America Is Dead...

[R.H. Lee]

sumpnz-lotta good questions, and I don't know that I have answers. Depends on the size of government we want, but any consumption tax would have to include ALL retail sales to the end user, no exceptions, no exemptions. I suppose you could take the annual federal budget and divide it by the total volume of annual retail sales and come up with a percentage. It would be a regressive tax, however, in that the poor would pay a greater % of their income on subsistence goods than the rich.
But, remember, NO ONE would be paying income taxes. Your paycheck would be the same amount you earned, no deductions.

 

[sumpnz]

Riley, that would likely be a bonus for me, but for that hypotheical poor person in my previous post it would not be. A person only making $16k does not pay any (or very very little) income tax now anyway. So they would go from no income tax, to still no income tax but then also having to pay a tax on the basic necessities (that in most states are exempt from sales tax).

Personally, since, IMO, we have to have a government (please no flames on this) and that govt has to be funded, I think the best system would be to implement a flat % tax with some arbitrary amount (say the first $40,000 of wages salary and tips) that would be exempt. When you sell assests, the income from that sale should also be subject to the same tax, but some either fixed annual amount, or some percentage of the capital gain would be exempt (e.g. the first $250k of cap gain on a house, and the first 30% of cap gain from stock sales would be exempt, or whatever - those were numbers pulled out of the air). Everything else would be subject to that flat tax rate.

This at least would be politically palatable in the sense that the poor are not subject to large tax burden (actually they wouldn't be subject to any tax burden), the rich would still pay some reasonably proportional amount, and those in the middle would not see much change from the way it is now. But it would be a lot simpler, and the savings in reduces IRS overhead would save the govt a huge amount of money.

No tax system will ever be truely fair, as someone will always see another person who is not paying their share (and by extention means that someone would be paying too much). Any system is open to abuse, and as politicians try to jockey for votes they tinker with anything to give an advantage to whatever group will most help them get elected, and thereby destroy whatever fairness ever did exist.

We can argue all we want about how much taxes is acceptable, and there will always be those who will argue anything over zero is theft. There will also always be those who will say that we, as the richest most prosperous nation, somehow owe it to the poor to help them out, and therefore a high tax burden is appropriate. I think that somewhere in between those two extremes is the answer. But I'm pretty sure that the Rapture is more likely to happen in my life time than for us to agree on where that point lies.

 

[auschip]

I pay alot in taxes. I rationalize it by pretending they spend my money on ammo for the troops. They might use yours to pay for vd cream for prisons, but mine is strictly used for ammunition.

 

[SemperFi83]

So where ya movin' to that's better? Let me know when you find it!

 

[The Rabbi]

I think SKytrooper's responses show that further dialogue will not be productive.

I actually agree with Gordon's point (and others) about the need for only those who pay taxes to be eligible to vote. This was a criticism of democracy early on (Locke, maybe?) that in a radical democracy those without would continually vote themselves bigger and bigger benefits until they bankrupted the system. This is actually happening today. The mantra is "tax and tax. spend and spend. elect elect." The idea is that if you propose enough popular programs then you will get reelected because there are more people who will benefit from the program than thsoe who will pay for it.

A consumption tax generally will work better, in theory at least, than an income tax. Income taxes punish income, which is productivity while consumpton taxes punish consumption. I also think we should eliminate loopholes like deductibility of mortgage interest.

There is, unfortunately,no support for restricting the franchise to those with a stake in the system. I wish it were otherwise but it remains an impractical solution.

 

[Frohickey]

You could have a system whereby people who earn below a subsistence level are not charged, or are refunded their consumption tax. Then, these people would also lose the right to vote until the time came that they are able to pay the consumption tax.

The troublesome aspect of the flat percentage tax or the current income tax is that the majority of the taxes are borne by a certain part of the citizenry. Since that certain part of the citizenry is funding government, its sets up a situation where government would be beholden to this part of the citizenry, to the detriment of the other segments that is not bearing an equal share of the taxes.

Government services should only be used for purposes that serve *ALL* segments of the population/citizenry *EQUALLY*. This would mean court systems, military defense, and a few other specialized areas that government is currently in. Other areas that government is in that is not used equally should be funded by fees, paid by the segment of the citizenry that is using these services.

I could see a situation where citizens have an open enrollment period just like their health care/dental care choices, and if you choose to engage in a particular government program at that time, you make your choice and pay for it then. If not, you wait until the next open enrollment period.

 

[NIGHTWATCH]

Ok, we are getting productive now...

You could have a system whereby people who earn below a subsistence level are not charged, or are refunded their consumption tax. Then, these people would also lose the right to vote until the time came that they are able to pay the consumption tax.

I think the idea is to restore, not lose rights.

The troublesome aspect of the flat percentage tax or the current income tax is that the majority of the taxes are borne by a certain part of the citizenry. Since that certain part of the citizenry is funding government, its sets up a situation where government would be beholden to this part of the citizenry, to the detriment of the other segments that is not bearing an equal share of the taxes.

I think a flat tax of 10-15% across the board is a good start, but only after our armed forces are called home from every corner. The cost of policing the world is killing us.

Create a flat tax and what other government agencies can be slashed? I.R.S.?

 

[NIGHTWATCH]

Multi-millionaire Donald Scott was an "economic winner" in California in 1992 when a herd of cops and federal agents murdered him (after committing perjury to obtain a bogus search warrant) in order to steal his Malibu ranch for the U.S. Park Service.

Not to turn the topic, but this stuff here should be enough to change anyones mind who owns a car or home, while doing waves for the government.

Worth a look. http://www.fear.org/

 

[Frohickey]

Agreed with the idea of not losing rights, but is it correct that people who do not bear the cost of government be able to steer the programs that government engages in?

Let that one sink in a little bit more, and then respond to the question again.

 

[Boats]

Not to turn the topic, but this stuff here should be enough to change anyones mind who owns a car or home, while doing waves for the government.

It is also why every state should have an initiative system. Here in Oregon, via a ballot measure, we now have the requirement of a criminal conviction before property can be confiscated.

Still sounds lame doesn't it? Well, in most confiscation regimes, the government can simply move against your assets as if they were the defendants and only have to prove that they were more probably than not fruits of criminal activity. Not only that, the civil confiscation regime in most places gets way out in front, and is independent of, the criminal ajudication.

For example, in a loose jurisdiction, say that what happened to that guy in California occured, but he didn't get shot, but instead did have 14 free range marijuana plants growing on the very edge of the property. They would, if they could, try to confiscate the property while the criminal case wound its way through the courts.

The DA may not be able to prove intent to manufacture a controlled substance, but hey, that's okay, since if the mortgage or taxes were being paid out of some sort of money, and it is as probable as not that even though you were not convicted of it, you either grow or allow to be grown marijuana on your property, we're keeping it thanks.

That is what we ended in Oregon because the politicians and the cops have to answer to the public when we force them to.

 

[Glock Glockler]

Head Tax!!!

This is a very simple method instead of the Federal one-size-fits-all method you guys seem to want.

The way it works is that a census is taken and the Federal government bills the state govts a percentage of the budget according to what percentage of the population reside in a particular state.

If CA has 14% of the population it's up to the CA state govt to come up with that 14% in their own manner of choosing. The end result would be 50 states all trying various systems to see what works better.

The market would figure it out.

 

[R.H. Lee]

GG-I like the idea, but what if some state(s) don't pay up? What if they would rather welch or secede? What' the plan then?

 

[Glock Glockler]

The Feds would then completely and utterly cut off all services to them.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

I may have invented a law.

I tried to read through this thread. It is lots of the same thing said over and over again.

One notable thing that keeps raising it's ugly head is this argument, "If you don't like it, Leave it." America, Love it or Leave it. Hackneyed, Hackneyed. You'da thunk we'da got over it since Viet Nam.

Is there a law about this? Like Godwin's law?

If there is, please, somebody tell me what it is. If not, I propose a new law.....


"Cropcirclewalker's Law"......Whenever somebody invokes the "If you don't like it, Leave it", comment, that means by default that they give up and the other side wins.

Really now, the reason for my post. Back in '92 when Perot was runnin', he came on TV with his charts and graphs and showed us how 45 percent of the workers in the country worked for some kind of govt. entity. It must have grown since then.

So we got the "Tax Payers" and we got the "Tax Eaters". If half of the population owes its lively hood to working fer the govt. How likely is it gonna be that they get fed up with taxes and throw a revolt. It's a revolting development.

If you are a LEO, teacher, snowplow driver, public official, fireman, if you work for the FBI, the CIA, DOA, EPA, NSA, FDA, CCC, (Gawd, how many are there?), DOT, NEA, FOP, DOJ, FHA, FDIC, (Help me out, here), USA, USN, USMC, USAF, FSLIC, PBS, (Pant, Pant, Pant), NPR, BATFE, NCIS, USCG and there must be more. If you are retired military, teacher, fireman, politician, leo and/or others, If you are on socialist security, ssi, ada, medicare, medicaid and/or other welfare programs, or if you are in prison or otherwise collecting from some sort of govt. sponsored giveaway, then you are a Tax eater.

How many of us are left?

So, here's what I propose........If you are NOT a tax eater, then feel free to tell us tax payers that we are complaining for no reason. This the honor system. Be truthful, Otherwise, please stifle yourself.

 

[R.H. Lee]

I like that observation ccw. I have never worked for a public entity in my entire life. I collected unemployment benefits a coupla times and some disability when I had motorcycle accidents, but I've paid in waaaay more than I ever took. How many others here can say they're not on the public payroll?

 

[The Real Mad Max]

Sounds like ccw and RileyMC are in fact takers of the public dole.

Taking unemployment, wellfare, disability insurance...mmm mmmm mmmmm!

And all those "airplane pictures" of aircraft operation in the publically paid for air system!?!?!

SHAMEFUL!

 

[Art Eatman]

IMO it's right at physically impossible to avoid some aspect of tax-paid subsidy. Highways are no longer paid for by the taxes on fuel, just for starters. The same holds for electricity, in many parts of the country--the REA co-op thing. Water supplies, as well, where federal dams/reservoirs are involved.

Whether "cash" or "kind", we're all helping to drive up the federal deficit...

(All of California south of the Oroville dam; all of Las Vegas; all of Phoenix and Tucson: The water and electricity have some amount of federal subsidy. Heck, even the dead: Gotta water the grass on the graves, right? )

Art

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Yer, right, Art. I was outa line.

I still remember getting those green cardboard things, all punched fulla holes, those 89 dollar checks that they gave me once a month in the navy.

I may have gotten a few of them also since. Tax refunds.

Are they still green?

I did buy some postage stamps the other day.

They tell me that we got all kinds of good stuff from NASA like teflon. O'course, nobody beat on my door and said, "Here's you teflon, which your tax dollars paid for through NASA." What's on my fryin' pans I still hadda pay for.

I always thought that govt. was to provide for the citizens, that which the citizen could not provide for himself. You know, Post Roads, National Defense, stuff like that.

I don't think the average South Westerner coulda built the Boulder Dam. it's the little dams (US built) on their own property for their livestock is what I consider to be the govt. welfare.

 

[Gordon Fink]

So we got the “Tax Payers†and we got the “Tax Eaters.†If half of the population owes its lively hood to working fer the govt. How likely is it gonna be that they get fed up with taxes and throw a revolt[?]

Presently, I’m a “tax eater†(sort of), but I still think taxes are too high. Of course, I also pay taxes, so I get tax money, which is then taxed in its turn.

I also think Glockler’s head-tax idea has some real merit and could work well in my franchise-tax system. The states should be able to decide for themselves how the franchise is handed out, but too much abuse in the past led to the various “voting-rights†acts we have now.

~G. Fink

 

[R.H. Lee]

Either a consumption based tax or a head tax would be preferable to an income tax, HOWEVER, it's never gonna happen. There is NO WAY Congress will let go of the manipulative micro managing power they wield through the current system. Just hope they never decide on some kind of VAT (Value Added Tax) scheme, such as exists (I believe) in some of the Europeon countries.

 

[The Rabbi]

They have proposed a VAT a few times. I would be for it *IF* they would also eliminate the income tax. But that hasnt been the proposal. I dont want to see income taxes lowered in exchane for a VAT because eventually we would wind up with both. In this view a VAT is just another way for the govt to stick its vacuum hose deeper into your pocket, just like the internet tax.

 

[sumpnz]

Much as I've disagreed with Glocker on other issues, I have to say that I think his idea of a head tax makes a lot of sense. I'm sure we all could come up with some problems with that system given a little while to think it over, but I reckon the biddest one would be the difficulty in getting the 16th ammendment repealed so that the income tax couldn't come back. Otherwise, at some time of national crisis that head tax system would stay in place, but the individualy income tax would be reinstated.

When I lived in New Zealand they had (and still have) a 12.5% GST (goods and services tax). With the possible exception on basic necessities like fruit, vegies, and cheap meat everything you bought (at least at retail) was charged that tax, and every sevice rendered (inc car repairs, landscaping, accounting, car wash, etc) was also charged that tax. The only good news was that most stores included that tax in the list price so you didn't pick up a bottle of shampoo for $.99, and then have to pay $1.12 at the register. That was, of course, on top of income and property taxes.

Edit: Originally referenced 17th ammendment, meant to ref 16th. Fixed above.

 

[Frohickey]

RileyMC

Maybe Congress won't let it happen. Here is a group of people that do not have to pay into Social Security like the rest of us do. Instead, they get their own pension system that is the envy of the planet. How do they get that kind of pension system? By taking our tax money!

With the recent talk about Campaign Finance Reform that Wayne LaPierre has been talking about, and the Defense of Marriage Act, and what not, maybe its really REALLY time for a Con-Con... or a Constitutional Convention.

A Constitutional Convention would be like the federal reset-button. I think that we need to have a Con-Con. After 220+ years of lawyers and special interests tacking on their pet bills into the US Code, its time to do a reset to clean up all of that cruft.

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?" -Thomas Jefferson

 

[R.H. Lee]

A Constitutional Convention would be like the federal reset-button. I think that we need to have a Con-Con. After 220+ years of lawyers and special interests tacking on their pet bills into the US Code, its time to do a reset to clean up all of that cruft.

I've gotta agree. I would be a drawn-out-knock-down-drag-out deal. Blood would spill in order to get it done right, but it would be less painful than a full scale 2nd revolution.

 

[BigG]

I've often suggested some sort of voter qualification like owning property and have received third degree burns for my trouble. Good to see some people coming 'round.

People should not be able to vote for representatives who promise to increase their largesse.