Political Crossfire Forums

[Iriemon]

Gatz Nieblas wrote: Graph wrote: I support taxes, but I don't support the U.S. tax system. I don't like how it's so complicated and confusing. One of America's core democratic values is equality. How can you have equality if only some people are able to get certain tax breaks while others have to pay more because they aren't able to get those breaks? To get complete equality shouldn't everybody have to pay the same amount or at least the same percentage of their overall gross earnings and be done with?

I second that comment. The US needs a flat tax of 10% so it can fund those services that are not profitable to the private market or that are too expensive for private marketeers. Some posters have asked for no taxation, but protective tariffs? yeah.....welcome to the Gilded Age where tariffs were used by corrupt, big business republicans that were paid of by corporations to avoid foreign competitition. The result? Continuous depressions due to the fact that inflation would skyrocket immediately after tariffs like the McKineley Tariff was put into place. Also, whenever tariffs would be instated, the currency would bottom out since the government-caused inflation would rob the banks of their gold, thus forcing an even weaker currency when the government tried to stabilize things with fiat, paper money (like it does now). America shouldnt be a taxless society but should be a free market, libertarian one and with my ideal of a 10% flat tax and the elimination of all corporate taxes, regulations, and tariffs, America would be just that.

National income is about $10 trillion -- a 10% flat tax would not generate even half of what the Govt spends - about $2.6 trillion last year.

If what you are really arguing is that Govt should slash expenditures about 65%, that is another issue than the type of tax we have. If it did that taxes would be a lot lower with a progressive tax too.

[Iriemon]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Graph wrote: I support taxes, but I don't support the U.S. tax system. I don't like how it's so complicated and confusing. One of America's core democratic values is equality. How can you have equality if only some people are able to get certain tax breaks while others have to pay more because they aren't able to get those breaks? To get complete equality shouldn't everybody have to pay the same amount or at least the same percentage of their overall gross earnings and be done with?

I don't support taxes, but I can agree with the rest of what you're saying...

The least coercive tax is a Flat Tax.

Depends upon your perspective, I suppose.

To a guy making a million, a 25% flat tax is less "coercive" than a 40% tax.

To a single mom raising two kids on $16,000, a 25% tax means her family does without some basic necessities.

[Graph]

Iriemon wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Graph wrote: I support taxes, but I don't support the U.S. tax system. I don't like how it's so complicated and confusing. One of America's core democratic values is equality. How can you have equality if only some people are able to get certain tax breaks while others have to pay more because they aren't able to get those breaks? To get complete equality shouldn't everybody have to pay the same amount or at least the same percentage of their overall gross earnings and be done with?

I don't support taxes, but I can agree with the rest of what you're saying...

The least coercive tax is a Flat Tax.

Depends upon your perspective, I suppose.

To a guy making a million, a 25% flat tax is less "coercive" than a 40% tax.

To a single mom raising two kids on $16,000, a 25% tax means her family does without some basic necessities.

I agree. But that is why other programs need to be reformed too. We have so many programs that aren't needed or programs that are getting too much money and should go to programs that would help support the single mother. Also I think 25% is a bit much to give to the government. But if the tax was going to be that high we would need some kind of program to help educate people about personal finances in high schools. I may seem arrogant but if people are better informed about their finances to begin with then they won't need as much government assistance later.

[Iriemon]

Graph wrote: Iriemon wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Graph wrote: I support taxes, but I don't support the U.S. tax system. I don't like how it's so complicated and confusing. One of America's core democratic values is equality. How can you have equality if only some people are able to get certain tax breaks while others have to pay more because they aren't able to get those breaks? To get complete equality shouldn't everybody have to pay the same amount or at least the same percentage of their overall gross earnings and be done with?

I don't support taxes, but I can agree with the rest of what you're saying...

The least coercive tax is a Flat Tax.

Depends upon your perspective, I suppose.

To a guy making a million, a 25% flat tax is less "coercive" than a 40% tax.

To a single mom raising two kids on $16,000, a 25% tax means her family does without some basic necessities.

I agree. But that is why other programs need to be reformed too. We have so many programs that aren't needed or programs that are getting too much money and should go to programs that would help support the single mother. Also I think 25% is a bit much to give to the government. But if the tax was going to be that high we would need some kind of program to help educate people about personal finances in high schools. I may seem arrogant but if people are better informed about their finances to begin with then they won't need as much government assistance later.

