[Combat-wombat]

I have heard that there should be no taxes several times on this board. Can someone please educate me about this? How will the government get it's money? I believe that there should be much less taxes, but we at least need SOME taxes for the government ot function! Also, the same people who believe in repealing the 16th Amendment are the ones who believe we should have invaded Iraq. It's going to be more than $90,000,000,000 for the the war on Iraq, and that comes from OUR taxes! The military makes up more than half of government taxes! Even if we make the government much smaller, it will still need at least some money to function.

[TheeBadOne]

Good question/point

[biere]

There are a lot of methods out there.

I think simplicity works best and like how the founding fathers set things up, a strong state government and a pretty weak federal one. They both had set jobs and should not have grown into the bullies they have become.

A search on the net will turn up a lot of stuff the founding fathers believed in and talked about. A search for the documents that created this country will explain what I think would be the easiest solution.

Overall, I am all for no taxes for several years before giving them any money.

The government needs to learn thriftiness by firing millions of people and pay its bills by selling off luxuries that the general public lacks.

And this does not mean they can run their printing presses, well actually I don't think the gov. runs the printing presses.

The gov. needs to learn what people who can't get unemployment are learning. Food, shelter, clothing, and warmth are all you have to have.

Someone should know the whole quote, I read it years ago. Something about things being right when the air force has a bake sale to pay for a b1 bomber.

Overall I am fed up with current things and only see doom and gloom in the future. So I will stop now.

[TekChef]

Since everyone who is a Citizen uses some thins that the gov pays for, a low leve of income tax is not unreasonable.

It has to be low...like 10% flat-NO MATTER the income level of the citizen. We are all equal-we all get taxed the same.

With that, the GOv neeeeds to shrink-and shrink greatly. The IRS should be shrunk along with most of the Federal gov.

Yes, this will put people out of work-they can get paid better in the private sector anyway.

The Fed/State Gov is NOT A job program!

[Combat-wombat]

It has to be low...like 10% flat-NO MATTER the income level of the citizen.
Yes, this has been my view on taxes for a long time. We need taxes, but they have to be low and flat. NO exceptions, no matter how rich someone is.

[Zundfolge]

I used to be a supporter of the flat tax (which is still much better then the "taxes as social engineering" crap we have today). But I favor a consumption tax (sort of a national sales tax).

The main reason I'm against any form of income tax is that I don't believe its any of the governments business how much money I have.

I'm also against property tax, because you can't truly own property if you have to pay the government "rent" on it.

So a consumption tax (capped at 5%) and voluntary annonymous donations are how our government should get its money.

There was an article I read a while back that said a 1% national sales tax would generate more revenue then the current tiered income tax system.

[Combat-wombat]

That's pretty good logic, Zundfolge.

[Chris Rhines]

Most people who think that there should be no taxes (like myself) also think that there should be no government (like myself.) So gov't funding isn't really an issue. :D

I think that the 16th amendment should be repealed, and I was against the invasion of Iraq from the very first day; and the $90-some-odd-billion that the invasion was going to cost was a major reason for my opposition.

- Chris

[Jeeper]

I sort of agree with Zundfolge,

I think that the income tax is not necessary. I also think that a sales tax is the way to go. THe only item that I believe shoudnt be taxed is food. This way the poor couldnt complain about not being able to survive. Tax luxury items highers also.

[Standing Wolf]

If we're all supposed to be equal under the law, why do the rich pay less, the poor pay less, and the people in the middle pay the most?

[Keith]

In a capitalist society, the working/middle class will always pay the brunt of the taxes. It can be no other way.
The rich essentially pay no taxes, because they control the price of commodities - raising Bill Gates taxes merely means the rest of us pay more for software. It's the same across the board with all business and corporate taxes. Every tax levied on them is passed down to the consumer in the higher cost of goods and services.

Any attempt to "shift" the tax burden is doomed to failure since all wealth originates in the sale of a product or service. You can tax the buyer directly, or you can tax him indirectly by taxing the seller who passes the cost on to him.

Keith

[Skunkabilly]

No taxes? Made me look :o

[telomerase]

There have never been places where you didn't have to pay for your family's defense. There have, however, been places where there was no class of people above the law; in other words, no "government" in its current form. David Friedman (son of the powerful Jedi, Darth Milton) talks about one such place:

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html

Of course if we just got everything EXCEPT defense into private hands, that would be a step forward... but how would we keep it that way?

[telomerase]

Americans give something like 150 billion per year to charity. If they weren't paying something like a third of the GNP to Federal and State taxes, it's possible that America's citizens would contribute a few hundred billion for defense. Without anyone forcing them to.

Of course then they'd probably want at least some of the money to be spent on actual DEFENSE: fallout shelters, biotech defenses, guns for pilots, etc. So obviously this will never meet with the approval of our current owners.

[telomerase]

Of course under a system of private donations, the interceptors might have to carry corporate logos.

We'd get over it. (The Russians did; their space missions have had pizza ads on them for years now.)

[Mark Tyson]

Replace taxes with donations? I think that's as naive as the communists believing that people would spontaneously fill needed functions, without pay or compensation.

[telomerase]

>Replace taxes with donations? I think that's as naive as the communists believing that people would spontaneously fill needed functions, without pay or compensation.

Well, people already donate 150 billion, and without taxes they'd have the money to donate a lot more.

(Not saying that I'm not naive, but you really should read David Friedman's books. He's very thought-provoking; even if you decide to stay a socialist you'll be a better-informed socialist).




:):D ;) :D :D :D

[Quartus]

A search on the net will turn up a lot of stuff the founding fathers believed in and talked about. A search for the documents that created this country will explain what I think would be the easiest solution.

Overall, I am all for no taxes for several years before giving them any money.




Yes, but what you WON'T find is any evidence that the FF believed in anarchism. That is often implied by some on this board, but it just ain't so. THey understood that gummit has a legitiimate function. Their focus was on keeping it WITHIN that limited function. And they had no objections to taxes, AS SUCH, though I doubt they'd have approved of an income tax.

As Zundfolge has pointed out, with an income tax, REGARDLESS OF HOW LOW IT IS, freedom is compromised. If they have a need to know how much you make, and how you spend it, then they have a RIGHT to know. THat's not good.

OTOH, a sales tax is 100% anonymous.
And it has another tremendous advantage that is rarely pointed out -
visibility.


Every time you make a purchase, you get slapped in the face with how much you are paying to gummit. The current system is relatively painless by comparison. You never see it - you never miss it - you don't get outraged and throw the bums out.


Get a national sales tax and see how fast people start screaming for gummit to spend less money.

[feedthehogs]

Those who say the rich don't pay taxes or their fair share need to think again.

With the best tax attorneys money can buy, 2.8 mill on a 7 mill bonus is quite a bit.

Without the current tax structure, charities would not get much at all.
The only reason they see money is because of the deduction.
The middle class guy sending in 50.00 bucks a year don't mean crap.
Very few truly rich people give with an open heart.

Look to Jerry's kids as an example. The majority of money given is corporate for the tax write off.

The truly best tax is a national sales tax.

But the main problem is still there. Idiots spending our dollars who can't even balance their own check books.

As long as those DC pigs keep feeding at the public trough, nothing will change.

A radical national protest needs to happen and shake the foundation of the capital.

The down side to cutting back on DC spending will be a severe loss of jobs.

But with a good plan, those saved funds can be used to stimulate private business and spending, creating new jobs.

