View Poll Results: Tax Reform

Voters
31. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes - Here is my suggestion

    20 64.52%
  • No -

    2 6.45%
  • The current system should be abolished

    9 29.03%
  • Other

    0 0%
Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 139

Thread: Revisit - Tax Reform

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Southwest AZ
    Last Seen
    08-12-17 @ 02:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,285

    Re: Revisit - Tax Reform

    Flat tax. No deductions, no exceptions. No 'progressive rate. Everyone pays the same 'PERCENTAGE' of their income. No tax on income gained from the investment of money that had already been taxed. No inheritance tax, no death tax.

    And all elected officials (Fed. State. local) shall be taxed an additional 5% over the standing rate. That will be motivation to keep the rate where it is, or maybe even lower it.

  2. #22
    Sage
    AliHajiSheik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,390

    Re: Revisit - Tax Reform

    I'm for a progressive income tax.

    5% for everyone under $50,000, no deductions.
    For every additional $50,000 you earn, you pay another .1% up to a maximum of 20%, again no deductions.

  3. #23
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 04:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,040

    Re: Revisit - Tax Reform

    The problem with both of those is how you define income.

  4. #24
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Revisit - Tax Reform

    Quote Originally Posted by jonny5 View Post
    The problem with both of those is how you define income.
    Yep - that's the real catch if you decide to forego deductions.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  5. #25
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 04:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,040

    Re: Revisit - Tax Reform

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    Yep - that's the real catch if you decide to forego deductions.
    Exactly. Of course any system has that same issue except for a fee based one. If its a sales tax, then they will come up with all sorts of exceptions as to what a sale is. Thats why I think a fee based system is the simplest and fairest. Everyone owes X dollars in order to get benefits. You could even have the states pay the fee, and then collect from their citizens however they choose. So, based on population, california owes the federal govt X dollars a year, for which they get continued membership in the Union, and all the services it provides like common defense. With the added benefit that if you dont like what the federal govt is doing, or how much it costs, you can terminate the contract.

  6. #26
    Educator HumanBeing's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    745

    Re: Revisit - Tax Reform

    Quote Originally Posted by jonny5 View Post
    Wrong. You misunderstood. It libertarianism where the govt only provides services that benefit everyone equally, like security and justice. And services that only some people use are fee based.
    Security clearly doesn't benefit everyone equally, the more you have to lose, the more you stand to benefit from it. Libertarianism is fundamentally about the concept of voluntary association and freedom of political and economic choice, so there is nothing libertarian about a geographically enforced government monopoly on security or justice. The idea that libertarianism is compatible with modern forms of government is simply a scam created by those who call themselves libertarians, and yet seek to hold powers contradict the very foundation of libertarian philosophy.
    If you hate capitalism so much, then just write everything in lower case. Problem solved.

  7. #27
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 04:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,040

    Re: Revisit - Tax Reform

    Quote Originally Posted by HumanBeing View Post
    Security clearly doesn't benefit everyone equally, the more you have to lose, the more you stand to benefit from it. Libertarianism is fundamentally about the concept of voluntary association and freedom of political and economic choice, so there is nothing libertarian about a geographically enforced government monopoly on security or justice. The idea that libertarianism is compatible with modern forms of government is simply a scam created by those who call themselves libertarians, and yet seek to hold powers contradict the very foundation of libertarian philosophy.
    IMO, everyone benefits equally from security because there is no way to put a objective value on life. Thus, like netflix, everyone pays the same amount whether they value it greatly or not. Everyone has the same opportunity to get the most or least benefit from it. And libertarianism is entirely in line with a centralized security method because they view it as neccesary to ensure freedom. A unit is stronger than an indvidual. This works for things that everyone benefits from and agrees with, and does not work with things that only some benefit from, and many dont agree with (like healthcare).

