Ending income taxes

[g5000]

We live in a country where someone who is single and earns $50,000 and lives in an apartment pays much more in taxes than someone who earns the exact same amount of income and has three kids, overextended himself with a $400,000 loan for a house, and bought a "green" refrigerator.

That is insanity. This is government working to modify your behavior like a lab rat. Buy the right products, you get a banana chip! Move through the right sections of the maze, you get some government cheese!

 

[Avatar4321]

There is simply no way to allow a benefit to one demographic, group, entity or whatever without being unfair to another.

In my opinion, the greatest source of graft, corruption, inequities, and manipulation in government is allowing those in government, whether elected, appointed, or hired, to use our money to dispense favors, benefits, opportunities, or charity to targeted groups, demographics, entities, etc. And of course in doing that, they increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes which becomes their number one goal.

Would you agree to a constitutional amendment that prevents anybody in the federal government from providing any benefit to anybody that was not provided to all regardless of political or socioeconomic standing? And that prevent them from giving themself any benefit that was not given to all? And that prevented them from passing any law that they too were not subject to?

Which is precisely why all individuals should be treated the same regardless of their demographic, group or entity.

 

[g5000]

Whenever they can, most people are going to take advantage of whatever tax breaks the government allows them to take, just as most people pay whatever taxes the government demands. So who is to blame? Those who use benefits written into the law? Or the government who passes laws that benefit some but not all?

Whenever they can, corporations are going to take advantage of whatever tax breaks the government allowed them to take, just as they pay whatever taxes the government demands. So who is to blame? The corporations who benefit from a law that allows them to pay no taxes. Or the government who passes laws that allow some corporations to pay no taxes but not all?

If you go to McDonalds for a Big Mac and the cashier charges you 25 cents as their franchise is offering a special that day, do you pay the usual $2.95 because you don't think it fair that you pay a quarter while others are paying $2.95? Do you refuse to buy things on sale because you dont think it is fair to pay less than others have to pay at other times?

Wouldn't it make more sense for there to be a true flat tax to support government and everybody who earns income pays that same flat tax regardless of the source of income or what sort of income it is? And wouldn't the American people ALL then keep closer tabs on what the government spends their money on because it directly affects them? Most especially when the government demands more of the people's money?

I support a flat income tax, with no form of income excluded, as being the least regressive and most fair of all forms of taxation. It is the most visible and the least easy to manipulate without the people noticing the changes.

It isn't like the corporations are some kind of innocent bystanders who would be silly not to use the tax breaks. They paid good money to Congressional campaign funds to get those tax breaks.

Tax expenditures need to be banned, period. All of them. You would see campaign donations plunge if tax expenditures were banned. If a Congressman can't put a tax break in the code for a union or corporation, then those special interests would have no motive to pay him to do so.

There is simply no way to allow a benefit to one demographic, group, entity or whatever without being unfair to another.

In my opinion, the greatest source of graft, corruption, inequities, and manipulation in government is allowing those in government, whether elected, appointed, or hired, to use our money to dispense favors, benefits, opportunities, or charity to targeted groups, demographics, entities, etc. And of course in doing that, they increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes which becomes their number one goal.

Would you agree to a constitutional amendment that prevents anybody in the federal government from providing any benefit to anybody that was not provided to all regardless of political or socioeconomic standing? And that prevent them from giving themself any benefit that was not given to all? And that prevented them from passing any law that they too were not subject to?

I have said many times I not only would support a Constitutional amendment banning tax expenditures, I also believe that is the only way it will ever happen. Congress is not going to ban the very gravy train which insures the 98 percent re-electibility of incumbents in the House and the 80+ percent re-electibility in the Senate!

We have an American Politiburo, and it is held up by tax expenditures and regulatory capture.

 

[healthmyths]

It isn't like the corporations are some kind of innocent bystanders who would be silly not to use the tax breaks. They paid good money to Congressional campaign funds to get those tax breaks.

Tax expenditures need to be banned, period. All of them. You would see campaign donations plunge if tax expenditures were banned. If a Congressman can't put a tax break in the code for a union or corporation, then those special interests would have no motive to pay him to do so.

