What will be the ultimate undoing of The United States?

[angelique510]

A quick answer to ShadowWolf about how to pay for things such as the military. We understand that the government needs money to pay for the things that benefit all of us.

I, and many libertarians/conservatives want a fair tax Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation. It truly is the only fair way to go. Everybody pays x% on everything they buy, whether it be a 99 cent loaf of bread or a million dollar yacht. Rich people buy more things, so they would be paying more taxes. Tourists, illegals, and people working "under the table" in legal or illegal industries would pay taxes too. There would be no cheating - you buy something, you pay the tax. There would be no disincentive to make more money. How many people get a better job, or get a raise only to loose the difference in pay to being bumped into a higher tax bracket? How many people do not make investments because so much would be lost to capital gains tax?

With a fair tax, everyone would pay. Everyone benefits, so that is only right. And everyone would be paying proportionally the same.

~A

 

[THE]

So rent it, or even buy it. lol Saving Silverman - Widescreen Subtitle - DVD

It's pretty cheap, no matter where you go. I am telling you, you will love it. If not, I'll buy it from you. Jack Black, Steve Zahn, Amanda Peet, Jason Biggs, R. Lee Ermy and Niel Diamond...how can you go wrong?

It's working .. just had malware on it
I can PM you the link with that caveat

 

[LowThudd]

It's working .. just had malware on it
I can PM you the link with that caveat

Enjoy. ......

 

[THE]

A quick answer to ShadowWolf about how to pay for things such as the military. We understand that the government needs money to pay for the things that benefit all of us.

I, and many libertarians/conservatives want a fair tax Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation. It truly is the only fair way to go. Everybody pays x% on everything they buy, whether it be a 99 cent loaf of bread or a million dollar yacht. Rich people buy more things, so they would be paying more taxes. Tourists, illegals, and people working "under the table" in legal or illegal industries would pay taxes too. There would be no cheating - you buy something, you pay the tax. There would be no disincentive to make more money. How many people get a better job, or get a raise only to loose the difference in pay to being bumped into a higher tax bracket? How many people do not make investments because so much would be lost to capital gains tax?

With a fair tax, everyone would pay. Everyone benefits, so that is only right. And everyone would be paying proportionally the same.

~A

Exactly. I will not outright be behind a flat tax. Not yet. But it IS the right direction of thinking. For sure!

Right now we have the punishment for success model.

Like the guy who loses $10,000 in slot machines, wins $10,000 back and ends up paying tax on $10,000

Like the guy who makes $100,000 in the market and pays $20,000 in taxes compared along side of the guy who loses his last $100,000 and doesn't get a check for $20,000

 

[tribalmasters]

Imagine a world without American TV and McDonalds! Even worse - no TW vapers lounge anywhere in the world!!!!

Perhaps a few less wars would be an advantage!

 

[bassnut]

I believe that people who pay their "income tax" are a huge part of the problem. Feeding the beast, if you will. However, I don't have anything against them as I know that they're only making payments as a store owner would to a protection racket.

Sorry to cut this out of your full statement but what is this?
You don't pay taxes? How did you get around that?

 

[THE]

Sorry to cut this out of your full statement but what is this?
You don't pay taxes? How did you get around that?

Income tax is one I've not been subjected to..
I've paid everything else imaginable and even had land essentially stolen from me by the government, though... No one in the states escapes the government completely.

 

[ShadowWulf]

Im off for work, but a flat rate tax is ridiculous from any reasonable economic standpoint, and either extreme of it is unreasonable and unfair.

Would you tack on say 0.5% flat rate? Well the issue here is the money generated would be insignificant and without any real meaning. The revenue generated would likely not even be enough to keep a single carrier afloat for a decade, not that many people would be concerned but it would make any kind of military support in additional to any social programs impossible.

On the opposite side of the spectrum is a huge flat tax of any kind, would destroy practically overnight the economy. See the nature of capitalism is the transfer of wealth from A to B. Along the line you WILL have have's and have's not. To deny this is a blatant disregard for any form of logical reason or basic mathematical knowledge. A large flat rate would be completely unpayable by increasingly large margin of society. Now the interesting thing is the longer the tax is in effect the LESS one layer of society would be able to afford while the other would reap still more benefits. Due tot he flow of capital from one layer to the next eventually you would bleed one layer to death completely.

The argument that we can build everyone up in such a system to an equal level through hard work is a ridiculous statement, it goes against the fundamental nature of capital economics and the flow of such capital through an economic system. Im not saying it is "EVIL!" capitalism, its just what it is. The very functionality of the system demands a class order and that some people have and earn less than others. This makes a flat tax across layers ridiculous as the only people that benefit from such a plan are the top most bracket of any social order. Ironically this is not incentive to succeed as much as it can be incentive to stagnate. This forces a stasis or status quo where by people could conceivably be bled to death without ever moving through the levels of economic success (It takes capital to make capital in other words, and a flat rate again stifles success in the bottom most tier while ensuring it in the top most).

A flat tax is an interesting idea to armchair economists who favor ideology over reality. In order to be workable and sustainable the rates tend to be even higher than what most of the country might pay today, rates up to 27% (Lithuania) 26% (Estonia) Greece (25%) the Netherlands is considering one at 40% and yet they have not been shown systematically to spur growth in the way their enactors had helped. In several country's economic growth has taken place, in others it has not with no correlation. These are also all the evil "Income taxes" THE is against, none are true flat taxes across the board on all purchases, income and investments. Indeed they all even measure the definition and weight of the word income differently! This does not even include the VAT taxes that have been shown to have a heavier effect on these country's growth patterns in recent years.

Also, keep in mind none of these examples are what you cite as a "True Flat Tax". A true flat tax is suicidal, the closer to the poverty line one gets the more weight and spending power a single unit of currency has, where as ironicly at the higher end the less it has. The scheme can have some benefits at the local level but it remains irresponsible on any kind of a global level. It can develop into a proverbial "Race to the bottom" as those at the bottom loose any kind of spending power. This effect trickles up through the economic layers until even the topmost layers can collapse.

 

[THE]

Im off for work, but a flat rate tax is ridiculous from any reasonable economic standpoint, and either extreme of it is unreasonable and unfair.

Would you tack on say 0.5% flat rate? Well the issue here is the money generated would be insignificant and without any real meaning. The revenue generated would likely not even be enough to keep a single carrier afloat for a decade, not that many people would be concerned but it would make any kind of military support in additional to any social programs impossible.

On the opposite side of the spectrum is a huge flat tax of any kind, would destroy practically overnight the economy. See the nature of capitalism is the transfer of wealth from A to B. Along the line you WILL have have's and have's not. To deny this is a blatant disregard for any form of logical reason or basic mathematical knowledge. A large flat rate would be completely unpayable by increasingly large margin of society. Now the interesting thing is the longer the tax is in effect the LESS one layer of society would be able to afford while the other would reap still more benefits. Due tot he flow of capital from one layer to the next eventually you would bleed one layer to death completely.

The argument that we can build everyone up in such a system to an equal level through hard work is a ridiculous statement, it goes against the fundamental nature of capital economics and the flow of such capital through an economic system. Im not saying it is "EVIL!" capitalism, its just what it is. The very functionality of the system demands a class order and that some people have and earn less than others. This makes a flat tax across layers ridiculous as the only people that benefit from such a plan are the top most bracket of any social order. Ironically this is not incentive to succeed as much as it can be incentive to stagnate. This forces a stasis or status quo where by people could conceivably be bled to death without ever moving through the levels of economic success (It takes capital to make capital in other words, and a flat rate again stifles success in the bottom most tier while ensuring it in the top most).

A flat tax is an interesting idea to armchair economists who favor ideology over reality. In order to be workable and sustainable the rates tend to be even higher than what most of the country might pay today, rates up to 27% (Lithuania) 26% (Estonia) Greece (25%) the Netherlands is considering one at 40% and yet they have not been shown systematically to spur growth in the way their enactors had helped. In several country's economic growth has taken place, in others it has not with no correlation. These are also all the evil "Income taxes" THE is against, none are true flat taxes across the board on all purchases, income and investments. Indeed they all even measure the definition and weight of the word income differently! This does not even include the VAT taxes that have been shown to have a heavier effect on these country's growth patterns in recent years.

Also, keep in mind none of these examples are what you cite as a "True Flat Tax". A true flat tax is suicidal, the closer to the poverty line one gets the more weight and spending power a single unit of currency has, where as ironicly at the higher end the less it has. The scheme can have some benefits at the local level but it remains irresponsible on any kind of a global level. It can develop into a proverbial "Race to the bottom" as those at the bottom loose any kind of spending power. This effect trickles up through the economic layers until even the topmost layers can collapse.

There should be haves and have nots. That's good capitalism. Have nots are supposed to exist. They're the lazy worthless junk. They're supposed to be comprised of lazy minded ...... and NOT capable people who never had a fighting chance. What we have here today is 5% of the human beings controlling 95% of the "wealth". Real assets and money on paper.

Proper and true competition is dead to the crooked government allowing the "bigger the righter" way of life. The bigger you are, the more you get away with. The little guy has no chance. Thanks to the government.

A flat tax isn't something I'll get behind because I don't know what it'd cause. I can guarantee you that if it made the wealthy pull their weight it'd be a blessing. It'd burden the poor people a bit because they don't usually pay alot in taxes, anyway. It'd really HELP the middle class $60-$150k people. Many of my lady friends are between $100k and $250k and they all pay 30%-45%.

They're being raped so that hoolio no name and joe whitetrash can sit around playing with themselves and whining about their rights. My ex only makes around $40k-$50k and has two wonderful angels for children. The government screws her out of a third of that and gives her a few grand back at the end of the year.

A flat tax could be an interesting solution. If you made all of the filthy wealthy pull their weight, the rest of us wouldn't have much left to pay. I'm not at all for punishing success. But I also am not for kicking hard working people when they're down.

As far as being shown to spur growth.. who in the hell mentioned THAT? Taxes never cause growth. If the government would stop choking small businessmen to death, they'd actually collect MORE in taxes.

Don't give me that weight of every unit nonsense. Joe whitefellow spends $100s of $1000s of them every year buying clothing and food for his house whores. Jimmy workman spends his $15k income trying to feed his kids. A flat tax would affect them the same, for a change.


I see that you spent your whole time writing responding to someone else yet you decided to mention something I had said... You don't like my view on an illegal strong arm made up as they go tax, make a compelling argument against what I've said.

The truth is that a huge percentage of that "income tax" goes to pay interest on money they've raped us of (borrowed on our behalf). It goes to just pay INTEREST on money they steal. They borrow it on our behalf and spend it as they see fit. We'll never be done paying it back.

Imagine being robbed at gunpoint. Later the thief sends you a bill. You owe what he stole, plus interest. Well you barely can make the interest payments. You're indebted to this thief for as long as you live. Seems unfair, doesn't it? Not to the thief... he's out buying yachts and stocking it with whores




Anyway I've had far far too much to drink tonight and I still don't think you've refuted anything I've said. If you're going to bring me up respond to MY post, next time... keep it level

 

[ShadowWulf]

There should be haves and have nots. That's good capitalism. Have nots are supposed to exist. They're the lazy worthless junk. They're supposed to be comprised of lazy minded ...... and NOT capable people who never had a fighting chance. What we have here today is 5% of the human beings controlling 95% of the "wealth". Real assets and money on paper.

5% owning everything is the nature and goal of any capital dominated economy by the end. Capital builds yet more capital, thats the nature of the system. Without getting extremely long winded into economic theory unless you want it you can always do some studying on it yourself.

Proper and true competition is dead to the crooked government allowing the "bigger the righter" way of life. The bigger you are, the more you get away with. The little guy has no chance. Thanks to the government.

Modern government does aid this behavior, on that we agree. But again this is the nature of the beast in a capital dominated structure. Its not always the "more you get away with" though it is at times, but its the more you CAN enable or simply accomplish. The capital allows you these opportunity's. As capital accumulation takes place and concentration builds it in turns enables more growth and more accumulation. Look at corporate mergers, buyouts as examples that are readily understandable. This is not limited to the business sector either, it occurs in the private sector also.

A flat tax isn't something I'll get behind because I don't know what it'd cause. I can guarantee you that if it made the wealthy pull their weight it'd be a blessing. It'd burden the poor people a bit because they don't usually pay alot in taxes, anyway. It'd really HELP the middle class $60-$150k people. Many of my lady friends are between $100k and $250k and they all pay 30%-45%.

Im not sure you understand a flat tax or a scaling tax. A true flat tax is exactly that, flat across all social strata. Be it 5% or 45% it the same if you make $50 or $5 Million. The issue i stated earlier is that a flat rate high enough to "Make the rich pull their weight" is going to be MASSIVE to anybody less income oriented than them.
45% of $5 Million is $2,250,000
45% of $50k is going to be $22,500
45% of $50 is $22.50
The math is ultimately destructive to the lower classes -and- middle class when levied in a way to "make the rich pull their weight" yet if lowered to 5% or so becomes a PITTANCE to the capital rich. Thus the normal solution is a sliding scale income based tax. Our current tax system IS BROKEN, i will not argue that you are correct.

As far as being shown to spur growth.. who in the hell mentioned THAT? Taxes never cause growth. If the government would stop choking small businessmen to death, they'd actually collect MORE in taxes.

Lower tax rates spur growth by encouraging business immigration and hiring. Higher taxes can have the opposite effect BUT causation is not correlation, different economic factors can effect matters in vastly and wildly ways. This whole subject itself has books written about it.

I see that you spent your whole time writing responding to someone else yet you decided to mention something I had said... You don't like my view on an illegal strong arm made up as they go tax, make a compelling argument against what I've said.

I did by refuting your logic. Why is it illegal? Show me how a law is being broken by tax collection and you have an argument, but without that you have theory craft. Im sorry I do not agree with current tax practices wither, I despise them in many ways but fair is fair to both sides at it is -now- constitutionally legal. Changing it is an admirable goal, but rallying around a false premise leads ultimately to defeat.

The truth is that a huge percentage of that "income tax" goes to pay interest on money they've raped us of (borrowed on our behalf). It goes to just pay INTEREST on money they steal. They borrow it on our behalf and spend it as they see fit. We'll never be done paying it back.

No argument on the interest point.

To end with, I have an interesting "Capital economics" video 101 you might enjoy, and I bet you might agree with much of it (and not so much other parts, but such is the nature of economics!). Its nicely drawn to go along with a lecture given just this year by David Harvey. I dont agree with parts myself but it is nothingless a good watch and can aid when I refer to capital accumulation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0

Good night.

 

[LowThudd]

There should be haves and have nots. That's good capitalism. Have nots are supposed to exist. They're the lazy worthless junk. They're supposed to be comprised of lazy minded ...... and NOT capable people who never had a fighting chance. What we have here today is 5% of the human beings controlling 95% of the "wealth". Real assets and money on paper.

Proper and true competition is dead to the crooked government allowing the "bigger the righter" way of life. The bigger you are, the more you get away with. The little guy has no chance. Thanks to the government.

A flat tax isn't something I'll get behind because I don't know what it'd cause. I can guarantee you that if it made the wealthy pull their weight it'd be a blessing. It'd burden the poor people a bit because they don't usually pay alot in taxes, anyway. It'd really HELP the middle class $60-$150k people. Many of my lady friends are between $100k and $250k and they all pay 30%-45%.

They're being raped so that hoolio no name and joe whitetrash can sit around playing with themselves and whining about their rights. My ex only makes around $40k-$50k and has two wonderful angels for children. The government screws her out of a third of that and gives her a few grand back at the end of the year.

A flat tax could be an interesting solution. If you made all of the filthy wealthy pull their weight, the rest of us wouldn't have much left to pay. I'm not at all for punishing success. But I also am not for kicking hard working people when they're down.

As far as being shown to spur growth.. who in the hell mentioned THAT? Taxes never cause growth. If the government would stop choking small businessmen to death, they'd actually collect MORE in taxes.

Don't give me that weight of every unit nonsense. Joe whitefellow spends $100s of $1000s of them every year buying clothing and food for his house whores. Jimmy workman spends his $15k income trying to feed his kids. A flat tax would affect them the same, for a change.


I see that you spent your whole time writing responding to someone else yet you decided to mention something I had said... You don't like my view on an illegal strong arm made up as they go tax, make a compelling argument against what I've said.

The truth is that a huge percentage of that "income tax" goes to pay interest on money they've raped us of (borrowed on our behalf). It goes to just pay INTEREST on money they steal. They borrow it on our behalf and spend it as they see fit. We'll never be done paying it back.

Imagine being robbed at gunpoint. Later the thief sends you a bill. You owe what he stole, plus interest. Well you barely can make the interest payments. You're indebted to this thief for as long as you live. Seems unfair, doesn't it? Not to the thief... he's out buying yachts and stocking it with whores




Anyway I've had far far too much to drink tonight and I still don't think you've refuted anything I've said. If you're going to bring me up respond to MY post, next time... keep it level

Gee, maybe I was wrong to appologize to you, You just insulted just about everyone in the US who pays taxes, while you do not. Hmm.

 

[Pav]

The founding fathers (I didn't say framers so I'm a chauvinist, right?) believed in all men being equal. I don't, myself, agree with slavery... But when you realize that the average white man is the of TODAY.. it's a moot point, anyway. Unless (god forbid) you'd like to talk about the white mans rights.

I'm curious as if you could point out a single right that has been taken away solely for white males. I'm a white male and I'm pretty sure I've never lost a right my entire life living in the USA.

A flat tax is an interesting idea to armchair economists who favor ideology over reality.

Can I use that as my sig line? Very good well worded explanations SW.

 

[jamesam1243]

The USA ( a semi-democratic constitutional republic ) really ended in around 1965, sorry but true, it's gone, you are just shaking a ghost!

and the last man of importance to speak out and warn about the industrialist conspiracy was Dwight David "Ike" Eisenhower and he was just laughed off, and the people elected good old "Pie in the Sky" Kennedy


now pardon me while i concentrate more on my "Snake oil diet" ( a diet based on fish oil and pond scum ) to avoid the poisonous "American Refined Carbohydrate Diet" and try to avoid having my legs amputated.

 

[Mac]

There should be haves and have nots. That's good capitalism. Have nots are supposed to exist. They're the lazy worthless junk. They're supposed to be comprised of lazy minded ...... and NOT capable people who never had a fighting chance.

That is really offensive.

 

[Kirssstens]

rats, double post

 

[Kirssstens]

Am I too offensive for this board?? - E-Cigarette Forum

 

[DaveP]

A flat tax is not a comprehensive way to assure fair taxation across the income ranges. A Fair Tax could be the answer to most of our problems if it is implemented correctly.

Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation

The Fair Tax concept refunds taxes to everyone up to the amount of tax on the poverty level for your family size. It also allows you to decide if you want to pay tax to obtain something. It does away with the IRS and the 16th amendment. The tax is included in the price of an item. You don't have to stop and decide how much it would cost with 23% added to it.

Businesses and corporations would not pay income tax; no one would. Items bought at wholesale would not be taxed. That savings alone gives merchandisers the freedom to lower prices to be competitive. It is expected that, over time, the prices would lower to offset most of the tax. That would foster foreign trade due to price drops and make us more competitive in the world market. An item would only be taxed once at retail. When sold used, it would not be taxed.

You would take home your entire paycheck without federal tax or social security. You would not have to file a tax return under the fair tax. Foreign visitors would pay the tax on items they purchased. Drug money would be taxed when it is spent. People who drive new $100,000 cars and buy airplanes would pay dearly (not so much after the prices lowered due to lack of businesses paying income tax).

Changing the tax structure will help, but spending is a problem. Congress apparently doesn't know the meaning of "We cant afford it!"

 

[ShadowWulf]

A flat tax is not a comprehensive way to assure fair taxation across the income ranges. A Fair Tax could be the answer to most of our problems if it is implemented correctly.

Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation

The Fair Tax concept refunds taxes to everyone up to the amount of tax on the poverty level for your family size. It also allows you to decide if you want to pay tax to obtain something. It does away with the IRS and the 16th amendment. The tax is included in the price of an item. You don't have to stop and decide how much it would cost with 23% added to it.

Businesses and corporations would not pay income tax; no one would. Items bought at wholesale would not be taxed. That savings alone gives merchandisers the freedom to lower prices to be competitive. It is expected that, over time, the prices would lower to offset most of the tax. That would foster foreign trade due to price drops and make us more competitive in the world market. An item would only be taxed once at retail. When sold used, it would not be taxed.

You would take home your entire paycheck without federal tax or social security. You would not have to file a tax return under the fair tax. Foreign visitors would pay the tax on items they purchased. Drug money would be taxed when it is spent. People who drive new $100,000 cars and buy airplanes would pay dearly (not so much after the prices lowered due to lack of businesses paying income tax).

Ive heard this idea before, and it has alot going for it in some aspects, but usually when brought up it it does not address other holes.

This still about a 23% tax, added onto everything purchased. What this does not adress is capital accumulation and concentration of capital. The idea of a fair system is also noble but as long as the issue of capital accumulation exists the unbalancing economic effects of it will still occur, and with this system it would change very little.

Money is, in a value term, a finite resource when viewed within a proper balanced economic framework. A fair tax or any other approach seeks to free up more of this assets into circulation, but when freed up it naturally gravitates towards income and production and spending. With more assets to spend those people will continue to accumulate more, classic capital economics. Assuming no more cash was dumped into the system to counteract this (Inflation) you get stronger and stronger deflation and concentration of value. Besides the flat rate of 23% little in this system addresses these issues, as deflation continues the impact of the 23% increases, but again NOT proportionality as those with more will always have more to spend, and those at the lower tiers feel the 23% in a way we might now feel %50.

Deflation of capital is considered one of the worst economic things that can happen once it proceeds past a point. The system you named has some interestings going for it, but ill stop now without even touching on the issues of Social Security, clinics, schooling, etc etc most of which would have to eliminated entirely for such a tax system to work, and would require the private sector to step in (As is its goal!). But recent events in the millitary sector and especially the Prison sector show us how a purely profit driven system functions, poorly unfairly and more profit driven than result or public driven.

 

[THE]

Gee, maybe I was wrong to appologize to you, You just insulted just about everyone in the US who pays taxes, while you do not. Hmm.

I sure did.
And my grandfather saw his brothers come back in a bag and told me all about that and explained our government to me. He loved the country and I love the country. He never complained one time about what he lost. But he did explain things to me.

Don't worry that I haven't paid enough.. I've paid in many ways.. My share and some more.

 

[THE]

I'm curious as if you could point out a single right that has been taken away solely for white males. I'm a white male and I'm pretty sure I've never lost a right my entire life living in the USA.

Can I use that as my sig line? Very good well worded explanations SW.

Try to get a scholarship sometime.. I had to pay thousands to put a woman I loved through school while she was making mostly A's and some B's the minorities were being handed grants with D to F averages.

I've lost my right to own land before. Was strongarmed out of it.
I've lost my right to drive a car, before. For NON MOVING violations.

Those two things meant the world to me at the time.
They don't treat minorities that way around here.
They're afraid to.

I've held onto most of my rights, though. I fly low and am not very interesting or visible to the powers that be. I tell you this, though .. If I wasn't white, I could go and get an automobile dealership I want within a few weeks.

I know it's true. I've known people who've been citizens less than a couple of years (or female, or black or mexican) and been handed grants and tax breaks my white *** can't dream of so that they can own a nice little business.

I've seen this happen several times.

If I ever go back on the grid, I'll be just like almost every other white man in the states.. I'll have the RIGHT to be raped of 30%+ of my income.. And they WON'T take THAT one. Don't even worry about it.

This is why I told that one guy the other day to stop whining about being a minority. It's not a bad thing in the states, any more. Just one more card to play.