Taxes?

[Bunnykid68]

Nevada, Florida and Tennessee have no State income taxes. They have sales tax rates around 9% and it seems to work.

 

[oldfb]

One flaw about privatized anything is that anything that works and is cost efficient our government feels the need to tax and step in to protect us from the monopoly and evil privateers.

Insurance has been abused by both the insurer and insured so big gavernment has stepped in to protect us all.

Back in the day there were endowments where people paid into insurance policies to cover things like education and weddings and other things. If you died early your benefit paid. If you lived you still got the benefit After the term ended. During the term of the policy which you paid premiums which the insurer used for investments to make money for the insurance company.

Well it worked but our government did not like the fact that if you did not die it became a tax free investment or savings plan since you got more out than you paid in.

The government solution was to tax the return or pay off so much that it was no longer a working strategy.

Eventually the big government would tax that private bridge to the point that no one could afford to use it.

They are so corrupted now that without a broom to sweep them all away nothing will succeed. IMHO

 

[dross]

OK... you skipped the single largest bucket, but that's fine... I didn't need to fix it, but did anyway.

So we agree... great.



OK. I made my point. Now you want me to answer your point... ?

What does that even mean?

The point I wanted you to address is that military spending as a percentage of budget is near the smallest it's been since WWII. The implications of that point are that the size of military spending is certainly arguable, it's not the reason we're in a budget crisis. If it were, we would have been in a much larger budget crisis from 1945 to 1993.

There's a myth out there that our deficits were caused by the events post 911, and that's simply not the case. Yes, it all adds to the cost, but the items I mentioned, entitlements and interest dwarf the military budget.

 

[bambek]

Our tax code is a joke. I favor a tax system where even career criminals who purchase stuff pay taxes.

 

[steepo17]

I always hear everyone * about taxes. I hate them as much as anyone else but do realize they are a necessary evil to live in the state we live. We have to have roads, we have to have bridges, and we have to have schools and infrastructure. I do not mind paying taxes so these things can exist. I do not want to pay taxes for entitlement type spending such as wlefare living, etc., etc.

My question is, we all hate property taxes and income taxes, so how do we collect a tax to pay for the things we can't as individuals or even small communities afford?

Sin taxes are out because they are just stupid. Would a sales tax even come close to what is needed and would it drive off purchases and encourage a more do it/build it yourself society?

I believe property taxes are unconstitutional - technically we all just rent our land from the government. If we don't pay, our property is sold by the government. Sales tax is okay, but there are some trade-offs (loopholes in which they can be avoided). The way to go is a flat tax that everyone, at all income levels, pay. We all live in this country and should pay our fair share - no one should be exempt. Just like I tell my kids, something earned is much more appreciated than something received for nothing. With a simple flat tax (federal & state) at 10-12% (no capital gains) and a constitutional amendment for balanced spending, we would be out of our deficit in no time.

 

[bigus_D]

The point I wanted you to address is that military spending as a percentage of budget is near the smallest it's been since WWII. The implications of that point are that the size of military spending is certainly arguable, it's not the reason we're in a budget crisis. If it were, we would have been in a much larger budget crisis from 1945 to 1993.

There's a myth out there that our deficits were caused by the events post 911, and that's simply not the case. Yes, it all adds to the cost, but the items I mentioned, entitlements and interest dwarf the military budget.

While I agree that the entitlement programs are a major drain and should be largely eliminated, I don't believe your statement is entirely true.

Look at the following chart:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/PerCapitaInflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG

You can see that miliatry spending has increased over the past 10 years.

Military spending accounts for nearly a quarter of the budget (2009) and should be included on any discusion of the national debt situation.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7a/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

To say that events post 911 haven't contributed to the deficit is a lie (as is saying that these events are the sole reason for it). I think we can agree on that.

 

[mrjarrell]

Also, do not forget that the CBO has reported that the costs of the Iraq/Afghan wars is over $1 Trillion now. That's defence spending and nothing else. Just because they don't lump it in doesn't make it any less a military item. They were the beneficiaries.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Also, do not forget that the CBO has reported that the costs of the Iraq/Afghan wars is over $1 Trillion now. That's defence spending and nothing else. Just because they don't lump it in doesn't make it any less a military item. They were the beneficiaries.

I hope you never have cause to realize that you were a "beneficiary" as well.

 

[bigus_D]

I hope you never have cause to realize that you were a "beneficiary" as well.

What are you talking about, I just filled up my truck's gas tank today.

 

[$mooth]

The simplest solution would be for the taxpayers to stop allowing the expenditures for those who choose to smoke. I.e. If you choose to smoke, that's your option, but when you get sick because of it, it's not our responsibility to pay for the result of your choices.

Blessings,
Bill

Even though I despise smoking, I've read some well written papers on how smokers are actually less of a drain on insurance companies than non-smokers. The reason here is that smokers generally cost more, but die early (say 125% for 60yrs). On the other hand non-smokers live longer and burden the system (100% for 80yrs).

**I just picked those numbers out of thin air to show an example. The studies I've read up use factual numbers.

 

[mrjarrell]

I hope you never have cause to realize that you were a "beneficiary" as well.

Yeah, 'cause the Iraqi army was poised to invade us. As was the Taliban.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Whenever you analyze government spending, you need to account for off-budget spending, including appropriations, and overruns.

Posting a pie graph of the budget is a bit misleading.

However, it does give a good general idea of how the money is spent.

Also, there are several parts of the government that are officially denied to be in existence (such as Delta), and their spending doesn't show up in any report.

CIA black ops spending is also off the books.

 

[Fletch]

Yeah, 'cause the Iraqi army was poised to invade us. As was the Taliban.

They had amphibious landing craft right off the coast of San Diego. And paratroopers launching out of Nicaragua.

 

[dross]

While I agree that the entitlement programs are a major drain and should be largely eliminated, I don't believe your statement is entirely true.

Look at the following chart:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/PerCapitaInflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG

You can see that miliatry spending has increased over the past 10 years.

Military spending accounts for nearly a quarter of the budget (2009) and should be included on any discusion of the national debt situation.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7a/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

To say that events post 911 haven't contributed to the deficit is a lie (as is saying that these events are the sole reason for it). I think we can agree on that.

As a percentage of the budget, military spending dropped below 20% for the first time since WWII in 1994, the year we made massive cuts as part of the Cold War drawdown. It didn't get back above 20% until 2007. Currently, it's about 21%, which is lower than any other time since WWII, except in the years from 1994 to 2007.

Now, does the military budget add to the deficit - yes, as does everything in the budget. Yet the military budget is at least an exercise of legitimate federal power, while entitlements are not.

Also, we are going to spend some amount for defense. How much? I don't know a reasonable amount and most likely neither do you. When all other types of spending are up record breaking amounts, and defense is the lowest it's been in 65 years with the exception of thirteen years, defense doesn't to me seem to be the part to pick on, unless that's your particular axe to grind.

How much should we spend on defense? If the answer is "none", you've got 21% you can save. If the answer is "some" that must be determined. So let's go with our lowest year ever since WWII., 1999, when spending was 16% or so of the total budget. Okay, then, perhaps we can save 5% of the budget with less military spending. Maybe you think that number should be lower, I don't know. But if we cut entitlements completely over time, and reduce the debt, we could cut the budget by 50%, or 60%.

I think you get my point.

As to whether the Afghan and Iraq wars were legitimate and necessary, I think they were, but that's an argument for another forum.

 

[bigus_D]

Okay, then, perhaps we can save 5% of the budget with less military spending. Maybe you think that number should be lower, I don't know. But if we cut entitlements completely over time, and reduce the debt, we could cut the budget by 50%, or 60%.

I think you get my point.

Agreed

As to whether the Afghan and Iraq wars were legitimate and necessary, I think they were, but that's an argument for another forum.

Also agreed.

 

[dross]

Agreed



Also agreed.

How are we going to stretch this out over several more pages and get to the name-calling if you go and do that?

 

[chraland51]

I do not mind paying taxes for the necessities of being a country and a state and a county. I do, however, resent very much the misuse of my money by our elected officials. I could go on all day in providing a list of what I consider to be misuses on at least the federal level. It is like none of them know that we are in a very serious recession and worse times may very well be just around the corner. Yet our idiot officials think that we can spend and tax our way out of this situation. Everything that a consumer needs just keep going up and up in price. I have tightened my belt several times, but there is only so much belt tightening one can do before difficult decisions have to be made regarding some of the necessities of life. I try to live by the philosophy of pay my bills first and then live on what is left. Unless the bammer and his idiots ease up a little with redistributing my wealth, I might have to alter my thinking a little.

 

[jsgolfman]

If you don't resent all taxes, then you have no right to complain about any taxes. If you say they a right to any of your wages, they have a right to ALL of your wages.

 

[bigus_D]

If you don't resent all taxes, then you have no right to complain about any taxes.

I'm not sure I understand your logic. If I'm fine paying a tax on gas because it goes directly to funding the road I drive on, that doesn't mean I'm fine paying a tax on my property... My logic would let me complain about the property tax and not be resentful of the gas tax. (for discussion purposes only...)

If you say they a right to any of your wages, they have a right to ALL of your wages.

Again, the logic of this escapes me. If I say they can have 1%, then because of this, they can have 100%...? I guess I should just send the IRS a letter telling them they don't have the right to any of my wages, then I'll be scott free. I think some people have tried that in the past... didn't work out so well if I recall.

 

[Fletch]

Again, the logic of this escapes me. If I say they can have 1%, then because of this, they can have 100%...? I guess I should just send the IRS a letter telling them they don't have the right to any of my wages, then I'll be scott free. I think some people have tried that in the past... didn't work out so well if I recall.

It's the difference between giving and taking. You say you'd gladly give them 1%. You don't get the chance to, because they're taking it whether you like it or not. Once you accept that they have the supposed moral authority to take a little bit, you have no moral defense against them taking the whole thing. If a thief sticks a gun in your face and demands $20, but you would have given him $20 if he'd asked nicely, does that mean you weren't robbed?