|
On October 17 2011 09:22 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 08:54 Kiarip wrote:On October 17 2011 08:34 Chargelot wrote:On October 17 2011 08:20 Kiarip wrote:On October 17 2011 07:53 Chargelot wrote:On October 17 2011 07:05 Coraz wrote:
The tax rate won't matter when we initiate Israeli-Iran war and they close the straits of hormuz and gas skyrockets to $8/gal and the dollar implodes.....
reduce the size of Big Govt, get rid of the redundant ATF, the redundant FDA, end the drug war, end the CIA rampaging across the world murdering and wasting our money, end THE FED, bring back manufacturing and agriculture to our country.
I think it's too late to avoid the total meltdown, though. It's all being done by design and we're decades (if not a century) into it. The only thing that will save us is divine intervention at this point. (Yes i'm talkin bout Jeeesus)
OP: Romney and barry are insider occultists so I don't see how their tax plans (which probably have tons of loopholes and irrelevant draconian laws tacked on on page 1,200) could possibly do anything to help us, the useless eaters. I haven't read their tax plans so I can't say anything specific. I've never seen such a large tinfoil hat. It is certainly an impressive one, good sir, but I'm afraid the aliens have prepared for that. You should have made it out of lead. It's hilarious when people make hyperbolic arguments just to make it easy for people to try and discredit their actual point, and yet STILL all they can get in response is an ad hominem. Coraz must really be onto something. He's on something. Not onto something. He says we should eliminate the ATF and FDA, the organizations which create and enforce drug laws, and end the CIA, the organization killing Al Qaeda (et al) soldiers who also happen to benefit off the growth and sale of heroin, while simultaneously referring to two serious political candidates as occultists. That wasn't emotion, that was blunt logic. FDA is driving up the cost of medicine and healthcare sooo much. ATF picks winners and losers all the time, both are heavily influenced by lobbyists. The CIA is at the front-edge of our imperialism. you're right he's not onto anything. The FDA takes advice straight from the 27 NIH.
doesn't mean that it's not effected by lobbyists... NIH is a GSE so it's very vulnerable to corruption.
If you want to dismantle the organizations responsible for driving up health care prices, you're going to have to dismantle the American health care system.
FDA is one of the problems.
Destroying the front-edge of our imperialism doesn't destroy our imperialism. It just means we have to use the blunt-edge. I'd say a drone strike is a hell of a lot better than a carpet bomb.
Military need to be cut as well
|
I don't support any plan that dramatically increases taxes on the poor, is at best neutral to the middle class and makes the rich even wealthier. Most of the arguments I see people using in support of 9-9-9 are centered around its "fairness". The problem is that fairness in the rules is dependent on fairness in the starting conditions.
Imagine you were playing monopoly and for the first 5 turns one player cheated by taking 90% of the bank's money and 75% of the properties. Then on turn 6 that player says "ok I am resetting the rules so that they are fair for everybody" and the normal rules came into effect. Would this be fair?
I do not know the complete answer for how to reform the tax code but I would definitely start by recalculating the poverty line (if you wand to lol then look up how our current one is calculated) and exempting all people below it from taxes. Id also spend A LOT of time researching how any changes would affect the middle class (people have made some interesting guesses in this thread already) since the expansion of the middle class should be our priority imo.
|
On October 17 2011 09:16 Weebem-Na wrote:
Despite the fact that I don't like the current conservative political scene of our country in general, I have to say I respect Cain for laying out a detailed plan of what he actually plans on doing if elected. Sure its more of the same Republican Trojan Horse wolf in sheep's clothing type thinking ("Let's help the job creators and finally establish that NWO once and for all!") type thinking, but at least Herman comes out and says exactly what he wants to do.
His 9,9,9 plan reminds me of his statements about making Bills no more than 3 pages, so that they can be easily read thereby simplifying the legislative process. Sure, it sounds great in theory. Then, you think about it for a couple of seconds...
One last point about the plan I must make: This is a radical plan of the type I would expect from a libertarian candidate. It really shows how far right our political "center" has moved that a republican can run for president with a plan of this type.
This plan is not radical, nor anything close to what a libertarian would propose. The libertarian position is the elimination of taxes (Not yours to Give), and to never raise taxes on anyone, period. The US is pretty far STATIST on both aisles. Considering the Democrats and Republicans agree on 90% of the issues, they are relatively close together. A politician today would have been ran off the stage in 1780s America, 1880s America, 1920s America, and even up roughly late 1940s America. The Republican Party has grown substantially more statist over the years.
The only legitimate dimensional analysis is to have Tyranny at the very top, and Liberty at the very bottom. If you would chart the US from 1776 to today, you will find that the US has continuously risen, growing closer and closer to an absolute state of tyranny. It is this analysis you will find in books such as Robert Higgs Crisis & Leviathan. The Government hasn't ever been more powerful than it is today.
The average American in 1910 would have punted you in the ass if you proposed any National Tax except Tariffs and perhaps a small excise tax on a select few products (which was still controversial).
|
On October 17 2011 09:33 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 09:16 Weebem-Na wrote:
Despite the fact that I don't like the current conservative political scene of our country in general, I have to say I respect Cain for laying out a detailed plan of what he actually plans on doing if elected. Sure its more of the same Republican Trojan Horse wolf in sheep's clothing type thinking ("Let's help the job creators and finally establish that NWO once and for all!") type thinking, but at least Herman comes out and says exactly what he wants to do.
His 9,9,9 plan reminds me of his statements about making Bills no more than 3 pages, so that they can be easily read thereby simplifying the legislative process. Sure, it sounds great in theory. Then, you think about it for a couple of seconds...
