I dont want to be bashed to death but I want to ask this question.

Well to tell you the truth I dont think there should be taxes. America was created by poeple that didnt want to be taxed by England and they didnt want taxes in America. The government was able to make money without taxing. But as time went on the government started to tax but this time the Americans didnt protest they allowed it. America went to war with england over a 2% tax Im shure there were manny other reasons also. Now Americans are being taxed over 20% maybe even over 30%. I believe the government has the power to find another way to fund itself. is there a reason that the government is doing exacly what it said it would not do? if so tell BJ he would like to know. Why did the government start taxing? why not get rid of taxes?

*Damn you Bryant...I just started a thread on Business Taxes 10 minutes ago*

Yes. tax me.

Vive le democratically elected socialism

*Shakes fist at Bj*

lol yeah I made this thread after reading yours

also why be taxed if americans were never suposed to taxed in the first place?

I beg to differ. Do you mind pointing out where you heard Americans were not supposed to be taxed. Americans were suppose to have religious freedom, and during the Revolution, not be taxed by the British. But never have I heard they weren't supposed to be taxed period.

I might be mistaken, but i have my own understanding of property and land settlement on this country, and taxing is part of what added value to its ownership.

I notice you haven't voted in the poll yet. What do you think?

-Dolce

Is it ok if i get back to you on this Ive got a lot of research to do 8) and Im going to delete the poll its not fit for the tipe of question I asked :wink: I do know that americans can not be taxed unless they agree with it though says that in the constitution.

dolcevita do you know how to delete polls?

a) For americans not be be taxed, the government must find a way to do everything that it does through an independant source of income (your military, streets, making new govt buildings blah blah blah, which mind you, is all there to serve the people, not the government)

b) This would lead to a decrease in privatisation. Government will have to put a lot of things into the public sector

c) From what I understand about Americans, thats a big no no.

d) Ofcourse there are a lot more things that should be considered in the argument as well. I just wanted to outline the most basic thing.

e) Only alternative left? taxes. The whole theory that the tax money collected goes back to serve the public. If the british collected it, wouldnt it go to serve britain?

can a mod delete the poll for me there is no need for it.

your right baba and you to dolcevita I have not set up a good enough agument

America wasn't created on the basis of tax reform, that was just one issue among many. America's independence was mainly just a natural coming of age.

If you want to live in a libertarian paradise of low/no taxes and widespread gun ownership, go visit Somalia or Columbia. Or even within America, its the poorer states like Tennessee that have low taxes while the prosperous states like NY have more. Why is this? Because the tax revenue results in infrastructure investment (highways, schools, police etc), and that creates the security and stability that allows civilization and serious prosperity to happen.

Can we please please please please be a little more educated than this?

Yes, there used to be no federal income tax in the U.S. The government used to fund itself through tariffs. Now, between tariffs and income taxes, I choose taxes hands down. However, that doesn't mean that taxes have to be this high. Right not, the federal government spends about 15% of the GDP on itself - 2 trillion dollars a year. That is an insanely high amount. There's no reason for it (unless, like dolcevita, you want to live under communism :-P).

Another source of government funding could be the government issuing more currency, thus inreasing inflation, and basically devaluing dollar on the constant basis. That could work, if the government spending was in low single digits as a percentage of the GDP. Right now, though, that would be insane.

It's not like the govt spending is all wasted, it gets poured back into the economy. And the government spending helps business by providing stability. Case in point: the flu shots. If the govt had spent more money on this instead of relying on the free market, there would be enough shots, fewer deaths, less time loss to sick leave and in general a help to the business community. There are many things that help businesses that the free markets won't do because there's no immediate profit in it.

It would take me 72 hours to reply to this verbally much less type it in a forum. Begin rant:

Yes there should be taxes. But there are far too many of them and in general the system is so repleat with loopholes it is literally a waste of time for everyone except those employed by keeping it in place: CPA's, Tax Attorneys and 600K employees of the IRS.

It consistently penalizes the wrong people and people always claim to give breaks to "the rich". If you earn $100K are you "rich"?

For Example:
My wages are taxed before I ever see the money
A certain percentage is Social Security, but that money really isnt there, and the money they take from me really doesnt go "there", and I will have to deal with that problem later in my life..
Continuing... If I put money from my paycheck in a Bank the interest is taxed, so I am in effect penalized for saving my own money and taxed upon money which I kept which I was already taxed on!
When I go fill up my car, with after tax earnings I am taxed yet again, there is a treasure trove of taxes on gasoline, why? where does it go? It didnt seem to reduce our dependence on Foreign oil. As a matter of fact none of these taxes collected seem to go where there a supposed to go. Secondly if I own a "business" the gas I am buying is now deductible but yours isnt. ha ha. If I go to the store and buy normal household items I pay a sales tax, so I am taxed on "necessities" to my existence, forget luxury items. You pay a consumption tax in after tax dollars so you are in effect taxed twice.
Now if I die whatever is in my bank account will go to my children, and guess what, YES, they will be taxed on savings of money that was already taxed. Why is that. But if I have life insurance, well thats exempt from the Tax code, life insurance has its own special loophole. Corporations lobby for special exemptions, loopholes and offshore anomalies, it happens everyday. Because the system is so useless and complex people go to great lengths to "hide their money".
Lastly, and while I agree in principle with the different tax brackets. In America we do not discriminate on basis of sex, race, creed, color, or religion further it is against the law to discriminate on any those factors. But we can discriminate on earnings if you earn $25K per year we'll tax you at 11% but if you earn $71K we'll tax you at 30%. These people breathe the same air, drive on the same roads, etc should the burden be triple? on the second guy?


