He thinks radical Moslems are too.

That's right.

You mention "all pay their fair quarter". is it fair that someone who works two 40 hour jobs making $10 an hour pays more in taxes than a person who works one 40 hour job making $10 an hour? Why do we wish to punish the worker who wishes to work more?

Earn or grow a dollar... pay a quarter... or buy a dollars worth of bread... pay a dollar and a quarter... either one or the other...

Besides, why miss a good chance to take shots at Hunin?

As both the federalists and anti-federalists do back flips in their graves!

Since a few of us are new here, would Hunin be the Village Idiot?

It's not "punishment"... it's a requirement of society... and everyone pays the same... so no one is "punished" anymore than anyone else.

Since a few of us are new here, would Hunin be the Village Idiot?

Hardly.

Hardly.

Seriously?

No. He's just one of those guys with the green Wellstone! sticker still on his bumper.

Wait'll you meet our village pisswillie, he's a doozie!

Hu may not agree with you, but he's plenty smart.

Even wise, sometimes.

Wouldn't it be nice to keep your entire paycheck (except local and state taxes)? If the Fedgov screws up and the states have to help out, they would be heald accountable. Repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments would fix that entirely. No direct taxes along with Representatives being heald accountable to the citizens and the Senators being heald accountable to state legislatures.

That does sound pretty good... but having paid taxes(a lot of taxes:~) all of my working life(since 13:~) in the current system, I'm having a bit of a problem seeing it as realistic... guess I've been programed...

I don't mind paying my share(I think that I am an exception though and most would not pay if they could get away with it:~)... especially to things that we all need and benefit from... or that benefit the poor... jUSt galls me to see that I pay 10s of thousands in taxes every year and a corporation like Boeing pays a measely couple grand...

Ohh, and while I'm bitching, I hate that my taxes are USed for stuff that I don't agree with at all... like defense(offense:~) spending.

Hu may not agree with you, but he's plenty smart.

Even wise, sometimes.

Sarcasm man, it was sarcasm

Simple. Get a big ass gun.

Right?

Maybe not.

This thread has take off pretty well but we still only have 17 votes.

We don't have an unlimited number of members, especially ones interested in tax law on a given day. Maybe we need to hire a cruise director?

I'm booked. thanx anyway.

Y'all are aware that all the economists I know of have argued against tariffs. Once the tariff game starts, all players (all countries) are worse off.


I don't see us raising much revenue from tariffs.


Tariffs seem like free money for a while, but they bite on overall economic efficiency so deeply that total world production falls from what it would have been without tariffs.

Tariffs just aren't going to happen. They wouldn't raise nearly enough money, and a trade war doesn't help anyone. Think Great Depression.

BTW, I'm not saying the Founders didn't mean to finance the government with tarrifs. I would agree that they did.

Perzackly.

They didn't mean to have superhighways, space shuttles, aircraft carriers, FEMA and an education dept either. You can argue some of that is bad, but none of it isn't going away any time soon.

That's a fact.

I've had this argument over the FDR years. Smoot-Hawley and all that. At the time lefties were all over me.

Since a few of us are new here, would Hunin be the Village Idiot?

I prefer two smaller assed guns.
We don't have an unlimited number of members, especially ones interested in tax law on a given day. Maybe we need to hire a cruise director?

Exactly, both Jefferson and Madison wrote on the General Welfare Clause and how it was not supposed to be taken literally as it is now since doing so would transform our limited government into one whose powers were numerous and indefinite.
I'm sorry I do not understand what you are trying to convey with this statement.
Presently there are many unfunded mandates. Indirectly this could raise the issue where the federal government cannot make the states pass certain laws so there could be a discussion there. Ultimately, we would hope people would review what the federal government is authorized to do in the first place. But to answer your question, yes that is how states would raise revenues.
That is a good point, but would also illustrate the need to do away with the 17th A. as well so that states woudl also have representation in our federal government since they no longer do.

I didn't see a way to make this a public poll. Too bad.
Check out the following link. It should explain things rather nicely.

Founding Father's Original Tax Plan

Y'all are aware that all the economists I know of have argued against tariffs. Once the tariff game starts, all players (all countries) are worse off.
I don’t see us raising much revenue from tariffs.
Tariffs seem like free money for a while, but they bite on overall economic efficiency so deeply that total world production falls from what it would have been without tariffs.

Interesting vote tally. I'm genuinely surprised that so many have voted to keep the current tax code.

Two sides, same dictatorial coin.

Private Property. Interesting.

Try enforcing private property rights on anything without the aid of a government. Good luck.

I guess that's why the neocons hated the Soviets so much. They weren't socialist enough.
And the Soviets were NOT authoritarian, nationalist, or totalitarian, right?

Neither are your beloved Chinese.

Simple. Get a big ass gun.

Right?

Maybe not.

And friends and family members should help out. Furthermore, each one of us has a MORAL obligation to help one another. What is destructive is one group of people using the police powers of the government to TAKE property from one to be benevolent to another.

"...Unions are for people who don't want to do their work.

Yeah, great. Next time your house catches on fire, be a brave libertarian, and don't call the FD.

You guys are antiques. As dusty as wash boards.

Welcome to the 21st Century. Try to catch up.

Since a few of us are new here, would Hunin be the Village Idiot?

What will the states do?

Woo hoo. Just got my ticket in the mail so I'll be able to vote in this poll.
I've been personally invited to be a VIP guest to hear Naomi Judd (and be trained by "4" of the wealthiest self-made muillionaries in America) share creative secrets and strategies in wealth making.

Pengi weighs in with his theory that everyone is at heart a crook and the only reason people act civilized is due to complete and total fear of gubmnet jack booted thugs...

Compete for citizens who will vote with their feet to find the state tax scheme that is best for them...

Federal system is here to stay, gents. Get used to it.

Accepting reality and working w/in its parameters is the best way to find solutions. Only way really.

... xactly what I am doing... working out very well...

Ohh, and while I'm bitching, I hate that my taxes are USed for stuff that I don't agree with at all... like defense(offense:~) spending.

Or the state that will let them smoke dope without fear of 20 year prison sentences?

If we remove the income taxes companies pay they will then have an additional amount of profit. For the sake of argument let's say this amounts to 25%. Some want to believe that the companies will just keep this extra 25%, and truth be known they will want to, but market forces will ultimately force prices down as others try to increase market share by lowering their prices.

Could you please spell out how an across-the-board increase of about 25% in company profits will trigger additional or the same market forces so as to "ulitmately force prices down"? What do you mean by "others"? Which others (not literally)?

In mentioning labor one is looking at the company as if they are directly paying an employees taxes, they are not. They don't know what deductions you have nor do they care. They are paying you a total sum and it is up to the employee to pay their taxes. The only taxes companies pay on behalf of the employee is a portion of FICA.

Does the plan not involve doing away with payroll taxes?

If we exclude pay from the issue we will still see that companies are still paying income taxes. It is those taxes we are talking about removing from the company. When a person negotiates pay with a company they do not negotiate a portion for taxes, at least not directly. I do not see why there will have to be any lowering of wages, but I do still see no income taxes on the companies which still comes out to a benefit.

I am not really sure I am following, here. Companies, qua companies, pay corporate income tax. Otherwise, it's not companies that pay income tax, but individuals. Money is fungible. A 25% decrease in income taxes owed is functionally equivalent to a 25% reduction in costs, no matter from what source.


Additionally, we have to consider all the people who do not pay income tax now: illegals, druglords etc. Will this eliminate tax evasion? Of course not. I'm not even buying their notion that the IRS will be eliminated, but it will serve to collect from more people.

Is the IRS a particularly "costly" government agency? What is its average cost per dollar 'recovered'?

Pengi weighs in with his theory that everyone is at heart a crook and the only reason people act civilized is due to complete and total fear of gubmnet jack booted thugs... well that and the shear pleasure of paying taxes...

Two sides, same dictatorial coin.

Though tarrifs do look attractive in light of out current balance of payments with China. Trouble is, it would set off a tarrif war. They might stop financing our treasuries, even.

I am still unclear on how this plan would in any way cut government spending.

...You are the one who has no theory of normative order. You're the one who always oscillates between a coercive 'solution' to the problem of order and one based on the 'natural identity of interests' based on 'reason'....

I am still unclear on how this plan would in any way cut government spending.

I am still unclear on how this plan would in any way cut government spending.

I don't doubt that had the plan ben in effect up to now, there would have been less spending at the federal level at least. Implementation at this point would be the problematical part.

Increase pressure on Congress from the States to reduce the States tax bill...

Currently there is just presure on Congress from the mostly Income Tax payers to reduce their bill which is accomplished by shifting the cost to other Income Tax payers or future tax payers. This way the bill would be immediate and unshiftable...

It would also mean the Bridges to Nowhere or the multi-million dollar medical district we got as a payoff would have to end.
Fiscal responsibility is a laudable goal.
That would be the other end of the equation.

I am still unclear on how this plan would in any way cut government spending.

Congress would have to live within its means as per Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Right now, as long as Congress has money pouring in, either by taxing, borrowing, or the FED printing more fiat money, they're going to spend it.

I admit that it wouldn't be easy but, on the other hand, the old system was in used until 1913. During that time we became the greatest nation on earth.