Federal Income Tax. You Pick the Rate.

jallman · Mar 19, 2009

Jerry said:
Well if it is then it's also lost on my avatar and the millions of people who follow his principals and end up financially independent :2wave:

Irrelevant drivel that has nothing to do with the federal budget. I am sure his principles work for small families but application of them to a large federal budget will simply not work.

Apples and oranges. Personally, I think your avatar is a raving douche on par with Dr. Phil, but that's just me.

Kandahar · Mar 19, 2009

Jerry said:
No that's not accurate at all. Not in the least.

Really. Then when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the White House, why did spending continue to rise? For that matter, why has government spending increased every year since 1965? If conservatives were really as committed to less spending as you claim, then one would think that at least ONCE in the last 44 years they would've managed to cut spending. :roll:

Both Democrats and Republicans support government spending. Most Republicans just don't want to pay for it.

Goshin · Mar 19, 2009

[

Kandahar said:
Really. Then when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the White House, why did spending continue to rise? For that matter, why has government spending increased every year since 1965? If conservatives were really as committed to less spending as you claim, then one would think that at least ONCE in the last 44 years they would've managed to cut spending. :roll:

Both Democrats and Republicans support government spending. Most Republicans just don't want to pay for it.

As an ex-Republican sorta-libertarian, I'd like to address that.

Kandahar is at least half-right; the Republican Congress of 2002-2008 spent like drunken sailors. It's part of the reason the base and the "middle" didn't turn out so much in 2008, and some who did turned to 3rd party candidates in disgust.

I don't think I'd characterize the average Republican voter as wanting to spend and not pay for it, however. At least, I hope not.
Anecdotally, most Republicans I know are profoundly disgusted with the Republican 02-08 spending spree, and want a balanced budget.

Sadly, on both sides of the isle, politicians rarely do what their constituents thought they were electing them to do.

G.

rivrrat · Mar 19, 2009

jallman said:
Apples and oranges. Personally, I think your avatar is a raving douche on par with Dr. Phil, but that's just me.

At least you actually know who he is.

TurtleDude · Mar 19, 2009

There should be no tax on income-only consumption. I totally oppose graduated income taxes because they give congress way too much power by pitting those who will suffer no tax increases against those who are targeted for tax hikes to buy the votes of the former groups

RightinNYC · Mar 19, 2009

SicSemperTyrannis said:
Ok, the Fed doesn't physically print the money, but they dictate its distribution, the interest rate, and how much banks must keep as their reserves. They also tell what, when, and how much to print. It's called fractional reserve banking. The Fed is not a "quasi-public" institution. Show me a link for that one. It is entirely private.

No, it's really not.

Economics: Principles, Problems, and ... - Google Book Search

The president appoints the front man, but that's it.

Again, you're completely wrong. The president appoints the entire board of governors.

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is a federal government agency. The Board is composed of seven members, who are appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

FRB: The Federal Reserve System Purposes and Functions

They are not a government entity.

Why don't you take a gander at that there above web address. What's the extension?

They have also never been audited but the IRS

Neither has the Department of Education or Defense. Because they're government entities.

and they don't pay taxes.

I'll give you three guesses why. (Hint: It may have something to do with the fact that the Fed doesn't turn a profit.)

They are a PRIVATE INSTITUTION. And by the way, blurtit (like wikipedia) doesn't count. Here's a link about Dennis Kucinich, one of the many politicians that questions the constitutionality of our money system. newswithdrawal.com KUCINICH: destroy the federal reserve

LAWL.

"By the way, wikipedia (which has links to all its sources) doesn't count as a valid source. Here's a link to "Newswithdrawal.com" that talks about Kucinich. This is a valid source."

And here's a link of Kennedy's executive order mandating that the issue of silver certificates backed by silver bullions is doen through the Treasury, not the Federal Reserve: John-F-Kennedy.net - JFK, The Federal Reserve And Executive Order 11110 by Cedric X ...ever wonder why JFK is on the silver dollar?