BW

[telomerase]

>The down side to cutting back on DC spending will be a severe loss of jobs.

>But with a good plan, those saved funds can be used to stimulate private business and spending, creating new jobs.

Here's a plan: the people who make the money will spend it on whatever they want. This will shift resources away from Aid To Dependent Dictators and into American businesses, charities, and homes.

(Offhand, I can't think of another "plan" that I would support... )

[Glock Glockler]

The income tax is, of course, a giant heap of crap as is any system that punishes one for producing more and necissitates a police state for it's enforcement. A flat tax is better but we still have that govt peeking into every aspect of your financial life looking for ways to screw you, aside from the moral problem of the govt getting my money before I do (is it even my money at that point?).

A sales tax is less obtrusive than an income tax, but it also has it's own problems, like enforcement. Suppose I have a lot of property, and I cut down a few trees every weekend and sell them, do I have to charge tax and pay the govt? What if I help my friend move and he gives me a few bucks for it, am I to be help liable for not charging taxes on my services?

The best way to fund the Feds is for them to bill the states according to their population. If NH has .08% of the population, the NH state govt should pay the Feds .08% of the budget, and it's up to NH how it collects that .08%. If we want to have a system where the state bills the towns or counties, that's our business, just as it's CA's business if they want to have an income tax.

So you can go hacking and slashing through the current activities of the Feds, reducing their duties to little more than National defense, and you wouldn't need a lot of money to fund the Federal govt. Problem solved.

[rock jock]

Most people who think that there should be no taxes (like myself) also think that there should be no government (like myself.)
Since we're speaking of impossibilities, I'd like no death and a machine that turns raindrops into jellybeans and gold nuggets. :D

[Chris Rhines]

Unwillingness to undertake a task does not make it impossible. ;)

- Chris

[suijurisfreeman]

Glock Glockler,

Didn't Lysander Spooner espouse 'individualoist-anarchism'?

Have you read the Lysander Spooner Reader, I assume that you have judging by the quote in your signature?

A brief quote from Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), "As a corollary to the proposition that all institutions must be subordinated to the law of equal freedom, we cannot choose but admit the right of the citizen to adapt a condition of voluntary outlawry. If every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man, then he is free to drop connection with the State, to relinquish its protection and to refuse paying toward its support. It is self-evident that in so behaving he in no way trenches upon the liberty of others; for his position is a passive one, and whilst passive he cannot become an aggressor. It is equally self-evident that he cannot be compelled to continue one of a political corporation without a breach of the moral law, seeing that citizenship involves payment of taxes; and the taking away of a man's property against his will is an infringement of his rights. Government being simply an agent employed in common be a number of individuals to secure to them certain advantages, the very nature of the connection impliies that it is for each to say whether he will employ such an agent or not. If one of them determines to ignore this mutual-safety confederation, nothing can be said except that he loses all claim to its good offices, and exposes himself to the danger of maltreatment, a thing he is quite at liberty to do if he likes. He cannot be coerced into political combinatioin without a breach of the law of equal freedom; he can withdraw from it without committing any such breach; and he has therefore a right so to withdraw."

Herbert Spencer wrote the essay, The Right to Ignore the State.

[Zundfolge]

Tax luxury items highers also.
That sounds good when you say it fast (especialy if one subscribes to the belifs of class warriors and socialists) but its been tried and you know what happens? You put the people who make luxury items out of business and rich people just buy their luxuries out of the country.

This was tried in Massachusetts and the craftsmen who build luxury yachts became unemployed cabinet makers, while those evil rich folk we should be eating just went to the Caribbean to buy their yachts (or they just decided to make do with the yachts they already owned).

Replace taxes with donations? I think that's as naive as the communists believing that people would spontaneously fill needed functions, without pay or compensation.
As telomerase already pointed out, the American people are very generous. With a slimmed down government, most social issues would be taken care of by private charities (which tend to waste much less of what they collect then the government). Saying that taxes can't be replaced with donations is along the same lines as saying you can't build an army without a draft. We have a 100% volunteer army and our army is one of the most professional and effective fighting forces in the world. In addition, anything that the government wants to do that they can't get voluntary financial support of the people is more then likely something they shouldn't be doing. If you think a government program can't be run on donations, look at PBS ... while use tax dollars, provate donations account for 3/4 of their income (which is another reason we should cut off the tax dollars to PBS, but thats a whole other thread :) ).

In a capitalist society, the working/middle class will always pay the brunt of the taxes. It can be no other way. The rich essentially pay no taxes...
According to the IRS, in 2000 the top 5% of wage earners payed over 50% of taxes collected. (however you have a point about taxes on the top wage earners do tend to get passed down to the consumer ... "stuff" runs downhill ya know :p )

[4570Rick]

How will the government get it's money? :what:

It's not the governments money!!!

[Keith]

According to the IRS, in 2000 the top 5% of wage earners payed over 50% of taxes collected. (however you have a point about taxes on the top wage earners do tend to get passed down to the consumer ... "stuff" runs downhill ya know

I'm not objecting to the system, just pointing out a fact. This is how capitalism works and we should recognize it and set up a tax system based on economic facts instead of political niceties.

The best way to control government spending is through a flat tax where people can see what they are paying. Under the current system of smoke and mirrors, the average person has no idea how deeply he is being gouged. He certainly doesn't recognize that he pays all corporate and business taxes!

Keith

[Zundfolge]

The best way to control government spending is through a flat tax where people can see what they are paying.
Well if we could get a flat tax I'd be pretty happy with that, but a national sales tax and an end to income tax would achieve the same end (where people see what they are paying) and it would get the nosey govenment out of my business :)

The only downside to my idea is that its probably not politicaly feasable (the government is not likely to give up great power over the people unless forced to do so at gunpoint ... and I don't see that happening).

[Edward429451]

I'm for no tax. It seems to me that the gubmunt is a huge business and can generate its own revenue from other than the people sources. They would have enough money to run the country if they didn't lollygag around the world giving away billions of dollars. We are not the nanny of the world.

This country operated in the black as recently as 1969 when there was a surplus of money left over.

[rock jock]

Unwillingness to undertake a task does not make it impossible.
No, its very nature does.

[Chris Rhines]

No, its very nature does.

Yup, well, I'm convinced now.

Seriously. If you want me to think that government is a necessary element of my survival on this planet, try giving me some logical reasons why this must be. 'Human nature' is nothing more than a fig leaf to cover illogic.

- Chris

[rock jock]

'Human nature' is nothing more than a fig leaf to cover illogic.
If that was true, we would have solved this whole "human conflict" thing that has been going on for all of recorded history. You really expect anyone to believe that the violent, selfish ature of man is simply an aberration of our thought process, a lack of logic? New-age gurus say the same thing, only they (and you) don't seem to recognize that new religions or thinking modalities don't work, and in fact have all been tried before without success. I can promise you that whatever solution you have to the problem is simply recycled idea that has failed before. Call it what you want, but the human condition is indeed of such a nature that governments are necessary.

[Mark Tyson]

People are are social animals and are naturally self-organizing. Any group of humans will ogranize and eventually form a hierarchy. Some centralization of power is good because it helps get things done - it happens in corporations and non profit groups just as it does in governments. Too much centralization of course, we all agree, gets out of control fast. The solution is not to throw out the government as the libertarians and anarchists say, but to design a government that minimizes the risk of abuse.

