The Fairest manner to Tax Americans.

[WorldWatcher]

People in general do not like paying taxes, and they always have certain items that they rally around to support or not support. And they cry, get angry, and frustrated when required to pay taxes for these items.

So I think we could come up with a fairer way to tax Americans, by letting them donate to whatever causes they wish to, and not donate to ones they dislike. And if there are not enough people to donate to a cause, it doesn't get funded. And if you don't want to donate at all, you don't have to.

Now is that fair to everybody, or have we some whiners here?

Personally I'd like to see the elimination of ALL taxes including all the hidden taxes in the products you buy. No income tax, no gas tax, no capital gains tax, etc... everything.

Replace it with 3 types of sales tax at the end point of the consumer market: Federal, State, and Local tax at the end point of sale. Each entity only gets to have **ONE** tax. Each tax rate and amount to be printed on the sales receipt so consumers now how much their government costs.


Let's say a company manufactures widgets. The company pays no tax on the materials to make widgets. Now a store buys 100 widgets. They use 2 as the end of line consumer - they would pay the tax on the cost of those two widgets. They sell 98 widgets, so they are not the consumer. When people buy the widgets, they pay the tax.



>>>>

 

[Oddball]

That's an excise tax, as are fuel taxes.

American gubmint ran just fine on taxes like that for over 150 years.

 

[Sallow]

And America also has a right to protect its sovereignty from Europeans, who may attempt to use Central America and the Caribbean to stage military actions against it.

Now, try to 'splain away how it came to be that almost all the major military interventions of the last century were primarily perpetrated by the leftiest of leftist democratics.

Moving goalposts?

You're contention was wrong. It wasn't only central america and the caribbean either.

America did the intervention thing in China and Japan.

No, not moving the goalposts at all....The Monroe doctrine was enacted as a policy of national defense, not as a reason to play the world's babysitter and/or "spread 'mocracy".

American troops incurred upon Canadian soil too, when they were harboring British troops.

That's one funny lense you have..

What you see as "protection" others see as "meddling". But then again, maybe you consider sugar and bananas part of our "National Defense".

 

[Oddball]

Um....America was in a war when they invaded Canada, which was harboring enemy troops.

The objective was not to take over Canada, but to expel the opposing military threatening American sovereignty....The same intent was behind the Monroe doctrine.

There was no such motivation behind the interventions in the Philippines, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etcetera.

 

[Sallow]

Um....America was in a war when they invaded Canada, which was harboring enemy troops.

The objective was not to take over Canada, but to expel the opposing military threatening American sovereignty....The same intent was behind the Monroe doctrine.

There was no such motivation behind the interventions in the Philippines, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etcetera.

You're skipping right over all the "interventions" in Central America and the Carribean to protect private interest like the sugar and banana industries. Not to mention the creation of a brand new country to construct a canal. You've also breezed right past the intervention in China to make San Francisco's opium merchants happy. Or one in Japan for the "right" to use Japanese ports. Add in this blasts right past America's expanionist period, where there were "land grab's a plenty" and the genocide of native americans.

It's sort of a myopic view of history..but heck..you entitled to it.

 

[Oddball]

That the Monroe doctrine was abused (by democrat presidents no less) isn't my fault and China & Japan aren't in the Western Hemisphere.

Try again.

 

[BlindBoo]

I'd like to make you a business offer.

Seriously. This is a real offer. In fact, you really can't turn me down, as you'll come to understand in a moment...

Here's the deal. You're going to start a business or expand the one you've got now. It doesn't really matter what you do or what you're going to do.



I'll partner with you no matter what business you're in - as long as it's legal.



But I can't give you any capital - you have to come up with that on your own. I won't give you any labor - that's definitely up to you. What I will do, however, is demand you follow all sorts of rules about what products and services you can offer, how much (and how often) you pay your employees, and where and when you're allowed to operate your business. That's my role in the affair: to tell you what to do.

Now in return for my rules, I'm going to take roughly half of whatever you make in the business each year. Half seems fair, doesn't it? I think so. Of course, that's half of your profits.

You're also going to have to pay me about 12% of whatever we decide to pay your employees because you've got to cover my expenses for promulgating all of the rules about whom you can employ, when, where, and how. Come on,
you're my partner. It's only "fair."

Now... after you've put your hard-earned savings at risk to start this business, and after you've worked hard at it for a few decades (paying me my 50% or a bit more along the way each year), you might decide you'd like to
cash out - to finally live the good life.