One last point about the plan I must make: This is a radical plan of the type I would expect from a libertarian candidate. It really shows how far right our political "center" has moved that a republican can run for president with a plan of this type. This plan is not radical, nor anything close to what a libertarian would propose. The libertarian position is the elimination of taxes (Not yours to Give), and to never raise taxes on anyone, period. The US is pretty far STATIST on both aisles. Considering the Democrats and Republicans agree on 90% of the issues, they are relatively close together. A politician today would have been ran off the stage in 1780s America, 1880s America, 1920s America, and even up roughly late 1940s America. The Republican Party has grown substantially more statist over the years. The only legitimate dimensional analysis is to have Tyranny at the very top, and Liberty at the very bottom. If you would chart the US from 1776 to today, you will find that the US has continuously risen, growing closer and closer to an absolute state of tyranny. It is this analysis you will find in books such as Robert Higgs Crisis & Leviathan. The Government hasn't ever been more powerful than it is today. The average American in 1910 would have punted you in the ass if you proposed any National Tax except Tariffs and perhaps a small excise tax on a select few products (which was still controversial).
The federal government, and more specifically the Executive Branch, has the most power of all time because of a few things:
1) We started believing in democracy. It was actually a dirty word in this country up until the 1920s. It probably should have stayed that way.
2) The civil rights movement ensured that the bill of rights/other amendments would apply to state governments, and not just the federal government. This was the singular positive change.
3) The Congress delegated its lawmaking responsibilities to the Executive Branch, which delegates those responsibilities to organizations like the FDA and the ATF, which know a lot more about drugs and guns than anyone else in the country. In the end, we get better regulation, but at a higher cost. Overall its a negative change, but the alternative would be even worse.
Number 3 allows the effects of The Iron Triangle, which is abused and misused by lobbyist. Although all lobbyists aren't inherently evil, they're just trying to do whats best for them and their interest group.
So yeah, the Executive Branch of the US Federal Government is a lot stronger than it used to be. But you can't really do anything about it. There is too much being regulated to let the Congress decide on everything. They stall their processes for weeks over single votes. Imagine having to regulate everything. We'd never get a single thing accomplished. Ever.
|
On October 17 2011 09:33 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 09:16 Weebem-Na wrote:
Despite the fact that I don't like the current conservative political scene of our country in general, I have to say I respect Cain for laying out a detailed plan of what he actually plans on doing if elected. Sure its more of the same Republican Trojan Horse wolf in sheep's clothing type thinking ("Let's help the job creators and finally establish that NWO once and for all!") type thinking, but at least Herman comes out and says exactly what he wants to do.
His 9,9,9 plan reminds me of his statements about making Bills no more than 3 pages, so that they can be easily read thereby simplifying the legislative process. Sure, it sounds great in theory. Then, you think about it for a couple of seconds...
One last point about the plan I must make: This is a radical plan of the type I would expect from a libertarian candidate. It really shows how far right our political "center" has moved that a republican can run for president with a plan of this type. This plan is not radical, nor anything close to what a libertarian would propose. The libertarian position is the elimination of taxes (Not yours to Give), and to never raise taxes on anyone, period. The US is pretty far STATIST on both aisles. Considering the Democrats and Republicans agree on 90% of the issues, they are relatively close together. A politician today would have been ran off the stage in 1780s America, 1880s America, 1920s America, and even up roughly late 1940s America. The Republican Party has grown substantially more statist over the years. The only legitimate dimensional analysis is to have Tyranny at the very top, and Liberty at the very bottom. If you would chart the US from 1776 to today, you will find that the US has continuously risen, growing closer and closer to an absolute state of tyranny. It is this analysis you will find in books such as Robert Higgs Crisis & Leviathan. The Government hasn't ever been more powerful than it is today. The average American in 1910 would have punted you in the ass if you proposed any National Tax except Tariffs and perhaps a small excise tax on a select few products (which was still controversial).
Yeah, I was off on the libertarian statement, but I stand by the word radical. The income tax has been progressive for roughly 90 years or so. If you look at our current tax codes and compare them to the 9,9,9 plan you will notice the percentages change A LOT especially for the lowest and highest earners. I'm thinking even die-hard supply side economists would have to agree the changes in his plan would have to be considered quite large (large policy changes=radical). And I didn't even mention the sales tax changes..
|
On October 17 2011 09:33 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 09:16 Weebem-Na wrote:
Despite the fact that I don't like the current conservative political scene of our country in general, I have to say I respect Cain for laying out a detailed plan of what he actually plans on doing if elected. Sure its more of the same Republican Trojan Horse wolf in sheep's clothing type thinking ("Let's help the job creators and finally establish that NWO once and for all!") type thinking, but at least Herman comes out and says exactly what he wants to do.
His 9,9,9 plan reminds me of his statements about making Bills no more than 3 pages, so that they can be easily read thereby simplifying the legislative process. Sure, it sounds great in theory. Then, you think about it for a couple of seconds...
One last point about the plan I must make: This is a radical plan of the type I would expect from a libertarian candidate. It really shows how far right our political "center" has moved that a republican can run for president with a plan of this type. This plan is not radical, nor anything close to what a libertarian would propose. The libertarian position is the elimination of taxes (Not yours to Give), and to never raise taxes on anyone, period. The US is pretty far STATIST on both aisles. Considering the Democrats and Republicans agree on 90% of the issues, they are relatively close together. A politician today would have been ran off the stage in 1780s America, 1880s America, 1920s America, and even up roughly late 1940s America. The Republican Party has grown substantially more statist over the years. The only legitimate dimensional analysis is to have Tyranny at the very top, and Liberty at the very bottom. If you would chart the US from 1776 to today, you will find that the US has continuously risen, growing closer and closer to an absolute state of tyranny. It is this analysis you will find in books such as Robert Higgs Crisis & Leviathan. The Government hasn't ever been more powerful than it is today. The average American in 1910 would have punted you in the ass if you proposed any National Tax except Tariffs and perhaps a small excise tax on a select few products (which was still controversial).
What? Income tax in the early 1900s were like 70% in the top bracket. What are you even talking about.
|
American economic problems could all more or less be solved by taxing the shit out of our rich. A blanket rate puts a larger burden on the middle and lower classes.
