Bill from NYC Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 And the alternative is better? Because the govt has you fooled into thinking you're making out with a mortgage deduction??? You one of those "I Fear Change" people, Bill? 283699[/snapback] Do you think this would help or hurt property values?
Gavin in Va Beach Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 Do you think this would help or hurt property values? 283711[/snapback] Are you and Scraps the same person?
KRC Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 I will never be a libertarian because of that fist/nose cliche. It is far too all inclusive and self perpetuating. In national elections, I have been voting for repubs because I consider myself relatively sane. If the dems (or an independant with the means to run a campaign) were to put forth something better than disgraceful candidates that we have seen in the elections and primaries, I would be open to change. 283688[/snapback] A moderate Libertarian would stand a pretty good chance, but they would need to run as an independent. People look at the party and automatically assume that the candidate is a lemming to the party. That is the problem with a lot of the third parties. They are too radical, which alienates too much of the population. If they put out a moderate and promote him/her as a moderate, then they will pick up a substantial amount of votes. The Libertarians have the best shot at making an impact, but they need to wise up. That will be part of my efforts with my work with the party. I will probably have a chance to talk with Michael Badnarik the end of next month. I will run some of my ideas past him to see what he thinks.
nobody Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 I do - and I think a flat tax would be more fair to everyone. It would also eliminate all of the hidden taxes (like gas, weird taxes on the phone bills, etc). Everyone would actually know what they're paying. That in itself would keep these idiots in check. It might reduce the hidden federal taxes but the state and local hidden taxes would still exist.
Bill from NYC Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 Are you and Scraps the same person? 283712[/snapback] Gavin, my old friend, there is never a reason to say something this cruel to me, is there?
Alaska Darin Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 If a flat tax were to be enacted, tell me how many minutes it would take to get the first rate increase? 283693[/snapback] If it were the only tax, Congress and the President might actually have to justify it instead of the way they do things now. Currently, the compliance cost of the system is estimated at nearly $200,000,000,000.00 (or about 20% of what is taken in). That's staggering and would be cut SIGINIFICANTLY by a flat tax. People who are currently paying no income taxes will be in the same boat, as the first X number of dollars of "everyone's" income would be exempt.
Gavin in Va Beach Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 Gavin, my old friend, there is never a reason to say something this cruel to me, is there? 283724[/snapback] My apologies... Still bro, the system needs to be changed.
Alaska Darin Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 It might reduce the hidden federal taxes but the state and local hidden taxes would still exist. 283722[/snapback] If the flat tax actually worked, it wouldn't be long before the populous demanded the same from their state and local governments.
Bill from NYC Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 If the flat tax actually worked, it wouldn't be long before the populous demanded the same from their state and local governments. 283728[/snapback] Even in NY and Cal?
Alaska Darin Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 Even in NY and Cal? 283732[/snapback] I would expect they'd be the first places clamoring for it. In 1955 the Federal Tax code was 409,000 words long. Today it is nearly 2,000,000 and it grows every year. The middle class pays the largest portion of the compliance cost. Those who can afford the best advice pay the least, which is the reason Teresa Heinz "Kerry" paid only 12.3% on her gross income in 2003.
erynthered Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 I would expect they'd be the first places clamoring for it. In 1955 the Federal Tax code was 409,000 words long. Today it is nearly 2,000,000 and it grows every year. The middle class pays the largest portion of the compliance cost. Those who can afford the best advice pay the least, which is the reason Teresa Heinz "Kerry" paid only 12.3% on her gross income in 2003. 283743[/snapback] There goes that Alaska rebate if Ken has his way........
Gavin in Va Beach Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 I would expect they'd be the first places clamoring for it. In 1955 the Federal Tax code was 409,000 words long. Today it is nearly 2,000,000 and it grows every year. The middle class pays the largest portion of the compliance cost. Those who can afford the best advice pay the least, which is the reason Teresa Heinz "Kerry" paid only 12.3% on her gross income in 2003. 283743[/snapback] I hear Teresa Heinz "Kerry" is in favor of the smoking ban too...
Alaska Darin Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 There goes that Alaska rebate if Ken has his way........ 283748[/snapback] What "Alaska rebate?" Have I been missing something I should have been getting?
Bill from NYC Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 I would expect they'd be the first places clamoring for it. In 1955 the Federal Tax code was 409,000 words long. Today it is nearly 2,000,000 and it grows every year. The middle class pays the largest portion of the compliance cost. Those who can afford the best advice pay the least, which is the reason Teresa Heinz "Kerry" paid only 12.3% on her gross income in 2003. 283743[/snapback] Voters in these state were Kerry supporters. Are you now expecting them to be sane?
KRC Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 What "Alaska rebate?" Have I been missing something I should have been getting? 283758[/snapback] It sounds like you need to hire his CPA. You have been missing out.
nobody Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 I'm all in favor of many things mentioned here - flat tax, federal sales tax instead of income tax, less govt, privatizing programs where you can. But anyone here who thinks the common individual taxpayer will be much better off financially is kidding themselves. Take away the tax breaks / govt subsidies and everything goes up. Perhaps that gallon of milk without subsides would be $6. Perhaps without tax breaks to oil companies that gallon of gas goes up to $4 (would have been $5 but the taxes we pay go away also.) Then there are things that can't go away - the military, the basic 3 branches of govt, the court system, etc. Maybe there are things people don't want to see go away - like federal highway money (imagine paying a toll on every road), nasa's plan to go to mars, whatever. Many programs exist to support people who cannot support themselves to "promote the general welfare". They might be privatized and you might be able to opt out if you don't need it but is the general welfare of all citizens still being met? I wish reality was as simple as we sometimes make things out.
John Adams Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 You nailed it. I'm not a huge fan of their stances on gay marraige and immigration and abortion. Most other stuff I'm in line iwth. I'm a Paleo-con of the order of Attila. 283676[/snapback] The Smoking Man took a kindly shot at you because you aren't Libertarian to the hilt. Besides Richio and Debbie, who else in the world is a pure party mouthpiece? We'd all be idiots if we aligned perfectly with party platforms. I'm a Libertarian who believes in NASA funding, and that the ideals of the party must be tempered by realistic plans. I want the government out of almost everything, but practically speaking, such a goal must be acheived in steps, not all at once.
John Adams Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 Maybe there are things people don't want to see go away - like federal highway money (imagine paying a toll on every road), nasa's plan to go to mars, whatever. I wish reality was as simple as we sometimes make things out. 283777[/snapback] You would be making the same statements if the government, back in 192x had socialized the phone system. We'd have a working phone system in 2005, and the thought of privatizing it would be outrageous because we couldn't imagine a private system. You've been conditioned to think the government is needed for so much, but it's not. RE highways, people want to get from point A to point B. A lot. Imagine the private industry solutions to this problem, if only the government didn't diddle with all areas of transportation so much.
Alaska Darin Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 You would be making the same statements if the government, back in 192x had socialized the phone system. We'd have a working phone system in 2005, and the thought of privatizing it would be outrageous because we couldn't imagine a private system. You've been conditioned to think the government is needed for so much, but it's not. RE highways, people want to get from point A to point B. A lot. Imagine the private industry solutions to this problem, if only the government didn't diddle with all areas of transportation so much. 283796[/snapback] We just got $200,000,000.00 from the Fed to plan a bridge. TO PLAN a bridge. Not to build one. Scary.
Campy Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 You've been conditioned to think the government is needed for so much, but it's not. RE highways, people want to get from point A to point B. A lot. Imagine the private industry solutions to this problem, if only the government didn't diddle with all areas of transportation so much. 283796[/snapback] Highways may not be the best example. Privately owned turnpikes were tried before and resulted in exhorbitant tolls and poor quality roadways.
Recommended Posts