If you could, would you abolish taxes?

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
[ ... ]
Your scare-tactic claims of the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer are in no way founded on reality.

While I disagree with much of your post, the part above is objectively and factually untrue. Charrison inadvertently provided a very helpful link in another thread that confirmed the poor are indeed getting poorer, and the rich are indeed getting richer. It is a very sad reality. ...

Just for the record.

You know, the vast majority of people I know fall into the "Poor" or "lower middle class" category. Largely this is because I'm back into college now and most of my day-to-day acquaintances and classmates are in the boat where we work during the day and go to school in the evening.

The MAJORITY of people I know own 2 cars, some 3. I don't know of a single person with less than 2 TV's or a computer, and probably due in large part to the nature of the curriculum (Game Art and Design) everyone owns at LEAST one game console and regularly picks up a game or two.

Mind you, these are people who are earning anywhere from minimum wage to maybe $20 an hour (and those are people who've been working IT for awhile; I'm a bit above that, but I've been in IT for a decade). So you'll understand when I say that I don't buy the "poor getting poorer" line. Yeah, we have PO' folk in the US, but our Po' folk live like KINGS compared to the people of most other nations.

Jason

College students aren't the working poor you moron. I've been to college and comparing a college student to the working poor is the most idiotic thing that I've ever heard from you. And that's saying quite a bit.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: charrison
taxes are a needed evil.

The income tax should be done away with.
Property should be done away with as well(however people do get to choose their level of taxation).

sales tax and use fees should be the main vehicle of taxation.

Really bad idea. Property taxs encourages people to use their property which imporves the economy. Sales tax is bad for the economy because it discorages people to purchase items.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: tss4
Equal taxation to representation? Last I checked it was one person, one vote.

I am very impressed with your ability to capitalize words though. If you won arguements through capitalization, you'd be the champ!

One person, one vote, yes. But if you pay 10% and I pay 30% of my income, are we equal? No, I am paying TRIPLE in order to receive the SAME privilege. Just imagine if when you went shopping you had to bring your pay stub with you, and while the guy in front of you could buy a 50" widescreen for $1000, YOU had to pay $3000. Same product, same service, but you are discriminated against and made to SUBSIDIZE the other guy's purchase solely based on the fact that you worked yourself into a better, higher paying job.

Tell me, does that seem fair? Does that seem JUST? Does it seem RIGHT?

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
[ ... ]
Your scare-tactic claims of the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer are in no way founded on reality.

While I disagree with much of your post, the part above is objectively and factually untrue. Charrison inadvertently provided a very helpful link in another thread that confirmed the poor are indeed getting poorer, and the rich are indeed getting richer. It is a very sad reality. ...

Just for the record.

You know, the vast majority of people I know fall into the "Poor" or "lower middle class" category. Largely this is because I'm back into college now and most of my day-to-day acquaintances and classmates are in the boat where we work during the day and go to school in the evening.

The MAJORITY of people I know own 2 cars, some 3. I don't know of a single person with less than 2 TV's or a computer, and probably due in large part to the nature of the curriculum (Game Art and Design) everyone owns at LEAST one game console and regularly picks up a game or two.

Mind you, these are people who are earning anywhere from minimum wage to maybe $20 an hour (and those are people who've been working IT for awhile; I'm a bit above that, but I've been in IT for a decade). So you'll understand when I say that I don't buy the "poor getting poorer" line. Yeah, we have PO' folk in the US, but our Po' folk live like KINGS compared to the people of most other nations.

Jason

College students aren't the working poor you moron. I've been to college and comparing a college student to the working poor is the most idiotic thing that I've ever heard from you. And that's saying quite a bit.

I think the only moron here is YOU. Yes, many of the students I go to school with ARE the working poor. Most are in their late 20's to early 40's, most have been stuck in crap jobs their whole lives and are making a break for a better life by going to school.

You're clearly a complete fvckhead who isn't paying much attention at all. If your definition of "working poor" is joe-dumbass who wants to raise 10 kids on minimum wage McDonald's labor and doesn't have the ambition to reach higher than the fry-basket, then I have two words about that: Fvck him. If you don't have the ambition to do something FOR YOURSELF I have NO DESIRE to help you at all, and YOU sure as hell don't have the right to STEAL from me to help him.

Jason

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: tss4
Do you think the poor is lobbying for all the pork barrel?