Cain is also retarded.
|
On October 17 2011 12:48 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 09:33 Wegandi wrote:On October 17 2011 09:16 Weebem-Na wrote:
Despite the fact that I don't like the current conservative political scene of our country in general, I have to say I respect Cain for laying out a detailed plan of what he actually plans on doing if elected. Sure its more of the same Republican Trojan Horse wolf in sheep's clothing type thinking ("Let's help the job creators and finally establish that NWO once and for all!") type thinking, but at least Herman comes out and says exactly what he wants to do.
His 9,9,9 plan reminds me of his statements about making Bills no more than 3 pages, so that they can be easily read thereby simplifying the legislative process. Sure, it sounds great in theory. Then, you think about it for a couple of seconds...
One last point about the plan I must make: This is a radical plan of the type I would expect from a libertarian candidate. It really shows how far right our political "center" has moved that a republican can run for president with a plan of this type. This plan is not radical, nor anything close to what a libertarian would propose. The libertarian position is the elimination of taxes (Not yours to Give), and to never raise taxes on anyone, period. The US is pretty far STATIST on both aisles. Considering the Democrats and Republicans agree on 90% of the issues, they are relatively close together. A politician today would have been ran off the stage in 1780s America, 1880s America, 1920s America, and even up roughly late 1940s America. The Republican Party has grown substantially more statist over the years. The only legitimate dimensional analysis is to have Tyranny at the very top, and Liberty at the very bottom. If you would chart the US from 1776 to today, you will find that the US has continuously risen, growing closer and closer to an absolute state of tyranny. It is this analysis you will find in books such as Robert Higgs Crisis & Leviathan. The Government hasn't ever been more powerful than it is today. The average American in 1910 would have punted you in the ass if you proposed any National Tax except Tariffs and perhaps a small excise tax on a select few products (which was still controversial). What? Income tax in the early 1900s were like 70% in the top bracket. What are you even talking about.
Err, you're both a little incorrect. The income tax was established during the Civil War for a miniscule amount (~2% for top 10% earners). It was formally institutionalized in the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913. So to address Wegandi, there was a National Tax instituted after 1910 and not every American went apeshit. And to address FabledIntegral, the tax wasn't 70% on the top bracket in 1900.
|
On October 17 2011 00:02 Zealotdriver wrote:
LOL at anyone who thinks the 9-9-9 build could ever work. This crap is a distraction from real solutions to our economic crisis.
9-9-9 build? this isn't a game of starcraft...
|
On October 17 2011 12:58 gchan wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 12:48 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 17 2011 09:33 Wegandi wrote:On October 17 2011 09:16 Weebem-Na wrote:
Despite the fact that I don't like the current conservative political scene of our country in general, I have to say I respect Cain for laying out a detailed plan of what he actually plans on doing if elected. Sure its more of the same Republican Trojan Horse wolf in sheep's clothing type thinking ("Let's help the job creators and finally establish that NWO once and for all!") type thinking, but at least Herman comes out and says exactly what he wants to do.
His 9,9,9 plan reminds me of his statements about making Bills no more than 3 pages, so that they can be easily read thereby simplifying the legislative process. Sure, it sounds great in theory. Then, you think about it for a couple of seconds...
One last point about the plan I must make: This is a radical plan of the type I would expect from a libertarian candidate. It really shows how far right our political "center" has moved that a republican can run for president with a plan of this type. This plan is not radical, nor anything close to what a libertarian would propose. The libertarian position is the elimination of taxes (Not yours to Give), and to never raise taxes on anyone, period. The US is pretty far STATIST on both aisles. Considering the Democrats and Republicans agree on 90% of the issues, they are relatively close together. A politician today would have been ran off the stage in 1780s America, 1880s America, 1920s America, and even up roughly late 1940s America. The Republican Party has grown substantially more statist over the years. The only legitimate dimensional analysis is to have Tyranny at the very top, and Liberty at the very bottom. If you would chart the US from 1776 to today, you will find that the US has continuously risen, growing closer and closer to an absolute state of tyranny. It is this analysis you will find in books such as Robert Higgs Crisis & Leviathan. The Government hasn't ever been more powerful than it is today. The average American in 1910 would have punted you in the ass if you proposed any National Tax except Tariffs and perhaps a small excise tax on a select few products (which was still controversial). What? Income tax in the early 1900s were like 70% in the top bracket. What are you even talking about. Err, you're both a little incorrect. The income tax was established during the Civil War for a miniscule amount (~2% for top 10% earners). It was formally institutionalized in the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913. So to address Wegandi, there was a National Tax instituted after 1910 and not every American went apeshit. And to address FabledIntegral, the tax wasn't 70% on the top bracket in 1900.
I never said it was. I said "early 1900s" and "were like" which means "around that time zone" and "around 70%" jesus. 1917 was 67%. That qualifies as early 1900s as far as I'm concerned. 1918 was 77%.
|
On October 16 2011 23:48 BronzeKnee wrote:
I've been interested in reforming the tax code for a long time, and recently a lot interest has gone into Herman Cain's 9-9-9 Tax Code.
His proposal is a new 9 percent uniform income tax rate would eliminate all exemptions and deductions, including those for child care, school tuition, health savings accounts and interest on home mortgages. There would also be a 9 percent business tax and a national 9 percent federal sales tax — with no exemptions, even for food and medicine. This would be paid by consumers on top of state and local sales taxes.
The majority of people that benefit from this tax system are people who used to pay the capital gains tax from the sale of stocks and bonds, which would be eliminated. Most of the people who pay this tax are wealthy.
You'll wonder how that can be, when this will slash even the lowest income tax rates, but it is pretty simple. Many Americans depend heavily on deductions and his plan eliminates all exemptions and deductions.
Let me tell you a real life example of what this tax code would do for America. Take my wife and I, we both work between 40 and 50 hours per week and in addition we own a business on the side. Combined we make less than 6 figures, but well over $65,000. So we aren't rich or poor, just middle class.
Last year we paid ~18% of our income (including business income) to the government in taxes, but since we are married and have a mortgage, we get some big deductions that reduces our overall income tax rate to 11%. So, with the 9-9-9 plan we would pay 2% less on our income taxes but get slammed when prices would go up 9% on everything we buy!
In total, we would pay roughly ~$6,000 more per year to the federal government (assuming our spending and income stays constant).