I agree 25% is too much, but the liberals want medicaid and assistance for the poor; the conservatives want their military, wars, and debt; and the older folks all want their SS and medicare.

And no one seems to have the political will to cut spending on anything.

[Free Thinkr]

Iriemon wrote: I agree 25% is too much, but the liberals want medicaid and assistance for the poor; the conservatives want their military, wars, and debt; and the older folks all want their SS and medicare.

And no one seems to have the political will to cut spending on anything.
That's the truth! So, then, are we trapped?

[Iriemon]

Free Thinkr wrote: Iriemon wrote: I agree 25% is too much, but the liberals want medicaid and assistance for the poor; the conservatives want their military, wars, and debt; and the older folks all want their SS and medicare.

And no one seems to have the political will to cut spending on anything.
That's the truth! So, then, are we trapped?

IMO, the only way progress can be made on this issue is through compromise, where both sides have to give up things. That includes a tax increase and limits on spending in all categories.

As long as both sides take a "no compromise" position, we are trapped, and I fear for the future of our nation. We must hope that our leaders will wake up and put the national interest above political manuvering.

I admit I'm not too optimist though.

[LeopardPM]

Iriemon wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Iriemon wrote: I agree 25% is too much, but the liberals want medicaid and assistance for the poor; the conservatives want their military, wars, and debt; and the older folks all want their SS and medicare.

And no one seems to have the political will to cut spending on anything.
That's the truth! So, then, are we trapped?

IMO, the only way progress can be made on this issue is through compromise, where both sides have to give up things. That includes a tax increase and limits on spending in all categories.

As long as both sides take a "no compromise" position, we are trapped, and I fear for the future of our nation. We must hope that our leaders will wake up and put the national interest above political maneuvering.

I admit I'm not too optimist though.

and this is the reason for built in inefficiency of government - we are indeed trapped, trapped in a system in which a one-size-fits-all solution is the only way to maneuver at all. And that solution does not actually 'fit' anyone. We must we compromise? Must I compromise with people who come to my door and try to convert me into their religion? No way! I kindly tell them, 'That's nice for you - have a good day' and I will be on my way. There is nothing that physically prevents each side from not compromising, and doing it their way as long as it doesn't infringe upon the others. This would amount to secession - with each group breaking off forming their own governmental structure and idea on how to govern. If the eastern states desire heavy taxation and an increasing social welfare net - so be it, as long as they are not forcing me to pay into the scheme. It is the idea that only one idea, one path, can and must direct the actions of everyone in the nation at large. This is a fallacy.

[Iriemon]

LeopardPM wrote: Iriemon wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Iriemon wrote: I agree 25% is too much, but the liberals want medicaid and assistance for the poor; the conservatives want their military, wars, and debt; and the older folks all want their SS and medicare.

And no one seems to have the political will to cut spending on anything.
That's the truth! So, then, are we trapped?

IMO, the only way progress can be made on this issue is through compromise, where both sides have to give up things. That includes a tax increase and limits on spending in all categories.

As long as both sides take a "no compromise" position, we are trapped, and I fear for the future of our nation. We must hope that our leaders will wake up and put the national interest above political maneuvering.

I admit I'm not too optimist though.

and this is the reason for built in inefficiency of government - we are indeed trapped, trapped in a system in which a one-size-fits-all solution is the only way to maneuver at all. And that solution does not actually 'fit' anyone. We must we compromise? Must I compromise with people who come to my door and try to convert me into their religion? No way! I kindly tell them, 'That's nice for you - have a good day' and I will be on my way. There is nothing that physically prevents each side from not compromising, and doing it their way as long as it doesn't infringe upon the others. This would amount to secession - with each group breaking off forming their own governmental structure and idea on how to govern. If the eastern states desire heavy taxation and an increasing social welfare net - so be it, as long as they are not forcing me to pay into the scheme. It is the idea that only one idea, one path, can and must direct the actions of everyone in the nation at large. This is a fallacy.

True, compromise is not required if one party has the power.

In which case we need to ask our Republican friends who control the government why they haven't cut spending by $1/2 trillion. None of them are even proposing it to my knowledge.

If they won't do it what it takes, and there is no compromise, the only alternative is to replace those who control the government with someone else.

Or else we are trapped into a future of an America burdened in debt.

[LeopardPM]

Iriemon wrote:
True, compromise is not required if one party has the power.
I think you misunderstand - I am not talking about democracy, which is inherently oppressive, I am talking about privatization and ownership. Where the owner has to compromise with no one.

