Post Reply Taxation
16863 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/22/17 , edited 10/23/17
When you think of taxation, you think of eliminating individual taxes and basing the entire tax structure on the business sector while not recognizing any part of a business that exists outside your national boundaries. At this point you are able to put taxes on goods, services, and data moving between businesses, so it could be said to behoove you to make sure that it is as easy as possible for people to start businesses and as such enter the taxed portion of the economy. By eliminating individual taxes, such as income taxes, sales taxes, estate taxes and others, you let people spend more of their hard earned lucre on things that most directly benefit the tax culling processes. Overall, this may even increase available taxes for the public trough, and may even help stabilize less coherent industries such as education and information travel.
23738 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 10/22/17 , edited 10/23/17
Tariffs are a very good source of income.

2180 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / F
Offline
Posted 10/22/17 , edited 10/23/17
Social security, elderly care, a vastly bloated military budget, making creeks less flammable, by majority agreed upon humanitarian and environmental projects within the US...
5558 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25
Offline
Posted 10/22/17 , edited 10/23/17
Personally I dont think this will happen solely based on numbers.

Theres 300+ million individuals that can possibly be taxed. (The actual number is less if you consider some individuals are retired, too young too work, or are unemployed.) That number is exponentially bigger than the number of possible business that could be taxed. Even if there were incentives to encourage individuals to start a business the overall amount of $$$$ raked in and collected through taxes would never compare.
48148 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/22/17 , edited 10/23/17

Rujikin wrote:

Tariffs are a very good source of income.



There are many social safety nets and programs which did not exist in 1913.Also, the key sources of revenue, such as selling land, were no longer available, as any previously native-held land in the US was pretty much fully occupied by then. The rest came from vice taxes on alcohol and tobacco. Want to know what was also in 1913? Child Labor.Jim Crow Laws, which meant that a good portion of any public services were purposefully underfunded if they were for blacks.

Also, there was an income tax starting in 1864 and lasting past the Civil War. It only expired because Congress and the Supreme Court couldn't agree on terms.
Ejanss 
17137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/22/17 , edited 10/23/17

Rujikin wrote:

Tariffs are a very good source of income.


And they, and liquor licenses, were our national income, back when Washington (the president)'s White House had exactly eight people working for it.


Blackferret64 wrote:

There are many social safety nets and programs which did not exist in 1913..


That's true: In 1931, unemployment insurance--which you'd need, if you'd lost all your life savings after your bank failed without FDIC--was called "Apples".

(Watch--Despite the entire pre-New Deal Great Depression, Ruj's going to say that's a "good" idea, because it helps "lazy" people use their spare time profitably in the private sector: 3...2...)
23738 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 10/22/17 , edited 10/23/17

Ejanss wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

Tariffs are a very good source of income.


And they, and liquor licenses, were our national income, back when Washington (the president)'s White House had exactly eight people working for it.


Blackferret64 wrote:

There are many social safety nets and programs which did not exist in 1913..


That's true: In 1931, unemployment insurance--which you'd need, if you'd lost all your life savings after your bank failed without FDIC--was called "Apples".

(Watch--Despite the entire pre-New Deal Great Depression, Ruj's going to say that's a "good" idea, because it helps "lazy" people use their spare time profitably in the private sector: 3...2...)


Wow was that all Washington had. Man was he efficient.

The Clinton Foundation Likely Facilitated The Distribution of Watered Down HIV/AIDS Medications In sub-Saharan Africa Through Its Health Access Initiative

· The Distribution of Watered Down HIV/AIDS Medications In sub-Saharan Africa May Have Increased Patient Mortality Rates

·Watered Down HIV/AIDS ARVs Were Purchased With Taxpayer Money Through PEPFAR As A Result of Price Agreements, Some of Which Were Likely Negotiated By The Clinton Foundation

·President Clinton Was Personally Enriched With Million Dollar Consulting Contracts By A Friend of Convicted Felon, and Ranbaxy advocate, Rajat Gupta From 2002-2008

https://blackburn.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398055
29392 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 10/22/17 , edited 10/23/17
Americans get taxed to kingdom come when you think about it. Income(federal/state/county), Medicare, sales, property, vehicle registrations, fuel... some states even have a inheritance tax.

Wacky California even wants a carbon tax. The less tax the better I say.
Ejanss 
17137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/22/17 , edited 10/23/17

Rujikin wrote:


Ejanss wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

Tariffs are a very good source of income.


And they, and liquor licenses, were our national income, back when Washington (the president)'s White House had exactly eight people working for it.


Wow was that all Washington had. Man was he efficient.


Hey, handling 13 colonies, and the population exploding to 3 million, weekending back across the river to Mount Vernon in Carriage One, he was a do-er.
16863 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/23/17 , edited 10/24/17
While I guess people really got used to their governments over the last 100 years or so not only nickel and diming them, but cutting from the sides, middle, tops, and bottoms of things, but do individual taxes really make much of a difference when it's businesses that are the money mills of economic growth?
91002 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Louisville, KY
Online
Posted 10/23/17 , edited 10/24/17
I think if taxes are going to be a thing and won't go away, we need to just tax everyone at 15% and have there be no deductions. You pay 15% per check period, no IRS crap, no filling out paperwork, etc. If you made $10.00 an hour, you would bring home $8.50 per hour.
7739 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / Pacific North West
Offline
Posted 10/23/17 , edited 10/24/17

Khaltazar wrote:

I think if taxes are going to be a thing and won't go away, we need to just tax everyone at 15% and have there be no deductions. You pay 15% per check period, no IRS crap, no filling out paperwork, etc. If you made $10.00 an hour, you would bring home $8.50 per hour.


↑ This! Also consider that almost half of the nations income is via income tax. Also instead of trying to get rid of taxes, why not cut govt. spending. Every year the govt wants to spend more and more and yet has little to show for it. The issue with that is where do we cut the $$$ from? If we cut military spending we lose our military superiority. If we cut entitlement programs the needy become more so, if we fire govt. offices that arent really needed we just created job loss.
16863 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/23/17 , edited 10/24/17

DevinKuska wrote:


Khaltazar wrote:

I think if taxes are going to be a thing and won't go away, we need to just tax everyone at 15% and have there be no deductions. You pay 15% per check period, no IRS crap, no filling out paperwork, etc. If you made $10.00 an hour, you would bring home $8.50 per hour.


↑ This! Also consider that almost half of the nations income is via income tax. Also instead of trying to get rid of taxes, why not cut govt. spending. Every year the govt wants to spend more and more and yet has little to show for it. The issue with that is where do we cut the $$$ from? If we cut military spending we lose our military superiority. If we cut entitlement programs the needy become more so, if we fire govt. offices that arent really needed we just created job loss.


You cut entitlement programs and regulatory bodies, while encouraging the private sector to pick up that slack.
7739 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / Pacific North West
Offline
Posted 10/23/17 , edited 10/24/17

gornotck wrote:

You cut entitlement programs and regulatory bodies, while encouraging the private sector to pick up that slack.


I cant say whether that would work or not, as I have no historical model to base an opinion off of. However the issue is those on the entitlement programs will protest it. My point was that no matter what you choose someone is going to cry foul.
16863 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/23/17 , edited 10/24/17

DevinKuska wrote:


gornotck wrote:

You cut entitlement programs and regulatory bodies, while encouraging the private sector to pick up that slack.


I cant say whether that would work or not, as I have no historical model to base an opinion off of. However the issue is those on the entitlement programs will protest it. My point was that no matter what you choose someone is going to cry foul.


Well, yes. Everyone has their pet project or program, and people on the entitlements of course want to stay on the entitlements instead of figuring out how to live on their own two feet, if possible. So you do it anyway, in big bites.

I'm sure you could actually find a historical model. There's certainly one for what's happening with these ever increasing government programs and entitlements, and what comes after.

At the very least, you could reduce the number of staff everyone gets.
You must be logged in to post.