WatchHere's a partial list of what is often referred to as "hidden taxes," none of which were in existence 100 years ago. While looking at this list, can you honestly say we are not paying too much in taxes?
Federal income tax
State tax
property tax
gasoline tax
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Tangible Taxes
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
Follow
Befriend (9)
120 threads
2,591 comments
Burbank, CA
Has anyone seen Iwog? I thought for sure he would post some leftist dribble like: "this idiotic post only proves we (i.e. you) aren't paying your fair share."
Follow
Befriend (48)
273 threads
12,484 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
RayAmerica says
Please stop calling it a solution without quotes. You don't offer a solution, in fact I proved WITH LINKS TO EVERY RELEVANT BUDGETARY ITEM that your "solution" is nothing of the sort. It's an unqualified failure that cannot work and doesn't address the problem at all, yet it's pretty much a match for what all the other Teabaggers are advocating.
My solution is a comprehensive one and actually balances the budget. I want to return our tax rates back to what they were in 1993 and that includes the estate tax. (nothing so radical as 1980, 1970, 1960, or 1950 or as you call it "The American Dark Ages") I want to reform medical care in our country to resemble Canada, where they spend half as much and live two years longer than we do. Finally I want to monetize some of our debt and devalue the dollar in such a way that it redistributes wealth to those who will spend it and create demand and jobs.
Unlike anything you've ever proposed, this would actually work. Furthermore the almost instantaneous improvement to our balance sheet and strong growth in our industry would strengthen the dollar at the same time that controlled devaluation would be weakening it. China has been pursuing this exact same policy and for some strange reason that you could never understand they are NOT turning into Weimar Germany.
THAT is a solution. You don't even comprehend the problem.
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
2,497 comments
iwog says
Really? Then why can I buy dollars so cheaply? As much as a 30% discount from 3 years ago in a lot of currencies other than the Euro (which no one believes is going to survive the disaster that is looming).
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,615 comments
RayAmerica says
Just curious-what exactly do you find fraudulent in the theory? You're not alone in that opinion... Please be specific. See if you can explain it without the use of insults--try something new.
Follow
Befriend (9)
120 threads
2,591 comments
Burbank, CA
tatupu70 says
First, Keynesian economics fails to understand the necessary natural forces in an economy, and therefore attempts to manipulate those forces by the infusion or removal of money from the economy through a variety of means. Economies periodically need to be cleansed of abuses, but with politics, which cannot be separated from Keynesian economics, this is nearly impossible. For example: let's say that an economy is naturally slowing after a prolonged economic expansion. During that expansion, confidence is running high, which further promotes more risk in the way of excessive borrowing that will be used by businesses to expand in order to keep up with the PERCEIVED future demand. During a boom period such as this, all kinds of abuses take place by lenders and borrowers alike (i.e. recent housing bust) because they feel there is "no end in sight" for their prosperity. However, as is always, another business cycle kicks into gear and (for a variety of reasons) the economy begins to slow. If allowed to take its natural course, the economy will go into a recession, which will naturally cleanse the system of the past abuses, and the economy will typically recover to start the slow, natural expansion all over again. Instead of allowing this natural, cleansing process to proceed, the Keynesian (and the administration) determines that the business cycle can be suspended with the infusion of "new" money by lowering interest rates. Why? In order to keep the economy humming along (with all its abuses) during the current administrations term in office. (Nothing spells quicker doom for a leader of a nation than a prolonged, economic downturn with high unemployment, i.e. deep recession). As the economy continues to slide, the Keynesian continues to lower interest rates in order to artificially prop up the falling economy. Japan is the perfect example of this; after a long recession and the real estate bubble, etc. Japan's central bank eventually lowered interest rates to 0%. The economy still did not recover and the recession was therefore prolonged even longer due to the fact that the very abuses that CAUSED the downturn in the first place, remained and were further expanded. In short, Keynesian Economics foolishly attempts to manipulate the natural forces of a free market, which, in the long run, makes the economy that much weaker. The USA is following Japan in lock step fashion. By doing so, we are debasing our currency, increasing our exposure to insurmountable debt, encouraging continued reckless economic behavior, while not solving anything in the process. I could go on, but will stop here .... Does that answer your question?
Follow
Befriend (4)
159 threads
2,826 comments
"...and if you get to cold I'll tax the heat,
cause I'm a Democrat!
Woah oh oh a democrat."
♫♫♫
Follow
Befriend
9 threads
123 comments
So your point is ... that we should have a single tax, ie on income, and nothing else? To simplify things? Personally, I think the way taxes are collected from a variety of sources is fine. I can avoid the cigarette tax by ... not smoking. Same for many of those (IE don't pay your taxes late and you won't get extra charges).
It would be difficult, but this post would be much more interesting if you detailed your own taxes (including all of the above) and presented a total tax rate.
Aside from that, though, I am much more concerned with where my tax dollars are spent. I'd be one happy citizen if every wealthy banker who made a buck off the financial collapse was sent back to square one - with their assets seized and used to repay the debt they helped create. After that, reducing military spending would be my priority.
Follow
Befriend (13)
102 threads
3,759 comments
they'll tax anything they can. As long as you make money, somebody high up wants his piece of your pie.
Follow
Befriend (9)
120 threads
2,591 comments
Burbank, CA
iwog says
Specifically, what cuts would you make ... if any?
Follow
Befriend (9)
120 threads
2,591 comments
Burbank, CA
Obama Administration floats plan to tax the number of miles driven .... I'm not making this up:
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/159397-obama-floats-plan-to-tax-cars-by-the-mile
PS: read the entire article. For those on the Left, that means, don't stop at the Administration's denial of the plan.
Follow
Befriend
35 threads
5,700 comments
Bellingham, WA
Matt.BayArea says
I did the math and I don't think a land value tax can really cover the costs of modern government. . .
Total spending is $6.1T this year.
If we keep FICA and medicare as they are (and we should), actual government is $4.4T/yr. That's $36,000 per household, $3000/mo.
If we get rid of corporate income tax and substitute a flat tax of 10% on our $11T national income, we'd see $1.1T in revenue, leaving a need for $3.3T.
There are 30,000 sq miles of urban land (cities over 100,000), ~20 million acres. Take about half as marginal (untaxable), that leaves ~10 million acres of average urbanity. At a $1M/acre land value and 5% millage, that would be $500B in revenue. Take another 10% -- 2 million acres -- as primo urban land @ $5M/acre, that's another $500B/yr in revenue @ 5% millage.
There are 3.8 million square miles of land in the US, 2.4 billion acres. Take half as marginal (untaxable), and 40% as basic ag land with a $200/acre rent, that would be another $200B in LVT.
The 10% remaining would be interesting, since this is the prime land that has generally quite high valuation. We're talking forests, coastal properties, etc. Perhaps 1% of this 10% -- 2.4 million acres -- is worth $5M/acre, for a tax yield of $300B/yr (at 2.5% millage)
The remaining ~240 million acres might have a valuation of $50,000 acre, at 2.5% pa that would yield another $300B/yr.
So that's $1.8T in LVT. Still need another $1.5T. . . .
Follow
Befriend
9 threads
123 comments
Spoken like a true liberal who never hated a tax (I don't have to pay)? You are one funny man! I know this is the internetz and there is no restriction on who can view this, but I really wonder if he reaches anyone with his .... (I'm trying very hard to keep it clean) ... opinions.
FYI - I happen to pay quite a few taxes:) Including those on the list. And I'm quite happy to - I use so many services that have to be paid for. Why not by me? I use them!
Is this the part where I'm supposed to say some (untrue) broad statement that insults conservatives? Ok, I'll try. Spoken like a typical conservative - wants all the good things of our modern society, but doesn't want to pay for it (let the poor pay with their sweat and blood!)! AND wants to wage war across the world to spread fundamentalist christian idealogy! I'm not very good at this, sorry. I'll practice.
Well, I won't take any more of your time - I know you bloodless-hearted conservatives have to spend most of your time biting the necks of poor children in order to feed your satanic rituals, and I would hate to let hyperbole of any sort get in the way.
PS Sorry to any other conservatives, I didn't mean it.
Follow
Befriend (9)
120 threads
2,591 comments
Burbank, CA
iwog says
Your "solution" is NOT to cut spending because, as you say, it won't provide a "surplus." In true liberal form, your only solution is to raise taxes, without addressing cuts in spending. You fail to understand how ALL governments operate, i.e. that they will ALWAYS spend (eventually) what they take in. Raising taxes is not the answer because government growth will not remain stagnant. With more tax revenue collected, it will simply grow commensurate to that revenue. The beast must be starved and the only way to do that is to cut its revenues in order to force them to live within their means.
Follow
Befriend (48)
273 threads
12,484 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
RayAmerica says
Yeah, except that's total bullshit since I already detailed what I'd do and it includes spending cuts.
Stop making up my positions and actually answer a question for once in your corrupt life. Do you have a solution or not?
Follow
Befriend (9)
120 threads
2,591 comments
Burbank, CA
iwog says
I've stated my solution numerous times on this site.
Follow
Befriend (9)
120 threads
2,591 comments
Burbank, CA
To the above post, Iwog would counter with "just raise taxes." LOL
Follow
Befriend (48)
273 threads
12,484 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
No, I've already answered the above post. If you get everything you want, you still run a $1 trillion rapidly expanding deficit. Your "solution" is a joke and demonstrates the fact that you have no understanding of the problem.
Follow
Befriend (9)
120 threads
2,591 comments
Burbank, CA
iwog says
I got it. Your solution is to keep spending at the levels we are currently at, and raise taxes in order to encourage more government expansion. Of course, in the past, you've also recommended printing fiat money on a massive scale (QE 1, 2, 3, 4, into infinity), so much so, that it would reach YOUR desired HYPERINFLATION. The fact that such a scenario would wipe out all pensions, savings accounts, retired people on fixed incomes, etc. is "collateral damage," right? And then you have the audacity to call my solution a "joke?"
Follow
Befriend (9)
120 threads
2,591 comments
Burbank, CA
iwog says
Utter, complete nonsense. It will do nothing of the sort. QE1 & QE2 has had no such effect as you claim, but, according to your illogical position, let's do more of the same. LOL
Follow
Befriend
6 threads
489 comments
Alameda, CA
Do we pay enough taxes? Obviously not, in comparison to what we spend, which is the only relevant yardstick. Otherwise we wouldn't have a budget deficit. Duh.