. to marry, and it might even help get rid of our aging population problem.
So wealthy individuals hide all their income in their businesses, corporations and holding companies and the government gives them 15k?

Meh, I put down that the rich should pay a higher percentage. It just seems to work that way. A flat tax would be incredibly high in order to preserve the government and would oppress the poor and middle class only to favor the rich and no tax could not support any government and society needs government. We just need to make certain that we don't hurt the rich too much and make our nation the best place for them to live.

I already answered part of this question in another thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9799596#post9799596):

I think sales taxes are a great thing because they tax consumption, not income.

And one of my ideas on tax reform is to end corporate income tax (or replace it with a small, flat rate) and get the rest from an increase in sales tax, which wouldn't be that high, because in a modern economy consumption is HUGE, a lot bigger than corporate income and since that money saved up by corporations would go back to their employees, the sales tax hike wouldn't hurt their purchasing power much. For instance in a country like Germany you wipe the slate clean of all corporate tax and income tax would only go up 5 percentage points -- which was what Angela Merkel was going to do but that's not likely since she "won" the elections.

However, I don't believe in removing personal income tax. I think people, at least in the middle class and up, should contribute to the common wealth directly. My idea is for an income tax with two rates, and the difference between the highest and the lowest rate is deductible in donations to charity. I.e. effectively you would be paying a flat tax to the government plus a percentage above a bracket to the charity of your choice. So the lower class would pay no income tax, the middle class would pay a flat rate, and the upper class would pay the same rate, but also contribute to welfare in an active way, by finding the right private associations to donate to, rather than just signing off a check to the state.

I think that would provide the right balance for purchasing power, entrepreneurship, welfare and private initiative.

Furthermore, I also believe that estate should be taxed through a so-called "death tax" where basically 90% above a bracket which is the average upper-middle class estate goes when you die. However, 90% of that would be tax deductible to charity. This has two advantages :

1- No papa's boys livin' it up on their inheritance. No estates sleeping in some bank vault somewhere. It encourages financial liquidity and social mobility.

2- When you're a rich man and your hair is greying, you don't want all that money you worked so hard all your life to go to waste. You seek out the right charities. Maybe you start one. In other words, you make sure it will be put to good use, you make sure it will outlive you in some way. And that's good for welfare and social life.

But most of all, if you ask me, the worst kind of fiscal system is a complicated one. I would much rather have a tax system I disagree with in principle but which is simple to understand and to enforce, rather than a system which fits the description above but is so hard to implement but makes life hard for everyone.

The tax codes in France, Germany and Italy are the most complex of any developed economy -- it's no coincidence they are also the most sluggish developed economies. Corporations in those countries spend up to 20% of their income on mining complex tax codes for breaks and loopholes. If they spent those resources on producing wealth, they would win, and the government would win, because a simple tax system is easy to enforce. The government wouldn't have to treat everyone like a suspect and expending so many resources on hunting everyone down for the last penny they may or may not owe. The relations between government and persons would be more relaxed, frendlier, the economy would do better. So, simplicity is paramount, and complications and exceptions are a disaster.

So in short, no corporate income tax or a small flat rate, two rates of personal income tax, one rate of sales tax, and an extremely high estate tax. Anything else: slash it. Keep things simple.

If you live in the US taxes should be paid in American dollars. :D

As low as possible, with the same rate being paid by everyone. I would make paying taxes optional below the poverty line, but I would tie the right to vote to paying taxes at all. People who don't pay in to the system certainly don't deserve to have a say in how tax money is spent. (Yes, this could be considered a poll tax, and yes, those are illegal here, but this is my system and I can make the rules however I want.

Flat rate

So wealthy individuals hide all their income in their businesses, corporations and holding companies and the government gives them 15k?
Well you obviously wouldn't simplify it that much. A tax office would still have to exist which checks people's circumstances.
And tax evasion happens now too.

Well you obviously wouldn't simplify it that much. A tax office would still have to exist which checks people's circumstances.
And tax evasion happens now too.
I know. I ask because I originally wanted to do something like that, but then I realized that it would be difficult and time consuming to enforce that it might not be worth it.

How about 30% flat tax rate, $15000 tax free and you're guaranteed $4500 from the government if your income doesn't reach that?

Why $4500? It's 30% of $15000, which means there no mathematical way to scam it. If your income is that low, you're losing out on all your tax free which would save you $4500 in tax anyway.

I'd go for a flat rate set according to financial needs.
BTW, you forgot in your poll a national sales tax. I think it's a silly idea myself, but it is one that is being given serious consideration.

How about 30% flat tax rate, $15000 tax free and you're guaranteed $4500 from the government if your income doesn't reach that?
And if I make $7500?
I'd end up getting 4.5k from the state, giving me a grand total of *gasp* 12k.
Considering that you've implicitly declared that people have a right to 15k free from all government intervention, aren't you treating people rather unequally?

I'd prefer if the system guaranteed a minimum income no matter what.

Until a communist society has been achieved I would favour a very progressive tax rate of between 0% for the poorest and 90% for the wealthiest.


I was thinking the same thing! Or how about this...an income ceiling! Anybody who makes more than $125,000 a year loses the rest of it to taxes! This was an FDR idea that should have come to fruition. You still get incentive, (which all idiot capitalist countries seem to pursue) but you get to hack and slash at all the rich fucks! This one makes me happy.

I was thinking the same thing! Or how about this...an income ceiling! Anybody who makes more than $125,000 a year loses the rest of it to taxes! This was an FDR idea that should have come to fruition. You still get incentive, (which all idiot capitalist countries seem to pursue) but you get to hack and slash at all the rich fucks! This one makes me happy.
Sour grapes, anyone?
...wait a sec, is that you WG?

When you tell people there's a maximum they can earn, period, that's not good incentive. People who work hard and get to the top shouldn't be punished.

The poor?
What makes them so damned special?
“Oh look at me, I was born without money, I need help so I can buy cool shoes.” La dee fucken da. They can bitch all they want but they still can’t make me care, or make me understand why they should get free stuff just because, God, fate, nature, luck or what have you, dealt them a bad hand. Life sucks, deal with it.
No income tax, period, or the permanent rent known as property tax while we're on the subject.

What makes them so damned special?
“Oh look at me, I was born without money, I need help so I can buy cool shoes.” La de fucken da. They can bitch all they want but they still can’t make me care, nor understand why, they should get free stuff just because, God, fate, nature, luck or what have you, dealt them a bad hand. Life sucks, deal with it.
No income tax, period, or the permanent rent known as property tax while we're on the subject.Even excepting social services, how do you propose to fund government, the military, and the courts?

How long should man's legs be?

Even excepting social services, how do you propose to fund government, the military, and the courts?
Excise taxes on certain luxury goods (anything that isn’t a basic need, like food shelter etc.) for the feds, and a sales tax for local communities.

Excise taxes on certain luxury goods (anything that isn’t a basic need, like food shelter etc.) for the feds, and a sales tax for local communities.Having no social safety net is a risky proposition. Refer to the depression.

And if I make $7500?
I'd end up getting 4.5k from the state, giving me a grand total of *gasp* 12k.
Considering that you've implicitly declared that people have a right to 15k free from all government intervention, aren't you treating people rather unequally?

I'd prefer if the system guaranteed a minimum income no matter what.
I must apologize, I misexplained that.

If you make just $3000, we top you up to $4,500. After that you're just in the tax-free zone. Well wait you say. What incentive does anyone have to work for that $3000 if we top you up to $4,500 anyway? The answer is that they don't, but that I'm okay with that. Perhaps for each country the numbers should be reworked, but I think that would be an acceptable policy in general. It sacrifices some efficiency, but I believe it's a worthy sacrifice.

Excise taxes on certain luxury goods (anything that isn’t a basic need, like food shelter etc.) for the feds, and a sales tax for local communities.
BAHAHAHAHAH.


Take a gander at the budget next time. 60% of it goes to the military.

If you make just $3000, we top you up to $4,500. After that you're just in the tax-free zone.
:confused:

My system is simple enough:
If you make 3k you get 12k.
If you make 11k, you get 4k.
If you make 15k, you don't pay tax.
Above that you use a progressive system because of what I said before about rich people benefitting more from tax money.

BAHAHAHAHAH.


Take a gander at the budget next time. 60% of it goes to the military.
Which is why we should gut the military to a mere defensive force, obviously.

Voted myrth, since that's the closest thing to a progressive sales tax.

Voted myrth, since that's the closest thing to a progressive sales tax.
The richer you are, the more sales tax you pay?

Or the more you pay, the greater percentage is added in tax?

Which is why we should gut the military to a mere defensive force, obviously.
Wait, isn't that what we have now (the answer is, by the way, yes.)? Do you propose that we kill off all of the pensioners (that's were the lions share of the government's spending goes)?

How about you give me all fo your income and I'll distribute it fairly*.


*I get 94% and everyone else can fight for the remaining 6%.

The richer you are, the more sales tax you pay?

Or the more you pay, the greater percentage is added in tax?

The progressiveness comes from a rebate that covers the most basic expenses, and the amount received depends on A.) if you're married and B.) How many people are in your family. If you're very poor, the tax actually benefits you instead of takes your money. The richer you are, the closer to the 23% (or whatever percent) of your income the tax takes overall.

Wait, isn't that what we have now (the answer is, by the way, yes.)? Do you propose that we kill off all of the pensioners (that's were the lions share of the government's spending goes)?
If it can unilaterally attack a sovereign nation, it isn’t defensive. Got me on the pensioners, but if we stop offering to those who don't already collect, those that do will die off eventually.

If it can unilaterally attack a sovereign nation, it isn’t defensive. Got me on the pensioners, but if we stop offering to those who don't already collect, those that do will die off eventually.
And some claim the iraq war cost us less in the short run then it would in the long run. That's debatable. The fact remains that our military is needed for defense, and for a country our size we need a sizable one.

Care to guess how many soldiers your new "no pension, no benefits" army will recruit?

Care to guess how many soldiers your new "no pension, no benefits" army will recruit?
Not many, which is a good thing,. Then the government's ability to force its morality on us will be drastically reduced.

Not many, which is a good thing,. Then the government's ability to force its morality on us will be drastically reduced.
And how do you propose to defend our nation, from say, china?

And how do you propose to defend our nation, from say, china?
China wouldn’t dare attack us. It’s too dependant on us economically, and the moment it isn’t will be because we, for whatever reason, will have stopped trading with them and everything over there will have gone to shit as a result.

China wouldn’t dare attack us. It’s too dependant on us economically, and the moment it isn’t will be because we, for whatever reason, will have stopped trading with them and everything over there will have gone to shit as a result.
Assuming they dare, what are we going to defend ourselves with, sticks?

(Don't say the militia. The armed militia repelling a real army was a myth back in the 1770's. It won't work in the age of bombs and tanks)

China wouldn’t dare attack us. It’s too dependant on us economically, and the moment it isn’t will be because we, for whatever reason, will have stopped trading with them and everything over there will have gone to shit as a result.
Don't think that China lacks the ability to defy our will. China will do whatever is in its best interest and I doubt that it is so dependent that it would be afraid to defy us if it thinks that is necessary. Letting our military grow weak is just going to let our nation be screwed because a nation's strength is more than its economy but also its ability to militarily project its strength.

Don't think that China lacks the ability to defy our will. China will do whatever is in its best interest and I doubt that it is so dependent that it would be afraid to defy us if it thinks that is necessary. Letting our military grow weak is just going to let our nation be screwed because a nation's strength is more than its economy but also its ability to militarily project its strength.
Why do we need to “project our strength”? If we stayed in North America, I doubt China would care.

Assuming they dare, what are we going to defend ourselves with, sticks?

(Don't say the militia. The armed militia repelling a real army was a myth back in the 1770's. It won't work in the age of bombs and tanks)
The same way we did in World War two, draft and ration.

it seems some people dont realize this, but let me review for you, flat tax rate, lets say 10% for this example. its the same percentage for everyone,

lets say your poor, you have one dollar to your name, its time for taxes you pay the 10% which comes to 10 cents, now lets say you strike it rich you have $1,000,000, for taxes you end up paying... $100,000. so if you understand this principle, 10 cents if you only have a dollar is equivalent to $100,000 if you have $1,000,000.

the rich still end up paying more but its equal in terms of how much they make.