And you think your taxes are too high so you want to make the poor pay more? I understand if you want to reduce government spending so we all pay less, but to make those allready struggling (and there not all slackers as my family can attest too) pay even more is damaging to society and is morally suspect.

It's not as morally suspect as your false premise that the intent is to take the burden off the rich and put it on the poor. That's just pure reactionary BS. The point is to make the system treat everyone as EQUALS so they pay the same percentage rate regardless of income. Your intent, plainly enough, is to discriminate against people based on their level of income, and punish thoroughly those who earn more. Apparently working your way into a better job is a stoning offense in some people's minds, and you should try to avoid that tempting, but ultimately immoral and irrational standard.

If the government doesn't have enough to pay for all the pork it wants, then it can do what the rest of us do when we can't afford something: Do without until we can save up enough money to handle it.

Jason

So, I'm trying to discriminate against myself? You are a political pundits wet dream. No my intent is to prevent socio economic barriers from preventing upward mobility. I speak from the experience of living on both sides of the barrier.

Listen, I know ALL ABOUT living on both sides. I grew up with parents who were drug addicts and a father who was (and still is) one of those f*cked up Vietnam Vets who can't get his crap together. I don't think I spent more than 4 or 5 months at ANY school my whole life (until I put MYSELF through college), so I can appreciate the importance of a country where someone from that kind of background CAN make his way up.

The way to do it, though, does NOT have to involve stealing from some people and giving to others. We CAN do this by means of honorable behavior with an idealistic integrity that need not involve lowering ourselves to the level of Robin Hood. I'm sure you mean well, but I think your methods are wrong and immoral.

Jason

If you don't have a grasp on the economic principles that create socio economic boundaries then you are incapable of understanding the issue. By the way, it sounds like the difference between my upbring and your upbring is that my parents were normal hardworking people without any drug addictions. They worked hard all their lives and it took every penny to provide for me and my brothers and that's the person I'm fighting for. The working poor that need every penny so that thier children can have all the opportunities possible and can acheive a better life.

And I must congratulate you on another excellent job capitalizing words! Well done!

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: tss4
Equal taxation to representation? Last I checked it was one person, one vote.

I am very impressed with your ability to capitalize words though. If you won arguements through capitalization, you'd be the champ!

One person, one vote, yes. But if you pay 10% and I pay 30% of my income, are we equal? No, I am paying TRIPLE in order to receive the SAME privilege. Just imagine if when you went shopping you had to bring your pay stub with you, and while the guy in front of you could buy a 50" widescreen for $1000, YOU had to pay $3000. Same product, same service, but you are discriminated against and made to SUBSIDIZE the other guy's purchase solely based on the fact that you worked yourself into a better, higher paying job.

Tell me, does that seem fair? Does that seem JUST? Does it seem RIGHT?

Jason

If you use such absurd numbers to prove your point then they are not useful examples.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
[ ... ]
Your scare-tactic claims of the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer are in no way founded on reality.

While I disagree with much of your post, the part above is objectively and factually untrue. Charrison inadvertently provided a very helpful link in another thread that confirmed the poor are indeed getting poorer, and the rich are indeed getting richer. It is a very sad reality. ...

Just for the record.

You know, the vast majority of people I know fall into the "Poor" or "lower middle class" category. Largely this is because I'm back into college now and most of my day-to-day acquaintances and classmates are in the boat where we work during the day and go to school in the evening.

The MAJORITY of people I know own 2 cars, some 3. I don't know of a single person with less than 2 TV's or a computer, and probably due in large part to the nature of the curriculum (Game Art and Design) everyone owns at LEAST one game console and regularly picks up a game or two.

Mind you, these are people who are earning anywhere from minimum wage to maybe $20 an hour (and those are people who've been working IT for awhile; I'm a bit above that, but I've been in IT for a decade). So you'll understand when I say that I don't buy the "poor getting poorer" line. Yeah, we have PO' folk in the US, but our Po' folk live like KINGS compared to the people of most other nations.

Jason

College students aren't the working poor you moron. I've been to college and comparing a college student to the working poor is the most idiotic thing that I've ever heard from you. And that's saying quite a bit.

I think the only moron here is YOU. Yes, many of the students I go to school with ARE the working poor. Most are in their late 20's to early 40's, most have been stuck in crap jobs their whole lives and are making a break for a better life by going to school.

You're clearly a complete fvckhead who isn't paying much attention at all. If your definition of "working poor" is joe-dumbass who wants to raise 10 kids on minimum wage McDonald's labor and doesn't have the ambition to reach higher than the fry-basket, then I have two words about that: Fvck him. If you don't have the ambition to do something FOR YOURSELF I have NO DESIRE to help you at all, and YOU sure as hell don't have the right to STEAL from me to help him.

Jason

I'm wondering how many of them would able to afford thier tuition and continue to make a break for a better life if their taxes suddenly jumped up 20% to make them comparable to what the upper middle class pays? I stand by my assesment of you. You are a moron. Oh wait a minute, let me write so you understand it. MORON. Is that better?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Those withthe ability to pay, and benefit from society most, can pay a greater portion of their income.

Sure, they "can" but why exactly should you be able to take more of their money because you FEEL they can pay more. This is the same old socialist BS.
"To each according to his need - from each according to him ability" is a failed notion - the sooner you and the other pick-pockets realize that, the sooner we can fix our National fiscal situation.

Going back to charrison's first post - he is spot on.

Involuntary wealth transfer should be stopped and use/consumption taxes should replace them.
The idea of consumption/use "fees" (taxes) is preferred because those who CHOOSE to purchase or use services will be funding the gov't instead of everyone who works. This also rids us of having the gov't always take the first cut of your earnings. Your choice to purchase products would now be your choice to fund the gov't. Again, basic food items and other limited "necessity" items would be exempt.
This is not "regressive" - it is basic logic. Those who choose to use - pay.

CsG

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Those withthe ability to pay, and benefit from society most, can pay a greater portion of their income.

Sure, they "can" but why exactly should you be able to take more of their money because you FEEL they can pay more. This is the same old socialist BS.
"To each according to his need - from each according to him ability" is a failed notion - the sooner you and the other pick-pockets realize that, the sooner we can fix our National fiscal situation.

Going back to charrison's first post - he is spot on.

Involuntary wealth transfer should be stopped and use/consumption taxes should replace them.
The idea of consumption/use "fees" (taxes) is preferred because those who CHOOSE to purchase or use services will be funding the gov't instead of everyone who works. This also rids us of having the gov't always take the first cut of your earnings. Your choice to purchase products would now be your choice to fund the gov't. Again, basic food items and other limited "necessity" items would be exempt.
This is not "regressive" - it is basic logic. Those who choose to use - pay.

CsG

This kind of system would create a communist, facsist, or a combination of both gov't faster than any "same old socialist BS." The rich would become incredibly rich and the poor would become incredibly poor. This is happening now (notice the middle class slowly vanishing) but doing this would increase the rate of change. It would eventually come to civil war and the outcome might not be as nice as anything we have now.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Those withthe ability to pay, and benefit from society most, can pay a greater portion of their income.

Sure, they "can" but why exactly should you be able to take more of their money because you FEEL they can pay more. This is the same old socialist BS.
"To each according to his need - from each according to him ability" is a failed notion - the sooner you and the other pick-pockets realize that, the sooner we can fix our National fiscal situation.

Going back to charrison's first post - he is spot on.

Involuntary wealth transfer should be stopped and use/consumption taxes should replace them.
The idea of consumption/use "fees" (taxes) is preferred because those who CHOOSE to purchase or use services will be funding the gov't instead of everyone who works. This also rids us of having the gov't always take the first cut of your earnings. Your choice to purchase products would now be your choice to fund the gov't. Again, basic food items and other limited "necessity" items would be exempt.
This is not "regressive" - it is basic logic. Those who choose to use - pay.

CsG

This kind of system would create a communist, facsist, or a combination of both gov't faster than any "same old socialist BS." The rich would become incredibly rich and the poor would become incredibly poor. This is happening now (notice the middle class slowly vanishing) but doing this would increase the rate of change. It would eventually come to civil war and the outcome might not be as nice as anything we have now.

No, actually it wouldn't, but I'm interested in how it'd create a "communist, fascist" gov't. 😛 Fascism has nothing to do with revenue collection but it's OK, pack it full of straw or whatever you want. Also, consumer based revenue collection encourages communistic gov'ts how?

Sheesh, I can't believe I actually stopped laughing long enough to type this post.😛

CsG

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Those withthe ability to pay, and benefit from society most, can pay a greater portion of their income.

Sure, they "can" but why exactly should you be able to take more of their money because you FEEL they can pay more. This is the same old socialist BS.
"To each according to his need - from each according to him ability" is a failed notion - the sooner you and the other pick-pockets realize that, the sooner we can fix our National fiscal situation.

Going back to charrison's first post - he is spot on.

Involuntary wealth transfer should be stopped and use/consumption taxes should replace them.
The idea of consumption/use "fees" (taxes) is preferred because those who CHOOSE to purchase or use services will be funding the gov't instead of everyone who works. This also rids us of having the gov't always take the first cut of your earnings. Your choice to purchase products would now be your choice to fund the gov't. Again, basic food items and other limited "necessity" items would be exempt.
This is not "regressive" - it is basic logic. Those who choose to use - pay.

CsG

This kind of system would create a communist, facsist, or a combination of both gov't faster than any "same old socialist BS." The rich would become incredibly rich and the poor would become incredibly poor. This is happening now (notice the middle class slowly vanishing) but doing this would increase the rate of change. It would eventually come to civil war and the outcome might not be as nice as anything we have now.

No, actually it wouldn't, but I'm interested in how it'd create a "communist, fascist" gov't. 😛 Fascism has nothing to do with revenue collection but it's OK, pack it full of straw or whatever you want. Also, consumer based revenue collection encourages communistic gov'ts how?

Sheesh, I can't believe I actually stopped laughing long enough to type this post.😛

CsG

The inequity would cause revolution which would lead to these less pleasant forms of gov't. I'm thinking further into the future here. You have to look past what happens in the immediate. There comes a breaking point when people won't put up with being stuck at the bottom of the barrel anymore.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: charrison
taxes are a needed evil.

The income tax should be done away with.
Property should be done away with as well(however people do get to choose their level of taxation).

sales tax and use fees should be the main vehicle of taxation.

That would put an unfair burden on the the lower wage earners and increase the gap between the rich and the poor. The only way this would be fair is if there is a sliding scale of credits given to low income people, given as a percentage of income.

This country ran for almost 150 without an income tax. Rmember sales taxes and property taxes are all voluntary, i e the consumer get to decide when and how much tax they are going to pay. INcome taxes are also a loss of free privacy and freedon for citizens.

Income tax is just as voluntary as sales tax and property tax.

The country did not run for 150 years with no income tax. The first income tax was collected during the Civil War.

There were periods of time when there was no income tax, but the conditions that allowed for that were unique and no longer exist. There were a lot less people to porvide services for, a lot less infrastructure, a vast amount of undeveloped resources, ie westward expansion, to derive income from, and a completley different set of international trade relations with a great deal of tariffs and virtual war being fought between various nations.

 

[Tommunist]

nawwwwww - economic policies from over a century ago work fine! Don't be such a wuss hehe 🙂

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
No, actually it wouldn't, but I'm interested in how it'd create a "communist, fascist" gov't. 😛 Fascism has nothing to do with revenue collection but it's OK, pack it full of straw or whatever you want. Also, consumer based revenue collection encourages communistic gov'ts how?

Sheesh, I can't believe I actually stopped laughing long enough to type this post.😛

CsG

The inequity would cause revolution which would lead to these less pleasant forms of gov't. I'm thinking further into the future here. You have to look past what happens in the immediate. There comes a breaking point when people won't put up with being stuck at the bottom of the barrel anymore.

Lots of things can cause "revolution". Also, who says that we would choose a communist form of govt? People want to be free, not indentured to "society". As long as I am alive we will not have a communist form of gov't, and I'm sure most Americans would stand up to keep communism out. But hey, keep going with this whole civil war/"revolution idea you on the left seem to be infatuated with since you keep losing. Voters love to hear people like you with your wild stories. 🙂

CsG

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
No, actually it wouldn't, but I'm interested in how it'd create a "communist, fascist" gov't. 😛 Fascism has nothing to do with revenue collection but it's OK, pack it full of straw or whatever you want. Also, consumer based revenue collection encourages communistic gov'ts how?

Sheesh, I can't believe I actually stopped laughing long enough to type this post.😛

CsG

The inequity would cause revolution which would lead to these less pleasant forms of gov't. I'm thinking further into the future here. You have to look past what happens in the immediate. There comes a breaking point when people won't put up with being stuck at the bottom of the barrel anymore.

Lots of things can cause "revolution". Also, who says that we would choose a communist form of govt? People want to be free, not indentured to "society". As long as I am alive we will not have a communist form of gov't, and I'm sure most Americans would stand up to keep communism out. But hey, keep going with this whole civil war/"revolution idea you on the left seem to be infatuated with since you keep losing. Voters love to hear people like you with your wild stories. 🙂

CsG

he gave commumism as an example along with fascism. Perfectly reasonable examples since the conditions he was warning against are what led to the rise of those two governmental systems in their respective countires.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: charrison
taxes are a needed evil.

The income tax should be done away with.
Property should be done away with as well(however people do get to choose their level of taxation).

sales tax and use fees should be the main vehicle of taxation.

That would put an unfair burden on the the lower wage earners and increase the gap between the rich and the poor. The only way this would be fair is if there is a sliding scale of credits given to low income people, given as a percentage of income.

This country ran for almost 150 without an income tax. Rmember sales taxes and property taxes are all voluntary, i e the consumer get to decide when and how much tax they are going to pay. INcome taxes are also a loss of free privacy and freedon for citizens.

Don't kid your self with this voluntary junk. You have no choice. If you want to purchase a service. You have to pay it. That's not voluntary. Everyone has to purchase goods and services, therefore everyone has to pay. All this does is require poorer people to pay a higher percentage of thier taxes versus wealthier people that don't need to spend all thier money.

For most items there would be a choice on how much and if tax is paid. I have little problem with food/basics being left off the taxable items.

So how does affect the amount of taxes paid in fact?

How will the tax burden shift? Remember if you do away with income taxes, sales taxes will skyrocket.

Most purchasing is done not by the wealthy, but on the middle and lower economic classes. At some income point, there is a break even point and from there up, most people of that income and up benefit. Those below it suffer. That might as well be the intent, because it's certainly the result. Of course it's good for the economy to price goods out of reach too. :roll:

It is they who will bear the brunt, who can least afford it. Unless there is some sliding scale, then the poor get poorer, and the rich get richer even faster.

The peasants have no bread, so let them eat cake!

Another regressive tax scheme.

Would you care to explain exactly HOW it is good for business to price goods "out of reach" ? Guess what?! If people can't afford your goods and services, and you don't sell any as a result, YOU MAKE NO PROFIT.

Your scare-tactic claims of the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer are in no way founded on reality. Your lies about Rich people doing "less purchasing" is just absurd. A rich guy has the SAME needs as a poor guy in terms of the fact that he has to buy food, clothing and shelter. However, the rich man is far more likely to buy the $1500 Armani suit versus the 3 for $10 T shirts the rest of us buy. He's also far more likely to buy MULTIPLE $1,000,000+ homes as opposed to the majority of us who buy ONE home in the $150-350,000 range.

Your premises are absurd, flawed, reactionary scare tactics and nothing more than that.

Jason

You show a lack of reasoning. Of course they pay the same DOLLAR amount for many items, but the ability to PAY them is not the same.

Taxes on goods will go up up up in order to replace property and income taxes. The poor will pay a disproportionate percentage of their income, leaving less for buying a few mean sticks of furniture.

"Would you care to explain exactly HOW it is good for business to price goods "out of reach" ? Guess what?! If people can't afford your goods and services, and you don't sell any as a result, YOU MAKE NO PROFIT"

DING DING!! It was sarcasm, based on the tax scheme supported in this thread.

If only the well off can buy what were common commodities, how is that better? How many hundreds of TVs are the wealthy buying? Beds? Cheap cars?

As far as the rich buying suits and million dollar houses, they do so because the CAN, not because they HAVE TO. If that million dollar home became a hundred million dollar one and they MUST buy or pay a similar amount of money in rent, then you have a similar arraingement. The wealthy are NOT going to spend their income on goods, what they will do is bank the difference.

Ok Jason here you go.

you now have one hundred people. Almost all earn 50k or less. A few earn more. One makes a million.

All pay 10k in taxes of any kind.

You have a family, a high school deploma and earn 20k a year, like many in that hundred. Good luck.

News flash, not everyone can become wealthy. If they did, then everyone would be poor, just with inflated dollars.


"And while only a few pay the taxes of this country, the rest will continue to vote themselves the treasury. The cost of goverment must be carried by in a fair manner"

So the worker with two jobs cleanind floors for 30k a year is a parasite.
Thanks for definining people who have no worth.

This entire thread is devoted to constructing a way to make those who can afford to live having more, and crushing those who have just enough to break even if they are lucky. That is the net effect.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
No, actually it wouldn't, but I'm interested in how it'd create a "communist, fascist" gov't. 😛 Fascism has nothing to do with revenue collection but it's OK, pack it full of straw or whatever you want. Also, consumer based revenue collection encourages communistic gov'ts how?

Sheesh, I can't believe I actually stopped laughing long enough to type this post.😛

CsG

The inequity would cause revolution which would lead to these less pleasant forms of gov't. I'm thinking further into the future here. You have to look past what happens in the immediate. There comes a breaking point when people won't put up with being stuck at the bottom of the barrel anymore.

Lots of things can cause "revolution". Also, who says that we would choose a communist form of govt? People want to be free, not indentured to "society". As long as I am alive we will not have a communist form of gov't, and I'm sure most Americans would stand up to keep communism out. But hey, keep going with this whole civil war/"revolution idea you on the left seem to be infatuated with since you keep losing. Voters love to hear people like you with your wild stories. 🙂

CsG

he gave commumism as an example along with fascism. Perfectly reasonable examples since the conditions he was warning against are what led to the rise of those two governmental systems in their respective countires.

And these "examples" to which you refer are people who went from Democratic Republics to Communism? For some reason - I think not. The idea of personal freedom is not dead in our society although I do see a dangerous level of reliance on the gov't by certain types of people. We have moved too far towards socialism and this is what is causing these shifts. Give people their freedom back. Freedom from the gov't, and freedom from the burden of society and you will see not only a happier people - but a more prosperous people.

CsG

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
No, actually it wouldn't, but I'm interested in how it'd create a "communist, fascist" gov't. 😛 Fascism has nothing to do with revenue collection but it's OK, pack it full of straw or whatever you want. Also, consumer based revenue collection encourages communistic gov'ts how?

Sheesh, I can't believe I actually stopped laughing long enough to type this post.😛

CsG

The inequity would cause revolution which would lead to these less pleasant forms of gov't. I'm thinking further into the future here. You have to look past what happens in the immediate. There comes a breaking point when people won't put up with being stuck at the bottom of the barrel anymore.

Lots of things can cause "revolution". Also, who says that we would choose a communist form of govt? People want to be free, not indentured to "society". As long as I am alive we will not have a communist form of gov't, and I'm sure most Americans would stand up to keep communism out. But hey, keep going with this whole civil war/"revolution idea you on the left seem to be infatuated with since you keep losing. Voters love to hear people like you with your wild stories. 🙂

CsG

I'm not on the left at all - I'm pretty moderate on most things. I know it'd be easier for you to paint me over into that direction so you can spew garbage at me since you don't seem to be capable of thinking outside your party (I'm glad I don't have one). If you don't think extreme inequity and a lot of people in economic hardships doesn't lead to problems look back into history. When people are in a poor situations (pre-WWII Germany for example) they are much more willing to buy into something (like the Nazi Party and their ideals) which would otherwise be seen as completely unacceptable. There is nothing partisian about my argument or my viewpoints so I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't accuse me of such. I'll let you look through this for spelling mistakes so you can point them out and appear witty. I've made my point quite clear I think and fortunately am not overly concerned if I convince you at this point. At first I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you simply misunderstood what I was trying to say but now it's fairly obvious that your eyes are closed since everything has to be a liberals vs conservatives argument which I'd rather not get involved in.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
No, actually it wouldn't, but I'm interested in how it'd create a "communist, fascist" gov't. 😛 Fascism has nothing to do with revenue collection but it's OK, pack it full of straw or whatever you want. Also, consumer based revenue collection encourages communistic gov'ts how?

Sheesh, I can't believe I actually stopped laughing long enough to type this post.😛

CsG

The inequity would cause revolution which would lead to these less pleasant forms of gov't. I'm thinking further into the future here. You have to look past what happens in the immediate. There comes a breaking point when people won't put up with being stuck at the bottom of the barrel anymore.

