Tax question

[taks]

lots of people in the US do that. many go to jail on occasion as well. of course, those types often list their residences on "compounds," and have periodic showdowns with the FBI regarding their stockpile of unnecessary weapons.

 

taks

[Oerwinde]

Could a permanent naturist enclave be established where laws on clothes would be suspended?

 

I believe there is one somewhere in BC. Plus the various clothing optional beaches like Little Tribune on Hornby Island and Wreck Beach in Vancouver.

[Walsingham]

Maybe tax clothes made of silk, but not cotton, wool, polyester...

*thinks*

 

Or velour.

[Surreptishus]

Surely the difference between luxury and necessity in clothing is delineated by price, is it not?

[taks]

maybe... a $20 clothing item is relatively cheap, unless it's a single sock.

 

taks

[Guard Dog]

In the US we have income tax, FICA tax, import tax, sales tax, estate tax, property tax, non-ad valorem tax, tag tax, sin tax, excise tax, capital gains tax, ad valorem tax, school tax, withholding tax, corporate tax, highway tax, water tax, license tax, gasoline tax, alternative minimum tax (F*** you Bill Clinton), CMV tax, E911 tax, utility tax, tax, tax, tax......

 

The colonial government was over thrown over a 3 cent stamp tax. WTF happened?! The sick thing is, if the Federal and state govenments restrained themselves to govenring withing the restrictions placed on them by their respective Constitutions, none of this crap would be necassary. And don't trot out the argument that taxes are lower in the US than elsewhere. They are, but that does not mean they are not too damned high here now.

 

If we held elections on April 16 this would be a VERY different country.

[Walsingham]

Is it true that the greatest percentage of that tax burden arises from payments to the Federal Reserve Bank? A PRIVATE consortium?

[mkreku]

In Sweden clothes are taxed 25%, food 12% and cultural things (like books, theater tickets etc.) are taxed 6%. If I remember correctly.

 

It's a bit weird that culture seems to be more vital for one's survival than food, but there it is.

[astr0creep]

Fuel in Quebec is taxed at 60% Same with cigs.

[Walsingham]

Fuel in Quebec is taxed at 60% Same with cigs.

 

I don't drive or smoke.

[Guard Dog]

Is it true that the greatest percentage of that tax burden arises from payments to the Federal Reserve Bank? A PRIVATE consortium?

No, the Fed is not funded by congress at all. In 2005 (I do not have the 2006 numbers) the US government spent 1.731 Trillion dollars.

 

34% went to just running the government. Federal payroll, office expenses, running all of the different departments, administrative costs, etc. It was the biggest piece of the pie. So the biggest tax burden comes from just paying these people to get up and come to work everyday and be a general pain in the a**.

 

After that, the next biggest was 27% for the military and homeland security, CIA.

 

Next was 20% past expenses such as national debt, VA admin, government pensions, etc.

 

Next was 13% into the "general government" fund which covers the costs of running all the government programs out there such as HUD, HHS, NASA, etc.

 

Last was 6% for Physical Resources. That covers the costs of Dept of the Interior, Dept of Transportation, FCC, FAA, Army Corps of Engineers, Park Services, DOJ, etc.

 

So you see the biggest taxpayer burden is not all of the services, it's the cost of the government itself. HR expenses account for more than the military and infrastructure combined. Tell me this is not getting out of hand.

[Sand]

I think that we need a serious revamping of the tax system. I say we eliminate all current federal tax schemes and get rid of the IRS, and simply impose a federal sales tax. We are a consumer based society thusly all the money the government can ever need can be garnered through the purchasing of nonessentials. Think how much 300 million people spend in a given year. Now give that value a 2 to 5 cent tax on the dollar.

[astr0creep]

I think that we need a serious revamping of the tax system. I say we eliminate all current federal tax schemes and get rid of the IRS, and simply impose a federal sales tax. We are a consumer based society thusly all the money the government can ever need can be garnered through the purchasing of nonessentials. Think how much 300 million people spend in a given year. Now give that value a 2 to 5 cent tax on the dollar.

 

In order for the Govs to get at least the same amount of money from taxpayers, a unique sales tax would have to be closer to 20-30 cents per dollar methinks. And I think I'm being generous here.

 

For anyone who works, at the end of the year when all is paid, the Governments take close to 50-60% of one's total income.

 

 

But I love your idea Sand. Simplicity.

[Sand]

Even if it is 20 to 30 cents to the dollar, think of the money saved by getting rid of the IRS. Also it would eliminate the hassle for both employers and employees in dealing with the tax season. If you don't want to pay taxes, you just don't buy stuff.

Edited March 8, 2007 by Sand

[astr0creep]

Even if it is 20 to 30 cents to the dollar, think of the money saved by getting rid of the IRS. Also it would eliminate the hassle for both employers and employees in dealing with the tax season. If you don't want to pay taxes, you just don't buy stuff.

 

Agreed.

 

But don't think for a second that even if the IRS is shut down and other heavy governmental "features" are closed this will mean less tax for you.

Unless you don't buy anything, ever.

 

And if this would happen, how big would the marketing explosion be? Product placement in Baldur's Gate 3? You bet!

[Sand]

I doubt there would be product placement on a rampant scale, at least no moreso than there is now.

[astr0creep]

I doubt there would be product placement on a rampant scale, at least no moreso than there is now.

 

If we only had sales tax to fill governmantal coffers I would expect most marketing campaigns to skyrocket in numbers and to be funded in part by the Government.

I would also expect them to actually give away small TVs to those who can't afford them.

 

They would need people to buy things. LOTS of things.

[Sand]

No more than we do now. The average household buys a lot of junk they just do not need.

[Guard Dog]

Changing the tax system is a good start. but what really needs to be done is to reign government spending in. Right now Uncle Sam spends money like a drunken sailor who won the lottery. It is doing things far beyond the scope of it's power as described in the Constitution. For example, the US Department of Education and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. There should be no such thing as these agencies. The Constitution does not charge the Federal government with the tasks of either. In fact, the 10th amendment proscribes the govt from involving itself in this and specifically assigns these tasks to the states. Yet the spend billions of dollars per year doing jobs that could be dne much cheaper and more efficiently at a local level.

 

The same deal with Universal Healthcare. I'll support that as soon as someone shows me what clause in the constitution empowers the govt to provide healthcare. There is not one. Now if a state wanted to do it, that is up to the voters in that state to do it and PAY for it.

[Sand]

I think the Constitution needs to be expanded on issues of education and healthcare. The federal government, as well as the state governments, are responsible for the care and well being of its citizens first and foremost. A universal healthcare system that aids in the skyrocketing costs of medicine from the federal govenment is needed because the individual states just do not have the funds to do it themselves.

[Enoch]

Changing the tax system is a good start. but what really needs to be done is to reign government spending in. Right now Uncle Sam spends money like a drunken sailor who won the lottery. It is doing things far beyond the scope of it's power as described in the Constitution. For example, the US Department of Education and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. There should be no such thing as these agencies. The Constitution does not charge the Federal government with the tasks of either. In fact, the 10th amendment proscribes the govt from involving itself in this and specifically assigns these tasks to the states. Yet the spend billions of dollars per year doing jobs that could be dne much cheaper and more efficiently at a local level.

 

The same deal with Universal Healthcare. I'll support that as soon as someone shows me what clause in the constitution empowers the govt to provide healthcare. There is not one. Now if a state wanted to do it, that is up to the voters in that state to do it and PAY for it.

Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 1: "The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

 

What could be more appropriately considered "general welfare" that bodily health?

[Guard Dog]

I think the Constitution needs to be expanded on issues of education and healthcare. The federal government, as well as the state governments, are responsible for the care and well being of its citizens first and foremost. A universal healthcare system that aids in the skyrocketing costs of medicine from the federal govenment is needed because the individual states just do not have the funds to do it themselves.

It does not need to be expanded. When the powers that be want to do something, they do it and the Constitution be damned. The Supreme Court has really become a political institution in a way it was never intended to. If it were worth it's salt half of the laws created by FDR and Congress during the 30's would have been DOA and we would not be staggaring under the tax burden of today.

 

As for healthcare, we need to start another topic on that one. I have a feeling you and I will make a pretty good debate over that. But short answer, if they try t pass an amendment, fine. If it carries, fine. I'll abide by it then. But you better believe I'll vote against it. If you want to see gvernment run health care in action, look at the VA. That is what the government will do to US healthcare. No thank you.

[Sand]

Well, it is better than nothing that a good chunk of us have. When a kid dies due to a toothe ache because his mother can't afford to go to dentist or have insurance to cover it there is something seriously wrong with our society.

 

Beyond that I do think that we do need to get back to our roots, back to the government as prescribed in the Constitution.

Edited March 8, 2007 by Sand

[Guard Dog]

Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 1: "The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

 

What could be more appropriately considered "general welfare" that bodily health?

The general welfare of the United States. Not the welfare of the citizens. I believe that is the duty of the citizen to take care of themselves. Not ask me, or you, to do it for them.

[Enoch]

I think that we need a serious revamping of the tax system. I say we eliminate all current federal tax schemes and get rid of the IRS, and simply impose a federal sales tax. We are a consumer based society thusly all the money the government can ever need can be garnered through the purchasing of nonessentials. Think how much 300 million people spend in a given year. Now give that value a 2 to 5 cent tax on the dollar.

The problem with sales taxes is that they are essentially regressive. Poor people who have to spend everything they earn just to get by are hit with the full effect of the tax, while rich people who put 2/3rds of their income into their bank accounts and stock portfolios are taxed comparatively lightly. They also tend to over-encourage saving (which can hurt an economy significantly; see 1990s Japan) and encourage underground economies (which all taxes do to a certain extent, but it's generally considered to be the worst with sales tax).

Edited March 8, 2007 by Enoch