Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 8/13/2007 8:16:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2007 2:42:48 PM EDT by 45MAD]
Our founding fathers - they wanted representation before being taxed out of existence.

People today seem to want new fangled equality, I don't know why, because we are being taxed out of existence. (By foreign powers so long as we are the world police.)

"all men are created equal"------ whatever happened to "self evident"?

"Flat Tax" evidently equal.

Link Posted: 8/13/2007 8:30:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 45MAD:
Our founding fathers - they wanted representation before being taxed out of existence.

People today seem to want new fangled equality, I don't know why, because we are being taxed out of existence. (By foreign powers so long as we are the world police.)

"all men are created equal"------ whatever happened to "self evident"?

"Flat Tax" evidently equal.



Introduce a flat tax if you REALLY want to see this country go to hell in minutes. The top 10% in income pay 90% of the taxes collected. There sure would be hell to pay if you reduced that 90% to 10% and raised the taxes for everyone else.
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 8:39:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Marauder777:

Originally Posted By 45MAD:
Our founding fathers - they wanted representation before being taxed out of existence.

People today seem to want new fangled equality, I don't know why, because we are being taxed out of existence. (By foreign powers so long as we are the world police.)

"all men are created equal"------ whatever happened to "self evident"?

"Flat Tax" evidently equal.



Introduce a flat tax if you REALLY want to see this country go to hell in minutes. The top 10% in income pay 90% of the taxes collected. There sure would be hell to pay if you reduced that 90% to 10% and raised the taxes for everyone else.


If they pay 90% now, they'' pay 99.99% after the FLAT TAX. Looks like they get stuck with a percentage similar to how many peons are left in the dirt of their high and mighty ways.
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 9:05:15 AM EDT
What? That doesn't make a damn bit of sense.

Lets say you have two people. Person A makes $5/hr and person B makes $20/hr.

Person A makes considerably less income, so they are in the 10% tax bracket. They pay $0.10 for every $1.00 they make.

Person B makes considerably more income, so they are in the 35% tax bracket. They pay $0.35 for every $1.00 they make.

To put in perspective... lets say both work 2040 hours in a year.

Person A: $10,200 earned in a year. $1,020 will be paid in taxes.
Person B: $40,800 earned in a year. $14,280 will be paid in taxes.
Total taxes paid: $15,300.

Person B will pay more in taxes than person A makes in a year. Now lets look at it in terms of a flat tax of say.... 30%.

Person A: $10,200 earned in a year. $3,060 will be paid in taxes.
Person B: $40,800 earned in a year. $12,240 will be paid in taxes.
Total taxes paid: $15,300.

Who gets screwed more with flat taxes?
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 9:11:03 AM EDT
So the harder I work, the more I should be taxed?

Consumption tax is the only fair solution. I should not be taxed according to how hard I work.

One year, I got a raise that put me in a higher tax bracket. The increase in taxes actually reduced how much I took home the following year compared to the year prior to the raise.
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 9:17:37 AM EDT
10% across the board. No personal deductions. Most personal deductions are a form of social engineering anyway. Personally, I think all taxes suck.
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 9:19:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2007 9:23:40 AM EDT by 45MAD]
Why should I/we pay 17% while J.P. Gotrocks pays 1.3%. He doesn't work at anything but how to spend his next 10 minutes, I have to look 5 years ahead at how much I'm losing to a top heavy creep populated government that gives itself pay raises to put themselves into the 1.3% bracket.
Use fees and licensing monies included, we're all working the first half of the year for government and welfare people.
Our government with it's penalties for not paying tax is no more than "Guido" in the empty warehouse being paid "protection" money.

10% FOR ALL!
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 9:33:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PCR-00:
So the harder I work, the more I should be taxed?

Consumption tax is the only fair solution. I should not be taxed according to how hard I work.

One year, I got a raise that put me in a higher tax bracket. The increase in taxes actually reduced how much I took home the following year compared to the year prior to the raise.


Then you need to fire your accountant if you use one.

Here's how it works, lets use the following figures:

$10 @ 10%
$20 @ 15%
$30 @ 20%
$40 @ 35%

Let's say you make $40. You pay $1 for the first $10, $1.50 for the next, $2.00 after that, and finally $3.50 for the last bit. Thats $8. You don't pay 35% on the total $40.

In the tax tables you will see "If Taxable income is over $30,650, but not over $74,200, the tax is $4,220.00 plus 25% of the amount over 30,650".

So, if your income is $50,000 and you are in the 35% tax bracket, you don't pay $17,500. You pay $9,057.50.

If your net income goes down because your taxes increase, either seek out an accountant, or find a new one.
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 9:33:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Marauder777:
What? That doesn't make a damn bit of sense.

Lets say you have two people. Person A makes $5/hr and person B makes $20/hr.

Person A makes considerably less income, so they are in the 10% tax bracket. They pay $0.10 for every $1.00 they make.

Person B makes considerably more income, so they are in the 35% tax bracket. They pay $0.35 for every $1.00 they make.

To put in perspective... lets say both work 2040 hours in a year.

Person A: $10,200 earned in a year. $1,020 will be paid in taxes.
Person B: $40,800 earned in a year. $14,280 will be paid in taxes.
Total taxes paid: $15,300.

Person B will pay more in taxes than person A makes in a year. Now lets look at it in terms of a flat tax of say.... 30%.

Person A: $10,200 earned in a year. $3,060 will be paid in taxes.
Person B: $40,800 earned in a year. $12,240 will be paid in taxes.
Total taxes paid: $15,300.

Who gets screwed more with flat taxes?


Now see? You are all about the money and not equality..Bad Marauder77.
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 9:40:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2007 9:41:17 AM EDT by 45MAD]

Originally Posted By PCR-00:
So the harder I work, the more I should be taxed?

Consumption tax is the only fair solution. I should not be taxed according to how hard I work.

One year, I got a raise that put me in a higher tax bracket. The increase in taxes actually reduced how much I took home the following year compared to the year prior to the raise.


Sales tax? That means we are not free to conduct business. Where government income - comes from needs the examination. Maybe a one time, lifetime payment for the privilege of being a citizen, being able to make payments on it and assuring the loan percentage?
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 9:42:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 45MAD:

Now see? You are all about the money and not equality..Bad Marauder77.


We are not born equal. If we were all equal, we would all have the exact same DNA, be the same sex, and be extinct.

Some people are naturally better at things than others, that's life. The only natural law that equalizes everyone is death.

And, of course I'm all about the money. I'm an accountant. Accountants would like nothing more than a flat tax as it means we would take home a lot more money, our jobs would be a lot less complicated, and we could take a lot more vacation!
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 9:46:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Marauder777:

Originally Posted By PCR-00:
So the harder I work, the more I should be taxed?

Consumption tax is the only fair solution. I should not be taxed according to how hard I work.

One year, I got a raise that put me in a higher tax bracket. The increase in taxes actually reduced how much I took home the following year compared to the year prior to the raise.


Then you need to fire your accountant if you use one.

Here's how it works, lets use the following figures:

$10 @ 10%
$20 @ 15%
$30 @ 20%
$40 @ 35%

Let's say you make $40. You pay $1 for the first $10, $1.50 for the next, $2.00 after that, and finally $3.50 for the last bit. Thats $8. You don't pay 35% on the total $40.

In the tax tables you will see "If Taxable income is over $30,650, but not over $74,200, the tax is $4,220.00 plus 25% of the amount over 30,650".

So, if your income is $50,000 and you are in the 35% tax bracket, you don't pay $17,500. You pay $9,057.50.

If your net income goes down because your taxes increase, either seek out an accountant, or find a new one.


It's not about the money...
We are taxed because of perceived worth, as in the beginning. King George figured the colonists were all fat, they weren't free to count on solid figures, the taxes were upped arbitrarily. IT WASN'T SIMPLE.
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 9:51:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Marauder777:

Originally Posted By 45MAD:

Now see? You are all about the money and not equality..Bad Marauder77.


We are not born equal. If we were all equal, we would all have the exact same DNA, be the same sex, and be extinct.

Some people are naturally better at things than others, that's life. The only natural law that equalizes everyone is death.

And, of course I'm all about the money. I'm an accountant. Accountants would like nothing more than a flat tax as it means we would take home a lot more money, our jobs would be a lot less complicated, and we could take a lot more vacation!


Oh yeah, I forgot.... It would eliminate the need for accountants.
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 9:56:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 45MAD:

It's not about the money...
We are taxed because of perceived worth, as in the beginning. King George figured the colonists were all fat, they weren't free to count on solid figures, the taxes were upped arbitrarily. IT WASN'T SIMPLE.


Well, it is about the money. That's the focal point of your argument is how much we should be taxed.

Personally, I agree and think the taxes ought to be lower. The people who benefit most from taxes are politicians and people begging for handouts. It's amazing how many "tax laws" lawyers and politicians pass that have tons of little additional things to divert the funds into their personal projects.

Trust me when I say if accountants wrote the tax laws, things would be much simpler and we wouldn't have as much frivolous tax spending issues as we do now. Lawyers and politicians generally only have a vague understanding of how this stuff actually happens, which is really scary. They make laws and they do not know how it's actually going to work in reality.
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 9:57:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 45MAD:

Oh yeah, I forgot.... It would eliminate the need for accountants.


As long as there are lawyers and politicians, there will be a need for accountants to sort through the mess.
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 10:00:24 AM EDT
Fairtax.org link

Thease guys are trying hard to put the IRS under.
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 10:01:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Marauder777:

Originally Posted By 45MAD:

Oh yeah, I forgot.... It would eliminate the need for accountants.


As long as there are lawyers and politicians, there will be a need for accountants to sort through cover up the mess.


fixt
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 10:11:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 45MAD:

Originally Posted By Marauder777:

Originally Posted By 45MAD:

Oh yeah, I forgot.... It would eliminate the need for accountants.


As long as there are lawyers and politicians, there will be a need for accountants to sort through cover up the mess.


fixt


It's no secret our entire tax system is fucked. There isn't anything covered up. It's a big clusterfuck with shit changing ALL the time. Hell, changes are still being made in December so accountants are left scrambling in January to figure out what the hell changed and how to apply the changes. Not only that, but our asses are liable for misinterpretation. Sounds like a real cover up to me.

Government: Well, we're going to change the rules again, but we aren't going to tell you some of the changes until 3 days before they become relevant.

Accountants: WTF?

Gov: Oh, and if you screw it up you pay huge penalties and possibly get sent to prison. By the way, can you cover it up and make it look like our taxes are fair and friendly?


Link Posted: 8/13/2007 10:16:48 AM EDT
"It's no secret our entire tax system is fucked. There isn't anything covered up."-Marauder77


I think from an accountant's point of view, it couldn't be effed up if it were all in the open.
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 10:20:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 45MAD:
"It's no secret our entire tax system is fucked. There isn't anything covered up."-Marauder77


I think from an accountant's point of view, it couldn't be effed up if it were all in the open.


It is all in the open. Go to the IRS website and start browsing tax laws. It's 100% available to you.

Just because it's open doesn't mean it's easily understood.
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 10:25:32 AM EDT
SMOKE AND MIRRORS!




Why should I/we pay 17% while J.P. Gotrocks pays 1.3%. He doesn't work at anything but how to spend his next 10 minutes, I have to look 5 years ahead at how much I'm losing to a top heavy creep populated government that gives itself pay raises to put themselves into the 1.3% bracket.
Use fees and licensing monies included, we're all working the first half of the year for government and welfare people.
Our government with it's penalties for not paying tax is no more than "Guido" in the empty warehouse being paid "protection" money.

10% FOR ALL!

simplify
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 10:26:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Marauder777:

Originally Posted By 45MAD:
"It's no secret our entire tax system is fucked. There isn't anything covered up."-Marauder77


I think from an accountant's point of view, it couldn't be effed up if it were all in the open.


It is all in the open. Go to the IRS website and start browsing tax laws. It's 100% available to you.

Just because it's open doesn't mean it's easily understood.


"The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax." -Albert Einstein
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 10:28:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 45MAD:
SMOKE AND MIRRORS!




Why should I/we pay 17% while J.P. Gotrocks pays 1.3%. He doesn't work at anything but how to spend his next 10 minutes, I have to look 5 years ahead at how much I'm losing to a top heavy creep populated government that gives itself pay raises to put themselves into the 1.3% bracket.
Use fees and licensing monies included, we're all working the first half of the year for government and welfare people.
Our government with it's penalties for not paying tax is no more than "Guido" in the empty warehouse being paid "protection" money.

10% FOR ALL!

simplify


I still have no idea what you are talking about with this 1.3% tax bracket. Let me see the income tax return that resulted in a 1.3% tax.
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 10:33:22 AM EDT
No business accounts for you! Companies get breaks all the time and down to the bone.
Sheesh! Explain simplicity to a freakin' criminal.
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 10:49:10 AM EDT
Corporations are double taxed. They are taxed on all revenue, then taxed again on all dividends.

Also, are you accusing me of being a criminal?
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 10:54:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Marauder777:
Corporations are double taxed. They are taxed on all revenue, then taxed again on all dividends.

Also, are you accusing me of being a criminal?


I knew that was coming, but I didn't intend for it to be that way.

1. You seem to disagree with me by agreeing with me- that taxes need a fix.
2. You are not offering a solution.
3. Where are all the millionaires pushing for a flat tax?
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 11:10:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 45MAD:

Originally Posted By Marauder777:
Corporations are double taxed. They are taxed on all revenue, then taxed again on all dividends.

Also, are you accusing me of being a criminal?


I knew that was coming, but I didn't intend for it to be that way.

1. You seem to disagree with me by agreeing with me- that taxes need a fix.
2. You are not offering a solution.
3. Where are all the millionaires pushing for a flat tax?



It was never an argument that the tax laws ought to be changed. The argument was about using flat taxes to do it. That would benefit only those whose taxes would go down, the ones you claim should be paying more.


Originally Posted By Marauder777:

Trust me when I say if accountants wrote the tax laws, things would be much simpler and we wouldn't have as much frivolous tax spending issues as we do now. Lawyers and politicians generally only have a vague understanding of how this stuff actually happens, which is really scary. They make laws and they do not know how it's actually going to work in reality.


It was never an argument that the tax laws ought to be changed. The argument was about using flat taxes to do it. That would benefit only those whose taxes would go down, the ones you claim should be paying more.

I am offering a solution. Let the accountants write the tax laws.

Most millionaires know taxes as well as most of the population in general and they pay other people to take care of it. Do you think that by becoming a millionaire you are automatically an expert in tax law?

If you want to fix the problem, find someone who is knowledgeable with regards to tax law and able to clearly communicate so that others will understand, and put that person in a position with enough power to enact a change.
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 11:14:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2007 11:15:45 AM EDT by 45MAD]

Originally Posted By Marauder777:

Originally Posted By 45MAD:

Originally Posted By Marauder777:
Corporations are double taxed. They are taxed on all revenue, then taxed again on all dividends.

Also, are you accusing me of being a criminal?


I knew that was coming, but I didn't intend for it to be that way.

1. You seem to disagree with me by agreeing with me- that taxes need a fix.
2. You are not offering a solution.
3. Where are all the millionaires pushing for a flat tax?



It was never an argument that the tax laws ought to be changed. The argument was about using flat taxes to do it. That would benefit only those whose taxes would go down, the ones you claim should be paying more.


Originally Posted By Marauder777:

Trust me when I say if accountants wrote the tax laws, things would be much simpler and we wouldn't have as much frivolous tax spending issues as we do now. Lawyers and politicians generally only have a vague understanding of how this stuff actually happens, which is really scary. They make laws and they do not know how it's actually going to work in reality.


It was never an argument that the tax laws ought to be changed. The argument was about using flat taxes to do it. That would benefit only those whose taxes would go down, the ones you claim should be paying more.

I am offering a solution. Let the accountants write the tax laws.

Most millionaires know taxes as well as most of the population in general and they pay other people to take care of it. Do you think that by becoming a millionaire you are automatically an expert in tax law?

If you want to fix the problem, find someone who is knowledgeable with regards to tax law and able to clearly communicate so that others will understand, and put that person in a position with enough power to enact a change.


Rem582 did just that! Click on his link. P.S. I never said anyone ought to pay more. I said everyone ought to pay the same!
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 11:16:11 AM EDT
Will you two kiss and make up already!

Link Posted: 8/13/2007 11:27:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By GrabMyWrist:
Will you two kiss and make up already!



I don't know.,.. I think I don't like him. I can't find the barfy face so I'll try....... um no, that didn't work... How 'bout
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 11:29:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By GrabMyWrist:
Will you two kiss and make up already!



My girlfriend might not like it if I go around kissing other people.


I checked out that website, and I see a few problems with it (though it's a step in the right direction). The first is that it's going to be a painful transition. Prices on things will skyrocket in a very short period of time and at first people aren't going to be able to afford to buy many things. Either that, or the government will take a massive hit and be unable to pay for pretty much everything.

