The Tax Man

[shintao]

Over the years I have noted the idiosyncrasies of how people approach taxes. In some minds no taxes are the only answer. Others would settle for some taxes for some items, but no taxes for other items. Others would like to punish various groups with taxes, as long as no taxes befall them. Some realize we need some taxes to run government, but want no taxes for the people.

So I am wondering where do you stand on the Tax Man issue. No Taxes -to- Never Saw a Tax you didn't like, or somewhere in between.

I see taxes as a necessary evil of running America. I support taxes that help "American" humanity, and oppose the corporate & warfare machine & foreign support.

1.)I want an equal tax that everybody pays the same amount each year, 2.)based on what the poorest among us can pay. (3.)A no-deduction-no-return annual simple tax that 4.)government must work within an a budget.

On the other hand, if the only way I can stop taxes going to corporations, rich, & warfare is demand NO TAXES, then I would give up any taxes to humanity, stop all government programs & tighten the nut on Congress & the President, with the power directly in the hands of the people.

 

[Immanuel]

I do not oppose taxes. I would prefer an idea like the Fair Tax, because I believe that it assists the poor keeping them from paying any taxes at all in some cases.

I do not like our current tax system as it rewards dishonesty and allows Congress way too much power. If an equitable "Fair Tax" System could not be written, I would settle for a Flat Tax (percentage based).

I have no problem paying taxes and supporting my country. I have no problem paying taxes and having some of those taxes go to the poor in the form of Welfare or other services. I think our major problem is too much pork and not enough concern for those in true need.

I do have a problem with the tax code being written so that those with power and the means to coerce their representatives can arrange tax breaks for themselves.

BTW: Good question, I hope this proves to be a good thread.

Immie

 

[Ame®icano]

Flat tax for all on state level only. No loopholes, no exceptions, everyone pays the same percentage.

No federal taxes at all. States would pay into federal budget. That way states would force feds to keep the spending under control.

 

[Oddball]

No unapportioned direct federal taxes...Period.

 

[Mr. H.]

The tax code is fine. We are in more need of honest taxpayers. Treasury loses $250 billion each year.

 

[Immanuel]

Flat tax for all on state level only. No loopholes, no exceptions, everyone pays the same percentage.

No federal taxes at all. States would pay into federal budget. That way states would force feds to keep the spending under control.

The states are not doing a good job with their own budgeting why would they force the feds to do so?

Immie

 

[elvis]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Maz9ddxEQnM]YouTube - ‪The Beatles - Taxman‬‏[/ame]

 

[johnwk]

No unapportioned direct federal taxes...Period.

With regard to taxation and allowing Congress to raise a federal revenue in a manner which preempted the very sufferings we now experience, our founders relied upon principles which are as valid today as when our Constitution went into effect. For example, our founders intended that Congress use taxes at our water’s edge as a first means to fill our national treasury which not only had foreigners filling our national treasury for the privilege of doing business on American soil, just as one pays for a ticket to set up a booth at a flea market to sell one’s goods and wares, but restricting Congress to raising its revenue from taxes imposed on judiciously selected articles of consumption which are imported, not only does such a system allow the market place to determine the allowable limit of tax on each article selected, but when Congress is compelled to raising its revenue by taxing consumption as our founders intended, it becomes in Congress’ self interest to encourage a healthy and vibrant economy which in turn leads to a productive consumption and thus a healthy flow of revenue into the federal treasury. This too applies to internal excise taxes imposed upon articles of consumption which our founders intended to be used as an additional, but second means to fill the national treasury. In the end our founders rightfully chose the market place to limit the amount of tax on each article selected. Hamilton explains taxing consumption in the following manner, they:

---may be compared to a fluid, which will in time find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be by his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his own resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions

"It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”___ Federalist No 21


And what was to happen if an emergency arises, such as war, and imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on consumption were found insufficient to meet public exigencies? Our wise founding fathers solved this problem by allowing Congress an additional power of taxation, the power to lay a general tax among the States to raise a specific sum needed. But in such cases the rule of apportionment was written into our Constitution and a very real movement of accountability would be created when laying this tax. Each State’s Congressional Delegation had to return home with a bill in hand for their State’s Governor and Legislature to deal with to extinguish the deficit created by Congress. Upon receiving its bill from a State’s Congressional Delegation the Governor and Legislature were then required to transfer its State’s apportioned share from the State’s treasury into the national treasury or raise additional taxes within the State and then transfer that money into the federal treasury to extinguish the deficit created by Congress. And it is also important to note that the rule of apportionment precludes the despotic use of class warfare when imposing the general tax among the states as each State’s share of the burden is determine by a fixed formula, and each state was intended to raise it’s share in it is own chosen way. The formula for this special tax to raise a specific sum to extinguish a deficit ties representation and taxation by the same standard, each state‘s population size, and its burden turns out to be an equal per capita tax if laid directly upon the people:


States’ population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE

Total U.S. Population




State`s Population
_______________ X House membership (435) = State`s No.of Reps
population of U.S.


Unfortunately, instead of working to re-establish our founding father’s original tax plan and its honest money system, both of which paved the way for a free market system to work and flourish, and resulted in America becoming the economic marvel of the world, America’s political pundits prefer to incite partisan politics while the leadership of both political parties work in concert to corrupt our founder’s plan in order to lay claim to what America has produced, and they do so using a dishonest money system and dishonest taxation, both of which were specifically rejected by our founding fathers.



So why is it that not one of our “conservative” talk show pundits will compare our founder’s constitutionally mandated honest money and their honest system of taxation to what is currently used by the Washington Establishment to seize what America has produced? Who among the following list has taken the time to discuss our Constitution’s original plan as our founding fathers intended it to operate: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz. Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, …. WHO? But isn’t it surprising the above do know how to fan the flames of political partisanship which causes a distraction from any meaningful focus and discussion about reforming the legislative powers used to cause our miseries?

And who among those who are running for office advocate real reform by returning to the honest money and honest taxation as written into our Constitution by our founders, and was specifically designed by our founders to preclude our existing miseries and the plundering of America’s wealth now engaged in by our folks in Washington?

Bottom line is, until Congress’ hands are rebound by our Constitution’s honest money system and honest taxation, the American People will continue to be the slaves of a government they created to be their servant.

Is it not time to focus upon specific measures to remove the legislative powers now used to enslave us? How about starting with working to add the following 32 words to our Constitution?

The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

These words, if added to our Constitution, would return us to our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the existing chains of taxation which Congress now uses to enslave America‘s businesses, its industrial and manufacturing base, and they would end the slavish tax which now




JWK

If we can make the majority of America’s families dependent upon a federal government check, [the Herman Cain fair tax family consumption entitlement] we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ___Our Washington Establishment’s Marxist game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the bread which America’s labor and business has produced.

 

[AVG-JOE]

7% general sales tax on all retail transactions
+
7% income tax on individual income in excess of $3 million per year. EVERYONE earns their first $3 million tax free.

No corporate tax other than on what they spend, no bullshit loopholes or special treatment, no huge IRS bureaucracy to support collecting at the retail level because consumption taxes are collected at the wholesale level.

A consumption tax is inherently unfair to the lower incomes.
An income tax is inherently unfair to the upper incomes.

Simple taxes = fair taxes. A simple blend of consumption and income taxes is fair.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Flat tax for all on state level only. No loopholes, no exceptions, everyone pays the same percentage.

No federal taxes at all. States would pay into federal budget. That way states would force feds to keep the spending under control.

This is a pretty good idea. The closer you are to the politician with his hand in your pocket, the more likely you are able to have a vote that counts for something.

 

[sparky]

have to agree Joe, a simple understandable tax code would be nice

 

[Ame®icano]

Flat tax for all on state level only. No loopholes, no exceptions, everyone pays the same percentage.

No federal taxes at all. States would pay into federal budget. That way states would force feds to keep the spending under control.

The states are not doing a good job with their own budgeting why would they force the feds to do so?

Immie

With the flat tax, lets say 15%, there would be enough/plenty of money in the state budget. Once states realize that less they pay into federal purse, more will stay in state, they would find the way to put limits on federal spending.

Also, then it would make more sense to repeal 17th amendment and have senators represent states and do what states ask them to do.

 

[Ame®icano]

7% general sales tax on all retail transactions
+
7% income tax on individual income in excess of $3 million per year. EVERYONE earns their first $3 million tax free.

No corporate tax other than on what they spend, no bullshit loopholes or special treatment, no huge IRS bureaucracy to support collecting at the retail level because consumption taxes are collected at the wholesale level.

A consumption tax is inherently unfair to the lower incomes.
An income tax is inherently unfair to the upper incomes.

Simple taxes = fair taxes. A simple blend of consumption and income taxes is fair.

Why consumption tax is unfair to lower incomes?

 

[Immanuel]

Flat tax for all on state level only. No loopholes, no exceptions, everyone pays the same percentage.

No federal taxes at all. States would pay into federal budget. That way states would force feds to keep the spending under control.

The states are not doing a good job with their own budgeting why would they force the feds to do so?

Immie

With the flat tax, lets say 15%, there would be enough/plenty of money in the state budget. Once states realize that less they pay into federal purse, more will stay in state, they would find the way to put limits on federal spending.

Also, then it would make more sense to repeal 17th amendment and have senators represent states and do what states ask them to do.

Maybe you are right, but I see the likelihood of having 50, (er 51 counting the current one) Congresses mis-spending our tax dollars.

Immie

 

[Anachronism]

I support taxes for the Legitimate and Necessary operation of the government, nothing more. No pork, no social welfare, no disaster relief, no foreign aid, etc....