Lots of things can cause "revolution". Also, who says that we would choose a communist form of govt? People want to be free, not indentured to "society". As long as I am alive we will not have a communist form of gov't, and I'm sure most Americans would stand up to keep communism out. But hey, keep going with this whole civil war/"revolution idea you on the left seem to be infatuated with since you keep losing. Voters love to hear people like you with your wild stories. 🙂

CsG

I'm not on the left at all - I'm pretty moderate on most things. I know it'd be easier for you to paint me over into that direction so you can spew garbage at me since you don't seem to be capable of thinking outside your party (I'm glad I don't have one). If you don't think extreme inequity and a lot of people in economic hardships doesn't lead to problems look back into history. When people are in a poor situations (pre-WWII Germany for example) they are much more willing to buy into something (like the Nazi Party and their ideals) which would otherwise be seen as completely unacceptable. There is nothing partisian about my argument or my viewpoints so I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't accuse me of such. I'll let you look through this for spelling mistakes so you can point them out and appear witty. I've made my point quite clear I think and fortunately am not overly concerned if I convince you at this point. At first I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you simply misunderstood what I was trying to say but now it's fairly obvious that your eyes are closed since everything has to be a liberals vs conservatives argument which I'd rather not get involved in.

Yes, yes, everyone is "moderate" - but that discussion is for a different thread.

Yes, lots of things can cause problems - that is not at issue here. What is at issue is your assertion that "This kind of system would create a communist, fascist, or a combination of both gov't..." Now please explain how a reasonable revenue collection system like I have outlined(one where people who use - pay) will somehow lead to a "communist" gov't. I've already addressed the fact that fascism is not caused by or inherently part of the revenue collection system. Now please - tell me exactly why a revenue system will cause communism. It's your argument - so please try to back it up.

Now as to your whining about not being left. Well, sorry to say this whole revolution concept is coming from the left and you are trying to use it, so don't whine to me for pointing out that fact. Also, I liked your little snipe about the spelling thing- when exactly have I done that to you?:roll:

Unfortunately for you - your "point" isn't being backed up by you. You have not linked revenue collection to the formation of communism- and no, it has nothing to do with Conservative or Liberal - it's just that you haven't backed it up. Now please, stop the obfuscation and diverting and address your assertion.

CsG

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
No, actually it wouldn't, but I'm interested in how it'd create a "communist, fascist" gov't. 😛 Fascism has nothing to do with revenue collection but it's OK, pack it full of straw or whatever you want. Also, consumer based revenue collection encourages communistic gov'ts how?

Sheesh, I can't believe I actually stopped laughing long enough to type this post.😛

CsG

The inequity would cause revolution which would lead to these less pleasant forms of gov't. I'm thinking further into the future here. You have to look past what happens in the immediate. There comes a breaking point when people won't put up with being stuck at the bottom of the barrel anymore.

Lots of things can cause "revolution". Also, who says that we would choose a communist form of govt? People want to be free, not indentured to "society". As long as I am alive we will not have a communist form of gov't, and I'm sure most Americans would stand up to keep communism out. But hey, keep going with this whole civil war/"revolution idea you on the left seem to be infatuated with since you keep losing. Voters love to hear people like you with your wild stories. 🙂

CsG

I'm not on the left at all - I'm pretty moderate on most things. I know it'd be easier for you to paint me over into that direction so you can spew garbage at me since you don't seem to be capable of thinking outside your party (I'm glad I don't have one). If you don't think extreme inequity and a lot of people in economic hardships doesn't lead to problems look back into history. When people are in a poor situations (pre-WWII Germany for example) they are much more willing to buy into something (like the Nazi Party and their ideals) which would otherwise be seen as completely unacceptable. There is nothing partisian about my argument or my viewpoints so I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't accuse me of such. I'll let you look through this for spelling mistakes so you can point them out and appear witty. I've made my point quite clear I think and fortunately am not overly concerned if I convince you at this point. At first I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you simply misunderstood what I was trying to say but now it's fairly obvious that your eyes are closed since everything has to be a liberals vs conservatives argument which I'd rather not get involved in.

Yes, yes, everyone is "moderate" - but that discussion is for a different thread.

Yes, lots of things can cause problems - that is not at issue here. What is at issue is your assertion that "This kind of system would create a communist, fascist, or a combination of both gov't..." Now please explain how a reasonable revenue collection system like I have outlined(one where people who use - pay) will somehow lead to a "communist" gov't. I've already addressed the fact that fascism is not caused by or inherently part of the revenue collection system. Now please - tell me exactly why a revenue system will cause communism. It's your argument - so please try to back it up.

