... Huh?
That's one of the stupidest statements I've ever heard. Why is it the government's place or role to take care of people?
... Huh?
That's one of the stupidest statements I've ever heard. Why is it the government's place or role to take care of people?
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Cuz all the people make up the governed who lease this power to the government to secure the social needs of the governed..
To insure you see my point.. I'll edit to add.. All the folks vote who do vote and as long as the majority need social security they will insure it exists.. the agents in Washington simply will enact the wishes of the governed... the voter with the power...
Dissipate
Diamond Member
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
If you go to the web site in the original post you would realize that the proposed national sales tax would already offer an exemption for the bare necessities of life.
A progressive tax system is not based on practical economics. It is based solely on the beliefs of collectivists who believe that its not fair that someone makes more money than them. Its basically criminalizing wealth. This is the whole reason they want everyone to report their income, so no one dies happy without paying in spades. To me income is earned privately through private transactions and therefore people should have a right to keep it private. For some reason people have been convinced that income is a public matter when it certainly is not.
A national sales tax would generate a lot of revenue from wealthy people and wealthy people would certainly pay a hell of a lot more in taxes under the national sales tax. Think about it, who are the biggest consumers? Wealthy people. Therefore when they go out to buy their Bentley's and what not they are going to be paying a lot in sales tax.
On the other hand, poor people will still practically pay zilch because of the exemption. Their money would be rebated. The only difference being that A. The compliance cost of taxes would go WAY down to the benefit of everyone. and B. Everyone would be taxed fairly and squarely.
That's a filthy lie and you know it. Governments are enacted by the consent of the governed, but once those governed become complacent it is damned hard to entice them to do much of anything.
The system is set to implode in the next three to five decades, and there are some who would cling desperately to the bitter end. You would tax the wealthy and industrious to their deaths, and beyond, because in your mind wealth is an aberration and an evil, a byproduct of exploitation and something to be envied and "corrected".
At least, that's what I've seen. If anything it seems as though the "poor" would owe more to this country, because it is typically not the rich and powerful that suffer under despotic regimes.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Dissipate,
hehehehe,
As I said in other posts in this thread; all the folks are the governed. I for one vote against your proposition and will vote for increasing the burden on the top 50% as a 'blessing penalty'. Raise the needed funds from those who have the means to pay it. This country belongs to the poor and there are more poor than rich so they lose.. Sorry... but, that's how folks get to be the government.. by being elected and when these elected folks forget this and cater to the wealthy they cease being the agent of all the people..
hehehehe,
As I said in other posts in this thread; all the folks are the governed. I for one vote against your proposition and will vote for increasing the burden on the top 50% as a 'blessing penalty'. Raise the needed funds from those who have the means to pay it. This country belongs to the poor and there are more poor than rich so they lose.. Sorry... but, that's how folks get to be the government.. by being elected and when these elected folks forget this and cater to the wealthy they cease being the agent of all the people..
The same for those who would pander only to the poor. Elected officials have a duty to do what is best for the nation, and currently your solution would screw us over in the long run just as leaving the system be would.
I for one will be happy to move my (future) law practice to Switzerland, along with my earnings and tax dollars. I am sure that in time others will follow.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
dissipate,
That will require the building of more prisons to house all the criminals involved with not reporting their income. Geeze... what you're almost suggesting is that folks with the need to 'hide' income will do so cuz they are inherently criminal. The statutes require reporting all the income derived from what ever source.
But, the silver lining is in the construction of the prisions and the staffing of them. Jobs..!! We do need jobs.. we win!
That will require the building of more prisons to house all the criminals involved with not reporting their income. Geeze... what you're almost suggesting is that folks with the need to 'hide' income will do so cuz they are inherently criminal. The statutes require reporting all the income derived from what ever source.
But, the silver lining is in the construction of the prisions and the staffing of them. Jobs..!! We do need jobs.. we win!
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Well.. I never practiced law. Not a member of any US Bar. We do have quite a few lawyers bouncing about so maybe Switzerland is an option. Kinda hard to get retainers from the poor anyway. The economy needs a few lawyers so maybe only the poor ones will stay.. Either way, until the poor get rich the rich will pay the lion's share of the tax. No other way to do it and not get kicked out of office by the folks too poor to pay the tax.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Orsorum,
I would support a ban on marriage as a governmentally recognized condition. Everyone is an individual, cept those born conjoined. If folks wish to live together under their religious belief that is fine.. God rules there. Others go as they see fit.
I would support a ban on marriage as a governmentally recognized condition. Everyone is an individual, cept those born conjoined. If folks wish to live together under their religious belief that is fine.. God rules there. Others go as they see fit.
Dissipate
Diamond Member
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
Speaking of jobs. A lot of wealthy people are business owners, when they go to prison the business you work for goes bankrupt and you have no job. Sounds like a great solution to me. Have fun on the streets.
They won't hide their income because they are criminal. They will hide their income because of criminals like yourself who want to unfairly tax their income away. The higher their taxes the more lucrative their income hiding will be, it will be a cat and mouse game and everyone will lose.
This is a moot point though because financial privacy is already here for those who really want it, and as time goes on will be even more readily available for everyone. The income tax is doomed. You can already have part of your income dumped into offshore accounts, you get a credit card for it and off you go around town buying stuff tax free.
The flaw in your logic is that you assume the worst of humans - that people are unable to provide for themselves. By enforcing "equality" you are by definition treating people unequally. The poor will never all be rich - some will be wise with their money, some will waste it on drugs and booze, some will squander it away on lottery tickets. Most people are poor for a reason - not all, but most. When you try to hand people something which they have not earned, they waste it - this is a timeless fact of human nature. We see it with rich people as well as poor - with a few conspicuous exceptions to the rule. Rich kids are handed money which they did not earn, and they waste it, blow it on coke or cars or women (or men), and they end up in the gutter. I see it in the damn fool kids around me in school every day. It's sickening, but it's life.
You're using the worst aspect of democracy to justify your viewpoint, and the aspect that most often ruins countries.
So you want a national sales tax with exemptions for food, clothing, and things of that sort? Basically, you are taxing the additional expenditures that are 'unneccesary.'
Guess what the poorest people spend most of their money on?
How does this not place a larger burden on the wealthy?
If you are going to argue that a progressive income tax is bad, at least be consistent in your argument.
Guess what the poorest people spend most of their money on?
How does this not place a larger burden on the wealthy?
If you are going to argue that a progressive income tax is bad, at least be consistent in your argument.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
You're not living in this world. Note how your millionaire example would only receive $25k in net income from his second half million in income. Yet he would have to work just as hard to make the second half million as he did for the first half million.
Who then would want to be a millionaire? The answer: no one. And without well-rewarded leaders, our nation would collapse.
The ideal system would be a flat sales tax. There is more than enough income there to support a reasonable government. Unfortunately, our government is not reasonable. Also, a sales tax would not support consumerism nor the invasion of privacy for the government that our current income tax system already does.
Yes, for any form of socialism to truly work, it would have to be sort of international because greed is so ingrained in some people that they will travel far and wide to maintain their status. As to what I would do with the "trillions" of extra capital, there's a piss-poor education system that needs fixing, a social security system on the verge of collapse, and Bush's fun projects like mars missions and "freeing" Iraqis which have and will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, not to mention our 6 trillion in debt. In exchange, the wealthiest 5% will no longer have 5 houses and swelled bank accounts in the Caymans and Switzerland.
In a survey of almost 4000 Americans, when asked how much more they would need to earn to feel financially secure, they average response was 20% more, accross all income brackets. That says something about our system of regulated capitalism, to me anyway.
Mean MrMustard
Diamond Member
- Jan 5, 2001
- 3,144
- 10
- 81
Ideally, a national sales tax should be implemented and the income tax abolished.
We are far more likely to at least move towards a flat tax system.
We are far more likely to at least move towards a flat tax system.
I used to support the idea of a national sales tax + a 15% flat tax on those making over $30,000 a year. With the 15% income tax paying for operational expenses the govt incurs, the military, costs of maintain and building infustructure and federal R&D. All social services would be paid for by sales taxes, the social programs would be ran by the states, under minimum direction of the federal govt.
However.
Im starting to rethink the national sales tax. Texas will be calling a special session this year to deal with the soon to be unconstitutional Robin Hood Education Plan. There are rumblings of raising the state sales tax 2% to fund poor school districts. It would go from 6.25% to 8.25%, that means sales tax will be 10.25% in most of the state, as cities can add up to 2% on top of the state sales tax.
However.
Im starting to rethink the national sales tax. Texas will be calling a special session this year to deal with the soon to be unconstitutional Robin Hood Education Plan. There are rumblings of raising the state sales tax 2% to fund poor school districts. It would go from 6.25% to 8.25%, that means sales tax will be 10.25% in most of the state, as cities can add up to 2% on top of the state sales tax.
Why does the goverment have the right to prevent me from having access to my money if I want to invest it elsewhere or in a differrent fashion ? Your plan is only slightly better then SS IMHO but still flawed.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
I have said nothing more than the nation has voters and voters vote into office folks who they believe will enact legislation that they will benefit from. I've not said anything about what you've commented on other than regarding lawyers and your statement that Switzerland awaits. Any inference drawn or extrapolated beyond Lawyers is not implied by me.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
It would make it the law if The Constitution was amended to so reflect. I always support the rule of law. So it is OK with me. I would speak out against it as it would be in conflict with individual rights. For the life of me I can't understand how Gay Marriage affects anyone adversely. Well, I suppose the religious folks who view anything gay as non American. I view it as between God and the individual and not a government function to deal with one way or another.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 390
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter