Quetzlsacatanango Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 It is not "more optional", I would say that it is "more moral".As I said, with a voluntary tax, such as a sales tax, it is impossible to go into debt to the government. The government should not be in the business of making debtors of its citizens. It turns the power dynamic on its head, 180 degrees from where it should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 It is not "more optional", I would say that it is "more moral".As I said, with a voluntary tax, such as a sales tax, it is impossible to go into debt to the government. The government should not be in the business of making debtors of its citizens. It turns the power dynamic on its head, 180 degrees from where it should be. More Moral? Really? Maybe in your view....... So, lets say they dump the income tax, in favor of a 20% sales tax. (which is probably on the low side of what it would actually be, should they take this route....) The price of EVERYTHING just jumped by one fifth of its price. That 20,000 dollar car, is now a 24,000 dollar car. And that doesn't include STATE taxes...... and it wouldn't be just new cars, it would be ALL cars. (just as a limited example.) Do you think that would be an economically sound policy? Before you answer, consider the folks that are collecting pensions, or social security, you know, the folks that already don't pay income taxes...... raising the price of every consumer product is going to have a decidedly negative impact on ALL of them. That's "moral"????? Really? The income tax was first instituted during WWII, to help pay for the war, it was supposed to be temporary..... we see how well that went. (65 years later......) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quetzlsacatanango Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Obviously it is in my view, I'm the one posting... Yes the sales tax % would be higher, but you would also get back your~20-30% that the government takes now in income tax. So if the prices of goods go up by a 20%, you just got a raise of a 20-30%. So you're still ahead.Ideally you wouldn't apply it to essentials like groceries and clothing.And if it was up to me, those who have paid even one cent into social security would still collect their full benefit. That's what they signed up for, the government should hold up their end of the bargain. Make up the difference by killing welfare and other programs for deadbeats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Obviously it is in my view, I'm the one posting... Yes the sales tax % would be higher, but you would also get back your~20-30% that the government takes now in income tax. So if the prices of goods go up by a 20%, you just got a raise of a 20-30%. So you're still ahead.Ideally you wouldn't apply it to essentials like groceries and clothing.And if it was up to me, those who have paid even one cent into social security would still collect their full benefit. That's what they signed up for, the government should hold up their end of the bargain. Make up the difference by killing welfare and other programs for deadbeats. You evidently missed my point about the pensioners/SS recipients that aren't paying income taxes, therefore would get no raise, just see their expenses go up significantly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quetzlsacatanango Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I did miss that point, but it can be dealt with.Raise the benefit to compensate is one way.Exempt or refund their sales tax is another way. I'm sure we can come up with other solutions to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukertin Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 The income tax was first instituted during WWII, to help pay for the war, it was supposed to be temporary..... we see how well that went. (65 years later......)The income tax was not first instituted during WW2, it was first instituted a century earlier, during the Civil War, and while that instance may have been temporary, later attempts to introduce a federal income tax were not meant to be temporary at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukertin Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 (edited) How is it more optional then income tax? You can choose to buy things, but if you don't you pretty much have to live off the land. You can choose to have a job, but if you don't you pretty much have to live on the land.If you live off the land, you are still deriving income from it. You just may owe the government a tax based on the value your derive from the land you're living on. :biggrin: Federal income tax is not only immoral, but unconstitutional because it was not a power explicitly granted to the federal government in the constitution. State income tax is not unconstitutional as all powers not granted to the federal government is delegated to the state-level. However, it still operates under the same assumption.Yes, it was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court declared federal income taxes unconstitutional in 1895. Have you read the 16th Amendment recently? Edited November 15, 2011 by lukertin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukertin Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 (edited) Actually you can walk, just where do live that there is sales tax on food?No, I cannot just walk, not only is there no sidewalk on the path there, but walking along highways where cars routinely travel at speeds in excess of 50mph is extremely dangerous. Only Five states — Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Oklahoma, and South Dakota— tax groceries fully but offer credits or rebates offsetting some of the taxes paid on food by some portions of the population. These credits or rebates usually are set at a flat amount per family member. The amounts and eligibility rules vary, but may be too narrow and/or insufficient to give eligible households full relief from sales taxes paid on food purchases"Yes, I am so mentally deficient that I don't know when I'm paying a sales tax on food. Places I've lived in the past 5 years: Alexandria, Virginiahttp://alexandriava.gov/finance/info/default.aspx?id=2956Sales of eligible food items are subject to a reduced state tax rate of 1.5% which became effective July 1, 2005. Combined with the local tax rate of 1%, the total tax on eligible food items is 2.5%. Eligible food items is defined as any food purchased for home consumption: St. Louis, Missourihttp://dor.mo.gov/business/sales/foodtax.phpSection 144.014, RSMo provides a reduced tax rate for certain food sales. The rate for food sales was reduced by 3%, from 4.225% to 1.225%., and again, defines food as items purchased for home consumption. New York, New YorkNo sales tax on food unless sold in restaurant.http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/business/business_tax_nys_sales.shtml Edited November 15, 2011 by lukertin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddof5 Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 How is it theft? with taxes you get to enjoy all the benefits of infrastructure, healthcare, pension, services. If you do not like paying taxes, then go live in the Amazon Jungle. You wont be paying any taxes there i assure you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quetzlsacatanango Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 I'm going to take $20 from your wallet and buy you a cd with it. It's not theft since you're getting the benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts