Sanders minimum wage, yeah right
- Thread starter Badfinger
- Start date
But can easily be avoided.
If I had last years tax payments via W2 back I could easily have afforded a pretty nice boat with that money and at 10 percent the taxes would not be prohibitive in deciding to buy it.
There would be the argument that a consumption tax would slow the economy but if kept manageable I don't see it.
Tax receipts to the govt will likely increase and the economy would boom.
A. People would have more of their money to buy shit and buy shit they will.
B. The tax will not prevent people from buying as long as it is reasonable. You are buying a $40K boat will another $4000 tax stop that? In most cases "No".
C. More money for me to spend means more people needed to build boats, more restaurants trips to give that business money, more boat builders and waitresses buying their own boats or going out to dinner.
D. More economic activity equals more money for the govt to spend.
The thing that kills it is the added on after taxes that prevent the big purchase. In the boat example $4K of tax on a $40K boat probably wont kill the deal but if I have to figure an excise tax of $2.5K next year than some portion of that forever I might say fuck it and forgo the sale stopping the economic engine before it gets started.
One time ten percent and there are no real estate taxes.....Ill take it.
State and Locals can have their local sales tax.
It would force them to promote business in their communities and compete with other states.
Greedy, Inefficient or wasteful lower govt could force the federal govt to keep the national tax low so as not to cut in to their receipts.
Get all the tax collectors competing with each other and understand there is an efficient maximum to fleecing the citizens.
Tax too high, they move to more efficient states,
Feds raise their taxes,,,, states rebel and Governors argue rightfully so that the Feds are destroying business in their states.
States raise taxes,,,,,towns bitch that their businesses are being hurt.
It would require a light hand on the throttle/brake. The market would be very responsive to positive and negative input.
Ok so taking states out of this, you have to cut federal spending to roughly 1/5 what it is today, which if you eliminate entitlements and cut discretionary funding including defense roughly in half could be done. Would be hell on red states though. No federal infrastructure programs, base closures, military pension elimination, no SS, Medicare etc.
Go back to the pre income tax system.
Feds get consumption tax on imports. Yes Tarrifs which we end up paying..
State and locals get consumption tax on sales.
Pressure is still in the direction of keeping taxes low or efficient so as not to cannibalize your sales.
Pressure to promote business is high because more domestic/foreign sales increases revenue at fed, state and local level.
Be nice to live in a world where goals are low taxes and pro business.
Last edited:
Well. look at who's there instructing the young and dumb---- the first woman of color and fake Indian Warren, that should give a good indication of what's being taught there---BRAIN dead, blind leading the blind
Wait, didn't they just give some actors prison time for this? On a serious note, your property taxes don't pay for your kids to go to school. The majority of people couldn't afford to send their kids to school if they had to pay for it themselves.
Please leave my State taxes where they are, jst because your state has to raise taxes to pay for all your FREE stuff, we here don't and want to keep it that way so PLEASE keep your way of life where you are and don't spread your shit thinking way this way, PLEASE
Seems to me blue states may not prosper so well if they don't enjoy a tax system that benefits them through regulation and legislation rather than actual performance and efficient management.
Is there a point?
Your mind is made up that Taxes are virtuous and I'm guessing the more the better for you?
You think the best thing for humankind is to be enslaved by taxes for the good of "others".
I seriously doubt you are interested in actually ever changing your opinion regardless of any discussion.
Did you follow the actual case details at all, or just scan the click bait headlines?
If you read up on the cases, you'd see it was nothing like you comparing it to.
With BURNmister is he going to do away with the DC welfare heath care and their poor retirement plans that they always seem to protect when cutting shit out.
They should cut all agencies that double up on functions and rid the gov. of all the deadbeats there, cut the gouging when the gov. buys from a company.
Make it unlawful for them to have insider trading and all the shit done we as their employer can't do.
They should cut all agencies that double up on functions and rid the gov. of all the deadbeats there, cut the gouging when the gov. buys from a company.
Make it unlawful for them to have insider trading and all the shit done we as their employer can't do.
Hey I didn't say it was going to be easy but its more thought in three posts than any govt person has made and it sure beats the reams of regulation set up to benefit various special interests at the peril of the regular working person.
Lets share some common belief that the present system sucks.
I might not mind the Fed defense budget cut.
Let the Feds maintain strategic defense - Nukes and a highly trained/maintained/100 percent readiness force of much smaller size.
The states need to reman all these beautifully built armories that were in every town of meaningful population where I live.
States citizens will be expected to voluntarily drill in the militia.
Locals will have skin in the game.
Representatives and Senators might have to go on record of supporting/dissenting war if their constituents are at risk local not just from the few big bases scattered elsewhere.
Do you mean this part?
The problem with answering you on that, is you have a totally different moral standpoint than me.
I believe that you cannot have freedom if anybody else has a "Right" to your things, especially a "Right" to force you to pay an extortion fee to keep what you supposedly "own" or they will take it from you at gunpoint under threat of murder.
That means you are a serf, slave, servant, renter and unless you can keep paying someone for the illusion of freedom, you will quickly experience full unvarnished serfdom/slavery.
Nobody has a "Right" to another's property, labour, ingenuity or income.
You cannot have "Rights" that require something to be given you because that simply means the government has to steal / rob it from someone else to give it to you.
I should be under no obligation to pay for somebody else's responsibility. Your kids are your responsibility.
Education is not that expensive in a competitive market for teaching.
You'll also find just like all throughout history and even other countries today, that the education needs will be quickly supplemented by voluntary programs based on different religious or civic organizations and people who want to help for charitable reasons of their own.
You have kids... You are poor... Get off your asses and educate them yourselves!
Teach them how to educate themselves once you get them started. Teach them to educate their siblings with everything they learn.
When Children and their parents are motivated to learn, you'd be surprised how little "paid help" you need.
Something to keep in mind is that "Defense" has for a long time now been basically a corporate / political pigsty designed to keep taxpayer money flowing to the rich and powerful.
We walk around the globe looking for anything to stick our fingers into because there is all this idle military hardware that needs to get used.
Pretty much exactly what Eisenhower warned about after WWII, the MIC became just as ravenous of a beast as we see from Entitlements.
The actual defense of our country and our actual real national interests could be accomplished much cheaper. Especially if we have a bit of balls to say, you piss us off, we wipe you out with no mercy and take your stuff to pay for it, then go back home.
You’re trying to guess at my beliefs and failing badly. But a certain amount of taxation is necessary, to fund such spending as the public through their representatives shall demand.
That idea (nuclear deterrent in place of conventional capability) was tried for 8 years and proven a failure in 1956.
Defense spending could be cut 30% before you lose major capabilities. What are you willing to lose? And what are the consequences of it?
First, you have no idea my moral standpoint. You assume you know.
But I agree with most of what you say. I'll just reply that taxes are needed to some extent and serve a purpose. It's wasteful spending that we all disagree with.
Similar threads
