It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A new and simple way to tax

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 11:43 PM
link   
well if you get a pay check you can't say sh*t but if you make your own money then you can. That's why the rich keep getting richer and the poor poorer. Earned income after everything is at a 50 % tax. Because theres' state taxes, fuel taxes, property taxes, and so many taxes that it brings it up to 50% of your check gone. It's such a scam. The more off teh grid you are and learn to become the better your life will get.




posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: lavatrance

Not sure where you are coming from as I have been self employed my entire adult life, even when working for other companies on their payroll.
As self employed you do get the additional taxes that would have been payed by the employer, which the feds have worked out to about an additional 50% of your taxes, not your income.
Fuel taxes are paid at the pump not with income tax.
Property taxes are county or state not federal, and often lumped into the mortgage on what property you have (or assessed on the property's value when purchased if there is no mortgage).
Even when only working for myself, I've never paid 50% of my net income in taxes.


edit on 11-2-2016 by randomtangentsrme because: clarified



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 12:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Okay, so huge things like the internet, power grid, highways, airports -- all of that would function just fine by a bunch of "rugged individuals"?

Somehow, all these "individuals" would just...magically(?) agree to all work together, everyone in agreement? And somehow these people would all voluntarily agree to donate the required money and manpower?

No, time to face reality.

The things we enjoy as positive parts of human culture are only possible by the organizing effect government has on a population.

This kind of thinking is even more ridiculous, far-fetched, deluded and childish than a "Star Trek" sci-fi utopia.

It really, really is. It's an immature, greed-based view on how things "should be" according to self-service to one's ego.
edit on 11-2-2016 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 12:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: MystikMushroom



The government you hate giving money to makes it possible for you to even earn money in the first place.


Having a trade and earning a living is completely possible without the Government. The reality is the Government interjects itself into commerce and steals a percentage of the transaction in order to cause chaos, kill people and subvert freedom around the globe.

We could all live completely fine without the Federal Government and frankly we would all be better off. There is nothing that the Federal Government does that couldn't be done better and more efficiently at the state and local level and that is actually what was intended when the United States was formed.


That's what they intended yes.

But they realized that it didn't work and that's why the articles of confederation were replaced, and a strong centralized government was formed.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 01:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: muse7

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: MystikMushroom



The government you hate giving money to makes it possible for you to even earn money in the first place.


Having a trade and earning a living is completely possible without the Government. The reality is the Government interjects itself into commerce and steals a percentage of the transaction in order to cause chaos, kill people and subvert freedom around the globe.

We could all live completely fine without the Federal Government and frankly we would all be better off. There is nothing that the Federal Government does that couldn't be done better and more efficiently at the state and local level and that is actually what was intended when the United States was formed.


That's what they intended yes.

But they realized that it didn't work and that's why the articles of confederation were replaced, and a strong centralized government was formed.


The Constitution was ratified, barely, and only after concessions that attempted to limit its power.

If the Constitution had been presented then as it is interpreted today, it would not have been ratified in a million tries.

The Articles of Confederation were slandered by professional political entrepreneurs, and the Constitution was sold as a way to mange the debt of the revolution. Winners write history, and the Articles of Confederation get no fair hearing.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 01:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Metallicus

Okay, so huge things like the internet, power grid, highways, airports -- all of that would function just fine by a bunch of "rugged individuals"?

Somehow, all these "individuals" would just...magically(?) agree to all work together, everyone in agreement? And somehow these people would all voluntarily agree to donate the required money and manpower?

No, time to face reality.

The things we enjoy as positive parts of human culture are only possible by the organizing effect government has on a population.

This kind of thinking is even more ridiculous, far-fetched, deluded and childish than a "Star Trek" sci-fi utopia.

It really, really is. It's an immature, greed-based view on how things "should be" according to self-service to one's ego.


Individuals cooperate to get the job done. No Government necessary. By the way, the "government" doesn't "do" anything. Individuals who work for the govenrment do this and that. They could just as easily work for an insurance or public relations company and do exactly the same function. Plus, individuals who work in the free market must do a better job than gov workers because of competition.

Gov is con job.

Where gov is actually wanted, as a luxury appealing to the lazy mind, smaller gov always follows closer to the citizens intentions than bigger government.

Smaller, competing governmtns are always better than bigger " I'll interpret and rule on the contract you have with me" governments



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 01:26 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

I couldn't fundamentally disagree more. But thats a philosophical and principled difference.

First off, no one "gives" money to the government in the form of taxes. They are taken by force and coercion. If you dont "give", you will be stripped of your property and your freedom.

Secondly, the federal government's duties as defined in the Constitution are VERY limited, as outlined in Article 1 Section 8.

Anything not specified here was to be left to the states.

The very existence of the federal government is allowed by the states (ie the people) via the 9th and 10th Amendments.

I would still disagree with most of what government does but at-least if it was done at the state level, I could understand the legality of it.

They werent even allowed to collect income taxes (Pollock v. Farmers Loan Trust Co.) until the alleged and very controversial "passing" of the 13th Amendment which created the IRS. Not so coincidentally, the Federal Reserve and the IRS were created in tandem. TPTB knew that people would never agree to a tax on their incomes on a local level, so it had to be done federally.

No one owes anything to anyone. Our primary responsibility should be that we are as self sufficient as humanly possible so we are not a burden on others.

If I grow a tomato and sell it to someone. What right or place does government have to take part of that income?

Nothing, none, zero.

If customers start to purchase more tomatoes from me, I may need to hire people. Government's role? Nothing.

Couldnt disagree more with the idea that entrepreneurs, or business people or industrialists would not have been possible without government.

We make government possible, they dont make us possible.

Government has NOTHING to do with me earning money, they do however TAKE the money I earn. In fact, thru their endless taxes, licenses, inspections, approvals, rules, regulations, penalties, fines; they have made it incredibly difficult to earn a living, start/maintain a business and often, just survive.

You're a criminal, whether you know it or not.

I could go on forever but I'm starting to ramble.

But as I said in my original post, income taxes only account for about 44% of government's receipts or income. So they would still take in trillions of dollars without having to steal from the people.


People could keep the wages that they are ENTITLED to. It would just require our bloated, wasteful, corrupt government to downsize and cut spending.


edit on 11-2-2016 by gladtobehere because: typo



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 01:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

If you take a look at cultures throughout history, you aren't going to find an example of one creating anything larger than some huts without a form of government to first organize the people.

This whole idea of the "big evil con-job government" is insanely immature and ego-centric. It's not unlike a child not wanting to share their Lego pieces.

"No! Those are MY Legos!" -- well, your tiny stack of Legos doesn't really build anything. But hey, here's a novel idea ... if you give a few pieces along with everyone else...WOW! Now you have this really cool building that everyone can play with that's way more fun than what you had on your own!

It's selfish, it's childish, its immature and it's greedy.

It must really burn people that ascribe to this "evil government con-job" that they HAVE to drive on roads, and that when their home burns down, these "meddling firemen" show up. It must really irritate these folks that they didn't build the internet they use all by themselves. It probably really steams that they can travel to another country (who am I kidding, these people never travel LOL) and be treated with respect because of international government relations. And what about these soldiers? How dare they keep other countries from invading us!

The rights of the individual are paramount and do indeed matter, but we are all part of something larger than ourselves. Like it or not, other people exist. Like it or not, everyone doesn't want the same things you do. Like it or not, certain things are GOOD for everyone, and are only possible if everyone comes together.

So just like how Greenpeace protesters should paddle wood canoes and wear only wool -- why not move to Somalia where there's no government at all? Why not go and create an anarchy utopia to rub it in everyone's faces? Why is it so hard to live by example? I see a lot of complaining, but not a lot of action from people who hold such views.

If living without any kind of government is so wonderful, why not go ask the people of Somalia how they're doing?

If you want to go back to living like a hunter-gatherer-nomad, go right ahead...because that is what the world would look like without the human organization that a government provides. If you want to wear fur skins and live in grass huts, hoping to trade your "wares" or whatever -- that's cool...just don't pretend to not take advantage of all the incredible human achievements that have only been possible because of the organizational framework various forms of government have provided.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 01:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: gladtobehere
a reply to: MystikMushroom


If I grow a tomato and sell it to someone. What right or place does government have to take part of that income?

Nothing, none, zero.

If customers start to purchase more tomatoes from me, I may need to hire people. Government's role? Nothing.

