Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You've stated many times you are against government. But even if all we have is the minimum (military, police, fire department, courts, prisons, perhaps public schools) we still have to pay for it. What is unclear to me is what tax you believe is fair or appropriate. Is it a tax you would have to pay?
very generally speaking, i support a low flat income tax. i guess id with that on a state level also. when it comes to fees and other revenue; generally speaking user fees are better than charging everyone for something that they dont use. im trying to keep things general because im not really sure how far you want to go with this. there are tons of fees/taxes that you could start asking me about and tons of spending programs that you could ask me "what should we keep or get rid of." that can be a long conversation and im also able to go so far since i havent yet written up my budget for the government of the united states yet and i dont plan to unless someone wants to pay me to do it.
the concept of the government never getting a dime of that money is exciting to me. as taxpayers, we all should be doing everything we can to keep money out of the hands of the government.
That's a totally perverse intention. Do you have no concept of why tax-imposing societies cover the earth? If nothing else, they need funds to construct prison cells in which to house such anti-tax whackos as are likely to come along.
...i havent yet written up my budget for the government of the united states yet and i dont plan to unless someone wants to pay me to do it.
If you know wihat you're doing, it's not as big an undertaking as you might expect. Here for example is a list of all expenditures of $10 billion or more that your elected representatives put into the budget for FY 2011. This of course covers just federal spending...
Food Stamps -- 78
Child Nutrition programs -- 17
Entire Dept of Commerce -- 10
Military Personnel costs -- 162
Military Operations & Maintenance -- 291
Military Procurement -- 128
Military R&D -- 75
Military Construction -- 20
Race to the Top grants -- 20
State budget support for schools -- 12
IDEA/Special Ed programs -- 17
Pell Grants etc. -- 38
Entire Dept of Energy -- 31
National Institutes of Health -- 34
Medicaid -- 275
Medicare Part-A -- 263
Medicare Part-B --234
Medicare Part-D -- 66
TANF -- 66
Child & Family services -- 11
Customs & Border Patrol -- 12
US Coast Guard -- 11
Section 8 housing -- 19
All other housing -- 19
All Community Planning block grants -- 14
Entire Dept of the Interior -- 14
FBI and DEA -- 10
Unemployment benefits -- 168
Foreign affairs -- 11
Foreign assistance -- 15
Civilian air operations -- 11
Highway programs -- 45
Transit programs -- 12
Housing & Economic Recovery -- 29
TARP -- 24
Earned Income Tax Credit -- 56
Additional Child Care Credit -- 23
Make Work Pay Tax Credit -- 14
Interest on Public Debt -- 454
Veterans Medical Benefits -- 40
Veterans Pension and Other Benefits -- 68
Corps of Engineers -- 10
EPA -- 11
Security Assistance -- 12
NASA -- 18
Civil Service Benefits -- 74
Supplemental Security Income -- 56
SS Pension & Survivor -- 599
SS Disability -- 132
By the way, flat taxes are just a way to shift tax burden off of the wealthy and dump it one everybody else. Like we haven't had enough of that crap going on around here of late.
You don't see the irony in talking about "those who take, take, take" -- in other words, take something they themselves have not EARNED -- while you yourself will take, take, take money that YOU haven't earned and you don't want to pay a penny of taxes on it. Yes, it's your PARENTS' money, but you didn't do a THING to earn it, so if your anger at "takers" is all about all of us "earning our own way," well, inheritance taxes should be 100% -- no one should inherit anything.* An accident of birth should not excuse you from paying taxes on money even if it WAS already taxed (THAT is such a silly argument, as others have pointed out -- money is taxed more than once all the time).
*Note, I'm not suggesting this as a policy. I'm just pointing out the irony in paying lip service to WORKING HARD for money but being perfectly willing to inherit money that you didn't do a THING to earn -- except be born into a particular family.
Yep. But why let facts get in the way of greed?
Not an apples to apples comparison. The parents are willingly giving to their offspring, what they earned, and the offspring take it in that sense, vs. the government actually taking from the parents, what the parents don't want to give to the government.
