| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 7:28 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Paddy Ashdown wrote: |
| Tax is a subscription to a civilised society |
A quote I tend to agree with. Just a good look at South Korean infrastructure, social provisions and their half-arsed medical insurance system was enough to convince me that paying a certain amount of tax was a healthy thing.
All these things that get paid for by my tax, would get paid for by me anyway if there were no tax. And I wager I'd end up paying a lot more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There can be tax. Of course, unless we take an anarchist position (which I am not) we must have some kind of revenue generation for the governing class. But NOT an income tax.
When we drink in public in Canada, the states gives us a fine. Or speeding, the state will fine us. This fine is a tax on behaviour that we dont' want.
Why tax productive acts? Why tax labour? We want people to work?
To put it another way, why do we fine people for working?
No. It is better to tax the things we don't want. Like I said, a sales tax on non-essential goods. Cars, chocolate bars and the rest of it. And pollution. Tax the hell out of pollution. Make drugs legal, and tax them.
Don't fine people for doing things that make us all better off and fine people for doing thing that make us less well off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
All these things that get paid for by my tax, would get paid for by me anyway if there were no tax. And I wager I'd end up paying a lot more. |
Why would you wager that? Government is a monopoly, and behaves as such. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 8:53 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
To put it another way, why do we fine people for working?
No. It is better to tax the things we don't want. Like I said, a sales tax on non-essential goods. Cars, chocolate bars and the rest of it. And pollution. Tax the hell out of pollution. Make drugs legal, and tax them. |
That begs the question: Is the purpose of taxes to prohibit what we don't want?
The obvious answer is NO.
When we don't want something, we pass a LAW.
I like chocolate bars, but I don't want to work.
Where does that put me?
DON'T STEAL MY CHOCOLATE BARS. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That is retarded.
Taxes discourage people from working in the same way that fines discourage people from speeding. It doesn't matter why we have a tax, what does matter is the outcome of that tax. So,
| Quote: |
That begs the question: Is the purpose of taxes to prohibit what we don't want? |
1) Taxes, when called "fines" are indeed used to prohibit what we don't want.
2) No, but the purpose doesn't matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hater Depot wrote: |
| Wangja wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Income taxes, yes. How aren't income taxes stealing? |
Ummmm...wild guess here: The majority of your elected representatives voted for the tax laws. |
I think if you look you might find no law imposing income tax. Indeed many take the view that personal income tax is against the constitution and hence unlawful. |
Not since the 16th Amendment was passed! Woo-hoo! |
That is much disputed. Even ex-IRS officers agree.
Here's one link ... http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/06/19/income_tax_illegal_fraud_how.htm
"US income tax illegal" in Google gives 1,290,000 finds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wangja wrote: |
| "US income tax illegal" in Google gives 1,290,000 finds. |
And "US income tax legal" gets 26,700,000 hits! Wow! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:18 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Taxes discourage people from working in the same way that fines discourage people from speeding. |
Wow, really?
Introduce the "War Against Business"...
Let's fine business until it gets discouraged and quits.
So that's what income tax is about?
It's to discourage people from working?
Right-O then. Let's hike it.
Let's raise income tax until nobody works!
Killer.
HEY HOGWAN BOSS! YOU'RE PROUD OF YOUR COUNTRY?
WELL, IN MY COUNTRY NO ONE WORKS. THE GOVERNMENT FINES ANYONE FOUND WORKING.
SO, I'M TAKING THE AFTERNOON OFF. It's culture.
PLEASE DOCK MY WAGES IF YOU FIND ME WORKING.
AND DON'T STEAL MY CHOCOLATE BARS! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You are such a clown.
I didn't say "taxes are meant to discourage" but that "taxes discourage". It is what economists call the law of unintended consequences. We inact policy to create outcome "X" and end up creating "A,B,C" as an unpredicted result.
I get the feeling that you are not really plugged in to business and economics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It should be obvious that, at least in the U.S., the federal government was set up in the Constitution to have NO power to levy a tax based on income. If states wanted to do that, then it was within their scope of powers to do so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wannago wrote: |
| It should be obvious that, at least in the U.S., the federal government was set up in the Constitution to have NO power to levy a tax based on income. If states wanted to do that, then it was within their scope of powers to do so. |
But, alas, the 1790s passed us by. The 1860s, the 1870s-1890s, the First World War, the Depression Era, FDR's New Deal, the Second World War, the Baby Boomers, the Cold War...it goes on and on into the present day. And the list I present is only my view of accelerated points of historical change.
You do not assert those who framed the American Constitution wished to lock us into a socioeconomically- and politically-stagnant 1776 for all time, do you...? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| wannago wrote: |
| It should be obvious that, at least in the U.S., the federal government was set up in the Constitution to have NO power to levy a tax based on income. If states wanted to do that, then it was within their scope of powers to do so. |
But, alas, the 1790s passed us by. The 1860s, the 1870s-1890s, the First World War, the Depression Era, FDR's New Deal, the Second World War, the Baby Boomers, the Cold War...it goes on and on into the present day. And the list I present is only my view of accelerated points of historical change.
You do not assert those who framed the American Constitution wished to lock us into a socioeconomically- and politically-stagnant 1776 for all time, do you...? |
No, but they never dreamed that what they founded would turn into this big, stinky pile that we call the federal government. Also, the 16th amendment is questionable at best. Don't even get me started on FDR's Raw Deal. FDR makes W look like a choirboy.
The Constitution was made to be amended, but not to be illegally amended.
Some sites that talk about the 16th amendment:
http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/home.asp
http://www.libertyamendment.org/
For the record, I really don't subscribe to any of this tax protesting stuff, but it makes for interesting reading. I do, however, subscribe to the belief that the U.S. federal government needs to be cut back radically. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| That is much disputed. |
But it's only disputed by the tin foil hat-wearing crowd. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Well, that isn't true. But it is a nice way to try and do away with criticism. Why don't you apply to work with Rove? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
BWJD, most of this governments revenue comes from income tax.
Without income tax America would not be what it is today without it.
Unless you can supply a system that makes up for said lost revenue, thats actually PRACTICAL and not the super high fines for everything under the sun crap that your spouting now, then your just being foolish.
Even in that scenario, your still losing money!
Income tax is a good thing.. especially come W-2 time when you get some of it back. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