You said that JFK tried to eliminate the Fed because it was unconstitutional. In actuality, he did nothing of the sort.

So you're telling me that gold hasn't been desired or sought after or used as currency for thousands of years? Then you have a complete and total lack of awareness of history.

Once again, you've completely missed the point. The fact is that gold is no longer a viable commodity for day to day use. If the economy collapses to the point that the US dollar is worthless, people aren't just going to go back to a gold-based economy.

This continent was settled because of gold. Columbus wanted to find a trade route to East Asia to trade for spices, silk, and gold. Cortes and the other Conquistadors who conquered Latin American were lured by gold. When the three wise men brought Jesus gifts, it was frankenscense, myrrh, and gold.

I took 9th grade history too.

Gold will always have value, unless all of a sudden 6 billion people get together and decide they wouldn't want to have gold anymore. That's not very likely. Gold will continue to have value long after our fiat money is gone.

Whether it will have "value" is a different question from whether people will want it as a day to day currency in the end times.

YamiB. · Mar 19, 2009

There should be a progressive tax, flat taxes are horrible ideas that would just serve to crush the lower class.

Jerry · Mar 20, 2009

Kandahar said:
Really. Then when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the White House, why did spending continue to rise? For that matter, why has government spending increased every year since 1965? If conservatives were really as committed to less spending as you claim, then one would think that at least ONCE in the last 44 years they would've managed to cut spending. :roll:

Both Democrats and Republicans support government spending. Most Republicans just don't want to pay for it.

Um, even if I were a person who supported what Republicans were doing, which I'm not, I was comparing Liberals and Conservatives, not Republicans and Democrats.

Slippery Slope · Mar 20, 2009

Jerry said:
That's the only thing Liberals and Conservatives agree on.

Where there's disagreement is rather there should be little tax and little spending or lots of tax and lots of spending.

The problem is that a country NEEDS some socialism or else you end up with a plutocracy. Our nation is wealthy and progressive because of the socialism in our system.

Can you name another country with the kind of system you repubs want? One without socialism?

zimmer · Mar 20, 2009

TurtleDude said:
There should be no tax on income-only consumption. I totally oppose graduated income taxes because they give congress way too much power by pitting those who will suffer no tax increases against those who are targeted for tax hikes to buy the votes of the former groups

The tax code is a weapon for the left; see AIG Taxation on bonuses.
A tool to divide.
A tool to create class warfare.
A tool to control people.

Without this weapon the left would lose a large potent mechanism for controlling the people.

.

SicSemperTyrannis · Mar 20, 2009

No it's not a government entity, you're wrong. It is considered "independent within the government". It doesn't answer to anybody, it creates its own policy. The Constitution gives the Treasury the power to coin money and create monetary policy, and Alexander Hamilton went to great lengths to explain how we should back our currency with silver, another precious metal with intrinsic value. The Fed's website explains this, although I disagree greatly with their other explanations of what they do. FRB: FAQs: Federal Reserve System

Here is a detailed history of the Fed dating back from 1992 by a highly regarded certified public accountant, Thomas D. Schauf. The Federal Reserve Is A privately Owned Corporation

And here is a direct quote from President Woodrow Wilson, showing remorse after creating the Fed. http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Woodrow.Wilson.Quote.51CE

And here is a speech given by Rep. Kucinich on the House floor. YouTube - Kucinich: Federal Reserve No More "Federal" Than Federal Express!

And here is a clip of Rep. Ron Paul talking about the illegality and unconstitutioanlity of the Fed. YouTube - Ron Paul "The Federal Reserve Is the Source of Our Problems!!

And for the record, I never said we should be trading with gold. A paper currency is perfectly acceptable, but it needs to backed with something of intrinsic value. A fiat currency does not work. In fact, our dollar is going down in flames and the rest of the world is trying to find another currency to make as their reserve currency. U.N. panel says world should ditch dollar | U.S. | Reuters
Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin calls for end of dollar … - Telegraph.co.uk | Karl Foreman

The only way out of this depression is to lower taxes, abolish the income tax, dramatically cut spending, shrink the size of government, stop with the bailouts, and put us back on the gold standard. Hopefully the 30,000 links I provided you are enough. :roll:

SicSemperTyrannis · Mar 20, 2009

Oh by the way, here is the brilliant economist Peter Schiff talking about how the Fed is destroying the economy through inflation. YouTube - Peter Schiff on CNBC March 19, 2009 made Liesman poop in his pants

Have fun eating humble pie.

ronpaulvoter · Mar 20, 2009

Goobieman said:
10% seems fair, especially if you allow for a persona exemption that will reduce the burden on the poor.

For 2008, I paid 3.93% in Federal income tax (line 37/ line 61)

I bet you paid a much higher percentage for your FICA tax, especially if you are self-employed.

rathi said:
A flat 10% isn't enough. Even if you only payed for things explicitly required in the constitution, like the military and the census and interest payment on the debt, it still wouldn't be enough. Taxes need to reflect spending, and its impossible to cut spending to the levels needed to sustain a 10% tax rate unless you truly gutted the military.

You gut the multitudes of things government should never do. Some agencies that need at least a 90% cut include the EPA, DEA, ATF, OSHA, EEOC, IRS, the world's greatest Ponzi scheme (social security) with its projected debt of $50 TRILLION--1000 times Madoff's scandal, Foreign aid and entanglements, and numerous others. If we abided by the Constitution, a 5% rate should be enough. If that rate was written in stone as an absolute maximum, it would be a great way to limit the catastrophic growth of government. Same for state and local governments--with an even lower rate, perhaps 2%.

Kandahar · Mar 20, 2009

Jerry said:
Um, even if I were a person who supported what Republicans were doing, which I'm not, I was comparing Liberals and Conservatives, not Republicans and Democrats.

Ah, I see. You're one of the conservatives who considers the 90% of the population that favors more than a bare-bones government to be liberals.

Fine. By your definition, liberals want more taxes and more spending, and conservatives want less taxes and less spending. But since we "liberals" are 90% of the population and control both parties and the entire government, why not pay for what we're spending NOW? When you can get another 41% of the population to join you, then maybe we'll talk about doing the opposite and cutting taxes and spending. In the mean time, let's pay for our government...at least when economic times get better.

RightinNYC · Mar 20, 2009

SicSemperTyrannis said:
No it's not a government entity, you're wrong. It is considered "independent within the government".

You can't be serious.

My undergrad had a program that allows students to independently create their own majors. Therefore, students in that program are not part of the school.

Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?

It doesn't answer to anybody, it creates its own policy.

Did you miss the whole part about the entire board of governors being appointed by the president and approved by the senate, or the part about Congress dictating the scope of the Fed's operation?

Here is a detailed history of the Fed dating back from 1992 by a highly regarded certified public accountant, Thomas D. Schauf. The Federal Reserve Is A privately Owned Corporation

Here's a screenshot of the "apfn.org" homepage right now:

Forgive me if I don't give much credence to things posted there.

I literally could not care less about anything that Paul and Kucinich said.

And for the record, I never said we should be trading with gold. A paper currency is perfectly acceptable, but it needs to backed with something of intrinsic value. A fiat currency does not work. In fact, our dollar is going down in flames and the rest of the world is trying to find another currency to make as their reserve currency.

The point is that if the economy is to the point where the US dollar is worthless, there will be no currency backed by anything.

The only way out of this depression is to lower taxes, abolish the income tax, dramatically cut spending, shrink the size of government, stop with the bailouts, and put us back on the gold standard. Hopefully the 30,000 links I provided you are enough. :roll:

They were enough to convince me that you

a) Don't know what you're talking about, and
b) Are just another one of the conspiracy theorists who it's pointless to argue with.

SicSemperTyrannis · Mar 20, 2009

Please read this very carefully and think about it before responding......IF WE GO BACK ON THE GOLD STANDARD NOW WE CAN AVERT THE CURRENCY CRISIS AND CONTROL SPENDING. I really really really do not get what is so difficult to understand about that.

