"End The IRS Before It Ends Us..." -- Grover Norquist

I think there is good evidence that giveaways do not solve problems, they make them a little less evident perhaps. What's important is to have a debate about what kind of tax system we should have and what changes might be beneficial to the vast majority. If anyone suggests no taxes and no government, they should not participate, because that's another position altogether. There is insufficient support for such radical proposal to get off the ground. If you want to do away with the IRS, fine. But don't tell us that without proposing a plausible alternative. Jem has proposed one. Tariffs. But is that plausible? If you ga way back in time it seems that ids how the government paid its expenses. Could
that work today?
 
Fractals 'R Us said:
LOL "progressive" taxation. The fair tax is sales tax. Every pimp and drug dealer would be paying their taxes under that system. People that don't spend much wouldn't pay much tax. You could protest by not buying anything.

I appeal every year to the ACLU to do something about invasion of privacy we experience by filling out our income tax forms but for some reason they are more concerned with other privacy matters LOL
More...
ha!, you want to balance the budget by taxing pimps and drug dealers. I have a lot of money, but I've already bought everything I need. I don't need to buy anything but medicine and food. Yes, that consumption tax would be very good for me.

A little rough if you are just starting out with your first kid and you need a refrigerator, a washer/dryer and a new used car, spending 120% of every paycheck as soon as it comes in. But very good if your income is from dividends.
 
piezoe said:
I think there is good evidence that giveaways do not solve problems, they make them a little less evident perhaps. What's important is to have a debate about what kind of tax system we should have and what changes might be beneficial to the vast majority. If anyone suggests no taxes and no government, they should not participate, because that's another position altogether. There is insufficient support for such radical proposal to get off the ground. If you want to do away with the IRS, fine. But don't tell us that without proposing a plausible alternative. Jem has proposed one. Tariffs. But is that plausible? If you ga way back in time it seems that ids how the government paid its expenses. Could
that work today?
More...
tariffs work just fine if you are an emerging market, like we were when they were working, and may be again soon if we don't eliminate corporate taxes.
 
The problems with a consumption tax are manifold. Since there would have to be some sort of transition phase, there is a very real risk we could end up with both a national transaction tax and an income tax. The politicians would promise to phase out the income tax, but what are the chances they would follow through? Low in my view. And if we got democrats in charge of congress and the presidency, they could easily reenact the income tax. So without a constitutional amendment, it's too big a threat.

A consumption tax is also very unfair to retirees, who have paid taxes all their lives but now would be told to pay again every time they bought something.

What to levy the tax on would lead to fierce political wrangling. Every industry would be trying to buy votes to get their segment exempted.

The idea that we would suddenly get the ability to tax the underground economy is attractive but probably overstated. Expect a robust barter system to develop. Bleeding hearts will insist on "protecting" the poor from the tax. So they could make a good living buying stuff without tax and reselling it on the side.
 
AAAintheBeltway said:
The problems with a consumption tax are manifold. Since there would have to be some sort of transition phase, there is a very real risk we could end up with both a national transaction tax and an income tax. The politicians would promise to phase out the income tax, but what are the chances they would follow through? Low in my view. And if we got democrats in charge of congress and the presidency, they could easily reenact the income tax. So without a constitutional amendment, it's too big a threat.

A consumption tax is also very unfair to retirees, who have paid taxes all their lives but now would be told to pay again every time they bought something.

What to levy the tax on would lead to fierce political wrangling. Every industry would be trying to buy votes to get their segment exempted.

The idea that we would suddenly get the ability to tax the underground economy is attractive but probably overstated. Expect a robust barter system to develop. Bleeding hearts will insist on "protecting" the poor from the tax. So they could make a good living buying stuff without tax and reselling it on the side.
More...
no, the poor would just have a card to swipe which makes them federal sales tax exempt.

It would be great for retirees. All their income would be 100% tax free. They could give money directly to their children while they are alive and know what they are doing without creating a taxable event. The only time they spend money is when they are looking for a new VHS player.
 
The only fair tax is a consumption tax.
But, I would be okay with a flat tax.

The reason so many people are in favor of a flat tax instead of the "fairtax" plan is because they haven't read the easy to read book about the "fairtax" and they think they understand it, but they don't.

BTW...a consumption tax for every citizen IS NOT the same as the FairTax plan.
 
A person should be taxed on what he spends.
Not on what he earns.

How much money you earn, or how much money you have, or how much money you inherit IS NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S DAMN BUSINESS.
 
The only reason the IRS still exists is because of the Washington, D.C. whores.

If brother Ted Cruz or brother Rand Paul get in the Oval Office, they will SHUT THE IRS DOWN.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top