Government is also necessary because government prints the money and maintains its value(so to some extent it IS the government's money, I mean, they literally made it after all). Government also protects the institution of private property.

By the way, whoever called me a socialist, I'm not. Being a liberal doesn't make you a socialist any more than being a conservative makes you a fascist.

[Moparmike]

A sales tax is the way to go, along with tarrifs and such. Like someone posted above, if we got out of the UN and stopped funneling massive amounts of dollars to other countries (whom we didnt take to raise), we could do one hell of a lot of good. I like the idea of "Dont start improving other countries until you have finished here." It does no good to give out money to fix and polish others' cars while yours sits on blocks in the front yard for all to see.

[Chris Rhines]

Repeat, logical reasons, Rock Jock. 'Human beings are by nature violent and selfish' is not a logical argument (nor is it provably true.)

You seem to be repeating slogans without really understanding them. Why is government necessary? For what reasons do I, myself need an overarchingly powerful central government in my life?

Mark -

The solution is not to throw out the government as the libertarians and anarchists say, but to design a government that minimizes the risk of abuse. I have said many times that the day someone designs a government that can be guarenteed not to violate my human rights, is the day I no longer describe myself as an anarchist. Heck, I'd even settle for a reasonable certainty.

So far, no one has been able to show me such a system.

Government is also necessary because government prints the money and maintains its value(so to some extent it IS the government's money, I mean, they literally made it after all). This is not true. Money is nothing more than a token of value, and value can only be created through individual actions. For most of the history of this country, currency was minted privately.

As an aside, doesn't giving the government a monopoly on the printing of money strike you as a dangerous situation?

Government also protects the institution of private property. If only this were the case, then government might have some reason to exist. But it's not true either. The government doesn't protect my right to own a select-fire FN-FAL, does it? In fact, the government actively infringes upon my property rights.

- Chris

[Ian]

No tax would be my preference, but if that will not be done, I think a flat national sales tax is the best alternative. It's the easiest to evade. :)

Rock jock - If humanity is as you describe, then how can a government made up of such flawed beings relieve any problems? In fact, what history demonstrates is that governments act as magnets for the worst humans, and the results are horrible. The number of crimes committed by common criminals throughout the entire world for the last hundred years doesn't even approach the magnitude of many of the atrocities carried out by governments in recent history.

How can you say government protects people, when governments themselves - even our comparatively benign one - are guilty of robbery, theft, kidnapping, blackmail, fraud, assault, and murder on levels that should horrify us?

[FW]

Tax luxury items highers also.

Another feel good statement than just perputuates class warfare.

What exactly is a "luxury"? Who decides?

I consider air conditioning and hot water a luxury (I like both of them very much by the way). Neither are necessities. Should you tax such things? Virtually all government buildings have these things. Perhaps the government should tax itself.

Of course the people in Maine might not have a problem with air conditioning tax while those in Texas certainly would.

Perhaps some one will suggest having a firearm is a luxury. After all the peasant don't "need" such things, but the government does. Just ask any anti firearm person.

Taxing something because it is a "luxury" is essentially the government telling someone what he "needs" and doesn't "need". At the same time the goverment can have the same luxuries, at the expense of the tax payer.

[goon]

I don't support the idea of no taxes at all, but I think we could get by with alot less.
The government beaurocracy could be pared down alot and still do just fine in serving the people.
We could stop sending so much foreign aid and keep our money for our own country.
We could stop spending money sticking people in jail for smoking pot, and legalize and tax it instead.
I read somewhere that you work until some time in June to pay your taxes for the year.
That is ridiculous.

[atek3]

Government is also necessary because government prints the money and maintains its value(so to some extent it IS the government's money, I mean, they literally made it after all).

ROTFL :D

Wheeeww, thanks for giving me a good laugh today. There are basically two kinds of money. Commodity money, for example gold, silver, or cattle, has some intrisic value to it. Fiat money, is basically green toilet paper that is valued because it has "legal tender" stamped on it. "Maintains its value" hah. The government has these things called 'printing presses' enabling it to churn out new dollars for essentially no cost. These new dollars devalue all the other dollars in society to the point where the modern dollar has lost 95% of its 1900 value.

Read "What has government done to our money?" by Murray Rothbard, it should upset anyone with a brain.

atek3

[Zundfolge]

Government is also necessary because government prints the money and maintains its value(so to some extent it IS the government's money, I mean, they literally made it after all).
Uh ... nope ... thats not how its done in the United States. Here's a bit of trivia that you can use to astound your friends;

The Federal Reserve is a Private Corporation!

[Mark Tyson]

Say what? The federal reserve is an independent central bank, not a profit making institution like a corporation. It derives its authority from Congress and is subject to their oversight. It exists to carry out the fiscal policies of the government.

[HankB]

How will the government get it's money? . . . we at least need SOME taxes for the government ot function! I've read that personal income taxes only pay for the GROWTH in government spending since 1990 . . . if we were to roll back spending to 1990 levels, corporate taxes, excise taxes, and misc. fees would be enough to pay for all Federal spending.

Also, various "war on poverty" programs - the legacy of Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" - have cost us somewhere around 5 trillion dollars since the 1960's, with no discernable effect on poverty levels. IMHO it's no coincidence that this figure is eerily close to the current national debt. Some rather convincing arguments have drawn a parallel between our poverty programs and ancient Rome's grain dole . . . which was a contributing factor to the decline of Rome itself. The military makes up more than half of government taxes! This was pretty close to correct during the Kennedy administration, but it's untrue today - the last time I looked, military spending was less than one quarter of the federal budget.

What I'd like us to do is look at the U.S. Constitution, and look at federal spending, and eliminate everything that isn't specifically provided for in the Constitution. Again, IMHO, Federal spending has far outstripped the original intent of promoting the general welfare.

Gee, government actually following the original intent of the Constitution . . . fat chance of that happening. :(

[mpthole]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Americans for Fair Taxation (aka FairTax.org) (http://www.fairtax.org) ... Check it out!

[UnknownSailor]

Wanna see tax reform happen overnight?

Get rid of tax withholding, and watch the US Capitol burn on April 16th.

The great unwashed don't care about taxes, because they never see what they are paying in taxes. It's only an abstract thing with them. They never see the money, so why should they care? Plus, they normally get some kind of a refund. (EIC, mortgage interest deduction, etc.)

Only when the present day American that just cruises through life without engaging their brain housing unit gets himself in a crack because he can't pay his tax bill on April 15 will the tax system be reformed.

There are far too many people around today who want the system to stay the way it is, because they make their living off of it.

[DRC]

This is from Rush Limbaugh's page compliments of the IRS.

"Income Tax: Who Pays? IRS Figures for 2000



Table 1. - Individual Income Tax Returns with Positive Adjusted Gross Income (AGI): Number of Returns, Shares of AGI andTotal Income Tax, AGI Floor on Percentiles in Current and Constant Dollars, and Average Tax Rates, by Selected Descending Cumulative Percentiles of Returns Based on Income Size Using the Definition of AGI for Each Year, Tax Years 1986-2000 [All figures are estimates based on samples]
Descending cumulative percentiles

Year: Total..................Top 1%............Top 5%.........Top 10%.......Top 25%..........Top 50%

Number of returns: [1]
1986: 102,087,623......1,020,876......5,104,381......10,208,762......25,521,906......51,043,811
1987: 106,154,761......1,061,548......5,307,738......10,615,476......26,538,690......53,077,380
1988: 108,872,859......1,088,729......5,443,643......10,887,286......27,218,214......54,436,429
1989: 111,312,721......1,113,127......5,565,636......11,131,272......27,828,181......55,656,361
1990: 112,812,262......1,128,123......5,640,613......11,281,226......28,203,066......56,406,132
1991: 113,804,104......1,138,041......5,690,205......11,380,410......28,451,026......56,902,052
1992: 112,652,759......1,126,528......5,632,638......11,265,276......28,163,190......56,326,380
1993: 113,681,387......1,136,814......5,684,069......11,368,139......28,420,347......56,840,694
1994: 114,989,920......1,149,899......5,749,496......11,498,992......28,747,480......57,494,960
1995: 117,274,186......1,172,742......5,863,709......11,727,419......29,318,546......58,637,093
1996: 119,441,767......1,194,418......5,972,088......11,944,177......29,860,442......59,720,884
1997: 121,503,284......1,215,033......6,075,164......12,150,328......30,375,821......60,751,642
1998: 123,775,831......1,237,758......6,188,792......12,377,583......30,943,958......61,887,915
1999: 126,008,974......1,260,090......6,300,449......12,600,897......31,502,244......63,004,487
2000: 128,227,143......1,282,271......6,411,357......12,822,714......32,056,786......64,113,572

Adjusted gross income floor on percentiles (current dollars):
1986: N/A......118,818......62,377......48,656......32,242......17,302
1987: N/A......139,289......68,414......52,921......33,983......17,768
1988: N/A......157,136......72,735......55,437......35,398......18,367
1989: N/A......163,869......76,933......58,263......36,839......18,993
1990: N/A......167,421......79,064......60,287......38,080......19,767
1991: N/A......170,139......81,720......61,944......38,929......20,097
1992: N/A......181,904......85,103......64,457......40,378......20,803
1993: N/A......185,715......87,386......66,077......41,210......21,179
1994: N/A......195,726......91,226......68,753......42,742......21,802
1995: N/A......209,406......96,221......72,094......44,207......22,344
1996: N/A......227,546......101,141......74,986......45,757......23,174
1997: N/A......250,736......108,048......79,212......48,173......24,393
1998: N/A......269,496......114,729......83,220......50,607......25,491
1999: N/A......293,415......120,846......87,682......52,965......26,415
2000: N/A......313,469......128,336......92,144......55,225......27,682


Adjusted gross income floor on percentiles (constant dollars): [2]
1986: N/A......108,411......56,913......44,394......29,418......15,786
1987: N/A......122,614......60,224......46,585......29,915......15,641
1988: N/A......132,828......61,484......46,861......29,922......15,526
1989: N/A......132,152......62,043......46,986......29,709......15,317
1990: N/A......128,096......60,493......46,126......29,135......15,124
1991: N/A......124,919......60,000......45,480......28,582......14,756
1992: N/A......129,654......60,658......45,942......28,780......14,828
1993: N/A......128,522......60,475......45,728......28,519......14,657
1994: N/A......132,069......61,556......46,392......28,841......14,711
1995: N/A......137,406......63,137......47,306......29,007......14,661
1996: N/A......145,026......64,462......47,792......29,163......14,769
1997: N/A......156,222......67,320......49,353......30,014......15,198
1998: N/A......164,427......69,999......50,775......30,877......15,553
1999: N/A......176,119......72,537......52,630......31,792......15,855
2000: N/A......182,038......74,527......53,510......32,070......16,075


Adjusted gross income (millions of dollars):
1986: 2,524,124......285,197......608,467......886,510......1,490,173......2,103,569
1987: 2,813,728......346,635......722,221......1,038,221......1,709,389......2,373,869
1988: 3,124,156......473,527......890,702......1,232,536......1,950,860......2,657,865
1989: 3,298,858......468,079......918,421......1,286,539......2,054,478......2,805,235
1990: 3,451,237......483,252......953,337......1,338,032......2,144,177......2,932,537
1991: 3,516,142......456,603......943,350......1,343,202......2,174,765......2,984,003
1992: 3,680,552......523,586......1,031,093......1,443,784......2,299,401......3,131,400
1993: 3,775,578......520,586......1,048,252......1,474,463......2,357,953......3,212,299
1994: 3,961,146......546,700......1,103,084......1,552,205......2,481,074......3,371,352
1995: 4,244,607......619,610......1,222,723......1,704,513......2,689,820......3,627,542
1996: 4,590,527......736,545......1,393,805......1,909,149......2,952,637......3,944,383
1997: 5,023,457......872,826......1,597,107......2,151,401......3,267,600......4,327,992
1998: 5,469,211......1,010,245......1,796,647......2,393,716......3,589,600......4,721,430
1999: 5,909,329......1,152,820......2,011,763......2,652,835......3,927,308......5,126,164
2000: 6,423,977......1,336,773......2,267,403......2,955,386......4,313,786......5,589,755



Descending cumulative percentiles
Year: Total............Top 1%.....Top 5%.......Top 10%....Top 25%....Top 50%

Total income tax (millions of dollars): [3]
1986: 366,979......94,491......156,240......200,703......278,976......343,289
1987: 369,046......91,559......159,642......205,230......283,857......346,655
1988: 412,761......113,841......188,303......236,411......321,297......389,145
1989: 432,838......109,259......190,188......241,458......334,258......407,599
1990: 447,061......112,338......195,088......247,514......344,340......421,075
1991: 448,349......111,267......194,480......250,282......346,511......423,759
1992: 476,163......131,156......218,479......276,213......373,700......452,070
1993: 502,720......145,836......238,083......297,808......398,516......478,563
1994: 534,754......154,337......254,106......317,902......425,402......509,256
1995: 588,331......178,035......287,741......357,402......472,808......561,225
1996: 658,124......212,626......335,433......411,404......535,164......629,684
1997: 727,303......241,239......377,241......459,639......594,007......696,161
1998: 788,452......274,009......424,506......512,836......651,964......755,240
1999: 877,292......317,419......486,464......583,002......732,890......842,168
2000: 980,521......366,929......553,670......660,150......823,706......942,179


Average tax rate (percentage): [4]
1986: 14.54......33.13......25.68......22.64......18.72......16.32
1987: 13.12......26.41......22.10......19.77......16.61......14.60
1988: 13.21......24.04......21.14......19.18......16.47......14.64
1989: 13.12......23.34......20.71......18.77......16.27......14.53
1990: 12.95......23.25......20.46......18.50......16.06......14.36
1991: 12.75......24.37......20.62......18.63......15.93......14.20
1992: 12.94......25.05......21.19......19.13......16.25......14.44
1993: 13.32......28.01......22.71......20.20......16.90......14.90
1994: 13.50......28.23......23.04......20.48......17.15......15.11
1995: 13.86......28.73......23.53......20.97......17.58......15.47
1996: 14.34......28.87......24.07......21.55......18.12......15.96
1997: 14.48......27.64......23.62......21.36......18.18......16.09
1998: 14.42......27.12......23.63......21.42......18.16......16.00
1999: 14.85......27.53......24.18......21.98......18.66......16.43
2000: 15.26......27.45......24.42......22.34......19.09......16.86


Adjusted gross income share (percentage): 1986: 100.00......11.30......24.11......35.12......59.04......83.34
1987: 100.00......12.32......25.67......36.90......60.75......84.37
1988: 100.00......15.16......28.51......39.45......62.44......85.07
1989: 100.00......14.19......27.84......39.00......62.28......85.04
1990: 100.00......14.00......27.62......38.77......62.13......84.97
1991: 100.00......12.99......26.83......38.20......61.85......84.87
1992: 100.00......14.23......28.01......39.23......62.47......85.08
1993: 100.00......13.79......27.76......39.05......62.45......85.08
1994: 100.00......13.80......27.85......39.19......62.64......85.11
1995: 100.00......14.60......28.81......40.16......63.37......85.46
1996: 100.00......16.04......30.36......41.59......64.32......85.92
1997: 100.00......17.38......31.79......42.83......65.05......86.16
1998: 100.00......18.47......32.85......43.77......65.63......86.33
1999: 100.00......19.51......34.04......44.89......66.46......86.75
2000: 100.00......20.81......35.30......46.01......67.15......87.01


Total income tax share (percentage): 1986: 100.00......25.75......42.57......54.69......76.02......93.54
1987: 100.00......24.81......43.26......55.61......76.92......93.93
1988: 100.00......27.58......45.62......57.28......77.84......94.28
1989: 100.00......25.24......43.94......55.78......77.22......94.17
1990: 100.00......25.13......43.64......55.36......77.02......94.19
1991: 100.00......24.82......43.38......55.82......77.29......94.52
1992: 100.00......27.54......45.88......58.01......78.48......94.94
1993: 100.00......29.01......47.36......59.24......79.27......95.19
1994: 100.00......28.86......47.52......59.45......79.55......95.23
1995: 100.00......30.26......48.91......60.75......80.36......95.39
1996: 100.00......32.31......50.97......62.51......81.32......95.68
1997: 100.00......33.17......51.87......63.20......81.67......95.72
1998: 100.00......34.75......53.84......65.04......82.69......95.79
1999: 100.00......36.18......55.45......66.45......83.54......96.00
2000: 100.00......37.42......56.47......67.33......84.01......96.09


N/A-- Not applicable.
[1] The number of returns with negative adjusted gross income, i.e., returns with an adjusted gross deficit, and the corresponding amounts for adjusted gross deficit, were excluded from Table 1. By excluding deficit returns, alternative minimum tax reported on some of these returns was also excluded. For Tax Year 2000, there were 5,714 returns with no adjusted gross income that reported income tax, mostly alternative minimum tax, totaling $100.6 million.
[2] For Table 1, constant dollars were calculated using the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' consumer price index for urban consumers (CPI-U, 1982-84=100). For 2000 the CPI-U = 172.2
[3] Total income tax is the sum of income tax after credits and alternative minimum tax reported on returns that showed a positive amount for adjusted gross income. Therefore, total income tax excludes alternative minimum tax, Form 8814 tax (tax on a child's interest or dividends), and Form 4972 tax (tax on lump-sum distributions from qualified retirement plans) reported on some returns with a negative amount for adjusted gross income. See also footnote 1.
[4] The average tax rate was computed by dividing total income tax (see footnote 3) by (positive) adjusted gross income.

Note: Unles otherwise stated, money amounts are in current (not constant) denominations.

Source: Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income Division, Unpublished Statistics, September 2002."

For people who don't pay taxes they sure do have high numbers in the individual amounts columns they pay and the percentage rate as well. Do people like Bill Gates pass the tax increases on to the consumers? Sure. Why not? They're paying many of their consumers way so more power to them. Gotta get your money back somehow.

Take care,

DRC

[TaxPhd]

While major tax reform would be nice (I am personally in favor of a national retail sales tax), it is very unlikely to happen for one simple reason. The Internal Revenue Code is the single greatest source of political power the government possesses. It is the ability to take money from one person and give it to another, and that is what gets politicians elected. :(

[DRC]

"The Internal Revenue Code is the single greatest source of political power the government possesses. It is the ability to take money from one person and give it to another, and that is what gets politicians elected."

Voters have learned that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury and this is why a democracy form or government cannot remain as a permanent form of government.

I agree with a consumption tax. Tax me when I buy it, but don't tax my income, don't tax my property and then tax me when I buy and or use something which is what we have now. If people would break down all the taxes that we pay they would soon see that we are taxed for everything we do. Not the way to go.

Take care,

DRC

[Keith]

The problem with a sales tax is that it gives government the same power to moralize and and redistribute income as the current system.

You can see the liberals rubbing their hands with glee to tax guns and ammo out of existence; to increase fuel taxes to "make us conserve"; large auto's for the same reason; fatty foods to "make us healthy"; luxuries to "make the rich pay more"; telephones, internet bandwidth, electricity, property, homes....

Open the door to the feds taxing everything we buy, and they'll take full advantage to do so.

Just as importantly, it doesn't make economic sense. When you tax goods and services, you effectively cut the market out of the economic equation - instead of consumers deciding what they need or want, government now decides which commodities are "good" (and taxed less) and which are "bad" (and taxed heavily).
I can't think of a better way to gut an economy than to base the cost of goods and services on political correctness.

Give me a flat tax and allow me to decide what I want to buy with what is left over.

Keith

[TaxPhd]

Keith,

In your flat tax, will businesses be allowed any deductions against revenue? How about individuals. Itemized or standard deductions?




Scott

[Ian]

Pardon me for being a bit confused here, but I don't understand. You guys are arguing over how best to give the Feds billions of our dollars. Shouldn't you first show (a) why they need such a staggering amount of money, and (b) what gives you or them the right to takeit from the rest of us by force?

[Mark Tyson]

Because, Ian, we all benefit from an educated population, clean air and water, unadulterated food, a healthy population, a stable currency, a highway system, a legal system, and other things people think government should do that the free market either cannot do because it isn't profitable, or does inefficiently. Because we all benefit, we all get the bill. That's called a tax.

Edited to add: Sorry for being flippant.

[Keith]

No, I would allow no deductions on anything, for anybody. Once you open that door, you open the door to lobbiest's to pour millions into politicians pockets to "educate" them why this special interest group needs a bigger deduction than that special interest group.

If you earn a wage you pay 10% (or whatever) no matter how many kids you have or what your income level is. If you own a business, you pay 10% on profits. If you live on investments, you pay 10% capital gains. Whatever the amount is, everyone pays the same, period.

Then if you want to raise taxes, you must get EVERY ONE of these groups on your side to do it because that tax comes out of every one of their pockets - no more of this voting to raise the other guys taxes...

Keith

[TaxPhd]

If you tax businesses on profits, then you are allowing deductions. Which deductions will be allowed and which will not?




Scott

[buzz_knox]

What gives the feds the right to tax us? A little document called the Constitution, specifically the 16th Amendment, which was enacted pursuant to the structure set forth in the Constitution and is thus just as valid as the 2nd that we all hold so dear. If you don't like it, establish a Constitutional Convention and repeal it. Of course, opening up the Constitution to modification is like radical brain surgery: it can be done, but it's never routine or without extreme danger.

I fall into the "limited gov't, limited tax" category. No taxes means no gov't, which means no roads, no nat'l defense, no nothing except slavery at the hands of another nation with resources and a system of organizing them and using them (i.e. a gov't).

By contrast, a limited gov't (such as that intended by the founders) allows for a fairly well-structured accumulation and application of resources for specific ends such as nat'l defense, or for those projects which do not lend themselves well to individual effort such as the creation and maintenance of justice systems, roads, and other infrastructure necessary to a modern civilization.

No-gov't utopias are great if you are planning on single person plots of land without the possibility of interacting with anyone else. If you do interact with someone else, then you'll have to agree upon (or enact by force) some set of rules to govern said interaction. And "govern" is of course where we get "government."

[Keith]

If you tax businesses on profits, then you are allowing deductions.

What are you suggesting, that we tax them on losses? Profits are income, tax it.

Keiht

[rock jock]

Because, Ian, we all benefit from an educated population, clean air and water, unadulterated food, a healthy population, a stable currency, a highway system, a legal system, and other things people think government should do that the free market either cannot do because it isn't profitable, or does inefficiently. Because we all benefit, we all get the bill. That's called a tax.
Mark, you are exactly right. The alternatives to a tax to support basic services that we receive from the govt. range from impracticable at best to simply absurd. I suspect the no-tax group knows that. The idea of having no govt. and no one to enforce environmental laws, protect them while they sleep at night from foreign invaders, ensure the dollar remains strong and keep their twinkies safe secretly terrifies them but they rest comfortably in the knowledge that it will never happen. Thus, they can make boastful claims about how they would survive in an anarchist world. Me thinks they have been playing Sim-Earth too much.

[telomerase]

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html

[Chris Rhines]

Because, Ian, we all benefit from an educated population, clean air and water, unadulterated food, a healthy population, a stable currency, a highway system, a legal system, and other things...Many of these things that you claim that I benefit from are debatable, but for this post let's stipulate that I do benefit from all of these 'services.'

How much do I benefit from them? What dollar value do these things provide from me? Because if my tax load is one dollar more than that figure, then I'm getting ripped off. And if my tax load is one dollar less, then I'm getting away with defrauding my fellow peons.

In reality, of course, taxes are not payment for services. Never have been.

Another point - most of the things that the government provides as services it provides incompletely, badly, and inefficently. Government schools suck at producing an educated population, public highways are generally in poor repair compaired to private ones, et cetera. But since the government has a monopoly on those services that it does provide, the market is prevented from providing lower-cost, higher-quality alternatives.

[/quote]...people think government should do that the free market either cannot do because it isn't profitable, or does inefficiently. Because we all benefit, we all get the bill. That's called a tax.[/quote] I'm curious why you would say that such things as a legal system, roads, and education cannot be provided for privately, in the face of all the proof to the contrary.

- Chris

[TaxPhd]

"What are you suggesting, that we tax them on losses? Profits are income, tax it."

Revenue - Expenses = Income (Profit)

The question is, what will be the allowable expenses (or deductions) in determining Income? Depreciation? Wages and salaries? Rent? Or will no expenses be allowed, and business' will be taxed on total revenues?



Scott

[Mark Tyson]

A private LEGAL system? Have you read about how privately run prisons have been faring recently? It's not pretty.

Do you want to throw public schools out the window? How much private education are they going to get in Appalacia or Bedford Stuyvesant? Public schools are imperfect; the alternative for some people is no schools.

And what about the environment? I've yet to get a clear answer from libertarians on how they'll protect the environment. All I hear is 'government is the biggest polluter, etc etc etc'. But if a property owner wants to slash and burn acres of redwood forests to set up a resort for the wealthy, or establish a nuclear waste disposal site next to a playground, there won't be anything a libertarian/right-anarchist will do about it. You hikers and outdoorsmen can kiss those trips to Yellowstone Park goodbye once the libertarians take over and transfer that federal land in the west to (wealthy) private hands.

And who are you going to get to build a cross country highway? I doubt anybody would have built our highway system besides the government. Even if you could find someone to build it, what are you going to do when everybody in its path knows they can just hold out for an insane price? Eventually it wouldn't be profitable.

The market is not the ultimate social tool for solving all problems. Some things it doesn't do well. Some things it doesn't do at all. For those things we have a government.

[Ian]

Do you want to throw public schools out the window?
Abso-bloody-lutely. Having had the opportunity to be around a number of homeschooled youths, all I can say is that my 12 years in even the advanced government school program was a complete and total waste of time. Those places are wonderful at dumbing kids down, stifling their desire to learn, and conditioning them to accept all sorts of arbitrary foolishness from "the authorities." Most escapees of those schools can hardly know how to spell anything with more than three syllables, much less have any education. Instead, they are taught to sit still for 8 hours a day, to obey each and every Rule and Regulation for fear of punishment from the divine hand of Authority, and that it's perfectly reasonable to separate people by age, rather than interest, ability, or any other actually meaningful factor.

...a stable currency...
Golly, I must have been asleep when unbacked scrip and a trillion dollar debt because ingredients of a healthy economy...

If you want to see a perfect microcosm of government, take NASA. That agency was tasked with doing something with incredibly, awe-inspiring potential for the whole human race. Their first action was to fire all the people who were doing it better than them. Then they took space exploration and the instant it was out the world political scene they utterly hamstrung it. They made it boring, almost totally unproductive, and unreasonably dangerous. And as a coup de gras, they created a mountain of bureaucracy to ensure that so long as they exist, nobody can do any better without risking fines, confiscation, and imprisonment.

There is so much utterly wrong with the Federal government and peoples' virtual worship of it that I could go on for pages. Maybe it's because I'm in the middle of reading The Ballad of Carl Drega (by Vin Suprynowicz)and getting a first-hand, up-close look at these things. Maybe it's because I've seen what ordinary people can do without the DOT, DEA, ATF, FDA, IRS, and NEA. Whatever the reason for my hotheadedness tonight, I'm sick and tired of seeing my money fund that beast.

[Moparmike]

Well said Ian.

What about a flat sales tax? 1% on everything, and no sin taxes.

Hell, federal gasoline tax makes $1.6 billion worth of revenue. I did the research and it is staggering.

Breakdown for PRK gas price for week of 9/1/03 from: http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/margins/

Distribution Costs, Marketing Costs and Profits.................$0.16
Crude Oil Cost.............................................................$0.72
Refinery Cost and Profits...................................................$0.71
State and Local Sales Tax...............................................$0.16
State Excise Tax..............................................................$0.18
Federal Excise Tax...........................................$0.18
Retail prices.....................................................................$2.10

Bear with me, the math gets a little funky...:scrutiny:

I found the dollar amount ($18,698,000,000) of gas sold according to http://www.census.gov/svsd/www/adv0302.html in March of 2002. Now, if we divide that by the price of gas on 9/1/03 in the PRK, we come up with 8,903,809,524 gallons. Multiplied by the Federal excise tax, we get $1,602,685,714.29 in gasoline sales alone. How much of the break down is taxes being masked by costs from other businesses?

BTW, in my libertarian Utopia, I would keep the park service. I would make them better paid and more incentives for them to do what they do. Parks are a necessary part of the US.

[Keith]

The question is, what will be the allowable expenses (or deductions) in determining Income?

I think we all know where that line is drawn.

Keith

[TaxPhd]

Actually, we don't all know where that line is drawn. The Internal Revenue Code is so big because it addresses primarily allowable and disallowed deductions.

But, if I am missing something, please point out what the line is.




Scott

[Andrew Rothman]

Edward429451 blithered...
They would have enough money to run the country if they didn't lollygag around the world giving away billions of dollars. We are not the nanny of the world.

Foreign aid is certainly debatable. But keep in mind that it is 1% of the federal budget.

------------------------

Here is some interesting info I've culled from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/summarytables.html
and
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/guide02.html#Spending



2002 Budget: (all numbers in billions of dollars)

http://www.geocities.com/matthewpayne38/images/budget.gif

[telomerase]

>Foreign aid is certainly debatable. But keep in mind that it is 1% of the federal budget.

The official foreign aid budget is only a small part of the Aid To Dependent Dictators program:

http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/dependent_dictators.htm

[Edward429451]

Foreign aid is certainly debatable. But keep in mind that it is 1% of the federal budget.

Yeah, it sounds good on paper. So how come the 800 or so billion that they're asking for now to rebuild Iraq isn't covered by the 1% budget?:rolleyes:

[Quartus]

Well, this thread makes it painfully obvious why we have the mess we do. People who have NO idea of basic economics or history arguing adamantly for a position that is grade school thinking (at best), and these same people vote.


<sigh> Where to start? Where to start? <sigh>

Okay, I'll try just one:

"The rich just pass on taxes to the consumer!"

No, BUSINSESSES do. INDIVIDUALS, like Bill Gates, pay taxes. Lots of taxes. I have never bought ANYTHING from Bill Gates, and neither have you. You bought something from Microsoft Corporation. They are two different people. (A corporation is a person, legally, for those who didn't know that.)

EVERY tax on a business is paid by the end consumer, NOT just 'unfair' taxes, or 'high' taxes. And this is why taxing businesses is a BAD thing. Because the business collected it from John Q. Public, John doesn't know he paid it. Because he doesn't know, he doesn't care. Because he doesn't care, he doesn't take any action (like voting intelligently) that would hold the government accountable for its overspending.


Wanna see tax reform happen overnight?

Get rid of tax withholding, and watch the US Capitol burn on April 16th.

The great unwashed don't care about taxes, because they never see what they are paying in taxes.

Bingo, Sailor. ANY tax that is hidden is bad for freedom. That's why liberals love hidden taxes. Oh, yes, you'll hear them bleating about businesses paying "their fair share", and most of them probably mean it. Yet another illustration of liberals meaning well but not knowing anything about reality. Businesses don't pay taxes. Individuals do.




BTW, Mr. Tyson, you'd better go do some reading about the Federal Reserve. Your 'logic' is irrelevant. It IS a private corporation.

[Mark Tyson]

All I know is what I learned in macroeconomics. How can a country's central bank be a corporation? The reserve serves the government, it implements monetary policy, it's accountable to congress. It was established by a federal law in ... I can't remember, 1903? Something like that. The fed does act independently in the sense that its decisions are not directly approved by the president or congress, but there is some periodic oversight by congress. It's purpose is not to turn a profit like a corporation, its purporse is to implement fiscal policy. The money it makes from interest goes into the treasury.

[telomerase]

>All I know is what I learned in macroeconomics. How can a country's central bank be a corporation? The reserve serves the government, it implements monetary policy, it's accountable to congress. It was established by a federal law in ... I can't remember, 1903? Something like that. The fed does act independently in the sense that its decisions are not directly approved by the president or congress, but there is some periodic oversight by congress. It's purpose is not to turn a profit like a corporation, its purporse is to implement fiscal policy. The money it makes from interest goes into the treasury.


You're generally right, Mark, but it was 1913. The confusion arises from the fact that member banks were originally forced to contribute what was called "stock", which is where the erroneous belief that the Fed is private comes from.

Of course, knowing what the Fed policy is ahead of time does create the opportunity for huge profits in bond trading etc. Control of the Fed also gives an advantage in electoral politics. So there can be private interests that benefit greatly from control of the Fed.

Congressional oversight is pretty lax (check out Congressman Ron Paul's web site). The Fed routinely "monetizes foreign debt", i.e. prints money and gives it to banks when dictators default on their loans. So the Fed is not harmless, but it's not private either.

[0007]

Ian - If "The Ballad of Carl Drega" was required reading, we wouldn't have to be having this discussion. (Finished my copy a few days ago). Everybody should have to read his account of his dealing with the IRS.

[Glock Glockler]

It seems that this discussion is focusing on Federal taxation and not just taxation in general, so be it.

Why is it that no one wants to discuss my idea of a head tax apportioned to the states? We certainly got by without an income tax and my state of NH gets by fine without one, so I think that that dispells any idea that it's essential or necessary.

A very simple way of funding the Federal govt would be to take a step away from a National govt and a step towards a true Federal govt by having the interaction between the Feds and the states rather than the people. Take a census and bill the state govts according to their population, from there it's up to the states to collect their money. John Q. Taxpayer has nothing to do with the Feds.

This would also introduce competition among the states as to who can run their govt better and less obtrusively, just as many businesses will incorporate in Nevada because it's more business friendly to do so. California would be free to administer their own income tax and whatever other stupidity they can come up with and smart states will keep socialism at bay and attract the bright entrepreneural minds to the states that let them keep what they earn.

I'd prefer a syatem where the Feds bill the states, the state bills the town or locality, and the locality bills and collects from the people. That means you're going to pay everything to one local guy, and you know exactly where he lives and where he hangs our. Govt will not get big and out of control because this is the guy that will have to knock on your door and ask for the money for that nonsense. No one will collect the money if they think that doing so will get them lynched. Govts will have to keep their stupidity down to a minimum if they want to get funds at all.

[telomerase]

>I'd prefer a syatem where the Feds bill the states, the state bills the town or locality, and the locality bills and collects from the people. That means you're going to pay everything to one local guy, and you know exactly where he lives and where he hangs our. Govt will not get big and out of control

The Romans used your system. Their government got big enough to wreck the entire Mediterranean economy, impose one religion on everyone, and cause a Dark Age.

So have more faith in government; it will get too big regardless of the paper constraints on it. After all, if you read our Constitution you will see that it specifically bans most of our current government.

[Glock Glockler]

telomerase,

Please provide some documentation other than your say so that it was because of that tax structure that the Roman empire became corrupt and fell. We're the people in the local govt installed by the townspeople or we're they puppets of the central govt? What about the governors of each territory? Were Roman soldiers under the command of Caesar collecting those taxes or was it up to the local govt to come up with a possee?

After all, if you read our Constitution you will see that it specifically bans most of our current government.

I disagree 100%, if you really read the Constitution it does give them the power to do exactly what they're doing right now. That's a topic for another thread though, if you want to start one on the flawed nature of the Constitution and why it's a statist document, let me know, I'll be happy to play.

[telomerase]

>Please provide some documentation other than your say so that it was because of that tax structure that the Roman empire became corrupt and fell.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that it was only the nature of the tax structure that caused the overgrowth of government. Just pointing out that a tax-farming system with locals doing the tax-extracting can overtax just as well as one that's openly centralized.

The only solution to these things is to have as few areas of life as possible run by force instead of voluntary trade.

>We're the people in the local govt installed by the townspeople or we're they puppets of the central govt?

Puppets (actually more like favored ripoff artists who bought their appointments from the central government).

>I disagree 100%, if you really read the Constitution it does give them the power to do exactly what they're doing right now. That's a topic for another thread though, if you want to start one on the flawed nature of the Constitution and why it's a statist document

Hmm... we should do that sometime. I agree that the Constitution is flawed (I don't like the lack of percentage-of-GNP restriction in the taxation clause), but I still say that today's government goes way beyond Constitutional authority, especially the 9th and 10th Amendments. There's no Federal Dept. of Education in the Constitution; there's no Prohibition (notice that people in the 1920s agreed with me; that's why they had to pass the Prohibition amendment).

And there's no Federal restrictions on the RTKBA, either.

[mercedesrules]

(rock jock) ensure the dollar remains strong
LOL!

Something that cost $100.00 in 1913 would now cost $1,857.58 :mad:

http://www.bls.gov/
Bureau of Labor statistics - Inflation Calculator.

MR

[Mark Tyson]

That's nothing comapred to the hyperinflation that other countries have suffered in the last century. Overall the US economy is still a powerhouse, despite all these taxes and regulations.

[telomerase]

>That's nothing comapred to the hyperinflation that other countries have suffered in the last century. Overall the US economy is still a powerhouse, despite all these taxes and regulations.

But we aren't comparing different fiat currencies; we're comparing fiat currency to private money (e.g. gold). And gold hasn't fluctuated nearly as much as the Federal Reserve note. Clearly the record of the Fed is vastly inferior to the market as a means of stabilizing the value of money.

If you don't agree, I'll be glad to buy all your ten-dollar gold coins for face value?

Didn't think so.

[Keith]

No, BUSINSESSES do. INDIVIDUALS, like Bill Gates, pay taxes. Lots of taxes. I have never bought ANYTHING from Bill Gates, and neither have you. You bought something from Microsoft Corporation. They are two different people. (A corporation is a person, legally, for those who didn't know that.)

Enterpreneurs are motivated by wealth, remove the profit and you remove the motivation.
In most cases though, you aren't talking about an individual, you are talking about investors; who will either pull their money out or demand the company raise prices to cover losses. That's hardly good for the economy.

"Rich people" ARE business. They are either owners of companies or those who have their money invested in a variety of companies.

You can't shift the burden to the "rich" because they don't pay taxes - they merely shift them to consumers.

Keith

[Quartus]

You can't shift the burden to the "rich" because they don't pay taxes - they merely shift them to consumers.

Microsoft Corp does - Bill Gates personally has very little ability to do that. Thus the myriad concoluted corporate structures whose purpose is to allow the individual (Billy boy) to enjoy the benefits of the wealth without incurring the tax liability of the wage earner.

[braindead0]

The funny thing about this is that the Federal Income Tax does not apply to most of us. For a detailed explanation and free information (really free), see TaxableIncome (http://www.taxableincome.net/)

Even if you don't believe what you read in the law, ask the IRS to refute it and you'll get a form letter with irrelevant rantings that cite no laws and have no authority. Strange times...

[Keith]

Microsoft Corp does - Bill Gates personally has very little ability to do that. Thus the myriad concoluted corporate structures whose purpose is to allow the individual (Billy boy) to enjoy the benefits of the wealth without incurring the tax liability of the wage earner.

That's never going to change. If you set up a tax system where individual wealth is "appropriated for the greater good", you'll find that these people will move the source of their wealth to some nation that doesn't rob them.

The same holds true for corporations like Microsoft. People invest for profits and when a tax begins to decrease those profits, they'll demand the company pass that along to consumers. Squeeze them so much that the cost of the product becomes too high and they'll pick up and move operations to a more business-friendly environment.

There's nothing sillier than a leftist screaming about "evil corporations" who move offshore to escape taxation. Corporations aren't "evil". Corporations are solely driven by profits - and they must, or they fail. You can't run a business to "provide jobs" or to be a cash cow for government... Business can only exist to provide profits to owners and investors. Reduce profit and investors put their money elsewhere - as they should!

The working and middle classes (consumers) will always pay all taxes. This is the way capitalism works, and the sooner people realize that the sooner they'll get wise to the smoke and mirrors our tax system uses to hide that fact. And the sooner we'll get politicans to practice fiscal restraint and implement a sensible tax system.

Keith

[buzz_knox]

This is the way capitalism works

Only in so far as the legislature allows for tax shelters, deductions, etc. If you actually tax the income and not allow the creation of such dodges as incorporation of individuals or living trusts, then you can get to income of the wealthiest.

[Keith]

Only in so far as the legislature allows for tax shelters, deductions, etc. If you actually tax the income and not allow the creation of such dodges as incorporation of individuals or

You're not getting it! If you own a business (ANY business), and you get slapped with a 10% tax, you'll just raise the price of your product by 10% and pass that tax onto the consumer - and so will all your competitors who will deal with the same tax!

The same holds true for an "incorporated" individual or any other dodge you can name. If the individual pays himself 100k a year and you remove his tax dodge and slap him with a 50% income tax, he'll just increase his salary to 200K (to make up the difference) and pass that increased cost along to the consumers of whatever product or service he provides - and so will all his competitors who have been slapped with the same tax!

In a capitalist system ALL money originates at the point where one individual pays another individual for a product or service. Understand this: ALL money/profit/wealth (AND taxes) must originate from that point where money is exchanged.
And because of this simple fact of economics, the seller will always hold the cards and be the one to pass the tax on to the buyer. There's nothing wrong with this - it's just how capitalism works!

If you understand this (that in a capitalist system you can't "shift" taxes to to business or to another class) you'll fight to contain government spending.
There's no fiscal or economic "magic" that can change that simple fact. And anyone who tells you differently is just playing with smoke and mirrors.

Keith

[buzz_knox]

Passing along the tax is a great idea, except that's now that happens in the real world. It's economics 101. Fewer people are willing to pay for the same product at a higher price. Unless there is a monopoly (real or perceived) on a given product, some other company will be willing to provide the product for less or people will just forego it.

[Keith]

Fewer people are willing to pay for the same product at a higher price. Unless there is a monopoly (real or perceived) on a given product, some other company will be willing to provide the product for less or people will just forego it.

You just don't get it... sigh...

Taxes will fall on ALL the companies. If they don't raise prices, they'll get less profits - and investors will pull out. Or, as you say, people won't buy the product and they'll lay off workers.

The end result is the same - you've either decreased the buying power of the consumer (if they raised prices) or weakened the business and cost jobs (if they cut costs) - meaning you need to raise taxes to support the newly unemployed workers. So, you raise taxes again and the cycle repeats...

One way or another, the businesses must respond to the lost revenues and one way or another that response will be borne by you and I.

You can't change the laws of economics with tricky taxation schemes.

Again - all money (and tax revenue) flows from the point where person A plunks down money to buy a product from person B. And person A gets his money by working for person B - or someone just like person B.
And person B is a hard-nosed businessman. He's not going to just "suck it up" and make less money because it's the "right thing to do". He can't do that because business is driven by profit. He's ALWAYS going to pass that cost along to person A. And if he can't, he'll move to a place where he can make up that lost revenue - offshore. And then he'll export his cheaper product back into the country and offer it to A at a better price and put his competitors (who stayed), out of business.

Keith

[buzz_knox]

Taxes will fall on ALL the companies. If they don't raise prices, they'll get less profits - and investors will pull out. Or, as you say, people won't buy the product and they'll lay off workers.
..

Or maybe they will work to reduce the inefficiencies rampant in nearly every industry, thereby maintaining their profit margin even without passing along the higher taxes. The deductions that businesses receive often promote allowing otherwise avoidable losses, as such losses reduce taxable "income."

Then again, it's all a moot point because I actually do agree with those who oppose taxing businesses at all.

[Keith]

Or maybe they will work to reduce the inefficiencies rampant in nearly every industry

Like eliminating jobs, contracting out anything they can to minimum wage outfits, using inferior raw materials - or materials made in Mexico, etc? Sure, you can cut costs, but somebody else will still pick up the tab.

There's no free lunch.

Keith