Couldnt disagree more with the idea that entrepreneurs, or business people or industrialists would not have been possible without government.

We make government possible, they dont make us possible.



Nope. You are part of a society. A community, something that is larger than you. What happens when roving bands of thieves comes and raise your field and steal your crops? No police? No military?

I suppose you are going to go "one man army" on them, or somehow convince your neighbors that in exchange for more tomatoes, it's worth risking their lives to help you catch the thieves.

Modern republics exist to serve the people who create them. They unite people in common goals in order to achieve more together than possible as singular human beings. There is an implied social contract that exists when you enter the world as a baby into this society, and at age 18 (now considered by society an adult) you can leave it. You can choose to denounce your citizenship and go wherever your heart desires.

A part of that social contract is that we all chip in to provide services that benefit the welfare of everyone. And on top of that, the shocking revelation?

No one is forced to comply with the social contract of America. You can leave at any time and go live on a boat (they call it seasteading) or whatever you want. The only limits and excuses one has are those they've put upon themselves via their choices.

I hear a lot of talk from ultra-conservatives, republicans, anarchists ect about "personal responsibility". And while I agree we all need to be held accountable for our actions, what about our responsibility to one another? Our community? Our species?

It's easy to just focus on one's own actions and be responsible for just themselves. In fact, it's a lazy and selfish way of living. Manning up and understanding that everyone has a greater responsibility beyond themselves is what takes us from the caves. It is what creates the amazing things we have around us right now. It is why we are even able to have this discussion.

The society you describe is a tribal, hunter-gatherer society that we left thousands of years ago. None of what we have as a species would be possible -- and that is why it never came to fruition during our wandering cavemen-like days. For hundreds of thousands of years we lived in small, roving bands of people living in pure anarchy -- and nothing was ever accomplished. We just survived.

I, for one, don't want to just "kinda" survive.

And quite frankly, I don't feel "oppressed" in any way. What things can't I do that I should want to be able to do? With lower taxes, what crap would I be buying that would somehow maximize my enjoyment of life? I already have enough materialistic crap, we all do. We live in America, nearly all of us are never more than 10 feet from a snack. We even throw our money away at casinos while people starve.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 01:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Semicollegiate

If you take a look at cultures throughout history, you aren't going to find an example of one creating anything larger than some huts without a form of government to first organize the people.



No one knows the government, if any, that made Stonehenge or the monoliths inscribing the curve of the European Atlantic coast.

We do know that government made the Pyramids. That must have been such fun, and so useful!

You assume government as your first premise, the parent that all of the children can't live without.

Humans have reason and can cooperate for mutual benefit. No gov needed.

Did govenrmt make language? How is social cooperation not just an extension of natural social behavior?

edit on 11-2-2016 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Okay, now you're being silly.

Of course the people in England who built Stonehenge had "government". Was it rudimentary? Absolutely, but hierarchies and a Druidic priesthood existed. Kings, noblity, laws, creeds, edicts, and laws were enforced.

A random group of folks didn't just show up, mill around and say, "Hey bro, you wanna help me drag these huge ass rocks from way WAY over there to here? I've got this crazy idea..."

No, it didn't happen like that. Truth be told we honestly don't know WHY it was built, but we do know that a social structure existed in the Celtic world that had laws. Even Vikings had leaders, laws, and systems to organize the people.

I never implied or suggested that governments are "parents". This is some kind of commonly held belief I've encountered by people who want anarchy -- which, is a lot closer to communism and Marxism than you probably realize.

Under true "anarchy" there would be no such thing as private property, you do realize this right? No self-respecting anarchist believes in the concept of private property, as it is a tool of enslavement.

Yeah, people can cooperate without a government. It's called a tribal hunter-gatherer society. Do you want to live in a tribe in the woods? Are you willing to shed all your modern conveniences?

It wasn't until human beings organized themselves efficiently with governments that anything greater than mud huts and maybe some crude clay pottery was developed.

When two or more people decide not to kill one another and work together, a rudimentary social contract is formed. A social contract is a very basic system of government, and from that it complexities in ways to more efficiently manage and maximize the potential of the humans inside of it.

