Joined: 13 Jun 2007 Posts: 805 Location: Atlanta, GA
Posted: Mon 26 Jul 2010 5:38 Post subject:
I'm afraid I still don't agree on the inheritance thing. Maybe the tax on inheritance is supposed to fix an alleged "injustice" of society, but it's still a violation of the deceased's last will and testament, and it still does not utilize any government services. A dying person's will should be off limits to taxation.
Everything else though basically falls in line with what I learned in school at the age of 6: you make money, and then the government takes some of it so that they can give you electricity and, among other things, a means of cooling during this dang heatwave.
One anti-federalist friend of mine did once put forth the argument that federal taxes should be abolished on the grounds that the city or state levels can handle those services on their own. And maybe that's true in an ideal setting. And maybe some states and cities are better than others. But MY home? The Atlanta city council and the Georgia state politicians haven't had any notion of how to run a government properly in a loooooooong time. >_< As much as I don't trust the federal government and approve of the image of American citizens holding D.C. at gunpoint while they do their job, I think the federal government ain't the biggest enemy around at this time.
Ragnarok: Ever hear of a man named Neal Boortz? He's a pompous radio loudmouth that my family enjoys listening to for laughs and/or drown-out-able background noise. He doesn't seem to share your views about the Fair Tax. I wonder why that is. Say, how much money does Mr. Boortz make anyway? Eh... I'm sure that's just a coincidence.
Kimo: There are much worse things than taxes and yet things that are so similar to taxes that are, sadly, not the targets of attention among the confused Tea Party movement. Such as sinister credit card fees. Know what an "inactivity fee" is? I remember the first time I heard the term used; I froze where I was and Hyrax started laughing maniacally. I looked it up online and the definition is, indeed, exactly what it sounds like. Credit card companies were actually charging customers for literally nothing at all.
Imagine if another business did something like that. Imagine you're walking to a library and go past a fast food place, and as you're doing so, the manager of that building jumps out suddenly and yells at you "HEY! YOU WALKED ONTO OUR AREA BUT DIDN'T ORDER ANY FOOD, YOU HAVE TO PAY A FINE FOR THAT!" Silly isn't it? Now, in a fully capitalistic system, there'd be nothing anyone can do legally to stop that sort of thing from happening. But the good news is that someone in our country DID put a stop to it.
Who?
Oh, just the government... _________________ The statement below this one is false.
The statement above this one is true.
This statement is false.
Joined: 27 Sep 2004 Posts: 1091 Location: Tucson, AZ, USA.
Posted: Mon 26 Jul 2010 7:50 Post subject:
Hyraxylos wrote:
Ragnarok: Ever hear of a man named Neal Boortz? He's a pompous radio loudmouth that my family enjoys listening to for laughs and/or drown-out-able background noise. He doesn't seem to share your views about the Fair Tax. I wonder why that is. Say, how much money does Mr. Boortz make anyway? Eh... I'm sure that's just a coincidence.
There is some popular appeal to schemes like the national sales tax and/or the flat tax, but both would negatively affect the poorest members of society far more than current tax systems. For the flat tax (everyone pays X% of income), the reason is easy enough to see. If the rate was, say, 20% and your income is $10,000/yr, then after the tax, you're left with only $8,000 to make ends meet. If your income is $1,000,000/yr, then you're left with $800,000, more than enough to live a completely lavish lifestyle. The 20%, despite being the same relative amount, is a much larger amount for the poorer individual, once you consider the marginal utility of money.
An argument for the national sales tax is similar, but worse, than the flat tax. Using the same example, the person who makes $10k would likely spend almost all of that on living expenses, meaning that their entire income would be subject to the tax. The person making $1,000k would likely be investing and saving a large portion of that, which means only the amount spent on actual things would be taxed. _________________ To win against an opponent stronger than yourself, you must not be weaker than that opponent. - Takamachi Nanoha
All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
