If you paid taxes but 99% didn't would it bother you?

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
It would give the govt less money to spend which would make it so the wealthy tax payers didn't have to worry about bureaucracy (i.e., regulations) and things like the public services.

However, some people apparently think that everyone should pay something. I don't though because I didn't want the govt services in the first place.

It would be better to have a flat marginal rate of 100% on nothing but wages and salaries with a $1mn exemption than to have a true flat tax of 10%... that's because the govt would have far less revenue and most people making more than 1mn wouldn't pay anything either because they would use a tax haven.

All of that said, I think it's a bad idea to broaden the tax base.
 
Last edited:

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,962
140
106
I think this would be a great idea. It would for sure usher in the break up of the US. The parasites and moochers will have to scurry about like the rats they are.
 

postmortemIA

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2006
7,721
40
91
"I think I can solve US tax problems by x" is the stupidest thing you can read here. So many talented policy makers here.
 

Slew Foot

Lifer
Sep 22, 2005
12,379
96
86
Everyone should pay some tax, you cant gave people vote themselves other peoples money and expect to survive as a country.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,108
1,575
126
I personally was never interested in living in an undeveloped shithole like the worst parts of the third world, which is what this suggestion would give us. But you're welcome to move to the places that have little to no tax and as a result have little to no public services, electricity, clean water, roads, law, etc. Your dream world is out there, it's known as the third world. You should at least visit sometime and then perhaps you might open your eyes as to how bad your ideas are.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,748
15,766
136
I think this would be a great idea. It would for sure usher in the break up of the US. The parasites and moochers will have to scurry about like the rats they are.

Another anti American poster! Why do you hate America so much?







A stupid response to a stupid post.
 

zanejohnson

Diamond Member
Nov 29, 2002
7,054
17
81
i think you are right.


you can't force someone to think a different way, that's like the only thing in the world w CANNOT force.


and it's the one that would really make differences...
 

Midwayman

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2000
5,723
325
126
It already bothers me that so many don't pay taxes, let alone 99%. It'd be nice if everyone made enough money to pay taxes rather than trying to squeeze blood from a stone though.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Everyone should pay some tax, you cant gave people vote themselves other peoples money and expect to survive as a country.

If we are going to keep spending at the level we are everyone is going to have to. You can't keep borrowing 25% of your budget.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
I personally was never interested in living in an undeveloped shithole like the worst parts of the third world, which is what this suggestion would give us. But you're welcome to move to the places that have little to no tax and as a result have little to no public services, electricity, clean water, roads, law, etc. Your dream world is out there, it's known as the third world. You should at least visit sometime and then perhaps you might open your eyes as to how bad your ideas are.

The ignorance is stunning! We could replace the income tax with a national sales/consumption tax and be able to fund the government.
 

postmortemIA

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2006
7,721
40
91
It's a good thing that 100% do pay Taxes. Even Illegals pay Taxes.

Very true. Perhaps only in states that have no local tax illegals can get away from taxes completely. Or by buying only food.

Illegals do pay state & local taxes. But because they don't fill tax return, they cannot claim standard deduction.

People with W2 or 1099s have to pay some tax, even if they get EIC, simply because FICA tax is not refundable.
 

Agent11

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2006
3,535
1
0
More poor people smoke than wealthy people, and are HEAVILY taxed. Also more poor play the lotto.
 

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,732
2
81
Very true. Perhaps only in states that have no local tax illegals can get away from taxes completely. Or by buying only food.

Illegals do pay state & local taxes. But because they don't fill tax return, they cannot claim standard deduction.

People with W2 or 1099s have to pay some tax, even if they get EIC, simply because FICA tax is not refundable.

They take out far far more than put in, and FYI; many file tax returns using a loop hole to get the earned income tax credits;

http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/...ens-can-qualify-for-earned-income-tax-credit/
 

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,732
2
81
It would give the govt less money to spend which would make it so the wealthy tax payers didn't have to worry about bureaucracy (i.e., regulations) and things like the public services.

However, some people apparently think that everyone should pay something. I don't though because I didn't want the govt services in the first place.

It would be better to have a flat marginal rate of 100% on nothing but wages and salaries with a $1mn exemption than to have a true flat tax of 10%... that's because the govt would have far less revenue and most people making more than 1mn wouldn't pay anything either because they would use a tax haven.

All of that said, I think it's a bad idea to broaden the tax base.

It would be better to just abolish the IRS and all forms of federal taxes then create a national sales tax on all goods except for things like food, and water. This way those that spend more pay more those whom spend less pay less but everyone contributes.

The sales tax percentage would have to be fixed and could only ever be changed by national vote by the people in order to keep congress from arbitrarily raising it when ever they want with the exception of a national emergency like a war but then only temporarily.

Since this would be the only form of revenue for the Federal Government it would also serve as the limit for the Federal budget. It would be all they get to spend no more, forcing congress to work together and spend wisely.
 

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
Everyone pays taxes in one form or another- mostly income and sales taxes. But why
do we pay these taxes?

There are many services offered to citizens that could not be managed effectively
under any other system.

The federal government uses your tax dollars to support Social Security, health care,
national defense and social services such as food stamps and housing.

Services provided by taxes for example are public schools, safe highways, health
care, prisons and social services for low-income citizens. The city or county where
you live provides water and garbage service, police and fire protection and also
contributes to public schools, food safety, drug safety, and many more, but these are just some examples.

We can all admit that these services are necessary. But why must they be paid for
with taxes? Why shouldn't we just pay individually for what we use? The answer is
simple: Because no one could afford it. Each person would have to pay the full fee for
the service regardless of their ability to pay.

Our tax system is based on our "ability to pay." The more money we earn, the more
taxes we pay. And the opposite is also true. If we earn a small income, we pay less
taxes.

Here are some articles for the OP to read, educate him/herself with about the whole “flat tax” theory.

http://www.ndsmcobserver.com/viewpoint/flat-tax-just-won-t-work-1.2724222#.UUCBfxxwrmc

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/business/flat-tax-doesnt-solve-inequality-problem.html

This link below is really cool, its a debate with pros and cons of a flat tax for the US.

http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-a-flat-tax-system-better-than-a-progressive-tax
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
It depends on how much I had to pay in taxes as a percentage of my income.

We can fix our tax system by moving to The Fair Tax.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,108
1,575
126
It would be better to just abolish the IRS and all forms of federal taxes then create a national sales tax on all goods except for things like food, and water. This way those that spend more pay more those whom spend less pay less but everyone contributes.

The sales tax percentage would have to be fixed and could only ever be changed by national vote by the people in order to keep congress from arbitrarily raising it when ever they want with the exception of a national emergency like a war but then only temporarily.

Since this would be the only form of revenue for the Federal Government it would also serve as the limit for the Federal budget. It would be all they get to spend no more, forcing congress to work together and spend wisely.

First, you wouldn't be able to abolish the IRS if you moved to a sales tax. The IRS also does audits of businesses improperly collecting sales tax or collecting it as income. Also you'd have to have an agency responsible for doing the collection on a federal level, so IRS wouldn't go away. In addition a sales tax is a regressive tax in that the poor would always pay the full amount as a percentage of their income but the rich would pay a significantly lower percentage of their income as taxes. Also a sales tax by its nature discourages consumerism. You'd have a lot of people moving to black markets, person to person transactions, and in the end you'd have a significant drop in consumer confidence. Essentially a national sales tax is one of the worst ideas of how to address the tax system.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
The Fair Tax takes care of the poor. It is a better system because of that. Why should people be taxed on their production, what they create? Shouldn't you tax people on what they consume, what they use up instead?

A consumption tax will also tax the illegal incomes...by taxing their spending. Sure, there will be a slight increase in the black market, but nothing major. Most goods will still be bought like they are today.
 

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
The Fair Tax takes care of the poor. It is a better system because of that. Why should people be taxed on their production, what they create? Shouldn't you tax people on what they consume, what they use up instead?

A consumption tax will also tax the illegal incomes...by taxing their spending. Sure, there will be a slight increase in the black market, but nothing major. Most goods will still be bought like they are today.


"As long as we have schools, police, highways and other public infrastructures, we will need ways to raise the money and pay for them. Proposals such as the so-called “FairTax” do little but shift taxes back onto the backs of middle- and lower-income families under the guise of “tax simplification.”

FairTax / FlawedTax
Why the National Sales Tax is Bad for America

Over the past few years, the so-called “FairTax” has gained attention in limited circles through talk radio, blogs, YouTube and MySpace. Despite its lack of support from any credible economist, that attention has been bleeding into mainstream media.

So what is the so-called “FairTax”? It’s a proposed national sales tax that would, in theory, replace all other federal taxes. Advocates of the plan argue that it would “simplify” the tax code by getting rid of the estate tax, personal income tax, payroll tax, corporate income taxes and the IRS itself.

The FairTax, however, would only replace one government agency with another, while shifting the tax burden onto middle- and low-income families.

The 50% Sales Tax

The plan is rife with distortions. For example, supporters claim the FairTax is a 23% sales tax. That claim, however, uses misleading math. For example, if you bought a $100 item, and a $30 tax were added to the price of that item, you would incur a 30% tax, right? That’s certainly the way every other sales tax in the nation is calculated. In FairTax math, it would be a 23% tax, since 23% of the final price ($30/$130 = 23%) is the tax.

That’s only the beginning. In calculating how much of a sales tax it would take to replace all other federal taxes, the crafters of the FairTax included purchases made by the government itself. So, if the government buys a bomber, it would pay itself a tax. If the government builds a school, it would pay itself a little more. The problem here is that the government paying itself does not actually raise revenue. When this type of circular math and other distortions are taken out of the tax equation, it would take a sales tax of over a 50% to replace current federal taxes. Imagine paying a 50% sales tax on the next house you buy (Yes, it would apply to new homes)!

Even the Bush Administration’s tax reform panel recognized these gross miscalculations and chose not to endorse the national sales tax idea. The panel noted that the tax rate would have to be between 34 and 49 percent just to replace the federal income tax, let alone every other federal tax.

Another Tax Break for the Rich

On top of the distortions, the FairTax would shift taxes onto middle and lower-income families. Like Tennessee’s sales tax, it would not apply to purchases, such as stocks and bonds, savings and private school tuition, typically made by higher income families. At the same time, applying it to such things as medical expenses and hospitalization, would essentially kick people when they’re down. Since these medical expenses could easily surpass families’ income during a crisis, the FairTax would force them to pay much higher taxes as a portion of their income in bad years.

In the end, what progressive features our federal tax system has left, after years of tax breaks for the rich, would be replaced with a tax system where the more you make, the less you would pay.

Proponents of the plan attempt to blunt this fairness argument by offering rebates for the amount of sales tax paid on family purchases up to the poverty level. Even with the rebates, low-income families would still lose, as would most families. A state-by-state analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) found that under the FairTax plan, taxes would rise an average of $3,260 a year for the bottom 80 percent of Tennessee taxpayers. Only the top 5% would actually save, while the richest 1% of Tennesseans would get an annual tax cut of $162,000 each. See table.
http://www.fairtaxation.org/nationalissues/nationalsalestax.php

In short, the FairTax would just be more of the same, failed, trickle-down policies that have enriched a small handful of Americans, stagnated incomes for most and weakened the nation’s economy as a whole.

The New IRS

Even the argument that the FairTax would allow us to get rid of the IRS, and thus government bureaucracy, falls flat upon further examination. In part, this is because when a tax rate reaches as high as 50%, the incentives to find creative ways to avoid the tax grow even stronger.

Since the intent of the FairTax is to tax only end-user consumption, business-to-business transactions would not be taxed. This opens up an entire host of tax-evasion opportunities. Employers would find ways to provide their top executives with tax-free corporate cars, homes, meals and even clothing.

The tax-evasion opportunities would go beyond business-to-business transactions. Shady retailers would be tempted to sell items at steep discounts to people who pay cash, because retailers can more easily hide cash sales. Some would even find ways to “barter” for goods as a way of avoiding the tax.

On top of all the policing, someone in the federal government would have to administer the rebate program. In short, someone would have to track current addresses, process applications, verify the number of children people claim and issue checks.

In the end, the IRS would simply be replaced with another government agency to administer the rebates, ensure people don’t claim more children than they actually have, conduct extensive audits of businesses, track purchases, monitor retailers and make its best effort to curb the extensive tax evasion that would occur under such a plan.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Despite its lack of support from any credible economist, that attention has been bleeding into mainstream media.

I had to stop there when I reached that doozy of a lie. Yes, a big lie, one they tell knowing people like you will fall for it...they are using you and then laughing at how easy you are to be used.

June 1, 2005
On April 12 Kotlikoff joined more than 75 economists nationwide who endorsed the Fair Tax in a letter delivered to the U.S. House, Senate, Treasury, president’s tax reform panel, and President George W. Bush.


...Fair Tax supporter Laurence Kotlikoff, economics department chairman at Boston University...
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2005/06/01/economists-back-fair-tax-proposal

Sorry, when the article starts with a lie that blatant, we should ignore the article. What other blatant lies are they peddling to those they hope to control?

EDIT: Even the fair tax website has a letter on it from a large group of economists: http://www.fairtax.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8351

EDIT: Even Alan Greenspan says a consumption tax would be good for the economy. http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=1542104
 
Last edited:

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
I had to stop there when I reached that doozy of a lie. Yes, a big lie, one they tell knowing people like you will fall for it...they are using you and then laughing at how easy you are to be used.


http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2005/06/01/economists-back-fair-tax-proposal

Sorry, when the article starts with a lie that blatant, we should ignore the article. What other blatant lies are they peddling to those they hope to control?

EDIT: Even the fair tax website has a letter on it from a large group of economists: http://www.fairtax.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8351

I see ignore the points made and some of the facts, because you do not agree with it.. gotcha. Facts become irrelevant because you think one statement is a lie in your opinion.. and therefore forego any facts right?