| Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Amendment Xvi; I want it repealed | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 21 2004, 11:55 AM (726 Views) | |
| Paul ADK | Aug 21 2004, 07:39 PM Post #16 |
|
Member
|
Shoot, back in the early sixties, I got to sit through four full days of state senate hearings over whether popcorn was food, or a "confection." (Confections were taxable, food was not.) The decision? Popcorn sold in a store was "food." The exact same popcorn sold in a theater was a confection. Then there was the question about sales tax on funerals. When they first started, embalming and caskets were tax exempt, but they forgot to mention the rough box. Sure enough, several years down the road, one of the state's finest noticed the oversight and thought it the perfect opportunity to enhance his retirement fund. Since no one had collected the tax, he could give them a choice. Pay all the estimated "back taxes" and penalties, or make it worth his while to forget the matter. Unfortunately for his plan, at one of the first places he visited, two very large, gentlemen informed him that he was only a hairbreadth away from being under the next box they planted. |
![]() |
|
| brewster | Aug 21 2004, 07:50 PM Post #17 |
![]()
Winemaker Extraordinaire
|
BRUCE’S ANSWER TO EVERYTHING: Before I start, let no-one think that this could actually work… Politics would kill it long before it got near any legislator… First off DUMP every tax, every welfare payout, every pension – in other words, everything the government either collects or distributes. Decide which expenditures are really for the overall national benefit, regardless if a given individual uses them directly – education, police, military, etc. The list should be quite short. Let’s call it “NATIONAL SERVICES” Then set up user pay schedules for everything else that the government supplies – roads, parks, etc. One of many benefits of this is it will give us a much better idea of how much these little items cost… MAKE SURE that politicians CANNOT get a hold on this money for pet projects. This will severely restrict their options, and will mean the death knell of this whole idea. Finally set up a single flat income tax that applies to all corporations and individuals of voting age – no deductions of any kind allowed. This system would be dead simple, and therefore dead cheap, to operate – my guess is that either the US or Canadian government could save 20% of its budget by eliminating tax collection and administration. This money will pay for National Services and Governmental Administration. Other than the basic percentage, the only other variable will be a ”Breakeven” point. How would this work? Let’s plug in some hypothetical numbers: Let’s pick an Income Tax level of 50% (I hear screaming, but keep in mind there are NO OTHER TAXES. The money in your pocket is YOURS!) Plus there’s good stuff to come. Let’s pick a Breakeven of $24,000. If you make less, the government pays you 50% of the difference. If you make more, then you pay 50% of the extra. If a person makes nothing, he/she will get 50% of $24,000, or $12,000, or $1000 per month if he/she wants to claim it on a monthly basis. If a person makes $12,000, he/she will get 50% of $24,000 - $12,000, or $500 per month if he/she wants to claim it on a monthly basis. If a person makes $24,000, it’s a wash. If a person makes $48,000, he/she will pay 50% of $48,000 - $24,000, or $12,000 per year in income tax… That works out to 25% of their income. I wish I was paying 25%, with NO OTHER TAXES! I think even at higher levels, a person still ends up with a lighter total tax load than present. Why is all this a good idea? Because now there is no disincentive to work! If you’re at the bottom, you’re not immediately dropped if you make money. The more you work, the more you get! Better yet, the same thing works as a governmental pension, social security, etc.! You just get the $1000/mo! All that admin is gone! 401K, RRSP’s, all gone! If you have a private pension plan, since it’s paid as it’s collected (remember, it’s the same percentage no matter how much or when you earn it) YOUR PENSION IS TAX FREE! Any Questions? (If there aren’t any, I’ve failed.) Class dismissed. |
My Favourite CampsiteBow Valley Provincial Park, Kananaskis Country, Alberta | |
![]() |
|
| brewster | Aug 21 2004, 07:52 PM Post #18 |
![]()
Winemaker Extraordinaire
|
I like radical solutions!
|
My Favourite CampsiteBow Valley Provincial Park, Kananaskis Country, Alberta | |
![]() |
|
| Gershon Ben Daniel | Aug 21 2004, 08:13 PM Post #19 |
|
TiogaRV
|
How about, if the Federal Government collects no tax at all? Have the states collect a flat tax on income and a uniform sales tax. The states will then "distribute" the collected tax to the Federal and Local Governments. No other tax will be collected except for these two taxes, collected by the states. |
| The Adventures of Tioga and George | |
![]() |
|
| brewster | Aug 21 2004, 08:19 PM Post #20 |
![]()
Winemaker Extraordinaire
|
Gershon, having the states collect the taxes wouldn't bother me much. What gain do you see in having them do it? |
My Favourite CampsiteBow Valley Provincial Park, Kananaskis Country, Alberta | |
![]() |
|
| Gershon Ben Daniel | Aug 22 2004, 01:51 AM Post #21 |
|
TiogaRV
|
Brewster, The smaller the taxing entity, the more the people have control and some influence. |
| The Adventures of Tioga and George | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Aug 22 2004, 09:02 AM Post #22 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Gershon, you might be onto something there. Decentralization would be a good thing, make the federal government more accountable to the states, and indirectly, taxpayers. However, it might permit situations were some states could put a stranglehold on government action. Put aside the nonsense of the red v blue notion a moment, but what if the blues withheld tax contribution to force an agenda, or the reds? Brewter, I'm still mulling over the tax theory post, that was interesting. First challenge to "BRUCE’S ANSWER TO EVERYTHING" is that it is a disincentive. Below a certain point, $12K, the less you work and earn the more you make. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| brewster | Aug 22 2004, 10:43 AM Post #23 |
![]()
Winemaker Extraordinaire
|
No, Chris, it shouldn't matter. If you make $6,000, then you will recieve: (24000-6000)/2= $9,000 from the govt, plus your $6,000 makes $15,000 Make $9,000, then: (24000-9000)/2= $7,500 from the govt, plus your $9,000 makes $16,500 Make $18,000, then: (24000-18000)/2= $3,000 from the govt, plus your $18,000 makes $21,000 Make $36,000, then: (24000-36000)/2= $6,000 to the govt, from your $36,000 makes $30,000 The more you work, the more you have in your pocket, no matter how good or bad the job. And as I said before, every penny in your pocket is YOURS! BTW, I kinda like Gershon's idea too, especially the concept of separating the people collecting from the people spending.... |
My Favourite CampsiteBow Valley Provincial Park, Kananaskis Country, Alberta | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Aug 22 2004, 11:03 AM Post #24 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
If you make $24K you get $0K. If you make $18K you get $6K. If you make $12K you get $12K. If you make $6K you get $18K. If you make $0K you get $24K. For some the less you work the more you make. Incentive to not work and just take what the government gives you. That's the problem with welfare at that level (ignoring for the moment all sorts of other entitlements). I can understand that as a hand up when someone is down and needs to get back up. But that should require proof of trying to get up and be limited in time over a lifetime. If it needs to be a hand out then community service for the amount. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| brewster | Aug 22 2004, 11:23 AM Post #25 |
![]()
Winemaker Extraordinaire
|
I knew that would be the sticking point... First, as I said before, if you make nothing, then all you'll have is the gov't piece. If you make something less than $24,000, you have that too. So there's always an incentive to work at least a little bit. As for community service and welfare, that's exactly what I want to get away from! I'm tired of all these social services just sopping up more admin money, and welfare bums simply running from one service to another collecting every penny they can! Eliminate all that! Admittedly there would be quite a number of people who would do nothing permanently, but they do that already! This at least would give you a single source to find out who they are, and exactly why they cannot work at all - some people quite legitimately cannot! Maybe you could put some sort of sunset clause on the outgoing money - for every year you don't work when you legitimately could have, you lose 20% next year. after 5 years, you get nothing. (Then listen to the do-gooders howl - there's no other source left! |
My Favourite CampsiteBow Valley Provincial Park, Kananaskis Country, Alberta | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Aug 22 2004, 11:31 AM Post #26 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Nah, incentive not to work for some. That's why some stay on welfare rolls. Welfare pays better than delivering newspapers. By community service I meant clean the park, sweep sidewalks, de-litter highways, paint fences, plant trees--pay back for hand out. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| brewster | Aug 22 2004, 11:39 AM Post #27 |
![]()
Winemaker Extraordinaire
|
One more try, and then I'll let it go: Yes, welfare pays better than delivering papers, but this way there is no welfare, and delivering papers while collecting part of the handout pays better than depending only on the handout - then these bright fellows will gradually discover that working in the newspaper printing dept. pays better yet. No system is perfect, and there's always cheats, but this should at least start a few down the road... |
My Favourite CampsiteBow Valley Provincial Park, Kananaskis Country, Alberta | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Aug 22 2004, 12:04 PM Post #28 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Yes, concern is with cheats. As I said, too, that's a drop in the welfare state bucket of entitlements that would hopefully be reduced with your “NATIONAL SERVICES” list. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| brewster | Aug 22 2004, 12:58 PM Post #29 |
![]()
Winemaker Extraordinaire
|
Some Interesting Reading from Wikipedia: The Welfare Trap Negative Income Tax Malibu Surfer Problem Guaranteed Minimum Income The Malibu Surfer Problem is the one you'er most concerned about, Chris - but these people manage just fine now, so we're not giving them anything they don't already get, just shutting down their options. And think how much money we save by eliminating government bureaucracy. We could easily afford a lot of free riders. Plus, after a bit, once you have a single source of funds, the cheaters become obvious with minimal searching - Where can they hide? |
My Favourite CampsiteBow Valley Provincial Park, Kananaskis Country, Alberta | |
![]() |
|
| passinthru | Aug 22 2004, 01:51 PM Post #30 |
![]()
John - Gainesville, FL
|
Chris said: If you make $24K you get $0K. If you make $18K you get $6K. If you make $12K you get $12K. If you make $6K you get $18K. If you make $0K you get $24K. Brewster said: If you make $24K you get an additional $0K for a total of $24K. If you make $18K you get an additional $3K for a total of $21K. If you make $12K you get an additional $6K for a total of $18K. If you make $6K you get an additional $9K for a total of $15K. If you make $0K you get an additional $12K for a total of $12K. Remember this is Canadian , so we are talking much less to get to breakeven. I like the concept in that it doesn't penalize someone for getting out and making an effort. I also think that Chris' idea of doing community service to receive a check is heading in the right direction, but those 'in charge' believe that it is degrading to have to perform some menial task to get survival money. I see it differently; perfoming some service for the money would give it value to the recipient and a feeling that it wasn't a handout. |
| Faster horses, younger women, older whiskey, more money... | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |







My Favourite Campsite

2:26 AM Jul 11