Why do we need to “project our strength”? If we stayed in North America, I doubt China would care.
In order to protect our national interests. It is not like we don't have enemies. A strong economy will not protect us from our enemies necessarily either. In order to ensure the united states is protected from enemy forces and that our interests are protected around the world we need a military force. In fact, I would say that a military force is one of the most important things a nation could have due to the fact that it is necessary to have when dealing with other powers, all diplomacy must be backed up by the threat of force if necessary.

it seems some people dont realize this, but let me review for you, flat tax rate, lets say 10% for this example. its the same percentage for everyone,

lets say your poor, you have one dollar to your name, its time for taxes you pay the 10% which comes to 10 cents, now lets say you strike it rich you have $1,000,000, for taxes you end up paying... $100,000. so if you understand this principle, 10 cents if you only have a dollar is equivalent to $100,000 if you have $1,000,000.

the rich still end up paying more but its equal in terms of how much they make.
Right, but the rich can afford to pay more without sacrificing as much. Taxing the rich more is a matter of supporting necessary programs than it is an issue of fairness. A fair system would be a flat tax rate but it is obvious that forcing the poor or middle class to pay as much as the rich would either the buying power of those poor and middle classes or it would force the government to cut programs, many of which are necessary for the good of the nation. Progressive income tax is a matter of pragmatics more than morality or equality.

As the OP demanded I am posting. I did not vote for Flat Tax.

Regards

JMayo

In order to protect our national interests. It is not like we don't have enemies. A strong economy will not protect us from our enemies necessarily either. In order to ensure the united states is protected from enemy forces and that our interests are protected around the world we need a military force. In fact, I would say that a military force is one of the most important things a nation could have due to the fact that it is necessary to have when dealing with other powers, all diplomacy must be backed up by the threat of force if necessary.
We did fine for one hundred and fifty years with a small army. I fact, we built our empire with it. A large standing army is only necessary in the modern Western world if one wishes to play “world police” and become involved in entangling alliances.

Oh, right - I should post as well.

Higher tax for the wealthy, and no question about it.

We did fine for one hundred and fifty years with a small army. I fact, we built our empire with it. A large standing army is only necessary in the modern Western world if one wishes to play “world police” and become involved in entangling alliances.
We will get involved with these "entangling alliances" due to our power anyway. This is a modern world and the antiquated views of our founding fathers may not necessarily work. Besides, the reason that Europe did not crush us in those early years is based mostly on their politics anyway. We should not rely on the incompetence/problems of our opponents to keep us alive. We did not win the revolution through our military, france won it for us. We did not win the war of 1812, we did not lose land due to a treaty yet we still had our capital burned. We abandoned the policy of isolationism long ago because we WILL be pulled into the world's problems and it does not matter what we do. I believe that because the world's problems will seek us out anyway that we should crush them before they become real nuisances.

:confused:

My system is simple enough:
If you make 3k you get 12k.
If you make 11k, you get 4k.
If you make 15k, you don't pay tax.
Above that you use a progressive system because of what I said before about rich people benefitting more from tax money.
Your system still gives people an incentive to cheat on taxes. Mine makes sure that there is no benefit to cheating the system or hiding income anywhere along the way.

If you make 0, you get 4.5k and pay 0% for a total of 4.5k.
If you make 3k, you get 1.5k and pay 0% for a total of 4.5k.
If you make 4.5k, you get 0 and pay 0% for a total of 4.5k.
If you make 10k, you get 0 and pay 0% for a total of 10k.
If you make 15k, you get 0 and pay 0% for a total of 15k.
If you make 16k, you get 0 and pay 30% on 1k of that for a total of 15.7k.
If you make 20k, you get 0 and pay 30% on 5k of that for a total of 18.5k.
If you make 100k, you get 0 and pay 30% on 85k of that for a toal of 74.5k.

It's not quite flat, but it's way easier than the current system.

A flat 30% tax would be applied to the incomes of all corporations with no tax-free personal allowance for companies making under 15k or corporate welfare for companies making under 4.5k.

Thus, with the exception of the personal allowance, which only applies to individuals, there is nowhere to hide your money to get better tax deals. Not only that, the form is simple, which means that you'll see higher compliance with the laws.

We will get involved with these "entangling alliances" due to our power anyway. This is a modern world and the antiquated views of our founding fathers may not necessarily work. Besides, the reason that Europe did not crush us in those early years is based mostly on their politics anyway. We should not rely on the incompetence/problems of our opponents to keep us alive. We did not win the revolution through our military, france won it for us. We did not win the war of 1812, we did not lose land due to a treaty yet we still had our capital burned. We abandoned the policy of isolationism long ago because we WILL be pulled into the world's problems and it does not matter what we do. I believe that because the world's problems will seek us out anyway that we should crush them before they become real nuisances.
First of all, you need to read a history book. France “winning it for us” is quite a large overstatement, considering that they weren’t even willing to get involved until after the Battle of Saratoga. If you would stop relying on common misconceptions, you would see that the political manipulations of Russia’s Czarina also played quite a roll, along with Spain. We could not have won the war without the French, this is true, but you will see that many major victories were carried out by the colonists alone, if you took your head out of the sand. The last major battle at Yorktown serves as a wonderful illustration of why the French helped us to victory, and we could not have won the battle without them , but that does make it a caricature of the entire war.

Second, we are fortunate enough to live in a new age, when war is not considered to be an acceptable course of action by the vast majority of the developed world and so the likelihood of being challenged by a competent military force is extremely low, considering the severe economic consequences for an aggressor that would start a war of that magnitude, not just from the nation attacked, but from the entire First World.

