Taxes, time to pay your fair share
-
So I wonder how much in tax everyone would need to pay if the only thing the Govt spent money on were the things it was SUPPOSE to spend money on. ie: military, interstate road systems, etc and not all these friggin handouts or some special library named after xyz congressman.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
DaveH;191240 wrote:
So I wonder how much in tax everyone would need to pay if the only thing the Govt spent money on were the things it was SUPPOSE to spend money on. ie: military, interstate road systems, etc and not all these friggin handouts or some special library named after xyz congressman.Short answer: Not much.
-
If you listen to enough Ron Paul Q&A you'll know that less than 1/3rd of the federal governments revenue comes from the income tax. If we could spend 2/3rds what we do now, we could abolish the income tax entirely.
The income tax was first introduced to fund the civil war. It became a permanant fixture of US politics in 1913. The reagan tax cut was the largest in history -- prior to it, the top bracket was 50%.
-
Taxes just blow ass. The rich have been carrying the burdens of the poor since forever. I feel very sorry for them too, cuz they're rich and that would suck.
-
DaveH;191240 wrote:
So I wonder how much in tax everyone would need to pay if the only thing the Govt spent money on were the things it was SUPPOSE to spend money on. ie: military, interstate road systems, etc and not all these friggin handouts or some special library named after xyz congressman.Every year I get all worked up about taxes at least a couple of different times. Yesterday, pay day, was one of those times again. I am in the same boat as you Dave; whenever I work overtime I get killed. I live in Minnesota, am single, and bought a house too late this year to itemize, so I actually get killed about as bad on taxes as anyone can who earns less than $150,000. Next year I’ll be able to itemize and deduct my interest, so at least I’ll be able to garner that deduction in my overall tax burden.
I am a supporter of the FairTax idea, but not everything, or a lot of things, which it proposes. One reason I really like the FairTax is because it lets every individual determine their own tax burden. If you don’t want to pay high taxes, don’t buy a new TV, motorcycle, car, etc. If I feel like living a frugal lifestyle now in order to retire early, it would be much easier to put away a bunch of cash without have my check destroyed by income taxes. If you look at this country’s spending habits vs. income levels it shows that taxing a person’s purchases vs. their income is actually a more stable means of collection. I don’t agree how the FairTax supporters pitch it as the be-all, end-all idea that is going to save the country. I’m not going to go into this all right now because this thread isn’t about the FairTax initiative.
I’m not a Republican or a Democrat; I dislike each side just about the same. I wish people wouldn’t always turn the tax discussion (or any political discussion for that matter) into a partisan debate. Why can’t we all simply agree that the government spends entirely too much money and has been doing this for years? The 9 trillion dollar national debt was not created solely by one political party. The US collected a little over 2.2 trillion dollars last year. They paid around 406 billion on interest on the national debt. I would like to see a shift in our government's focus to paying off the national debt. Suspend any new programs, additions to existing programs … anything that would mean additional spending. Use any surplus, not the surplus left after the new programs, to pay down the debt. Without the national debt the US would be left with an additional 20% to give back to its citizens. This would only happen though if the citizens required the government to curtail their spending before and after the debt is paid off.
How much do we spend on “fluff” every year? Why should everyone be entitled to a free ride if they don’t feel like working? Why should living in the US entitle you to anything besides a chance to go get yours? Last time I checked, if I don’t work show up for work, I don’t get a paycheck. The same should go for those on welfare. If you can’t find a job, the government should give you one. You can’t tell me there isn’t work that could be done of every city block in this country (picking up trash, painting buildings, cleaning toilets). At least we’d be getting something out of our tax dollars, plus it would offer incentive to go get a better, possibly even a real job.
Please don’t paint me as a cynic that thinks that welfare if the worst thing in the world. Social programs are and should be in place to give people a chance to better themselves. I have an old co-worker who is currently on welfare and using it the way that is should be. His wife goes to school full-time and works part time. They have two kids. He quit his full time job to go back to school full time. He is given a few grants to help pay for school, he gets his healthcare picked up by the state (MN Cares), and he spends the next couple of years suckling on our country’s teat. I know him though and the minute that he is done with school he will be back into the workforce earning a much higher wage, providing much higher tax revenue each year until his retirement. Before making his decision, he bought his trailer house and paid it off by working the last few years. Would he rather have a nicer/newer house? Of course, but he is willing to sacrifice a few years of his life to have a better future. This is the kind of thing that these programs do and should allow, nothing more-nothing less.
