Didn't understand this question, but I'd like to so please clarify: "When, exactly, did doing good for society come to equal paying off a gigantic, intrusive, abusive global empire"? Taxes in and of themselves are a "salvo against property rights", if you look at it through your lens. I think the problem that many people have with the current tax code is that it overwhelmingly favors the wealthy via loopholes, a low capital gains tax and a complexity that only someone with means can navigate. Personally, I am all for a flat tax, so long as the wealthy have ZERO way of navigating around it. This means if its a flat 10% (for easy math), you are paying the govt 10% of ALL earnings regardless of weather they are investment driven etc. If you earn 50k a year you will pay 5k in taxes. If you earn 500k in capital gains, you will pay 50k in taxes etc. Currently capital gains are taxed at a 15% rate. This isn't right. The idea that raising this tax will "drive away investment" is false. I'm all for fair and right now, what we have isn't fair. If we must remain in a graduated tax bracket system, then the wealthy need to pay a higher percent. Otherwise, introduce a flat tax that isn't "game-able" and I'm in. (edit) This flat tax would have to be over a poverty line that is higher than what is currently in place.
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/gs6ov/people_are_...
What you're doing is saying "this class of people is treated different than that other class of people because they make less money." It doesn't matter what that number is - you're still dividing a continuum into discrete intervals. Rather than acknowledging that wealth is a spectrum, you're chopping it arbitrarily into "rich" and "poor." Know why US taxes are so retardedly complicated? Tax brackets. Know why the wealthy pay less taxes than you do? Because retardedly complicated systems favor those who can pay professionals to save them money. I don't care where you put that number. Guaranteed, the minute you institute it you'll generate an entire industry dedicated to making it look like their clients are on the shiny side of it.
"Personally, I am all for a flat tax, so long as the wealthy have ZERO way of navigating around it. This means if its a flat 10% (for easy math), you are paying the govt 10% of ALL earnings regardless of weather they are investment driven etc. If you earn 50k a year you will pay 5k in taxes. If you earn 500k in capital gains, you will pay 50k in taxes etc. Currently capital gains are taxed at a 15% rate. This isn't right. The idea that raising this tax will "drive away investment" is false. I'm all for fair and right now, what we have isn't fair. If we must remain in a graduated tax bracket system, then the wealthy need to pay a higher percent. Otherwise, introduce a flat tax that isn't "game-able" and I'm in. (edit) This flat tax would have to be over a poverty line that is higher than what is currently in place." The ONLY way I would ever support such a tax is if it were impossible for the wealthy to falsify there "shine" -as you put it. Is this naive to think it could exist. -Probably. Otherwise, I'm cool with a graduated rate that increases with earnings. I was once at a dinner party and almost everyone at the table was talking about how they wish the govt would simplify the tax code. I say "almost everyone" because the guy next to be spoke up and said, "i hope they make the tax code as complex as they possibly can". -I soon found out he owned a tax software company. Just seems to me the simpler you make it, the harder it would be to cheat it.
But with that said, taxes largely don't go to better society. They go to fund wars, bureaucracies, and into corporate welfare programs - all things which are actively making the world worse. Personally, I equate taxes with theft. It's an issue of principle with me, but I realize not many people go that far. That said, a flat tax would possibly be okay (if not more intrusive), but what would really work is to abolish the income tax and replace it with a national sales tax. But that won't happen because 1) you don't propose a new tax without first doing away with the, otherwise you're bound to end up with both and, 2) what right does the government have to be a part of every single transaction in the country? Personally, I feel we should go back to a volunteer government and no income tax. From a pragmatic POV, it genuinely worked for a long time, and quite frankly, we wouldn't be seeing the amount of corruption we're seeing today.
I don't really have anything substantial to add here; I just wanted to emphasize this point. It is common knowledge that a pathetically small fraction of government money funds education or infrastructure, especially when compared to the amount spent on military. With this understood, I find it unjustifiable to advocate a tax code which aims to funnel even more money (and thus, power) into a system which works against common interest. That said, this whole arguments rests on the premise that a money market economy is necessary or desirable. I disagree with that premise, but that is another argument entirely.
It seems to be any organization, or even agreed lack of organization could fall under this. That said, a flat tax would possibly be okay (if not more intrusive), but what would really work is to abolish the income tax and replace it with a national sales tax. Is there any example of a country that has done this? I personally lean towards a progressive income tax, and that is it. No write-offs, no tax breaks. Just a tax on all income that begins at 0% at the poverty-line, and climbs at the rate of a single order exponential. Government is there because we put it there. However, complexity can lead to autonomous government power through obfuscation. I think libertarian-minded folk would probably find real advances if they attacked government complexity in lieu of government reach. I say this, because ultimately, I think that which makes our government not our own, is primarily rooted in bureaucracy. Personally, I feel we should go back to a volunteer government and no income tax. The US started the income tax in 1812. What would suggest that the first 36 years of US history can be effectively and advantageously applied now? Are there any modern examples? I do think that a limited number of terms in the House and Senate might reduce corruption, however. Also, I don't think that anyone but a citizen should be able to donate to a campaign, and donations can only be made personally, and directly. Campaign funding is elective power. If our government is to serve the citizens, the citizens must control elective power.
How so? Is there any example of a country that has done this? I Not sure, and I can't look it up at the moment. Government is there because we put it there. Well, at least I was born into it. *The US started the income tax in 1812. Not sure where you're getting this date from. 1913 is the date. Which would mean we've had no income tax longer than we've had income tax.
I just meant that you are born into any social situation without choice, whether it is a highly structured government, or an agreed lack of government. Not sure where you're getting this date from. 1913 is the date. Which would mean we've had no income tax longer than we've had income tax. Sorry, I was wrong. This first time a Federal income tax was proposed was during the war of 1812, but it wasn't enacted. The first time it was levied was in 1861 during the Civil War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1861 (signed by the first Republican President, no less!) it expired in 1873. Another income tax was introduced in 1864, but was struck down by the Supreme Court the next year. Then yes, it returned again in 1913.
But given that we're a nation that's in perpetual war (in order to maintain a global empire), I wonder how feasible getting rid of the income tax would be.
I'm not sure when this volunteer government you speak of existed. The tax is theft, libertarian, we should only give what we want to give argument would be threatening to any kind of healthy society if it was any way sustainable, but it's not. As old folks starved to death, disease spread from the break down of public health provisions, poor kids took to the streets committing crimes instead of being in school learning skills to become productive adults, the sky and land became mires of filth, and food became unreliably safe to consume, I feel assured that the decent people of the nation would rise up and kill the anti-social bastards that imposed such a living hell. I think you casually discount all the really fantastic services which the government provides, because you have an over inflated sense of your own value (you don't realize how much of who and what you are is because you have lived in a basically secure and healthy environment). I could be wrong, I don't know you, maybe you are living in Somalia and living it up in libertarian heaven, where you have carved out every good bit of your life by the sweat of your brow.