Taxes!

[random3434]

I see so many of you on here post that we are taxed too much, the government needs to stay out of our lives, you don't want to pay taxes for school since you don't have kids, that Americans are overtaxed and that taxes hurt economic growth......and so on..............



So, I would love to see your plan on how this country can effectively run on less, or no, taxes on all levels. From cigarette, liquor taxes, to property and income tax, etc.

Thanks, I think it will be interesting to see all of your ideas on how to better run this country with less taxes.

 

[Steve Jobs]

Um, because the fewer taxes one must pay, the more economy-stimulating money one has to spend?

 

[jgbkab]

Um, because the fewer taxes one must pay, the more economy-stimulating money one has to spend?

Um, what's the difference when taxed money is distributed to welfare moms, city services, etc? A rich man is more than likely to hold onto his money more so than a welfare recipient. Therefore, the money wouldn't necessarily be pumped back into the economy under your proposal.

 

[Zoom-boing]

If the government were smaller and less involved in people's lives, wouldn't they need less of our money to begin with? Isn't the principle behind the US Constitution ... to limit and restrict government? When did it become the government's job to run everything?

 

[random3434]

You both make valid points, but..............


I still don't see anyone with a good plan on how America can effectively run on no/less taxes.

 

[alan1]

The federal government (and most state governments) do what they call Baseline Budgeting. What that means is that whatever their budget was last year, they take it and add 10% to it for this year's budget. That is an impossible reality to maintain. You don't make 10% more every year, so that means that just remaining at your constant tax rate, you aren't giving the government 10% more for their budget. Just as you don't budget 10% more for your lifestyle.
Government spending cannot continue to increase at a rate like that simply because they decide they want to budget like that.
Typically, businesses use economy of scale to control their budgets. What that means is that as a business gets larger, they spend a bit less per unit of need than they did the year before. It's kind of like going to Sam's Club vs WalMart. You buy 100 pencils for $3.00 at Sam's, instead of 50 pencils for $2.00 at WalMart. The government doesn't use economy of scale. The only way the government can continue on it's path of baseline budgeting is to raise taxes. Oh, and trust me on this, when the government says it cut 2% off a budget item, what they really mean is that they took last years budget, added that 10% baseline, then took 2% off of that.
It's more about them being more fiscally responsible, then they wouldn't have to raise taxes.

 

[random3434]

The federal government (and most state governments) do what they call Baseline Budgeting. What that means is that whatever their budget was last year, they take it and add 10% to it for this year's budget. That is an impossible reality to maintain. You don't make 10% more every year, so that means that just remaining at your constant tax rate, you aren't giving the government 10% more for their budget. Just as you don't budget 10% more for your lifestyle.
Government spending cannot continue to increase at a rate like that simply because they decide they want to budget like that.
Typically, businesses use economy of scale to control their budgets. What that means is that as a business gets larger, they spend a bit less per unit of need than they did the year before. It's kind of like going to Sam's Club vs WalMart. You buy 100 pencils for $3.00 at Sam's, instead of 50 pencils for $2.00 at WalMart. The government doesn't use economy of scale. The only way the government can continue on it's path of baseline budgeting is to raise taxes. Oh, and trust me on this, when the government says it cut 2% off a budget item, what they really mean is that they took last years budget, added that 10% baseline, then took 2% off of that.
It's more about them being more fiscally responsible, then they wouldn't have to raise taxes.

Thank you MM, that is interesting.

Now, what is your plan on how to keep government out of taxing the $hit out of us?

 

[jgbkab]

If the government were smaller and less involved in people's lives, wouldn't they need less of our money to begin with? Isn't the principle behind the US Constitution ... to limit and restrict government? When did it become the government's job to run everything?

We both agree that the government should be smaller. We differ on a smaller government collecting less taxes. If the government was smaller, the tax rate should remain the same because we are only receiving the bare minimum on public services.

 

[alan1]

The federal government (and most state governments) do what they call Baseline Budgeting. What that means is that whatever their budget was last year, they take it and add 10% to it for this year's budget. That is an impossible reality to maintain. You don't make 10% more every year, so that means that just remaining at your constant tax rate, you aren't giving the government 10% more for their budget. Just as you don't budget 10% more for your lifestyle.
Government spending cannot continue to increase at a rate like that simply because they decide they want to budget like that.
Typically, businesses use economy of scale to control their budgets. What that means is that as a business gets larger, they spend a bit less per unit of need than they did the year before. It's kind of like going to Sam's Club vs WalMart. You buy 100 pencils for $3.00 at Sam's, instead of 50 pencils for $2.00 at WalMart. The government doesn't use economy of scale. The only way the government can continue on it's path of baseline budgeting is to raise taxes. Oh, and trust me on this, when the government says it cut 2% off a budget item, what they really mean is that they took last years budget, added that 10% baseline, then took 2% off of that.
It's more about them being more fiscally responsible, then they wouldn't have to raise taxes.

