• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

"The Black Swan In Plain Sight" - Debt Out The Wazoo

Weatherman

In GIM since 2006
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
2,629
Likes
2,662
#1

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,050
Likes
7,614
#2
Needless to say, we don't see much incremental growth from the $2.2 trillion windfall to the top of the economic ladder. We are quite sure, for example, that the 5500 dead people who will benefit from the estate tax repeal each year will not work harder or invest more as a result.
Stopped reading here. The estate tax is just grave robbery by another name and should be immediately abolished. It's every bit as morally reprehensible as passing budgets that exceed revenue and perpetually passing more debt to future generations. Stockman can suckit.

Does anybody really think that moar revenue to fed.gov is going to change a thing anyway? If they get moar they'll spend moar...I mean look at that chart! We could fill CONgress with drunken sailors on shore leave and get the same level of accountability. We passed the point of no return long ago imo and should be doing everything possible to strangle DC of revenue...so hopefully it will DIE.
 

Weatherman

In GIM since 2006
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
2,629
Likes
2,662
#3
Does anybody really think that moar revenue to fed.gov is going to change a thing anyway? If they get moar they'll spend moar...I mean look at that chart! We could fill CONgress with drunken sailors on shore leave and get the same level of accountability. We passed the point of no return long ago imo and should be doing everything possible to strangle DC of revenue...so hopefully it will DIE.
The USA debt disaster is obviously out of control, with essentially no limit on how much Congress can spend. I hoped that Trump would push for a balanced budget amendment, but that will not happen. The most likely future I see ahead is a crushing depression in a massive USA bankruptcy.

Stopped reading here. The estate tax is just grave robbery by another name and should be immediately abolished. It's every bit as morally reprehensible as passing budgets that exceed revenue and perpetually passing more debt to future generations. Stockman can suckit.
Any new or additional taxes are a bad idea. After the USA bankruptcy forces a change in the way finances are handled, however, I argue that 100% inheritance tax is a much better alternative to income and property taxes. The inheritance tax would not be in addition to other taxes, but would be instead of income and property taxes, which should be zero. My view is that people should be able to earn as much as they can, without having any of their wealth stolen by tax theft. After death, however, remaining wealth would return to the people through a 100% inheritance tax. A nation that proudly proclaims "All men are created equal" cannot justify allowing children of rich parents to inherit more wealth than most people can earn in a lifetime of work. All children deserve an equal opportunity to achieve to the maximum of their ability, including a good education, but no child should be given massive wealth that his parents earned. There is more detail about this viewpoint in the links below:

Zero taxes in our lifetime
and
Eliminate the Income Tax
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,040
Likes
6,083
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#4
I argue that 100% inheritance tax is a much better alternative to income and property taxes. The inheritance tax would not be in addition to other taxes, but would be instead of income and property taxes, which should be zero.
It won't work.
In a system such as you describe people would react to it by making sure they spent it all or gave it all away to younger family members prior to dying.


What we need to do is to return to apportionment for direct taxes. Ie: everyone gets a "government services bill" for the same dollar amount. It's the only truly fair way.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,050
Likes
7,614
#5
but no child should be given massive wealth that his parents earned.
That's just your opinion though and I while I don't entirely disagree, it's other people's belongings...they worked for it and they should be allowed to do with it as they see fit. These conversations begin from the perspective that the gumbymint owns everything and graciously allows the little people to keep some measure of what they eared...it's beyond ridiculous.

The estate tax is just taxes on top of things that have already been taxed, so yeah, eliminating other taxes and leaving just that would be better than having both as we do now, but it wouldn't change the fact that it's theft...ghoulish theft at that. Plus as Joe mentioned it would be avoided on a massive scale...particularly by those of means. Target the "evil rich" schemes always end up missing the stated target and hitting others, I would argue that it's by design. The income tax itself began that way and look how that has gone...it's all about who defines the word "rich". Gumbymint just eats and eats and the problems remain. The solution is always to steal more from those that earned it.
 
Last edited:

keef

Пальто Crude
Platinum Bling
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
5,334
Likes
4,369
Location
here
#6
 

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
3,462
Likes
5,528
#8
Why do we need taxation at all? Its just paper and has no real value. Congress can print all they want.
When all this taxation started it was because there was a limited money supply, gold and silver. Now there is an endless supply of digits or paper.
 

andial

use default title
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
10,532
Likes
10,861
#9
Why do we need taxation at all? Its just paper and has no real value. Congress can print all they want.
When all this taxation started it was because there was a limited money supply, gold and silver. Now there is an endless supply of digits or paper.
Agree plus count me in the "don't give a feck about the governments debt" camp. That's between the fed and the treasury.
 

Hystckndle

Daguerreotype Fanatic
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
5,993
Likes
6,060
Location
Central Florida
#10
Why do we need taxation at all? Its just paper and has no real value. Congress can print all they want.
When all this taxation started it was because there was a limited money supply, gold and silver. Now there is an endless supply of digits or paper.
Cannot ( and will never ) pay back anything borrowed.
I opine....it
doesn' t exist.
Its just a skimming scheme, the interest.
And any principle added is only a tax on pre existing digits. Inflation.
Buncha hot air it is.
Whats the dif...16 trillion or 17 trillion ?
Excelpt for a select few... nothing.
Just keeps oil in the gears and buncha jack asses occupied in " politics "
B.S. , all of it, the whole "National Debt " thing...
Over stressing about it.
Anyways...I will shut up.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,040
Likes
6,083
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#11
Why do we need taxation at all?
To give it all an air of legitimacy in peoples eyes. Running it through peoples pockets prior to the gov getting it via taxation, is sorta like their way of laundering the "money" they've created.

Its just paper and has no real value.
It may have no intrinsic value, but it still has value as long as others are willing to provide goods and services in exchange for it. Ie: that gives it extrinsic value.

Congress can print all they want.
Do you really trust our Congress to not pull a Zimbabwe were they to hold the keys to the printing press? I don't. In fact, I'd almost guarantee they'd blow the economy wide open in spectacular fashion within 20 years of assuming control. By the time they got done, they'd prolly have people begging to get the fed back. lol
....and even if they did and always exercised fiscal restraint when operating it, to physically print all the "money" currently needed would take decades. So it would all still be nothing but digits on a computer screen even if Congress controlled it directly.

When all this taxation started it was because there was a limited money supply, gold and silver. Now there is an endless supply of digits or paper.
Note that it was started soon after the creation of the fed as a means of controlling inflation. Skimming a certain percent off the top allows for more to be created in the first place.
 

Area51

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
1,089
Likes
734
#12
What we need to do is to return to apportionment for direct taxes. Ie: everyone gets a "government services bill" for the same dollar amount. It's the only truly fair way.
This is an absolutely asinine idea. Certainly one of the dumbest items in your constitution.

Try to think it through logically, my friend.

Apportionment by population is just as dumb and inequitable as a flat tax would be.

Horrifically bad idea.
 

Flight2gold

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Site Supporter ++
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
1,486
Likes
1,834
Location
Florida
#13
We could return to what the original constitution stated, income from tariffs.
I'm guessing govt. would shrink rather dramatically. :))
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,050
Likes
7,614
#14
This is an absolutely asinine idea. Certainly one of the dumbest items in your constitution.
...okay. You called it asinine, dumb, and a "horrifically bad idea", yet said nothing of substance.

I'll bite, what's so bad about Article 1 section 2?

That it's the law didn't bother CONgress...or the supremes of course, they just did what lieyers always do and creatively interpreted the words to mean something else.
 

GOLDBRIX

God,Donald Trump,most in GIM2 I Trust. OTHERS-meh
Platinum Bling
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
6,753
Likes
7,033
#15
We could return to what the original constitution stated, income from tariffs.
I'm guessing govt. would shrink rather dramatically. :))

I doubt it.
Once .Gov began taxing it's own citizens that lighten up on tariffs and created so-called "Trading Partners", created Free Trade Regional Nations groups, NAFTA, SAFTA, TPP, ( all kinda Alphabet "Economic " treaties).

Cut out the personal income tax, re-introduce the TARIFF System Worldwide .govs would see far more revenues nation by nation.
Multi-National Corporations would be upset because it would kill their golden goose geese, and create paperwork more elaborate records of some sort. - IMO
 
Last edited:

southfork

Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Mother Lode
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
14,711
Likes
13,047
#16
Debts been in sight for well over a decade and getting worse by the week, thats why i bought a mercuy dime to be prepared for the collapse, that and my dental gold, but week after week tptb supress metals.
 

<SLV>

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
3,174
Likes
3,757
#17
www.debtismoney2.com

Growing debt = necessary inflation = expansion. Shrinking debt = unavoidable deflation = contraction. In a Keynesian system debt must grow for the money supply to grow, and the money supply grows when people borrow it into existence. People (and corporations) borrow it into existence when they are expanding.


As ironic as it sounds, we have a system that creates prosperity through growing debt. As long as debt can keep growing, so can the economy. Keef's chart shows the magic. GDP growth must keep up with or surpass debt growth. When debt growth does not produce GDP growth the house of cards falls.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,040
Likes
6,083
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#18
This is an absolutely asinine idea. Certainly one of the dumbest items in your constitution.

Try to think it through logically, my friend.

Apportionment by population is just as dumb and inequitable as a flat tax would be.

Horrifically bad idea.
No, it's a wonderful idea that would drastically trim the gov's purse strings.


Government is a service and we should all pay equally for that service. Gov should be priced the same as a gallon of milk (or anything else) at the store is priced. Same price for everyone.
Also, apportionment was included in the Constitution to make it more difficult for the gov to raise funds. That way the gov would be forced to only spend on the most important things. Ie: no million$ to study mating habits of some animal you've never heard of, or the possibility of people voting themselves money from the public treasury. (we have a lot of that going on today)


We all are supposed to have equal Rights to government and equal Rights in the eyes of government, but when some pay much more than others do, that supposed equality goes out the window because money talks. Gov will always cater to it's highest paying customers, same any business would.
...and if it's such a good thing to price gov services progressively, why don't we price everything that way? Cars, food, houses, everything. If you have the ability to pay more, then you should pay more. Makes sense to you about taxes, why doesn't it make sense to price everything that way?




In a Keynesian system debt must grow for the money supply to grow, and the money supply grows when people borrow it into existence. People (and corporations) borrow it into existence when they are expanding.
Debt = wealth in this topsy turvy system they got goin'.
 

Area51

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
1,089
Likes
734
#19
...okay. You called it asinine, dumb, and a "horrifically bad idea", yet said nothing of substance.

I'll bite, what's so bad about Article 1 section 2?

That it's the law didn't bother CONgress...or the supremes of course, they just did what lieyers always do and creatively interpreted the words to mean something else.

You didn't think it through logically, did you?

Apportionment of taxes based on population is a ridiculous concept because it doesn't take income disparity into account.

Vermont and the District of Columbia have pretty much the same population but the per capita income is $44k compared to $160k.

Are you beginning to see the problem of apportionment yet?

If each person is required to pay $10k of direct tax it's going to have a MUCH greater impact on someone in Vermont than it is on someone in DC. Essentially, apportionment is a flat tax.

Three hundred years ago it may have seemed like a good idea, but the income disparity of today makes apportionment a laughably obsolete concept. The earlier proclamation that apportionment is "the only truly fair way" was comically naive.

That's the problem with the charade of a hurr durr patriot insisting a centuries old document must be followed to the letter.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,050
Likes
7,614
#20
You didn't think it through logically, did you?
Sure did.
Apportionment of taxes based on population is a ridiculous concept because it doesn't take income disparity into account.

