Taxes!

[Zoom-boing]

so many simple or common sense things can be done to reduce the circumstances where these bozos need to spend so much....

care

Truer words were never spoken Care! I think anyone running for any type of political office should have to take a common sense test. Those in charge now would fail miserably.

 

[Bern80]

You both make valid points, but..............


I still don't see anyone with a good plan on how America can effectively run on no/less taxes.

There's a pretty wide swath between 'no' and 'less'. You may want to differntiate. I don't think anyone is arguing for no taxes. Personally I am arguing that they be levied fairly and that government control itself.

One idea: Do a way with income tax and have a national sales tax instead. That would be a far more fair system. Also, some legislation that requires government to spend money differently. Instead of figuring how much money they think they need first and then drumming up some asanine new tax to pay for it, perhaps tax revenues shoud be deteremined first and that is what they have to work with.

Until that comes to pass I encourage people to find every single tax loophole they can to minimize the amount of money congress can spend.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I see so many of you on here post that we are taxed too much, the government needs to stay out of our lives, you don't want to pay taxes for school since you don't have kids, that Americans are overtaxed and that taxes hurt economic growth......and so on..............


So, I would love to see your plan on how this country can effectively run on less, or no, taxes on all levels. From cigarette, liquor taxes, to property and income tax, etc.

Thanks, I think it will be interesting to see all of your ideas on how to better run this country with less taxes.

Well, that's easy...

Shut down the lions share of government agencies, fire their employees, sell the real estate and sell the various assets...

Then levy a much lower and reasonable tax rate to support that much smaller government.

Nothing to it...

 

[Political Junky]

The federal government (and most state governments) do what they call Baseline Budgeting. What that means is that whatever their budget was last year, they take it and add 10% to it for this year's budget. That is an impossible reality to maintain. You don't make 10% more every year, so that means that just remaining at your constant tax rate, you aren't giving the government 10% more for their budget. Just as you don't budget 10% more for your lifestyle.
Government spending cannot continue to increase at a rate like that simply because they decide they want to budget like that.
Typically, businesses use economy of scale to control their budgets. What that means is that as a business gets larger, they spend a bit less per unit of need than they did the year before. It's kind of like going to Sam's Club vs WalMart. You buy 100 pencils for $3.00 at Sam's, instead of 50 pencils for $2.00 at WalMart. The government doesn't use economy of scale. The only way the government can continue on it's path of baseline budgeting is to raise taxes. Oh, and trust me on this, when the government says it cut 2% off a budget item, what they really mean is that they took last years budget, added that 10% baseline, then took 2% off of that.
It's more about them being more fiscally responsible, then they wouldn't have to raise taxes.

It must really piss you off at how much the health insurance people and pharmaceutical companies have inflated the cost of healthcare in the US. 10% is nothing by comparison.

 

[GHook93]

The Fair Tax! Replace Corporate, Income, Capital and the payroll tax with the fair tax!

Have a better petition system against property taxes!

No honest person can ever say there should be no taxes.

To quote Ben Franklin "The only certainties in life is death and taxes!"

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Um, because the fewer taxes one must pay, the more economy-stimulating money one has to spend?

How does spending your "economy-stimulating money" at Walmart help purchase new math textbooks at NYC Public School 133 or help Gertrude Wilson in Topeka, Kansas get her portable oxygen?

ROFL...

Oh that's a real stumper... Allow Walmart and other book sellers to sell those text books... and require students to bring'em with'em.

Problem solved...

 

[amrchaos]

I have an idea--let us eliminate taxes all together!!

Look, deficits does not matter. And the Debt matters even less. The reason is because Government is the problem. So eliminate government, eliminate taxes. Then we would truly have a conservative state where every man is truly resonsible for his own well being. Now if you wish to be "liberal" about how to live and give your hard earned assets away in order to be humane, then be our guests. Just remember, if it is true that reality has a liberal bias then SURVIVAL is a conservative meme!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The federal government (and most state governments) do what they call Baseline Budgeting. What that means is that whatever their budget was last year, they take it and add 10% to it for this year's budget. That is an impossible reality to maintain. You don't make 10% more every year, so that means that just remaining at your constant tax rate, you aren't giving the government 10% more for their budget. Just as you don't budget 10% more for your lifestyle.
Government spending cannot continue to increase at a rate like that simply because they decide they want to budget like that.
Typically, businesses use economy of scale to control their budgets. What that means is that as a business gets larger, they spend a bit less per unit of need than they did the year before. It's kind of like going to Sam's Club vs WalMart. You buy 100 pencils for $3.00 at Sam's, instead of 50 pencils for $2.00 at WalMart. The government doesn't use economy of scale. The only way the government can continue on it's path of baseline budgeting is to raise taxes. Oh, and trust me on this, when the government says it cut 2% off a budget item, what they really mean is that they took last years budget, added that 10% baseline, then took 2% off of that.
It's more about them being more fiscally responsible, then they wouldn't have to raise taxes.

It must really piss you off at how much the health insurance people and pharmaceutical companies have inflated the cost of healthcare in the US. 10% is nothing by comparison.

ROFL... The Costs of government regulatory mandates are the source of healthcare inflation... and here ya are implying a desire to have them take over the whole schmear...

LOL..> Funny stuff.

 

[DiamondDave]

1) Tax Less
2) EQUAL % burden in taxation on every dollar earned by every person
3) Reduce the size and scope of government so less $ is spent, allowing for lesser taxation
4) Amend the Constitution to allow for line item veto on pork added t bills

 

[Political Junky]

The federal government (and most state governments) do what they call Baseline Budgeting. What that means is that whatever their budget was last year, they take it and add 10% to it for this year's budget. That is an impossible reality to maintain. You don't make 10% more every year, so that means that just remaining at your constant tax rate, you aren't giving the government 10% more for their budget. Just as you don't budget 10% more for your lifestyle.
Government spending cannot continue to increase at a rate like that simply because they decide they want to budget like that.
Typically, businesses use economy of scale to control their budgets. What that means is that as a business gets larger, they spend a bit less per unit of need than they did the year before. It's kind of like going to Sam's Club vs WalMart. You buy 100 pencils for $3.00 at Sam's, instead of 50 pencils for $2.00 at WalMart. The government doesn't use economy of scale. The only way the government can continue on it's path of baseline budgeting is to raise taxes. Oh, and trust me on this, when the government says it cut 2% off a budget item, what they really mean is that they took last years budget, added that 10% baseline, then took 2% off of that.
It's more about them being more fiscally responsible, then they wouldn't have to raise taxes.

It must really piss you off at how much the health insurance people and pharmaceutical companies have inflated the cost of healthcare in the US. 10% is nothing by comparison.

ROFL... The Costs of government regulatory mandates are the source of healthcare inflation... and here ya are implying a desire to have them take over the whole schmear...

LOL..> Funny stuff.

Government has caused inflated cost of health care? You're full of it.

 

[Sinatra]

Your question is a premise of extremes by the very nature of its wording.

Can the government run on NO taxes? Of course not.

Can and should the government run on "less" taxes? Of course.

Here is the real kicker though - history shows that when tax rates reduced, revenues actually increase - unfortunately, history also shows that as revenues increase, so too does spending, waste, etc.

So therein lies the answer - reduce taxes AND government. So simple, and yet, seemingly so difficult.

 

[Meister]

A samller central government with oversite on taxing, and pet projects from pork is one of the cornerstones.
Another cornerstone would be getting rid of the lobbists ( a lot of retired politicians end up in this sector)
Term limits time has come, I believe. It would bring back the "government serving the people", instead of the people serving the government. The government isn't a business. Another cornerstone.
Have major oversites over our social programs, make sure they aren't raided, make sure there is no fraud. A lot of money is wasted needlessly. This would be my final cornerstone, and from this we could build a strong government.

 

[Harry Dresden]

A samller central government with oversite on taxing, and pet projects from pork is one of the cornerstones.
Another cornerstone would be getting rid of the lobbists ( a lot of retired politicians end up in this sector)
Term limits time has come, I believe. It would bring back the "government serving the people", instead of the people serving the government. The government isn't a business. Another cornerstone.
Have major oversites over our social programs, make sure they aren't raided, make sure there is no fraud. A lot of money is wasted needlessly. This would be my final cornerstone, and from this we could build a strong government.

DAMIT Meister.....you got my vote.....