I support a tax system that treats everyone the same, whether they make $100 a year or $100 Million a year. No deductions. No loopholes. One tax rate for all INITIAL income (not monies made on monies spent). The government should get ONE BITE at any particular dollar. Once they've gotten that bite, the further use of the remaining monies to create additional income should NOT be taxable.

 

[Ame®icano]

The states are not doing a good job with their own budgeting why would they force the feds to do so?

Immie

With the flat tax, lets say 15%, there would be enough/plenty of money in the state budget. Once states realize that less they pay into federal purse, more will stay in state, they would find the way to put limits on federal spending.

Also, then it would make more sense to repeal 17th amendment and have senators represent states and do what states ask them to do.

Maybe you are right, but I see the likelihood of having 50, (er 51 counting the current one) Congresses mis-spending our tax dollars.

Immie

I understand your view. After all they did so far, how can we trust politicians with our money?

The way I see it, with present structure, US congress has too much money and power in their hands and IMO, they should stick to just constitutionally enumerated powers and everything else should be in the hands of states.

That way federal govt would depend on states, not the other way around. So if they want more money, they would have to ask states for it, instead holding states hostages for federal money and federal programs.

With all that federal power, state legislatures are almost irrelevant. Why?
With so much power in POTUS hands, US congress is almost irrelevant. Why?

 

[ba1614]

I don't think it matters until they learn to show even just a little smidgeon of restraint in their spending.

 

[AVG-JOE]

7% general sales tax on all retail transactions
+
7% income tax on individual income in excess of $3 million per year. EVERYONE earns their first $3 million tax free.

No corporate tax other than on what they spend, no bullshit loopholes or special treatment, no huge IRS bureaucracy to support collecting at the retail level because consumption taxes are collected at the wholesale level.

A consumption tax is inherently unfair to the lower incomes.
An income tax is inherently unfair to the upper incomes.

Simple taxes = fair taxes. A simple blend of consumption and income taxes is fair.

Why consumption tax is unfair to lower incomes?

Because a much higher percentage of their income goes towards spending and not towards investment. Same reason a progressive tax like an income tax is unfair to the wealthy, only in reverse.

That's why a set blend is the most fair way to go.

Whether it's a 15% flat tax, or a consumption tax of some sort, or a blend like 7 + 7 on 3, the real trick is that We, The People need to tell Washington what we will give them, and tell them that the government cannot change the tax rates without a vote from us and they cannot spend more than they are allowed by us to collect.

 

[auditor0007]

Over the years I have noted the idiosyncrasies of how people approach taxes. In some minds no taxes are the only answer. Others would settle for some taxes for some items, but no taxes for other items. Others would like to punish various groups with taxes, as long as no taxes befall them. Some realize we need some taxes to run government, but want no taxes for the people.

So I am wondering where do you stand on the Tax Man issue. No Taxes -to- Never Saw a Tax you didn't like, or somewhere in between.

I see taxes as a necessary evil of running America. I support taxes that help "American" humanity, and oppose the corporate & warfare machine & foreign support.

1.)I want an equal tax that everybody pays the same amount each year, 2.)based on what the poorest among us can pay. (3.)A no-deduction-no-return annual simple tax that 4.)government must work within an a budget.

On the other hand, if the only way I can stop taxes going to corporations, rich, & warfare is demand NO TAXES, then I would give up any taxes to humanity, stop all government programs & tighten the nut on Congress & the President, with the power directly in the hands of the people.

So let me ask, are you saying you want a simple flat tax for everyone, and that is the only tax that we pay? See, the argument we always get when it comes to a flat tax is that there should be no deductions and no income should be exempt. Well, that is what you are saying. My problem with that is there are all types of other taxes. If you had a flat tax where everyone paid the same with zero deductions, then those with the lowest incomes would end up paying the highest tax rates when you included all other taxes. And this is exactly what the well to do would love to see.

When the super wealthy are only paying 17% in federal taxes and your average middle income earner is paying closer to 25%, then something is wrong, don't you think?

 

[Anachronism]

So let me ask, are you saying you want a simple flat tax for everyone, and that is the only tax that we pay? See, the argument we always get when it comes to a flat tax is that there should be no deductions and no income should be exempt. Well, that is what you are saying. My problem with that is there are all types of other taxes. If you had a flat tax where everyone paid the same with zero deductions, then those with the lowest incomes would end up paying the highest tax rates when you included all other taxes. And this is exactly what the well to do would love to see.

When the super wealthy are only paying 17% in federal taxes and your average middle income earner is paying closer to 25%, then something is wrong, don't you think?

Some of us would suggest that there shouldn't be other taxes at the Federal level, and that if there ARE other taxes at the state/local level then an income tax should not be allowed at those levels.

Oh, and some of us aren't on the bandwagon with the "no exempt income" bit, as I explained above.