Third, and here is another problem with your history, we did not abandon isolationism until after World War Two, and that was because bastards like Truman and Eisenhower felt the need to combat communism, a self defeating system that would have collapsed upon itself all its own, especially in Russia. Perhaps there was some merit in fighting the commies, but certainly not the way it was done and carried on by JFK, LBJ and Nixon. The Ford, Carter and Reagan years were more of the same bullshit, just lower key. After the collapse of the USSR, we should have been able to return to the way things were, as there was no major threat left. If we had, the terror attacks we have experienced in the last two decades would not have happened, as they were a response to a military presence in and around the terrorist’s countries of origin.

We could not return to the past, because the neo-cons and liberals, with their sick twisted nationalism, have convinced the American people that intervention is necessary. The neo-cons, because they wish to plunder the world for their interests and create a series of ideal states all under the tutelage of t the US, and the liberals in some misguided attempt to impose their own morality upon the world and to, for whatever reason, appease the UN.

The world’s problems will not seek us out if we don’t go looking for them.
Yeah its long, deal with it!

First of all, you need to read a history book. France “winning it for us” is quite a large overstatement, considering that they weren’t even willing to get involved until after the Battle of Saratoga. If you would stop relying on common misconceptions, you would see that the political manipulations of Russia’s Czarina also played quite a roll, along with Spain. We could not have won the war without the French, this is true, but you will see that many major victories were carried out by the colonists alone, if you took your head out of the sand. The last major battle at Yorktown serves as a wonderful illustration of why the French helped us to victory, and we could not have won the battle without them , but that does make it a caricature of the entire war.

Second, we are fortunate enough to live in a new age, when war is not considered to be an acceptable course of action by the vast majority of the developed world and so the likelihood of being challenged by a competent military force is extremely low, considering the severe economic consequences for an aggressor that would start a war of that magnitude, not just from the nation attacked, but from the entire First World.

Third, and here is another problem with your history, we did not abandon isolationism until after World War Two, and that was because bastards like Truman and Eisenhower felt the need to combat communism, a self defeating system that would have collapsed upon itself all its own, especially in Russia. Perhaps there was some merit in fighting the commies, but certainly not the way it was done and carried on by JFK, LBJ and Nixon. The Ford, Carter and Reagan years were more of the same bullshit, just lower key. After the collapse of the USSR, we should have been able to return to the way things were, as there was no major threat left. If we had, the terror attacks we have experienced in the last two decades would not have happened, as they were a response to a military presence in and around the terrorist’s countries of origin.

We could not return to the past, because the neo-cons and liberals, with their sick twisted nationalism, have convinced the American people that intervention is necessary. The neo-cons, because they wish to plunder the world for their interests and create a series of ideal states all under the tutelage of t the US, and the liberals in some misguided attempt to impose their own morality upon the world and to, for whatever reason, appease the UN.

The world’s problems will not seek us out if we don’t go looking for them.
Yeah its long, deal with it!
Well, my point was that we did not win the Revolutionary War without the intervention of England's enemies. Of course it is an overstatement, not that large of one considering that England was one of the greatest military powers of the day and that Washington was not a great military leader (a good leader overall but he actually lost more battles than he won). We won some victories but the powerful British could have easily crushed us without the help of others. Yeah, the French winning the revolutionary war is actually what my US history teacher said though.

I do know that the war of 1812 was ended by the Russians because it was started due to our increasing closeness to Napolean of the French. The Russians called it off because of expedience due to the fact that Britain did not need to waste time with the colonists. However, you do have to admit that the American cry of "on to Canada" or whatever is very different from what we said after the war of not losing any ground in the treaty of Ghent(it is Ghent right?)

You are right, this is in someways a new age but this does not change the need for soldiers nor does it change the need for us to take a part of this world. We have national interests to protect due to the attacks of foreign terrorism and possibly from foreign nations who would desire to undermine us in anyway possible and also because these 3rd world nations are going to eventually develope powerful armies and such and they often do not like us for whatever reason.

I was not alive when the cold war first started. If something is older than myself then it is a long time or at least from my perspective. The 50s and such are a long time ago so there is nothing wrong with my history from my perspective, I know that we abandoned isolationism only after WW2, we tried to abandon it earlier by attempting to establish the league of nations after WW1 but isolationists such as yourself hampered such an effort due maintain world stability(unless I have my history wrong)

I believe in that sick and twisted nationalism. The united states is currently the greatest of nations and we need to maintain our position and strength in the world through active intervention in world affairs. We do need to rebuild our allies and such so that we can deal effectively with terrorist threats and corrupt african governments and such. Isolationism did not save the Lusitania it instead drew it into the conflict as a means to get us to pick a side. Isolationism did not exactly save Pearl Harbor either but instead got us a Japanese sneak attack. The problems of other countries have gotten the United States involved many many times, this even goes back to the early days of the united states and there is no reason that it will not be the same later on. That we can be a neutral in the world is something that is untrue and has been untrue even from the beginnings of our United States.

I'm for all my taxes being due a week after I die. But not until then.

The same way we did in World War two, draft and ration.
And screw over our veterans after we chew them up and spit them out? No GI bill, no pension, no VA?

And if you have no money to begin with...how are you going to get a job? Esp. when you are uneducated / can't afford to walk on road / etc. The ultimate poor get poorer - rich get richer scenario!

Last I checked, it doesn't take a high school diploma to get a job stocking shelves or serving up fries. I started that way, and worked myself to some education and better jobs.

I was out of the house at age 18, and on my own financially. Without assistance from my parents, I am an Info Security analyst.

It just takes effort.

You don't get $50K+/year jobs by not trying. There are jobs everywhere--people just won't take them. I see the signs all over the city I live in--everyone's hiring for the entry-level jobs.

These may not be the jobs that people want for the rest of their lives, no, but stealing from someone else, just because another doesn't want a particular job bugs the crap out of me, especially when there ARE jobs out there to SURVIVE. Maybe not live high on the hog right away, but at least survive.

Having no social safety net is a risky proposition. Refer to the depression.

Heh. There is no social safety net in the US--Social Security has been ruled just another tax for the government to use as it sees fit, by the Supreme Court of the US.

They don't even have to pay citizens. They can cut it off any time they want to. There is no guarantee--just higher and higher taxes for progressively more expensive, and ineffective programs.

Assuming they dare, what are we going to defend ourselves with, sticks?

(Don't say the militia. The armed militia repelling a real army was a myth back in the 1770's. It won't work in the age of bombs and tanks)

Which is why the Iraquis have been quelled. Right.

A technologically inferior force CAN stop or stall a technologically superior one.

Right, but the rich can afford to pay more without sacrificing as much. Taxing the rich more is a matter of supporting necessary programs than it is an issue of fairness. A fair system would be a flat tax rate but it is obvious that forcing the poor or middle class to pay as much as the rich would either the buying power of those poor and middle classes or it would force the government to cut programs, many of which are necessary for the good of the nation. Progressive income tax is a matter of pragmatics more than morality or equality.

Right....necessary programs. :rolleyes:

We did fine for one hundred and fifty years with a small army. I fact, we built our empire with it. A large standing army is only necessary in the modern Western world if one wishes to play “world police” and become involved in entangling alliances.

Bingo. Hammer meet nail-head.

And screw over our veterans after we chew them up and spit them out? No GI bill, no pension, no VA?

We'd have a lot more left over to actually give decent care to those that served this country, if we weren't out screwing around with other people's politics. As it stands right now, the VA care is a joke. A very tragic, horrible joke. The vets are already being chewed and spat.

Well, my point was that we did not win the Revolutionary War without the intervention of England's enemies. Of course it is an overstatement, not that large of one considering that England was one of the greatest military powers of the day and that Washington was not a great military leader (a good leader overall but he actually lost more battles than he won). We won some victories but the powerful British could have easily crushed us without the help of others. Yeah, the French winning the revolutionary war is actually what my US history teacher said though.

I do know that the war of 1812 was ended by the Russians because it was started due to our increasing closeness to Napolean of the French. The Russians called it off because of expedience due to the fact that Britain did not need to waste time with the colonists. However, you do have to admit that the American cry of "on to Canada" or whatever is very different from what we said after the war of not losing any ground in the treaty of Ghent(it is Ghent right?)
Yes, you got that all right.
You are right, this is in someways a new age but this does not change the need for soldiers nor does it change the need for us to take a part of this world. We have national interests to protect due to the attacks of foreign terrorism and possibly from foreign nations who would desire to undermine us in anyway possible and also because these 3rd world nations are going to eventually develope powerful armies and such and they often do not like us for whatever reason.
The reason they don't like us is because we get involved.
I believe in that sick and twisted nationalism.
Then I pity you.
The united states is currently the greatest of nations and we need to maintain our position and strength in the world through active intervention in world affairs. We do need to rebuild our allies and such so that we can deal effectively with terrorist threats and corrupt african governments and such.
Why?
Isolationism did not exactly save Pearl Harbor either but instead got us a Japanese sneak attack.
FDR provoked the Japanese, purposefully.

Right....necessary programs. :rolleyes:
I'll have you know that every last one off the $4 million sent to the International Fertilizer Development Center in 2003 was deeply necessary. I mean, if it weren't for that they would never have figured out that the best way to get cow manure was from the back end of a cow.

<snip>

Well, we all have beliefs that we disagree with. I will admit that I was not completely honest when I described what happened with the Japanese, however, Hitler wanted this world and was a genocidal maniac. We were right in fighting in the 2nd world war. I am not certain that our isolationism would really make this world a better place but instead would simply create its own diplomatic problems. I simply do not think that the old fashioned belief in no entangling alliances is necessary at this point, instead we should pick alliances and establish dominance through clever actions not gutless, antiquated neutrality. Neutrality gets nothing done.

Olara']Yay! Why don't we just not have income at all? I mean, redistribution of wealth works so well. You've made me change my mind: a flat rate of 125% for everyone until all savings and other investments are dried up. Then we can give the people a tax cut to 100%. Who needs to work, anyway?

EDIT: I've just realized that this leaves a loophole for those who already have money to just quit working and spend their savings. So here goes: all properties, foreign and domestic, will be seized by the government. Every person within the government's jurisdiction will become property of the government. We will all engage in various forced labor--skilled and unskilled--in three-year rotations. Everything you need will be provided by the government. If you don't work, though, you won't eat. If you do work, you still probably won't eat, but you'll smile while you work or be killed. I mean, wow, why did no one ever think of this before?


This is, by far, one of the most obvious, and dumbest attempts to defend the pocketbooks of those who need it least. What is it with this whole "punishing the successful" crapgabageretardnonsensebullshit. I LOTHE those woh defend the rich with every singe fiber of my being. They are inferior, scared, small penis people, with nothing but scorn for other human beings. And, they need a Clockwork Orange style, eyes pried open, look at the real world around them!

Why are there so many fawning groupies of the wealthy around here??

Right....necessary programs. :rolleyes:
I am a bit of a statist so do not blame me if I support a strong government. At least I am not an authoritarian socialist because that would be really bad in the economic sense. I do think that pork is one of the nastiest things in government though, especially the fish on an airplane type;) but I will support strong education systems, good law and order, powerful military, and whatever research that would help the nation. In my mind the purpose of the economy is to provide for society and that the government should be a good way to create this societal benefit so long as the money is not spent stupidly.

FDR provoked the Japanese, purposefully.
Pure fabrication. The japanese provoked us, and we should have declared war upon them quite a bit earlier, after the incidents of genocide in china.

Why are there so many fawning groupies of the wealthy around here??
Because they're usually not emotionalist. Why should we help the poor?

Pure fabrication.
Have you never read the McCollum Memo?
The japanese provoked us, and we should have declared war upon them quite a bit earlier, after the incidents of genocide in china.
Why?

China wouldn’t dare attack us. It’s too dependant on us economically, and the moment it isn’t will be because we, for whatever reason, will have stopped trading with them and everything over there will have gone to shit as a result.

The US is borrowing its economy from China. All their manpower over there is basically buying the US through bonds etc. Right now, China could sell off government bonds, causing huge inflation in the US, slitting the US's military's throat (or causing the US to raise taxes a lot to pay). Then it will be time for them to attack...or, of course, weild huge power by threatening to.

The US is borrowing its economy from China. All their manpower over there is basically buying the US through bonds etc. Right now, China could sell off government bonds, causing huge inflation in the US, slitting the US's military's throat (or causing the US to raise taxes a lot to pay). Then it will be time for them to attack...or, of course, weild huge power by threatening to.
And China's Banking System would be forced to immediately do a massive restructuring exercise, essentially killing their economy as well.
Neither side can afford to start shit, and so we have a new type of cold war, but without Nukes.

@Leonstein: I responded to your concerns about my tax system, but I believe it's on the page before this one.

@Leonstein: I responded to your concerns about my tax system, but I believe it's on the page before this one.
Ooops, yes, I see. :D

Your system still gives people an incentive to cheat on taxes. Mine makes sure that there is no benefit to cheating the system or hiding income anywhere along the way.
I don't get it. If I earn 100k, I pay 25.5k in taxes.
If I pretend I only earn 90k, I pay only 22.5k in taxes.
I don't think it's mathematically possible to develop a system where there is no incentive to cheat. Afterall, there's plenty of ways to hide money without corporate interference.
Hell, I cheated the tax people for two years, and I don't own a company.

Hell, I cheated the tax people for two years, and I don't own a company.
Doesn’t that go against the whole democratic socialism thing? I thought y’all loved to pay taxes, kind of like sadomasochism.

Doesn’t that go against the whole democratic socialism thing? I thought y’all loved to pay taxes, kind of like sadomasochism.
I'm a poor person, I'm allowed! :D

I am a bit of a statist so do not blame me if I support a strong government. At least I am not an authoritarian socialist because that would be really bad in the economic sense. I do think that pork is one of the nastiest things in government though, especially the fish on an airplane type;) but I will support strong education systems, good law and order, powerful military, and whatever research that would help the nation. In my mind the purpose of the economy is to provide for society and that the government should be a good way to create this societal benefit so long as the money is not spent stupidly.

Ah, but it will always be spent stupidly. When we are children, we don't really know the value of a dollar, as we don't do the work that brings in that dollar. When people aren't making the money themselves, they tend to spend frivolously (rather like the politicians and our tax dollars). It will always be like that. That's why I'm against large governments doing things for "the good of the people". Governments don't do that. They're all about control of the populace and propagating themselves.

Don't get me wrong, there is a need for the necessary evil that is government--just on a MUCH smaller scale. People have to learn to fend for themselves.

I'll have you know that every last one off the $4 million sent to the International Fertilizer Development Center in 2003 was deeply necessary. I mean, if it weren't for that they would never have figured out that the best way to get cow manure was from the back end of a cow.

You're awesome. :D

I don't get it. If I earn 100k, I pay 25.5k in taxes.
If I pretend I only earn 90k, I pay only 22.5k in taxes.
I don't think it's mathematically possible to develop a system where there is no incentive to cheat. Afterall, there's plenty of ways to hide money without corporate interference.
Hell, I cheated the tax people for two years, and I don't own a company.
Well yes, if you're referring to illegal practices. I'm talking about the people who move money around to mask their income by taking advantage of loopholes legally, which happens quite a bit. If you're just going to flat out lie, then there's not much one can do, but if you were to make 100k, count 90k as income and put 10k into a holding corporation which would then have a profit of 10k this year, you would still have 22.5k of your income taken and 3k of your holding company's profit, which would still add up to 25.5k, the exact same amount you would lose if you were to just declare it all as income. In fact, there is simply no way to manipulate your money into any lower bracket to pay less overall, something accountants get hired to do for rich people, and now even some of the middle class, all the time. Haven't you seen those TV ads offering to save you money on your tax return? They do that by taking advantages of all the loopholes the current system provides to people. All of these loopholes would be closed with a flatter tax system.

All of these loopholes would be closed with a flatter tax system.
Okay, true. But if you then consider the money you may lose by only charging 30% across the board, for the tax base as a whole you might still end up with less money no matter how many loopholes you close.

Ah, but it will always be spent stupidly. When we are children, we don't really know the value of a dollar, as we don't do the work that brings in that dollar. When people aren't making the money themselves, they tend to spend frivolously (rather like the politicians and our tax dollars). It will always be like that. That's why I'm against large governments doing things for "the good of the people". Governments don't do that. They're all about control of the populace and propagating themselves.

Don't get me wrong, there is a need for the necessary evil that is government--just on a MUCH smaller scale. People have to learn to fend for themselves.
Well, I tend towards statism anyway. I believe in strong government to get necessary programs accomplished, I am not for pork but instead for powerful government that will get the job done. Besides, I think that the people always spend stupidly anyway. I mean, people are idiots and they buy the stupidest things on their own. The only difference between the government and the masses is that the government at least makes the effort to justify what they buy while people will buy the spoiler or the SUV or the spoiler on the SUV despite how unnecessary these things are or even the waste in getting those possessions. (spoilers do not really improve car efficiency but cost money and SUVs are often gas guzzling pieces of crap)

This is, by far, one of the most obvious, and dumbest attempts to defend the pocketbooks of those who need it least. What is it with this whole "punishing the successful" crapgabageretardnonsensebullshit. I LOTHE those woh defend the rich with every singe fiber of my being. They are inferior, scared, small penis people, with nothing but scorn for other human beings. And, they need a Clockwork Orange style, eyes pried open, look at the real world around them!
I loathe those who confuse the old, idle rich, with the nouveau rich. What if I am just now (after 40 some odd years of work) beggining to live large off of the results of my labors? Paris Hilton and Bill Gates wouldn't give a flying fuck if their income tax were to be raised up to 100%, they've got enough cash already that they don't have to make new money (which is why they are the idle rich). The people who are most pinned down by income tax are those who are seeking to raise their position, because they have to pay the tax by reducing their earnings.
In effect, high income taxes help the old rich, the Kennedys and the Rockefellers, by keeping all those filthy commoners who think that making a successful business elevates them to the level of people who are still living on the successful businesses that their daddies and their daddy's daddies made.

Well, I tend towards statism anyway. I believe in strong government to get necessary programs accomplished, I am not for pork but instead for powerful government that will get the job done. Besides, I think that the people always spend stupidly anyway. I mean, people are idiots and they buy the stupidest things on their own. The only difference between the government and the masses is that the government at least makes the effort to justify what they buy while people will buy the spoiler or the SUV or the spoiler on the SUV despite how unnecessary these things are or even the waste in getting those possessions. (spoilers do not really improve car efficiency but cost money and SUVs are often gas guzzling pieces of crap)

I'll say that the politicians make an effort to buy future power by funding "necessary" programs and purchasing votes. People want something for nothing, and they'll get it, if they just vote for N.

You'll see from my sig line that I'm almost the furthest thing from statism you can get, and still have something to call a government. You will get absolutely no help from me to bring about your world vision, where humans are devoid of self control.

Governments never get the job done. They just grow and become more and more inefficient. They steal, they kill, they ruin others' lives just to stay in some semblance of control of the population. They never end up doing something for the good of the populace. They do things for the good of themselves. Always.

I'm a poor person, I'm allowed! :D
No, you’re a fucking hypocrite.

No, you’re a fucking hypocrite.
Its not hypocracy, it is fully in line with socialist thinking.
Remember THEY are the bourgeouis, WE are the proletariat. THEY must be torn down to provide US with sustenance and free internet access. THEY are the oppresser, not ME.

Its not hypocracy, it is fully in line with socialist thinking.
Remember THEY are the bourgeouis, WE are the proletariat. THEY must be torn down to provide US with sustenance and free internet access. THEY are the oppresser, not ME.
So, how is that any different from the rich ruling? At least they did something to earn it.

Governments never get the job done. They just grow and become more and more inefficient. They steal, they kill, they ruin others' lives just to stay in some semblance of control of the population. They never end up doing something for the good of the populace. They do things for the good of themselves. Always.

That's a nice list of generalisations, but it's not as if there's any proof that getting rid of governments would solve any of these problems. There are also plenty of examples of governments achieving things apart from winning themselves another term in office.

So, how is that any different from the rich ruling? At least they did something to earn it.
Did I say that I believed it? No, I just summed up the class warfare tactics of socialism. Divide the world into a THEY who have power and money, and a WE who don't, but we have morals on our side.
It doesn't matter if its true or not, after all, all that matters is that you manage to sell it hard enough to the your side.

Did I say that I believed it? No, I just summed up the class warfare tactics of socialism. Divide the world into a THEY who have power and money, and a WE who don't, but we have morals on our side.
It doesn't matter if its true or not, after all, all that matters is that you manage to sell it hard enough to the your side.
Oh, I know you don’t believe it. You’re a very reasonable fellow when you aren’t being crazy.
I’m just pissed off that this guy advocates and, most importantly, votes for socialist policy with the full knowledge that he won't have to pay for it.

Oh, I know you don’t believe it. You’re a very reasonable fellow when you aren’t being crazy.
I’m just pissed off that this guy advocates and, most importantly, votes for socialist policy with the full knowledge that he won't have to pay for it.
Just making sure, far too many people have taken me seriously when I launch off into hyperbole or sarcasm. Although I had hoped that changing the emphasis applied and the addition of the bit about "free internet" would be sufficient to keep anyone from agreeing with me.

I’m just pissed off that this guy advocates and, most importantly, votes for socialist policy with the full knowledge that he won't have to pay for it.
Two things:
a) In Australia, I don't get to vote because I'm not a citizen. I'm only a permanent resident, which allows me to pay taxes, and pay my Uni-Fees upfront rather than through the "HECS"-Scheme (a type of government loan system).
Which is why I feel no allegiance to the government here.

b) In the recent German elections, I actually voted Conservative believe it or not. I'm a swing voter.

That's a nice list of generalisations, but it's not as if there's any proof that getting rid of governments would solve any of these problems. There are also plenty of examples of governments achieving things apart from winning themselves another term in office.

I'm not saying get rid of government. I'm saying severely limit what a government can do--and how much money it can spend. Industry has always been more efficient than government at getting things done--and they can do it with less money.

The US military could survive quite comfortably at 10% of the cost it eats today. All we have to do is actually defend our own country, not meddle in everyone else's affairs.

Welfare needs to go--child credits need to go. The jobs ARE there, and why should I pay for someone else's child, when I had no choice in the matter of that child existing?

The government does NOT know what's best for me, or anyone else for that matter. That comes down to personal responsibility and choice, which a large government does not and will not allow. Nanny states are for the weak. Life's not fair, and it will never be. Stop trying to take from others, just because someone slipped, and now they want to catch up. This isn't kindergarten--it's adult life. It's hard.

Two things:
a) In Australia, I don't get to vote because I'm not a citizen. I'm only a permanent resident, which allows me to pay taxes, and pay my Uni-Fees upfront rather than through the "HECS"-Scheme (a type of government loan system).
Which is why I feel no allegiance to the government here.

b) In the recent German elections, I actually voted Conservative believe it or not. I'm a swing voter.

a) What a strange system...

b) I always suspected you

As someone with moderate income I would prefer the flat tax approach...better predictability, with additional income I can never be sure how much to set aside for future taxes. There should be no progressive system, as it obviously allows for too much loopholes (I´m always at the lookout for some). Better flat rate for citizens, flat rate for corporations, and no loopholes...

Okay, true. But if you then consider the money you may lose by only charging 30% across the board, for the tax base as a whole you might still end up with less money no matter how many loopholes you close.
As I said at the beginning, both the tax rate and the tax free personal allowance rate could be adjusted upon implementation so the government would receive the exact same amount of tax revenue. The only thing that can't change by itself is the bare minimum that the government gives back to citizens, as it is mathematically calculated from the other two variables as "tax rate" x "tax free personal allowance".

Well yes, if you're referring to illegal practices. I'm talking about the people who move money around to mask their income by taking advantage of loopholes legally, which happens quite a bit. If you're just going to flat out lie, then there's not much one can do, but if you were to make 100k, count 90k as income and put 10k into a holding corporation which would then have a profit of 10k this year, you would still have 22.5k of your income taken and 3k of your holding company's profit, which would still add up to 25.5k, the exact same amount you would lose if you were to just declare it all as income. In fact, there is simply no way to manipulate your money into any lower bracket to pay less overall, something accountants get hired to do for rich people, and now even some of the middle class, all the time. Haven't you seen those TV ads offering to save you money on your tax return? They do that by taking advantages of all the loopholes the current system provides to people. All of these loopholes would be closed with a flatter tax system.

Not necessarily! You only pay the higher % within each higher tax bracket, not on the whole thing (in Canada, at least). This way, the only "loophole" left that you're talking about is to make your total income appear to be less, which is fully possible under a flat tax system anyway!

Repeat: Flat tax system does not get rid of the real loopholes, e.g. deductions, corporate jets. To solve to loophole problem needs a simpler tax code. Thats it!

This brings me back to my beloved recessive tax. Although everyone sees the obvious unfairness of a recessive tax system, it still has the only quality left from your proposed flat tax----the rich still pay more tax than the poor!

As I said at the beginning, both the tax rate and the tax free personal allowance rate could be adjusted upon implementation so the government would receive the exact same amount of tax revenue. The only thing that can't change by itself is the bare minimum that the government gives back to citizens, as it is mathematically calculated from the other two variables as "tax rate" x "tax free personal allowance".
So that if things go not quite as planned, you might end up with a flat tax of 60 or 70%?

You'll see from my sig line that I'm almost the furthest thing from statism you can get, and still have something to call a government. You will get absolutely no help from me to bring about your world vision, where humans are devoid of self control.

Governments never get the job done. They just grow and become more and more inefficient. They steal, they kill, they ruin others' lives just to stay in some semblance of control of the population. They never end up doing something for the good of the populace. They do things for the good of themselves. Always.
I know that we disagree on our political visions. You will get no help from me in attaining your vision of government either.

Actually, both never get the job done. People are stupid, governments are stupid. I just think that the stupidity of the government is more likely to be focused on a goal and that a stupid government is less dangerous than stupid masses. Governments have to at least focus on maintaining some amount of power, people go around doing stupid things like suicide, murder and even petty crimes that don't even help their own interests. Besides, the success of the nation is usually part of the government's interest anyway.

Not necessarily! You only pay the higher % within each higher tax bracket, not on the whole thing (in Canada, at least). This way, the only "loophole" left that you're talking about is to make your total income appear to be less, which is fully possible under a flat tax system anyway!

Repeat: Flat tax system does not get rid of the real loopholes, e.g. deductions, corporate jets. To solve to loophole problem needs a simpler tax code. Thats it!

This brings me back to my beloved recessive tax. Although everyone sees the obvious unfairness of a recessive tax system, it still has the only quality left from your proposed flat tax----the rich still pay more tax than the poor!
So you're saying that under the Canadian system (I live in Canada too), if the tax rate is 10% from 0-50k and 30% from 50-1000k and you make 75k, you pay 10% on the first 50k and then 30% on the remaining 25k? That's not how I understood it to work at all. In fact, when I read this, I checked with both of my parents on how they paid their taxes, and they both told me that the rate is determined by your income and then applied to every single dollar you make. Now maybe we're all wrong, but I have never heard of taxes being divided the way you recommend.

The whole point of a flat tax, however, is to do away with almost every single deduction you can get. You would get no benefits for being married, for example. Not only that, but once you standardize income tax, you can make it the same as corporate tax, which prevents "tax arbitrage". Consider, for example, the old Slovakian system, in which many workers would declare themselves self-employed and declare their income as profits for their own company, thus claiming a lower tax rate. This practice quickly ended when corporate rates became the exact same as personal rates under the flat tax revolution. In fact, in order for this situation to be avoided under the current system, corporate tax rate is required to match the tax rate for the highest bracket, a financial impossibility in today's global economy. Thus, many high-earning individuals will incorporate themselves to gain the benefits of lower taxes, which in turn creates more red-tape in the system and less revenue for the government, which means the government needs to charge the average person more money. We need to stop giving the rich options to escape paying taxes. Until we do, we punish the less fortunate people our system is supposed to help. The current solution to this problem is to continuously amend our tax codes, which has produced the tangled mess we see today. An alternative solution would be to shut down all these loopholes at once by taking away any possible discrepancies in the system.

So that if things go not quite as planned, you might end up with a flat tax of 60 or 70%?
Yes, but that can happen under any system. It's not exclusive to flat tax.

I know that we disagree on our political visions. You will get no help from me in attaining your vision of government either.

Actually, both never get the job done. People are stupid, governments are stupid. I just think that the stupidity of the government is more likely to be focused on a goal and that a stupid government is less dangerous than stupid masses. Governments have to at least focus on maintaining some amount of power, people go around doing stupid things like suicide, murder and even petty crimes that don't even help their own interests. Besides, the success of the nation is usually part of the government's interest anyway.

How about individuals? Where do they stand on your stupid scale? That's what real liberalism (now called Libertarianism in the US) relys on. Responsibility of the individual to make decisions that are best for them. Not have some group of elected popular folks come in and mess around with their lives.

I don't consider government stupid--don't make that mistake. I consider it evil. A necessary one, yes, but still evil, and never to be trusted.

Suicide is a personal choice, and not up to anyone else--it's not your call who decides to end the life they themselves own.

Murder--is best met with force in kind (that's why I'm also armed, and VERY pro-death penalty).

Playing to political parties, special interest groups, etc. IS part of the elected politician's (and therefore the government's) interest. The government doesn't exist as a solid entity--it's all about greedy politicians that want to stay in power and control others--they aren't there to help. They're there to control, when they should just be administering the business that is government instead. They're supposed to be servants to the people, not rulers. And yet, here they are piling more and more laws on the books, restricting the populace further.

So, your stance tells me that you want to be told what to do--or you want to tell others what to do (your way). Regarding the former--that's your choice. If you are of the latter....you're an enemy to freedom. REAL freedom, not the nationalistic, flag-waving bullshit.

If it's possible to have a flat rate of 100%, then wonderful, but that's unlikely. So I favor progressive taxation.