For Anyone Who Doesn't Think They Should Have To Pay Taxes, Let's Take A Closer Look.

I don't do any of those things except for the roads, but that's a bit unfair, is it even legal to have a private road? No, all roads are controlled so that's like saying a prisoner in a prison is using tax payer dollars. Well he doesn't have much choice now does he? Well...you don't have to drive. Well...you don't have to tax.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Flatfish

 

With the exception of 1-4, the others are at the local level. So, using the others in the argument of Fed Taxes is void.
Now, again, the question is simple. How much more does the individual have to pay?
Of it were only for 1-4, then taxes would be lower. But, they are not. The Fed taxes income and purchases.
They get to take a portion from the individual.

Actually, there are 102 items supported by taxes on the list, I only copied the top 10 to this thread. You'll have to visit the link to view the rest of them. Furthermore, I don't believe that the Fed currently taxes purchases, that's what Herman Cain is advocating in his 9-9-9 plan, a "new" federal sales tax.

Why do I need to pay for others to live?
Where does the Govt and the members get the idea that it is ok to take from me to provide for others.
How much is too much?
How much should I be allowed to keep, from what I earned? You did not do my work. The Govt did not do my work. You and the Govt are not entitled to benefits or rewards of my work.
That is called plunder.
Or theft outside the Govt circle.

Crazy as it may seem, maybe they got those ideas here;

www.usconstitution.net...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913. Note History

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Just saying, maybe that's where the crazy idea that we should look out for each other came from.

Originally posted by Flatfish
Recently at one of the GOP presidential debates, a member of the viewing audience asked the candidates this question; "Out of every dollar I earn, how much do you think that I deserve to keep?" I don't specifically know why Michelle Bachmann was chosen to give the answer, but here it is; (I have to warn you, it's a little contradictory to say the least but I've learned to expect nothing less from Rep. Bachmann.)


In reality, I don't think that anyone cherishes the idea of paying taxes but I do believe that most reasonable people realize that taxes are the means by which this nation raises the necessary revenues to meet it's social responsibilities and without them, there really wouldn't be much of a nation here to support. From another perspective, Elizabeth Warren offers this simple dose of reality in her response to some "class warfare" questions at a town hall meeting;


Here's a list of "102 things not to do if you hate taxes" that is a little more specific with respect to identifying some of the crucial services supported by tax dollars and as long as this list may be, I'm sure there are things that were left off. I won't paste the entire list in this thread but here's the top ten and the rest can be found here;

www.addictinginfo.org...

1. Do not use Medicare.
2. Do not use Social Security
3. Do not become a member of the US military, who are paid with tax dollars.
4. Do not ask the National Guard to help you after a disaster.
5. Do not call 911 when you get hurt.
6. Do not call the police to stop intruders in your home.
7. Do not summon the fire department to save your burning home.
8. Do not drive on any paved road, highway, and interstate or drive on any bridge.
9. Do not use public restrooms.
10. Do not send your kids to public schools.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that they should "Love" paying taxes, only that to some degree, they are necessary and that in some little way, each and every one of us should feel good about paying our fair share. The best way to judge a nation is by the way they treat the least fortunate among them.

Oh please. If my income tax pays for for items 1-10 then why am I paying:

School Tax
Gas Tax
Property Tax
Road Tolls
City Tax
County Tax
State Tax
Sales tax
Vehicle registration
Capital Gains Tax

And as for Medicaid and Social Security I am paying into it with no guarantee I'll ever get it back. A) I might die before I reach age 65 and then have no way to pass it on to my family and B) the system is barely sustaining itself now as it is what will happen in 30 years when I can retire?

The article itself is flawed many of the things listed were privately funded but lets start with your 10.

1. Do not use Medicare.
2. Do not use Social Security
3. Do not become a member of the US military, who are paid with tax dollars.
4. Do not ask the National Guard to help you after a disaster.
5. Do not call 911 when you get hurt.
6. Do not call the police to stop intruders in your home.
7. Do not summon the fire department to save your burning home.
8. Do not drive on any paved road, highway, and interstate or drive on any bridge.
9. Do not use public restrooms.
10. Do not send your kids to public schools.