Whether or not this is "fair" - some people never can afford to retire - is a different argument. As your partner, I'm happy for you to sell whenever you'd like... because our agreement says, if you sell, you have to pay me an additional 20% of whatever the capitalized value of the business is at that time.

I know... I know... you put up all the original capital. You took all the risks. You put in all of the labor. That's all true. But I've done my part, too. I've collected 50% of the profits each year. And I've always come up with more rules for you to follow each year. Therefore, I deserve another, final 20% slice of the business.

Oh... and one more thing...



Even after you've sold the business and paid all of my fees... I'd recommend buying lots of life insurance. You see, even after you've been retired for years, when you die, you'll have to pay me 50% of whatever your estate is
worth.

After all, I've got lots of partners and not all of them are as successful as you and your family. We don't think it's "fair" for your kids to have such a big advantage. But if you buy enough life insurance, you can finance
this expense for your children.

All in all, if you're a very successful entrepreneur... if you're one of the rare, lucky, and hard-working people who can create a new company, employ lots of people, and satisfy the public... you'll end up paying me more than 75% of your income over your life. Thanks so much.

I'm sure you'll think my offer is reasonable and happily partner with me... but it doesn't really matter how you feel about it because if you ever try to stiff me - or cheat me on any of my fees or rules - I'll break down your door in the middle of the night, threaten you and your family with heavy, automatic weapons, and throw you in jail.

That's how civil society is supposed to work, right? This is America, isn't it?

I think your stretching it a bit. For example the Estate Tax is only applicable to estates worth over 5 million dollars. That's right future business owners right now if you estate is worth 4.9 million dollars and you die, your hiers will pay 0 in estate tax. If your estate is worth 6 million however, your heirs will be on the line for paying 35% of 1 million dollars, of 350,000 dollars on your estate of 6 million. A whopping 5.9 % of it's value.

The only extra withholding a company has to pay is 7.5%. Self-employed folks have to pay this self employment tax, whereas if employed by a company, the company has to pick this up.

Corporate tax rates are about the same as individual tax rates. They top out at about 38%

Somehow your rant doesn't seem quite fair?

 

[Oddball]

That's not stretching things at all....It's a good thing for the Steinbrenner family that George kicked last year, or they'd probably have to sell the Yankees to pay off the grave robbers in the District of Criminals.

BTW, the employee pays all of their FICA, whether they choose to accept the fact or not...The "employer contribution" comes from the pool of money the employer has to pay employees.

 

[BlindBoo]

That's how the income tax started out originally.

Problem with the whole concept of direct taxes on personal production is that posturing do-gooder politicians like to tinker with the system, to reward "proper" behavior and punish the "improper".

The only flat and fair tax on personal earnings is no tax.

Actually...you may be starting to make sense. No Tax..no military. No military..no military adventurism. No adventurism..lots of deaths averted.

Not bad.

Good job of blundering into a massive indictment of one of the biggest progressive heroes of all: Woodrow Wilson.

Prior to 1913, America had both a relatively strong stay-at-home military and no tax on personal earnings.

After 1913...WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, uncounted covert ops in the Caribbean, Central and South America, Lebanon, Kuwait, Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran.....

Hmmm...

Wilson was an also avowed racist. At the begining of his first term he was opposed to the suffrage movement. He was a corporate/statist and believed in military interventionism(I think he still holds the record for number of foriegn military interventions too). Hardly what you'd call a progressive by todays standard. But that's okay the same ilk refuse to acknowledge that Linclon was a liberal in his day.

 

[Oddball]

You're just in denial about the roots of progressivism, dude.

In Lincoln's day, "liberal" still meant libertarian...And Lincoln was no liberal, by any contortion of the term.

 

[BlindBoo]

United States Federal Tax Dollars - VisualEconomics.comyou might want to check out this site.

FL and TX both get back over 90% of the federal taxes it's citizens/corporations pay in.

So the federal taxes in those states are basically just another state tax.

Gosh-darn Redistributioning Socialist/Maxist/Commie/liberal/Nazis did that to us huh?

 

[BlindBoo]

You're just in denial about the roots of progressivism, dude.

In Lincoln's day, "liberal" still meant libertarian...And Lincoln was no liberal, by any contortion of the term.

No, I just stated some truths about Wilson and the fact that progressivism in the late 19th and early 20th century and current progressives are as different today as the Republicans of the Civil war era and the Republican of today are.

 

[Oddball]

No, there really isn't any difference...Today's progressives have just become slightly better at camouflaging who they are...Likewise, their willing useful idiot butt boys in academe the lamestram media each give it their all to help prop up that façade.