View Poll Results: Which do you prefer:

Voters
197. You may not vote on this poll
  • Income tax - no changes in the status quo

    39 19.80%
  • Flat tax - Everyone pays the same %

    67 34.01%
  • National sales tax - don't spend, you don't pay taxes

    47 23.86%
  • No tax - Unconstitutional - rely on private donations

    10 5.08%
  • Other - explain

    21 10.66%
  • Cookies!

    13 6.60%
Page 88 of 90 FirstFirst ... 38788687888990 LastLast
Results 871 to 880 of 899

Thread: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

  1. #871
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,745

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    For someone holding himself up as an expert you sure do make countless mistakes about America, its history and its people.

    from turtle in 840



    Make poverty MORE PAINFUL so less less people would be in poverty!!!!! What an amazing concept. You want to take the people who now have the least in our nation and make things even worse for them. You want them to experience MORE PAIN. You want them to suffer more.

    Perhaps you could give us a list of what forms of painful suffering you contemplate would be good for the poor classes in America?
    Just how much suffering and pain do you want to inflict upon those already poor? Would starvation in the streets be acceptable to you? Would work houses for indigent children be something which puts a smile on your face? Maybe we can give them make work jobs chiseling the frozen bodies of other poor from the frozen streets after they law down for the night and have frozen to death there?

    Your complete and total insensitivity to the fate of other people is telling about your character and your ideology.
    again you confuse your dislike for my philiosophy-which exalts independence and despises parasitic politicians who cater to envy and mob rule with lack of knowledge. It is common among the left to assume that disagreeing with welfare-socialist blather is due to factual mistakes rather than admitting that there is more than one world view.



  2. #872
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,745

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    if that's how it seems, then it's only because Government has grown so far beyond where it is supposed to be.

    Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution enumerates the specific reasons for which Congress may tax and spend money. If it ain't on that list (hint: free healthcare for all ain't on it), then the Federal Government shouldn't be doing it.



    no one that does not grow or hunt their own food would eat if their employer did not pay them.



    actually the point you are raising has nothing to do whatsoever on whether or not I should judge whether or not the Government should be in the business of easing the sting of poverty along with being in the business of defending it's citizens from foriegn threats. Those two functions are, in fact, completely unrelated.



    the only government spending i "benefit" from is that they pay me (and pay me comparatively badly, i could make significantly more in the civilian sector) because i work for them. in the meantime, the government spends money on me that i do not benefit from. but hey i signed the papers.




    incidentally, i find it especially hilarious that someone in your shoes (if there is a sector of public employment that can be credited with suckling at the teat, it's public sector unions) would accuse me of suckling at the easy teat of government, or somehow taking the equivalent of welfare.
    as long as dems can win by using the wealth of others to buy the votes of their supporters, Haymarket will engage in all sorts of contortions to justify such a system.



  3. #873
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    nope. the progressive income tax was unconstitutional. Jefferson, in particular, was quite verbose on the danger of allowing self-government to become a tool for the many to take from the few.
    Thankfully, the founding fathers were wise enough to know that amendments to the Constitution would be needed in the future as conditions change and allowed a process for that which was followed when the 16th Amendment was passed.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  4. #874
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:33 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,006

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    strawman

    conservatives tend to note that most of what the founders did was good-including drafting a constitution that led to the greatest nation on earth

    many leftwingers despise the founders and hate the fact that these men distrusted mob rule and the main tenets of the leftist mentality-envy of the wealthy and a hatred of property
    turtle seems to have learned a new word in the last few days. Too bad he has not learned how to properly apply it. Pointing out that the sainted founders supported both slavery and a second class life for females is NOT a strawman. It speaks directly to two issues
    1) the world has changed tremendously since 1787 and what may have been considered good at that time is no longer the case
    2) the founders were not perfect and subject to making really bad decisions on things of importance.

    So to give us the Founders opinions about taxation like it is the be all and end all of the topic is ridiculous.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  5. #875
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:33 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,006

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Thankfully, the founding fathers were wise enough to know that amendments to the Constitution would be needed in the future as conditions change and allowed a process for that which was followed when the 16th Amendment was passed.
    Exactly. The genius of the Constitution is in its ability to change and adapt to a changing world. We are no longer a provincial backwater upstart nation isolated from the rest of the world with a population of 4 million farmers. Those days are long gone. Any system of taxation based on 1787 is about as good as a waste sanitation system from the same era.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  6. #876
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:33 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,006

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    again you confuse your dislike for my philiosophy-which exalts independence and despises parasitic politicians who cater to envy and mob rule with lack of knowledge. It is common among the left to assume that disagreeing with welfare-socialist blather is due to factual mistakes rather than admitting that there is more than one world view.
    And again you seem to think that your so called "world view" or what I prefer to call your own self accepted belief system, is based on anything other than your own skewed and highly incorrect knowledge of history, historical events, the personalities from history, the motivations of those persons, and the purposes and functions of government itself. They are inseparable and must be considered together like two siamese twins forever co-joined.

    You believe what you believe because you want to believe what you believe. You then attempt to justify those extremist beliefs with an factually incorrect interpretation of history as a way of justifying it.

    One cannot - and I will not - separate your views from the totally erroneous interpretation of history that produced them.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  7. #877
    onomatopoeic
    mbig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-17 @ 08:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,350

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    This analysis 1998, but the economics are pretty much/remarkably the same in the recent analyses I will post below.