1-I don't I pay the doctor out of my own pocket and it's just slightly higher than what your copay would be.
2-Not old enough and not counting on it either
3-Doesn't apply and my life is justr as safe without them, probably safer. Japan didn't invade america because they knew most homeowners had a gun or two. The people could be an army if they weren't so indoctrinated that guns are evil and not to be used for protection.
4-They did a great job after Katrina didn't they I'll do without their so called help thank you.
5-I'd call a friend first.
6-They probably 'are' the intruders why add fuel to the fire?
7-Be proactive and don't live in a tinderbox. Plan on a fire happening and take precautions beforehand.
8-Tell me the option around it? They have paved everything in a city what if your religion requires you to walk on the earth directly without a concrete or asphalt barrier?
9-They lock them you can't. Even if I had access I wouldn't use one.
10-Don't have them but public schooling does not turn out educated kids just indoctrinated slaves.

There's taxes on income and then there's taxes on goods.

In SD we don't have an income tax, only a state tax of 4% on goods as well as 2% city tax if it's within city limits and a 1.5% tourism tax on lodging etc. We also have a property tax.

A lot of the stuff we have is because of local taxes, not FIT. The only roads the feds maintain is the interstate, highways and other roads are maintained by local municipalities or the state. Sure we can get some extra money from disaster declarations and such but most of it is paid by local taxes.

The tax on income and the tax on property should be abolished. The taxes on goods can stay since you at least have a choice on buying something.

To everyone here that keeps referring to "Income" taxes, please keep in mind that I never once wrote the words "income" taxes in my thread. I never said that all these things were paid for with "income taxes," those are your words. This thread is about taxes in general and the good things that are made possible as a result of them.

reply to post by Flatfish

I made a direct response to you pointing out that while I agree with your basic notion, to carry it into the conclusion that it does not matter how taxes are facilitated is just as hyperbolic as not paying taxes at all. Please review my post, your thoughts would be appreciated. I don't often give my time to this sort of thing and would appreciate some continued reciprocation. Thanks.

Originally posted by Flatfish

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Flatfish

 

With the exception of 1-4, the others are at the local level. So, using the others in the argument of Fed Taxes is void.
Now, again, the question is simple. How much more does the individual have to pay?
Of it were only for 1-4, then taxes would be lower. But, they are not. The Fed taxes income and purchases.
They get to take a portion from the individual.

Actually, there are 102 items supported by taxes on the list, I only copied the top 10 to this thread. You'll have to visit the link to view the rest of them. Furthermore, I don't believe that the Fed currently taxes purchases, that's what Herman Cain is advocating in his 9-9-9 plan, a "new" federal sales tax.

Why do I need to pay for others to live?
Where does the Govt and the members get the idea that it is ok to take from me to provide for others.
How much is too much?
How much should I be allowed to keep, from what I earned? You did not do my work. The Govt did not do my work. You and the Govt are not entitled to benefits or rewards of my work.
That is called plunder.
Or theft outside the Govt circle.

Crazy as it may seem, maybe they got those ideas here;

www.usconstitution.net...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913. Note History

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Just saying, maybe that's where the crazy idea that we should look out for each other came from.

There is a federal tax on gas.

And no, the Progressive way of reading the Constitution is that the Welfare is welfare.
Might as well bang the drum that there is an official statement in there for separation of church and state.

Originally posted by Dasher
reply to post by patternfinder

 

You are entirely confused as I did not say anything like the second quote.
Again, my post clearly defines a method which would help to resolve unnecessary taxes and would eliminate a lot of "fat" in national systems.