You make astronomically massive assumptions that people are just going to generally get along, and be willing to continue what they do in the ways they do for mutual benefit. People aren't like that, people need motivation and incentive. I'm sorry, but that's an almost liberal "optimistic" and "idealistic" view on humanity.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 02:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
Taxes and tax time tend to vex people. So often these days we hear about the 1%, and financial discrepancies between the everyday worker and CEOs etc.

This is a thought experiment. I welcome people to disagree, and tell me where my logic is flawed. I also hold no grand illusions it is a perfect plan.

I took literally 5 minutes to come up with a federal tax system that to me would limit the wage gaps we see now, and I believe collect more taxes for the government (not sure if that's a good thing).

All numbers are based on individual or household profits, and also business profits. No deductions given, except by investing back into the company (for businesses).

For the first $70,000 earned you would pay 10%
So if you made $70,000 you would pay $7000 in taxes.

From $70,001- $150,000 you would pay 20% on what you earned over $70,000.
At $150,000, you would pay $7000 plus $16,000 or $23,000 total in taxes, or just over 15% total

At $10 million per year you would be paying 5,803,000 in taxes or about 58%

At $50 million you would be paying around 68% total, and still bringing home over $16m

The tax tables I used:

10% up to $70,000 - 7,000
20% from $70,001 to 150k- 16,000
30% from $150,001-250k- 30,000
40% from $250,001-500k- 100,000
50% from $500,001-1m- 250,000
60% from $1,000,001-10m- 5,400,000
70% from $10,000,001--50m- 28m
80% from $50,000,001 on


Historically the highest tax rate in the USA was over 90%
en.wikipedia.org...

Obviously this is a rushed model, but it would cap the highest rate to less than 80%.
It is also close to our current (USA) rates but doesn't stop at 40% at $400,000
www.bankrate.com...

It also seems some in higher wealth brackets would be willing to pay more
www.theguardian.com...

With the elections, political issues seemed the proper place for this. If it needs to move, I'm sure it will.

I'm not sure what this would do to the stock market.
Let me know what you all think.



I don't disagree with your proposed new tax rates but why not just tax share trades as they are not taxed at all. How can any economic mechanism function correctly and not have a disruptive effect if its not taxed like the rest of the economy.

The 80-20 rule applies here. 80% of all share purchases and sales are carried out by just 20% of the population, i.e, the rich so 80% of tax collected from share trades will come from the rich.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 02:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Azureblue

The way I'd justify taxing trades like you propose is that the government protects the economic system, enforces intellectual property rights ect ... so if companies want to trade shares within the borders of a country that makes it possible for them do business safely...why not?

That's just one way I'd spin it and justify it.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 03:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

originally posted by: gladtobehere
a reply to: MystikMushroom


If I grow a tomato and sell it to someone. What right or place does government have to take part of that income?

Nothing, none, zero.

If customers start to purchase more tomatoes from me, I may need to hire people. Government's role? Nothing.

Couldnt disagree more with the idea that entrepreneurs, or business people or industrialists would not have been possible without government.

We make government possible, they dont make us possible.



Nope. You are part of a society.


Yes, we are all part of human society and culture. Gov is not society. Gov is a technology, arguably useful in some circumstances.



A community, something that is larger than you.

Maybe, maybe not. Human culture has evolved to the point where community living is not a necessity. In society yes, belonging to a community no. We don't live in barracks after all.



What happens when roving bands of thieves comes and raise your field and steal your crops? No police? No military?


Roving bands of thieves would have no place to live in a modern free market society. They would be shot on sight if violent.



I suppose you are going to go "one man army" on them, or somehow convince your neighbors that in exchange for more tomatoes, it's worth risking their lives to help you catch the thieves.


My neighbors don't like "Roving bands of thieves" either. Why wouldn't they help for free?




Modern republics exist to serve the people who create them.


Says the folks paid to say that. 4 year degree debt owed to the republic having folks.



They unite people in common goals in order to achieve more together than possible as singular human beings.


So does cooperation to achieve an end. Why is gov in the loop? Redundancy at best, coercion to do the gov bidding at worst.



There is an implied social contract that exists when you enter the world as a baby...


Born into a contract is slavery.

The natural relation of the universe is to use one's God given (natural human) abilities to take care of one's self and not be a burden to others. After that, do as you please but hurt no man. Charity is often pleasing, as a human.



...into this society, and at age 18 (now considered by society an adult) you can leave it. You can choose to denounce your citizenship and go wherever your heart desires.


The gov loves to "give" something that you have already got, like the percent of your income they don't take. That is one way to balance to books.




A part of that social contract is that we all chip in to provide services that benefit the welfare of everyone.


So the tax collectors and government workers say.

Welfare has increased poverty and wasted investment money that could have started thousands of new businesses. The honorable welfare recipients would rather have a productive job in a maxed out economy. A maxed out economy is impossible with back seat driver regulations.



And on top of that, the shocking revelation?

No one is forced to comply with the social contract of America.


There is no social contract. There is coercion and cooperation.



You can leave at any time and go live on a boat (they call it seasteading) or whatever you want. The only limits and excuses one has are those they've put upon themselves via their choices.


Already have that by nature. Giving me that implies threat of force AKA gov.




I hear a lot of talk from ultra-conservatives, republicans, anarchists ect about "personal responsibility". And while I agree we all need to be held accountable for our actions, what about our responsibility to one another? Our community? Our species?


You can live that way if you want to, happily with others who think that way. It is not the way that most people's minds and motivations are wired however. And it is not conducive to a healthy, improving, and evolving community, culture, society, and species. Motivation makes action and motivation works best and longest when personal interests are the goal. Your personal interest seems to be that everyone follow your personal beliefs.




It's easy to just focus on one's own actions and be responsible for just themselves.


Yes, that is why more gets done that way. The more that gets done the more that is available to trade or "give" away. (There is always some form of payment. For giving it is relief from unease or happiness)



In fact, it's a lazy and selfish way of living. Manning up and understanding that everyone has a greater responsibility beyond themselves is what takes us from the caves. It is what creates the amazing things we have around us right now. It is why we are even able to have this discussion.



"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

Adam Smith

Read more at www.brainyquote.com...
""
We are past the caves from human motivation, not from human charity.





The society you describe is a tribal, hunter-gatherer society that we left thousands of years ago. None of what we have as a species would be possible -- and that is why it never came to fruition during our wandering cavemen-like days. For hundreds of thousands of years we lived in small, roving bands of people living in pure anarchy -- and nothing was ever accomplished. We just survived.


Your delusion. Self-interest made the commercial system that motivated the Industrial Revolution.




I, for one, don't want to just "kinda" survive.

And quite frankly, I don't feel "oppressed" in any way. What things can't I do that I should want to be able to do? With lower taxes, what crap would I be buying that would somehow maximize my enjoyment of life? I already have enough materialistic crap, we all do. We live in America, nearly all of us are never more than 10 feet from a snack. We even throw our money away at casinos while people starve.


We are still coasting on the gains made by the Industrial Revolution. If we were still progressing and producing and inventing there would be no national debt.
edit on 11-2-2016 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 04:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Okay, now you're being silly.

Of course the people in England who built Stonehenge had "government". Was it rudimentary? Absolutely, but hierarchies and a Druidic priesthood existed. Kings, noblity, laws, creeds, edicts, and laws were enforced.

A random group of folks didn't just show up, mill around and say, "Hey bro, you wanna help me drag these huge ass rocks from way WAY over there to here? I've got this crazy idea..."

No, it didn't happen like that. Truth be told we honestly don't know WHY it was built,


Then you don't' know that government was necessary to build it. Maybe a religion built it with government hindrance.



but we do know that a social structure existed in the Celtic world that had laws. Even Vikings had leaders, laws, and systems to organize the people.


The arrangement of social relations is not government. Government is taxation and deadly force from one human onto another human.




I never implied or suggested that governments are "parents".


I said your view of gov is like a parent to a child. You ignore reason in human behavior.



This is some kind of commonly held belief I've encountered by people who want anarchy -- which, is a lot closer to communism and Marxism than you probably realize.


The free market just happens in the absence of coercion. Communism happens because of coercion.




Under true "anarchy" there would be no such thing as private property, you do realize this right?


Law is separate from gov.



No self-respecting anarchist believes in the concept of private property, as it is a tool of enslavement.


Anarchy is the absence of government. There are still rules like any association can have.




Yeah, people can cooperate without a government. It's called a tribal hunter-gatherer society.


When people cooperate it is called cooperation.



It wasn't until human beings organized themselves efficiently with governments that anything greater than mud huts and maybe some crude clay pottery was developed.