There is a big difference between you, as the owner of the property, giving something to someone willingly and not being forced. If I have $1 and a friend needs it, I'll give to him and be happy with that vs. some stranger snatching the $1 out of my hand.
If you know wihat you're doing, it's not as big an undertaking as you might expect. Here for example is a list of all expenditures of $10 billion or more that your elected representatives put into the budget for FY 2011. This of course covers just federal spending...
you missed the point. i wasnt referring to googling a current budget summary; i was talking about developing my own budget for how i think tax dollars should be spent. you think thats a bit bigger of undertaking than googling the current budget?
as far as shifting the burden from x to y, i dont care. the rich will pay more even with the same % because they have greater income. beyond that, its not for government to try to even things out. both rich and poor workers should get a tax cut and the government should learn to live on much much much less. people that feel that more money coming from the rich is going to reduce anyone else's burden are just buying into the lie of politicians that more money to the government is needed to provide the services that we all want. thats bs, more money to government is more money for them to control and sell for their own enrichment and power. they will just try to squeeze every group for whatever money they can get and they will keep insisting that they need more. if that money isnt in the government's hands, it will be used better by the people that earned the money.
Last edited by CaptainNJ; 08-07-2013 at 01:02 PM..
There is a big difference between you, as the owner of the property, giving something to someone willingly and not being forced.
Ever heard of the free-rider problem? It wouldn't seem so. A free rider, in economics, refers to someone who benefits from resources, goods, or services without paying for the cost of the benefit. More for those new to the topic can be found here...
you missed the point. i wasnt referring to googling a current budget summary; i was talking about developing my own budget for how i think tax dollars should be spent. you think thats a bit bigger of undertaking than googling the current budget?
Rather a bit of backing away, there. You've got the actual list. Tell us what seems inappropriate to you. If there's nothing for you to strike from that list, then whatever your budget looks like, it will be larger than the actual one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ
as far as shifting the burden from x to y, i dont care. the rich will pay more even with the same % because they have greater income.
Ever heard of marginal utility? More for those new to the topic can be found here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ
if that money isnt in the government's hands, it will be used better by the people that earned the money.
If it were true that you know better how to spend your "hard-earned" money than some bureaucrat in Washington, the founders would never have arranged the federal government the way they did. They in fact well understoood the abject ignorance of the masses and the ease with which they could be misled by silver-tongued charlatans and demagogues. The founders in fact took great care to insulate the actors of their new government from silly vicissitudes of popular passion. The wisdom in that is reproven on these boards every day.
There will still be plenty of avenues for tax sheltering. This is where a good estate/trust attorney and CPA are worth every penny. Just need to move the money around - create a shell company, take some real estate losses, etc... The financial losers are those who are not adept at playing the legal game - but that's how it always is.
There will still be plenty of avenues for tax sheltering. This is where a good estate/trust attorney and CPA are worth every penny. Just need to move the money around - create a shell company, take some real estate losses, etc... The financial losers are those who are not adept at playing the legal game - but that's how it always is.
The people who actually need to do any estate planning at all are already well aware of the fact. The rest can benefit from a simple will that makes the job of an executor or executrix a little easier. Paying fees to set up unnecessary tax avoidance schemes is a waste of money.
Rather a bit of backing away, there. You've got the actual list. Tell us what seems inappropriate to you. If there's nothing for you to strike from that list, then whatever your budget looks like, it will be larger than the actual one.
Hahaha do you really believe that there is nothing i would like taken from that list? That list is mostly wasteful spending. Even the ones where someone like yourself will figure that "nobody could possibly be so evil as to take money from children, seniors, widows, etc. etc."
Your whole conclusion about the founders not trusting people over government to spend their money is absolutely ridiculous. The federal government has grown well beyond what the founders wanted and is spending our money on more than they ever wanted it to. They created checks and balances and a constitution to protect individuals from the majority. They didnt create a system that will spend our money better than us. Its funny when a leftist thinks he can use the founders at his own convenience against a conservative assuming that i couldnt possibly oppose what "the founders" would want. But you are totally inaccurate with what they wanted and I dont have to agree with them in everything either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