The rich can easily afford to pay for child care, but the average America struggles to pay for it, and the deduction currently for it helps people afford it. Herman Cain eliminates this deduction.
Students (who's family doesn't pay their way) struggle to pay increasing tuition costs (and my wife and I are only a few years removed from school) and the deduction helps people afford it. Herman Cain eliminates this deduction.
For first time home buyers, the mortgage deduction (where you can deduct 100% of your interest) makes home affordable (it did for me we got back over $2,500 per year from it, which is better savings that Herman Cain provides by cutting our taxes). Herman Cain eliminates this deduction too.
A 9% sales taxes increase is a massive increase that obviously is blind to class. Food would cost more for the average America and for Bill Gates. But only one of them has to plan a budget around basic food shopping.
I've always thought a conservative president wouldn't stand for tax increase. But if you are thinking about voting for Herman Cain, think very carefully. You'll lose any deductions you get for child care, school tuition, health savings accounts and interest on home mortgages. And you'll pay 9% more for everything you buy to save a paltry amount on taxes. Do the math for your own individual situation.
Saving 2% on my taxes to pay 9% more for everything I buy is no savings. And all this so people who sell stocks and bonds don't have to pay taxes on them anymore? I can think of two better tax plans for the average America, the one proposed by Mitt Romney, and the one proposed by President Obama.
Paying less in taxes doesn't really solve anything.
The Fair Tax Plan seems like a much more sturdy plan than this one anyway. Allows for those to save what they want without worrying about Tax Penalties. Makes people who currently don't pay taxes Servers, Drug Dealers, Prostitutes actually pay taxes. Much better plan in my opinion though I am no economic expert.
Also on broader view. The current tax system, 9-9-9, Fair Tax whichever one is chosen won't affect a damn thing. In the end it doesn't matter how much money and from where the government gets it they are going to waste it. They are going to fuck up time and time again because of their greed, so instead of fixing a fucked up tax system instead we should focus who runs our country and a better punishment system for those who steal from US citizens.
|
On October 17 2011 12:48 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 09:33 Wegandi wrote:On October 17 2011 09:16 Weebem-Na wrote:
Despite the fact that I don't like the current conservative political scene of our country in general, I have to say I respect Cain for laying out a detailed plan of what he actually plans on doing if elected. Sure its more of the same Republican Trojan Horse wolf in sheep's clothing type thinking ("Let's help the job creators and finally establish that NWO once and for all!") type thinking, but at least Herman comes out and says exactly what he wants to do.
His 9,9,9 plan reminds me of his statements about making Bills no more than 3 pages, so that they can be easily read thereby simplifying the legislative process. Sure, it sounds great in theory. Then, you think about it for a couple of seconds...
One last point about the plan I must make: This is a radical plan of the type I would expect from a libertarian candidate. It really shows how far right our political "center" has moved that a republican can run for president with a plan of this type. This plan is not radical, nor anything close to what a libertarian would propose. The libertarian position is the elimination of taxes (Not yours to Give), and to never raise taxes on anyone, period. The US is pretty far STATIST on both aisles. Considering the Democrats and Republicans agree on 90% of the issues, they are relatively close together. A politician today would have been ran off the stage in 1780s America, 1880s America, 1920s America, and even up roughly late 1940s America. The Republican Party has grown substantially more statist over the years. The only legitimate dimensional analysis is to have Tyranny at the very top, and Liberty at the very bottom. If you would chart the US from 1776 to today, you will find that the US has continuously risen, growing closer and closer to an absolute state of tyranny. It is this analysis you will find in books such as Robert Higgs Crisis & Leviathan. The Government hasn't ever been more powerful than it is today. The average American in 1910 would have punted you in the ass if you proposed any National Tax except Tariffs and perhaps a small excise tax on a select few products (which was still controversial). What? Income tax in the early 1900s were like 70% in the top bracket. What are you even talking about.
The Federal Income Tax (16th Amendment) wasn't in effect until ratified in 1913, which was necessary for the Federal Government to collect a direct tax. The Civil War Income Tax was found Unconstitutional because a direct tax prior to the 16th Amendment was illegal. In the first place, the Income Tax, taxed the elite wealthy 1-7% of their income. It wasn't until WWI & WWII that the Income Tax was substantially increased (Hey -- WAR IS THE HEALTH OF THE STATE!), and that withholding was formally adapted (institutionalized Government gets your money & then decides how much of your labor, time, and property you should get to keep). There was no Federal Income Tax or direct tax in 1910, nor at any other time prior to 1913 except of course for the Unconstitutional plundering of the people by Abraham Lincoln.
I think it is you, who should review the facts. America got by without a Federal Income Tax & fiat-legal tender for 130 years just fine. It's time to accept that Social Democracy / bureaucratic socialism & Corporatist policy destroys wealth parity, standard of living, and liberty. Even if you taxed all the wealthy 100% you would still run a deficit. It's out of control.
PS: The vast majority of the American population before WWII paid absolutely zero income tax because the threshold was 10,001$ and the average salary at that time ran between 750 (in the early period) and going up to ~1,500. Of course most people didn't outrage over the fact that they never saw the Income Tax. They found out they could loot other folks through the public domain. Hard to resist that temptation.
http://kclibrary.lonestar.edu/decade10.html
http://kclibrary.lonestar.edu/decade40.html
|
On October 17 2011 13:05 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 12:58 gchan wrote:On October 17 2011 12:48 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 17 2011 09:33 Wegandi wrote:On October 17 2011 09:16 Weebem-Na wrote:
Despite the fact that I don't like the current conservative political scene of our country in general, I have to say I respect Cain for laying out a detailed plan of what he actually plans on doing if elected. Sure its more of the same Republican Trojan Horse wolf in sheep's clothing type thinking ("Let's help the job creators and finally establish that NWO once and for all!") type thinking, but at least Herman comes out and says exactly what he wants to do.
His 9,9,9 plan reminds me of his statements about making Bills no more than 3 pages, so that they can be easily read thereby simplifying the legislative process. Sure, it sounds great in theory. Then, you think about it for a couple of seconds...