The second problem I see is that they want a "revenue neutral" tax placed on items. The amount of items purchased fluctuates from year to year, so it would really be guesswork and since it's for the government, it's going to lean heavily towards the governments benefit.

Third, how are they going to decide which products to tax more than others?

Fourth, they have a "monthly refund paid in advance" that doesn't make sense to me. First, how are they going to know what you will spend over the next month? Where is the money going to come from if it's paid in advance? How many more people is the government going to hire in order to do these monthly calculations? This seems incredibly wasteful.

There is a lot about this that sounds like fluff with no real substance. On the surface it looks like a good idea, but when I start looking through how they plan on following through with their promises, I see a lot of empty holes and unexplained methods.
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 11:31:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 45MAD:

Originally Posted By GrabMyWrist:
Will you two kiss and make up already!



I don't know.,.. I think I don't like him. I can't find the barfy face so I'll try....... um no, that didn't work... How 'bout


It's just below and between and .
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 11:40:59 AM EDT
The common experience that unites us is said to be greater than the differences that divide us but that would require accentuating the common experience and the solution rather than the justification of those that profit from evil organized crime.

The Creator set a flat tax of 10% on the increase only, not everything was taxed and only on profit after all expenses.

The U.S.C calls for equally apportioned, if only we could return to the rule of law instead of a power monopoly run by the wicked.

<­BR>



THOMAS JEFFERSON ON TAXATION:
If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, and give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses;
And the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they do now, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains around the necks of our fellow sufferers; And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second, that second for a third, and so on 'til the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering... And the forehorse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression. ~Thomas Jefferson-
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 11:45:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:
The common experience that unites us is said to be greater than the differences that divide us but that would require accentuating the common experience and the solution rather than the justification of those that profit from evil organized crime.

The Creator set a flat tax of 10% on the increase only, not everything was taxed and only on profit after all expenses.

The U.S.C calls for equally apportioned, if only we could return to the rule of law instead of a power monopoly run by the wicked.


THOMAS JEFFERSON ON TAXATION:
If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, and give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses;
And the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they do now, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains around the necks of our fellow sufferers; And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second, that second for a third, and so on 'til the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering... And the forehorse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression. ~Thomas Jefferson-


I almost titled the thread--I always did like Jefferson. I didn't because of his womanizing.
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 11:53:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 45MAD:
I almost titled the thread--I always did like Jefferson. I didn't because of his womanizing.

His record with the aboriginal Americans is a shame as well but the original ideal of constitutional limited goverment was that wicked men would always hold positions of power but the rule of law could be used to restrain them and the abuse of the offfice.

The bill of rights was a nice idea but requires we the people to enforce it.
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 11:58:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Marauder777:

Originally Posted By GrabMyWrist:
Will you two kiss and make up already!



My girlfriend might not like it if I go around kissing other people.


I checked out that website, and I see a few problems with it (though it's a step in the right direction). The first is that it's going to be a painful transition. Prices on things will skyrocket in a very short period of time and at first people aren't going to be able to afford to buy many things. Either that, or the government will take a massive hit and be unable to pay for pretty much everything.

The second problem I see is that they want a "revenue neutral" tax placed on items. The amount of items purchased fluctuates from year to year, so it would really be guesswork and since it's for the government, it's going to lean heavily towards the governments benefit.

Third, how are they going to decide which products to tax more than others?

Fourth, they have a "monthly refund paid in advance" that doesn't make sense to me. First, how are they going to know what you will spend over the next month? Where is the money going to come from if it's paid in advance? How many more people is the government going to hire in order to do these monthly calculations? This seems incredibly wasteful.

There is a lot about this that sounds like fluff with no real substance. On the surface it looks like a good idea, but when I start looking through how they plan on following through with their promises, I see a lot of empty holes and unexplained methods.


This would take way too much fixtiting time to justify it with an answer!
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 12:02:35 PM EDT
How about a flat tax *AND* a checklist for each taxpayer to check off the government programs and services that they want their money to go to? This along with an opt-out option for Social Security would make some changes. If you opt-out or stay in with the option of choosing your own investments, then that account goes broke, you are on the street when the time comes. If your community decided to support a program to help take care of you then you will be ok. Otherwise you just see how Darwin's theory works out.
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 12:03:36 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 12:05:15 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 12:07:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Marauder777:
Originally Posted By GrabMyWrist:
Will you two kiss and make up already!



My girlfriend might not like it if I go around kissing other people.


I checked out that website, while my girlfriend wasn't looking and I see a few problems with it (though it's a step in the right direction). The first is that it's going to be a up my butt painful transition. Prices on things will skyrocket in a very short period of time like when we add sales tax now and at first people aren't going to be able to afford to buy many things. Either that, or the government will take a massive hit and be unable to pay for pretty much everything.

The second problem is I see dead people is that they want a "revenue neutral" tax placed on items.

etc. etc. etc. blah blah blah blah....
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 12:25:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 45MAD:

Originally Posted By Marauder777:
Originally Posted By GrabMyWrist:
Will you two kiss and make up already!



My girlfriend might not like it if I go around kissing other people.


I checked out that website, while my girlfriend wasn't looking and I see a few problems with it (though it's a step in the right direction). The first is that it's going to be a up my butt painful transition. Prices on things will skyrocket in a very short period of time like when we add sales tax now and at first people aren't going to be able to afford to buy many things. Either that, or the government will take a massive hit and be unable to pay for pretty much everything.

The second problem is I see dead people is that they want a "revenue neutral" tax placed on items.

etc. etc. etc. blah blah blah blah....


Wow. At least your maturity level is now clear and I can see I don't have to say much more. It's not going to get through the tin-foil.
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 12:26:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JAFO:
How about a flat tax *AND* a checklist for each taxpayer to check off the government programs and services that they want their money to go to? This along with an opt-out option for Social Security would make some changes. If you opt-out or stay in with the option of choosing your own investments, then that account goes broke, you are on the street when the time comes. If your community decided to support a program to help take care of you then you will be ok. Otherwise you just see how Darwin's theory works out.


I really like the idea of a checklist. I've heard others talking about something like that, and I would be completely on board for something like that. That would give the most accurate level of representation possible.
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 12:33:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JAFO:
How about a flat tax *AND* a checklist for each taxpayer to check off the government programs and services that they want their money to go to? This along with an opt-out option for Social Security would make some changes. If you opt-out or stay in with the option of choosing your own investments, then that account goes broke, you are on the street when the time comes. If your community decided to support a program to help take care of you then you will be ok. Otherwise you just see how Darwin's theory works out.


Well put JAFO. No matter who LIKES it or dislikes it. Nothing else needed to be said.
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 12:33:18 PM EDT
I just had a thought... Since some of our taxes go towards welfare programs, which is a kind of charity... Can I write off a portion of my taxes and a contribution to charity?

Link Posted: 8/13/2007 12:39:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PCR-00:
I just had a thought... Since some of our taxes go towards welfare programs, which is a kind of charity... Can I write off a portion of my taxes and a contribution to charity?




Suffer the penalty until the basic tax industry is changed. I'd be a little happier if my taxes went to the party I choose to affiliate with.
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 12:42:38 PM EDT
There is a small Dep't of Agriculture office near my home that looks like a used car lot. They get new vehicles, whether they need them or not. Parking lot is full of them. They never move.

Link Posted: 8/13/2007 12:50:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Marauder777:

Originally Posted By JAFO:
How about a flat tax *AND* a checklist for each taxpayer to check off the government programs and services that they want their money to go to? This along with an opt-out option for Social Security would make some changes. If you opt-out or stay in with the option of choosing your own investments, then that account goes broke, you are on the street when the time comes. If your community decided to support a program to help take care of you then you will be ok. Otherwise you just see how Darwin's theory works out.


I really like the idea of a checklist. I've heard others talking about something like that, and I would be completely on board for something like that. That would give the most accurate level of representation possible.


If you think about it, with all of the watch dog groups out there it wouldn't be long until there was a report card on all of the various gov operations that would allow people to know which aren't being run very well. People would send them less money and they would have to either straighten up and become more profficient, or just go under and some other program would have to be started up.
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 12:52:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:
There is a small Dep't of Agriculture office near my home that looks like a used car lot. They get new vehicles, whether they need them or not. Parking lot is full of them. They never move.



If you can take pictures of it, document it, then report to all the news stations, you could figure which party affiliation was benefiting by which news companies were outraged, and which were unimpressed by it. I suppose that type of surveillance is terroristic though.
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 12:54:11 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 12:55:45 PM EDT
Deja vu ......
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 12:57:13 PM EDT
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top