Recent Bill Maher quote on taxes

[F3SS]

Wanted to add The fair tax eliminates payroll taxes too.

Sales tax on everything you buy? On stocks? Bonds? Really?

Yep.

Because it eliminates the IRS.

[F3SS]

Or we can just keep our 90,000 pages of how to make you a criminal tax code we have now.

[Yamato]

If only the IRS was our only problem, or as if it was the worst. The worse problem are those "enormous revenues" that are feeding the beast. One party believes that lower taxes will increase revenue. The other party believes that higher taxes will increase revenue. I believe, as usual, that both parties are completely FOS and the last thing we need is increased revenue.

A 20% tax on stock/bond purchases will destroy investment in this country and tank the economy. The capital markets will dry up and move overseas to more tax-friendly countries like Communist China. Thinking the IRS is the extent of our problem might be appropriate for someone owing back taxes, or someone planning to cheat the code. I've got a better idea. Delete the IRS, and replace it with nothing. A 20% front-end load on investment capital is a Statist's wet dream. A terrible idea that's never gonna happen.

[Kowalski]

Here's something interesting.

According to an article I read:

Since the recession supposedly ended in mid 2009, the number of people who have applied for disability benefits is double the job growth figure, according the report which includes an informative chart. In just the first four months of this year, 539,000 joined the disability rolls and more than 725,000 applied for the federal benefit. That means nearly 11 million people are on disability, according to the Social Security Administration.

Those 11 million people don't pay ANY taxes on their SSI.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Kowalski

[+DieChecker]

Many people are one paycheck away from being wiped out. One health scare, one family emergency, one more manufactured inflationary price increase courtesy of the establishment. The best thing that they can be doing is working, and by imposing an income tax on them we're going to further demotivate them from working by taking a chunk of their already unsurvivable earnings.

Thus why I would impose community service. If you don't make an income, your time is free. How is it going to kill some guy who is unemployed to go clean up the park for 4 hours a weekend for like 8 weeks? It is not. The truely disabled could contribute in other ways or be excused.

[+DieChecker]

Those 11 million people don't pay ANY taxes on their SSI.

There have been several articles on this in the last couple years. Under Obama the SSI disability function has become the "forever" Unemployment option. There was even an article where Progressive Unemployment/SSI lawyers council people on how to get into Disability. Free money??

[Yamato]

Thus why I would impose community service. If you don't make an income, your time is free. How is it going to kill some guy who is unemployed to go clean up the park for 4 hours a weekend for like 8 weeks? It is not. The truely disabled could contribute in other ways or be excused.

And how would you enforce your imposition on those people?

[F3SS]

I wouldn't enforce. If they don't show up they don't get assistance.

[+DieChecker]

And how would you enforce your imposition on those people?

Their name goes on a list, and when they get in trouble, whatever fines they get has this added on top. It would be too many people to police them. Would people really be more willing to do jail time and risk an even bigger fine, then do a little community service?

I know they are going to Bitsh about it, but these same people will complain no matter what is required of them. All they want is their freebies and to be left alone to their poverty (with cable TV, smartphone and internet, of course)...

Seriously though I'm talking about very little money or community service. So that people are forced to be connected to what they are using/paying for. People that actually pay taxes Think about what their taxes go for. Those that do not pay taxes do Not Think about what taxes are spent on. They have zero resources in the game.

[+DieChecker]

I wouldn't enforce. If they don't show up they don't get assistance.

I do kind of like this.

My Father-In-Law was a Pastor for like 15 years and took the Religious exemption for the SSI tax. So then his church came to an end in 2007-2008 and he started Teaching and such. Well, boy howdy... Now he's all p***ed off because he has so little SS stocked up and he's like 53 years old. I told him he was supposed to be Saving that money, not spending it, but did he listen to me... No......

If people decide not to invest in the system (As in not paying taxes) then they should not be surprised when the System doesn't help them much.

Edited March 26, 2013 by DieChecker

[MiskatonicGrad]

I wouldn't enforce. If they don't show up they don't get assistance.

well that is just unfair what do you expect these people to do show some responsibility?

You know what would fix the tax problem? Have every tax payer write a check every week for their taxes and send it in to the IRS. this would clear up alot of problems it would give a boost to the failing snail mail, ti would cause people to see what their tax burden is every week in a physical way not just some numbers subtracted from their check there by causing them to be more concerned where that money is going, and it would cause a complete collapse of our goverment when the majority of the checks bounce because the goverment run school systems churn out people who can't balance a check book.

[Yamato]

I wouldn't enforce. If they don't show up they don't get assistance.

In the current environment of chronic inflation coupled with ideas like "taxes for everyone", they'll need that "assistance". Which flies in the face of the whole purpose of "imposing on them" in the first place. How about not just taxing them for the work they do in the private sector? That's their assistance! Even if the IRS were all you cared about, nothing does away with the IRS better than not having taxes to pay.

You're just creating a public sector replacement for a tax-free private sector solution. Sorry, but government taking money to give it back under creative new rules is never more efficient than government just getting out of the way in the first place. It sounds as though some of you are much too punitive towards politically-charged stereotypes of people in your tones here.

Socking it to the bums with government force in order to help bums with government money is a foolish and wasteful circle.

Edited March 26, 2013 by Yamato

[Yamato]

Their name goes on a list, and when they get in trouble, whatever fines they get has this added on top. It would be too many people to police them. Would people really be more willing to do jail time and risk an even bigger fine, then do a little community service?

I know they are going to Bitsh about it, but these same people will complain no matter what is required of them. All they want is their freebies and to be left alone to their poverty (with cable TV, smartphone and internet, of course)...

Seriously though I'm talking about very little money or community service. So that people are forced to be connected to what they are using/paying for. People that actually pay taxes Think about what their taxes go for. Those that do not pay taxes do Not Think about what taxes are spent on. They have zero resources in the game.

Okay so you've identified a group of "these people". You're treating them like criminals and suggesting putting them in a cage. Playing on peoples' willingness to do jail time to be forced into your idea. How detestable.

[+DieChecker]

Okay so you've identified a group of "these people". You're treating them like criminals and suggesting putting them in a cage. Playing on peoples' willingness to do jail time to be forced into your idea. How detestable.

:tsu: :tsu:

[Frank Merton]

GE pays taxes on its profits, and can find ways to make profits into not-profits. The rich can do the same. You need to tax consumption in some way -- by a revenue tax on companies and with VATs, and the problems are solved.

Trying to "plug loopholes" doesn't work. They are endless.

[+DieChecker]

GE pays taxes on its profits, and can find ways to make profits into not-profits. The rich can do the same. You need to tax consumption in some way -- by a revenue tax on companies and with VATs, and the problems are solved.

Trying to "plug loopholes" doesn't work. They are endless.

You know what the Liberal problem with that is?? They will say that the Poor spend 100% of their money, while the rich only spend 30% or less. If you make a million dollars a year, just how many houses can you buy. Just how many boats can you buy?

I think it probably is still a good idea, but the majority of liberals will never let it happen.

[Frank Merton]

I'm neither liberal nor conservative. I'm a free-market Communist.

[Yamato]

You know what the Liberal problem with that is?? They will say that the Poor spend 100% of their money, while the rich only spend 30% or less. If you make a million dollars a year, just how many houses can you buy.

If you make a million a year you could buy two houses in Portland OR, or about 70-80 houses a year in Detroit MI. You're talking about "the Liberals" as "they". Are you not liberal compared to your fellow Oregonians?

The problem with liberals and conservatives is that they're both trying to increase revenue - for government. How about turning that mindset upside down on its head and opine for decreased government revenue for a change? I want a balanced budget as much as anyone, but I'd really like to start the process of foreign credit drying up sooner rather than later because the longer it's postponed the more painful it's going to be. And the longer it's postponed the more the guilty (the Boomers) are going to get away with it, dumping the debt onto the laps of the young. We're probably going to default on our debt anyway, and sacrifice our currency before we'll ever stop our gross overspending, much less pay off our national debt and save our health care insolvency. Raising revenue for government is a ruinous bipartisan idea. Government will take that revenue and spend it all, and then some, on all the money holes it enjoys spending money on. Always has, still does, always will. Encouraging it and feeding it doesn't cure our fiscal cancer no matter how politically popular the labels sound and wrapping paper looks. It'll satisfy some cheap Republican party political rhetoric about class warfare though, more "feel good" fluff for people to grasp onto thinking they're solving something.

[Frank Merton]

You don't decrease the government's desire for revenue if politicians have to win elections.

The only solution is to take tax rates and put their levels in the hands of an independent agency with fixed terms.

[Yamato]

You don't decrease the government's desire for revenue if politicians have to win elections.

The only solution is to take tax rates and put their levels in the hands of an independent agency with fixed terms.

No, you have to make some major presumptions about the politicians to even think that. If a politician can't win an election by championing an 'End the IRS' platform and with it, the end of the income tax, the problem is the people. Indoctrinated liberals calling themselves republicans or conservatives, completely unaware they're as complicit and guilty as the moppets across the aisle they love to throw mud at. Typical, it's the people voting for the government they deserve.

[Frank Merton]

You won't change the people by preaching at them. It has to be institutions independent of politics.

[Yamato]

You won't change the people by preaching at them. It has to be institutions independent of politics.

What do you think I'm advocating when I'm the one wanting to put an end to the establishment? Institutions independent of politics. It's called the private sector. Astonishing, I know. If you live thousands of miles away from the US, you might not understand that a platform that favors the end of the establishment is more popular than ever. We have a real chance to undo the wrongs our government shafted us with exactly 100 years ago. You can't just wish institutions into existence; you have to reform the ones you've already got or all you're going to end up doing is growing the bureaucracy, which is eminently easy because bureaucracies only know how to grow, they never shrink on their own accord.

Edited March 26, 2013 by Yamato

[Frank Merton]

Actually, dumb as your response sounds, there is some logic in putting tax collection out to bid by the private sector. The practice got a bad name because Gibbons made it seem so corrupt when the Romans did it, but in fact it generally served them quite well.

But that is the actual collection of taxes. Someone needs to periodically adjust rates up and down as needed by the economy and the level of government spending, and the political process is way to cumbersome to achieve this even if politicians were all statesmen. An independent board is needed.

[Yamato]

Actually, dumb as your response sounds, there is some logic in putting tax collection out to bid by the private sector. The practice got a bad name because Gibbons made it seem so corrupt when the Romans did it, but in fact it generally served them quite well.

But that is the actual collection of taxes. Someone needs to periodically adjust rates up and down as needed by the economy and the level of government spending, and the political process is way to cumbersome to achieve this even if politicians were all statesmen. An independent board is needed.

Dumb? You sound out of touch and unable to understand the value of smaller government. Singing to the establishment choir about increased revenue, you're going to get bigger government. <-- Dumb.

The federal budget should fit within a trillion dollars. A few hundred billion for military, a few for infrastructure, a few for criminal/contract justice and not much else. So long as we think the actual collection of taxes is necessary we might as well preface our positions with being at the mercy of the government's "desires" as you have.

[Frank Merton]

Dream on.