Vermont and the District of Columbia have pretty much the same population but the per capita income is $44k compared to $160k.

Are you beginning to see the problem of apportionment yet?
Uh no...no I am not. Income is revenue generated on investments...it is not that which one receives as compensation for their labor. Amazing how effective lieyers have been at redefining terms is it not? If you think non-apportioned DIRECT taxation of income is unfair to the "poor" then why would you advocate stealing their compensation for labor at all?

Perhaps you're the one that hasn't yet thought this through?
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,040
Likes
6,083
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#21
Apportionment of taxes based on population is a ridiculous concept because it doesn't take income disparity into account.
Why should it take that into account? Are you jealous of people who make more than you do? If it's ok to charge them more for the same gov services, why don't we price everything that way?


If each person is required to pay $10k of direct tax it's going to have a MUCH greater impact on someone in Vermont than it is on someone in DC. Essentially, apportionment is a flat tax.
You're missing the point. If gov could only impose direct taxes via apportionment, the gov would only be able to charge everyone what the poorest of people could afford to pay.
The result would be a gov that could not exceed its Constitutional limitations because there simply would not be the money avaliable to expand it to the point it could exceed its limitations on power. In other words, that's how we get the small federal gov with limited powers that we were intended to have.
...and if the gov tried sending everyone a bill for $10k, it would go unpaid by most people. Therefor the gov wouldn't get anything much at all that way either.

Also, I'm not saying it would be an income tax, just a direct tax on the People as stated in the Constitution. An "Income tax" could still be applied as described so well by Solarion in the post above this one. Ie: on revenue generated by investment.
...but netier tax should be based upon what people earn via the exchange of their labor or time.
 
Last edited:

Area51

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
1,089
Likes
734
#24
Uh no...no I am not. Income is revenue generated on investments...it is not that which one receives as compensation for their labor. Amazing how effective lieyers have been at redefining terms is it not? If you think non-apportioned DIRECT taxation of income is unfair to the "poor" then why would you advocate stealing their compensation for labor at all?
There's nothing worse than a hypocrite. And that's exactly what you're doing when you try to spin "income" does not include money for providing goods and services - - ie. compensation for labour - - and then in the next breath you whine about lawyers trying to "redefine terms".

Taxation on a percentage of income rather than a fixed amount is much more equitable, particularly for the lower classes. A flat rate apportioned direct tax of $25,000 is going to be devastating to the majority of the population but it'd be something the wealthy elites would gladly welcome.

If you're unable and/or unwilling to recognize the impact of a flat tax as opposed to a percentage based tax, you should probably do yourself a favour and withdraw from this conversation.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,050
Likes
7,614
#25
There's nothing worse than a hypocrite. And that's exactly what you're doing when you try to spin "income" does not include money for providing goods and services - - ie. compensation for labour - - and then in the next breath you whine about lawyers trying to "redefine terms".

Taxation on a percentage of income rather than a fixed amount is much more equitable, particularly for the lower classes. A flat rate apportioned direct tax of $25,000 is going to be devastating to the majority of the population but it'd be something the wealthy elites would gladly welcome.

If you're unable and/or unwilling to recognize the impact of a flat tax as opposed to a percentage based tax, you should probably do yourself a favour and withdraw from this conversation.
Instead I will withdraw from having to see more of your petty insults rather than actually addressing what was said.

Welcome to ignore...dickhead.
 

Area51

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
1,089
Likes
734
#26
If it's ok to charge them more for the same gov services, why don't we price everything that way?
Are you living under a rock? Everything is priced that way. People consume what they can afford to pay based on their income.

If you want a steak you can go to a dump like Applebee's and pay $10 for a steak or you can go to Ruth's Chris and drop $80 for a steak. If you want a vehicle you can pay $15k for a shitbox Hyundai or you can pay $70k for a Lexus.
 

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
3,462
Likes
5,528
#27
Are you living under a rock? Everything is priced that way. People consume what they can afford to pay based on their income.

If you want a steak you can go to a dump like Applebee's and pay $10 for a steak or you can go to Ruth's Chris and drop $80 for a steak. If you want a vehicle you can pay $15k for a shitbox Hyundai or you can pay $70k for a Lexus.
Your slightly offtrack.
If everyone went to Ruths Cris and ordered the same steak then the poor would pay 10 dollars and the rich would pay 80.00.

Why should it take that into account? Are you jealous of people who make more than you do? If it's ok to charge them more for the same gov services, why don't we price everything that way?
See, the argument here is we all get the same Gov services. Why does anyone have to pay more or less for the same service?

Income disparity is a non argument. There always was and always will be income disparity. If someone makes a million dollars and pays 10% income tax he is paying 100k in tax. If someone makes 50k in income and the tax is in the same 10% bracket he only pays 5k.
Why should 1 person pay twice the annual earnings of person number 2 for getting the exact same services? How is that fair?

We can throw in a 3rd person too. How about baby momma sitting home popping out kids for the money? She takes 10k a year in tax refunds( Earned income credits) plus housing, food, medical and whatever other freebies are available like phones and free utilities as well as free college for all the kids. He total compensation package is around 60-90k a year for doing nothing.
 

Area51

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
1,089
Likes
734
#28
Income disparity is a non argument. There always was and always will be income disparity. If someone makes a million dollars and pays 10% income tax he is paying 100k in tax. If someone makes 50k in income and the tax is in the same 10% bracket he only pays 5k.
Why should 1 person pay twice the annual earnings of person number 2 for getting the exact same services? How is that fair?

You have to open your eyes, my friend.

Over the past 40yrs CEO pay has skyrocketed compared to pay for the lowly workers. The income disparity between the "haves" and the "have nots" has never been worse than it is now. And I'd fully expect the gulf to grow even further in the future.
 

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
3,462
Likes
5,528
#29
And there is nothing that will ever change that.
What would change under an apportionment system is all of the giveaways to other countries, to illegal immigrants, to welfare recipients, ect...
The people would also be able to hold the Gov accountable. There could be no wars without the people funding them. All the pork in the budgets, all the missing mo0ney from the budgets, all of that would come to an end when the people have to approve the apportionment before they pay.
 

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
3,462
Likes
5,528
#30
China has 4 times the US population but spends 1/2 the money we do

Russia has 1/2 the US pop but spends5% of what we do. Our spending on a per person basis in the country is completely out of line with the rest of the world.
 

Area51

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
1,089
Likes
734
#31
And there is nothing that will ever change that.
What would change under an apportionment system is all of the giveaways to other countries, to illegal immigrants, to welfare recipients, ect...
The people would also be able to hold the Gov accountable. There could be no wars without the people funding them. All the pork in the budgets, all the missing mo0ney from the budgets, all of that would come to an end when the people have to approve the apportionment before they pay.

It's not the system of collecting taxes that needs to be changed - - it's the way the tax revenue is pissed down the drain that needs to change.

Start by cutting military spending by 90% and using the military for what it was designed for - - to protect the borders. NOT attacking defenseless third world countries to pillage their resources.
 

Area51

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
1,089
Likes
734
#32
China has 4 times the US population but spends 1/2 the money we do

Russia has 1/2 the US pop but spends5% of what we do. Our spending on a per person basis in the country is completely out of line with the rest of the world.

Check your facts, my friend.

Per capita 2016 income in Russia is $5625 USD and in China it's $2586 USD - - are you still trying to insist Chinese households spend TEN TIMES what Russian households do?
 

Garyw

The Military gave me Defoliant Exposure
Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 16, 2011
Messages
1,299
Likes
1,061
Location
State of Jefferson
#33
House of cards falling may be our only way out. Right now I am not worried about collapse. I collapsed a few years ago.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,040
Likes
6,083
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#34
Are you living under a rock?
No, but you must be.


