You are Funny girl.
It was a great Northern victory, but it was not realised at the time.
Atlanta is all that mattered, so the action at Mobile was overlooked at the time
Taxes
-
The only way to make the ponzi scheme of our socialist programs work is to reward people who are not on these programs for their children. Currently we are in a population reduction. Less and less people are having kids and those have kids are having less of them. That means we will have too few indians paying into the system to support the chiefs reaping the benefits.
Thus, it only makes sense to pay people to have kids.
And, since we know that day care and preschools and no parent at home after school breeds evil children (at least according to all the articles and propaganda being spewed by the various organizations out there) it makes sense that we need to pay a parent to stay home to raise these kids, to reduce crime and thus the burden of warehousing criminals.
No?
Hence, why I said we need a stipend for stay at home mothers who raise their own children without being a burden on society (aka are not on a socialist program.)
-
Absolutely not.
Have children you can afford, period end of sentence. If you cannot afford children, do not have them, period end of sentence.
And it IS possible to have kids (a LOT of them) and not be on welfare or need social support. I mentioned the Dugger Family above. They now have SEVENTEEN CHILDREN, and they receive ZERO direct government benefits (other than driving on roads, national defense, etc.) And all 17 kids are home schooled, so not even using the government education system.
So you CAN have a boat load of kids, and on a single income (Mrs. Dugger is a stay at home mom) and still be debt free and not on the government teat.
You do not encourage that by handing out MORE cash for popping out kids.
-
But Switch, you are SO cruel! Won’t you please think about the children!!!
Obviously you want to see children starving to death in the street, right? You are such a cruel conservative! Have you no heart?
(In case you all are missing it, I’m using the classic liberal arguments to spread the influence of government.)
Basically, my point is, if welfare is needed, then we need to pay parents to stay home and raise their kids. After all, the best parent for a child is the child’s parent, not the state.
-
And if families drive used minivans instead of new Lexus SUV’s, if they do not have the 5 bedroom 7 bath house in the highest tax, highest cost area of town; if they do not eat out 5 times a week, etc., etc. then they can afford their kids.
Otherwise, don;t come bawling to me for more cash so that you can pop out kids and dump them off in government schools with government breakfast and lunch, and government after school programs, and government transportation to and from, and government health care.
-
Switch,
You cannot expect imperialist American pig-dogs to live within their means! That’s just cruel! Every room must have a television with it’s own satellight receiver, every child not only with a personal cell phone, but also with unlimited minutes and text messages! Each person over the age of 16 has to have their own car!
-
LOL!
I love the sarcasm.
I grew up lower middle class. My first vehicle was a bike (a gift for Christmas). When I destroyed it (mountain bikes had not been invented yet, but i could have used one), it was up to me to buy the replacement (thus the strawberry picking at ages 11 and 12). My first motorized vehicle was a used Honda 80 dirt bike when I was 16. My first street legal was a Kawasaki KZ250LTD (used of course) when i was 17. To pay for THAT I had to put 20 square of shingles on the family home. My first car was a 1976 Olds Omega that I bought from my grandfather when I was 18.
I am 38 years old and I DO NOT OWN A CELL PHONE. I have a company issued one for work, and Angel has a pre-paid. Our “new” cars are both 4 years old, and we are going to drive them a while yet. We live in a modest home (about 1300 square feet) in a modest sub-division. We both work a LOT of hours, and we have little debt (almost none excluding the house). If we WANTED a child, we could afford one.
But we don;t, so instead we have been helping Angel’s younger sister with her expenses as she prepares to give birth, so we help keep her off government assistance.
You seeing a trend here? I was effectively BRED to be a Libertarian (actually i was bred to be an American of the old school, which means Libertarian in today’s political verbage).
The modern republican wants to CONTROL THE ACTS of the people who live down the street.
The modern democrat wants to CONTROL THE CASH of the people who live down the street.