Quote: In which case we need to ask our Republican friends who control the government why they haven't cut spending by $1/2 trillion. None of them are even proposing it to my knowledge.
They are not 'my' friends, and I doubt they are yours either. Why would they cut spending? It is in their own best interest to INCREASE spending as their power is derived, not from the people, but rather from the amount of money they can influence in the economy. It is for their own benefit why they refuse to even acknowledge the possibility of spending cuts - this can easily apply to BOTH sides of the aisle - democrats are just as guilty when it comes to cutting their pet projects!

Quote: If they won't do it what it takes, and there is no compromise, the only alternative is to replace those who control the government with someone else.
how about we just replace GOVERNMENT with something else....

Quote: Or else we are trapped into a future of an America burdened in debt.
and worse than that - we are trapped, and set the trap for worse circumstances for our children, into being slaves for the excesses of the past generations through deficit spending. The previous generation spent money which was to be earned by future generations... effectively turning future generations into slaves in a sense, slaves force to work off the debts of the past. Debt itself is not awful, the awful part is having to be responsible for someone else's debt by force of government!!!

[LeopardPM]

Iriemon wrote:
True, compromise is not required if one party has the power.
I think you misunderstand - I am not talking about democracy, which is inherently oppressive, I am talking about privatization and ownership. Where the owner has to compromise with no one.

Quote: In which case we need to ask our Republican friends who control the government why they haven't cut spending by $1/2 trillion. None of them are even proposing it to my knowledge.
They are not 'my' friends, and I doubt they are yours either. Why would they cut spending? It is in their own best interest to INCREASE spending as their power is derived, not from the people, but rather from the amount of money they can influence in the economy. It is for their own benefit why they refuse to even acknowledge the possibility of spending cuts - this can easily apply to BOTH sides of the aisle - democrats are just as guilty when it comes to cutting their pet projects!

Quote: If they won't do it what it takes, and there is no compromise, the only alternative is to replace those who control the government with someone else.
how about we just replace GOVERNMENT with something else....

Quote: Or else we are trapped into a future of an America burdened in debt.
and worse than that - we are trapped, and set the trap for worse circumstances for our children, into being slaves for the excesses of the past generations through deficit spending. The previous generation spent money which was to be earned by future generations... effectively turning future generations into slaves in a sense, slaves force to work off the debts of the past. Debt itself is not awful, the awful part is having to be responsible for someone else's debt by force of government!!!

[Iriemon]

LeopardPM wrote: Iriemon wrote:
True, compromise is not required if one party has the power.
I think you misunderstand - I am not talking about democracy, which is inherently oppressive, I am talking about privatization and ownership. Where the owner has to compromise with no one.

Yep. I don't understand.

Quote: Quote: In which case we need to ask our Republican friends who control the government why they haven't cut spending by $1/2 trillion. None of them are even proposing it to my knowledge.
They are not 'my' friends, and I doubt they are yours either. Why would they cut spending? It is in their own best interest to INCREASE spending as their power is derived, not from the people, but rather from the amount of money they can influence in the economy. It is for their own benefit why they refuse to even acknowledge the possibility of spending cuts - this can easily apply to BOTH sides of the aisle - democrats are just as guilty when it comes to cutting their pet projects!

That is why I keep writing these posts. It is up to us to make them pay the consequences for fiscal irresponsibility.

Unfortunately, it appears large portions of our population are more than happy to support fiscal irresponsibility. America will get what she deserves, the tragic thing is that it is our kids who will pay the price for our generation's irresponsibility.

Quote: Quote: If they won't do it what it takes, and there is no compromise, the only alternative is to replace those who control the government with someone else.
how about we just replace GOVERNMENT with something else....

You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head

Quote: Quote: Or else we are trapped into a future of an America burdened in debt.
and worse than that - we are trapped, and set the trap for worse circumstances for our children, into being slaves for the excesses of the past generations through deficit spending. Which started around 1980, lasted thru 1993 when things started getting much better, until 2001. See a pattern there?

Quote: The previous generation spent money which was to be earned by future generations... effectively turning future generations into slaves in a sense, slaves force to work off the debts of the past. Debt itself is not awful, the awful part is having to be responsible for someone else's debt by force of government!!!

Actually, the "greatest generation" paid down the WWII debt, to a low of about 32% of GDP in 1980. Then the Reaganomics took over ...