Things That Taxes Should Not Do

[kwc57]

Americans For Fair Taxation:

What is the FairTax plan?
The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.

The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 296) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.

The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

The FairTax:

• Enables workers to keep their entire paychecks
• Enables retirees to keep their entire pensions
• Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities
• Allows American products to compete fairly
• Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
• Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
• Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
• Abolishes the IRS

We'll still have state and local taxes withheld. Big difference? The poor will see increased prices reflecting the "fair" tax, thus raising the cost of living. the rich won't feel the pinch (as they usually don't) as much as the working poor. This is another Conservative idea to consolidate wealth and crush the working people of America.

Sounds like Wal*Mart invented the idea, doesn't it? I mean make it sound appealing. Give it a snappy name "Fair Tax". And then pull the rug out from the poorest folks!

Of course you'd still have state and local taxes. What you wouldn't have is a national income tax. Every dollar you make goes in your pocket instead of the governments for you to file a return on to see if you get some of it back or have to give them even more. Your taxes are paid thru sales of goods and services which you control. It actually levels the playing field as everyone pays the same across the board. If the poor guy buys the Wal-mart brand of Mac-n-Cheese, he pays less tax than if he bought the Kraft brand. If the rich guy wants to buy a yacht instead of a row boat, he pays more tax. All of your dollars are yours to control and spend.

 

[syrenn]

how many illegals get free medical, and all other free programs that tax dollars support.

which makes me think....


An illegal alien shows up at the emergency room of a local hospital with a serious injury

he is bleeding profusely...

And if not taken care of soon....will die

but
being an illegal alien
he has no insurance and no money

so
what is the moral obligation of the hospital staff?

Waste "american resources" on an illegal alien

or let him die....?

stabalize him and life flight his azz to tiajuana.

rotflmfao!

 

[syrenn]

which makes me think....
an illegal alien shows up at the emergency room of a local hospital with a serious injury
he is bleeding profusely...
and if not taken care of soon....will die
but
being an illegal alien
he has no insurance and no money
so
what is the moral obligation of the hospital staff?
waste "American resources" on an illegal alien
or let him die....?

If its gang member, let him bleed out and die.

Ant this is partly why health care costs are going though the roof. We do treat the illegals. And we the people get to pay for the treatment. I would prefer my tax dollars treat US citizens.

There is a difference between humanity and economics. There comes a point where you cant AFFORD to be sucker.

 

[Madeline]

froggy, the expenses of government are NOT determined by the tax code. That's the budget, and while I might agree with you, it is not exactly on-point.

Oh, and just this once because you asked so nicely:

A dark green font color!​

What are you saying, you posted "Things That Taxes Should Not Do" and i said our taxes shouldn't be used to keep up illegals. A little darker green, please. and replace the blue with green.

I cannot find a darker green, froggy. And it's not your birthday; ask me again on your birthday and I will change my font color for 24 hours in your honor.

Maybe I was not clear: my Op was about "things you can do by taxing people". My conclusion is you can only do one thing well, namely, fund the government. You cannot "support marriage" by taxing people, etc.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with why the government needs funds, though I'd agree there's far too much waste.

 

[Madeline]

froggy, illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. I'm not sure I got your point.

How many illegals get free medical, and all other free programs that tax dollars support.

which makes me think....


an illegal alien shows up at the emergency room of a local hospital with a serious injury

he is bleeding profusely...

and if not taken care of soon....will die

but
being an illegal alien
he has no insurance and no money

so
what is the moral obligation of the hospital staff?

waste "American resources" on an illegal alien

or let him die....?

Well, rikules, I don't see what any of this has to do with proper taxation but here's my answer:

I don't want to live in a community or a nation where medical personnel are allowed to or encouraged to watch people die because they suspect that person might be an illegal. The punishment for violation of US immigration law should be deportation, not death.

Does anyone have a POV on taxation?

 

[Madeline]

kwc57 wrote:

Of course you'd still have state and local taxes. What you wouldn't have is a national income tax. Every dollar you make goes in your pocket instead of the governments for you to file a return on to see if you get some of it back or have to give them even more. Your taxes are paid thru sales of goods and services which you control. It actually levels the playing field as everyone pays the same across the board. If the poor guy buys the Wal-mart brand of Mac-n-Cheese, he pays less tax than if he bought the Kraft brand. If the rich guy wants to buy a yacht instead of a row boat, he pays more tax. All of your dollars are yours to control and spend.

The system of taxation you have described is called "regressive" and is condemned by virtually every tax pundit because a poor person must dedicate a higher PERCENT of his income to pay it than a wealthy person. When tax is imposed on a sum other than income, it can never be anything but regressive. Only an income tax can allow for lower rates on poorer people.

In a proportionate tax system, the poor person and the wealthy person pay the same PERCENT of income in taxes.

In a progressive system, which the US has always had since the inception of the income tax, a wealthy person pays a HIGHER percent of income in tax than a poor person does.

I'd support a modified flat tax/somewhat progressive tax on income, but never a federal sales tax in lieu of the income tax.

Leaving aside the question of rates, do you agree or not that a tax system should be used only to raise funds to operate the government and not to advance social agendas?

 

[syrenn]

Does anyone have a POV on taxation?[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

Property tax sucks. Especially when its the renters voting in the taxes. Property tax needs to be distributed evenly. If you live in a place/area you need to pay your fair share.

Tiered tax brackets suck. Everyone should pay the same % of tax. That way everyone feels the pain equally.

We need a HUGE outsourcing tax. Enough so that it is more economical to keep the jobs here in this country.

Tax should only be applied to illegals. That way its not so appealing to come here.

 

[Madeline]

Does anyone have a POV on taxation?[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

Property tax sucks. Especially when its the renters voting in the taxes. Property tax needs to be distributed evenly. If you live in a place/area you need to pay your fair share.

Tiered tax brackets suck. Everyone should pay the same % of tax. That way everyone feels the pain equally.

We need a HUGE outsourcing tax. Enough so that it is more economical to keep the jobs here in this country.

Tax should only be applied to illegals. That way its not so appealing to come here.

syrenn, renters do pay property taxes. They are passed all carrying costs of the building by the landlord, including taxes. Taxing real estate is very appealing because the government knows who the taxpayers are and can extract the payments or confiscate the property -- this tax is very easy to administer. The biggest expense of local governments is public education and many have argued that using property taxes to support schools leads to inequality in education between poor cities and rich suburbs. Others see these inequalities as no more than the fruits of the labor of those who succeeded economically.

Totally flat tax rates do NOT impose pain equally. If I confiscate 14% of Bill Gates' income in taxes, his lifestyle does not change, but if I confiscate 14% of a poor senior's income, perchance that month they eat cat food. I'd support a modified flat tax, but there must be some exclusion for the income of the poor and nearly-poor.

I agree we need to tax American companies with foreign income more heavily. But first we need to stop offering them HUGE tax discounts for exporting the jobs. That is a NAFTA feature and if any treaty ever needed to be repealed, it's NAFTA.

Taxing the income of illegals is, theoretically, already done. The illegal alien is hard for the IRS to find but his failure to pay is just as much tax fraud as Martha Stewart's, except....

...the vast majority of working illegal aliens are using counterfeit ID documents, including counterfeit or stolen Social Security cards. These people are paying BILLIONS into the Social Security Trust Fund and will never be able to draw down from that fund. One reason your government tries so hard to sell you on the idea of illegals as your friend is that no politician wants to admit that without illegals' contribution, Social Security would be bankrupt almost immediately.

It is DC's dirty little secret and it did not start with Obama.

 

[Flopper]

In the United States, the most significant income stream for the federal government is the income tax, for the states it is the sales tax and for local governments it is the property tax. However, feel free to discuss any tax, fee, duty, or other charge imposed by government as you see fit.

IMO, a system of tax or taxes works best when it remains entirely true to its original purpose: developing revenues for government operations. The further afield it wanders from that purpose, the less effective it becomes. As a mechanism for forcing social change, the tax system is the very least efficient tool in the government toolbox.

So here are some stupid tax provisions I would repeal:

1) The marriage discount. If I and my single neighbor each make $50,000 and we pay tax at a 10% rate (this is all hypothetical), we will pay $5,000 apiece for a total of $10,000. If we marry and file jointly, we'll receive a marriage discount and the first $25,000 of one of our incomes will be sheltered, so our total tax burden is reduced to $7,500.

But we are no cheaper to defend, we produce no less garbage that needs collecting, and we need no fewer other government services. The marriage discount exists in our tax law only because of changing social mores in the US concerning married women working outside the home and it has always been irrational as a matter of tax policy. If the government needs only $17,500 to operate, then all adults should be given a share of the tax break; single people should not be underwriting some government costs for married people.

2) Encouraging home ownership. Not merely content to offer a tax discount on the interest paid on both a first and second mortgage on BOTH a first and second home, or a maximum of FOUR mortgages, the US now also awards enormous tax credits to purchasers of residential real property. Home ownership may or may not help stabilize a community but it does not need government intervention to achieve that result -- most folks desire a home of their own without having to be bribed into buying one. Those that are bribed into it may actually be detracting from the stabilization of their communities and in any event, renters should not have to underwrite the cost of home ownership for their neighbors.

3) Encouraging charity. The tax discounts available for gifts to all sorts of charities are so deep, most for-profit corporations have gifting programs. Since corporations are not human, they cannot have "generosity", so this is all done in response to tax discounts. But if the gifting is valuable because of the needs met by charity, then either the gifts should be made without any need for a tax discount or the needs should be elevated to ones met by government. In this vein, tax immunity for charities also seems irrational to me. Why should my Jewish neighbors help underwrite the costs of the local Catholic parochial school? Why should anyone's tax bill go up so as to allow some other private person to "give more"?

4) Discouraging bad habits. When the main purpose of a sin tax is to punish smoking, etc. it is demonstrably ineffective. Because these taxes are not tied to income, they fall much more heavily on the poor than anyone else. I fail to see why my poorest neighbors must suffer disproportionately because I want everyone to stop smoking. Why not merely criminalize smoking?

5) Encouraging certain investments, stimulating the economy, etc. There is a limited value to tinkering with a nation's economy by altering its tax code -- but this will never begin to compete with the effect that can be had by tinkering with its banking system. When we elevate certain investments, e.g., tax rebates for buying energy star appliances or accelerated depreciation for certain asset purchases, what we are trying to do is alter the buying habits of consumers and businesses. Those who do not buy underwrite these acquisition costs for those who do, and the motive -- tax savings -- is not grounded in economic reality. Better to force feed lower interest rates, etc. so that people and businesses buy what they really want and need.

Okay, that's a few examples. The bottom line for me is that taxes should be imposed as fairly and simply as possible and ONLY to develop funds to operate government -- not to advance social policies, etc. To do so is inefficient, wasteful and unfair.

I agree. But I would go one step further. Cut out all deductions and slash the rates. Taxes would be so simple a third grader could do them. The millions of hours that are spent by tax payers, the IRS, tax preparers, and tax lawyers could be spent so much more productive elsewhere.

 

[syrenn]

Pretty simple. If the government wants 10% of you, I dont care how much you have got. 50 billion or 50 cents I don't care. Cough up you 10%. Easy and fair.

 

[kwc57]

kwc57 wrote:

Of course you'd still have state and local taxes. What you wouldn't have is a national income tax. Every dollar you make goes in your pocket instead of the governments for you to file a return on to see if you get some of it back or have to give them even more. Your taxes are paid thru sales of goods and services which you control. It actually levels the playing field as everyone pays the same across the board. If the poor guy buys the Wal-mart brand of Mac-n-Cheese, he pays less tax than if he bought the Kraft brand. If the rich guy wants to buy a yacht instead of a row boat, he pays more tax. All of your dollars are yours to control and spend.

The system of taxation you have described is called "regressive" and is condemned by virtually every tax pundit because a poor person must dedicate a higher PERCENT of his income to pay it than a wealthy person. When tax is imposed on a sum other than income, it can never be anything but regressive. Only an income tax can allow for lower rates on poorer people.

In a proportionate tax system, the poor person and the wealthy person pay the same PERCENT of income in taxes.

In a progressive system, which the US has always had since the inception of the income tax, a wealthy person pays a HIGHER percent of income in tax than a poor person does.

I'd support a modified flat tax/somewhat progressive tax on income, but never a federal sales tax in lieu of the income tax.

Leaving aside the question of rates, do you agree or not that a tax system should be used only to raise funds to operate the government and not to advance social agendas?

So rich people should have to pay more than their share? Bullshit. I'm comfortable, but not rich. Just because I got an education, kept my nose clean and worked hard........I'm supposed to give up a larger percentage of my earnings as opposed to the guy who decided smoking pot was more fun than attending class or work? He plowed his own row and he is reaping what he sowed. I'm a charitable person, but on my own terms. The government shouldn't be able to decide that I should be taxed at X percent and the other guy at Y simply because I made better choices in life. We already pay state sales tax. I don't hear anyone saying that the state should charge me a 9% sales tax, but the guy who makes less than me should only have to pay 5%. If it works at the state level......and it does.......it can work nationally.

As to your last question, of course taxes should be used to operate the government and not advance social agendas. I'm a libertarian. I don't think social conservative or liberal agendas should be driven thru taxation or legislation.

 

[froggy]

kwc57 wrote:

Of course you'd still have state and local taxes. What you wouldn't have is a national income tax. Every dollar you make goes in your pocket instead of the governments for you to file a return on to see if you get some of it back or have to give them even more. Your taxes are paid thru sales of goods and services which you control. It actually levels the playing field as everyone pays the same across the board. If the poor guy buys the Wal-mart brand of Mac-n-Cheese, he pays less tax than if he bought the Kraft brand. If the rich guy wants to buy a yacht instead of a row boat, he pays more tax. All of your dollars are yours to control and spend.

The system of taxation you have described is called "regressive" and is condemned by virtually every tax pundit because a poor person must dedicate a higher PERCENT of his income to pay it than a wealthy person. When tax is imposed on a sum other than income, it can never be anything but regressive. Only an income tax can allow for lower rates on poorer people.

In a proportionate tax system, the poor person and the wealthy person pay the same PERCENT of income in taxes.

In a progressive system, which the US has always had since the inception of the income tax, a wealthy person pays a HIGHER percent of income in tax than a poor person does.

I'd support a modified flat tax/somewhat progressive tax on income, but never a federal sales tax in lieu of the income tax.

Leaving aside the question of rates, do you agree or not that a tax system should be used only to raise funds to operate the government and not to advance social agendas?

So rich people should have to pay more than their share? Bullshit. I'm comfortable, but not rich. Just because I got an education, kept my nose clean and worked hard........I'm supposed to give up a larger percentage of my earnings as opposed to the guy who decided smoking pot was more fun than attending class or work? He plowed his own row and he is reaping what he sowed. I'm a charitable person, but on my own terms. The government shouldn't be able to decide that I should be taxed at X percent and the other guy at Y simply because I made better choices in life. We already pay state sales tax. I don't hear anyone saying that the state should charge me a 9% sales tax, but the guy who makes less than me should only have to pay 5%. If it works at the state level......and it does.......it can work nationally.

As to your last question, of course taxes should be used to operate the government and not advance social agendas. I'm a libertarian. I don't think social conservative or liberal agendas should be driven thru taxation or legislation.

Do you think they should pay less?

 

[syrenn]

syrenn, renters do pay property taxes. They are passed all carrying costs of the building by the landlord, including taxes. Taxing real estate is very appealing because the government knows who the taxpayers are and can extract the payments or confiscate the property -- this tax is very easy to administer. The biggest expense of local governments is public education and many have argued that using property taxes to support schools leads to inequality in education between poor cities and rich suburbs. Others see these inequalities as no more than the fruits of the labor of those who succeeded economically.

Sorry honey but Im shrinking you.

Not exactly. In an apartment building the tax is spread out over the amount of units. The larger the building the less taxes everyone renting pays. For example if the tax is $100 and you have 10 unites the renters are paying $10 each. If there are only 2 units then each renter is paying $50. I am of the opinion that each renter pays the full amount of the tax. $100 for each unit. My guess if this was the case then a good deal of property taxes would not be enacted.

Totally flat tax rates do NOT impose pain equally. If I confiscate 14% of Bill Gates' income in taxes, his lifestyle does not change, but if I confiscate 14% of a poor senior's income, perchance that month they eat cat food. I'd support a modified flat tax, but there must be some exclusion for the income of the poor and nearly-poor.

Agreed. But it is fair. Who ever said that taxes should be based on impact to lifestyle or that they are even fair. Taxes are taxes. Everyone should pay the same.

 

[syrenn]

Do you think they should pay less?

It is not about more or less. It is about everyone paying the same.

 

[kwc57]

The system of taxation you have described is called "regressive" and is condemned by virtually every tax pundit because a poor person must dedicate a higher PERCENT of his income to pay it than a wealthy person. When tax is imposed on a sum other than income, it can never be anything but regressive. Only an income tax can allow for lower rates on poorer people.

In a proportionate tax system, the poor person and the wealthy person pay the same PERCENT of income in taxes.

In a progressive system, which the US has always had since the inception of the income tax, a wealthy person pays a HIGHER percent of income in tax than a poor person does.

I'd support a modified flat tax/somewhat progressive tax on income, but never a federal sales tax in lieu of the income tax.

Leaving aside the question of rates, do you agree or not that a tax system should be used only to raise funds to operate the government and not to advance social agendas?

So rich people should have to pay more than their share? Bullshit. I'm comfortable, but not rich. Just because I got an education, kept my nose clean and worked hard........I'm supposed to give up a larger percentage of my earnings as opposed to the guy who decided smoking pot was more fun than attending class or work? He plowed his own row and he is reaping what he sowed. I'm a charitable person, but on my own terms. The government shouldn't be able to decide that I should be taxed at X percent and the other guy at Y simply because I made better choices in life. We already pay state sales tax. I don't hear anyone saying that the state should charge me a 9% sales tax, but the guy who makes less than me should only have to pay 5%. If it works at the state level......and it does.......it can work nationally.

As to your last question, of course taxes should be used to operate the government and not advance social agendas. I'm a libertarian. I don't think social conservative or liberal agendas should be driven thru taxation or legislation.

Do you think they should pay less?

Who?

 

[kwc57]

Oklahoma City Sales Tax

OK State Sales Tax % - 4.5
County Sales Tax % - 0.0
City Sales Tax % - 3.875
Total Sales Tax % - 8.375

If you are a 16 year old kid sacking groceries for minimum wage or the CEO of a large corporation making 7 or 8 figures, you still get taxed 8.375 cents on every dollar you spend when you purchase any good or service.

Is that unfair? If not, then why can't it be applied at a national level? What is the rationale for making someone who makes $100 and hour pay a higher percentage than someone making $30?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

which makes me think....
an illegal alien shows up at the emergency room of a local hospital with a serious injury
he is bleeding profusely...
and if not taken care of soon....will die
but
being an illegal alien
he has no insurance and no money
so
what is the moral obligation of the hospital staff?
waste "American resources" on an illegal alien
or let him die....?

If its gang member, let him bleed out and die.

Ant this is partly why health care costs are going though the roof. We do treat the illegals. And we the people get to pay for the treatment. I would prefer my tax dollars treat US citizens.

There is a difference between humanity and economics. There comes a point where you cant AFFORD to be sucker.

Hippocrates would disagree with you.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

In the United States, the most significant income stream for the federal government is the income tax, for the states it is the sales tax and for local governments it is the property tax. However, feel free to discuss any tax, fee, duty, or other charge imposed by government as you see fit.

IMO, a system of tax or taxes works best when it remains entirely true to its original purpose: developing revenues for government operations. The further afield it wanders from that purpose, the less effective it becomes. As a mechanism for forcing social change, the tax system is the very least efficient tool in the government toolbox.

So here are some stupid tax provisions I would repeal:

1) The marriage discount. If I and my single neighbor each make $50,000 and we pay tax at a 10% rate (this is all hypothetical), we will pay $5,000 apiece for a total of $10,000. If we marry and file jointly, we'll receive a marriage discount and the first $25,000 of one of our incomes will be sheltered, so our total tax burden is reduced to $7,500.

But we are no cheaper to defend, we produce no less garbage that needs collecting, and we need no fewer other government services. The marriage discount exists in our tax law only because of changing social mores in the US concerning married women working outside the home and it has always been irrational as a matter of tax policy. If the government needs only $17,500 to operate, then all adults should be given a share of the tax break; single people should not be underwriting some government costs for married people.

Whoahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......

WAY too-much common-sense!!!!!



Are you PURPOSELY trying to confuse "conservatives"/Teabaggers??!!!!

(I surely do hope you're a parent. )​

 

[rikules]

In the United States, the most significant income stream for the federal government is the income tax, for the states it is the sales tax and for local governments it is the property tax. However, feel free to discuss any tax, fee, duty, or other charge imposed by government as you see fit.

IMO, a system of tax or taxes works best when it remains entirely true to its original purpose: developing revenues for government operations. The further afield it wanders from that purpose, the less effective it becomes. As a mechanism for forcing social change, the tax system is the very least efficient tool in the government toolbox.

So here are some stupid tax provisions I would repeal:

1) The marriage discount. If I and my single neighbor each make $50,000 and we pay tax at a 10% rate (this is all hypothetical), we will pay $5,000 apiece for a total of $10,000. If we marry and file jointly, we'll receive a marriage discount and the first $25,000 of one of our incomes will be sheltered, so our total tax burden is reduced to $7,500.

But we are no cheaper to defend, we produce no less garbage that needs collecting, and we need no fewer other government services. The marriage discount exists in our tax law only because of changing social mores in the US concerning married women working outside the home and it has always been irrational as a matter of tax policy. If the government needs only $17,500 to operate, then all adults should be given a share of the tax break; single people should not be underwriting some government costs for married people.

2) Encouraging home ownership. Not merely content to offer a tax discount on the interest paid on both a first and second mortgage on BOTH a first and second home, or a maximum of FOUR mortgages, the US now also awards enormous tax credits to purchasers of residential real property. Home ownership may or may not help stabilize a community but it does not need government intervention to achieve that result -- most folks desire a home of their own without having to be bribed into buying one. Those that are bribed into it may actually be detracting from the stabilization of their communities and in any event, renters should not have to underwrite the cost of home ownership for their neighbors.

3) Encouraging charity. The tax discounts available for gifts to all sorts of charities are so deep, most for-profit corporations have gifting programs. Since corporations are not human, they cannot have "generosity", so this is all done in response to tax discounts. But if the gifting is valuable because of the needs met by charity, then either the gifts should be made without any need for a tax discount or the needs should be elevated to ones met by government. In this vein, tax immunity for charities also seems irrational to me. Why should my Jewish neighbors help underwrite the costs of the local Catholic parochial school? Why should anyone's tax bill go up so as to allow some other private person to "give more"?

4) Discouraging bad habits. When the main purpose of a sin tax is to punish smoking, etc. it is demonstrably ineffective. Because these taxes are not tied to income, they fall much more heavily on the poor than anyone else. I fail to see why my poorest neighbors must suffer disproportionately because I want everyone to stop smoking. Why not merely criminalize smoking?

5) Encouraging certain investments, stimulating the economy, etc. There is a limited value to tinkering with a nation's economy by altering its tax code -- but this will never begin to compete with the effect that can be had by tinkering with its banking system. When we elevate certain investments, e.g., tax rebates for buying energy star appliances or accelerated depreciation for certain asset purchases, what we are trying to do is alter the buying habits of consumers and businesses. Those who do not buy underwrite these acquisition costs for those who do, and the motive -- tax savings -- is not grounded in economic reality. Better to force feed lower interest rates, etc. so that people and businesses buy what they really want and need.

Okay, that's a few examples. The bottom line for me is that taxes should be imposed as fairly and simply as possible and ONLY to develop funds to operate government -- not to advance social policies, etc. To do so is inefficient, wasteful and unfair.

good list

especially the part about single people paying more in taxes to support married people...

THAT has been an issue with me for decades!

and I would add to the list of things our taxes should not pay for;

religious icons or religious services.

also
no more tax breaks for religion.

religion is just another business and should pay their fair share of taxes

tax religion and it becomes part of the state. if they pay taxes they get a say in how things are run..

well
since they already HAVE a say in how things are run I think they owe an awful lot of BACK TAXES

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It should not keep up illegals.

Keep 'em up, where??​