 

[Zoom-boing]

A samller central government with oversite on taxing, and pet projects from pork is one of the cornerstones.
Another cornerstone would be getting rid of the lobbists ( a lot of retired politicians end up in this sector)
Term limits time has come, I believe. It would bring back the "government serving the people", instead of the people serving the government. The government isn't a business. Another cornerstone.
Have major oversites over our social programs, make sure they aren't raided, make sure there is no fraud. A lot of money is wasted needlessly. This would be my final cornerstone, and from this we could build a strong government.

DAMIT Meister.....you got my vote.....

Meister is running for office? Where? I'd vote for 'em.

 

[Ravi]

I see so many of you on here post that we are taxed too much, the government needs to stay out of our lives, you don't want to pay taxes for school since you don't have kids, that Americans are overtaxed and that taxes hurt economic growth......and so on..............



So, I would love to see your plan on how this country can effectively run on less, or no, taxes on all levels. From cigarette, liquor taxes, to property and income tax, etc.

Thanks, I think it will be interesting to see all of your ideas on how to better run this country with less taxes.

Good question that I have no answer to. Perhaps we should look at how other countries deal with this.

 

[Harry Dresden]

A samller central government with oversite on taxing, and pet projects from pork is one of the cornerstones.
Another cornerstone would be getting rid of the lobbists ( a lot of retired politicians end up in this sector)
Term limits time has come, I believe. It would bring back the "government serving the people", instead of the people serving the government. The government isn't a business. Another cornerstone.
Have major oversites over our social programs, make sure they aren't raided, make sure there is no fraud. A lot of money is wasted needlessly. This would be my final cornerstone, and from this we could build a strong government.

DAMIT Meister.....you got my vote.....

Meister is running for office? Where? I'd vote for 'em.

he is going to try and unseat Bobo as mayor of Bobosville.....

 

[LionofDC]

I see so many of you on here post that we are taxed too much, the government needs to stay out of our lives, you don't want to pay taxes for school since you don't have kids, that Americans are overtaxed and that taxes hurt economic growth......and so on..............



So, I would love to see your plan on how this country can effectively run on less, or no, taxes on all levels. From cigarette, liquor taxes, to property and income tax, etc.

Thanks, I think it will be interesting to see all of your ideas on how to better run this country with less taxes.

If the population and the body politic for that matter cared more about education and basic literacy, then perhaps more people would be less irked by taxes. It would benefit our country so much if people would actually knew what is going on.

The reason why government is so disliked is because people have the notion that government fails at whatever it does. This of course isn't true, but perception in this case is the reality. So in-turn an uneducated society elects hustlers and grifters into office. They whisper sweet nothings in our ears, tell us what we want to hear, and for the most part people go about their business and don't even question the legitimacy of their ridiculous claims or policies.

Well an educated democratic and free society would be more inquired to look deeper in what is being told to them. They would seek more knowledge and thus the elected officials would have to answer to more fierce questions when it comes to their policies. The government will be forced to have to perform, otherwise politicians will be held accountable. So if they are interested in maintaining their power they will have to ensure they are doing a good job. The programs they propose better be managed by qualified people who have a vested interested in making sure programs succeed. The more programs succeed the better the government functions as a whole.

This will hold true for governments at all levels, local, state and federal. Just imagine going to the DMV and not leaving with a higher blood pressure than you had going in (Okay maybe we can't fix everything). But imagine more efficiency, which means things can be done cheaper and with less waste. Then people will see that taxes make sense, because there is actual value in the return for the dollars being spent.

The situation we have now is that people aren't educated. The grifters come in and hustle the people, give them terrible government and the people don't want to pay taxes because the government can't do anything right. I am not saying that the people who are anti-taxes are uneducated, this is not true at all. There are valid reason to not like paying taxes. However if we did have a government which performed at a higher level, I think we would not have tea bag parties. But for some you tea baggers out there, before you shake the stick at the government check yourself. The elected officials represent you. So don't get mad when you get pimped slapped with a higher tax. You should have learned to read all the fine print the last 30 years and noticed it was you who was getting screwed.

 

[LionofDC]

Okay so I guess my answer is slightly higher taxes , but a much smarter government. We won’t get smarter government until we have a smarter and more educated public. I don't know if tax dollars right now can help fix that. I just hope that Sarah Palin isn't ever elected for national office. She is scary and a prime example of where ignorance is rewarded. Sorry folks, but she is a hustler....all these "folksy" down home politicians are. They may sound and talk like you, but they have a bridge to sell you...and guess where it goes?

 

[Bern80]

If the population and the body politic for that matter cared more about education and basic literacy, then perhaps more people would be less irked by taxes. It would benefit our country so much if people would actually knew what is going on.

The reason why government is so disliked is because people have the notion that government fails at whatever it does. This of course isn't true, but perception in this case is the reality. So in-turn an uneducated society elects hustlers and grifters into office. They whisper sweet nothings in our ears, tell us what we want to hear, and for the most part people go about their business and don't even question the legitimacy of their ridiculous claims or policies.

Then enlighten us oh wise one. What is it specifically that our government does so amazingly well? By the very nature of how it is set up there is almost no way government could efficiently do much of anything. In order of effectiveness there are three ways to spend money. You can spend your money on you. You can spend someone elses money on you. Or, last and least effective, other people can spend other people's money on other people. I don't need to draw a map i don't think on which of those is government.

Well an educated democratic and free society would be more inquired to look deeper in what is being told to them. They would seek more knowledge and thus the elected officials would have to answer to more fierce questions when it comes to their policies. The government will be forced to have to perform, otherwise politicians will be held accountable. So if they are interested in maintaining their power they will have to ensure they are doing a good job. The programs they propose better be managed by qualified people who have a vested interested in making sure programs succeed. The more programs succeed the better the government functions as a whole.

This will hold true for governments at all levels, local, state and federal. Just imagine going to the DMV and not leaving with a higher blood pressure than you had going in (Okay maybe we can't fix everything). But imagine more efficiency, which means things can be done cheaper and with less waste. Then people will see that taxes make sense, because there is actual value in the return for the dollars being spent.

The situation we have now is that people aren't educated. The grifters come in and hustle the people, give them terrible government and the people don't want to pay taxes because the government can't do anything right. I am not saying that the people who are anti-taxes are uneducated, this is not true at all. There are valid reason to not like paying taxes. However if we did have a government which performed at a higher level, I think we would not have tea bag parties. But for some you tea baggers out there, before you shake the stick at the government check yourself. The elected officials represent you. So don't get mad when you get pimped slapped with a higher tax. You should have learned to read all the fine print the last 30 years and noticed it was you who was getting screwed.

Humans are like water, most will follow the past of least resistance. If not doing much of anything works then that's probably what people will do. It is human nature to make things as easy, painless, convenient as possible. If going through life will be just okay with relatively little effort, that is fine for an awful lot of people. Education only works if people want to be educated. Money can't fix our education system. Giving you $20 doesn't make you any smarter than you were 5 minutes ago.

 

[Agnapostate]

If the government were smaller and less involved in people's lives, wouldn't they need less of our money to begin with? Isn't the principle behind the US Constitution ... to limit and restrict government? When did it become the government's job to run everything?

The anti-government stance of the rightists is a curious one, since a significant state presence is a necessary component of a capitalist economy; the government acts as an integral agent that generates macroeconomic stabilization and sustains the physical efficiency of the working class through utilization of welfare state policies. Consultation of the available empirical research will support this view. For example, consider Yu's A new perspective on the role of the government in economic development: Coordination under uncertainty.

[The government] possesses some unique features that distinguish it from the firm. Such features allows the government to regulate competition, reduce uncertainty and provide a relatively stable exchange environment. Specifically, in the area of industrial policy, the government can help private enterprises tackle uncertainty in the following ways: first, locating the focal point by initiating projects; providing assurance and guarantees to the large investment project; and facilitating the exchange of information; second, reducing excessive competition by granting exclusive rights; and third, facilitating learning and diffusion of technologies, and assisting infant industry firms to build up competence. The history of developmental success indicates that the market and the state are not opposed forms of social organisation, but interactively linked (Rodrik, 1997, p. 437). In the prospering and dynamic nations, public-private coordination tends to prevail. Dynamic private enterprises assisted by government coordination explain the successful economic performances in the post-war Japan and the Asian newly industrialising economies. It is their governments' consistent and coordinated attentiveness to the economic problems that differentiates the entrepreneurial states (Yu, 1997) from the predatory states (Boaz and Polak, 1997).

I support the eventual elimination of the state, of course, but that would also necessitate the elimination of capitalism.

2) EQUAL % burden in taxation on every dollar earned by every person

That is an inherently regressive proposal that would effectively constitute an unequal burden, given the reality of the diminishing rate of marginal utility. Why is such a basic economic truth ignored?