It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Alright, Taxes discussion, what is actually FAIR?

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 10:49 PM
reply to post by whatukno

Simple and effective.

I can agree with something simple and effective.

But there has to be a reason why government doesn't want something simple and effective.

posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 11:02 PM

Maybe this link will help a little, it's the wiki page with alot of info on how your taxes are being used.

posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 11:10 PM
reply to post by endisnighe


I have no f-ing idea

I do know that the whole lot of us seemed to have been placed here to fund other peoples endeavors... I am talking ALL of it, the whole thing, taxes to bills-

You know what is different about now End

There is NO way for a human to just be

in the founding days and much of human history you could go out and LIVE.

NOW you need a "job" - but the goal used to be earn for yourself to give to you and yours

Now it's - earn for them and theirs

don't know what it means, I am just saying how I FEEL instead of thinking for once...

Edit to say; the job is not the problem - it is the function of which, in this modern world.

Just to be a normal human you have to produce for somebody, in the olden days
you could very well produce for yourself, no prerequisites or financial requirements
into modernity.

[edit on 9-4-2010 by Janky Red]

posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 11:40 PM
The " Fair Tax HR 25 is the way to go. The book was written by Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder. This Bill would rid us all of the Income Tax, IRS. No more Social Security Tax, Medicare Tax, death Tax, corporate income taxes etc... We can repeal the 16th admendment and get busy spending our hard earned money the right way. You keep your intire paycheck with no taxes withheld from it. When you retire you get a full pension not half of it gone to government tax codes. I could go on and on about the Fair Tax HR 25 but it's best that you read it, research it and compare it to anything else out there. It may not be perfect but it surely beats the pants off what we got now.

The Fair Tax

posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 12:06 AM
reply to post by Janky Red


You have to produce for EVERYBODY!

Sorry, I just frelling went OFF tonight!

posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 12:28 AM
Do we think indeed?

I'm well versed in the principles all around - society has an overriding need for shared services for humans, if the funds for those necessary things is taxation then so be it - I cannot disagree with taxation on principle. But those details - and the system - ad infinitem objections.
So I concede the necessity for taxes, and the necessity for fairness.
And that I haven't a clue about implementation without changing the game completely about exchanges of value - including "taxation".


posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 03:26 AM
reply to post by Janky Red


I am me, you are you, life is just a reality!?

posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 03:35 AM
reply to post by jam321

Put that many lawyers in one room and what you get out is going to be absolute garbage.

See, politicians like to lie, so they make things WAY overcomplicated. Just like lying.

posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 03:48 AM
reply to post by whatukno

Simple tax system.

Why do people have to enact a complex system? You know why.

Anyway, we have an effective tax rate of about 50-75% tax rate. That is if you make anywhere from 35k to about 100k.

People do not even realize the taxes they pay.

I ask you wuk, will you tell them?

posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 04:42 AM
reply to post by endisnighe

Sure, why not?

People do have the right to know after all.

posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 04:54 AM
reply to post by habfan1968

I understand some of your point but the 10 thousand "maybe it's too high?"
60 percent of the Households (not workers) in the US make 60 thousand a year Or Less. One out of every 5 households live on 19 thousand or less. For those, the majority I believe, 10 thousand is a bloody fortune. The rich have everyone fooled. Only 3.5 percent or so make above 150 thousand a year. The rest is psyop to make us feel we have to work harder.

posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 05:16 AM
Sure, make the taxes more complex & longer so I gotta go to a tax lawyer to figure out my taxes. The Roman senate was more lienient/simple in its tax system in its day. You know the US is a republic, just like Rome, just a lil different. At least Rome knew in its glory days that when the Roman people prospered, Rome prospered. The USA govt can't get enough of kicking its citizens & taxing them in all legal ways and making more legal ways to tax. Either there is going to be a really hard kick back or we are all doomed to be the next 3rd world country.

posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 05:43 AM
reply to post by TC Mike

The Full Tax Code

[edit on 4/10/2010 by whatukno]

posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 05:48 AM

Google Video Link

Back to Basic's...

posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 07:21 AM
reply to post by whatukno

Nice post wuk. And timely too! But most will ignore any good this man is doing. They would rather classify him as a failure despite his best efforts. They are looking for wholesale change in one fell swoop by the whisk of some magic wand.

They would rather complain and divide and conquer. For some discontent is simply a way of life and misery loves company.

Real change and reform is accomplished by hard work, determination and continuity. The existing political mechanisms in place allow for productive change and reform, but that would require an organized, careful and balanced effort. It is far easier to just come on here and gripe.

"It is better to light a candle, than curse the darkness." - Oscar Wilde

[edit on 10-4-2010 by kinda kurious]

posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 07:36 AM
reply to post by kinda kurious

I am so over the neo-con, pseudo conservative, internet revolutionary rhetoric. Yes there are problems, no Obama is not going to fix it all, yes taxes do suck, yes the tax code is WAY too complicated for anyones own good.

Obama did reduce taxes for a lot of people. (No one here would dare say so, good god no, can't say that can we?)

