Taxes, are there other ways?

I'm not against taxes at all. I'm against the method we use to collect the taxes. In a truly free society, it is none of the government's business how much money the citizen makes, how he/she makes it, or how he/she spends it. There is no room in a free society for an organization like the IRS. This agency employees 110,000 people to look over a tax code that consists of 66,000 pages. In 2005, individuals and businesses spent an estimated 6 billion hours complying with the federal income tax code, with an estimated compliance cost of over $265.1 billion. http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1281.html

Even the IRS employees don't understand the tax code.

In this country, based upon the founding documents, we are supposed to have a separation of powers, three branches of government; the executive (cops), the judicial (courts) and legislature (law makers). Within the IRS, we have an agency that acts like all three branches rolled into one. They make administrative regulations and treat them as law. They have assumed powers in violation of the Fourth, Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments with their tax policies, audits and bank account seizures (cops). They have their own tax courts that rule outside of normal courts. So there you have the formula for tyranny. This is exactly why Americans (even Congressmen) are in fear of the IRS.

The only fair method of taxation is tariffs, duties and EXCISE taxes as called for in the Constitution. A sales tax is an excise tax. An excise tax is a tax on a free people. A tax on income (labor) is a tax on slaves.

I would be in favor of a FAIR tax. Here ... you can read about it here: http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

And by the way, highways are built, or should be built with our gasoline taxes. Gasoline taxes are an excise tax. Look how simple it is: You drive up to the pump and start pumping your gas. With each gallon you pump, the price reflects state and federal taxes. No audits, no IRS, no tyranny.

Our current tax system is based upon envy, jealousy, control and misinformation. Let's abolish it once and for all

Exactly Rob and and Vi.
It isn't taxation so much as the method of taxation.
A sales tax is within the spirit of the constitution.
Also only 40% of governments operating costs come from income tax.
That would mean taking our government back to the size it was in 2000.
You don't think we could do that?

You want to answer your question?
Find out were the government gets the other 60% of its income.
We ran from 1776 to 1913 without an income tax.
Why do you think that is?

Your idea DooBnVA of a bake sale isn't a bad idea either.
We should allow you to put money into your favorite government program.
Give $50 a month to the army or the Dept. of Education if you want.
Surely we all know how important these things are to our lives.
Surely our sence of civic duty would rise to meet the need.
If some dept. or other doesn't meet its goals it would be phased out due to lack of funding.

I see no reason not to institute the Fair Tax.
(Other then the fact I believe it would be turned into an even worse control mechanism then the income tax)

See we pay for the highways via gas taxes.
This is perfectly right and constitutional.
I have no problems with that if I don't want to pay for the highways I can ride a damn bike.
I have chosen to pay taxes.
Nobody pointed a gun at me.
That is the way its done.

Only totalitarian bastiches want to hire armed goons to get their way.

Strawman? Not really. In a free market fees aren't "voluntary". If you use it or consume you pay for it. If you choose not to participate you don't use the service, but you aren't forced to pay for it either. Free markets by nature must be competitive, therefore providing value, choice and opportunity for the consumer and the industrious.

Governments that attempt to provide services, inevitably fail as they crumble amidst their inefficient bureaucracy.
The original intent of government here was to provide for a common defense and serve as an arbitrator, that's about it.
The government has restrained the free market and has caused inflation, the devaluation of the dollar and war and those are only a few of the "services" they provide.

I agree that the best stimulus package ever would be to repeal the income tax. Think of the money available for economic growth, rather than government waste. Instead the government acts as a parasitic middleman, and adds no value..
Government = waste, control. corruption. Free market = efficiency, choice, opprtunity. It's not a hard choice for people that value freedom.

I agree wholeheartedly with the three preceding posts.
The IRS has got to go bye bye.

My condolences to tax attorneys and accountants.



How the FairTax Works


During this economic meltdown, a growing numbers of citizens and elected officials are looking at the FairTax as a real and permanent stimulus plan to fix the American economy. For those wanting to learn more about the FairTax, here's a straightforward analysis that clearly explains the economics and research that went into the FairTax bill. Read more »

I've got an idea.How about we legalize marijuana?And hemp,of course, and make it so you can pay taxes with hemp, like they used to waaaaaaay back when.

It just burns me up that the assholes who make the decisions as to what happens with out money gon't give two shits about the future.....EVER.

It's one thing to tax your people for the purpose of funding essential services. But most of those services should be and are controlled by the state and local government. The US Federal gov't does nothing but tax, spend, and regulate. They don't provide the police, fire and other emergency services the people need. They don't provide for the roads that we use (outside of the federal highway system which doesn't need to be federalized).

They do a wonderful job of spending more money and creating new programs as well as expanding already failing programs when the economy is booming, but when it slows down they are they last to cut those programs or cut spending. The answer is always to raise taxes.

For those that live in the US, it's easy to see that if you follow the "progressives" and all of their bullshit, the US will end up in the same state of affairs the California is in. This state has a long running history of being run by liberals and spending, taxing and regulating.

Now this state is in a dire fiscal emergency, there's no money, they are still outstanding IOU's from last years state tax returns! Those that are in California should already know that their paycheck has gone down this week because on top of the raise in all state Sales Tax's they've increased the 2009 State Income Tax (didn't bother waiting until 2010) so now we have to carry the burden of an "Accelerated Witholding" for the rest of 2009 to make up the deficit in witholding for the year!

Ask anyone who lives here what they think of our state legislature, and our state government because this state has been an exeperiment in rampant liberalism for decades and it's easy to see where it leads. We have poor hospital care, underperforming schools, violence and crime.

Our personal freedoms have been crushed, our economy is crushed and everyone is wondering why? Business' started leaving this state to rescue themselves from demise by over taxation. Instead of giving businesses opportunities to grow and to expand and to EMPLOY we decide it best to raise their taxes and opress the economy further.

The unemployement rate here is staggering and it's easy to see the blue states are the failing ones.

If only we could seperate republican's from christianity and all of it's downfalls. What a party we could create.

^^^ Man, Laserbrn ... that was an excellent post and a incisive description of the state of the state of California.

I started another thread asking the Progressives where their policies and ideas would eventually lead the nation ... and not one of them had a lucid answer. All they really had to say was: "look at California."

Stoney McFried said:

I've got an idea.How about we legalize marijuana?And hemp,of course, and make it so you can pay taxes with hemp, like they used to waaaaaaay back when.

Click to expand...

Well I'm all for the first part of your post!

Happy DooBnVA several logical answers and sound reasoning.
Run off now to the feet of your political science professor for reassurance.
But remember its wrong to point guns at people who don't agree with you.

ilkhan said:

Happy DooBnVA several logical answers and sound reasoning.
Run off now to the feet of your political science professor for reassurance.
But remember its wrong to point guns at people who don't agree with you.

Click to expand...

This is the battle of left versus right. And it's not what you think. Both agree the government needs revenue. Many think the right wants to pay no taxes and the left wants to tax everyone.

That's not the case. That battle is over what is taxed and how. It's that simple.

When you say "taxes, are there other ways?" I can't think of voluntary system (which is an option) that would work. So the only way is to build it in to something we all use or do...income, products etc. Breaking it all down and looking at the core of the question and not looking at what is taxed like so many here are doing, I can't see how the government can generate revenue without taxes on something.

Putting aside the occasional argument of "we don't have to pay income tax"...and looking at reality, there is no one in either party that doesn't think that taxes at some level are not necessary. It's what tax and how much, that is the question or argument, not are there other ways. It's that simple. Volunteering to pay taxes doesn't work.

ya know, we have two options.
1. raise taxes and pay the debt off.
2. the government could hold a debt moratorium against the banks.

i choose the debt moratorium...

Meaning people don't pay back debt?

DubsFan said:

Meaning people don't pay back debt?

Click to expand...

kind of, from a nations perspective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_moratorium

Kind of like in biblical times they had the 70 year jubilee where all debt was forgiven.

For wiki that was too short of a read. This appears to be more about national debt to Treasury holders than say bank debt that encumbers consumers. I would say around 50% of my friends that own homes are getting loan mods as we speak. It's not a complete forgiveness but many of them are getting 2% money for a few years, then 3% and so on. That is a forgiveness of debt.

As with many policies I worry abo ut the unforseen consequences. At the moment I don't care if the US decided not to pay non domestic Treasury purchasers. What is the amount of debt that the US has to just the citizens in the form of Treasuries. I bet out deficit is 70% foreign debt. If we gave every nation the finger our national debt payment would go down significantly. But what are the problems associated with this? So many we don't know.

That wiki explination appears to be about gov't debt, not consumer debt.

I'm waiting for someone to say "but it is our debt." I know little fella, slow down.

Radiate said:

I frequently see people complain about the government "stealing" money from the people in the form of taxes, yet all of the examples I've seen so far often amount to straw man arguments with no realistic alternatives offered. Here's one taken from the thread "What's wrong with Civil Unions?".



This argument ignores the fact that everyone uses a government service in some form or fashion, and that those services are payed for by taxes. Thusly, use of these services without paying taxes is theft, or to equate it to ancaps analogy, it would be like refusing to pay your gym membership and showing up the next day and hopping on the treadmill.


Another complaint I've heard about taxes is that they aren't right because the individual doesn't make use of a particular service, or simply does not want the services at all. Aside from the fact that this falls back on the first argument, that everyone uses government services in some way, it also raises a question about the individuals selective attitude. I can understand not wanting to pay for things you don't use all the time, but why does this attitude apply only to the government? Why not argue with the owner of a gym to lower their monthly membership if you only use the treadmill, and never use the other machines? Why not argue with all businesses about the price of their services every time I deem that the price I pay are spent on things I believe are wasteful, not ethical, or not necessary?




Alternatives are always worth exploring, as no system is perfect. However, I can only imagine how much abuse would come out of a system that would hinge on voluntary contributions to support our infrastructure.


So lets hear it. I want to hear real alternatives to the current tax system. Please include the specifics of how it will work.

Click to expand...

I'm still looking for the straw man argument.

Anyway, I think most reasonable people understand that everyone must pony up for public necessities. Where people take issue is with redistribution of wealth or with their hard earned money being taken away and given to lazy bums who don't want to work or to people receiving fraudulent benefits.

Don't you find it odd that many of the people earning the money have to take a drug test to earn it but those who receive the money don't have to take one?

Anyway, there is good argument that taxation for the purpose of wealth redistribution is even unconstitutional.

I'm pretty conservative. For obvious reasons we could say I'm pretty liberal with some social issues...

Anyway, Taxes of some type appear to be the only way to fund the infrastructure we all use. Forgiveness of any debt is temporary and unsustainable. I do not like the progressive tax structure...it irritates me when people talk about taxes and have no real understanding of them. Not accusing anyone here of that yet. But as a self employed individual I'm very frustrated with a number of things regarding our tax policy. For both corporations and the way payrolling works. I can't collect unemployment. But if I W2 myself in order to reduce my company's corporate earnings, I pay into U/E. Yet the two 6mo Zero income cycles I've gone through in the last two years do not count as unemployment. Or atleast that's what the man has told me.

I also pay almost 16% in Soc Sec. In 1997 I paid about $30k in Soc Sec taxes. Am I really gonna get a $2500 check? No, and that's with zero return. A joke...

I can't leave too much money in my corp because it faces what I basically call double tax. I don't mind paying income tax. I have a problem with certain aspects of our system. I would love my industry affiliation to form what all these teachers have or government employees have...CalPers, CalSters, etc. You guys know none of these people pay anything into Soc Sec right.

A sham.

RickWhite said:

I'm still looking for the straw man argument.

Anyway, I think most reasonable people understand that everyone must pony up for public necessities. Where people take issue is with redistribution of wealth or with their hard earned money being taken away and given to lazy bums who don't want to work or to people receiving fraudulent benefits.

Don't you find it odd that many of the people earning the money have to take a drug test to earn it but those who receive the money don't have to take one?

Anyway, there is good argument that taxation for the purpose of wealth redistribution is even unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

There is far more than a "good argument". It's an absolute bastardization of the socio-economic systems and principles that this country was founded upon. Taxing for essential services (or even pretending that's what your doing) is one thing. To come out and openly say, as Barack Obama has, that the wealthiest people should pay for the SOCIAL services of the less wealthy should be downright treason. The criticism launched in his direction SHOULD be huge.

I have for a loooooooooooong time been a fan of a flat tax. It makes ALOT more sense. I know that alot of people don't understand this, but my girlfriend FINALLY got the picture when she saw my pay stub and she said "Wow, you make 3 times what I do, but your paycheck is only double."

Ding ding ding, where is the incentive for me to excel any further. It really only increases my tax burden. I've stopped worrying about a raise because a 10% raise would really only net me a 5% gain in pay at best.

It's a broken system, that needs to be corrected. I'm not saying that we should more heavily tax those aren't doing as well economically, we should CUT the spending and the programs. I'm all for them when they are affordable and the economy is booming, but you have to be blind not to see that no matter how bad you want the "government" to pay for these programs, they don't. The people do. The government is not a mysterious entity that magically makes things happen and has the ability to do whatever it wants (successfully). The government is not simply the banker in a game of monopoly with the ability to hand out money to players at will.

The money is supplied by the people and for the people. The decisions on what happens with the money from approximately 140 million individual tax returns + the revenue from all business profits is spent based upon the decisions made by the 535 wonderful representatives + 1 president.

Our country was never founded on the principle of running this way. The country is physically TOO LARGE to be run be legislated and run by one government. The concept was to break the country up into individual states. Those states could then have their own individual governments, constitutions, legistlative system, judicial system, etc.

It was clear that this system would be the only functional system that could withstand the test of time. If an individual state wanted to become a socialist leaning state and tax it's people @ 60 percent and offer healthcare it has the right to do so. If a state wants to allow drugs and another doesn't they have the write to do so or not. The system was designed to have individually governed states.

The past 100 years has seen a growth of enormous proportions in the expansion of power in the US Federal gov't. Well that expansion means attempting to run the ENORMOUS government that our forefathers believed would never work. I personally don't believe it will work either. Many of the problems that states have that are failing is that the individual state is even too large and trying to govern too much instead of doling out more rights to cities and mucipalities.

How large of a system are we talking about in regards to federalized healthcare? Think about it, how many administrators will there have to be? You need all of the people to oversee the people that oversee the people. Is every hospital that exists in a district? I that district part of a region? Is that region part of a territory? Is that territory part of segment? Are there administrators at all of these levels? The problem of creating the largest beuaracry in history alone is astounding and expensive. I can foresee 85 administrators per doctor.

Alright, I'm done ranting, I'm high and I actually started this while I was on the shitter....I'm over it now.

The only problem many have with the flat tax is that some people might have to start paying taxes

"some people" lol