End of 1st rant.
Politicians and Citizen need to come to a new reality, you want more cops, more teachers and new roads, fine what are you cutting from the existing budget? Economics 101. 5 + 5 does not = 12

Wrong conclusion. There are sources of government income other than taxation.

You mean increase, not decrease.

No, it's a big "yes, yes".

Tax money collected is SUPPOSED to serve the public, but it only does so with a 40% efficiency. Meaning that for every dollar the government collects, only 40 cents go back to the public.

Your economy is doing badly enough WITH taxing people. Cut the taxes completely and you'll turn into the next Germany.

Free market in the flu shots? That's a new one. Try "excess regulation that drove most domestic manufacturers out of business".

Are you seriously suggesting that American economy is doing badly? Or that it is doing badly because there is not enough taxes??

I do suggest that America's economy is doing badly and I will stick to that. But not because there are not enough taxes. This is not where America's problem is. Their GDP is actually fine at the moment. Something that cannot be said about the balance between the export and the import and the immensly growing indebtedness of the country.

The balance of trade has nothing to do with the health of the economy.

The U.S. has been running a current account deficit for the past 25 years without any problem.

Here is how it is able to accomplish it: we print a piece of paper that costs us four cents, and buy goods worth $100 for that piece of paper abroad. In 90% of the time those pieces of paper do not come to the U.S.

As for the debt, yes it is a problem, but it doesn't mean that the economy is doing badly. It means that the government needs to curtail its spending.

And here we go again...

The balance of trade plays an important role in conomy of a country. There are 4 things that do:

Price stability, a high level of employment, balance of payments equilibrium, and steady and adequate economic growth.

Balance between import and export belongs to the balance of payments equilibrium. Therefore it is important for economy.

The American economic growth is steady, that is true. But it is achieved thanks to the growing indebtedness. Curtail the spendings? Well, how exactly do you suggest to do that?

(off-topic: Are you still coming to Deutschland for Christmas?)

Well, I see where you are coming from, but only because I know that the responsibilities you assign to government control are much less than mine. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but you think the federal government should [i]only[/i[ be responsible for things impossible to handle by individual communities. Military, global diplomacy, etc. Should that be the case, than yes, the governemnt would need less money, hence tax less. I don't argue that point.

Its a personal understanding that there's no way to start at square one, and that the disparity between conditions in individual communities is so large right now that there's no way for the government to just pull out and say "fend for yourselves guys." In light of that, I believe there should be more intervention, hence more of a need for available funds, so, higher taxes.

I'd live with $500 less cash in hand if it meant single-payer health care, good schools for everyone, and a push towards better public infrastructure all over the country.

-Dolce

An important piece of the analysis that you are missing is the fact that the U.S. is the most popular place for the world to invest money into. That severely skews the balance of trade number.

Current account deficit in and of itself is neither good or bad. It is merely a reflection of the patterns of trade and investment. The fact that the U.S. has been running a current account deficit for the past 25 years and is still the strongest economy in the world severely undermines your argument.

That's a myth. The reason why America's economy si growing is because of the solid fundamentals: low barriers to entry in the marketplace, virtually non-existant barriers to trade, highly skilled workforce and low government regulation. Government spending is a factor in the economy, no doubt, but nowhere near to the point that you're suggesting.

And lowering government spending is easy: you just have to make unpopular decisions and cut off funding to special interest groups. Nobody's willing to do it, though

Ah, Deutschland Deutschland Uber Alles!

I'm not sure yet, I'll know in a month or so.

ARGH! I typed up a long reposnse and it was deleted. Now I am mad! :x :x :x

Anyway, I'll post the short version:


1. For how long will the USA stay the, by far, most popular place to invest? Chinese GDP is growing by over 7-8% yearly. It will soon become a very popular place to invest. The deficit will pay off one day, trust me.

2. I don't want to get deep into this, as I am too frustrated by my post being deleted. However, the government spendings play a much more important role in the growth of the GDP than you think. It is a basis for the economy. I mean, c'mon, highly skilled work-force? Sure, but the wages are lower in China

3. Well, you state yourself that the spending will never be curtailed. No politician will make unpopular decisions, they all want their share of the cake.

4. Let me know if you decide to come to our Reich.

Another problem with deficit numbers is that yes the defecit grows and grows each year from say 90 billion one year to 110 the next year.

But please understand also that the difference compared to inflation is liveable. It is not some horrid ammount that will kill the economy.

The US has experienced job growth in 13 strait months. Inflation is right where it needs to be. Unemployment rate is very low, yes it is not as low as under clinton, but under clinton we saw some of the lowest unemployment ever (internet anyone). If you look at the unemployment rate now vs history ... it is very low.

All signs point up up and away.

KJ

dolce the problem with schools is not the lack of funding; it is the lack of accountability. We have discussed this before, but let me point out this fact to you again: on average, a private school charges half as much per pupil in tuition than a public school takes in taxes from the government. And private schools manage to make profit too.

Think about it this way: the three industries that you mentioned as problematic (education, health care and transportation) are all areas that the government chose to regulate heavily.

Doesn't that tell you something?