Things That Taxes Should Not Do

[Mr. Shaman]

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

True, they don't........but they use up a lot of tax dollars that should be spent on citizens.

Yeah...."conservatives" have always been quite the defenders of citizens being short-changed, due to the availability of tax-dollars.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

HOW many?

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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

Whatta great idea!!

Then.....all we'd have to do is get organized....and, keep the concept (of bartering) a big-secret, from the 1%ers.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Truthfully I am sick of the child credit. Children suck up tax dollars so parents with children should PAY more to have them and not get a refund! People without children should be getting the tax credit.

Gee....lemme guess....you're against abortion, as well, right?

​

 

[WillowTree]

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.

Yes sir.. that pretty much sums it up for the libturd way of thinking. They punish you for being successful..

 

[WillowTree]

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.

HOW many?

​

MILLIONS of them. MILLIONS>

 

[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.

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

Another I'd like to see, is capital-gains taxed at the same-rate as direct-income....unless, of course, those folks would prefer to pay the same rate as (for) gambling....which is all they're doing, anyhow. It's not like they (actually) worked for that cash.​

 

[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.

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.

Who's "they"???

Try to be a little-more specific.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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....?

A hard-core, flag-wavin', all-American capitalist would suggest those folks have an obligation to die....like anyone-else without insurance.

Rand Paul comes-to-mind....​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

Boy....are YOU gonna be disappointed!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Tax the real estate religious organizations hold that are NOT specifically churches.

Good idea.......

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F3nDIdHcnE&feature=related]YouTube - Jeff Sharlet talks about "The Family" on Rachel Maddow[/ame]​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

In my opinion sin taxes are the most egregious failure of all tax as social engineering tools.

Most governments know this but prefer to label a pick pocket operation as a moral imperative.

Those who wish to sin will do so and simply pay the price, it has been ever thus since Lucifer told God to get off his back, passed good and retired to a warmer climate.

Yep, sin taxes are unConstitutional.

And yet the government also takes my money to pay for egregious things like abortion....

Let's see your proof, of that.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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!

ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

Agreed!!!

There's gotta be some way to designate Bimbos a useless/parasitic, genetic-aberration (who're using-up our natural-resources), and....you know....see what happens.​

 

[syrenn]

Truthfully I am sick of the child credit. Children suck up tax dollars so parents with children should PAY more to have them and not get a refund! People without children should be getting the tax credit.

Gee....lemme guess....you're against abortion, as well, right?

​

Actually no I am very pro abortion.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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

HOW many?

​

MILLIONS of them. MILLIONS>

....Except, you forgot where the (exact) data is....or you'd have posted it, right?

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Truthfully I am sick of the child credit. Children suck up tax dollars so parents with children should PAY more to have them and not get a refund! People without children should be getting the tax credit.

Gee....lemme guess....you're against abortion, as well, right?

​

Actually no I am very pro abortion.

Yeah....that'd help balance-things-out....'cause the need will be there!​

 

[Madeline]

WillowTree wrote:

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

No WillowTree. If the only purpose of a tax code is to raise taxes, the payments made by any taxpayer will not drive their decision-making in irrational ways. I could argue that by granting a religious outlet a tax immunity I affect/alter/control their conduct because, e.g., they cannot expand into certain ventures without risking that immunity.

Tax every taxpayer alike and no one's conduct is hyper-controlled by taxes.

 

[WillowTree]

HOW many?

​

MILLIONS of them. MILLIONS>

....Except, you forgot where the (exact) data is....or you'd have posted it, right?

​

don't need data asswipe. just look at californiction.

 

[WillowTree]

WillowTree wrote:

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

No WillowTree. If the only purpose of a tax code is to raise taxes, the payments made by any taxpayer will not drive their decision-making in irrational ways. I could argue that by granting a religious outlet a tax immunity I affect/alter/control their conduct because, e.g., they cannot expand into certain ventures without risking that immunity.

Tax every taxpayer alike and no one's conduct is hyper-controlled by taxes.

tax churches and religious bodies and they get representation.. they may then conduct political rallies within the church.. they have access to a lot of voters.. so go ahead tax them.. it's okay with me.