And for the record, I read the Schauf article previosuly from another source, but I didn't have to sift through Google so I used apfn, even though the website is extremely anti-Semetic and I don't endorse their opinions on Jewish people. So DR. Ron Paul has no idea what he's talking about? Ludwig von Mises didn't know what he was talking about? Peter Schiff, Gerald Celente, Kucinich all don't know what they are talking about? They've been warning us about the housing bubble for years and they've been warning about the currency crisis that's starting to unfold right now. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I'm enrolled in an economics program at an Ivy League institution. Since you're such a great economic forecaster, why aren't you on MSNBC isntead of Peter Schiff? Why aren't you a 10 term Congressman? For all intents and purposes, we should just agree to disagree. You have a right to your opinions, though I wholeheartedly disagree with them 100% and I think you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about (some might say you are the Dick Vitale of economics), you have a right to them and I respect that.

Cheers.

Jerry · Mar 20, 2009

SicSemperTyrannis said:
In fact, our dollar is going down in flames and the rest of the world is trying to find another currency to make as their reserve currency.

Mabey they should use gold as well :2wave:

RightinNYC · Mar 20, 2009

SicSemperTyrannis said:
Please read this very carefully and think about it before responding......IF WE GO BACK ON THE GOLD STANDARD NOW WE CAN AVERT THE CURRENCY CRISIS AND CONTROL SPENDING. I really really really do not get what is so difficult to understand about that.
And for the record, I read the Schauf article previosuly from another source, but I didn't have to sift through Google so I used apfn, even though the website is extremely anti-Semetic and I don't endorse their opinions on Jewish people. So DR. Ron Paul has no idea what he's talking about? Ludwig von Mises didn't know what he was talking about? Peter Schiff, Gerald Celente, Kucinich all don't know what they are talking about? They've been warning us about the housing bubble for years and they've been warning about the currency crisis that's starting to unfold right now. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I'm enrolled in an economics program at an Ivy League institution. Since you're such a great economic forecaster, why aren't you on MSNBC isntead of Peter Schiff? Why aren't you a 10 term Congressman? For all intents and purposes, we should just agree to disagree. You have a right to your opinions, though I wholeheartedly disagree with them 100% and I think you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about (some might say you are the Dick Vitale of economics), you have a right to them and I respect that.

Cheers.

You're an Econ major and still think:

1) That the income tax is unconstitutional
2) That the federal reserve is privately run
3) That the federal reserve is designed to turn a profit
4) That eliminating the Fed would magically make our domestic debt disappear
5) That Kennedy "eliminated" the Fed

Unless you're a freshman, call PrezBo on Monday and ask for a refund.

RightinNYC · Mar 20, 2009

SicSemperTyrannis said:
And here is a direct quote from President Woodrow Wilson, showing remorse after creating the Fed. http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Woodrow.Wilson.Quote.51CE

I also couldn't ignore this, as Wilson is one of my pet issues.

Here's the quote that you claim Wilson said, expressing remorse after creating the Fed:

I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country.
A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit.
Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation,
therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men.
We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely
controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world.
No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by
conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by
the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.

Now, the facts.

1) The first two sentences don't exist. The actual quote is from Wilson's book "The New Freedom". Someone added those two sentences because they wanted to make it seem like Wilson was expressing remorse.

2) It would be kind of hard for Wilson to be expressing remorse for his decision to create the Fed in this quote, considering the book was published sometime in 1913 and he didn't sign the bill creating the Fed until Dec. 23, 1913.

Unless he signed the bill on Dec. 23, changed his mind on Dec. 24, and then wrote and published this book by Dec. 31, it's obvious that he's not referring to the Fed.

rathi · Mar 20, 2009

You gut the multitudes of things government should never do. Some agencies that need at least a 90% cut include the EPA, DEA, ATF, OSHA, EEOC, IRS, the world's greatest Ponzi scheme (social security) with its projected debt of $50 TRILLION--1000 times Madoff's scandal, Foreign aid and entanglements, and numerous others. If we abided by the Constitution, a 5% rate should be enough. If that rate was written in stone as an absolute maximum, it would be a great way to limit the catastrophic growth of government. Same for state and local governments--with an even lower rate, perhaps 2%.

