NationStates Jolt Archive

This is what I have to ask all you socialists out there- Do you like paying taxes?

I hate taxes. I also hate paying for other stuff like food, movies and pet rocks. Neither are optional. I just hate paying too much for too little - THAT is the real problem.

Taxes make possible many aspects of my life. Schooling, public transportation, public roads, sanitation, security of person, healthcare and so on. Seeing how much I, and other people, get back from taxes, I don't mind paying them at all.

Seeing as I get, free healthcare, roads, TV, security and a pension from taxes, plus a whole lot more, no I don't.

I get free TV but I don't have to pay taxes for it. You're getting the shaft! (not to mention - is it really 'free' if you are paying for it?)

I get free TV but I don't have to pay taxes for it. You're getting the shaft!

Rather the shaft than advertising.

I hate taxes. I also hate paying for other stuff like food, movies and pet rocks. Neither are optional. I just hate paying too much for too little - THAT is the real problem.
I concur.

Why would socialists like paying taxes? They're normally the sort of people who don't earn enough to qualify to pay them, so they wouldn't know what it's like.

What I hate is seeing my tax money wasted in the military while schools and hospitals are closing... but that's not a problem of taxes, but of a right-wing governement.

What I hate too is tax cuts like they did the previous year, when 70% of the cut went to 10% of the population.

What I want is a high, strongly progressive tax, that doesn't hurt the poor, not too much the middle class, but allow to pay for what's needed for people to live decently: education, healthcare, housing, transports, ...

What I hate is seeing my tax money wasted in the military while schools and hospitals are closing... but that's not a problem of taxes, but of a right-wing governement.

What I hate too is tax cuts like they did the previous year, when 70% of the cut went to 10% of the population.

What I want is a high, strongly progressive tax, that doesn't hurt the poor, not too much the middle class, but allow to pay for what's needed for people to live decently: education, healthcare, housing, transports, ...


Trick question - how much more is spent by government in the US on the military than on healthcare or (not ''and') education.

Why would socialists like paying taxes? They're normally the sort of people who don't earn enough to qualify to pay them, so they wouldn't know what it's like.

To qualify for having to pay taxes, I need to make 16700 Swedish krona (€1800) per year. That's a very easy amount to come up to, even for those who label themselves socialists.

Oooh... Taxes.... at first I read "Post if you Hate Texas" and I was all like "Yippee! Rant time~!"
Ah well, I'll still post xp

I can see the reasons for taxes, but I'd like to have some say as to where my taxes go. I don't want any of my money going into Iraq >.>

Trick question - how much more is spent by government in the US on the military than on healthcare or (not ''and') education.

Why should someone from Paris know what the US spends its tax money on? Why should he even care? And what relevance does it have to his post about his own government?

Why should someone from Paris know what the US spends its tax money on? Why should he even care?
It wasn't you who I was quoting - was it? Hmm, maybe if you read their post you could answer that yourself.

This is what I have to ask all you socialists out there- Do you like paying taxes?
Yeah, that's why socialism is a step below the far superior communism- there are no taxes in communism :p

It wasn't you who I was quoting - was it? Hmm, maybe if you read their post you could answer that yourself.

Location: Paris suburb, France

He mentioned the US nowhere in his post. How is your question in any way relevant? Why do you expect him to know and care about the US tax system?

Why would socialists like paying taxes? They're normally the sort of people who don't earn enough to qualify to pay them, so they wouldn't know what it's like.

That's a generalization that doesn't hold true in my country. Many middle class families vote for socialist parties. And would they mind paying taxes? No. But they hate it when the money goes to senseless things like the military. Or when a non-socialist government start messing with the budget to decrease funding for schools and healthcare. Then they do mind paying taxes.

Trick question - how much more is spent by government in the US on the military than on healthcare or (not ''and') education.


Here - I'll even give you links to help...
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~jephrean/classweb/United%20States.html
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html


and this one just because it is fun;
http://home.att.net/~mwhodges/mwhodges.htm

What I hate is the fact that I pay 30% of my income to taxes, and yet, I don't really get a say in what I want the money to go towards to. I also hate the fact that in the US, the more money you make, the more you pay in taxes, I mean comon! If there's a way to discourage people from getting rich, this is it. I hate the tax system that the USA have right now. The system is a complete mess and need to be re-vamped. I am in favor of the flat tax or the fair tax program. Also, for those of us who say that the tax cut was only for the rich. Comon, who didn't get a $300 check? I know I did, in fact I got two checks, one from my state/local government, and another one from the national government. Naturally the rich are going to benefit from the tax cuts, why, because they pay the highest in taxes in the United States. So while 1% of the US population is rich, they also pay the highest taxes. So quit the whining.

Location: Paris suburb, France

He mentioned the US nowhere in his post. How is your question in any way relevant? Why do you expect him to know and care about the US tax system?

He mentioned US tax policy (unless I missed a controversial French tax cut and increased French miliraty spending recently ) regardless - economics and tax don't work differently in France than elewhere.

What I hate is the fact that I pay 30% of my income to taxes, and yet, I don't really get a say in what I want the money to go towards to. .


Sure you do, you get to vote. Of course, the 50% of Americans who pay no federal income tax whatsoever (in fact, get money FROM the IRS in the form of the earned income credit) get to vote on how your money is spent also.

He mentioned US tax policy (unless I missed a French tax cut recently) regardless

He mentioned the US nowhere in his post. The right-wing governments of Jean-Pierre Raffarin and Dominique de Villepin, since Jacques Chirac's election in 2002, have had to face increasing budget deficits for the State and Social Security budgets. In 2004, Jean-Pierre Raffarin introduced legislation to reform French Social Security to cut costs, thereby reducing its deficit. In both cases, this government had reduced taxes or contributions. The government also increased defence spending. The Government of Dominique de Villepin has implemented several measures, including an income tax cut totalling €3.5 billion.

economics and tax don't work differently in France than elewhere.

US figures remain irrelevant to France.

Sure you do, you get to vote. Of course, the 50% of Americans who pay no federal income tax whatsoever (in fact, get money FROM the IRS in the form of the earned income credit) get to vote on how your money is spent also.

IMHO, until you start paying the taxes, you don't get a say in how it get spent.

Yes, I do vote, but what ends up happening is that once these politicans get into office, they start their little pet causes etc. etc. and start using state and federal money to work on their pet project. The state of North Carolina does not know how to manage a budget! If you want an example of what I am talking about, think about the bridge in Alaska that goes nowhere.

Taxes make possible many aspects of my life. Schooling, public transportation, public roads, sanitation, security of person, healthcare and so on. Seeing how much I, and other people, get back from taxes, I don't mind paying them at all.
If we could get rid of pork projects and unnecessary wars...

If we could get rid of pork projects and unnecessary wars...

exactly. I think alot of the government functions can be done by the private sector.

IMHO, until you start paying the taxes, you don't get a say in how it get spent.
.

Wouldn't THAT be nice! I've started threads about that idea a few times long ago. The socialists nearly wet themselves with THAT idea! hehe.

He mentioned US tax policy (unless I missed a controversial French tax cut and increased French miliraty spending recently ) regardless - economics and tax don't work differently in France than elewhere.

You missed a controversial French tax cut and increased French military spending recently.

IMHO, until you start paying the taxes, you don't get a say in how it get spent.

So because they have no money, they are non-persons? Interesting opinion.

Wouldn't THAT be nice! I've started threads about that idea a few times long ago. The socialists nearly wet themselves with THAT idea! hehe.

LOL, well it's just seem silly. I mean it's like kids telling their parents on how to spend their money. It's just stupid, and like I said before, until you start paying the damn taxes, you don't get to decide on what should be done about them.

Trick question - how much more is spent by government in the US on the military than on healthcare or (not ''and') education.

As Fass said, I'm from France, and I was speaking of France more than on USA. But it's much worse in USA than in France, true. And for the USA, juste have a look on: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/tables.html . Military spending, for 2007, is more than the half of the total budget.

I hate Albanians too. :mad:

You missed a controversial French tax cut and increased French military spending recently.

Apparently Bozzy seems to feel French people should know and care about the US tax system, while he seems completely ignorant of the French one...

So because they have no money, they are non-persons? Interesting opinion.

What I'm saying is that if they don't pay taxes, then they don't really understand how much the government takes out of my well earned money every 2 weeks, to go towards Light Rails that I'll never use, to go towards schools that have a budget of over a billion dollars, and the school STILL sucks, that the police force is wanting more money, and yet when they spot an illegal immigrant. I want my taxs money to go towards the roads, to school that actually improves, to the police that actually do their jobs, and the rest of it can be given back to the people. The problem with our government here in NC, and in the Nation, is that they just spend spend spend and spend. They have NO concept of a budget.

LOL, well it's just seem silly. I mean it's like kids telling their parents on how to spend their money. It's just stupid, and like I said before, until you start paying the damn taxes, you don't get to decide on what should be done about them.

Maybe if they were paid more fairly by their employers, they'd be able to pay taxes...

Maybe if they were paid more fairly by their employers, they'd be able to pay taxes...

Well that's up to the employers.

What I'm saying is that if they don't pay taxes, then they don't really understand how much the government takes out of my well earned money every 2 weeks

Oh, lucky people ! They are so poor they don't pay taxes !