  8. #28
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,136

    Re: Revisit - Tax Reform

    i'd support a three-tiered progressive income tax that is simplified; rates to be determined. my preference is 1990s marginal rates, but i'm somewhat flexible.

    i'd like to see an maximum annual investment income before it's taxed as real income. something like the first $25k is taxed at capital gains, and then it enters the tiered system.

    our corporate tax rate is a joke, and it's not competitive. i'd like to see it lowered significantly enough to be competitive with Europe. also, no tax tricks. if you're a corporation, you pay the tax. some deductions would still be allowed, but this setting up fake companies in five different countries to avoid paying taxes anywhere would not fly. either the products of that company get tariffed to the wall, or the company pays an alternative minimum tax.

    for entitlements, i'd like to see the contribution ceiling lifted and pegged to inflation.

    finally, i'd like to have peacetime and wartime marginal rates. when we get involved in a "police action" which is really a war, marginal rates and other taxes go up considerably. that's the responsible thing to do anyway, and it will be a nice deterrent for the hawks.

  9. #29
    Educator HumanBeing's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    745

    Re: Revisit - Tax Reform

    Quote Originally Posted by jonny5 View Post
    IMO, everyone benefits equally from security because there is no way to put a objective value on life. Thus, like netflix, everyone pays the same amount whether they value it greatly or not. Everyone has the same opportunity to get the most or least benefit from it.
    You're assuming that security is only relevant to life and death situations. It isn't. As such, my point stands; those with more to lose have more to gain from good security. That's why they spend more on it when they feel the government isn't up to the task. It's a simple fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by jonny5
    And libertarianism is entirely in line with a centralized security method because they view it as neccesary to ensure freedom. A unit is stronger than an indvidual. This works for things that everyone benefits from and agrees with, and does not work with things that only some benefit from, and many dont agree with (like healthcare).
    You're talking about modern american libertarianism, which is completely and utterly separate from traditional libertarianism. It's also a complete contradiction. You can't have geographical monopoly on judicial juristiction while maintaining individual political freedom and voluntary association. Again, it's simple fact by definition. If someone claims to have juristiction over you based purely on your location (despite not being on their private property), then it isn't voluntary, nor is it free. It is also an oppression of economic freedom.

    What you described is simply the idea that "it's ok to compromise on the core basis of the philosophy because security is just THAT important". What you don't see is how backwards that is. Security is one of the most important things there is in life, so why subject it to an artificial monopoly, when everything else in libertarian philosophy teaches that artificial monopolies are harmful and that economic oppression is unjust?

    Back on topic, as I said before, all forms of taxation that are enforced against people involuntarily by means of violence and imprisonment are ethically abhorrent. This is especially true in cases where this taxation will be used to further fund the same organization (government) that is instigating this violence and imprisonment in the first place. It is ethically unjustifiable no matter how you spin it.
    If you hate capitalism so much, then just write everything in lower case. Problem solved.

  10. #30
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 04:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,040

    Re: Revisit - Tax Reform

    Quote Originally Posted by HumanBeing View Post
    You're assuming that security is only relevant to life and death situations. It isn't. As such, my point stands; those with more to lose have more to gain from good security. That's why they spend more on it when they feel the government isn't up to the task. It's a simple fact.


    You're talking about modern american libertarianism, which is completely and utterly separate from traditional libertarianism. It's also a complete contradiction. You can't have geographical monopoly on judicial juristiction while maintaining individual political freedom and voluntary association. Again, it's simple fact by definition. If someone claims to have juristiction over you based purely on your location (despite not being on their private property), then it isn't voluntary, nor is it free. It is also an oppression of economic freedom.

    What you described is simply the idea that "it's ok to compromise on the core basis of the philosophy because security is just THAT important". What you don't see is how backwards that is. Security is one of the most important things there is in life, so why subject it to an artificial monopoly, when everything else in libertarian philosophy teaches that artificial monopolies are harmful and that economic oppression is unjust?

    Back on topic, as I said before, all forms of taxation that are enforced against people involuntarily by means of violence and imprisonment are ethically abhorrent. This is especially true in cases where this taxation will be used to further fund the same organization (government) that is instigating this violence and imprisonment in the first place. It is ethically unjustifiable no matter how you spin it.
    And again there is no way to objectify national security, so there is no way to seperate the direct costs among people. We arent talking about local security, we are talking about protection from invasion. Everyone benefits from that equally.

Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •