Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Rate this Entry

What constitutes "fair" taxes

Posted 12-06-2012 at 10:47 by WilliamDahl
Updated 02-21-2014 at 22:53 by WilliamDahl

http://www.spambob.net/william-dahl/fair-taxes.htm


You hear a lot of people talking about "fair" taxes these days. It seems that "fair" has a different means to different people. Although I personally think that strictly consumption based tax system would be the most "fair" since it would get rid of the repressive income based tax system that we currently have, there are many people who still think that it should be income based.

One could argue that each citizen has the same opportunity for government services as any other citizen and as such, everyone should pay the exact same AMOUNT of taxes. Not the same RATE, but the same AMOUNT. Now, I think that once you calculate this out, you'll find that most people won't like it since it will result in most of us paying a lot more in taxes each year, but an argument could definitely be made that this was "fair". It's no different than if we were all on a bus going to a particular destination and there were no advance purchase discounts for the tickets. We're all going to the same place and are going to get there at the same time, so there's no reason that one person should pay more for their ticket than another person, just because of their income, right?

So, let's look at what such a "fair" tax system would cost us...

The current US budget is approximately $3.8T ($3,800,000,000,000). That's $3.8E+12 -- kind of ridiculous when the budget is so high that you have to use scientific notation to represent the amount. On a side note, the current tax income is about $2.9T, so that means that we are spending close to $1T more than we are making.

According to the US Census website, the current US population is 314,892,694

That works out to be $12,068 for EVERY PERSON in the US. So, a family of 4 would pay 4 times that.

EACH AND EVERY YEAR !!!

Now, if you really wanted to be "fair", that is the way that you would apportion the taxes. I suspect that most of us would not particularly like that definition of "fair". As such, we currently use a progressive tax system whereby those with more money pay more in taxes, even though we all have the same potential benefit from the government. We have gotten so used to this tax system that we think that it is "fair", but it really discriminates against those who through hard work (or luck) manage to make more than others. We even further penalize those who make more money by not only making it a percentage of their income, but we increase that percentage as their income goes up.

Now, to make this more interesting, we have to address the amount that we've allowed our total nation debt. According to this debt clock, it is currently:



$16.35T ($1.635E+12) (as of the time of this posting)

A billion here, a billion there, next thing you know, we're talking about some REAL money... :(

This is money that we have borrowed from other countries or investors. It works out to be around $52K for every person in the US. Every PERSON, not every taxpayer. So, your family of 4 owes around $208K on the national debt. Ouch!

People already figure that they are taxed enough, so they don't want to be paying more taxes, especially since the government doesn't reduce its spending. In fact, the government's idea of "reduced spending" is to just not INCREASE it as much as they previously had increased it. :(

Of course, another trick that the government does is let the currency get devalued so that they are paying back their loans with dollars that are worth less than what they borrowed. Used to be that if a person had saved up $1M, they could figure that they would have enough for retirement, even if they were just living on the interest. Not so much these days (even if we still had the 5% bank interest rates).

Since we already think that we're paying high enough taxes, all that leaves is decreasing our spending. That's not really that different than when we figure our household budget. We can't increase our income, so we have to decrease our spending if it exceeds our income. You have to wonder if these idiots in Congress ever had to do a household budget. If any of us tried doing the sort of budgeting that Congress does, we would have been foreclosed on by the banks a long time ago. All that is left is for us to decrease our federal spending. Get rid of the agencies and departments that have no business even being in existence (e.g. the BATF since it's sole purpose is to infringe upon our 2nd Amendment rights). Quit sending foreign aid to other countries. This is nothing more than an attempted bribe of those countries and since the bribes don't work (i.e. the countries do not vote with us in the UN), they are not serving any purpose. Besides, if it is illegal for US corporations to bribe officials in foreign countries, it should be illegal for the US government to do the same thing.

$1.1B -- get rid of the ATF
$52.7B -- get rid of foreign aid
$12B -- get rid of the IRS and switch to a strictly consumption based tax system

There's plenty more, but these are my pet peeves...

Let's go back to a SMALL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT like the Founding Fathers INTENDED and let the states choose whether to implement certain programs or not. A person in Arizona should not be supplementing the cost of flood insurance for someone who chooses to live along the Gulf Coast or in flood prone areas along major rivers.
Posted in Uncategorized
Views 1055 Comments 0 Edit Tags Email Blog Entry
« Prev     Main     Next »
Total Comments 0

Comments

 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 22:11.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,099
274 Members
825 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31