There is simply no way to allow a benefit to one demographic, group, entity or whatever without being unfair to another.

In my opinion, the greatest source of graft, corruption, inequities, and manipulation in government is allowing those in government, whether elected, appointed, or hired, to use our money to dispense favors, benefits, opportunities, or charity to targeted groups, demographics, entities, etc. And of course in doing that, they increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes which becomes their number one goal.

Would you agree to a constitutional amendment that prevents anybody in the federal government from providing any benefit to anybody that was not provided to all regardless of political or socioeconomic standing? And that prevent them from giving themself any benefit that was not given to all? And that prevented them from passing any law that they too were not subject to?

I have said many times I not only would support a Constitutional amendment banning tax expenditures, I also believe that is the only way it will ever happen. Congress is not going to ban the very gravy train which insures the 98 percent re-electibility of incumbents in the House and the 80+ percent re-electibility in the Senate!

We have an American Politiburo, and it is held up by tax expenditures and regulatory capture.

So you are in favor of abolishing deductions of employee health insurance and pensions, as well as mortgage deductions... all which benefit the 99%???

 

[Avatar4321]

So you are in favor of abolishing deductions of employee health insurance and pensions, as well as mortgage deductions... all which benefit the 99%???

We need to stop with this 99% crap. I am not the 99%. I am not the 1%. I am me. I am a free man. I have nothing against my brother. I just want to be treated as equal regardless of how much money I earn or dont earn.

Let's stop playing into their hands and letting them divide us.

 

[g5000]

So you are in favor of abolishing deductions of employee health insurance and pensions, as well as mortgage deductions... all which benefit the 99%???

As I said earlier to you, those two deductions are extremely regressive. They DO NOT benefit the 99%.

Every economist across the political spectrum is in favor of eliminating the mortgage interest deduction.

Think about it. The larger the income someone has, the bigger the mortgage they have, which means the bigger tax break they get. The bigger the tax break the rich man gets, the more the rest of us have to make up for it. This is a tax break for the 1%.

Can a lower income afford a house? No. They don't get that tax break. The mortgage interest deduction is a highly regressive tax which works to the rich man's benefit.

So hell yes I am in favor of abolishing those deductions.

I said "all of them", several times.

 

[Avatar4321]

So you are in favor of abolishing deductions of employee health insurance and pensions, as well as mortgage deductions... all which benefit the 99%???

As I said earlier to you, those two deductions are extremely regressive. They DO NOT benefit the 99%.

Think about it. The richer you are, the bigger the mortgage you have, which means the bigger tax break you get. The bigger the tax break the rich man gets, the more the rest of us have to make up for it. This is a tax break for the 1%.

Can a lower income afford a house? No. They don't get that tax break. The mortgage interest deduction is a rich man's benefit.

I think it probably benefits the bank more than any man. They are encouraging people to take out debt, regardless of whether they can actually afford it or not. And who makes money? The bank.

 

[g5000]

The employer-sponsored health insurance fiasco is a giant labor union boondoggle from front to back. It is bending the healthcare cost curve upward, and it is a big tax break for unions.

And again, lower income people don't benefit from it. Some minimum wage slave doesn't have a medical plan, much less a pension plan.

The richer you are, the bigger the health insurance plan you have, the bigger your tax break. Same deal with pensions.

Highly regressive breaks everyone down the food chain has to make up for.

 

[g5000]

So you are in favor of abolishing deductions of employee health insurance and pensions, as well as mortgage deductions... all which benefit the 99%???

As I said earlier to you, those two deductions are extremely regressive. They DO NOT benefit the 99%.

Think about it. The richer you are, the bigger the mortgage you have, which means the bigger tax break you get. The bigger the tax break the rich man gets, the more the rest of us have to make up for it. This is a tax break for the 1%.

Can a lower income afford a house? No. They don't get that tax break. The mortgage interest deduction is a rich man's benefit.

I think it probably benefits the bank more than any man. They are encouraging people to take out debt, regardless of whether they can actually afford it or not. And who makes money? The bank.

Some interesting figures:

As the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has noted, “Despite the favorable tax treatment that mortgage interest receives in the United States, the rate of homeownership here is similar to that in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, and none of those countries currently offers a tax deduction for mortgage interest.” The United Kingdom phased out its mortgage interest deduction from 1975 to 2000, but the share of households that own homes rose from 53 percent in 1974 to 68 percent in 2001.

Mortgage Interest Deduction Is Ripe for Reform

 

[Avatar4321]

Im in favor of tax reform. What type of tax system would you suggest G?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So you are in favor of abolishing deductions of employee health insurance and pensions, as well as mortgage deductions... all which benefit the 99%???

As I said earlier to you, those two deductions are extremely regressive. They DO NOT benefit the 99%.

Think about it. The richer you are, the bigger the mortgage you have, which means the bigger tax break you get. The bigger the tax break the rich man gets, the more the rest of us have to make up for it. This is a tax break for the 1%.

Can a lower income afford a house? No. They don't get that tax break. The mortgage interest deduction is a rich man's benefit.

I think it probably benefits the bank more than any man. They are encouraging people to take out debt, regardless of whether they can actually afford it or not. And who makes money? The bank.

I think that's false - if the MID were eliminated, people would be less able to afford a mortgage. This would reduce demand for mortgages and hence would reduce the interest rates a bank could charge for them.

There's an argument to be made that the reduction in rates - which would benefit all equally - minus the elimination of a benefit that preferentially benefits those with higher income -would be a net benefit to most of the working poor and lower middle class.



The poor, BTW, can afford homes, provided the loans are within their means. Someone with a low income job but who has a good work history and who has scraped enough together to put a decent down payment on a home whose note they can afford is a lower risk than someone who makes a lot but who takes on a loan correspondingly big that they wind up not being able to afford because they lost their job and didn't save a dime from their big incomes.

A lot of folks I've talked to who own businesses say the hardest place to get a bill paid on time is the new blood country clubs. They are full of people who make good money but who bought way above even their advanced means.

 

[g5000]

Look at tax expenditures this way:

Bob and Neal live next door to each other. They each earn $50,000 a year.

To maintain the road and street lights in front of their houses, and to pay for the fire department and police protection, and sundry other government functions the public voted for, Bob and Neal's "fair share" of costs would be $600 each a year.

But Bob owns his house while Neal is renting his. Bob also bought the right kind of refrigerator which some lobbyist for the appliance maker convinced his elected officials was worthy of a tax break.

As a result, Bob's tax bill for all these services is $400 instead of $600. This means Neal will have to make up the difference and pay $800 instead of $600.

Or, Neal will pay $600 (still $200 more than Bob) and the government will borrow the rest from China. Or print it.

That's what tax expenditures are doin for ya!

 

[Oddball]

Look at tax expenditures this way:

Bob and Neal live next door to each other. They each earn $50,000 a year.

To maintain the road and street lights in front of their houses, and to pay for the fire department and police protection, and sundry other government functions the public voted for, Bob and Neal's "fair share" of costs would be $600 each a year.

But Bob owns his house while Neal is renting his. Bob also bought the right kind of refrigerator which some lobbyist for the appliance maker convinced his elected officials was worthy of a tax break.

As a result, Bob's tax bill for all these services is $400 instead of $600. This means Neal will have to make up the difference and pay $800 instead of $600.

Or, Neal will pay $600 (still $200 more than Bob) and the government will borrow the rest from China. Or print it.

That's what tax expenditures are doin for ya!

Bad analogy....Those services are paid for by fuel and property taxes, not income taxes.

 

[g5000]

Look at tax expenditures this way:

Bob and Neal live next door to each other. They each earn $50,000 a year.

To maintain the road and street lights in front of their houses, and to pay for the fire department and police protection, and sundry other government functions the public voted for, Bob and Neal's "fair share" of costs would be $600 each a year.

But Bob owns his house while Neal is renting his. Bob also bought the right kind of refrigerator which some lobbyist for the appliance maker convinced his elected officials was worthy of a tax break.

As a result, Bob's tax bill for all these services is $400 instead of $600. This means Neal will have to make up the difference and pay $800 instead of $600.

Or, Neal will pay $600 (still $200 more than Bob) and the government will borrow the rest from China. Or print it.

That's what tax expenditures are doin for ya!

Bad analogy....Those services are paid for by fuel and property taxes, not income taxes.

The underlying point remains. Just change the $600 to pay for national defense, and it holds up just fine.

Two people earning the same income pay widely disparate income taxes. As a result of one getting a tax expenditure and paying less than his share, the other one has to pay more than his share, or the government has to borrow the difference, or print it.

That's what tax expenditures are doin' for ya!

 

[Oddball]

As I said earlier to you, those two deductions are extremely regressive. They DO NOT benefit the 99%.

Think about it. The richer you are, the bigger the mortgage you have, which means the bigger tax break you get. The bigger the tax break the rich man gets, the more the rest of us have to make up for it. This is a tax break for the 1%.

Can a lower income afford a house? No. They don't get that tax break. The mortgage interest deduction is a rich man's benefit.

I think it probably benefits the bank more than any man. They are encouraging people to take out debt, regardless of whether they can actually afford it or not. And who makes money? The bank.

I think that's false - if the MID were eliminated, people would be less able to afford a mortgage. This would reduce demand for mortgages and hence would reduce the interest rates a bank could charge for them.

Bullshit....Their effective tax rate would be less, therefore their tax bill would not change.

The MID is a big sweetheart deal to Big Banking and Big Real Estate...Nothing more.

 

[Oddball]

Look at tax expenditures this way:

Bob and Neal live next door to each other. They each earn $50,000 a year.

To maintain the road and street lights in front of their houses, and to pay for the fire department and police protection, and sundry other government functions the public voted for, Bob and Neal's "fair share" of costs would be $600 each a year.

But Bob owns his house while Neal is renting his. Bob also bought the right kind of refrigerator which some lobbyist for the appliance maker convinced his elected officials was worthy of a tax break.

As a result, Bob's tax bill for all these services is $400 instead of $600. This means Neal will have to make up the difference and pay $800 instead of $600.

Or, Neal will pay $600 (still $200 more than Bob) and the government will borrow the rest from China. Or print it.

That's what tax expenditures are doin for ya!

Bad analogy....Those services are paid for by fuel and property taxes, not income taxes.

The underlying point remains. Just change the $600 to pay for national defense, and it holds up just fine.

The underlying point is invalid, as national defense would and can quite sufficiently be funded via lawful Article 1, Section 8, duties imposts and excises.

Combine that with ceasing to use the American military as the world's babysitter and there's even less call for an income tax.

 

[g5000]

Bad analogy....Those services are paid for by fuel and property taxes, not income taxes.

The underlying point remains. Just change the $600 to pay for national defense, and it holds up just fine.

The underlying point is invalid, as national defense would and can quite sufficiently be funded via lawful Article 1, Section 8, duties imposts and excises.

Combine that with ceasing to use the American military as the world's babysitter and there's even less call for an income tax.

I am talking about reality. How the system is working now, not some fantasy.

Tax expenditures cause those who don't get the tax break to have to make up the difference or the government to borrow or print money.

And national defense could only be paid for with imposts and excises if we had a military the size of a cub scout troop.

 

[Oddball]

Well, you can either deal with some real radical changes or you can deal with the reality of an economic collapse, which won't leave enough people earning incomes (above board anyways) to tax to run a $4 trillion gubmint.

There's no polishing this turd, dude...Time to face the reality of it.

 

[AmazonTania]

Maybe it's just me, but has anyone actually seen the law in the federal registrar requiring anyone to pay income taxes?

 

[Oddball]

Maybe it's just me, but has anyone actually seen the law in the federal registrar requiring anyone to pay income taxes?

You'll love these guys...

Home - Freedom Above Fortune

Free Enterprise Society

http://www.givemeliberty.org/