I am unsure of why you are failing to see that my posts are in accord with what you are saying in brief, you are obviously confused, but now I am concerned that you are playing the part for the sake of misdirection. I hope that is not the case.

oops, sorry, i didn't mean to quote your post, i was aiming at the op.....that's why i couldn't understand why you were saying what you were saying ha ha......i just quoted the wrong post...........

reply to post by Dasher


I really don't see a hell of a lot of difference between keeping my tax dollars local vs sending them to the Fed for redistribution other than the fact that it reduces the size of the pool from which to derive the assets to fix the problem. In other words, Why should the four states on the southern border be forced to independently tackle illegal immigration when it's a national problem? Why should these states be forced to independently cover the cost of emergency room care or education for illegals? I'm not saying that they shouldn't receive treatment or schooling, only that our nation should collectively cover the cost.

It's not like the Fed is a profit taking private entity, they are merely administering the funds to the appropriate agencies depending on the various needs.

I think what we really need is an overhaul in the competency and efficiency department of government. I'm all for revamping the tax code and eliminating all the deductions and loopholes. Even President Obama invited the new super-committee in congress to do the same. He just stated that if they chose not to do so, then they should consider returning to the Clinton era tax rates.

Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by Dasher

 

I really don't see a hell of a lot of difference between keeping my tax dollars local vs sending them to the Fed for redistribution other than the fact that it reduces the size of the pool from which to derive the assets to fix the problem. In other words, Why should the four states on the southern border be forced to independently tackle illegal immigration when it's a national problem? Why should these states be forced to independently cover the cost of emergency room care or education for illegals? I'm not saying that they shouldn't receive treatment or schooling, only that our nation should collectively cover the cost.

It's not like the Fed is a profit taking private entity, they are merely administering the funds to the appropriate agencies depending on the various needs.

I think what we really need is an overhaul in the competency and efficiency department of government. I'm all for revamping the tax code and eliminating all the deductions and loopholes. Even President Obama invited the new super-committee in congress to do the same. He just stated that if they chose not to do so, then they should consider returning to the Clinton era tax rates.

what?????? you're trying to say that the fed isn't a profit taking private entity????


watch this

reply to post by Flatfish

I am sorry that I cannot specifically answer the questions you posed:
Nevertheless, I clearly stated that there are national programs which should obviously receive money from local governments. I partially agree that immigration is a national economic issue, but I lack the wisdom to truly determine whether the economics/politics are justified to require national economic subsidies for immigration issues.

One thought opposed to my leanings which are in agreement with you would be the idea of a physical wall. I do not agree that is the best way, however. Correcting immigration policies is what I favor.

Hear me well, I am stating no solid opinion on that topic due to my own inabilities despite partially agreeing with you, but I do wish to convey, again, the greater idea;

Funds should follow the same pattern as our representative government. We elect local officials to represent us in higher arenas. Our monetary contributions to our society should follow the same pattern.


Certainly there are many issues to wonder about regarding national distribution of local monies, but unless taxes take a form which is founded on good judgment instead of the love of money/power, we are simply heading to a point in which the folly of our collective ways will overcome us. We are already over 14 TRILLION dollars in debt. That is literally unfathomable for me to consider.

Consider this:
Unless there is a drastic and draconian economic reboot, our economies are headed for disaster. Just as I likened this situation to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch: The trash is piling up, and making more things that use less plastic doesn't fix the problem, it just adds to it more slowly. So then, once we go beyond the tipping point... what then? The natural and good reaction will, most likely, occur. Local organizations will be forced to take over and "make it happen."

I don't plan on rolling over and whining. I plan on moving forward regardless of what occurs, God willing. So then, with a deflated national government, the natural course of neighbors will be forced upon us. Hopefully we will take joy and godly pride in that and make the best of what is to come (as we should be doing now and in all cases).

I am Cherokee. I don't pay taxes. The constitution says "Indians not taxed".

Yay me.

Under a perfect, or fair system determined by the people.. sure, reasonable taxes are fine.

The GOP & DNC offer far from a perfect system that I have no problem with people rejecting...