Now as to your whining about not being left. Well, sorry to say this whole revolution concept is coming from the left and you are trying to use it, so don't whine to me for pointing out that fact. Also, I liked your little snipe about the spelling thing- when exactly have I done that to you?:roll:

Unfortunately for you - your "point" isn't being backed up by you. You have not linked revenue collection to the formation of communism- and no, it has nothing to do with Conservative or Liberal - it's just that you haven't backed it up. Now please, stop the obfuscation and diverting and address your assertion.

CsG

I can't spell out the idea much simplier but I'll try again...

order of possible events...

1. put in place a system that creates a huge divide between rich and poor (more poor than rich)
2. wait a while...
3. the poor start to think they are getting hosed
4. wait a bit more....
5. reach a braking point and have a bunch of people pissed off at capitalism attempt to overthrow the gov't

a split in what happens...

a) the rich win out and enact a more or less fascist regime to suppress the pissed off poor
b) the poor win out and go for something quite communist since they are so disenfranchised with the uber-capitalism they've been force to suffer through prior


Now to get this straight I don't WANT communism - I'm just saying that it's possible that if you create a large enough divide that a series of events can happen to cause it to become the new form of gov't/economics.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
taxes are a needed evil.

The income tax should be done away with.
Property should be done away with as well(however people do get to choose their level of taxation).

sales tax and use fees should be the main vehicle of taxation.

Why? What is you philosophical basis for preferring sales tax to income tax? Is it because you prefer regressive taxation, or are there other factors? This isn't a flame; I'd like to understand where you're coming from.

It boils down to several factors in no particular order
1. Simplicity - the consumer is largely sheilded from complex tax code
2. privacy - the goverment really does not need to know what people make
3. transparency - this tax is in no way hidden
4. fairness - consumers have the choice in the amount of tax they are going to pay as it will be governed by what they buy.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: charrison
taxes are a needed evil.

The income tax should be done away with.
Property should be done away with as well(however people do get to choose their level of taxation).

sales tax and use fees should be the main vehicle of taxation.

That would put an unfair burden on the the lower wage earners and increase the gap between the rich and the poor. The only way this would be fair is if there is a sliding scale of credits given to low income people, given as a percentage of income.

You should read up on the fair tax proposal(fairtax.org i beleive).

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: charrison
taxes are a needed evil.

The income tax should be done away with.
Property should be done away with as well(however people do get to choose their level of taxation).

sales tax and use fees should be the main vehicle of taxation.

That would put an unfair burden on the the lower wage earners and increase the gap between the rich and the poor. The only way this would be fair is if there is a sliding scale of credits given to low income people, given as a percentage of income.

You should read up on the fair tax proposal(fairtax.org i beleive).

I'd be okay with no income tax provided there was a ceiling on how much could be left to others after you die. Otherwise certain families would dominate society to such a high degree that it wouldn't be fair to future generations. Otherwise I think the rich should indeed get taxed more than the poor since a lot of the times this accumulated wealth is simply passed on.

 

[Engineer]

Anyone know what the US consumer spends on NON-basic (non food, etc) items each year?

The US Government budget is 2.5Trillion per year. So a sales tax equal to approximately 20+ % of GDP would be needed to simply supply enough money for the government to run (assuming no CUTS - Which the gov. seems to resist). Not to mention all the other state and local taxes stacked on top.

Well, I forgot, actually the government can borrow a big chunk, as it usually does.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison
taxes are a needed evil.

The income tax should be done away with.
Property should be done away with as well(however people do get to choose their level of taxation).

sales tax and use fees should be the main vehicle of taxation.

Really bad idea. Property taxs encourages people to use their property which imporves the economy. Sales tax is bad for the economy because it discorages people to purchase items.

Congratulations, you won the most asinine statement of the day award. Property taxes strip a great deal of freedom from citizens as land ownership is no longer possible. When property taxes are levied, property ownership is no more than renting from the state. As result of this, people(most often the old folks) get taxed out of their homes, even though they "own" it.

Property tax is an added business expense, which will raise prices, which by your logic will reduce consumption. That is bad right?

Also if sales tax keeps people from making purchases, the same logic dictates that income taxes keep people from working.