Government doesn't do anything that the people don't do themselves. Associating gov with anything doesn't make the gov necessary to anything.




When two or more people decide not to kill one another and work together, a rudimentary social contract is formed.


A contract among the parties involved is formed.



A social contract is a very basic system of government,


A contract is voluntary, gov is not voluntary.



and from that it complexities in ways to more efficiently manage and maximize the potential of the humans inside of it.


The gov does not do anything. The people abiding by the contract manage themselves and profit or are hindered by the terms of the contract.




You make astronomically massive assumptions that people are just going to generally get along, and be willing to continue what they do in the ways they do for mutual benefit. People aren't like that, people need motivation and incentive. I'm sorry, but that's an almost liberal "optimistic" and "idealistic" view on humanity.


Society motivates people to go along to get along. Cooperation and the division of labor makes more stuff from the same amount of man hours. Production of surplus food and whatever is what makes society better than living in a hut. Surplus allows trade for locally unavailable items and the accumulation of wealth. The possibility of accumulating enough wealth to no longer need to work is possible.

Criminals are less than 1% of the population, and criminality depends on economic failures, which are mostly caused by government. You are more likely to be a victim as a result of gov, because gov ruins the economy. Natural born criminals who take rather try to make a surplus would become extinct with less violence than occurred in the last big war.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Could they make profit sharing more of an incentive to the employer? I'm sure an employer can write off their contributions towards profit sharing, but it seems there isn't much incentive there. The reason I bring that up is because profit sharing can be very beneficial for the company and employee's from my view point.

I know this is just one tiny part to the grand scheme of things, but I feel that is what it's going to take. Many little things and more incentive for company's to give back to their employees. I don't want our government reaching into anyones pockets more than the next person, but at this point something has to change. There is no denying all the money is funneling to the top at an exponential rate.

We also need more incentives for companies to keep there business in America and not ship jobs overseas. That is our biggest issue as of right now. I know we are one of the top consumer countries in the world. Would it work to put harsh tariffs on products shipped into the United States from corporations?

I have a million ideas running through my head, just wish I was more knowledgable on the topic, but there is my 2 cents.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

Just one problem here. iT'S NOT YOUR MONEY!

People and companies who manage to make large amounts of money are doing it for the reward. That being profits that turn into income. Remove that incentive and you kill the system that led up to them making those profits. Why would Ford even bother to make cars if at the end of the day they don't get to keep the reward (profits)? And that goes for all other products as well.

Frankly under your system of excessive taxes life would eventually suck. The economy would nosedive and you would wind up with a economy resembling Communist Russsia before it's collapse.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: randomtangentsrme
So another Progressive based sliding scale for taxes, where people that earn more are penalized and forced to fund everyone else.

How is that any different than what we have today?

How about a flat tax. 5% on EVERYONE'S income. No deductions.

Or a consumption tax.

No one group, regardless of what they earn, should be carrying the weight for others.


edit on 11-2-2016 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 12:53 PM
link   
I think the OP's tax plan is far too punitive on the rich. I admit I don't like rich people either, but taxing them at 80% is just plain robbery.

We should have a fair tax plan. A flat tax with no deductions or exceptions is the way. I favor a flat tax at somewhere around 10 to 15 percent, myself.

No "sliding scale" no tiers, brackets, or levels. Just everyone pays the same percentage. It's simple.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: ntech
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

Just one problem here. iT'S NOT YOUR MONEY!

People and companies who manage to make large amounts of money are doing it for the reward. That being profits that turn into income. Remove that incentive and you kill the system that led up to them making those profits. Why would Ford even bother to make cars if at the end of the day they don't get to keep the reward (profits)? And that goes for all other products as well.

Frankly under your system of excessive taxes life would eventually suck. The economy would nosedive and you would wind up with a economy resembling Communist Russsia before it's collapse.


Funny you mention Ford as he doubled the wage of his employees so that they could afford to buy the cars he was producing. He did so to sell more cars, and get more rewards.
www.thedailybeast.com...

My system of taxes tops out before reaching the highest levels the USA has seen in the last 100 years. It would also invite businesses and corporations, to pay their employees more to lessen their own tax burden.

As I asked another member in this thread, would this system of taxing have you paying more or less than you are currently?




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join