Hmm, could be that, I haven't looked into it... =)It's nice to be able to make the tax laws for the business you happen to own
America Freedom to Fascism...
- Thread starter biggins
- Start date
So, getting back to the original topic which is two fold:
-- income taxes are 'illegal'
-- Fed Reserve bank is privately owned.
Is that correct?
So, if the Fed is privately owned and operated for the financial benefit of a few, is that so wrong?
One thing the Fed does and does well is to control inflation.
If the Fed was controlled by the US govt and the govt could print as much money as it wanted to fund it's projects, do you think our govt would have the self-control to not go nuts and print way too much money?
It's ironic that so many people don't trust our govt, but seem to be suggesting that they be put back in control of the money supply?
-- income taxes are 'illegal'
-- Fed Reserve bank is privately owned.
Is that correct?
So, if the Fed is privately owned and operated for the financial benefit of a few, is that so wrong?
One thing the Fed does and does well is to control inflation.
If the Fed was controlled by the US govt and the govt could print as much money as it wanted to fund it's projects, do you think our govt would have the self-control to not go nuts and print way too much money?
It's ironic that so many people don't trust our govt, but seem to be suggesting that they be put back in control of the money supply?
Exactly. This thread is also a paradox. Less taxes, but more govt. programs?
I've been writing off ammunition as "work related" for a while so that when i'm tired of paying taxes i can just disappear into my tax free bunker in the mountains
Yeah man, it's wrong because the financial benefit should benefit all taxpayers and not just a few. That was what your founding fathers wanted as well, which you will se several quotes from. They was very keen on limiting the power of the banks.
Control inflation should be the governments job. It is the type of politics that the voters want, and elect, that should decide what type of economics a country should have, and not a private bank. That is not democratic. That is oligarcic.
No Swedish or other government that I know of in the western world has done any such thing as printed up more moner than what is wise. Not since Hitler.
I don't trust your government, needless to say.. But I want the best for Joe Schmoe. That means as much power in, preferably, a direct-democratic way when possible, and in a representative-democratic way when not. That power in the hands of a few unknown corporate men is totaly against every thing the USA says it stands for. Don't you agree?
The interest you are paying the Fed every year must be huuuuge! That would finance the lower taxes.Exactly. This thread is also a paradox. Less taxes, but more govt. programs?
That figure shouldn't be that impossible to find out. Some one up for it?
from the NYTimes
Does that stuff hold its value so you can trade it in for sixpacks later?I've been writing off ammunition as "work related" for a while so that when i'm tired of paying taxes i can just disappear into my tax free bunker in the mountains
I'm in complete agreeance.
I might care if we didn't have one of the highest standards of living. If I was going to put my energy into anything, it'd be to help third world countries improve, not the US.
The rich do not have income. They have WEALTH.
See, you and your boys have the most to win from this!
I know you will like this "leftist" documentary if you watch it. Cus you stand for those classical American values that are brought up and shown to have shifted to something unamerican.
The film ends with a lot of short interview clips with a republican congressman that totaly agrees with the views of the filmmaker.
This was not about right or left. It was about right or wrong.
I know what you mean. We have it too good to bother in some countries.
I'm convinced that it is mostly the EU and US/Canada and Japan that are to blame for the situation in the third world. Partially because have tolls on what we import from them, but through the IMF and world bank we force them to take away theirs, aswell as sell out some of their already limited means of income, by selling out their state owned natural resources and companies.
Charity (of any type) is helping. But what they really need are means to help them selves. Otherwise there will be no change for the better. Wasn't more than a few months ago that I saw figures from the UN showing that the ~30 poorest countries have gotten poorer in the last 25 years. The crumbles aren't falling all the way down..
That can only be changed by doing something radically different from what we have been doing.
My memory isn't the best.. But don't at least companies pay federal taxes? Dunno which of your taxes are state or federal to give you a better answer.
(sorry for beating the horse...)
But if we make companies pay more taxes, prices on goods and services go up and then EVERY body pays more, but the poor are paying a greater share of the Federal Revenues.
I know that income taxes seem unfair, but it's an illusion. Any other method without serious consideration will have the lower and middle classes paying more than they do now.
Seems like the film is a conspiracy from the rich
Apparently you all missed my point. The reason income taxes place an unfair burden upon the poor is because the rich do not have income. The rich have wealth.
When they sell something and make a profit (capital gains) they are smart enough to roll that profit into another investment where they can make more money. They do not have to pay taxes on their wealth until they cash it out.
The rich paid their taxes on their long ago... and in some cases they have had this wealth since before income taxes even existed. The rich use their wealth for their daily needs. It is the poor that are forced to use their income on these necessities.
What is the point? A flat use tax of some kind would be the fairest methodology.
Spend $10 on dinner or $100 on dinner. Pay the same flat tax rate either way. The person who ate the steak and lobster would pay more than the person who ate at McDonalds. That is fair.
You're drawing to conclusions on way too little background facts. Not saying that you're wrong, or that it's a stupid thing to say , cus you do the right thing in thinking "outside of the box".(sorry for beating the horse...)
But if we make companies pay more taxes, prices on goods and services go up and then EVERY body pays more, but the poor are paying a greater share of the Federal Revenues.
I know that income taxes seem unfair, but it's an illusion. Any other method without serious consideration will have the lower and middle classes paying more than they do now.
Seems like the film is a conspiracy from the rich
But when it comes to paying more for the goods, I'm for it. Except for food, there aren't a lot of things we need to consume. It is up to us what we want to do with our money.
For instance, there could be different tax rates on different types of products; luxury goods should have a very high tax, and food very low. Other goods some where in between.
In any way, consuming as it is done by us westeners today will have to come to an end in a few decades or so. We have to act now. I heard today that it's about 20degrees celsius in New York. If this continues for five years people are going to panic.
It seems to me a ramping income tax is the fairest system. If you earn a small amount, you pay a small percentage in tax. If you earn a lot, you pay a greater percentage. Simple, and I think very fair. Also the government makes a decent amount of cash to pay for universal healthcare etc.
Ahh, berri good tinkin! That means that N8 isn't one of them, and that he actually should vote on a different party than they are, as they obviously don't have the same interests!
But that also shows that capital gains and wealth in general should be taxed (higher if it already is). Money made from gambling, stocks and such so aswell.
Agree, but again, they don't have to pay income taxes the lucky bastards.
Gotta go sleep, good night!
I think only the ultra rich don't really pay income tax, which is kinda fair enough, you gotta have something to aim for, and you do kinda need a class of people who can afford to plow money back into the system - but also what luxury goods/inheritance/capital gains tax is for.
It's fair because it's pretty easy to make a compelling case that someone making a million a year gets a few more benefits from being a citizen of a first world country than a person making 10,000 a year does.
Gee, thanks :roll:
My conclusions were based on ceteris paribus, for that's the only way to evaluate the situation.
Otherwise, it's not really the same circumstance at all, is it?
I mean, if you dump income taxes and put the burden on corporate taxes, then all goods and services increase in price. If they don't, then you've added other variables. Variables outside the discussion. If you want to add them, cool, but then it's not an apples-to-apples comparison, is it?
LMAO.
i don't think that an inheritance tax is reasonable. the money's already been taxed at least once (income), if not more (capital gains). what right does the gov't have to tax it again?
agreed!
It's not really a question of how many times something has been taxed. You pay tax on income from a corporation that pays corporate taxes, then you pay sales tax when you spend your post-tax dollars and the store then pays taxes on any of that sale that is net profit. Its not like there is a one-time window for ANY dollar that flows around this country.
Inheritance tax is a tax on money that people didn't earn themselves, and since it only applies to large estates it still leaves them more than enough to have more opportunity than anyone with any kind of skills, intelligence, or ambition would ever need as a starting point. Are you okay with taxing the lottery? Taxing gambling winnings? Well, those people took on a lot more risk to earn that money than an heir.
What Ohio said.
In addition to that, the various and diverse forms of taxes take advantage of the multiplier effect... which is the supposed theory behind the so-called "Trickle-down" economics.
Bottomline is, there is no one tax that can generate tax revenues fairly and thoroughly. That's the idea behind various tax deductions and forms of taxation.
In addition to that, the various and diverse forms of taxes take advantage of the multiplier effect... which is the supposed theory behind the so-called "Trickle-down" economics.
Bottomline is, there is no one tax that can generate tax revenues fairly and thoroughly. That's the idea behind various tax deductions and forms of taxation.
i would argue that the sales tax analogy is not too relevant for the inheritance tax one; in the first case there is an active transfer occuring (currency for goods), whereas the 2nd one it's a passive, one-way transfer.
the lottery, as small a sum as a $1 ticket is, it's still an active transfer.
this criterion is very subjective. who gets to define 'more than enough'? and again, why does it need to be defined?
No, it's double taxation on money that someone worked very hard for.
The inheritance tax pisses me off not because I have an inheritance to protect (i don't) but because I don't want my efforts to provide for my kids undermined.
Isn't the first $600,000 exempt?
And everything is doubly taxed, so that's not a valid argument either.
Look, it may not be very fair that the rich pay most of the taxes, but this country would go to sh!t if they didn't. The rich should look at the taxes they pay as an investment to their continued success.
I've never had an issue paying taxes, they're a fact of life. Personal wealth, however, should be encouraged as it effectively produces citizens which can live without needing gov't help while continuing to support the social system though normal taxes.
That the 'rich' pay most of the taxes isn't the issue. The concept of using taxation to level the playing field between the rich and poor is. Taxing success is wrong.
That the 'rich' pay most of the taxes isn't the issue. The concept of using taxation to level the playing field between the rich and poor is. Taxing success is wrong.
Wrong is subjective. And while I might agree with you, the reality is simply this...
Without the rich paying, this country's standard of living for everyone would drop.
So, which is more important to you, your ethics -or- schools, healthcare, police, firefighters, internet, bike trails, air travel, etc.?
Without the rich paying, this country's standard of living for everyone would drop.
So, which is more important to you, your ethics -or- schools, healthcare, police, firefighters, internet, bike trails, air travel, etc.?
Schools, fire/police are paid by my property taxes and local sales taxes.
Roads are paid by gas taxes, registration fees, vehicle taxes (based on valuation) and tolls.
Internet/airlines are private companies last time I checked.
I pay $1100/mo for healthcare for my family (self employed).
My comments regarding taxing success are solely aimed at the inheritance tax. Earning more already means you will pay more taxes when it comes to income tax.
Like I said, I don't have a problem paying taxes (i live Taxachusetts). I have the ability to run a huge percentage of my business via cash but don't. Not for fear of getting caught but rather from civic duty. If things get totally out of whack that will change....
Capital gains is income. It is just one particular kind of income.
The rich do not pay the most income taxes. The high income earners do pay the most income taxes, but these people are not the rich. The really, really rich do not have income and therefore do not pay any (or very little) income taxes.
The rich do not pay the most income taxes. The high income earners do pay the most income taxes, but these people are not the rich. The really, really rich do not have income and therefore do not pay any (or very little) income taxes.