Thank you MM, that is interesting.

Now, what is your plan on how to keep government out of taxing the $hit out of us?

Make them build realistic budgets based upon actual inflation, not their arbitrary 10%. Quit adding un-needed pork to their budgets. Quit adding more programs to spend taxpayer dollars on.

 

[random3434]

If the government were smaller and less involved in people's lives, wouldn't they need less of our money to begin with? Isn't the principle behind the US Constitution ... to limit and restrict government? When did it become the government's job to run everything?

True! So what are your ideas for a smaller government, and less taxes, for America to effectively run for it's 300 million+ citizens?

 

[Zoom-boing]

If the government were smaller and less involved in people's lives, wouldn't they need less of our money to begin with? Isn't the principle behind the US Constitution ... to limit and restrict government? When did it become the government's job to run everything?

True! So what are your ideas for a smaller government, and less taxes, for America to effectively run for it's 300 million+ citizens?

Well the government could start by living within their means, eliminating pork, eliminating czars, butting out of running private business, reducing the size of the government, having term limits . . . . wait, they should start with eliminating career politicians and get people in who will look out for the little guy. I know, I'm asking the impossible.

 

[Gunny]

I see so many of you on here post that we are taxed too much, the government needs to stay out of our lives, you don't want to pay taxes for school since you don't have kids, that Americans are overtaxed and that taxes hurt economic growth......and so on..............



So, I would love to see your plan on how this country can effectively run on less, or no, taxes on all levels. From cigarette, liquor taxes, to property and income tax, etc.

Thanks, I think it will be interesting to see all of your ideas on how to better run this country with less taxes.

The OBVIOUS answer is to cut government spending and cut out all pork spending. Just the opposite of what's going on. Why is it assumed we have to foot the bill for a government that's gone spend crazy?

I was under the impression we worked to provide for ourselves and our families, not politician's pet projects. I don't mind paying taxes within reason. I don't consider working 2 days a week for free "within reason."

 

[random3434]

If the government were smaller and less involved in people's lives, wouldn't they need less of our money to begin with? Isn't the principle behind the US Constitution ... to limit and restrict government? When did it become the government's job to run everything?

True! So what are your ideas for a smaller government, and less taxes, for America to effectively run for it's 300 million+ citizens?

Well the government could start by living within their means, eliminating pork, eliminating czars, butting out of running private business, reducing the size of the government, having term limits . . . . wait, they should start with eliminating career politicians and get people in who will look out for the little guy. I know, I'm asking the impossible.

Maybe more "little guys" should run for office!

 

[Zoom-boing]

True! So what are your ideas for a smaller government, and less taxes, for America to effectively run for it's 300 million+ citizens?

Well the government could start by living within their means, eliminating pork, eliminating czars, butting out of running private business, reducing the size of the government, having term limits . . . . wait, they should start with eliminating career politicians and get people in who will look out for the little guy. I know, I'm asking the impossible.

Maybe more "little guys" should run for office!

I'd go for that. But how do you keep a little guy who starts out honest and with good intentions from turning into a political zombie? Is there a pill for that?

 

[random3434]

Well the government could start by living within their means, eliminating pork, eliminating czars, butting out of running private business, reducing the size of the government, having term limits . . . . wait, they should start with eliminating career politicians and get people in who will look out for the little guy. I know, I'm asking the impossible.

Maybe more "little guys" should run for office!

I'd go for that. But how do you keep a little guy who starts out honest and with good intentions from turning into a political zombie? Is there a pill for that?

I'll ask Eli Lily to make one,,,,they are just a few miles away from me............

 

[Zoom-boing]

I'd ask Wyeth but they were just bought out by Pfizer and are closing all the facilities near me. Lots of folks losing jobs here when that happens.

 

[xotoxi]

Um, because the fewer taxes one must pay, the more economy-stimulating money one has to spend?

How does spending your "economy-stimulating money" at Walmart help purchase new math textbooks at NYC Public School 133 or help Gertrude Wilson in Topeka, Kansas get her portable oxygen?

 

[Citizen]

If the government were smaller and less involved in people's lives, wouldn't they need less of our money to begin with? Isn't the principle behind the US Constitution ... to limit and restrict government? When did it become the government's job to run everything?

True! So what are your ideas for a smaller government, and less taxes, for America to effectively run for it's 300 million+ citizens?

IMHO, if the federal government would stick to its constitutionally limited role it would not need much in the way of taxes. The federal government originally ran on little taxes until they started getting into areas that they no constitutional authority.

If social and fiscal programs were provided at state levels, where they constitutionally belong, the citizens of each state could decide what portion of the states gross income, through state taxes, would be spent on any social or fiscal program they deemed necessary, in lieu of having federal mandates as to which programs should be funded, and at what level.

It has always been my opinion that the closer you get to the people themselves, the better the decisions upon what they need, and are willing to tax themselves to pay for.

If the citizens of California wanted to fund a given social program, such as free college education for all its citizens, and the citizens of Tennessee only want to fund public education through high school, it would be up to the citizens of each state to determine exactly what social services they wished to fund, and to what degree, so their state taxes would reflect that level of state services.

We would not cease to pay taxes, but would have very much more input upon what the taxes we did pay went for, and it would be up to the citizens of each state to make that decision for themselves. Some states would offer more social and facial programs and tax their citizens more to pay for those programs, while other states would offer fewer social and fiscal programs and tax their citizens less.

If an individual did not agree with the programs offered by their state, they would be free to move to a state that offered programs more to their liking.

 

[Care4all]

term limits for congress perhaps, as we did for presidents....8 years max and 2 terms for senator at 12 years max, term limiting the staff as well....the staffers have sometimes been there longer than the elected, and they deal with the lobbyists, the govt contracts....?

nationally funded elections....reduce the influence of corporations, big industries in their lobbying...campaign donations won't be needed, reduces quid pro quo dealings....

under no circumstances should no bid contracts be given....

so many simple or common sense things can be done to reduce the circumstances where these bozos need to spend so much....

THEN, I think if I could start from scratch on taxes, I would like to see all taxes eliminated such as cig taxes or booze taxes or luxury taxes or gas taxes and be put in to ONE TAX, and not all of these hidden taxes in the price of the products we use, we buy....plus our income taxes, medicare taxes, social security taxes....all going to our federal government.

we need to find a fair way to combine all of these taxes, and bill us once for them.

The reason I would like to see them all combined is because then all of us can see the total amount of taxes we are actually handing these suckers every year in taxes....one big lump sum...not them getting our money from a hundred different places where we really don't know how much they really are taking from us for their free for all spending sprees.

That lump sum, will make voters angry and more interest in who they vote for, when it comes to representing them and their best interest....there will seem to be more at stake.

As far as what type of single tax structure we take....I am open to ideas...fair ideas....

Personally, I believe a progressive tax via brackets, IS FAIR...if the first $1-10,000 only has a 10% tax on it then everyone, even the billionaire pays only 10% for the first $1-10,000 dollars he makes, so NO ONE is GETTING anything the other isn't getting...

The tax write offs and the tax code in and of itself is a MONSTER, confusing as hell even for someone like me, who makes nada now....trying to make certain you don't miss any tax write off or whatever!

I would like to see a Progressive Flat Tax....Where there are no tax write offs, no loop holes, no need for accountants or turbo tax or h & r block...

I read that those in the highest tax bracket, once 39% now 35% I believe, really averages, paying 19% in income taxes, so keep this in mind....also, those in the 15% tax bracket probably average paying 5% in income taxes after all of the deductions and write offs...

so why not just have a flat rate for each tax bracket range?

Something like
from $1-10,000, 0%
from $10,001-60,000, 10%
from $60,001-150,000, 15%
from $150k- 50 million, 20%
from $50 million upwards, 25%

we probably would collect as much in taxes with these lower flat rates than we do with all the tax write offs...

the income tax system could run on computer programs, the cost of IRS diminished to nothing....even more savings....the big wigs don't need tax lawyers/accountants...

well, that's my quick shot at it!

care

 

[xotoxi]

If the citizens of California wanted to fund a given social program, such as free college education for all its citizens, and the citizens of Tennessee only want to fund public education through high school...

But isn't that the way it is now? I am not aware of a federal mandate that says states must provide free college education, nor do I believe that any federal taxes are funding free college education.

On the other hand, would you advocate states deciding how much education they would provide. Maybe Ohio would just say "No education for anyone unless you can afford private school". Sure it would be the states right to do it, but do you think it would benefit the country as a whole to have uneducated Ohioans running amok?