My (summarized) plan for taxes

lendaddy · 10-14-2003, 06:15 AM

Ok, this will be the short version. The bottom line when it comes to taxes is that the locality/state/fed needs $X for their budget. In an attempt to garner approval for all the increases they try to create taxes that people don't think will affect them.

I believe there should only be one tax. It could be based on any number of things, income/wealth/spending/etc.. that is not the point here.

Remember the "tax on e-mail" that was proposed a while ago? That is a perfect example of this crap. So in order to generate $X you will have to create some type of goverment agency to design/collect/ and enforce the program and it will eat up a percentage of the take. Why? Because it's a three card monty system, they are trying to keep you from knowing what you really pay.

I would love to see a state propose a monthly invoice tax system. One bill every month. Thats it, make a state law that there can be no other taxes or state fees, just your monthly bill. That would eliminate alot of useless agencies as well as open peoples eyes to reality.

Now I could see a sales tax being the one "extra" I would allow. Tourism is the main source of revenue in some areas and you would not want to stiffle that.

No property tax, no fees, no license charges, blah blah blah. Hmmm

wckrause · wckrause's Garage

What we need is the elimination of all taxes except for a state and national sales tax on all goods, with food excluded.

Taxes would be collected at time of sale. No more W-2s, with-holding, tax forms ...etc. You'll get taxed on what you spend, not on what you earn.

lendaddy · 10-14-2003, 08:50 AM

Yes,

I see alot of support for that. It is in line with what I am saying. Noone will be able to hide, drug dealers etc... The money will get taxed. Way too simple and transparent for the gov though. Can you imagine people freaking out when a $400 TV set costs them $750 after tax? It sure would open some eyes! The only popblem I see is that it would initially cause a massive decrease in spending while people asimilate to the system and black markets would be rampant. It's all about ability to enforce. And it would have to be done at a national level as states would not want to push visitors money away.

lendaddy · 10-14-2003, 11:05 AM

"and the post office, if I remember correctly, doesn’t use any taxpayer money"

No offense, but yes it is. It's all OUR money, every cent. I know what you meant, but even then I disagree. Do you have ANY idea how cheaply companies send mass mailings? Let me give you a clue, it's alot less than the $0.37 you and I pay. Why would that be? Well the USPS can employ alot more people when they do mass mailings and what the hell, just raise rates to your average Joe he won't notice. They can't make money at mass mailing rates, they just cannot.

n8marx · n8marx's Garage

Lendaddy,

Your signature line just made me laugh. I appreciate it after the day I'm having. Sixteen Candles, what a movie.

And I agree completely with the tax the rich drivel you hear so much of these days. Who do they think is paying the taxes right now?! It sure isn't the single, pregnant, 19 year old mother of three making $18k per year. If we tax the rich out of existence then where will we be?

wckrause · wckrause's Garage

Most people like to tax the rich as long as you define "rich" to mean "making $1 more than me"

The way it really ought to be done is this equation

Total cost of government divided by total number of inhabitants (not just citizens) equals the amount you need to pony up each year.

lendaddy · 10-14-2003, 12:18 PM

"Total cost of government divided by total number of inhabitants (not just citizens) equals the amount you need to pony up each year."

I pitched that one to my senior high econ teacher, you would have thought I just shot his dog.

Billy,
I see what you are saying but I think I failed to explain my point. Which was, It's not that I think stamps are too expensive it's that they take the extra work from mass mailings to provide work for more employees, not to make money. Also you said "If it's really too much, people will use Fex Ex to send letters" that is illegal, I know hard to believe but only the USPS is allowed to send first class mail.

dad911 · 01:43 PM

I say get rid of cash.

That would prevent 'illegal' sales/traffic in drugs & sex.

Crime would be reduced/ wouldn't be able to 'fence' /sell stolen property.

Cash busineses would be forced to pay their fair share of taxes. People couldn't work for 'cash' while collecting unemployment/disability, etc.

BTW, My business was robbed last night. They stole the cash out of the register & drop, but left the credit card receipts & checks.

turbo6bar · 10-14-2003, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BillyPilgrim
The post office seems to instead be using the money to hire more people, rather than executive bonuses.

tell all those 'more employees' to plaese start working at my post office. the lines can be really crazy at times.

i don't mind paying taxes. i do mind gross mismangement, incompetence, and waste. 'incompetent government employee' is redundant. of course, it is easy for joe q public to allow this sham to proceed. i am guilty as charged.

jurgen

BlueSkyJaunte · 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dad911
I say get rid of cash.

Sorry to hear about the burglary, but...

No cash???! Welcome to 1984, when each and every monetary transaction you ever make will be traced by the gov't. Do you trust this guy to do the right thing with all of that info???

What about this guy?