Political Crossfire Forums

[LostSoul3412]

The problem I have with taxing consumption, including land by private transaction, is that it provides a barrier between exchanges because not only are the people paying more per product, but companies are also forced to charge more per product, which can serve as a deterrent to trade.

The best way to tax, in my opinion, is to tax the people, not the industry.

[ChuckBerry]

LostSoul3412 wrote: The problem I have with taxing consumption, including land by private transaction, is that it provides a barrier between exchanges because not only are the people paying more per product, but companies are also forced to charge more per product, which can serve as a deterrent to trade.

The best way to tax, in my opinion, is to tax the people, not the industry.
Then you encourage business, collective effort, rather than individual effort.

I would rather leave the individual alone until such time as they stop relying on themselves (i.e. purchasing a raw material not readily available locally, or a readymade product). That seems most democratic to me. I don't think its the governments business to encourage trade, only to prevent artificial barriers to it.

[LostSoul3412]

CCD wrote: I would rather leave the individual alone until such time as they stop relying on themselves (i.e. purchasing a raw material not readily available locally, or a readymade product). That seems most democratic to me. I don't think its the governments business to encourage trade, only to prevent artificial barriers to it.

While I agree that protectionist policies must be eliminated, prior to the 1930's, the only really policy that the federal government implemented was an effort to foster economics. Article I, Section VIII, Clause III, "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.", so it is the Constitutional duty for the government to promote trade and commerce. If nothing else, this is one of it's few jobs as facilitator, as opposed to policy maker.

Ideally, I think that the federal government should gain its money from tax revenues directly from the states, as sort of a trickle up effect on taxing, while would save the people from split level taxes, and give some authority back to the states.

[Free Thinkr]

LostSoul3412 wrote: The problem I have with taxing consumption, including land by private transaction, is that it provides a barrier between exchanges because not only are the people paying more per product, but companies are also forced to charge more per product, which can serve as a deterrent to trade.

The best way to tax, in my opinion, is to tax the people, not the industry.
That's why you tax land values: doing so can not increase the cost of land, and thus the tax doesn't affect free trade.

[Iriemon]

Gatz Nieblas wrote: gavnook wrote: No tax.

The least bad tax is the one generates the lowest tax revenue.

You should have an option for a poll tax, excise taxes and tarrifs. And maybe a use tax option too.

The flat tax is the least complicated form of taxation.

A progressive tax is no more complicated, except if your income higher you pay a higher rate.

Quote: If the federal government were to resort to a 10% flat tax, the economy would surely boom since a tax cut would be given to everyone and we would see less corruption in government, a less-restricted economy, and more accountability with tax dollars.

I see no basis for these conclusions. A tax "cut" would be given to the wealthier, but the vast majority of folks would see a big tax increase, and the poorer the larger the percentage increase. If anything, the higher relative taxes on the middle and lower classes would reduce consumption, which would harm the economy.

[Iriemon]

gavnook wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: gavnook wrote: No tax.

The least bad tax is the one generates the lowest tax revenue.

:?

I'm talking in terms of present day economics, not philosphical ideals. Taking taxes as a necessity to government operation, which would you find most tolerable?

As I said, the one that generates the lowest revenue.

You don't think the Govt financing 25% of its expenditures with debt is enough?!

[Iriemon]

gavnook wrote: =CNP= wrote: gavnook wrote: =CNP= wrote: The services you get from the government are directly proportional to the ammount of taxes you pay.

Where do you get this idea?

Money doest flutter away and disapear. In a country of paper, you can fallow the paper and see where it leads.

Do that in Canada, other then foriegn aid money, the money ends up staying in Canada.

So the taxes I pay is building Canada, and supporting me and other Canadains.

While in America, if you fallow that trail of paper, you just find it ends up in the hands of corperations who do nothing in return, other then fund some certain political campains.

Because the American government misuess it's taxes, doenst mean taxes are bad.

You know what means taxes are bad? The fact that they are taken by force. If I don't pay the income tax demanded of me, the IRS will take my stuff and put me in a concrete and steel box...

Only if you don't play by the rules. You are not forced to pay US taxes. You can either 1) make little money, or 2) leave the country and denounce your citizenship. You are only required to pay taxes if you work here and make a certain amount of money. That is not being "forced" in my view.

