Do You Agree With Income Tax

[dairygirl4u2c]

i guess it's a simple inherent difference of opinion.

cause saying things like how you play nice and help society function.... justifies everyone else paying money for your safety and interests, doesn't sit well with me. police, and military, and representatives. etc

if you use the police, you should at least pay a tax, as far as that goes. in theory anyway.

these are all your interests, not anyone else's.... so it seems like a cop out to me to put the burden on others, but not that it is necessarily if you disagree.

i really do like the idea of being a hermit if you want.... but i haven't seen a good alternative that taxes those safety and interests similar to taxing gas for roads, that would justify it.

the bottom line: "cause i play by the rules and help society function, i want others to pay out of their own money for my interests and well being"

[dairygirl4u2c]

cause you have to weigh the interests.... i value someone being able to live a hermit life with no taxes... but i also value people pulling their weight... i consider it minimally intrusive to make a hermit pay a little, rather than making me pay for him so that he can live his hermit lifestyle without concern and his interests protected.

the altnernative doesn't make sense to me... it's minimally instrusive to make me pay for the hermit's interests and concerns... to justify that the hermit can live free from concern about his interests etc?

it's not equitable. but that's just me.

i mean... it doesn't have to be a lot, but it should be something, however you want to tax it.

Edited April 29, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[kujo]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1514013' date='Apr 29 2008, 02:09 PM']I'm all for not taxing corporations either. It is tariffs which have traditionally been the major funder of the federal government and those are what I'm principally talking about when I say that industry should generate the funds that the federal government collects

Fairtax as in flat rate income tax? no deal. no dice. big deal, we get less paperwork... woopididooda.

Fairtax as in flat nation wide sales tax? slightly better than the better system and more in line with what I'm saying, especially if it excludes the sale of food and houses/land. overall I'd like to see enough fiscal responsibility that the federal government could operate only from the tariffs it collects... government spending would not go down with a national sales tax replacing the IRS, the sales tax would just keep increasing[/quote]

The latter. I think that there should be a flat retail tax that doesn't include food and houses/land. The easiest way to collect MORE money from society without penalizing individuals with obscene things like taking more money from them when they get a pay raise.

[CatherineM]

I've heard the suggestion that a national sales tax would at least generate income from people who do not pay income taxes, like drug dealers, prostitutes, and mobsters.

Those of you that want to go to ground, live off the land, and separate from the government, I think there's going to be some land for sale soon in Texas. The former owners were mostly women and children. Of course there's probably some land left for sale in Waco too.

[Aloysius]

yeah... because the desire for self-sufficiency inherently means you have to be crazy... nice little psychological trick the modern secularist culture had planted in our heads I say. what's so crazy about wanting to own your own land and not pay property or income tax?

it's not wanting to sit back and let everyone else pay for it. it's wanting those who import foreign goods into the country to pay for it (tariffs) and wanting a portion of the wealth which is generated by the free-flowing economy to supplement that.

I only accept the government skimming off the top of public transactions as payment for it allowing those public transactions to take place in safety, not invading private property. why all the hate (don't hate, appreciate) (don't hate (don't hate, appreciate), appreciate) on anyone who can get by without engaging in such public transactions reaping the benefits of safety? that just means that person is a different part of society...

oh no, it's so unfair that they're protected by the same police I'm protected by because part of what I paid for that television funds the police and crazy old man river down the road never even bought a television! woe is me!... it just seems so ridiculously petty and illogical to me.

but again, even better than a sales tax would be fiscal responsibility coupled by the payment of tariffs by importers and maybe some form of tax on the overall wealth generated by corporations as that wealth is generated as a result of the free public domain established by the common defense offered by the government.

and again, this keeps the government honest and responsible, because it keeps the balance even between it and who it's dealing with. corporations have power, like it or not, so the government really can't trick them into huge increases on their taxes to build bridges on the moon... they're evenly matched when dealing with corporations.

but for all any of you know: you've already paid taxes to pay for building bridges on the moon. think about that

the federal government dealing with individuals ALWAYS amounts to bullying which amounts to damage being done to freedom. I say let the powerful titans duke it out over how the federal government's gonna be funded... governments vs. large corporations... it is absolutely fair that the money generated by corporations be that which is skimmed off the top for national defense, and as an added bonus the government has a balance to its check of trying to levy taxes in the form of businesses which are powerful enough to call them out on their croutons (nope, not the fiddler, I spelled out croutons)

[CatherineM]

I don't mind paying taxes to build a bridge on the moon. That sounds kind of cool. My husband wrote a paper once about using lava tubes on the moon as habitats.

I guess my problem is that I don't care about money. Never have. Drives my husband more nuts than he already is (and he is certifiable). I just never worry about money, so I have trouble understanding why everyone else gets so worked up over it. I'm not saying you don't have the right to, I'm just saying I don't have that thing in my brain that most people do. I guess it would be like explaining what purple is to a blind person. My dad used to get worked up about paying taxes, and it was like he was speaking Greek to me. I just never "got" it.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='StColette' post='1513931' date='Apr 29 2008, 11:57 AM']I know what all the different soil nutrient deficiencies look like and how to fix them! Aren't you glad you married me! I can also milk cows! Let's go live in the country![/quote]
Yes...we can call it...Athanasia...and we can come up with a cover-firm...Chesterbel Enterprises...

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1513969' date='Apr 29 2008, 12:28 PM']... my crazy plans sound better and better all the time, huh?[/quote]
I don't know what you're talking about.

Want to buy stock in my corporation, Chesterbel Enterprises?

[MissScripture]

[quote name='kujo' post='1514019' date='Apr 29 2008, 01:19 PM']The latter. I think that there should be a flat retail tax that doesn't include food and houses/land. The easiest way to collect MORE money from society without penalizing individuals with obscene things like taking more money from them when they get a pay raise.[/quote]
What about clothes? Would clothes be taxed?

[kujo]

[quote name='MissScripture' post='1514447' date='Apr 29 2008, 08:28 PM']What about clothes? Would clothes be taxed?[/quote]

Absolutely. I understand the position that clothes are a necessity much like food and housing, but I think that people rarely purchase clothes with a utilitarian mindset. Go into American Eagle, Aeropostale, Abercrombie, etc. and tell me that those clothes are "necessary"...hell, tell me that they're even practical!

[MissScripture]

What about people who purchase the most expensive brands of foods, and buy everything pre-made? Is that necessary?

[dairygirl4u2c]

www.fairtax.org

with the fairtax as proposed my mainstream.. poorer people get a pay back for what they pay out up to a certain amount. so even if it's a necessity, it does not matter cause poor get pay back refund.

effectively, that pay back also creates a staired income scale, cause everyone gets the pay back, but the richer are affected by it less, such taht they pay closer to the 23% flat sales tax in the end.

the flaw that many don't know about,,,, or won't say... it that while it's progressive in that sense, and it appears on the surface to be legit.... the rich don't pay more as a percentage, they only pay more in dollars. this is because they dont spend enough: if A has 1000 and spends 100, and B has 10000 and spends 500, A still spent more than B did as a percentage.

so while it might be promoted as progressive.... it's really progressively regressive. ultimately regressive. that means it's even more rich friendly that the run of hte mill flat tax that was the bigger things before the fair tax came along cause at leat the flat tax isn't regressive.

Edited April 29, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[Socrates]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1513751' date='Apr 29 2008, 12:35 AM']Even if you believe that income tax is some kind of basic element of social justice (which is utterly preposterous to my mind) I hope you would admit that the specifics of the tax system are up for debate. I tend to believe that an individual's labor is their private property and that the taxation of private labor is an abuse of government. At the very least it is short of the ideal for a free and humanistic society.[/quote]
Agreed 100%

I'm all for abolishing the IRS (infernal revenue service).

We should remember that the U.S. federal government had no power to tax the incomes of citizens until 1913, when the sixteenth amendment to the constitution was ratified. (Previously, attempts by the federal government to tax income had been ruled unconstitutional).

Those claiming a federal income tax is a necessity for our country should remember that our country went without one for almost 140 years!

While people will quibble about who is paying their "fair share" of taxes, many today unfortunately never call into question the fact that the government is taking a substantial amount of [i]anybody's[/i] private income. Nor do they ever seem to question the underlying assumption that more federal government spending is the answer to all life's problems. No one would consider me rich by any means, yet Uncle Sam takes an obscene portion of my meager income. And the calls for further "soaking the rich" are simply the politics of envy - ignoring the reality that "soaking the rich" actually does nothing to make the rest of us any better off.
And the taxing of incomes seems based on the assumption that government bureaucrats know better what to do with our hard-earned income than we do.

Edited April 30, 2008 by Socrates

[JesusIsMySuperHero]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1514616' date='Apr 29 2008, 08:53 PM']Agreed 100%

I'm all for abolishing the IRS (infernal revenue service).

We should remember that the U.S. federal government had no power to tax the incomes of citizens until 1913, when the sixteenth amendment to the constitution was ratified. (Previously, attempts by the federal government to tax income had been ruled unconstitutional).

Those claiming a federal income tax is a necessity for our country should remember that our country went without one for almost 140 years!

While people will quibble about who is paying their "fair share" of taxes, many today unfortunately never call into question the fact that the government is taking a substantial amount of [i]anybody's[/i] private income. Nor do they ever seem to question the underlying assumption that more federal government spending is the answer to all life's problems. No one would consider me rich by any means, yet Uncle Sam takes an obscene portion of my meager income. And the calls for further "soaking the rich" are simply the politics of envy - ignoring the reality that "soaking the rich" actually does nothing to make the rest of us any better off.
And the taxing of incomes seems based on the assumption that government bureaucrats know better what to do with our hard-earned income than we do.[/quote]

I hardly ever agree with you, but I can't help but applaud you.

God did tell us that could be a possibility if we allowed leadership to get to powerful. 1st Samuel 8:5-18, God said leaders would take our lands, and take a tenth of our produce in taxes!

And yet, many good sheep listen to people say, give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's, without realizing who it is really going too, and the fact this is all based on loans given by the central banks, which have interest, which is breaking our economies to line the pockets of some greedy scumbags who have probably killed two American Presidents and warned another for meddeling in their affairs!

Wow, great system!

There will be a time that we will get all that back to us though. God did say he would restore the years that the Cancour worm has stolen from us. I have a feeling it is a direct prophecy against this system. I don't know how everything will change, or what will bring that change about, but it will happen one day.

[JesusIsMySuperHero]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1514468' date='Apr 29 2008, 06:42 PM']www.fairtax.org

with the fairtax as proposed my mainstream.. poorer people get a pay back for what they pay out up to a certain amount. so even if it's a necessity, it does not matter cause poor get pay back refund.

effectively, that pay back also creates a staired income scale, cause everyone gets the pay back, but the richer are affected by it less, such taht they pay closer to the 23% flat sales tax in the end.

the flaw that many don't know about,,,, or won't say... it that while it's progressive in that sense, and it appears on the surface to be legit.... the rich don't pay more as a percentage, they only pay more in dollars. this is because they dont spend enough: if A has 1000 and spends 100, and B has 10000 and spends 500, A still spent more than B did as a percentage.

so while it might be promoted as progressive.... it's really progressively regressive. ultimately regressive. that means it's even more rich friendly that the run of hte mill flat tax that was the bigger things before the fair tax came along cause at leat the flat tax isn't regressive.[/quote]

However, it can still be effective. I don't spend all my money. For savers, like myself, it would be a life send. I save as much as possible to begin with. If didn't get taxed on my income, I would probably be able to save more money.

[CatherineM]

There was a report on the news tonight that the average American carries $8500 just of credit card debt. You may be in the minority when it comes to saving money.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1514616' date='Apr 29 2008, 09:53 PM']And the taxing of incomes seems based on the assumption that government bureaucrats know better what to do with our hard-earned income than we do.[/quote]
Well, of course, if we could just learn from them how to spend our income wisely, the whole country would be like Amsterdam. What's not to envy?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[url="http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/"]http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/[/url]

[JesusIsMySuperHero]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1514770' date='Apr 29 2008, 11:18 PM']There was a report on the news tonight that the average American carries $8500 just of credit card debt. You may be in the minority when it comes to saving money.[/quote]
If people didn't have income tax, they could probably start paying off small amounts of that debt slowly, but much faster than if you had your income taxed.

[CatherineM]

They were also interviewing people about how they were going to spend their extra tax credit money. None were going to pay off any debt with their rebate.