Everything is priced that way.
No, it isn't.


People consume what they can afford to pay based on their income.
If you want a steak you can go to a dump like Applebee's and pay $10 for a steak or you can go to Ruth's Chris and drop $80 for a steak. If you want a vehicle you can pay $15k for a shitbox Hyundai or you can pay $70k for a Lexus.
That's not what I was talking about. You've completely missed the point.

To use one of your examples, if you go to Ruth's Chris, the cost of the food would be priced progressively based on the income of each person ordering. Ie: the same kind of steak costs a different amount for each person based upon their income.

If it's right to price the service of government that way, why not price everything that way? He who makes more, pays more for everything.
Here's another example in case you still don't get it. You me and Bill Gates walk into the store. We each want a gallon of Borden whole milk. The price is determined based on how much we all make, so for you it is $3, the price for me is $30 and the price for Bill is $300.

The same gov builds the same roads for all of us, the same military protects all of us equally, and we all supposedly are treated equally under the law. So why do we all pay different prices for those same things? Having some people pay way more than others sets the stage for favoritism to happen, then we complain about it when it happens.



The people would also be able to hold the Gov accountable. There could be no wars without the people funding them. All the pork in the budgets, all the missing mo0ney from the budgets, all of that would come to an end when the people have to approve the apportionment before they pay.
This is what it's all about. Ie: making things fair and returning to the People the ability to hold their gov accountable. You obviously "get it", Cigarlover.


It's not the system of collecting taxes that needs to be changed - - it's the way the tax revenue is pissed down the drain that needs to change.
If the money isn't there in the first place, there's nothing to piss away.

The bottom line is that we have a big bloated gov that wastes money, but it only happens because the money is there to be wasted.
 
Last edited:

Area51

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
1,089
Likes
734
#35
Here's another example in case you still don't get it. You me and Bill Gates walk into the store. We each want a gallon of Borden whole milk. The price is determined based on how much we all make, so for you it is $3, the price for me is $30 and the price for Bill is $300.

The same gov builds the same roads for all of us, the same military protects all of us equally, and we all supposedly are treated equally under the law. So why do we all pay different prices for those same things? Having some people pay way more than others sets the stage for favoritism to happen, then we complain about it when it happens.
Your examples are nonsensical and completely unrelated to the issue of taxation.

Buying milk - - or any other product - - is something people can chose to do or not to do.

If you're scraping barrel with your minimum wage job and desperately waiting until your next pay cheque, you're not going to be dropping $3 on that gallon of milk. You'll buy a .49 cent can of milk replacement because that's what you can afford relative to your low income job.
No, but you must be.


No, it isn't.


That's not what I was talking about. You've completely missed the point.

To use one of your examples, if you go to Ruth's Chris, the cost of the food would be priced progressively based on the income of each person ordering. Ie: the same kind of steak costs a different amount for each person based upon their income.

If it's right to price the service of government that way, why not price everything that way? He who makes more, pays more for everything.
Here's another example in case you still don't get it. You me and Bill Gates walk into the store. We each want a gallon of Borden whole milk. The price is determined based on how much we all make, so for you it is $3, the price for me is $30 and the price for Bill is $300.

The same gov builds the same roads for all of us, the same military protects all of us equally, and we all supposedly are treated equally under the law. So why do we all pay different prices for those same things? Having some people pay way more than others sets the stage for favoritism to happen, then we complain about it when it happens.



This is what it's all about. Ie: making things fair and returning to the People the ability to hold their gov accountable. You obviously "get it", Cigarlover.


If the money isn't there in the first place, there's nothing to piss away.

The bottom line is that we have a big bloated gov that wastes money, but it only happens because the money is there to be wasted.
What dollar amount do you propose per person under your idea of a single flat tax?
 