[LeopardPM]

Iriemon wrote:
Only if you don't play by the rules. You are not forced to pay US taxes. You can either 1) make little money, or 2) leave the country and denounce your citizenship. You are only required to pay taxes if you work here and make a certain amount of money. That is not being "forced" in my view.
that is like saying that a slave is not a slave because if they 'follow the rules' they will not be beat... what makes slavery bad? It is because 'someone else' sets up the rules and uses force to encourage obedience.

on the other hand, an example of non use of force is trade: if you want to buy my bike you make an offer, I do not have to accept, nor do you have to accept whatever price I say I require to sell it. If neither of us can come to an agreement, then no trade is enacted and no one is worse off than before the attempted trade.

[thintheherd]

CCD wrote: I think a national sales tax is most reasonable, with an exemption for food and primary residence, and maybe for utilities like electricity, gas, water, and phone. Taxing consumption rather than income seems to make most sense. It allows everyone to invest tax free as they see fit, and puts the hit on high dollar purchases more so than lower ones, and wealthy people certainly buy more non-essential stuff than tax exempted stuff like food and primary residence, thus making the tax progressive.
And one not included in the poll unfortunately.

By the way, no exemptions please. It only opens the door for continued manipulation by special interests and by polititians to buy votes.

The rebate of the FairTax, to cover necessities to the poverty level, is the only way to go.

[gavnook]

Iriemon wrote: gavnook wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: gavnook wrote: No tax.

The least bad tax is the one generates the lowest tax revenue.

:?

I'm talking in terms of present day economics, not philosphical ideals. Taking taxes as a necessity to government operation, which would you find most tolerable?

As I said, the one that generates the lowest revenue.

You don't think the Govt financing 25% of its expenditures with debt is enough?!

Cutting spending is a necessary component of lowering taxes, otherwise you're just shifting the tax burden.

[Katsumoto]

Only Politicians should be taxed. Let the politicians fund the government out of their own pockets. I guaranty it would end all wastefull spending, social programs, military expeditions, and possibly even government itself...bonus!

[gavnook]

Iriemon wrote: gavnook wrote: You know what means taxes are bad? The fact that they are taken by force. If I don't pay the income tax demanded of me, the IRS will take my stuff and put me in a concrete and steel box...

Only if you don't play by the rules. You are not forced to pay US taxes. You can either 1) make little money, or 2) leave the country and denounce your citizenship. You are only required to pay taxes if you work here and make a certain amount of money. That is not being "forced" in my view.

Is it not my right to work as I may?

[thintheherd]

Iriemon wrote: gavnook wrote: You know what means taxes are bad? The fact that they are taken by force. If I don't pay the income tax demanded of me, the IRS will take my stuff and put me in a concrete and steel box...

Only if you don't play by the rules. You are not forced to pay US taxes. You can either 1) make little money, or 2) leave the country and denounce your citizenship. You are only required to pay taxes if you work here and make a certain amount of money. That is not being "forced" in my view.

Doesn't sound like much of a choice to me...

[Iriemon]

LeopardPM wrote: Iriemon wrote:
Only if you don't play by the rules. You are not forced to pay US taxes. You can either 1) make little money, or 2) leave the country and denounce your citizenship. You are only required to pay taxes if you work here and make a certain amount of money. That is not being "forced" in my view.
that is like saying that a slave is not a slave because if they 'follow the rules' they will not be beat... what makes slavery bad? It is because 'someone else' sets up the rules and uses force to encourage obedience.

on the other hand, an example of non use of force is trade: if you want to buy my bike you make an offer, I do not have to accept, nor do you have to accept whatever price I say I require to sell it. If neither of us can come to an agreement, then no trade is enacted and no one is worse off than before the attempted trade.

I see it totally different. As a slave, you have no choice in where you live or your labor. If you don't like the rules of the American Govt, you can (1) vote to have them changed, or (2) stop being an American. No one forces you to live here or be an American. You are not forced to do anything.

[Iriemon]

gavnook wrote: Iriemon wrote: gavnook wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: gavnook wrote: No tax.

The least bad tax is the one generates the lowest tax revenue.

:?

I'm talking in terms of present day economics, not philosphical ideals. Taking taxes as a necessity to government operation, which would you find most tolerable?

As I said, the one that generates the lowest revenue.

You don't think the Govt financing 25% of its expenditures with debt is enough?!

Cutting spending is a necessary component of lowering taxes, otherwise you're just shifting the tax burden.

Fair enough -- though I thought this was a thread to debate the system of taxation, not whether the Govt spends to much.

[Iriemon]

gavnook wrote: Iriemon wrote: gavnook wrote: You know what means taxes are bad? The fact that they are taken by force. If I don't pay the income tax demanded of me, the IRS will take my stuff and put me in a concrete and steel box...

Only if you don't play by the rules. You are not forced to pay US taxes. You can either 1) make little money, or 2) leave the country and denounce your citizenship. You are only required to pay taxes if you work here and make a certain amount of money. That is not being "forced" in my view.

Is it not my right to work as I may?

No, you can only work as you may in accordance with the rules.

[Iriemon]

thintheherd wrote: Iriemon wrote: gavnook wrote: You know what means taxes are bad? The fact that they are taken by force. If I don't pay the income tax demanded of me, the IRS will take my stuff and put me in a concrete and steel box...

Only if you don't play by the rules. You are not forced to pay US taxes. You can either 1) make little money, or 2) leave the country and denounce your citizenship. You are only required to pay taxes if you work here and make a certain amount of money. That is not being "forced" in my view.

Doesn't sound like much of a choice to me...

You may not like the choices, but it is a big difference between having a choice you don't like and being forced where you have no choice at all.

[thintheherd]

Iriemon wrote: thintheherd wrote: Iriemon wrote: gavnook wrote: You know what means taxes are bad? The fact that they are taken by force. If I don't pay the income tax demanded of me, the IRS will take my stuff and put me in a concrete and steel box...

Only if you don't play by the rules. You are not forced to pay US taxes. You can either 1) make little money, or 2) leave the country and denounce your citizenship. You are only required to pay taxes if you work here and make a certain amount of money. That is not being "forced" in my view.

Doesn't sound like much of a choice to me...

You may not like the choices, but it is a big difference between having a choice you don't like and being forced where you have no choice at all.
You and I both know the only way you can keep from paying US taxes today is to denounce your citizenship and move out.

I don't see that I have a choice at all what with my roots being firmly planted here and no desire to go elsewhere. All I can do is work to change the 'rules'.

[Katsumoto]

thintheherd wrote: Iriemon wrote: thintheherd wrote: Iriemon wrote: gavnook wrote: You know what means taxes are bad? The fact that they are taken by force. If I don't pay the income tax demanded of me, the IRS will take my stuff and put me in a concrete and steel box...

Only if you don't play by the rules. You are not forced to pay US taxes. You can either 1) make little money, or 2) leave the country and denounce your citizenship. You are only required to pay taxes if you work here and make a certain amount of money. That is not being "forced" in my view.

Doesn't sound like much of a choice to me...

You may not like the choices, but it is a big difference between having a choice you don't like and being forced where you have no choice at all.
You and I both know the only way you can keep from paying US taxes today is to denounce your citizenship and move out.

I don't see that I have a choice at all what with my roots being firmly planted here and no desire to go elsewhere. All I can do is work to change the 'rules'.

Actually that is not completely true. The US government requires even those who have renounced citizenship to pay taxes for a period of up to 10 years.

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=97245,00.html

[thintheherd]

Katsumoto wrote: thintheherd wrote: Iriemon wrote: thintheherd wrote: Iriemon wrote: gavnook wrote: You know what means taxes are bad? The fact that they are taken by force. If I don't pay the income tax demanded of me, the IRS will take my stuff and put me in a concrete and steel box...

Only if you don't play by the rules. You are not forced to pay US taxes. You can either 1) make little money, or 2) leave the country and denounce your citizenship. You are only required to pay taxes if you work here and make a certain amount of money. That is not being "forced" in my view.

Doesn't sound like much of a choice to me...

You may not like the choices, but it is a big difference between having a choice you don't like and being forced where you have no choice at all.
You and I both know the only way you can keep from paying US taxes today is to denounce your citizenship and move out.

I don't see that I have a choice at all what with my roots being firmly planted here and no desire to go elsewhere. All I can do is work to change the 'rules'.

Actually that is not completely true. The US government requires even those who have renounced citizenship to pay taxes for a period of up to 10 years.

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=97245,00.html

^ Just one more reason to rid ourselves this abomination we call the income tax. :1evil:

What were those choices again iremon? :roll: