National Sales Tax vs IRS tyranny!

[Moiraine]

Just a historic note - do you know who invented the priciple of VAT ? [img]smile.gif[/img]

It was Sully, Prime Minister of our French king Henri IV, around 1600.

And at the time, it WAS a social idea, because at the time most of the people were peasants, who almost never manipulated money - they mostly got what they needed by directly exchanging goods. So Sully's idea was to get less money from overtaxing the peasants, and more from taxing merchants.

How a tax can be diverted from its original intent ...

Originally posted by Azred: One of the main reasons that governments have to institute a taxation scheme is because left to themselves most people would not freely give money to the government, even for the most basic social services such as water or roads. A flat tax will hurt the lower income folks. "5% of your income" means that if you make $20,000 per year you pay $1000 in taxes, so your real income was actually only $19,000 (slightly more than $1,500 per month). If you make $200,000 per year you will pay $10,000; your real income was $190,000 (slightly more than $15,000 per month). Most people could live quite comfortably on $15,000 per month. A national sales tax is just a flat tax with a different name. Some years ago in my political science class, I devised a taxation scheme that was weighted--the more you make is the more you pay. That scheme was based on the thought that those who really enjoyed the fruits of capitalism paid for that privilege (according to the capitalist system--you get what you pay for). Discussion of the tax schemes I and the other students designed led me to one conclusion: no matter what tax plan one may devise, there will be plenty of folks who will hate it or find some way to show that the scheme is "wrong". Oh, well.

So basicly you are saying being poor, or lazy or just uninterested is an excuse to not to have an equal share of the burden. That if you are hard working, industrious and successful through your own efforts, you should be penalized for the lack of ability and initiative of others?

Originally posted by Moiraine: Just a historic note - do you know who invented the priciple of VAT ? [img]smile.gif[/img] It was Sully, Prime Minister of our French king Henri IV, around 1600. And at the time, it WAS a social idea, because at the time most of the people were peasants, who almost never manipulated money - they mostly got what they needed by directly exchanging goods. So Sully's idea was to get less money from overtaxing the peasants, and more from taxing merchants. How a tax can be diverted from its original intent ...

Hurraaahhh for the French!

[Timber Loftis]

MagiK, before you chastise the poor too freely for being lazy, ask yourself how many lazy rich trust fund babies you've know. There are without a doubt people in the richest 1% who have done absolutely 0 their whole life to deserve it. Yeah, I'm for taxing the s**t out of them. In fact, let's tax people based on how many hours they work. The more hours you work = the less tax you pay. Those who put in less than 40 hours a week pay penalties. And yes, stay-at-home jobs count, but you have to prove you actually did something with your day other than watch Murray.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: MagiK, before you chastise the poor too freely for being lazy,

Yo Timber Loftis, dude, you err in accusing me of calling the poor lazy, I listed them as two completely SEPERATE groups. Please don't get the mobs on my back for saying poor people are lazy because I never said any such thing. Thanks in advance!

Edit: Crumudgeon! (in the name of Single Character Juxstaposition!)

[ 11-15-2002, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: ask yourself how many lazy rich trust fund babies you've know. There are without a doubt people in the richest 1% who have done absolutely 0 their whole life to deserve it. Yeah, I'm for taxing the s**t out of them. In fact, let's tax people based on how many hours they work. The more hours you work = the less tax you pay. Those who put in less than 40 hours a week pay penalties. And yes, stay-at-home jobs count, but you have to prove you actually did something with your day other than watch Murray.

I don't bitch whine and moan about "rich trust fund babies" because I do not care about them. Their parents had the forsight to ensure their progeny would benefit from the parental success which is basicly what parents have been doing for millenia. (Can't help it rich parents that do that are piss poor parents) The parents who aquired that wealth, paid all the requisite governmental extortion while aquiring the capital in the first place. There is no reasoable for the government to reassess tax on funds it has already taxed. Your missing a point here, it isn't about where the support comes from, it is how others are extorted to give it up.

Edit: Crumudgeon! (in the name of Single Character Juxstaposition!)

[ 11-15-2002, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: MagiK, before you chastise the poor too freely for being lazy,

Yo Timber Loftis, dude, you err in accusing me of calling the poor lazy, I listed them as two completely SEPERATE groups. Please don't get the mobs on my back for saying poor people are lazy because I never said any such thing. Thanks in advance!

Edit: Crumudgeon! (in the name of Single Character Juxstaposition!)[/QUOTE]Fair enough.

I don't get your Crumudgeon / curmudgeon references though.

[Azred]

Originally posted by MagiK: So basicly you are saying being poor, or lazy or just uninterested is an excuse to not to have an equal share of the burden. That if you are hard working, industrious and successful through your own efforts, you should be penalized for the lack of ability and initiative of others?

See? That's what I was saying--every plan has flaws in it, even if the flaw is in how the plan is perceived.
After designing this plan, I saw that it was simply nothing more than "from each according to his ability" which is completely against having everyone give an equal share.

The problems of 1) inequality of income and 2) how the idea of income is connected to personal worth are too difficult to overcome as of yet. At least, I admit that I have yet found no way of resolving those particular difficulties.

[SirTristram]

Hate everythin to do with tax. taking away my money, having to write the tax return forms and all grrrr

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

Taxes wouldnt be so bad if they didnt pay senators and congressmen 6 figure salarys when they only work part of the time.They should all get paid hourly and not annualy.If they dont work then they dont get paid. I bet that would change their whole perspective on things.