Fair Taxation

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by joeydb

My personal opinion is that one rate is the way to go. Why? Because "fair" cannot be defined mathematically. The closest we will ever come to fair is "proportional". And that means one rate. Take the first, I don't know, say, $50,000. Nobody pays taxes on their first $50k. Anything above that is at the same rate, whether you make $55,000 or $550,000. The same fraction of your income goes to the government. That's it.

In principal, it sounds good, but we would self destruct as a country.

[Honu]

I like the idea of a sales tax on all items bought or sold, non-essential items being taxed more than say food and clothes and toilet paper. No income tax at all.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Honu

I like the idea of a sales tax on all items bought or sold, non-essential items being taxed more than say food and clothes and toilet paper. No income tax at all.

Welcome to Europe...seriously...no income tax? I like that idea too, but probably not realistic

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by GBBob

Welcome to Europe...seriously...no income tax? I like that idea too, but probably not realistic

It worked great for the first 140 or so years here.

Those days are long forgotten and gone though.

[Honu]

Originally Posted by GBBob

Welcome to Europe...seriously...no income tax? I like that idea too, but probably not realistic

Yeah prolly not but it is my opinon that the founding fathers didnt really envision the kind of taxes we pay out of our paychecks as the kind of tax that they were reffering to when they said it was ok to collect income tax.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Honu

Yeah prolly not but it is my opinon that the founding fathers didnt really envision the kind of taxes we pay out of our paychecks as the kind of tax that they were reffering to when they said it was ok to collect income tax.

And I doubt they thought that a well armed militia meant that my neighbor could own an AK 47, but I digress.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by GBBob

And I doubt they thought that a well armed militia meant that my neighbor could own an AK 47, but I digress.

regular joe's should not be able to own assault / (semi) automatic rifles. It just doesnt make sense.

Regular shot guns / hand guns, is fine. (for hunting and protection)

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

regular joe's should not be able to own assault / (semi) automatic rifles. It just doesnt make sense.Regular shot guns / hand guns, is fine. (for hunting and protection)

why? and when most people say that, they are thinking of ak-47's and the like( and i can certainly understand the reasoning, however many just are gun collectors and enthusiasts)...when in fact, the term semi-automatic covers a variety of guns, including a shotgun i own, as well as a hundred year old .25 colt that we inherited.
now, i firmly believe if you're on the no fly list for planes, you should be excluded from purchasing guns. if you're a felon, insane, have an order of protection against you, etc, you should be excluded. but for cities or towns to tell the average, law abiding citizen that they can't own a weapon imo is unconstitutional, and does nothing to limit gun crime. after all, those of us who follow the law aren't the problem! the simple act of owning a gun doesn't mean someone has a criminal mind, or has criminal intent.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

regular joe's should not be able to own assault / (semi) automatic rifles. It just doesnt make sense.

Regular shot guns / hand guns, is fine. (for hunting and protection)

I'd come at it from a different angle:

I wouldn't limit the type of firearm, but I would limit the ammunition. You don't have to worry about a guy with a fully automatic weapon when he only has 100 rounds. That wouldn't last 3 seconds.

Here's an off-the-cuff idea: You can buy as much ammo as you want when you're at the range to practice with. The range owners have to give you credit for any unspent shells when you leave. So you can go and practice all day so long as you can afford it. By the way, it benefits everyone to have those who exercise their second amendment rights to be as skilled as possible (less gun accidents).

But you can limit the number of boxes of ammo people buy for use outside the range. More during hunting season, less in the off season. The legitimate home defense people won't care as long as the ammo will still work (they do have a shelf life), because in the overwhelming majority of the time, the ammunition they have purchased has gone unused.

Again, it's only the nightmare inducing "gun nut" who needs several thousand rounds of ammunition on a continuous feed for a fully automatic machine gun. Couldn't carry it very far -- too heavy -- it would have to be on his roof or something.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Honu

Yeah prolly not but it is my opinon that the founding fathers didnt really envision the kind of taxes we pay out of our paychecks as the kind of tax that they were reffering to when they said it was ok to collect income tax.

Wages earned were not taxed, period, until we had the Federal Reserve, a non government entity, shoved down our throats.

That's the day the shackles were thrown on us.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GBBob

Welcome to Europe...seriously...no income tax? I like that idea too, but probably not realistic

I bet a combination of a national sales tax and a flat income tax could work. We could have a national sales tax of 6% or something like that. And then you could have a flat income tax of around 10% for anyone that makes over $100,000 or something like that.

I'd be curious to see the math on how big of a sales tax and flat income tax we would need to generate as much in taxes as is being paid right now.

[Indian Charlie]

How about abolishing the Fed, which is a foreign owned and privately held corporation. Before having it illegally shoved down our throats (it never made it past congress, but here we are with it anyways), there was no income tax paid on wages earned.

Now, most tax money goes to paying off the national debt, medical BS and defense.

So, instead of having the government print up money like they used to, they now have big central banks print it for them, with interest thrown in, of course.

Flame away.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

How about abolishing the Fed, which is a foreign owned and privately held corporation. Before having it illegally shoved down our throats (it never made it past congress, but here we are with it anyways), there was no income tax paid on wages earned.

Now, most tax money goes to paying off the national debt, medical BS and defense.

So, instead of having the government print up money like they used to, they now have big central banks print it for them, with interest thrown in, of course.

Flame away.

I think the FDA should rule..

sorry IC..couldn't resist.

Unfortunately, nothing on a grand scale will ever happen..at least in our lifetime... so you can try affect the next 30 years or you can try and overthrow the Fed.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by GBBob

In principal, it sounds good, but we would self destruct as a country.

If we continue to spend like drunken sailors, yeah, we're cooked, but we could definitely bring in enough revenue with a flat system for reasonable expenditure. We would need to finally rid ourselves of many unending and ineffectual government programs.

We have to also take into account that a simple system with no "bracket creep" would also stimulate the economy too, because everybody from laborers to entrepeneurs would be able to make profits without a "gotcha" of getting slammed in a new bracket.

If individuals or companies know they can make a buck they will not hold back on some of the hiring and expansion that creates new jobs.