Hey, if you envy them so much, why don't you become as poor as they are ? It's not hard, you know. What, you still prefer to pay your taxes and have your money ? Why do you complain, then ?

I really hate Texas - damn those cowboys!:p

Wait..

Oh, lucky people ! They are so poor they don't pay taxes !

Hey, if you envy them so much, why don't you become as poor as they are ? It's not hard, you know. What, you still prefer to pay your taxes and have your money ? Why do you complain, then ?

I'm not asking for No taxes, I'm asking for lesser taxes. For the government to take 30% out of the money that I earn, the money I work for is just silly and idiotic. Now if it was 15%, then I wouldn't complain as much. But of course, in order for that to happen, the government has to go to economic class and learn what a budget is.

Well that's up to the employers.

In a ploutocratic system in which it is normal that the ones who have money decide while the ones who don't just have to work day and night, obey and shut up, yes.

In a democratic system, in which the people decide of the society they want to live in, no. In a human system in which people are not treated like merchandises, no. In a fair system in which people are rewarded fairly their work, no.

But well, I guess you prefer the first one.

I thought this said 'Post if you hate Texas'...Dammit,I was going to post something meaningful:p

In a ploutocratic system in which it is normal that the ones who have money decide while the ones who don't just have to work day and night, obey and shut up, yes.

In a democratic system, in which the people decide of the society they want to live in, no. In a human system in which people are not treated like merchandises, no. In a fair system in which people are rewarded fairly their work, no.

But well, I guess you prefer the first one.

Tell me, what sense does it make for a person who doesn't pay taxes, doesn't have 30% of his income taken out of his paycheck, to be deciding what should be done with the taxes? Tell me where the logic in that is.

I have no problem with most taxes; they provide me with safe water, sanitation, roads, fire and police protection, emergency services, schools, national defense, and a multitude of others I couldn't list here without taking up a few pages.

However, I don't really like taxes to pay for things the private sector could do better, but none of the above fit in to that category so it is irrelevant. At times, tax cuts are beneficial but at others higher taxes are in order to pay for services without causing inflation or to meet long-term requirements.

We could not enjoy the standard of living we have today without taxes and without central government.

I have no problem with most taxes; they provide me with safe water, sanitation, roads, fire and police protection, emergency services, schools, national defense, and a multitude of others I couldn't list here without taking up a few pages.

However, I don't really like taxes to pay for things the private sector could do better, but none of the above fit in to that category so it is irrelevant. At times, tax cuts are beneficial but at others higher taxes are in order to pay for services without causing inflation or to meet long-term requirements.

We could not enjoy the standard of living we have today without taxes and without central government.
Exactly my thoughts.

Tell me, what sense does it make for a person who doesn't pay taxes, doesn't have 30% of his income taken out of his paycheck, to be deciding what should be done with the taxes? Tell me where the logic in that is.

Again, if they had the money to pay taxes they would be. Taking 30% of their income would kill them. Literally. Taking much of anything would probably kill them.
They get to decide because they are part of this nation too. Why do you get to decide whether or not government services are available and well-funded when you don't even use a lot of them? Because you are a citizen. Citizens have rights, and there are upsides and downsides to every situation. But I'll bet you'd rather be a billionaire and pay 80% taxes (just an arbitary number) than be below the poverty line paying no taxes.

Well that's up to the employers.

Wait, so the right of a worker to exercise their democratic right to vote is dependant on the altruism of the employer?

And if their employer isn't kind enough to give them enough money to buy a vote then they're depending on their employer being altruistic enough to vote for their interests?

This is just laughable.

I hate Texas!

Oh, taxes. They're kind of neccecary. I don't mind taxes. I don't have to do IRS forms yet, that's why. I really don't mind paying sales tax. I think NY has some pretty messed up policies about them, and I hate how most stores advertize things as being $x, and then add 8% on. Deposits realy tick me off. I walk into a store and the sign says a 12 pack of Coke costs five bucks, I want to pay five bucks for it, not $5.45 or $6 or whatever the hell it comes out to. (Do they add tax after the deposit or before?) That's one thing I like about machines. It says $1.25, and you only have to give it $1.25. Then you bring the bottle to the grocery store and get $.05 per bottle.

What I hate is the fact that I pay 30% of my income to taxes, and yet, I don't really get a say in what I want the money to go towards to. I also hate the fact that in the US, the more money you make, the more you pay in taxes, I mean comon! If there's a way to discourage people from getting rich, this is it. I hate the tax system that the USA have right now. The system is a complete mess and need to be re-vamped. I am in favor of the flat tax or the fair tax program. Also, for those of us who say that the tax cut was only for the rich. Comon, who didn't get a $300 check? I know I did, in fact I got two checks, one from my state/local government, and another one from the national government. Naturally the rich are going to benefit from the tax cuts, why, because they pay the highest in taxes in the United States. So while 1% of the US population is rich, they also pay the highest taxes. So quit the whining.

