Taxation -- what's best?

What form of taxation do you think best and why?

-- For the purpose of clarifying discussion, please use the following guidelines as a set of "operational definitions.


A Direct Tax on Wealth

Any person with assets above “X” level would be taxed, using either a flat percentage, a graduated percentage, or a complete tax absorption of the assets above that threshold.

A Direct Tax on Consumption

All persons are taxed on the goods and services they purchase. This can be done in a strict fashion, or combined with non-taxable items (often foodstuffs), or all persons can be compensated to a set level, effectively leaving the first “X” level of spending untaxed.

A Flat Tax on Income

All persons’ incomes are taxed at the percentage rate. Optionally, this can be combined with a “no tax below this income level” threshold.

A Graduated Tax on Income

All persons’ incomes are taxed, but the percentages vary from 0 up to X level, with the higher incomes being taxed at a higher percentage rate.

A Direct Tax on Real Property

All real estate is taxed at a flat percentage rate, according to the market value of the real estate.

Fee for Services

No taxes are levied at all. Individuals and Communities must pay for any services rendered on their behalf with costs assessed equally to all who receive such services.

Voted graduated income tax (go commies! ~D) and consumers tax.

Flat income tax + tax on consumption + tax on wealth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Fee for Services

No taxes are levied at all. Individuals and Communities must pay for any services rendered on their behalf with costs assessed equally to all who receive such services.

---

Has this ever been tried at a nation-state level? Just curious ...

Land Value Tax (not the same as property value tax) for reasons way too complex to answer in a single post...

Land Value Tax campaign website

plus resource taxation and do away with income and employment taxes (tax bad stuff, not good stuff!)

Graduated Income tax :2thumbsup:

Everybody should own a small, but equal, amount of all the means of production. This having perfect equity in terms of wealth.

I vote for A Direct Tax Consumption, Direct Tax on Property and A Graduated Income Tax. I think a blend makes for a healthier system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

Everybody should own a small, but equal, amount of all the means of production. This having perfect equity in terms of wealth.

---

Dude, that is so Das Kapital.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

Everybody should own a small, but equal, amount of all the means of production. This having perfect equity in terms of wealth.

---

Who wants perfect equality in terms of wealth? :no:

Well I think a flat-rate income tax with the first 40K exempted and a national sales tax makes the most sense, raises the most amount of money and is the most fair. So Democrats will probably hate it. :laugh4: :laugh4:

Just kidding. Though you do have to wonder how much power the accounting lobby wields with some of the crazy tax policies and rules we have in effect:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imaginary scenario...

Hmm, honey, it says here that if we purchase one farm implement on the 3rd Tuesday of any odd numbered month, install a "Kyoto now and forever" flag in the front yard and declare your mother to be habitually promiscuous, we won't have to pay any taxes at all this year :idea2:

---

Quote:

---

Everybody should own a small, but equal, amount of all the means of production. This having perfect equity in terms of wealth.

---

Great! Now we just need to replace all the human's brains with ant brains or some sort of hive mind thing...

Anways, I voted flat income tax, on the lower end (10-20%) with not having to pay taxes on income below a certain threshold.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Though you do have to wonder how much power the accounting lobby wields with some of the crazy tax policies and rules we have in effect:

---

Actually, I have to tell you that I-don't-wanna-pay-no-tax mania is much higher in the country than in the city. There's a local accountant who calls it "the farming mentality." Buy him a beer and he'll tell you some hair-raising tales of farmers buying $100,000 worth of farm equipment to avoid paying $10,000 in taxes. "Why, I ask them, why? And they just say, 'I don't wanna give the guvmint nuthin'."

I voted:

A Direct Tax on Wealth
A Direct Tax Consumption
A Graduated Income Tax
A Direct Tax on Property

Gimme taxes and lots o' them! A nice blend of the above would do. Taxes are nothing but the price you pay for living in a civilized country.
The Congo and Papua New Guinea don't rake in a lot of taxes, Switzerland and Sweden do.

Graduated income tax :2thumbsup:

I think this works well, with a taxation like this you should be able to provide citizens with 'free' healthcare and schooling among other nice things, which I seem to have forgot the names of :dizzy2:

You could also provide citizens with these goods by having a high flat tax, but remember a 60% income tax (probably a little high, I know) hurts a person who makes 30 000 $ a year a lot more than a person who makes 150 000 $ a year. Think about it, after a 60 % income tax they still have 60 000 $ left which is more than enough to put food on your family's table and probably live a perfectly happy life.

There's a big problem with direct taxation on wealth and graduated income. When you make your tax policies too unfair to 'soak the rich', they leave.

I say no income tax. It was first instated because the government was in a crisis with the civil war, and then it was taken away. It has always been a last resort for crisises, till they made it permenant. I am not as learned on taxes as I'd like to be, but I know it is unnessacary.

Quote:

---

Taxes are nothing but the price you pay for living in a civilized country.

---

No, taxes are the price you pay for spend happy politicians. Civilization doesn't depend on government handouts.

Oh, and I would have no taxes on property whatsoever.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

There's a big problem with direct taxation on wealth and graduated income. When you make your tax policies too unfair to 'soak the rich', they leave :

Rocker Johnny Hallyday is just one of the famous or anonymous French nationals who pull out of the country's tax base daily in a rarely discussed phenomenon fueled by European fiscal competition.
"Like many French people, I've had enough of the taxes we are forced to pay and this is it, I've made my choice," Hallyday told French radio

---

Gah! Let 'm leave. Tsk, who needs these paupers who can't afford to live in France... :whip:


Nice googling btw. I'm impressed. :yes: :beam:

I voted for graduated income tax. People should commit shair of their resources on the upkeep of the society according to their abilities.:bow: Ofcourse in the graduated model there has to be a top percent for the people with better income so it doesnt turn into punitive for the succesfull.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Gah! Let 'm leave. Tsk, who needs these paupers who can't afford to live in France... :whip:


Nice googling btw. I'm impressed. :yes: :beam:

---

As wonderful as your praise is, I'm afraid I didn't earn it. I found the story linked on Drudgereport. :shame:

It just struck me as very relevant to the discussion at hand. What nobody seems to understand is that it's impossible to 'soak the rich'. They have the money to hire an accountant or take a 2nd residence to escape the damage. It's the middle class that pays taxes. Always have, always will. When you talk about the wealthiest 3% or some other horse-hooey, you're really talking about me, and more importantly, Jillian paying for you to sit and play X-box all day on the government dole. (Not you personally, just the legions of welfare leeches, lobbyists, farmers and other miscreants that bleed the system dry in 'wealth redistribution')

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

you're really talking about me, and more importantly, Jillian paying for you to sit and play X-box all day on the government dole. (Not you personally, just the legions of welfare leeches, lobbyists, farmers and other miscreants that bleed the system dry in 'wealth redistribution')

---

I know you weren't talking about me, Don - I play PS3 all day. :beam:

You put it up there, and it's my duty to chose it. (Don't put it up there and you'll only get meaningful responses~;))

They made profits off us, they can pay a little more. Not about to say it is fair, but they can certainly handle it. Ah, Democracy.~:)

Quote:

---

A Direct Tax on Consumption

All persons are taxed on the goods and services they purchase. This can be done in a strict fashion, or combined with non-taxable items (often foodstuffs), or all persons can be compensated to a set level, effectively leaving the first “X” level of spending untaxed.

A Flat Tax on Income

All persons’ incomes are taxed at the percentage rate. Optionally, this can be combined with a “no tax below this income level” threshold.

---

I voted for this two. The government should provide basic services and it needs revenue to acheive that.

As little as possible

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

As little as possible

---

Who's going to pay for your school then? Or do you prefer as little education as possible too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Who's going to pay for your school then? Or do you prefer as little education as possible too?

---

Whats a school:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Whats a school:inquisitive:

---

Oh, nothing important really. Just a place where lots of hot bimbos gather daily:


http://www.miamidolphins.com/images/...cenes19697.jpg

I want to be named King: everybody pays taxes to me, so I can afford my golden palace and my dito statue of 300 meters...

Now start earning me some money, you lazy inferior servants :whip:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndresTheCunning

I want to be named King: everybody pays taxes to me, so I can afford my golden palace and my dito statue of 300 meters...

---

Find a way to marry into the Royal Household of Brunei then deliver a coup d'etat. You can have your palace, your cake, and your more than one thousand cars if you succeed.

As of this, I think there's a lot of "potential taxes" that the rich just managed to avoid through their little lapdogs'private lawyers' help. We don't even need to increase taxes (on whoever, rich, middle class, poor) if we successfully reform and prevent those "let's-make-it-into-real-estate" or "let's-go-to-the-Bahamas" tricks from actually working. Apparently a certain pioneering Medici was celebrated greatly in Florence when he changed the tax system from income to assets, "so that those who paid 20 florins are now paying 300." (AGCEEP text).

But oh, what a naivety I display!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndresTheCunning

I want to be King:

Now start earning me some money, you lazy inferior servants

---

Try the British, they seem to be into that sort of thing...~:handball:

Economics 101 - progressive taxes are generally the best option for you unless you own most of a major city in which case you should vote for regressive taxes.


A Direct Tax on Wealth

Progressive or Regressive

A Direct Tax on Consumption

Regressive

A Flat Tax on Income

Regressive

A Graduated Tax on Income

Progressive

A Direct Tax on Real Property

Progressive or Regressive

Fee for Services

Regressive

I protest your strawman of Gah! :furious3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Oh, nothing important really. Just a place where lots of hot bimbos gather daily:


http://www.miamidolphins.com/images/...cenes19697.jpg

---

lol. My opinon is this. We should be taxed as little as possible and the goverment should maximise the amount they can spend. I could cut the USAs budget and we wouldnt miss any of it. To much is spent on the wrong things. If we had little efficent taxation. Thats what we need

Consumption taxes are an abomination which are not only regressive in their nature but dangerous in their existence. It is simply not fair, right or sensible to have a taxation system which would penelise the poor more than the rich.

Graduated tax on income and a hefty tax on the assets of the rich is the only tax system which is both fair, progressive and justified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

Consumption taxes are an abomination which are not only regressive in their nature but dangerous in their existence. It is simply not fair, right or sensible to have a taxation system which would penelise the poor more than the rich.

Graduated tax on income and a hefty tax on the assets of the rich is the only tax system which is both fair, progressive and justified.

---

Consumption taxes are fine, as long as no tax at all are put on food and books, then Im all for consumption taxes. Especially a crazy high tax on luxury items, example the tax on a car in denmark is 180% of the normal value.

JAG,why do you want to tax also on the assets of the rich? When in Graduated tax on income,they are already paying more taxes from their income then others who are not making that much money. I wouldnt personally tax the assets of people at all. People have earned their assets and they shouldnt be punished if they can collect property to themselves. If you would like to have large income from taxing something that doesnt benefit the economy as whole,but rather sucks money out of the system.I would start taxing stock exchance. That way maybe the investors would again start investing rather in hope of gaining profits from the firms and not just selling and buying depending on the rate changes of the stocks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

Consumption taxes are an abomination which are not only regressive in their nature but dangerous in their existence. It is simply not fair, right or sensible to have a taxation system which would penelise the poor more than the rich.

Graduated tax on income and a hefty tax on the assets of the rich is the only tax system which is both fair, progressive and justified.

---

Not really, it is reasonable to assume that the rich will consume more then the poor, furthermore they are normally not as price conscious so they will pay more for the same product (=more taxes) and normally non-food items are taxed higher than food items (and tobacco and certain luxury items even higher) so you're not 'stealing' money from the poor.


I don't know how graduated income tax is used in other countries, but here it certainly doesn't work well. Essentially the curve is too steep, pretty much anything you make over 2k (a month, gross) is taxed at 55%. 2K really isn't that much (1300 nett I guess) and most people will want to make more to have a 'comfortable' life, however, due to the taxes, companies have to pay you far, far more before you really start noticing a difference. It's worse when you make less than 2K because then your nett wage will be almost frozen until you pass the 2K, which can take a long time if they're only paying you 1700€ for starters.

I think it would be a lot easier (and cheaper !) to just start taxing from 1000 or 1500 on, the end result would be pretty much the same, but you would have less of a 'valley' effect.

Furthermore, a wealth tax seems like a necessary evil, people can be very rich but have a small income (if they own a company this would seem reasonable) and consume little (or abroad).

Consumption tax is all we need. If we closed all the loopholes of such a thing it would be all we need, and it would reward people who save their money in this deficit spending world of ours. Of course, we would have to kill the death tax to even it out, but politicians have been talking about killing that (including 12 years of Republican rule, its still there btw golly) and we would need a means of making up for the lost federal revenue from no estate tax to fill the coffers, but no one seems to have the balls to do it (if I didnt already mention Republicans not getting it done despite it being a major part of their platform let me mention it again k?)


Talk Talk. Talk talk talk. Talk talk! Lets all use our gay party platforms to make the people tools! Talk Talk!

Do you guys remember Lamar Alexander? Alan Keyes? Phil Gramm? Of course you don't, you were too wrapped up in party politics and who could best William Clinton. talk Talk!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

Consumption taxes are an abomination which are not only regressive in their nature but dangerous in their existence. It is simply not fair, right or sensible to have a taxation system which would penelise the poor more than the rich.

Graduated tax on income and a hefty tax on the assets of the rich is the only tax system which is both fair, progressive and justified.

---

Yeah, and wave goodbye to the economy as it goes down the drain.
High taxes on the wealthy -> drop in entrepreneurialism -> flight of companies and the rich to countries where taxes are lower -> decline of GDP (what's the point of making an extra 50,000 pounds if it's going to be taxed at 85%?) -> increase in unemployment -> everyone is worse off.

I favour a tax on comsumption (combined with a tax on what state services one uses) and a flat income tax rate, with low taxes for small businesses to encourage growth.

There's a graduated income tax here in Norway (though I don't think it's very extreme), and there's certainly not a constant flow of rich people fleeing the country, we have one of the highest GDP per capitas in the world, the highest HDI and a large GDP as well for such a small country, and only about 3% unemployment. Also it's been this way (with the graduated income taxes) for the last 50 years, when is this depression of yours going to strike us?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randarkmaan

There's a graduated income tax here in Norway (though I don't think it's very extreme), and there's certainly not a constant flow of rich people fleeing the country, we have one of the highest GDP per capitas in the world, the highest HDI and a large GDP as well for such a small country, and only about 3% unemployment. Also it's been this way (with the graduated income taxes) for the last 50 years, when is this depression of yours going to strike us?

---

When you run out of oil ? :jester:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

When you run out of oil ? :jester:

---

Touché...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

Yeah, and wave goodbye to the economy as it goes down the drain.
High taxes on the wealthy -> drop in entrepreneurialism -> flight of companies and the rich to countries where taxes are lower -> decline of GDP (what's the point of making an extra 50,000 pounds if it's going to be taxed at 85%?) -> increase in unemployment -> everyone is worse off.

I favour a tax on comsumption (combined with a tax on what state services one uses) and a flat income tax rate, with low taxes for small businesses to encourage growth.

---

No, no, Henry, that makes far to much sense. We must tax anyone heavily who has earned a lot of money. It's the only fair, logical, and humane thing to do! :wall:

In what way is a graduated income tax better at redistributing wealth than a tax upon wealth?

Income taxes target those earning money in a given year. Those who have amassed wealth may not generate very much "income" relative to their apparent life-style, and a graduated tax, however high the rate, cannot touch extant wealth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

In what way is a graduated income tax better at redistributing wealth than a tax upon wealth?

Income taxes target those earning money in a given year. Those who have amassed wealth may not generate very much "income" relative to their apparent life-style, and a graduated tax, however high the rate, cannot touch extant wealth.

---

Seamus why do you think that people who think graduated income tax is the best option for taxation are poor who wish something bad for the rich? In all those economy classes you have taken havent you ever studied the Scandinavian model? Where people contribute according to their capabilities.For example here in Finland,the country that has been most compative country two years in row in economics in the world the highest income tax percent is 55% it doesnt go further then that. Is it all black and white socialism or capitalism.If so please explain.

Quote:

---

Seamus why do you think that people who think graduated income tax is the best option for taxation are poor who wish something bad for the rich?

---

Well, then I could tell him that, if he wants to, that well the people I've "inherited" these views from are my parents who rake in quite alot of money, but have always been for a graduated income tax as they think it to be more fair in practise, which is also what I think, and have never thought about leaving the country. In my opinion if you leave a country just to get even richer than you already are, due to differences in taxes, then you are nothing but a greedy bastard and our society should not make it a goal to reward such people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

In what way is a graduated income tax better at redistributing wealth than a tax upon wealth?

Income taxes target those earning money in a given year. Those who have amassed wealth may not generate very much "income" relative to their apparent life-style, and a graduated tax, however high the rate, cannot touch extant wealth.

---

There are problems with both. A wealth tax is harder to implement, since you have to estimate the 'wealth' of a person, rich people will probably find easy ways to 'hide' their wealth. There are also problems with specific cases, for instance, people who have inherited a castle and wish to keep nd maintain it. If they are taxed based on their 'wealth' incl the castle they'll run out of money pretty quickly and the castle will soon become property of the state, or will just become a ruin due to neglect (which is also likely to happen if the state owns it).

Besides I resent the idea that taxes are just about redistributing the wealth, they're about funding public services which should be provided for all people (like healthcare and education, unemployment benefits might be considered a bit different, but even rich unemployed people should get them). I *hate* all those specific hand outs to 'poor' people, mostly because I know a lot of rich people that benefit from them (like government scholarships here), government services should be provided on an egalitarian basis. It's just wrong that the system should punish rich people twice, once by charging them more (which I agree with, carrying the weight) and then again by not giving them the same benefits as the rest (bah).

I also think income tax should never exceed 50%. Of course, I have no idea where they should get the extra money from then...(perhaps they should waste a little less ?).

Some services can only be provided, at least in any practical fashion, by a government. Such services must be funded. Sadly, some form of taxation -- if only in fee for service form -- must exist.

If all benefit equally from such services, why should those with more (or earning more) pay more for the same services?

If your goal is wealth redistribution (See JAG above) why are you taxing income earners and preventing them from acquiring wealth while those WITH wealth with artificially supressed incomes maintain their power?

I'm for a consumption tax with a minimum threshold (fair tax). Though they benefit from services, a certain minimum is necessary to sustain life/health and that portion of a person's pelf should be left alone. Overall, pay as you go and no loopholes.

THEN we need to make government smaller -- since it never spends efficiently. The fewer services is has to provide, the fewer it can _____ up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

THEN we need to make government smaller -- since it never spends efficiently. The fewer services is has to provide, the fewer it can _____ up.

---

Except that private services often perform worse than government services (trains in the Netherlands are a good example) while they can sometimes end up costing more (healthcare in the US for example).

It's not easy to optimize government policy, if it was we would have figured it out long ago.

A possible taxation system that could grant the income the state needs for providing good social security and education, but also stimulate environment-friendly actions and fight unethical business, while giving the average worker a decent life, without preventing people who work hard from getting rich:

- a wealth tax on any wealth (including shares and cash but not house etc.) above what is believed to be enough to live in moderate luxury for the rest of your life (in today's money value, that would be around $10-20 million, and the boundary would follow inflation or other developments in what the money is worth). Anyone who has more wealth than that is going to use it as a power tool, or give it too his children, which doesn't stimulate the children but turns them into spoilt power-absuing lunatics who won't do honest work for society but only for their own sake.

- no taxation on house or other things that are necessary for survival. No VAT or tax on any standard food product such as flour, bread, meat, pasta, rice etc. However possibly a tax on candy and foods containing extreme amounts of fat or sugar, however excluding products such as pure sugar and butter.

- very heavy taxes on environmentally dangerous and unethical affairs


- apply higher income tax for those professions that provide little good to society, such as people who place shares for their own gain rather than producing anything or carrying out services for others.

- under no circumstances have any income tax for people who earn less than 150% of the absolute minimum wage needed for somewhere to live and food

- if and only if the above taxes don't suffice to give the state incomes needed for the missions the state must carry out - such as free health care (excluding plastic surgery and similar), medicine, and possibility to do sports in the spare time, for everyone, as well as keeping infrastructure (roads mainly) in good shape, some more taxes could be added, for example income tax. The income tax percentage should increase progressively as wages increase, and only be applied to the part exceeding the above mentioned 150% of absolute minimum.

- in emergency cases where above still doesn't grant good enough income for the state, introduce emergency taxes temporarily. Those would mainly have to be applied on other things than food, house and other necessities, and mostly be applied to first of all luxury products, secondly to neither necessary nor luxury products, and never to necessary products. This could mainly be applied as both VAT and taxation on things you own.

- make the state administration efficient and skip financing of things that aren't for the common good and a matter of justice and social security to provide to every citizen.

Oh and I forgot: another emergency solution if the state can't get the income it needs, is to have state owned companies for say distribution of medicine and alcohol. The distribution of medicine by professionals rather than every other walmart or similar store means better service and expertise in choice of medicine. And state distribution of alcohol creates longer queues and makes it more difficult to get hold of liquor, which decreases abuse and too high intakes of alcohol, which creates fewer problems with homeless and alcoholics, which cost a lot for society to take care of. The state should try to own as few companies as possible, since every state-owned company could create a monopoly situation with increased costs and bad service, but many examples have also shown that non-state owned companies in areas such as busses and trains makes for higher travel costs and worse service (which btw also is bad for the environment because people start travelling in own vehicles). So the state should take care of all things that are of interest for the average citizen AND where the non-state owned situation creates a oligopoly or monopoly situation with bad service and too high prices.

The state must make sure it's income is good enough that it doesn't need to make loans and get into debt, because that puts the state in the power of those who give the loans, which is mainly rich people living in the country, or other countries. Such a situation is damaging for the country and it's population, and undermines democracy.

That's why the framework of suggested emergency taxes should be available for times of crisis. There should be no loan taking, but instead temporary application of extra taxes. With a non-corrupt, effective administration, the emergency taxes shouldn't be necessary more than at most 5% of the time.

A few examples of services ****** up by not letting the state handle it:
- canteen food in American schools - the children ending up having hamburgers and getting fat, instead of being served nutritious food. Some schools let the students "have a choice", but do you really expect little school children to not fall for the temptation of taking the tasty, but immensely fat and dangerous, hamburgers?
- busses and trains - busses and trains are no longer repaired, with seats that are severely damaged and not washed after being peed on or vomited on by drunks. Ticket prices increase, and more busses and trains are cancelled at the last minutes, and those who aren't cancelled have horrible delays. Often only one or two at most apply for getting the task of bus traffic in a certain area, with the result that there's almost no competition, while the lack of state control means there's no possibility to have requirements on the services. Many also sacrifice certified drivers and similar, resulting in traffic dangerous for the average citizen
- health care - the private hospitals only treat the diseases that are most economically benefitial, creating one of two scenarios: 1. the state must provide the other forms of health care. But the state has then lost the more income-bringing forms of health care, and it ends up much more expensive for the state. 2. nobody at all provides the more expensive services, and people die because certain forms of disease doesn't get any treatment

This shows that the free market extremism doesn't work in practise, and that it's necessary to look at individual cases whether it's best to have the state carry out the service, or have private companies doing it. There are cases where the first option is wrong, and cases where the second option is wrong. Saying that either would be generally better is a false generalization and ideological extremism.

The Pedestrian's Guide To The Ecomonmy is a really good site that touches on a lot of the issues being raised in this thread - if anyone is interested follow the link:

http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/awb_nav.pl?s=pdg

Fact 5: Our Necessary Evil

Here's the bottom line: As members of society, we involuntarily pay taxes to the government because the government provides us with stuff that we can't get in any other way. In particular, the voluntary actions that make markets work sort of okay most of the time, don't work for all goods at all times. We want goods that can only be produced by the government. Therefore we are willing (and let me stress the willing part) to allow the government to force us to pay taxes so that we get the stuff we want.

I am starting to think that the government should eliminate taxes altogether and raise money thru bake sales, telethons and pillaging. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

I am starting to think that the government should eliminate taxes altogether and raise money thru bake sales, telethons and pillaging. :shrug:

---

They tried the last part, turns out that pillaging actually costs money is these carzy times.

American Taxpayers are being seriously screwed-over.

if you haven't seen this documentary then you probably should.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...dom_to_Fascism

there is a link to the full movie at the bottom of the page - though I have not tested this myself.

Quote:

---

The main premise of the film is that the Federal Reserve banking system has maxed out the national debt and bankrupted the United States government, forcing illegitimate taxation to be imposed. The film describes this attempt at taxation as futile, only prolonging the inevitable collapse of the American way of life.

---