    The 23 Percent Solution
    NEW YORK TIMES OP-ED

    Suppose a bunch of Rich people want to promote a national sales tax to replace the Federal income tax. How do they try to persuade the public to support such a plan? Simple: Play with the arithmetic.

    Earlier this month, the well-financed group Americans for Fair Taxation, based in Texas, kicked off a sales-tax campaign with a full-page advertisement in several large newspapers. It called for replacing all the main Federal taxes--personal and corporate income taxes, payroll taxes and the estate tax--with a 23% national retail sales tax.
    [....]
    According to the group's figures, at 1995 levels a new sales tax would have to raise $1.36 trillion to replace all Federal income taxes, payroll taxes and estate and gift taxes. Under its plan, the group says, taxable spending would be $4.6 trillion (after accounting for rebates to partly protect lower-income families). So, $1.36 trillion divided by $4.6 trillion would be the required sales tax rate. Fine, except that $1.36 trillion divided by $4.6 trillion is not 23%. It's about 30%.

    It turns out that the group's purported 23% tax rate is misleading and hypothetical. It came up with that number by dividing the sales tax by the cost of a purchase plus the tax. So if the tax on a $100 purchase is $30, the group prefers to call it a 23% "tax inclusive rate" ($30 divided by $130). Ever hear of computing a sales tax like that?
    The fact that the group's sales tax, even by its own figures, entails a 30% tax rate is only the beginning of the math problems.
    The group's backup materials also assert that almost a third of its projected sales-tax revenue is supposed to come from taxes the Government will pay to itself.
    Build a road, pay Yourself a tax.
    Buy some planes for the Air Force, pay Yourself some more. And so on.

    Unfortunately, that shell game won't work. Without these Phantom governmental tax payments, the sales tax rate would have to jump to 42% to break even.

    A bit more digging reveals that a quarter of the remaining sales taxes are supposed to be paid on things like church services, Free care at Veterans hospitals and a variety of hard-to-tax financial services like Free checking accounts.
    If we discount the taxes on these items, the sales tax rate would have to climb to an astronomical 56% to break even.

    Apparently, the millions of dollars that Americans for Fair Taxation says it has spent on focus groups and polling have taught it an important lesson: giving people the real facts about a national sales tax is politically disastrous for its proponents. So the group is trying the only other available route: cooking the numbers.
    I'm personally sick of not being able to dunk a basketball because of racism.
    anon

  8. #878
    onomatopoeic
    mbig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-17 @ 08:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,350

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Fair Tax, Flawed Tax
    Does adding 30% to the price of every house sold sound like a good idea to you?
    BRUCE BARTLETT (deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy from 1988 to 1993.)
    August 26, 2007
    Wall Street Journal
    Expired but original was: Opinion & Commentary - Wall Street Journal - WSJ.com


    [........]Aside from the incredible complexity and intrusiveness of tracking every American's monthly income--and creating a de facto national welfare program--the FairTax does not include the cost of this rebate in the tax rate. As noted earlier, the FairTax is designed only to match current revenues and does not cover any increased spending that it may require. Since the rebate will cost at least $600 billion the first year, either federal discretionary spending would have to be cut by 60% or the rate would have to be 5 percentage points higher than advertised.

    Rejecting all the Tricks of FairTax supporters and calculating the tax rate honestly--by including the higher spending that it mandates and by being realistic about what could actually be taxed--professional revenue estimators have always concluded that a national retail sales tax would have to be much, much higher than 23%. A 2000 estimate by Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation found the tax-inclusive rate would have to be 36% and the tax-exclusive rate would be 57%.

    In 2005, the U.S. Treasury Department calculated that a tax-exclusive rate of 34% would be needed JUST to replace the income tax, Leaving the Payroll tax in place. But if evasion were high then the rate might have to rise to 49%.
    If the FairTax were only able to cover the limited sales tax base of a typical state, then a rate of 64% would be required (89% with high evasion).

    I've emphasized problems with the FairTax rate because public opinion polls have long shown that support for flat-rate tax reforms is extremely sensitive to the proposed rate, with support dropping off sharply at a rate higher than 23%.
    But there are also massive technical and administrative problems with collecting all federal taxes at the checkout counter and relying entirely on state governments to collect the federal government's revenue. - Among the problems: What possible incentive would the states have to be vigorous in their federal tax collections? What is to stop them from slacking off and giving their citizens a tax cut at federal expense? What about states with no sales taxes? What's to stop people from bypassing retail outlets and buying their goods from producers or at wholesale, tax-free?..."

    Perhaps the biggest Deception in the FairTax, however, is its promise to relieve individuals from having to file income tax returns, keep extensive financial records and potentially suffer audits. Judging by the emphasis FairTax supporters place on the idea of making April 15 just another day, this seems to be a major selling point for their proposal. Yet all but six states now have state Income taxes. So unless one lives in one of those states, this promise is an empty one indeed. In short, the FairTax is too good to be true, and voters should not take seriously any candidate who supports it.
    I'm personally sick of not being able to dunk a basketball because of racism.
    anon

  9. #879
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Close loop holes in current system.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  10. #880
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    01-19-12 @ 03:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    358

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Close loop holes in current system.
    agreed. A flat tax with no loop holes. If you maintain a progressive income tax without loopholes, you will only increase the amount of tax fraud or mass layoffs (or both). The high-wage earners won't simply start paying more and give themselves a pay cut. They will compensate to maintain the lifestyle. You may disagree with their decision, but that is what will happen. And frankly, most of them have earned the position to make that decision for themselves.

Posting Permissions

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