That's the only fair way to do it.

In a household budget you have three categories of things: vitals, importants, and luxuries.

Vitals are, as the name suggests, vital. This category includes food, clothes, etc.

Importants are important, they mainly consist of upgrades to the bare minimum included in Vitals but they also include a small amount of leisure money, transport, a new pair of shoes before the old ones wear out completely and other things in this category.

Luxuries are just that. Luxuries include expensive clothing, unnecessarily expensive food, cable TV, a yacht etc.

In a minimum wage family then nearly all of the money will be needed to pay for vitals and importants.

In a millionaire family most of the money will be spent on luxuries.

Therefore, if you enforce a flat tax of, for example, 30%, for the millionaires that'll be negligible; maybe they'll have to wait another month to buy their second private jet or maybe they'll have to settle for only two holidays that year.

If you enforce the same tax rate of 30% on a minimum wage family then the money will come out of their importants budget, maybe their children won't get new clothes until next month, or maybe they won't be able to afford anything more than bread and water to eat for a day or two per month.

Therefore, the only fair thing to do is to charge everyone a fixed percentage of their luxury budget per month while leaving the vitals and importants budgets untouched. The best way to do this is to increase tax on the rich and reduce it on the poor.

*gets down of soapbox and wanders off*

HELL I HATE TAXES

I thought this said 'Post if you hate Texas'...Dammit,I was going to post something meaningful:p

Weirdly that's exactly what I read too.

I think that makes four or five of us who have stated that we hate Texas.

That's the only fair way to do it.

In a household budget you have three categories of things: vitals, importants, and luxuries.

Vitals are, as the name suggests, vital. This category includes food, clothes, etc.

Importants are important, they mainly consist of upgrades to the bare minimum included in Vitals but they also include a small amount of leisure money, transport, a new pair of shoes before the old ones wear out completely and other things in this category.

Luxuries are just that. Luxuries include expensive clothing, unnecessarily expensive food, cable TV, a yacht etc.

In a minimum wage family then nearly all of the money will be needed to pay for vitals and importants.

In a millionaire family most of the money will be spent on luxuries.

Therefore, if you enforce a flat tax of, for example, 30%, for the millionaires that'll be negligible; maybe they'll have to wait another month to buy their second private jet or maybe they'll have to settle for only two holidays that year.

If you enforce the same tax rate of 30% on a minimum wage family then the money will come out of their importants budget, maybe their children won't get new clothes until next month, or maybe they won't be able to afford anything more than bread and water to eat for a day or two per month.

Therefore, the only fair thing to do is to charge everyone a fixed percentage of their luxury budget per month while leaving the vitals and importants budgets untouched. The best way to do this is to increase tax on the rich and reduce it on the poor.

*gets down of soapbox and wanders off*


and yet, if the 1% of the rich decides to leave and move to another country we're screwed. The first and foremost thing that must be done is that every level of government, to national all the way down to local, MUST HAVE A BUDGET! They must get their out of control spending under control. After that, we should introduce a Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, which states that government cannot spend more than the population size (or the rate of population increase) or the rate of inflation. Which basically mean if you have a city, and the taxpayers generate about $12 billion, then the city government can't spend anymore than that. Any money found outside that window will be counted as surplus and be given back to the people. Once that is achieved, then we need to re-vamp the Tax system.

Of course I hate paying taxes. Then again, I imagine I'd hate seeing my country collapse around me more.

If there's a way to discourage people from getting rich, this is it.

Yeah, I was going to be rich, but I saw how much tax I'd be paying, so I decided to return to eating Ramen in my bedsit. Damn that Government!

-snip-

I'm sorry? Are you disputing my argument that increased taxes on the rich are ethically justified?

I'm sorry? Are you disputing my argument that increased taxes on the rich are ethically justified?

and I say it's not, because most of the rich people (like Bill Gates, Steve Forbes) worked their way to the top. True there are a few people who were born into money (Paris Hilton) but for those who worked their way to the top, why should they be taxed to death just because they were successful? I gotta be honest, I'm suprised we still have rich people in this country, they could move to another country and be treated like kings.

This is what I have to ask all you socialists out there- Do you like paying taxes?

Usually. It depends on who's in office.
I don't like it when my taxes go to foreign policy spending, be it humanitarian, anti-free trade, or military.

Also, I'm not a socialist, I'm a democratic-socialist. Just like you, and every one else in the world. Only an idiot thinks he's a true "capitalist", let alone wants to be one. Capitalism can't work without some forms of socialist buffers, e.g. anti-monopoly laws, minimal forms of welfare, and public works opportunities.
Please cease with your economic dogma; it only makes you look stupid.

I gotta be honest, I'm suprised we still have rich people in this country, they could move to another country and be treated like kings.

For one, only in 3rd world countries would they escape progressive taxation (e.g. Saudi Arabia.) For another, being "treated like kings" is exactly why America was set up -- to escape any sort of system that has a substantial rich/poor divide.

Tell me, what sense does it make for a person who doesn't pay taxes, doesn't have 30% of his income taken out of his paycheck, to be deciding what should be done with the taxes? Tell me where the logic in that is.

What sense does it make for someone who has never been in the military to decide defence policy?

What sense does it make for someone without an MD to decide health policy.

What sense does it make for someone who is not a member of the government to decide what the government does?

(Okay, I apologise profusely for using the slippery-slope argument, but I think it is called for.)

The fact is that non-tax payers need to have a say, because it is usually these people who are at the demand-end of government services. A government elected by tax-payers only would likely drastically reduce welfare. You'd lead to a situation where the poor would be so neglected that they would turn to crime and ultimately revolution.

and I say it's not, because most of the rich people (like Bill Gates, Steve Forbes) worked their way to the top. True there are a few people who were born into money (Paris Hilton) but for those who worked their way to the top, why should they be taxed to death just because they were successful? I gotta be honest, I'm suprised we still have rich people in this country, they could move to another country and be treated like kings.

You have yet to answer a single point in my argument. Until you respond to it I see no reason to waste any more time on the topic.

Why would socialists like paying taxes? They're normally the sort of people who don't earn enough to qualify to pay them, so they wouldn't know what it's like.
In my country, anyone who receives, in one year, the equivalent of 6 months of minimum wages has to pay taxes.

Also, everyone pays taxes on fuel and, consequently, on all products that require fuel to be distributed plus VAT (Value Added Tax), which is applied to all products. Because of these direct taxes on products, the poor actually end up paying a bigger percentage of their wages on taxes than rich people do.

Yeah, that's why socialism is a step below the far superior communism- there are no taxes in communism :p

yeah and on the flip side you have stagnation....

This is what I have to ask all you socialists out there- Do you like paying taxes?
It's a necessary evil.

I hate paying taxes, but, I don't mind as long as my money goes to education, healthcare, transit and civil infrastructure at the domestic level.

As Fass said, I'm from France, and I was speaking of France more than on USA. But it's much worse in USA than in France, true. And for the USA, juste have a look on: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/tables.html . Military spending, for 2007, is more than the half of the total budget.

I looked at your link. It shows American military spending in Fiscal 2007 at $439.3 billon. Which is not half of total budget spending, it is half of discretionary spending ($870.7 billion).

Most government spending in the US is not discretionary. The three entitlement programmes Medicare (health care for the elderly and disabled), Medicaid (health care for the poor) and Social Security consume almost half of total government spending. http://www.twincities.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/13494229.htm

This is what I have to ask all you socialists out there- Do you like paying taxes?Say bye bye to police officers, paramedics, hospitals, roads, publics transits, schools, government........... *and the list goes on*

Taxes make possible many aspects of my life. Schooling, public transportation, public roads, sanitation, security of person, healthcare and so on. Seeing how much I, and other people, get back from taxes, I don't mind paying them at all.

As a young guy I get jack squat back from my taxes in the way of social services, because I don't use them.

But the ones I do see-military, police, road, fire, etc I am pleased with.

Still, there could be less taxes. Far less...

I like taxes.
Even if I don't get all my money's worth out of the system, I know other people are benefitting. And should I ever need the healthcare system, it's there for me, for free.
Heh. But I have probably gotten my money's worth for a while now, seeing how long I've been in school. :P The gov't does pay a fair bit for students, whether they realize it or not.

This is what I have to ask all you socialists out there- Do you like paying taxes?
Yes, it gives me an enormous sense of well-being. Unlike Texas.

I support taxes, as long as the money paid comes back to the people, in the long run. I'm supremely mad at Stephen Harper for cutting taxes, while slashing the foreign aid and enviromental budgets. Some people need the money more than we do.

I don't mind taxes.

I support taxes, as long as the money paid comes back to the people, in the long run. I'm supremely mad at Stephen Harper for cutting taxes, while slashing the foreign aid and enviromental budgets. Some people need the money more than we do.
He did? What a jerk.

were not all socialists. I'm capitalist.

And I hate the concept of taxs.

There are Socialist parties in Texas, I don't hate all of them.
But you know what's so good about Texas having so many executions?
Less Texans.

Say bye bye to police officers, paramedics, hospitals, roads, publics transits, schools, government........... *and the list goes on*
Stupid socialists. they just never realise that not all of it is government owned. roads and railways can and should be privately owned and operated.

I actually like taxes. I say raise 'em higher :)

There are Socialist parties in Texas, I don't hate all of them.
But you know what's so good about Texas having so many executions?
Less Texans.
I think you confused this for the Post if you hate Texas Thread. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=485085)

Stupid socialists. they just never realise that not all of it is government owned. roads and railways can and should be privately owned and operated.

So that greedy capitalists could establish monopolies and overcharge people for profit?

I think you confused this for the Post if you hate Texas Thread. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=485085)


LMAO!1!!!:p

So that greedy capitalists could establish monopolies and overcharge people for profit?
there are too many socialists here.

Honestly. The government would do the same anyway, so irs better that corporations have it, so the money can't be used to fund wars.

So that greedy capitalists could establish monopolies and overcharge people for profit?
Not to mention running their companies (and the roads and railways) into ruin, always with the expectation of being bailed out by - the government! Government - remember, they're the guys we're all told by big corporations ought to get out of the business of... governing.

I support taxes, as long as the money paid comes back to the people, in the long run. I'm supremely mad at Stephen Harper for cutting taxes, while slashing the foreign aid and enviromental budgets. Some people need the money more than we do.
well i think it was a good idea. taxes are a bad thing. its a very socialist concept. the sooner we phase out taxes the better.

Not to mention running their companies (and the roads and railways) into ruin, always with the expectation of being bailed out by - the government! Government - remember, they're the guys we're all told by big corporations ought to get out of the business of... governing.
well, thats cuz we are living in a very facked up world. We should have ever even attempted the evil systems that are socialism and communism.

there are too many socialists here.

Honestly. The government would do the same anyway, so irs better that corporations have it, so the money can't be used to fund wars.

Right, the constitutionally bound government would exploit people in the same way as massive, money-hungry corporations? Sorry, but I forgot the part where politicians are allowed to take home unspecified amounts of tax money, and therefore have an incentive to exploit people.

well, thats cuz we are living in a very facked up world. We should have ever even attempted the evil systems that are socialism and communism.
Riiiiiiiiiight. So then, who governs - and, lacking taxes, with what shall they govern?

Wishful thinking? Money from the Tooth Fairy? Or will the (palsied) government make leaves legal tender?

well i think it was a good idea. taxes are a bad thing. its a very socialist concept. the sooner we phase out taxes the better.

Phase out taxes? Without any taxes, nothing could happen. Where would the government get it's funds?

there are too many socialists here.

That's unpossible.

Wishful thinking? Money from the Tooth Fairy? Or will the (palsied) government make leaves legal tender?

Rather leaves than boulders...

I hate taxes. I'd tolerate the FairTax (rebated sales tax), but I want all of the income and payroll taxes utterly destroyed and banned for all eternity.

I hate taxes. I'd tolerate the FairTax (rebated sales tax), but I want all of the income and payroll taxes utterly destroyed and banned for all eternity.

So you want to pay an arm and a leg for health care, education, road use, and all the other things the government has control over?

I hate Taxes more than Texas :p

Taxes aren't totally unnecessary, but if you don't agree with your government's use of your money, they are pretty bad. The US government can take my money by force, and use it to buy an overpriced M-16 from a defense contractor that an American soldier may or may not use to shoot an innocent Iraqi in the face. Or they could give it to a poor person through welfare, at which point it may or may not be spent on booze and cigarettes. Of course progressive taxes are better than taxes on poor people, such as state lotteries and casinos. But they are still used to do a lot of stupid stuff.

I hate taxes! I don't like paying them. Once it becomes worth it, I'll have my money in the Cayman Islands or something.

I don't like them, but I don't like anarchy more, so I'll support the government. As long as they don't try to screw me. :D

I hate taxes! I don't like paying them. Once it becomes worth it, I'll have my money in the Cayman Islands or something.
I'll have both myself and my money in Monaco. XD

Tell me, what sense does it make for a person who doesn't pay taxes, doesn't have 30% of his income taken out of his paycheck, to be deciding what should be done with the taxes? Tell me where the logic in that is.
It doesn't matter whether the individual voter pays 30% taxes or not. It's about their qualification (if any) in deciding how to spend state money. Taxes are just the most practical way of acquiring funds.

So you want to pay an arm and a leg for health care, education, road use, and all the other things the government has control over?

I said I hate income and payroll taxes and that they should be replaced with a less invasive, more growth-friendly tax system. I don't know how you got to your (straw-man) conclusion that I'm an anarcho-capitalist from there.

I have no problems and don't mind paying taxes, as long as I get something in return from the government and where the taxes are spent wisely.

In a socialist society, there will be no taxes. But this is not a socialist society. So right now we simply aim to increase taxes for the rich.

I hate taxes. I also hate paying for other stuff like food, movies and pet rocks. Neither are optional. I just hate paying too much for too little - THAT is the real problem.

Until you start to receive welfare checks and come to depend on your local form of public transportation, you will realize that the taxes are too little and you don't get very much for them.

Garrison Keilor said that a liberal is a conservative who's fallen on hard times. I too don't mind paying for taxes, because I know it makes the world go 'round.

My NS name is Notaxia, so i guess i better post here....

...it should be obvious.

Stupid socialists. they just never realise that not all of it is government owned. roads and railways can and should be privately owned and operated.Stupid private owners and operators, they rip me off. Welcome to the world of toll highways, toll booths every 10km. :rolleyes:

BTW, essential services are NOT FOR PROFIT!

As Fass said, I'm from France, and I was speaking of France more than on USA. But it's much worse in USA than in France, true. And for the USA, juste have a look on: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/tables.html . Military spending, for 2007, is more than the half of the total budget.


Actually Kilo - in the US the military is funded only at the national (or federal) level for obvious reasons. Education is funded mostly at the state and local level - not the federal level. Total education spending is in fact considerably more than military in the US.

Wait, so the right of a worker to exercise their democratic right to vote is dependant on the altruism of the employer?

And if their employer isn't kind enough to give them enough money to buy a vote then they're depending on their employer being altruistic enough to vote for their interests?

This is just laughable.

You make the foolish mistake of believing that employers are the only source of income. Very and quite foolish. The government alone controls nearly 40% of the economy in the US. In Europe it is even more. The self employed and small business also make up a considerable portion of the economy. Your premise is grossly flawed.

In the US 50% of tax filers do not pay any tax. There is not a corresponding 50% poverty rate. Your second premise is also grossly flawed.

You really ought to spend more time thinking these things through.

and yet, if the 1% of the rich decides to leave and move to another country we're screwed. The first and foremost thing that must be done is that every level of government, to national all the way down to local, MUST HAVE A BUDGET! They must get their out of control spending under control. After that, we should introduce a Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, which states that government cannot spend more than the population size (or the rate of population increase) or the rate of inflation. Which basically mean if you have a city, and the taxpayers generate about $12 billion, then the city government can't spend anymore than that. Any money found outside that window will be counted as surplus and be given back to the people. Once that is achieved, then we need to re-vamp the Tax system.


No, but you're close. Taxes would be brought in line if the government experienced the same thing evey successful business experiences - a recession resulting in a loss of profits. The US govt hasn't had a reduction in revenues in decades - and when they do they just borrow to cover spending. The deficit could be brought to it's knees within five years if the government simply eliminated spending increases for that period - locking in the budget. No cuts - just no increases. Voila! Problem solved. THEN a law could be enacted limited the budget growth to inflation or less for the next five decades.

Yeah, I was going to be rich, but I saw how much tax I'd be paying, so I decided to return to eating Ramen in my bedsit. Damn that Government!


If I had invested just half of the taxes I paid over the years I could retire by now.

What I hate is the fact that I pay 30% of my income to taxes, and yet, I don't really get a say in what I want the money to go towards to. I also hate the fact that in the US, the more money you make, the more you pay in taxes, I mean comon! If there's a way to discourage people from getting rich, this is it. I hate the tax system that the USA have right now. The system is a complete mess and need to be re-vamped. I am in favor of the flat tax or the fair tax program. Also, for those of us who say that the tax cut was only for the rich. Comon, who didn't get a $300 check? I know I did, in fact I got two checks, one from my state/local government, and another one from the national government. Naturally the rich are going to benefit from the tax cuts, why, because they pay the highest in taxes in the United States. So while 1% of the US population is rich, they also pay the highest taxes. So quit the whining.
Lets give you a example here.

A buinessman earns, say 100 million a year. He pays 80% tax. That leaves his with 20 million to live on, more than enough.

At the same time, a poor labourer earns 10,000 a year, so he dosn't pay tax.

With your suggestion of, say, a flat atx of 30% this woould happen.

The Buisness man has 50 million
The labourer has 5,000 to live on. The labourer can't live on that at all, while the buinessman has more money that he will EVER need.

Why would socialists like paying taxes? They're normally the sort of people who don't earn enough to qualify to pay them, so they wouldn't know what it's like.

Bollocks... both my parents are socialists and they both earn over the average wage. ANd they both have no problemt paying their taxes. What its being spent on (war) they objectto though.

I have paid a tiny amount of taxes (as I have not really had a proper job quite yet), but I will have no problemt with paying my taxes when I get a proper job...

Most of the socialists I know are well educated, and reasonably well paid people (lower to middle middle class), and many of the conservatives I know where... well frankly... stupid.

No cuts - just no increases.

But without increases to match inflation keeping the same spending is essentially a cut.

Hehe, I thought this thread said "Post If You Hate Texas". (I do.)

Lets give you a example here.

A buinessman earns, say 100 million a year. He pays 80% tax. That leaves his with 20 million to live on, more than enough.

At the same time, a poor labourer earns 10,000 a year, so he dosn't pay tax.

With your suggestion of, say, a flat atx of 30% this woould happen.

The Buisness man has 50 million
The labourer has 5,000 to live on. The labourer can't live on that at all, while the buinessman has more money that he will EVER need.

70% of 10,000 is not 5,000 - learn some basic maths.

Now which of these two, the mega rich businessman, or the ordinary labourer is going to use more government services? You know the answer to that, the labourer. So why should the mega rich business man pay more for things he uses less?

Next, follow the money. How much of this mega rich businessmans wealth will end up in the governments hands. Assume he pays 30% so that is immediately 30 million. Then assume that he pays out 10 million in staff wages, another 3 million goes to the government. Then he buys 10 million worht of stuff - how much of that is tax (about 40% of a product's cost is tax normally) so another 4 million has gone to the government. So of the first 50 million of his 100 million, he keeps 13 million in goods and services and the government gets 37 million.

What happens with the rest depends on how investment etc is handled. If you want to tax the rich then you have to look at how capital investment is dealt with, not at how much they earn.

Taces arent great, but they need to be paid. If you have ever taken one economy class, you will have learned why taxes are important.

I'd love taxes if they were correctly spent. I'd go fully socialist, 100% tax rate, if it was done well.

I'd love taxes if they were correctly spent. I'd go fully socialist, 100% tax rate, if it was done well.

Erm... an 100% tax rate isnt socialist... progressive taxation is what a socialist would encourage... if you had a 100% what are people going to spend? personally I think the current tax regime in Britain is ok, though it could probably do with a even higher band which would take 50% after £100,000 or something like that... basically the idea touted by the LIb Dems last election.

Erm... an 100% tax rate isnt socialist... progressive taxation is what a socialist would encourage... if you had a 100% what are people going to spend?

You dont need to spend, everything is provided for you by the government.

You dont need to spend, everything is provided for you by the government.


Yepyep. Everything in the nation is given by the government, surrounding a healthy balance of education, healthcare, and various other socially beneficial programs.

Ahh... but then there is no point in money, and so no taxes.

Erm... an 100% tax rate isnt socialist... progressive taxation is what a socialist would encourage... if you had a 100% what are people going to spend?

Or possibly a negative income tax (Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_Income_Tax)) and (Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#Negative_income_tax)), although it is sometimes supported by conservatives and libertarians too.

I don't pay tax - (Being a student living at home :)) but I don't think i'd mind, i'd probably more mind what taxes are spent on.

You dont need to spend, everything is provided for you by the government.

Yes, because we all know the government provides so well, and their services, top of the line. :rolleyes:

Ahh... but then there is no point in money, and so no taxes.

Theoretical money. You still make the money, but you never see it. If you work harder, more money goes to the government, and there might be a program that would be able to get you better luxuries or more food or whatever you might need or want that month.

The government would have to balance out salaries based on how much demand there is for the job, how basic a need is it, how much does it help society as a whole (be it through entertainment or science), and how hard would it require the worker to work. There would be a minimum salary for any career, so that people can choose what they really want to do in life while not sacrificing food or shelter for happiness in their daily life.

Not just that, but there would also be inevitable bartering between citizens for certain things. If someone worked hard for a vendor's cart, he could collect items to trade with other people. Artwork, pottery, etc. No real money gained, but theoretical money could be made if he aquired a valuable piece and exchanged it to the government for an upgrade of salary, therefore, and upgrade of his daily life in whatever aspect he chooses.

Yes, because we all know the government provides so well, and their services, top of the line. :rolleyes:

They would be.

They would be.

Ok, then do this next time you're out. First, go to a government housing project, and then go to a private home community and tell me which one look better. Then go to a city subway, and then go to a train track and wait for a freight train to roll by (no Amtrak doesn't count because they're subsized by the government.) Let's face it, government sucks when it tries to run things, espically when they should be left to the private sector.