Taxation

[Camarohusky]

What is the best form of taxation (high/low, flat/progresseive, etc.) and why?

[ReiperX]

At 11/10/06 05:54 AM, Camarohusky wrote: What is the best form of taxation (high/low, flat/progresseive, etc.) and why?

I prefere a national sales tax. Tax everything except basic necessities with it, that way the poor aren't punished for being poor, and can afford to purchase what they need to survive. And everyone else pays their fair share. The rich will still tend to pay way more in taxes since I would assume they would purchase many more luxuries than your non rich, but everyone would pay their share at least. It also gets rid of the tax loopholes and makes illegal immigrants pay taxes also.

[iiREDii]

At 11/10/06 05:54 AM, Camarohusky wrote: What is the best form of taxation (high/low, flat/progresseive, etc.) and why?

basically you are asking what kind of armed robbery by the state we prefer. I prefer none. Tax is a duty. It is an obligation. An obligation suggests that use of force can be placed upon you to make you... oblige. This inevitably means that tax is slavery.

You wouldnt tolerate wal-mart coming to your home with a gun forcing you to pay up, why would you tolerate it from anyone else?

[SteveGuzzi]

At 11/10/06 12:02 PM, iiREDii wrote: basically you are asking what kind of armed robbery by the state we prefer. I prefer none. Tax is a duty. It is an obligation. An obligation suggests that use of force can be placed upon you to make you... oblige. This inevitably means that tax is slavery.

You wouldnt tolerate wal-mart coming to your home with a gun forcing you to pay up, why would you tolerate it from anyone else?

well... wal-mart doesn't maintain roads, parks, schools, libraries, shelters, coordinate with energy and communications companies, fund police and firefighters and medical facilities, provide community services, etc etc etc. comparing a big-box retail outlet to the government is dumb.

and i don't recall the last time the government collected taxes with guns. when you don't pay taxes they don't stick you up, they just seize your assets and/or throw you in the clink.

[iiREDii]

At 11/10/06 12:15 PM, StealthSteve wrote:

At 11/10/06 12:02 PM, iiREDii wrote: basically you are asking what kind of armed robbery by the state we prefer. I prefer none. Tax is a duty. It is an obligation. An obligation suggests that use of force can be placed upon you to make you... oblige. This inevitably means that tax is slavery.

You wouldnt tolerate wal-mart coming to your home with a gun forcing you to pay up, why would you tolerate it from anyone else?

well... wal-mart doesn't maintain roads, parks, schools, libraries, shelters, coordinate with energy and communications companies, fund police and firefighters and medical facilities, provide community services, etc etc etc. comparing a big-box retail outlet to the government is dumb.

and i don't recall the last time the government collected taxes with guns. when you don't pay taxes they don't stick you up, they just seize your assets and/or throw you in the clink.

Why should I be forced to fund anything? There is NO service or product that in itselfis jsutification for the armed robbery to support its funding.

I never asked for governemtn. i never asked for these services. You cant provide a service to me without my consent and expect me to pay. I cant come to your home and fix your porch without you asking me to and then demand payment. I cant paint your house and force you to pay for it under threat of death or imprisonment. But somehow, when the man who does this is wearing an american flag or a badge in his walelt its suddenly TOTALLY acceptable.

Government does so collect its taxes with weapons. Placing force upon my person comes in a variety offorms but inevitably can end in your lifes end. If you avoid paying your tithe to thine lords and ladies, the lord will send his men to your door to force you to pay. If you refuse, he will attempt to throw you in ye ol dungeon. If you resist arrest he will have you slain. Its that simple.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 11/10/06 12:25 PM, iiREDii wrote: Why should I be forced to fund anything? There is NO service or product that in itselfis jsutification for the armed robbery to support its funding.

I never asked for governemtn. i never asked for these services. You cant provide a service to me without my consent and expect me to pay.

who said you had to ask? i didn't ask the government to build the highway system but i use it all the time regardless. just because you might not choose to frequent places like public libraries or parks or whatnot doesn't mean you should be exempt from contributing money towards their maintenance -- they're always going to be available for your use whether you choose to take advantage of them or not. what would you prefer, paying yearly taxes or paying per-use? do you want every road you drive on to be a toll road? do you want to pay admission every time you enter a public library or walk through a public park? after firemen put out your burning house, should they charge you a labor fee for it? pff, ninja please.

saying taxes are too high is one thing, but saying that you shouldn't have to pay ANY taxes (even though you probably make use of government-maintained public works on a daily basis) is just dumb.

Government does so collect its taxes with weapons. Placing force upon my person comes in a variety offorms but inevitably can end in your lifes end. If you avoid paying your tithe to thine lords and ladies, the lord will send his men to your door to force you to pay. If you refuse, he will attempt to throw you in ye ol dungeon. If you resist arrest he will have you slain. Its that simple.

real life isn't a 'hagar the horrible' comic strip.

[iiREDii]

At 11/10/06 12:44 PM, StealthSteve wrote:

who said you had to ask? i didn't ask the government to build the highway system but i use it all the time regardless. just because you might not choose to frequent places like public libraries or parks or whatnot doesn't mean you should be exempt from contributing money towards their maintenance -- they're always going to be available for your use whether you choose to take advantage of them or not. what would you prefer, paying yearly taxes or paying per-use? do you want every road you drive on to be a toll road? do you want to pay admission every time you enter a public library or walk through a public park? after firemen put out your burning house, should they charge you a labor fee for it? pff, ninja please.

You missed the point. I never asked for military protection, I never asked or WANTED public schools, etc. I shoudl nto be forced to pay for services i DONT wnat, NEVER asked for, DONT USE. I would much prefer per use. If it were per use I would not be paying for services i dont want or use... only BY use. Liek any legitimate business. Your taxes by the way are no protection against tolls. Tolls are everywhwere even though you pay taxes. So really you ought to ask yourself if you want to pay by use, or pay by taxes and by use.

Why shoulnt the fireman charge for there service? Why shoudl they be onligatd to help you? just becasue they have the means? Taxes are forced funding and that is all. Anyone who sees any service as jsutification in itself for stealing from someone else... is a tyrant.

saying taxes are too high is one thing, but saying that you shouldn't have to pay ANY taxes (even though you probably make use of government-maintained public works on a daily basis) is just dumb.

No its not. Its saying governemtn shoudl not exist. Business can maintain roads better, cheaper, and provide a per use basis insted of forcing everyone to pay for them which does not take into account frequency of use. Governemtn taking over any aspect of socity eliminates choice. I should be able to opt out of any service the governemtn provides and not recieve from that service in return. Like a legitimate business... of course that involves choice so o course governmetn will not allow that...

real life isn't a 'hagar the horrible' comic strip.

i was making a point. I was comapring taxes to the days of vassels and lords and knights. its the same thing now, only we have citizens presidents and policemen.

[DrWurm]

NEVER EVER BASH TAXES.

How do you think we get money for schools or hospitals? hmm?

Don't be a whiny bitch because you shell out some extra money here and there. In the end it ALWAYS comes back to you.

[iiREDii]

At 11/10/06 12:56 PM, DrWurm wrote: NEVER EVER BASH TAXES.

How do you think we get money for schools or hospitals? hmm?

Don't be a whiny bitch because you shell out some extra money here and there. In the end it ALWAYS comes back to you.

Yes. Never question the authority of those above you. Never question having someones hand in your wallet. Never question the gun to your head while your forced to shell out the money to pay for these thigns.

I dont want to fund your schools especially. I dont have kids, I dont want kids yet, if I did I woudl send them to PRIVATE schools to teach what I want them to teach, (they brainwash u in public school), especially considering public schools are inferior to private schools in every way. Privateschols spend less money on teacher, less money per student, and still outperform public schools... which I might add we spend more on than EVER before in the history fo this fucked up nation. Its not the amount, its what it is going to. Your public schools elimiante competition, elimiante parental responsibility by displacing that responsibility to the state, and destroy parental choice in what the child is taught.

[Memorize]

A little more progressive... yeah I said it.

[iiREDii]

At 11/10/06 01:14 PM, Techware wrote: A little more progressive... yeah I said it.

if taxes are to be applied fairly then they shoudl be applied equally as stated withtin articel one section eight of the constitution. All taxes are to be levied equally. That means I pay the same as you no matter how much I make. In fact you might notice that the constitution in this section makes no mention of income... becasue it was never meant to be directly taxed and because it was never meant to be applied in any way but equally amongst us all.

if you support congress in its actions to violate THIS clause of the cosntitution then dont complain when they do it elsewhere.

[Memorize]

At 11/10/06 01:19 PM, iiREDii wrote: becasue it was never meant to be directly taxed and because it was never meant to be applied in any way but equally amongst us all.

You have to take into account how much items costs when taxing people. They may be taxed the same, however, that still means super rich folks can afford anything they wish while the poor can't afford much of anything.

[DrWurm]

First off, public schools are excellent places.

Now go outside and imagine a world where there is no government funded associations or services.

I guess you'll need a jeep, because you don't have any more roads. What?! You've been robbed? Well there's no more police department to help you. You'll also notice that its darker at night. Guess those streetlights were funded by taxes too. At least the astronomers are happy, eh? Wait, they don't have a museum, or observatory, or goverment funding to do work. Guess, they're not. Maybe they can take their little telescopes out to the park and stargaze. Oh, hold up! No more parks either. Guess they're out of luck. Oh no! it's a hurricane and now your streets are flooded. Would've been nice to have a few storm drains.

Without taxes NOTHING gets done. Suck it up asshole. You live in a great country that tries to provide for everyone. The least you can do is try to keep it alive.

[iiREDii]

At 11/10/06 01:34 PM, DrWurm wrote: First off, public schools are excellent places.

Now go outside and imagine a world where there is no government funded associations or services.

I guess you'll need a jeep, because you don't have any more roads. What?! You've been robbed? Well there's no more police department to help you. You'll also notice that its darker at night. Guess those streetlights were funded by taxes too. At least the astronomers are happy, eh? Wait, they don't have a museum, or observatory, or goverment funding to do work. Guess, they're not. Maybe they can take their little telescopes out to the park and stargaze. Oh, hold up! No more parks either. Guess they're out of luck. Oh no! it's a hurricane and now your streets are flooded. Would've been nice to have a few storm drains.

Without taxes NOTHING gets done. Suck it up asshole. You live in a great country that tries to provide for everyone. The least you can do is try to keep it alive.

right because without govenemtn business wouldnt pick up the slack and offer a better variety at more cost efficient means with more jobs as a side effect... bullshit.
There already exist forms of privatized roads, power plants, museums, astronomical research, and parks.

Listen here: I never once cursed at you nor did i insinuate that you are an "asshole". Without taxes and governemtn thee woudl be only voluntary exchange and contractual agreement outside of force. I dont want your services monopolized by government. I dont want to fund them or take part in them. All I asking for here is your benign neglect... not to be forced intoyour socialist dream world where enslaving the populace to force the funding of whatever damn program you dream up is considered not only neccesarry (which is a DAMN lie) but somehow NOBLE.

Nobility and virtue cannot exist where mutual consent is not present or where the alternatives are punished.

[iiREDii]

At 11/10/06 01:26 PM, Techware wrote:

At 11/10/06 01:19 PM, iiREDii wrote: becasue it was never meant to be directly taxed and because it was never meant to be applied in any way but equally amongst us all.

You have to take into account how much items costs when taxing people. They may be taxed the same, however, that still means super rich folks can afford anything they wish while the poor can't afford much of anything.

why shoudlnt they be able to afford anythign they wish? Its there property not yours. There is no constitutional basis for progressive tax schemes. You have no right to someone elses property. This whole dogma of socialism that declares that those with the means are obligated to rovide for those without destroys charity and eliminates free choice. It is to say that you haev more calim to another mans property than he simply becaue you and enough other people say it is so.

Taxes when levied in a percentage are equal by nature of mathematics. 5% is 5% is 5%.

The moe taxes you levy on the people anyway, the less economic boom you will see. Taxes are the biggest impedement to the advancement of the poor and middle class, not a lack there of.

[BeFell]

At 11/10/06 01:19 PM, iiREDii wrote: I'm a moron troll and not even a very good one.

I was debating on whether or not to respond to your adolescent attempt to insight controversy then decided, why not, either way you come out as and idiot. Besides a part of me was wondering if perhaps you really are that stupid and I'm giving you too much credit by assuming you're just a 13 year old looking for fun.

There is one very simple means by which you don't have to pay taxes which you or anyone else is perfectly free to peruse. My suggestion is of course, DON'T EARN ANY INCOME. Yes indeed if you don't make any money and you don't buy anything there is nothing the government will do to "rob" you. If however you do choose to find employment you will most likely use government services you will be expected to help pay for. Services such as roads on which to get to work, oversight of a market in which to do business in and oversight of your employer to make sure you actually get paid and he doesn't just strap you in chains and beat a drum. Now why don't you sit and think about all the things the government might provide which I haven't mentioned, make game out of it. Then you may promptly pull your head out of your ass.

[DrWurm]

At 11/10/06 01:41 PM, iiREDii wrote: forced intoyour socialist dream world

And in one fell swoop; you prove how idiotic you actually are. congrats.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 11/10/06 12:55 PM, iiREDii wrote: You missed the point. I never asked for military protection, I never asked or WANTED public schools, etc. I shoudl nto be forced to pay for services i DONT wnat, NEVER asked for, DONT USE.

nahh, you missed the point. they're provided for you whether you want them or not, so suck it up and pay your share. besides the obvious fact that you DO use public services so your whole "i didn't ask for them" argument is irrelevant.

Why shoudl they be onligatd to help you? just becasue they have the means?

firemen are obligated to help people because that's what their job is, derr.

Its saying governemtn shoudl not exist. Business can maintain roads better, cheaper, and provide a per use basis insted of forcing everyone to pay for them which does not take into account frequency of use. Governemtn taking over any aspect of socity eliminates choice.

the only obligation businesses have is to make money for their shareholders. the only standards they have to live up to are government-imposed ones, because businesses aren't obligated to regulate themselves. government has to force them to do things ethically or within certain limits because otherwise they wouldn't bother. the only thing businesses are obligated to do is turn a profit, while on the other hand, the government is actually obligated to protect and provide basic stuff to the public.

saying there should be no government and everything should be run by businesses is silly. they're both full of beauracracy and the only difference is who they're working for -- themselves (business), or everyone (government).

[iiREDii]

nahh, you missed the point. they're provided for you whether you want them or not, so suck it up and pay your share. besides the obvious fact that you DO use public services so your whole "i didn't ask for them" argument is irrelevant.

Look at what you are saying you nationalist pig! "if you dont like being forced to do something by the governemtn then too bad! suck it up! its the law! governemtn is your master!" Its so obvious the mentality you have. Subserviant...

the only obligation businesses have is to make money for their shareholders. the only standards they have to live up to are government-imposed ones, because businesses aren't obligated to regulate themselves. government has to force them to do things ethically or within certain limits because otherwise they wouldn't bother. the only thing businesses are obligated to do is turn a profit, while on the other hand, the government is actually obligated to protect and provide basic stuff to the public.

Business has an obligation to make a profit or they go out of business. They have to do what the consumer demands, provide what he wants, or someone else will and they will go under. You obviously dont understand how a profit motive EQUATES to not needing these governemtn imposed restrictions and limitations on the FREE market.

Governemnt doesnt provide the basic necesities of life. they historically never have... the people provide for themselves through commerce, through trade. Whatever governemtn provides... business can provide it for cheaper, while simotaeniously creating more jobs and eliminating any obligation off the back of the citizen to provide for any one else but himself.

saying there should be no government and everything should be run by businesses is silly. they're both full of beauracracy and the only difference is who they're working for -- themselves (business), or everyone (government).

its not silly. its called Anarcho-Capitalism, the free market. Check out the mises institute online. Read some of the FREE books there online concerning the fallacies of the state.

Business works for the consumer (everyone), Governemtn works for the mob (the majority) and seeks only to protect and further the existance of itself at the cost of everyone WITHOUT choice, WITHOUT consequence for their actions... because after all... they hold a monopoly on force (weapons)

[JakeHero]

At 11/10/06 01:54 PM, DrWurm wrote:

At 11/10/06 01:41 PM, iiREDii wrote: forced intoyour socialist dream world

And in one fell swoop; you prove how idiotic you actually are. congrats.

Why? Being anti-socialist is something every wise individual would be.

Kid, you're sixteen. Shut the fuck up about taxes until you actually have to work to pay college tuition.

[Begoner]

Taxes should be significantly lowered to ease the burden placed upon the working poor and significantly increased for the rich. I'd envision a tax bracket that looks somewhat like this.

$0 to $30,000: 0%
$30,001 to $50,000: 5%
$50,001 to $75,000: 15%
$75,000 to $150,000: 25%
$150,000 to $300,000: 50%
$300,000 and up: 85%

[MortifiedPenguins]

A flat tax, would at first be installed for all citizens of a country.

Maybe even supported by a negative income tax or tax exemption implements to help spur private consumerism and help to eleminate the welfare trap and minimalize the quagmire that is the IRA.

[MortifiedPenguins]

Typo.

replace IRA with IRS

[Aserg]

At 11/10/06 12:56 PM, DrWurm wrote: NEVER EVER BASH TAXES.

Last time I checked, it was still a free country.

How do you think we get money for schools or hospitals? hmm?

Or supporting those who are able to work, but refuse to do so? Or "artwork" depicting religious icons immersed in jars of urine?

[JakeHero]

At 1/3/07 07:50 PM, Begoner wrote: $0 to $30,000: 0%
$30,001 to $50,000: 5%
$50,001 to $75,000: 15%
$75,000 to $150,000: 25%
$150,000 to $300,000: 50%
$300,000 and up: 85%

Well, good thing we don't have begoner making all the decisions. We'd have a lot less doctors, engineers, and lawyers if they knew that'd make only half.

[Ravariel]

At 1/3/07 07:50 PM, Begoner wrote: Taxes should be significantly lowered to ease the burden placed upon the working poor and significantly increased for the rich. I'd envision a tax bracket that looks somewhat like this.

$0 to $30,000: 0%
$30,001 to $50,000: 5%
$50,001 to $75,000: 15%
$75,000 to $150,000: 25%
$150,000 to $300,000: 50%
$300,000 and up: 85%

Congratulations! You just destroyed the entrepeneurial (sp?) spirit that drives our country's economy, nevermind completely destroyed any kind of incentive to advance in a company.

At 11/10/06 01:14 PM, Techware wrote: A little more progressive... yeah I said it.

Filthy liberal.

[JakeHero]

At 1/4/07 12:58 AM, Ravariel wrote: Congratulations! You just destroyed the entrepeneurial (sp?) spirit that drives our country's economy, nevermind completely destroyed any kind of incentive to advance in a company.

Ravariel, you and I might have our political difference (you being a commie leftist and me being a fascist righty) but I couldn't agree more with your post.

[Imperator]

At 1/3/07 07:50 PM, Begoner wrote: Taxes should be significantly lowered to ease the burden placed upon the working poor and significantly increased for the rich. I'd envision a tax bracket that looks somewhat like this.

$0 to $30,000: 0%
$30,001 to $50,000: 5%
$50,001 to $75,000: 15%
$75,000 to $150,000: 25%
$150,000 to $300,000: 50%
$300,000 and up: 85%

SWEET JESUS!! I'm all for taxing the rich, but this is beyond ridiculous!! I think the tax cap should be %40. Meaning no matter how much you make, the government cannot take anymore than %40 of your revenue.

It's taxes like that that brought down the biggest and grandest of Empires Begoner....including Rome.....

[Durin413]

At 1/3/07 07:50 PM, Begoner wrote: Taxes should be significantly lowered to ease the burden placed upon the working poor and significantly increased for the rich. I'd envision a tax bracket that looks somewhat like this.

$0 to $30,000: 0%
$30,001 to $50,000: 5%
$50,001 to $75,000: 15%
$75,000 to $150,000: 25%
$150,000 to $300,000: 50%
$300,000 and up: 85%

so under your system, a man who makes 250000 pays 125000 and a man who makes 350000 pays 297500. :ets compare grand totals left after taxes. 125000 vs 52500. What a fair system.

A flat tax , such as 10% for all, no loopholes, deductions, etc. is the only fair way to go.

[Memorize]

Like I said, I would like a more progressive tax system, but not the point where being Upper Poor is better than Lower middle class.