You don't get it. A 10% tax rate is not enough to pay for everything explicitly mandated in the constitution unless you cut the military by a drastic amount. Cutting every single social program in existence isn't good enough. Roughly 40% of the budget is constitutionally mandated, and social security (20%) brings in its own revenue. That leaves 40% you can cut, which isn't enough to offset the massive reduction in revenue.

I got to say, I am not thrilled with the responses to this thread. Everyone seems to just be picking numbers they like without any dose of reality. Sure a 10% tax rate is a nice fantasy, but don't assume that you can get that merely by cutting the programs you don't like. Keeping our current military strength and a 10% tax rate are mutually exclusive possibilities.

laska · Mar 20, 2009

To me the more simple and transparent the tax policy the better. As of the end of 2008 total U.S. government spending at all levels(local, state, federal) is approximately 38% of national income. If the U.S. had one income tax with no deductions that taxed the first $80,000 of income at a 10% rate, and any additional income above that at a 50% rate(a person making a $100,000 would pay 18,000 in taxes), then it would just cover total government spending. Approximately 80% of taxpayers would have a 10% rate. And there would be no sales taxes, tariffs, property taxes, etc.(Warning: figures were done quickly by meathead.)

pro-bipartisan · Mar 20, 2009

A flat tax would not work nor be fair at all.

TurtleDude · Mar 20, 2009

pro-bipartisan said:
A flat tax would not work nor be fair at all.

how so-a progressive tax violates several objective concepts of fairness. IT also allows congress way more power than the constitution intended. Pure fairness would require people to pay for what they use. IT is a fraudulent concept of fairness to tell me I have a duty to pay for someone else's existence through the coercive power of the government.

Jerry · Mar 20, 2009

Kandahar said:
Ah, I see. You're one of the conservatives who considers the 90% of the population that favors more than a bare-bones government to be liberals.

That's not very accurate, but let's run with it for the sake of entertainment :lol:

Kandahar said:
Fine. By your definition, liberals want more taxes and more spending, and conservatives want less taxes and less spending. But since we "liberals" are 90% of the population and control both parties and the entire government, why not pay for what we're spending NOW?

You shouldn't be spending what you're spending NOW, is why.

Kandahar said:
When you can get another 41% of the population to join you, then maybe we'll talk about doing the opposite and cutting taxes and spending.

Oh right, because Liberals went along with that idea when a Conservative was last in charge....wich was over 20 years ago, but that's another argument.

Kandahar said:
In the mean time, let's pay for our government...at least when economic times get better.

Government spending is a proven way to make recessions worse.

When you support an abundance of government spending on this thread you are necessarily supporting a resection.

Kandahar · Mar 20, 2009

Jerry said:
You shouldn't be spending what you're spending NOW, is why.

But we are. And the people voted us "liberals" (i.e. Democrats and Republicans) into power. So why don't you think we should pay for our expenditures?

Jerry said:
Oh right, because Liberals went along with that idea when a Conservative was last in charge....wich was over 20 years ago, but that's another argument.

Are you referring to Reagan? This is exactly what I'm talking about. Reagan was not a cut-taxes-and-cut-spending president. Reagan was a cut-taxes-and-increase-spending president. Just like every other president in recent memory.

Jerry said:
Government spending is a proven way to make recessions worse.

What on earth are you talking about? Please back this absurd assertion with economic data.

Federal Income Tax. You Pick the Rate.

Federal (Income) Tax. You Pick the Rate.

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50% and higher

Enemy Combatant

Burned Out Ex-Mod

Goddess of Bacon

warrior of the wetlands

Girthless

Active member

Educating the Ignorant

Member

Member

Well-known member

Enemy Combatant

Girthless

Member

Girthless

Girthless

Count Smackula

warrior of the wetlands

Enemy Combatant