Why should I have to pay for someone else’s perpetual lack of education, skill, determination, or whatever else is keeping them from making it in this country. I’ve had to work for every cent I have. I worked my ass off while going to college pay my bills. I applied for an NSF scholarship and was awarded a $13,000/year scholarship. After filling out my FAFSA information the scholarship was withdrawn because I made too much money. If I was have been sitting on my ass on financial aid I would have been awarded this scholarship. I still managed to work my way through school and left without a single loan for my schooling. Being debt free has allowed me to do so many things that I wouldn’t be able to do otherwise, just as it would the United States government.
Sorry for the ridiculously long rant. My lack of sleep (went to the Sevendust concert last night) coupled with the Red Bull that I just slammed has turned mind onto thinking about a myriad of different things all at once.
Lucas
-
tjamz;190887 wrote:
I was wrong, I figured it at 20% http://www.fargostreet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9510&highlight=flatfor those that don't want to dig:
http://www.fargostreet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=151840&postcount=37
For those that don't want to click:
Chuck...I dont understand why you don't like the fair tax beings you figured out a flat tax @ 20%....the fairtax is more supported in congress than the flat tax, and it isn't too far off being 23%...I just dont get why you seem against it when you support a program that's nearly identical, but has more support from congress, etc...
-
$1 million for the freakin Woodstock Museum was attached to the latest education and healthcare bill. It looks like it got the boot, but that is the kind of crap that is just killing us. Politicians who just play gimme gimme with the peoples money, trying to get as much of the government fat as they can for their particular state. It's rediculous.
I know Chuck will poo poo my idea again, but the only "fair" tax is one where everyone pays the same amount. Not the same percentage, the same dollar amount. Anything else is just socialism.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
DaveH;191639 wrote:
$1 million for the freakin Woodstock Museum was attached to the latest education and healthcare bill. It looks like it got the boot, but that is the kind of crap that is just killing us. Politicians who just play gimme gimme with the peoples money, trying to get as much of the government fat as they can for their particular state. It's rediculous.I know Chuck will poo poo my idea again, but the only "fair" tax is one where everyone pays the same amount. Not the same percentage, the same dollar amount. Anything else is just socialism.
we can thank hilary/the dems for the woodstock museum...
and having everybody (somebody making $1,000,000 and somebody making $15k) paying the same amount dollar wise (NOT PERCENTAGE) seems totally unrealistic...I don't see what's bad about everybody paying in the same percentage based on what you want to buy...thats why i like the fair tax idea...bc it is NOT based on income, it's based on SALES.
Dave, are you saying that you don't think it's fair that you along with everybody else in Fargo now pays a 6.5% sales tax?...from the way I read what you just posted, it looks as though you don't think it's fair that everybody pays the same sales tax. (that's the whole idea behind the fair tax...everybody paying in the same sales tax)
-
torbs;191643 wrote:
we can thank hilary/the dems for the woodstock museum...The Woodstock project's main backer, Alan Gerry, is a registered Republican
However, you are right, Hilary and Schumer proposed the bill that was shot down by Democrats & Republicans (52-42).
Not saying you were wrong torbs, just making sure you are presenting 100% of the truth.
-
the problem with both of the "fair" taxes presented (Daves & Torbs) is making it feasible.
In theory, Dave's works great IF we can cut gov't spending dramatically so that everyone isn't required to pay a large sum (Currently that would be $17127.80/person to keep up with last years spending.....EXTREMELY unrealistic...not to mention would it would take to get us out of debt to other countries) I'd come out ahead on this, but how many others would on here?
Torb's, the problem with your idea is that if everyone saves (as you are hoping they would) it would actually cause 2 major problems:
- Businesses would fail horribly causing higher unemployment, etc...
- The Gov't would need to increase the percentage rate that it taxes at to compensate for the lack of funding it would have due to all the spending....which would cause problem #1 to become even worse, causing #2 to become worse causing #1 to become worse, etc, etc, etc...
-
And you're a damned fool if you think 90% of Americans are smart enough to save in large quantities. Current CC debt figures are proof that we would have no lack of $$ rolling in if a 23% across the board sales tax was our governments only revenue source.
-
ahhh...you are right there Dustin....however the lowest of the classes would pay a hugely disproportionate share of the taxes (most people who earn less than $45,000 Household income spend a LARGE portion of their income whereas those who earn higher incomes often are more frugal, in relation to income/wealth, and would pay a much lower portion compared to their earnings). So, if you feel comfortable taxing the lowest income earners proportionally more then this is a great tax incentive.
-
The other side of this is that it would actually hurt larger businesses that are normally able to write off their large purchases on their federal taxes (Machinery, Mills, Presses, Security, Vehicles, etc...) They would no longer be able to write off their expenses which "could" lead to more risk to equipment operators and/or shoddier products.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better đź’—
Register Login