The modern libertarian wants to be able to control their own acts and their own cash, and let the neighbors do the same.It worked for over 150 years. Damn shame we gave it up as a nation.
-
I know. I just wanted to play the liberal for once, can you blame me?
Hell, where I grew up originally we made choices between having apples or having toilet paper. Screw phones and television! We had a television in the town hall, it had 2 channels, the entertainment channel and the news channel. Guess which one we watched?
That’s why I’m fed up with all these subsistence programs. Nothing drives a person to succeed better then success. If you make life easy for the unsuccessful, they will remain unsuccessful.
If we need programs like this, then I think we are rewarding the wrong citizens. It should be the middle classes, the backbone of America’s economy, that gets the rewards, not the upper crust of lower dredges.
-
I don’t see any option in the poll that could be classified as a progressive tax scheme, eg. where you pay a higher percentage in a higher income tax bracket.
Which incidentally I don’t think would dissuade anyone from trying to earn more money, even though they’ll pay higher taxes on those extra dollars.
But this is running dangerously close to PD. Just making a point about the poll options. All the options are flat, aren’t they?
-
I don’t see any option in the poll that could be classified as a progressive tax scheme, eg. where you pay a higher percentage in a higher income tax bracket.
Which incidentally I don’t think would dissuade anyone from trying to earn more money, even though they’ll pay higher taxes on those extra dollars.
But this is running dangerously close to PD. Just making a point about the poll options. All the options are flat, aren’t they?
thats why i don’t think i voted.
-
i think one of the worst taxes oissible is food taxes. it targets the poor. it should be a crime to make the poor barely afford food.
i can MATHMATICLLY show you using probablly pre-algrebra 1 skills at most. -
Frood: Are you referring to the current system?
Cyan: I agree, that’s why I think a flat tax rate should specifically exempt basic food stuffs and medicine. This would include vegetables, fruit, meat, breads and dairy. This would NOT include pre-made meals like those for the microwave. Just rawer foods like Wheat Bread, Maize, Apples, etc. And the medicine exclusion would be for prescribed medicines only, not for things like aspirin or MAALOX.
-
Which incidentally I don’t think would dissuade anyone from trying to earn more money, even though they’ll pay higher taxes on those extra dollars.<<
You might be surprised. My Wife is from Thailand where their income tax is about 15%. When she started working here the tax rate was about 21%. With her newest W2 contract because it pays a lot better she’s getting taxed at almost 30%. She was sooo pissed off and contemplated quiting on the spot. Penalizing people for working hard and trying to achieve better and better things is a sure fire way to get people NOT to work hard or strive to better their lives. I mean, the truly Rich has many tax shelters and what they can’t shelter they blink about paying because what’s a few more percentage points on 10 million? Its nothing to them. But the middle class that works hard to save money and prepare for retirement and to afford for college tuition for the kids get penalized so much for achieving strong incomes that the progressive tax is a major means to prevent ascension from the ranks of the middle class to the rich. I mean, the lower class can climb their way to the middle class ranks merely be working hard, garnering work experience, and progressively upgrading jobs as that experience allows. But most traditional jobs have an income cap to them and a high tax at the upper end cuts those people off at the legs from securing a stronger financial future.
My Chosen Tax Structures:
-
No Income Tax whatsoever on ANYONE making less than the medium average wage (not sure if this should be based on a national average, or established locally by tweaking the national average based on local cost of living). Over the median wage a progressive tax starting at 1% going up to just 10% based on an percentile basis of where you are on the wage chart. The idea being pegging these levels to the job market with the intent to prevent greedy politicians from gradually lowering the thresh holds for each incrimental tax point.
-
State sales taxes (basic consumption tax), with food and medical items and services exempt. Key insurance industries should be tax exempt as well, especially any type of insurance which is more or less an essential of life (health insurance, car insurance, house insurance)
-
State income taxes. 2% at maximum. A revenue share can be worked out between the states and the fed. Exempt for anyone earning under the poverty level.
-
A single one time property tax when purchasing a property. Not annually. A minor (and I mean minor) tax reduction on reduction on this amount for 1 and 2 children, but nothing additional for more than 2 children.
-
Capital Gains taxes such as, stock dividends, interests gains or the sales of stocks. But I also think this should be on an annual basis only and ONLY when you chose to remove cash from those investments. Growth on the investments should be left with the investments, tax, free, and allowed to keep growing. I think a very small capital gains tax upon successful selling of a property might be ok, but only on the “Gains”. So, as the buyer, maybe you pay a state tax of 10% when you buy the property and lets say you buy a house valued at $200K. 10 years later you sell it for $350K, maybe a small tax of 5% of so on the $150K in increased property value might be reasonable.
-
Renters Tax. 1-2% tax leveraged on rented housing. This very specifically would be designed to encourage home ownership.
-
Taxes on corporations much as they exist today. No “special” or heavier taxes on industries just because they are large or more profitable than other industries. Where civil infrastructure or environmental costs are involved for the business to be established, operated/monitored, would be charged to the business as pass thru fees, not taxes.
-
Import taxes. Only where we chose to leverage importing fees on products. For instance, if China charges import duties on our products, we would return in kind. Import fees should never be considered a means for government to make up lost taxes from other areas. Where needed, port inspection fees may be reasonable if the cost of safe inspection of imported cargo is necessary to safeguard our country.
-
Wartime act, emergency spending. If the nation goes to war and the government needs additional funds to finance the military spending everyone above the poverty line could be assessed a one time annual fee, but no greater than 10-15% of a persons income wage rate for that whole year. This fee would be a “loan” to the government at a market rate APR that the government would have to pay back within a fixed amount of time at the declared end of the war. If, for some reason, a person could not pay the assessed fee when required, they should be able to get a federally backed loan from most any financial banking institute where the rate for that loan should be the governments APR plus maybe 1-2% at worst. With money for surplus military spending coming, at least temporarily, directly out of the savings accounts of the average citizen (as opposed to nebulously from our taxes), its a fair bet the average citizen will care a whole lot more about international issues and hold their elected officials more directly accountable. My bet is wars or major military actions or even UN support roles will only get approved by the majority of people come that point and if approved, at least they would have more personal accountability there. And with surplus military funding being having to come from loans accountable to the average citizen rather than taxes which the government officials all too often regard as “theirs”, they would know darn well that how they attempt to vote on such issues will very much impact their chances for re-election.
-
Not strictly tax related, but every citizen should have the right to establish a 401K program under their own name and administration, even prior to the age of 18. This is not something that would be registered with an employer, but rather with the individual so it need not ever be transferred or shifted to a Roth or whatever when you change employers. Money invested into the 401K should be pre tax, as now and all “market gains” as opposed to principle you put into the account, should get taxed at half the the standard capital gains rate when it is taken out for retirement.
Really, that should be about it. I have a hard time seeing where the justification for any other taxes should come from.
Ryan S. Johnson
Guild of Blades Publishing Group
http://www.guildofblades.com
http://www.1483online.com
http://www.thermopylae-online.com -
-
I agree, income taxes, or more accurately stated, a tax on the creation of wealth, encourages people not to create wealth, which fosters a growth in the nanny state or socialized welfare programs for the non or under performers.
For instance, when I worked for McDonald’s I found out that if I worked my normal shift for one more week, I’d actually have to pay taxes instead of getting all my taxes back as a refund. So I told the boss not to schedule me for the last week. He was mad. However, I got “paid” thousands of dollars in tax refunds that I would have lost as well as kept the money I would have had to pay on top of my withholdings.
This goes on at the bracket limits at all strata. Why should we reward people for NOT working? Better would be a straight percentage then. Everyone pays X% of their income in taxes whether you earn $25,000 a year or $2,500,000 a year.
-
I agree, income taxes, or more accurately stated, a tax on the creation of wealth, encourages people not to create wealth, which fosters a growth in the nanny state or socialized welfare programs for the non or under performers.
For instance, when I worked for McDonald’s I found out that if I worked my normal shift for one more week, I’d actually have to pay taxes instead of getting all my taxes back as a refund. So I told the boss not to schedule me for the last week. He was mad. However, I got “paid” thousands of dollars in tax refunds that I would have lost as well as kept the money I would have had to pay on top of my withholdings.
This goes on at the bracket limits at all strata. Why should we reward people for NOT working? Better would be a straight percentage then. Everyone pays X% of their income in taxes whether you earn $25,000 a year or $2,500,000 a year.
well some can’t afford to give up anything. there should be brackets.
-
Frood: Are you referring to the current system?
I guess so. I just meant that your options don’t cover the whole range of possibilities. And what’s the difference between a “Flat tax” and the first two options?
-
A percentage of income is a tax on the creation of wealth. If you earn money, you pay taxes. Doesn’t matter what you earned money on, if you made more money then you lost for the year, you pay taxes on that money.
A percentage of wealth is a tax on all the wealth you have. You total all your assets, subtract all your liabilities, and pay a tax on that. Note, for homes and other such items, you would take the market value of the home - the mortgage on the home, not the original purchase price.
A flat tax is everyone paying the same amount as everyone else. For instance, everyone pays $1,000 to the government in taxes that year.
-
If a flat tax means a fixed amount of money, then options 3, 4 and 5 are identical.
I just am confused by what you mean.
I think though generally in tax policy a flat tax refers to a fixed percentage for everyone. I don’t think anyone has a straight “flat tax” as you describe it, do they?
-
If a flat tax means a fixed amount of money, then options 3, 4 and 5 are identical.
I just am confused by what you mean.
I think though generally in tax policy a flat tax refers to a fixed percentage for everyone. I don’t think anyone has a straight “flat tax” as you describe it, do they?
flat tax = same precentage as everyone
-
The building my church leases has these bricks with various donor names on them.
The Bad News Bears got their uniforms sponsored by the bail bonds company.
Perhaps parts of our government funding should have our names attached to it.
Like Bill & Melinda Gates getting their names in a plaque over some bridges or state / federal buildings or some of us getting our names on the patches of troopers in Afghanistan, Korea, or Iraq.
I would like to think that the taxes would be worthwhile if we all got a piece of ownership in the government.
-
I guess I rally am just too much of a Fair Tax supporter at this point.
1. EVERYONE pays the 23% inclusive sales tax on every good and service they buy
2. EVERYONE gets the prebate monthly in the amount that they would pay in taxes to poverty level spending for their household size.
3. Taxes are paid only ONCE on the purchase of a new product or service.So…
- Folks who choose to reduce their tax burden by purchasing used goods (existing homes, used cars, etc.) could DRAMATICALLY reduce their tax burden.
- Only those who CHOSE to spend freely on new products would pay increased taxes.
- No need to exempt food or medicine since the prebate refunds the tax burden for any spending on ANYTHING up to the poverty line (so rent, housing food, medicine, gasoline, school supplies, electric bill, etc. could ALL potentially have ZERO tax)
- People like Bill Gates would not be throwing a dinner fund raiser with tax-exempt food
- The underground economy would be gone… no more working “under the table” since there are no wage or payroll taxes to avoid.
I just honestly see this as a win-win-win-win-win for the American People.
It encourages saving
It encourages investment
It encourages recycling and conservation
It removes power from Washington to control what people do by manipulation of the tax code
It removes from Washington the power to reward campaign donors, etc. via the giving of tax breaksI just really do not see a downside for the people of the United States if this were to pass.
And while somewhat politcal (since it relates to an actual bill before Congress) this is posted as an illustration of what the typical family would gain with this change in the tax code… so a Sociology post, not a Political post.
Suggested Topics