One last point about the plan I must make: This is a radical plan of the type I would expect from a libertarian candidate. It really shows how far right our political "center" has moved that a republican can run for president with a plan of this type. This plan is not radical, nor anything close to what a libertarian would propose. The libertarian position is the elimination of taxes (Not yours to Give), and to never raise taxes on anyone, period. The US is pretty far STATIST on both aisles. Considering the Democrats and Republicans agree on 90% of the issues, they are relatively close together. A politician today would have been ran off the stage in 1780s America, 1880s America, 1920s America, and even up roughly late 1940s America. The Republican Party has grown substantially more statist over the years. The only legitimate dimensional analysis is to have Tyranny at the very top, and Liberty at the very bottom. If you would chart the US from 1776 to today, you will find that the US has continuously risen, growing closer and closer to an absolute state of tyranny. It is this analysis you will find in books such as Robert Higgs Crisis & Leviathan. The Government hasn't ever been more powerful than it is today. The average American in 1910 would have punted you in the ass if you proposed any National Tax except Tariffs and perhaps a small excise tax on a select few products (which was still controversial). What? Income tax in the early 1900s were like 70% in the top bracket. What are you even talking about. Err, you're both a little incorrect. The income tax was established during the Civil War for a miniscule amount (~2% for top 10% earners). It was formally institutionalized in the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913. So to address Wegandi, there was a National Tax instituted after 1910 and not every American went apeshit. And to address FabledIntegral, the tax wasn't 70% on the top bracket in 1900. I never said it was. I said "early 1900s" and "were like" which means "around that time zone" and "around 70%" jesus. 1917 was 67%. That qualifies as early 1900s as far as I'm concerned. 1918 was 77%.
just wondering, where are you getting these numbers? I have a problem believing this, there was no income tax at all for a very long time in America.
|
On October 17 2011 13:13 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 12:48 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 17 2011 09:33 Wegandi wrote:On October 17 2011 09:16 Weebem-Na wrote:
Despite the fact that I don't like the current conservative political scene of our country in general, I have to say I respect Cain for laying out a detailed plan of what he actually plans on doing if elected. Sure its more of the same Republican Trojan Horse wolf in sheep's clothing type thinking ("Let's help the job creators and finally establish that NWO once and for all!") type thinking, but at least Herman comes out and says exactly what he wants to do.
His 9,9,9 plan reminds me of his statements about making Bills no more than 3 pages, so that they can be easily read thereby simplifying the legislative process. Sure, it sounds great in theory. Then, you think about it for a couple of seconds...
One last point about the plan I must make: This is a radical plan of the type I would expect from a libertarian candidate. It really shows how far right our political "center" has moved that a republican can run for president with a plan of this type. This plan is not radical, nor anything close to what a libertarian would propose. The libertarian position is the elimination of taxes (Not yours to Give), and to never raise taxes on anyone, period. The US is pretty far STATIST on both aisles. Considering the Democrats and Republicans agree on 90% of the issues, they are relatively close together. A politician today would have been ran off the stage in 1780s America, 1880s America, 1920s America, and even up roughly late 1940s America. The Republican Party has grown substantially more statist over the years. The only legitimate dimensional analysis is to have Tyranny at the very top, and Liberty at the very bottom. If you would chart the US from 1776 to today, you will find that the US has continuously risen, growing closer and closer to an absolute state of tyranny. It is this analysis you will find in books such as Robert Higgs Crisis & Leviathan. The Government hasn't ever been more powerful than it is today. The average American in 1910 would have punted you in the ass if you proposed any National Tax except Tariffs and perhaps a small excise tax on a select few products (which was still controversial). What? Income tax in the early 1900s were like 70% in the top bracket. What are you even talking about. The Federal Income Tax (16th Amendment) wasn't in effect until ratified in 1913, which was necessary for the Federal Government to collect a direct tax. The Civil War Income Tax was found Unconstitutional because a direct tax prior to the 16th Amendment was illegal. In the first place, the Income Tax, taxed the elite wealthy 1-7% of their income. It wasn't until WWI & WWII that the Income Tax was substantially increased (Hey -- WAR IS THE HEALTH OF THE STATE!), and that withholding was formally adapted (institutionalized Government gets your money & then decides how much of your labor, time, and property you should get to keep). There was no Federal Income Tax or direct tax in 1910, nor at any other time prior to 1913 except of course for the Unconstitutional plundering of the people by Abraham Lincoln. I think it is you, who should review the facts. America got by without a Federal Income Tax & fiat-legal tender for 130 years just fine. It's time to accept that Social Democracy / bureaucratic socialism & Corporatist policy destroys wealth parity, standard of living, and liberty. Even if you taxed all the wealthy 100% you would still run a deficit. It's out of control. PS: The vast majority of the American population before WWII paid absolutely zero income tax because the threshold was 10,001$ and the average salary at that time ran between 750 (in the early period) and going up to ~1,500. Of course most people didn't outrage over the fact that they never saw the Income Tax. They found out they could loot other folks through the public domain. Hard to resist that temptation. http://kclibrary.lonestar.edu/decade10.htmlhttp://kclibrary.lonestar.edu/decade40.html
I already stated in a previous post that saying "early 1900s" referred to the general time frame. Does 1917 not qualify? It's pretty damn close. Sorry for not looking up the exact date? Which is why I used a friggin' generalization, jesus.
And "PS" the vast majority of the lower class pay zero income tax anyways.
On October 17 2011 13:26 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 13:05 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 17 2011 12:58 gchan wrote:On October 17 2011 12:48 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 17 2011 09:33 Wegandi wrote:On October 17 2011 09:16 Weebem-Na wrote:
Despite the fact that I don't like the current conservative political scene of our country in general, I have to say I respect Cain for laying out a detailed plan of what he actually plans on doing if elected. Sure its more of the same Republican Trojan Horse wolf in sheep's clothing type thinking ("Let's help the job creators and finally establish that NWO once and for all!") type thinking, but at least Herman comes out and says exactly what he wants to do.
His 9,9,9 plan reminds me of his statements about making Bills no more than 3 pages, so that they can be easily read thereby simplifying the legislative process. Sure, it sounds great in theory. Then, you think about it for a couple of seconds...
One last point about the plan I must make: This is a radical plan of the type I would expect from a libertarian candidate. It really shows how far right our political "center" has moved that a republican can run for president with a plan of this type. This plan is not radical, nor anything close to what a libertarian would propose. The libertarian position is the elimination of taxes (Not yours to Give), and to never raise taxes on anyone, period. The US is pretty far STATIST on both aisles. Considering the Democrats and Republicans agree on 90% of the issues, they are relatively close together. A politician today would have been ran off the stage in 1780s America, 1880s America, 1920s America, and even up roughly late 1940s America. The Republican Party has grown substantially more statist over the years. The only legitimate dimensional analysis is to have Tyranny at the very top, and Liberty at the very bottom. If you would chart the US from 1776 to today, you will find that the US has continuously risen, growing closer and closer to an absolute state of tyranny. It is this analysis you will find in books such as Robert Higgs Crisis & Leviathan. The Government hasn't ever been more powerful than it is today. The average American in 1910 would have punted you in the ass if you proposed any National Tax except Tariffs and perhaps a small excise tax on a select few products (which was still controversial). What? Income tax in the early 1900s were like 70% in the top bracket. What are you even talking about. Err, you're both a little incorrect. The income tax was established during the Civil War for a miniscule amount (~2% for top 10% earners). It was formally institutionalized in the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913. So to address Wegandi, there was a National Tax instituted after 1910 and not every American went apeshit. And to address FabledIntegral, the tax wasn't 70% on the top bracket in 1900. I never said it was. I said "early 1900s" and "were like" which means "around that time zone" and "around 70%" jesus. 1917 was 67%. That qualifies as early 1900s as far as I'm concerned. 1918 was 77%. just wondering, where are you getting these numbers? I have a problem believing this, there was no income tax at all for a very long time in America.
Just google it? Wikipedia is your friend...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_top_rates
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/personal-income-taxes/tax-brackets2.htm
|
On October 17 2011 13:26 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 13:05 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 17 2011 12:58 gchan wrote:On October 17 2011 12:48 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 17 2011 09:33 Wegandi wrote:On October 17 2011 09:16 Weebem-Na wrote:
Despite the fact that I don't like the current conservative political scene of our country in general, I have to say I respect Cain for laying out a detailed plan of what he actually plans on doing if elected. Sure its more of the same Republican Trojan Horse wolf in sheep's clothing type thinking ("Let's help the job creators and finally establish that NWO once and for all!") type thinking, but at least Herman comes out and says exactly what he wants to do.
His 9,9,9 plan reminds me of his statements about making Bills no more than 3 pages, so that they can be easily read thereby simplifying the legislative process. Sure, it sounds great in theory. Then, you think about it for a couple of seconds...
One last point about the plan I must make: This is a radical plan of the type I would expect from a libertarian candidate. It really shows how far right our political "center" has moved that a republican can run for president with a plan of this type. This plan is not radical, nor anything close to what a libertarian would propose. The libertarian position is the elimination of taxes (Not yours to Give), and to never raise taxes on anyone, period. The US is pretty far STATIST on both aisles. Considering the Democrats and Republicans agree on 90% of the issues, they are relatively close together. A politician today would have been ran off the stage in 1780s America, 1880s America, 1920s America, and even up roughly late 1940s America. The Republican Party has grown substantially more statist over the years. The only legitimate dimensional analysis is to have Tyranny at the very top, and Liberty at the very bottom. If you would chart the US from 1776 to today, you will find that the US has continuously risen, growing closer and closer to an absolute state of tyranny. It is this analysis you will find in books such as Robert Higgs Crisis & Leviathan. The Government hasn't ever been more powerful than it is today. The average American in 1910 would have punted you in the ass if you proposed any National Tax except Tariffs and perhaps a small excise tax on a select few products (which was still controversial). What? Income tax in the early 1900s were like 70% in the top bracket. What are you even talking about. Err, you're both a little incorrect. The income tax was established during the Civil War for a miniscule amount (~2% for top 10% earners). It was formally institutionalized in the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913. So to address Wegandi, there was a National Tax instituted after 1910 and not every American went apeshit. And to address FabledIntegral, the tax wasn't 70% on the top bracket in 1900. I never said it was. I said "early 1900s" and "were like" which means "around that time zone" and "around 70%" jesus. 1917 was 67%. That qualifies as early 1900s as far as I'm concerned. 1918 was 77%. just wondering, where are you getting these numbers? I have a problem believing this, there was no income tax at all for a very long time in America.
He is correct. However, it is a bit misleading. One million dollars in 1917 is roughly about 20 million today if you go by Government CPI (though you can easily add a few million to that number as CPI heavily undercounts actual inflation). Furthermore, the lowest possible tax bracket that had taxes was 10,001$. Everyone under that threshold paid zero Federal Income Tax. 10,001$ in 1916 is equivalent today of ~210,000$ (again you can probably hit 400,000$). The vast majority of Americans paid no Federal Income tax until about WWII when withholding was introduced and wages started to rise due to inflation from both WWI & WWII, and the ending of the official Gold Standard (domestically).
|
Wegandi, while you have a fair point about US getting along fine without FIT and fiat legal tender for 130 years, the circumstances today are quite a bit different. The world in 1800s was a lot less globalized and was still largely colonial. The modern day dynamics of government relationships and domestic social order introduce new elements to governance that were not present in the 1800s. Unfortunately, income tax and social benefits are a bit of a Pandora's Box. Do you really think that it would be feasible to roll back our government to 1900?
|
It doesn't detract from the fact that you stated if you suggested this stuff in the 1920s or whatever you'd be kicked out as a politician. Tax rates were even in the 90%s in the 1950s.
Just a little ticked, I've spent the entire weekend reading "Individual Income Taxes" for my tax class not going out, so it's a little annoying seeing someone telling me to go "review" when that's all I've been doing like 10+ hours this weekend.
Tax was still 16% at $40,000. Sure, it's less than it comparatively is now when doing adjustments, but I bet back then there weren't a million deductions and exemptions and tax law was pretty simple. The full $40,000 probably qualified as taxable income.
|
On October 17 2011 13:28 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 13:13 Wegandi wrote:On October 17 2011 12:48 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 17 2011 09:33 Wegandi wrote:On October 17 2011 09:16 Weebem-Na wrote:
Despite the fact that I don't like the current conservative political scene of our country in general, I have to say I respect Cain for laying out a detailed plan of what he actually plans on doing if elected. Sure its more of the same Republican Trojan Horse wolf in sheep's clothing type thinking ("Let's help the job creators and finally establish that NWO once and for all!") type thinking, but at least Herman comes out and says exactly what he wants to do.
His 9,9,9 plan reminds me of his statements about making Bills no more than 3 pages, so that they can be easily read thereby simplifying the legislative process. Sure, it sounds great in theory. Then, you think about it for a couple of seconds...
One last point about the plan I must make: This is a radical plan of the type I would expect from a libertarian candidate. It really shows how far right our political "center" has moved that a republican can run for president with a plan of this type. This plan is not radical, nor anything close to what a libertarian would propose. The libertarian position is the elimination of taxes (Not yours to Give), and to never raise taxes on anyone, period. The US is pretty far STATIST on both aisles. Considering the Democrats and Republicans agree on 90% of the issues, they are relatively close together. A politician today would have been ran off the stage in 1780s America, 1880s America, 1920s America, and even up roughly late 1940s America. The Republican Party has grown substantially more statist over the years. The only legitimate dimensional analysis is to have Tyranny at the very top, and Liberty at the very bottom. If you would chart the US from 1776 to today, you will find that the US has continuously risen, growing closer and closer to an absolute state of tyranny. It is this analysis you will find in books such as Robert Higgs Crisis & Leviathan. The Government hasn't ever been more powerful than it is today. The average American in 1910 would have punted you in the ass if you proposed any National Tax except Tariffs and perhaps a small excise tax on a select few products (which was still controversial). What? Income tax in the early 1900s were like 70% in the top bracket. What are you even talking about. The Federal Income Tax (16th Amendment) wasn't in effect until ratified in 1913, which was necessary for the Federal Government to collect a direct tax. The Civil War Income Tax was found Unconstitutional because a direct tax prior to the 16th Amendment was illegal. In the first place, the Income Tax, taxed the elite wealthy 1-7% of their income. It wasn't until WWI & WWII that the Income Tax was substantially increased (Hey -- WAR IS THE HEALTH OF THE STATE!), and that withholding was formally adapted (institutionalized Government gets your money & then decides how much of your labor, time, and property you should get to keep). There was no Federal Income Tax or direct tax in 1910, nor at any other time prior to 1913 except of course for the Unconstitutional plundering of the people by Abraham Lincoln. I think it is you, who should review the facts. America got by without a Federal Income Tax & fiat-legal tender for 130 years just fine. It's time to accept that Social Democracy / bureaucratic socialism & Corporatist policy destroys wealth parity, standard of living, and liberty. Even if you taxed all the wealthy 100% you would still run a deficit. It's out of control. PS: The vast majority of the American population before WWII paid absolutely zero income tax because the threshold was 10,001$ and the average salary at that time ran between 750 (in the early period) and going up to ~1,500. Of course most people didn't outrage over the fact that they never saw the Income Tax. They found out they could loot other folks through the public domain. Hard to resist that temptation. http://kclibrary.lonestar.edu/decade10.htmlhttp://kclibrary.lonestar.edu/decade40.html I already stated in a previous post that saying "early 1900s" referred to the general time frame. Does 1917 not qualify? It's pretty damn close. Sorry for not looking up the exact date? Which is why I used a friggin' generalization, jesus. And "PS" the vast majority of the lower class pay zero income tax anyways.
Actually everyone pays Federal Income Tax. Show me a wage receipt where you paid no Federal Income Tax and I'll come lick your ass. You only get reimbursed at the beginning of the year for all the taxes you paid in the proceeding year. Having to give to the Government a sum of your wages, while inflation and time eat away at its purchasing power, and basically being a loan at 0% interest for the Federal Government is hardly what I would consider -- not paying an income tax.
The amount of folks who made the equivalent of 300,000$ a year in 1917 was on the orders of...less than 1% of the people in the US. The Federal Income Tax which was ratified in 1913, didn't really start to effect many Americans until WWII. That is why it's a bit disingenuous to use those numbers in the manner you are doing so. If the lowest tax bracket was 400,000$ (which means no one pays a dime to the Federal Government in Income Tax unless you make 400,001$ a year), the vast majority of Americans would not pay an Income Tax either. Now, if you want to go back to 1917 rates....it would be better than what we have today, but not ideal.
|
On October 17 2011 13:36 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 13:28 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 17 2011 13:13 Wegandi wrote:On October 17 2011 12:48 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 17 2011 09:33 Wegandi wrote:On October 17 2011 09:16 Weebem-Na wrote:
Despite the fact that I don't like the current conservative political scene of our country in general, I have to say I respect Cain for laying out a detailed plan of what he actually plans on doing if elected. Sure its more of the same Republican Trojan Horse wolf in sheep's clothing type thinking ("Let's help the job creators and finally establish that NWO once and for all!") type thinking, but at least Herman comes out and says exactly what he wants to do.
His 9,9,9 plan reminds me of his statements about making Bills no more than 3 pages, so that they can be easily read thereby simplifying the legislative process. Sure, it sounds great in theory. Then, you think about it for a couple of seconds...
One last point about the plan I must make: This is a radical plan of the type I would expect from a libertarian candidate. It really shows how far right our political "center" has moved that a republican can run for president with a plan of this type. This plan is not radical, nor anything close to what a libertarian would propose. The libertarian position is the elimination of taxes (Not yours to Give), and to never raise taxes on anyone, period. The US is pretty far STATIST on both aisles. Considering the Democrats and Republicans agree on 90% of the issues, they are relatively close together. A politician today would have been ran off the stage in 1780s America, 1880s America, 1920s America, and even up roughly late 1940s America. The Republican Party has grown substantially more statist over the years. The only legitimate dimensional analysis is to have Tyranny at the very top, and Liberty at the very bottom. If you would chart the US from 1776 to today, you will find that the US has continuously risen, growing closer and closer to an absolute state of tyranny. It is this analysis you will find in books such as Robert Higgs Crisis & Leviathan. The Government hasn't ever been more powerful than it is today. The average American in 1910 would have punted you in the ass if you proposed any National Tax except Tariffs and perhaps a small excise tax on a select few products (which was still controversial). What? Income tax in the early 1900s were like 70% in the top bracket. What are you even talking about. The Federal Income Tax (16th Amendment) wasn't in effect until ratified in 1913, which was necessary for the Federal Government to collect a direct tax. The Civil War Income Tax was found Unconstitutional because a direct tax prior to the 16th Amendment was illegal. In the first place, the Income Tax, taxed the elite wealthy 1-7% of their income. It wasn't until WWI & WWII that the Income Tax was substantially increased (Hey -- WAR IS THE HEALTH OF THE STATE!), and that withholding was formally adapted (institutionalized Government gets your money & then decides how much of your labor, time, and property you should get to keep). There was no Federal Income Tax or direct tax in 1910, nor at any other time prior to 1913 except of course for the Unconstitutional plundering of the people by Abraham Lincoln. I think it is you, who should review the facts. America got by without a Federal Income Tax & fiat-legal tender for 130 years just fine. It's time to accept that Social Democracy / bureaucratic socialism & Corporatist policy destroys wealth parity, standard of living, and liberty. Even if you taxed all the wealthy 100% you would still run a deficit. It's out of control. PS: The vast majority of the American population before WWII paid absolutely zero income tax because the threshold was 10,001$ and the average salary at that time ran between 750 (in the early period) and going up to ~1,500. Of course most people didn't outrage over the fact that they never saw the Income Tax. They found out they could loot other folks through the public domain. Hard to resist that temptation. http://kclibrary.lonestar.edu/decade10.htmlhttp://kclibrary.lonestar.edu/decade40.html I already stated in a previous post that saying "early 1900s" referred to the general time frame. Does 1917 not qualify? It's pretty damn close. Sorry for not looking up the exact date? Which is why I used a friggin' generalization, jesus. And "PS" the vast majority of the lower class pay zero income tax anyways. Actually everyone pays Federal Income Tax. Show me a wage receipt where you paid no Federal Income Tax and I'll come lick your ass. You only get reimbursed at the beginning of the year for all the taxes you paid in the proceeding year. Having to give to the Government a sum of your wages, while inflation and time eat away at its purchasing power, and basically being a loan at 0% interest for the Federal Government is hardly what I would consider -- not paying an income tax. The amount of folks who made the equivalent of 300,000$ a year in 1917 was on the orders of...less than 1% of the people in the US. The Federal Income Tax which was ratified in 1913, didn't really start to effect many Americans until WWII. That is why it's a bit disingenuous to use those numbers in the manner you are doing so. If the lowest tax bracket was 400,000$ (which means no one pays a dime to the Federal Government in Income Tax unless you make 400,001$ a year), the vast majority of Americans would not pay an Income Tax either. Now, if you want to go back to 1917 rates....it would be better than what we have today, but not ideal.
While inflation and time eat away at its purchasing power? What inflation? 0% interest loan? Oh well - it's not like keeping your money in savings accounts at the moment is exactly gaining you shit. And maybe it's semantics, but if you're putting in an absolutely minimal amount of money because you're good at estimating what you'll have to pay, then you qualify for a million tax credits and the IRS actually sends you a check (my situation last year, paid in virtually zero from my paycheck the entire year, received a $1,400 credit because the IRS is retarded and deemed I deserved it), I don't consider that paying any Federal Income Taxes. I'd love for you to lick my ass, but I realize it might not technically fall under your definition of not paying taxes.
|
On October 17 2011 13:34 gchan wrote:
Wegandi, while you have a fair point about US getting along fine without FIT and fiat legal tender for 130 years, the circumstances today are quite a bit different. The world in 1800s was a lot less globalized and was still largely colonial. The modern day dynamics of government relationships and domestic social order introduce new elements to governance that were not present in the 1800s. Unfortunately, income tax and social benefits are a bit of a Pandora's Box. Do you really think that it would be feasible to roll back our government to 1900?
Do I think it has a hoot in a holler chance of happening? I give it less than 1% chance. I find it more likely that in the crisis ahead that communities and States will start to look for ways to get around Washington DC and empower themselves. I think there is a large undertow for folks to feel as if they would be a lot better off without DC. That they can best handle the needs of their community & there is no need to shovel money off to DC where it is then funneled either into a large bureaucratic mess that takes large percentages of money for itself and then gives back to the communities a small percentage of what it originally took, and that it is a parasite which sucks the life out of the rest of the country. If you ever head to Washington DC, Maryland, and Virginia they certainly aren't feeling a Depression.
I think the average person understands this, and as it worsens I think there will be more calls for Independence from DC and states will leave the Union. In this scenario I think it is absolutely feasible for certain localities and newly Independent states to create an environment that has the Constitutional restraints and limitations placed upon it which would give back to the people their liberties and labor. Of course, the opposite will happen to as the folks who want more Government involvement on a local level (Such as Euro-State Social Democracy with small States). I think this would be more beneficial to all involved than trying to channel any change through DC which is a cesspool for corruption, indulgence, and a natural hotbed for social strife.
Simply put -- The US is far too large to function as either a Constitutional Republic, Democracy (DD such as Switzerland), or a Social Democracy State. The people of Hawaii have different political bonds than the people of Georgia, and the people of Oregon have different political bonds than the people of Texas. It is best if we let people each decide for themselves locally what sort of Governance they wish to have. Otherwise we get what we have now -- and that certainly is the worst of all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