Area51

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
1,089
Likes
734
#36
The USA debt disaster is obviously out of control, with essentially no limit on how much Congress can spend. I hoped that Trump would push for a balanced budget amendment, but that will not happen. The most likely future I see ahead is a crushing depression in a massive USA bankruptcy.


Any new or additional taxes are a bad idea. After the USA bankruptcy forces a change in the way finances are handled, however, I argue that 100% inheritance tax is a much better alternative to income and property taxes. The inheritance tax would not be in addition to other taxes, but would be instead of income and property taxes, which should be zero. My view is that people should be able to earn as much as they can, without having any of their wealth stolen by tax theft. After death, however, remaining wealth would return to the people through a 100% inheritance tax. A nation that proudly proclaims "All men are created equal" cannot justify allowing children of rich parents to inherit more wealth than most people can earn in a lifetime of work. All children deserve an equal opportunity to achieve to the maximum of their ability, including a good education, but no child should be given massive wealth that his parents earned. There is more detail about this viewpoint in the links below:

Zero taxes in our lifetime
and
Eliminate the Income Tax

Getting back to the topic of this thread after the misinformed hijack by some - - untenable debt is a global problem, and one that affects governments, business and individuals.

A "crushing depression" doesn't begin to describe the catastrophic outcome that's inevitable.
 

GOLDBRIX

God,Donald Trump,most in GIM2 I Trust. OTHERS-meh
Platinum Bling
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
6,753
Likes
7,033
#37
When debt growth does not produce GDP growth the house of cards falls.
Folks , That is where we're at.
The chart is 7 years old. Just as Obama was getting his seat and pen warm.
An updated chart would indicate the RED LINE of DEBT is just about even with the GDP line now. - IMO
 

viking

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
1,403
Likes
1,246
#38
The apportionment tax is on States, based on population. It is up to the States on how to collect it. Gives more power back to the States and The People. That is why the Feds don't use it.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,040
Likes
6,083
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#39
Your examples are nonsensical and completely unrelated to the issue of taxation.
Then they are just as nonsensical as pricing government services that way too.

Government is our servant and gov services are their product. As in the only reason gov exists at all.


Buying milk - - or any other product - - is something people can chose to do or not to do.
Granted, and gov does enjoy a monopoly on its services.
...but that's no reason to not hold it accountable for how it spends our money.



If you're scraping barrel with your minimum wage job and desperately waiting until your next pay cheque, you're not going to be dropping $3 on that gallon of milk. You'll buy a .49 cent can of milk replacement because that's what you can afford relative to your low income job.
Under a progressive pricing system, someone as you describe would get their gallon for two bits.


What dollar amount do you propose per person under your idea of a single flat tax?
I dunno, maybe somewhere between $500 and $1000/year to start.
....and I realize that the people we currently have in DC would never go for something like this, because it would effectively bind their hands from doing anything but the most important of government tasks. I'm merely discussing with you how it should work and why the Founders required all direct taxes were to be apportioned. They knew that if it were too easy to raise revenue, that imperfect men who would occupy office would be tempted to exceed their limits on power. You know, like what's been happening for at least the past 100 years or so.

As it stands now, the gov rakes in nearly 20% of GDP. That means nearly one out of every 5 dollars spent goes to DC instead of in the pocket of who earned it. What Right does gov have to collect such a large amount? What did it do to earn that money? Oh, promise not to send their goons to F' you up if you don't pay? I suppose that's not nothing. lol
 

GOLDBRIX

God,Donald Trump,most in GIM2 I Trust. OTHERS-meh
Platinum Bling
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
6,753
Likes
7,033
#40
and I realize that the people we currently have in DC would never go for something like this

CORRECT!! The TAXING Authority is where Congress gets its POWER. Congress will NEVER allow a Flat Tax or Drop the Federal Income Tax in lieu of a Consumption Tax.
Those put the POWER in the hands of the PEOPLE