[edit on 4/10/2010 by whatukno]

posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 01:46 PM
reply to post by Solarskye

We should definitely have a flat sales tax rate. I've forgotten what it is officially called, however. For example sales tax is 20%. Everyone is a consumer, the rich, the poor, the citizens, the non citizens, the illegals, etc. So EVERYONE pays their fare taxes, and it's not anyone not to pay taxes unless they just don't buy anything. The rich pay more because they buy more, the poorer pay less because they buy less. If you bought a house and decided to sell it, i (the would be buyer) won't have to pay taxes on it because the first owner already paid it's taxes. This way we can get rid of all the hiding money the scheming and etc. And this also causes stops in double taxation and overlapping taxation.

posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 06:50 PM
reply to post by whatukno

Ok to be serious, toss out the tax code, 1 Page tax code, 15% tax on all goods, sales and income.

I think this idea here, comes closest to being the fairest taxation plan presented thus far, and Wuk, if you are able to get elected and dedicate your legislative career towards repealing the current tax system and replacing it with a one page tax code, you will not only be a hero in my book, but I am willing to wager a hero to this nation. A grand statue will be built at the Wuk memorial someday where a woodpecker stands holding a five volume set of the current tax code, while tossing them into the fire for burning, and an inscription will read:

"Sheesh oh Pete!"

Here are some problems you will have taking your ideas of what is taxed and keeping that down to a one page code:

1.) A general sales tax, is easier to legislate I believe than income is, as you have several state models to follow where what is taxable is fairly broad, and even broader when expanded to "use" tax as well, but the broader you get in your scope of taxes, the more pages you will need to define what is taxable.

2.) Income; I believe the very reason the current tax code is a five volume set is because it has made a Sisyphusian effort to avoid naming income specifically as a subject of the tax, and is legally limited in what occupations it can name as a taxed event, so it has built a giant fun house of mirrors and deception through the circumlocution of definition and tautological language.

a.) Income is not the subject of the current income tax laws. If income were the subject of the income tax laws, it would be a direct tax on property, and subject to the rule of apportionment, but it is a non apportioned tax, and further it is uniform in its implementation, which is a requirement of all indirect taxes. Based upon this, and supported by the authority of the 16th Amendment, and subsequent SCOTUS rulings regarding it, it is clear that the current income tax laws are indirect taxes and not direct taxes.

b.) Indirect taxes; are any imposts, excises, duties and tariff's, or anything that is not a direct tax, but the former is not necessarily true of the latter, since terms as "excise" are often used to refer to a direct tax as well. Generally, since indirect taxes do not include capitation taxes or property taxes, they are taxed events. Some specific activity would be that taxed event.

c.) Taxable events; taxable events are generally viewed as any transfer of title, transfer of possession, or transfer of the title and no possession, depending upon the circumstances, i.e. a "use" tax. Income is not generally viewed as a taxable event, and for a specific reason. Income is property earned, not transferred by title or possession, it is money in its simplest terms.

This is why the current Code goes out of its way, in most circumstances, to name any subject of any tax, because if they were to name income as the subject of the tax, as I explained, first of all they would have to apportion the tax among the several states, but even if Congress were able to convince the courts its an indirect tax, as opposed to a direct tax, they run afoul with the law the minute they attempt to use a persons income as evidence they earned income, they have relied upon the fruits of the poisonous tree, because it is a violation of the 4th Amendment. Allow me to explain:

2.) American Jurisprudence:

There are basic principles of Constitutional taxation. There are two great classes of taxation, direct and indirect. Direct taxation is subject to the rule of apportionment, and indirect subject to uniformity. There is one limitation placed upon Congress complete and plenary power of taxation, which is no authority for duties laid on articles exported from any state. take note of that when considering your sales tax.

In keeping the tax code down to just a few pages, then taxation can not be ambitious. The broader the scope of taxation, the more pages will be required, (it bared repeating), and in order for a tax to be valid, there has to be a subject to the tax. There are no subjectless taxes, and every tax has a subject. So, in writing a tax code, the subject must be known, but further, we must know who has been made liable for the tax, so that we may know who is subject to the revenue law.

a.) income; When taxing income as property, we know who is liable for the tax, because those who have income are liable for it. But, apportionment of such a tax, across the several states, is not a few page tax code, so that won't work. However, if it is an indirect tax on some specific activity, the only way I could imagine you passing a tax that includes all occupations, without listing those occupations specifically, and separately, is to lay a tax on earning income.

The problem with simply naming earning income as the subject of the tax, begins with the right to earn income, and is property, and as the SCOTUS has stated, "a tax laid upon happening of an event, as distinguished from its tangible fruits, is an indirect tax." Income are tangible fruits. To distinguish earning that fruit, from the fruit, is questionable in its Constitutionality and we need look no further than 48 American Jurisprudence 2d, section 2, page 80:

The right to labor and to its protection from unlawful interference is a constitutional as well as common law right. Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own industry.

So, if you hope to create a non defeatable income tax, by declaring the act of earning income, you will have to require filing laws, (more pages), and in doing so, you will be unlawfully interfering with that person right. The 4th Amendment is clear in that no search and seizure of personal property, can be lawful without a warrant or oath of affirmation. So, you can not force people to file for this tax, and all you can hope to do is create a scenario, (much like the current code), where you have employers who pay wages, report that income as an oath of affirmation, which means...more pages.

Further, even with that oath of affirmation, a person still has a fifth Amendment right to not file, as such filing would be self incriminating. This is why the IRS has a tendency to stress the "voluntary" nature of the income tax. There are many cases that support the argument that the public owes nothing except for when trespassing upon rights, and may not be taxed for the mere privilege of existence, outside of a capitation tax.

I would suggest to you Wuk, that income taxation inherently belongs in the category of excises, and should only be used to measure how much is owed in regards to the tax laid upon some taxable event. Alcohol, tobacco, and other events that are not so clearly a right, seem to be taxable events. I would argue that the existing drug laws have narrowed the scope of possible taxable events. Prostitution, gambling, any sort of activity that may in some way may create a concern for the general welfare of the nation, is a taxable event. Rather than prohibit them, and create prisons in order to incarcerate those who defy the prohibition, simply tax them, and the power to tax is the power to destroy.

In conclusion, I would argue that truly the only fair tax is a defeatable tax. Sales taxes are defeatable as one is not compelled to buy anything. The people can choose what they buy, when they buy it, and if they will buy it all. Taxing food, and other essentials necessary for survival is probably not a good idea, and taxing those events that are mere luxury is what should be taxed, but with caution, since the power to tax is the power to destroy, and it would not serve the public interest to destroy an industry.

I wish you could just come up with a simple tax code in one or two pages, but I just don't see how that would be possible given all the principles of Constitutional taxation. Further, it is not as if we can just roll back to 100 years ago, or later, as we are in too much of a pickle now, to do so. While I have tended to quibble with you over which comes first, cut the spending, or cut the taxes, and I do believe that if you don't cut taxes, Congress won't cut spending, even with you standing right beside Ron and Rand, demanding they do.

I do think you can create an income tax code that comes with an expiration date, and if you do that, you should probably just go with a direct tax on property, and make all people who have income liable, for a period of a few years, while you get to the business of cutting back all the programs and bureaucracies that are choking this nation. In the meantime you devise some form of equitable taxation based upon taxable events, and use income as a source of measurement to determine the amount of tax owed, which I don't think can be reduced to just a few pages, but if you keep it to specific activities, each person involved in such an activity, need only look to the section of where that activity has been named as the subject of the tax, to know they are liable, then to one or two more sections to know how to pay the tax.

In conclusion I applaud your vision of a brief and simple tax code, I would hope you extend that vision to all laws legislated, and thank you for telling the people that our current tax code is too complicated and too hard to understand. A legislator who understands that legislation must be written in clear and concise language and easy to understand, is a great legislator. Taxes...ugh. Not just for those who pay it, but obviously for those who have to legislate it as well...ugh.

posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 07:03 PM

Originally posted by habfan1968

Estate tax is unfair in any way shape or form. So I work hard my whole life so my kids don't have to and I leave them $100,000,000 and you think it's ok to give over 99% of that money? Is that much money more than they need, yes, but it is mine not yours to give to my kids not yours. If you want a piece of that hundred mill, you work for it.

All tax systems are unfair to one group or another.
You might say a fair tax is everybody pay exactly the same amount.
So you set the tax at 10,000.
Doesnt work.
Somebody who makes minimum wage has nothing left to live on.
Somebody who makes a million a year loves it.

So taxes have to apportioned according to how much a person can pay.

You say if you want a piece of that hundred million you have to work for it. Then you say you want to give it to your kids. They didnt work for it.
You admit they dont need it.

Essentially you want to create a dynasty of money and power,your own fiefdom for your family.

Well that is what has been going on since the beginning of money.

Its called Royalty,and the New World Order. You get to be ruled by the


Thats what happens when people worship money.

posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 07:36 PM

Originally posted by endisnighe

Okay, the US personal income tax system is over 45,000 pages!

I want the ATS members to breakdown either why the US system of taxation is correct and fair, or why that the system as it exists today, is unfair.

Now, we have in the US about four levels of government. City, County, State, Federal.

Next, we have taxation systems at every level. We have NO idea what our actual effective rate of taxation is!

Now, I am only asking, what is your taxation system, do you have ANY idea what your actual effective tax rate is?

Ok if you listen to countries which have a successtory in some form of socialism, and i say in some form because socialism is what you do with it...ex, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland ect...the taxes must be fair to the citizens, and there is a transparency in the system, the citizens have right to now where every taxdollar goes no black budgets...the more you earn the more you pay in tax, but no more than forty percent...
And if you do this right you experience like we sickcare no matter of illnes or level of high quality kindergarden...highly reduced cost to dentalcare for adults, and free for kids from 0-18 poor people living on the streets...if you are out of job you get 85 percent of your last sallary in up to two years...and a positive side effect you gain from all of this is a very low crime rate...and so on...and most important there are no bigbrother mentality by the government, which some of you seems to think...the government are simply put there by the people for the people...


top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in