Bush Tax Cuts for Rich

A flat tax or national sales tax would be far better than what we have now.

 

Not an argument an intelligent person would make or believe, so it's good that you're not making that particular argument.:thumbs:

 

A robber can break into your house and steal everything that you own - does that mean that a robber owns everything in your house even though he has not taken it yet - simply because he has the power to take it?

You certainly can choose what foods you buy or do not buy - you can choose where to buy them - some foods you can grow yourself.

It must be very depressing living your life feeling as though you are a victim to everyone else in the world.

The sad thing is that you choose to believe that and to allow it to form your thinking and attitude.

 

Um...it all belongs to God, not the government. And the rule of law in our country purposefully makes it difficult for government to seize our property. Equating "looking out for number one" from the private side of things vs. the government looking out for its own best interests is not synonymous. And I default to private ten times out of ten. That's not to say there aren't tax cheats out there (heck, Obama put one of them in charge of the treasury!), or that such behavior is defensible. But...unless there is reason to suspect criminal behavior, I default to "private" ten times out of ten. I believe that is the historic Founding Fathers' position...and that said position is much less problematic from the standpoint of liberty, and individual rights.

If I'm understanding you right, we are in complete agreement regarding what has become a train wreck with regards to personal right to property (e.g., The government is now by force seizing property from a private entity--and they are giving it to another private entity--based solely upon the fact that one will generate more tax revenue than another. Outside of abortion, this is the most egregious violation of rights in our generation).

 

AMEN!

IF we can actually repeal the Income Tax and make it impossible to add back again.

Secondly, what's to stop the states from adding to their income taxes to make up for the "loss" of federal income taxes?

"When Congress is in Session... NOTHING is safe!"

 

A flat tax on what? Wages? Interest payments? realized capital gains? Anything else? Inheritance tax?

or only new sales and VAT?

What would you do with real estate taxes?

Without a steep inheritance the richest 10% will end up owning everything. See the story of Jacob.

 

Of course there's a ton of details to work out.

But there's no way that anything devised would be more cumbersome and ridiculous than our current tax code.

No it wouldn't.

See the story of Shamgar.

 

OR passed a constitutional amend. that taxes could only go up so much per year. Zero would have been better, but it has worked to some extent though the state/local gov. have added fees to everything they can find. They tax to the limit and threaten and cause worry yearly trying to get new taxes through and the foolish population just keep adding taxes unto themselves.

Get rid of the fed income and go with some other tax and the public will allow the raising to get what they want.

Hear Britian is near 20% and warning the usa.

 

They all ready do.

 

>See the story of Shamgar.

Please explain how he relates to the present economic/political situation.

 

A VAT would be one of the worst things they could do. If you think inflation is bad now! A VAT is even worse.

The inheiritance taxes we have now have some unintended consequences already as Family Farms have to be sold off because of the Federal Tax burden on the inheiritance.

This goes for familiy businesses as well. Talk about Job Killing!

And, whether incoproated or not they tax on the Apparent or Appraised value not the Liquid value of assets passed on. Whethers stocks in a Coporation or the Family Home.

So, your dad dies and leaves you a $250K valued plot of land and a $125k family homestead...

Where is anyone going to get 55% of that?

No A Flat tax on Consumption at final point of sale is probably best.

But, even a Flat tax on income would be better than what we have now.

 

You posted something about an inheritance tax, and Jacob. I didn't see any correlation.

So I posted an equally irrelevant biblical example.

 

In his mind, maybe. The point is not whether he really does own it, but that he assumes ownership of it based on "opportunity". There's obviously a conflict over what constitutes ownership.

Again, point is, the choices are limited when nearly everyone is doing and charging the same things. (And if I don't have any open space, I likely won't be able to grow enough to live off of).

And don't you do the same when it comes to government? I guess the difference is, that you see the private sector as being in your corner or something (so you could disclaim the "everyone" part). But they are cut from the same cloth of humanity as the government.

Yes, it all belongs to God, and yet He has allowed people to gain some power over others, either through government rule, or on the private side, what was called "slavery". So yes, our nation, in an attempt to minimize one of those and (in theory, at least in the beginning) abolish the other set up its principles of individual liberty.

Still, it gets abused and distorted by both government and private industry. I'm not sure which one is really "better". One, we supposedly have the power of the vote to bear our influence, but then what are people now saying--they're all doing the same things; Dems and Reps alike. But it's the same in the private sector. We supposedly have the power to take our business elsewhere, but again, most are doing the same old things. Corruption is corruption, and the net affect (to our lives, pocketbooks, etc) seems to be the same.

:applause: Yeah; to me this shows how (as many political commentators point out) both are often in bed together.

 

Your position quoted above is quite frankly a scary one, for two reasons:

One, because it misses an incredibly important distinction betweeen public and private sectors.

The missed point is a simple one: The private sector cannot, at the point of a gun, legally decide that your property ought to be theirs, and seize it.

Government can do that. In fact, now our government can legally seize your property and give it to another private entity--simply because the other guy will pay them more in taxes (see Kelo vs. City of New London and one of the most pathetic SC decisions in the last half-century). Am I one of those goofballs that thinks no one should pay any taxes...or that the income tax is illegal? Nope. But I do think that the government's approach should be this: taxes are a necessary evil for a civilized society. They should be approached as such. And government should seize from its citizenry only what is absolutely necessary.

Seizing money from me to pay folks who refuse to work simply isn't necessary. Seizing money from me to study the mating habits of some stupid frog isn't necessary. Seizing money from me to buy out a private company and make it a government-run corporation (fascism, anyone?) isn't necessary.

Private entities can't legally take money from you, buy force. Government can. Not recognizing the difference simply begs for government abuse of its citizenry.

I find it scary when you don't recognize that governmental power is inherently more dangerous when abused. Why? Because the rule of law can protect us from corporate abuses. But when government--the author of the rule of law (and thus the entity that can abolish it)--abuses us, the problems are magnified to the nth degree.

Two, because it minimizes a foundational aspect of our country's greatness: Individual liberty. The idea that I own me, and not the government, is an essential precept upon which this country was founded. and that the default setting should be that which preserves liberty. And the glaring weakness and inconsistency to that precept--slavery--was made right (at a great cost to our nation). When the private sector oversteps its bounds, and tramples our rights, we have recourse--the rule of law.

But if we don't stay vigilant, and we allow government to trample selfsame rights...we stand a chance that there will be no recourse. Because government, unchecked, can remove or rescind the very avenue of recourse we depend on. Private entities cannot do that on their own.

 

>The missed point is a simple one: The private sector cannot, at the point of a gun, legally decide that your property ought to be theirs, and seize it.

No longer true. Person wants your real estate he buys your city council with a plan for increased tax revenue and has your land declared a redevelopment zone, so says the Supreme Court.

 

Only due to government interference.

 

You're the one who missed the entire point. And that basically was—
what Billwald said.

The government and powerful private enterprises mingling together.
(And it doesn't matter who "interfered" with who first. Once both are in cahoots, they are virtually unstoppable!)

So idealistically; I would agree with you on personali liberty. But it's in practice (on both sides) where all of the problems are occuring, and both forms of institutions come together and manipulate each other's authority (including the rule of law, as well as the market).
That's what I'm looking at, and right now, they both look like pretty much the same thing. People even pointed out that with corporate leaders on all sorts of government boards (at least for some agencies), the line between business and government even becomes blurred.

 

No they don't. Not even close. That's just the rationalization you use to excuse the abuses and growth of government.

 

That still involves the (mis)use of government power. Take that away, and you have no problem.

 

So--we can curtail business with onerous regulations (ending up with all manner of unforseen consequences, and usually a punishment of the "little guy" to some degree), or we can curtail government--which in actuality, shouldn't have been that powerful to start with.

I vote option #2.

(*See my response to billwald above regarding eminent domain--it still comes down to government overrreach. And note that I was clear in my thoughts that outside of abortion, Kelo v. City of New London is the worst SC decision in the last half-century. )