• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Would you prefer all taxes go away or?

mbsieg

awful member
Platinum Patron
This discussion came up at our coffee break and we've been discussing this for a few weeks. I'm curious to see what your replies are. Scenario

The government ends all taxes tomorrow. Everything is pay per use. Toll roads, school, weather reports, Access to national forests/Blm land. Everything is pay per use. There is no federal government. No military. If somebody tries to invade, everyone takes up arms. It's been a very interesting discussion. I'm curious about your thoughts. And would you want that?
 
I would prefer that we become a Republic (again), one with a minimal NATIONAL government, and minimal NATIONAL regulation, and minimal NATIONAL taxation. Not eliminating all of it. But minimizing it.

As such, if we return to the status of a real Republic, the states would take on take on most of the burden of taxation, most of the burden of regulation, etc.

Returning to a system like this would create even greater divides between states in terms of freedoms, regulations and taxation. People could choose to 'vote with their feet'. People would also be able to voice their concerns about taxes and regulations without having to travel long distances. State capitals, which are typically accessible to the citizens of the various states by a short to modest drive in a car, would become the real sources of power and the people could mass there, objecting or affirming their support without having to take too much time off work, making long advanced travel plans, hotel stays for multiple days, etc.

The more "local" the government is, the more accessible it is to the people. The more accessible it is, the more accountable it is.

So I'd pay roughly 30% of my paycheck in taxes to my state, and roughly 5% to the Federal government. A swap of what we have today. Someone in Illinois, New York or California might pay 45% of their pay to that state. Someone in Michigan maybe 35%. Kentucky may be closer to 25%. Etc Etc Etc. Each state would then provide different levels of 'services' and people could move into or out of the states they perceive to give the best or worst value. We see people migrating for such reasons now, but the more power the federal/national government has, the easier it is to pass national regulations, rules and taxes that 'level' the field, spreading the burdens of some to others across state lines, in a way that is very unaccountable.
 
Just to follow up, the more local the government the more responsive it is.

So I was at a County level meeting once and our US Representative was there, and people were asking him about how to get the roads plowed in the winter.

Our US Rep SHOULD have that was not his job, and he should have said that type of question should be asked of the Township or Country folks. Of course, he, being a bloviating liberal central power elitist, jabbered on about getting more money from Washington allocated to the problems. . . . and he left our district, returned to Washington DC and did nothing about it. And the idiot voters kept him in office until he retired as a senior citizen.
 
This discussion came up at our coffee break and we've been discussing this for a few weeks. I'm curious to see what your replies are. Scenario

The government ends all taxes tomorrow. Everything is pay per use. Toll roads, school, weather reports, Access to national forests/Blm land. Everything is pay per use. There is no federal government. No military. If somebody tries to invade, everyone takes up arms. It's been a very interesting discussion. I'm curious about your thoughts. And would you want that?
I would like to try this. Pay for what you use. My county property taxes are stupid high considering I live on a private road (that they don´t maintain), have a well and septic. I don´t even have kids in school anymore. I haven't seen a police car on my road for probably 10 years and the one time I called the police about tweakers rummaging through a neigbors house under construction it took them 45 minutes to even call me back.

I get nothing from my taxes.
 
I cannot fathom how a no tax no government plan could work.
Who do you pay? If it's local government who would draw the lines where one ends and the other begins. Some locals would get greedy and charge a lot more than others. Other might not want traffic so they charge a lot or close the road. Civil wars would happen. We need federal government just not the monstrosity we currently have. And not the good ole boy system in DC. Cut congressional pay to a minimal amount. Limit terms to limit power.
 
This discussion came up at our coffee break and we've been discussing this for a few weeks. I'm curious to see what your replies are. Scenario

The government ends all taxes tomorrow. Everything is pay per use. Toll roads, school, weather reports, Access to national forests/Blm land. Everything is pay per use. There is no federal government. No military. If somebody tries to invade, everyone takes up arms. It's been a very interesting discussion. I'm curious about your thoughts. And would you want that?
Start with a PRIVATE audit of the government and laying off a LOT Of useless government workers. Then tax us. I say just keep retail taxes because if we do away with the 7% retail tax, Walmart and the rest of the corporations WILL, I repeat WILL raise prices 7%....and maybe more.
 
My plan is right after 12 year term limits for congress!
1st make the government financially responsible to us via balanced budget's.
2nd reasonable low personal flat tax no deductions every one making over $10,000 (that's even negotiable number) this only pays for the armed forces and homeland and border security.
3rd sales tax on everything (so the mob, thugs, and illegal immigrant's pay too)
4th no business taxes (we pay them any way in the price of a product)
5th any "rule" that an agency proposes has to get cost benefit analysis and any ambiguity it go's to the person or corporation not in government's favor. All paid for by the government not the person / corporation.
6th no subsidies to anyone / cooperation from the government.
 
This discussion came up at our coffee break and we've been discussing this for a few weeks. I'm curious to see what your replies are. Scenario

The government ends all taxes tomorrow. Everything is pay per use. Toll roads, school, weather reports, Access to national forests/Blm land. Everything is pay per use. There is no federal government. No military. If somebody tries to invade, everyone takes up arms. It's been a very interesting discussion. I'm curious about your thoughts. And would you want that?
I'm curious as to some of the ideas your group came up with in those few weeks. Please share.
 
we just had this discussion this morning at the fire house
a couple of suggestions that popped up

Dormitory style living for congress and staff single rooms but cafeteria food cooked by the armed forces in training you want a snack there's MRE's. (I think barracks style would be fine with me)
so they don't have to rent or by houses that end up getting paid for buy us, travel is by armed forces training flights on regular scheduled flights (one guy wanted to use C130's and kick them out over their house:eek:)

When you get a hunting license you get asked if you want to register to vote (just like drivers license)
 
This discussion came up at our coffee break and we've been discussing this for a few weeks. I'm curious to see what your replies are. Scenario

The government ends all taxes tomorrow. Everything is pay per use. Toll roads, school, weather reports, Access to national forests/Blm land. Everything is pay per use. There is no federal government. No military. If somebody tries to invade, everyone takes up arms. It's been a very interesting discussion. I'm curious about your thoughts. And would you want that?
No military is unfathomable to me.
In a revolutionary type war we could take care of business. In todays world shotguns, AR-15s, 30-30's etc are not going to stop jets, helicoperts, tanks and organized armies of other nations. We could put up a fight, Shoot at them sniper style but I can't imagine stopping any invasion with simply our civilian weapons.
 
Simple math yes, but really?
The USA Budget for 2024 was 6.8 trillion dollars.
The average income per person this year is $63,214.
This means the average American is paying just the Federal government a whooping 32.6% of their income in some form of taxes, direct and indirectly.

INSANE!!!!
 
Last edited:
This discussion came up at our coffee break and we've been discussing this for a few weeks. I'm curious to see what your replies are. Scenario

The government ends all taxes tomorrow. Everything is pay per use. Toll roads, school, weather reports, Access to national forests/Blm land. Everything is pay per use. There is no federal government. No military. If somebody tries to invade, everyone takes up arms. It's been a very interesting discussion. I'm curious about your thoughts. And would you want that?
No, I think taxes as moderate as possible are good.
It is the fact that they should be abolished for low wage earners and the rich should get taxed a lot more.
Unfortunately it is necessary for a imperfect society.
I am on a pension for illness that is probably paid out of some people's taxes and I'm not ashamed.
Do you think it means I should be ashamed of feel less?
I do not because I do not believe anyone should be treated as less.
And also I think it must seem rubbish to people who work hard but...
It is also probably because they get taxed too high and the government will probably use them for stupidity.
 
It is the fact that they should be abolished for low wage earners and the rich should get taxed a lot more.
From the Tax Foundation, data from 2021

Screenshot 2024-10-19 at 7.02.22 AM.png

The Top 1% of income earners pay 26.3% of ALL income taxes.
The Top 10% pay over 50% off ALL income taxes.
The Top 25% of income earners pay 89.2% of ALL income taxes.
The Top 50% pay nearly 98.% of ALL income taxes.

At which level would you charge A LOT MORE taxes to? And how much more would you charge them?


The government is collected RECORD INCOME but is spending in even larger amounts. Maybe it is not a matter of needing to raise taxes, maybe we need to take a butcher's knife to the spending side of the equation?
 
How about ONE tax and that would anything we buy.
And something in our constitution where we vote on YEARLY on politicians' and everyone in governments' pay raises and of course, they cannot vote on it. It should be one choice from, say, PLUS 5% to MINUS 5%....so, +1% or -1%. It would keep people involved because it's their money.
Obviously, we need something in there to keep anyone in the government accepting any money or anything else from corporations, other countries or anywhere else......One day in prison for every dollar or equivalent to a dollar.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Doc
How about ONE tax and that would anything we buy.
And something in our constitution where we vote on YEARLY on politicians' and everyone in governments' pay raises and of course, they cannot vote on it. It should be one choice from, say, PLUS 5% to MINUS 5%....so, +1% or -1%. It would keep people involved because it's their money.
Obviously, we need something in there to keep anyone in the government accepting any money or anything else from corporations, other countries or anywhere else......One day in prison for every dollar or equivalent to a dollar.
sales tax is the most fair distribution but they would never go for it because it would get rid of or reduce drastically the IRS (not that would be a problem in my mind)
 
One thing we should do is explain taxes. How the funds are created, collected by our governments, and from whom.
Not all taxes collected are directly from the citizen consumer. Many tax revenues take a curious and deceptive route to the government treasuries.
50% of social security supposedly comes from employers. It supposed goes into a special isolated fund. Actually, it is money employers could give their employees directly or put back into business growth securing employee futures. Instead it has become a slush fund our elected officials rob with impunity and spend.

Big Corporations and the wealthy supposedly should pay more and we would call it their "fair share." Actually, they simply collect more from consumers, lowering profits, hampering competiveness, and in reality, are simply collecting more to send to the government to spend.

When it comes to tax revenues, if they, the government have it, they will spend it. If they don't have it, they will borrow it. Until we reign in spending to the essentials our Founders considered the responsibility or a sane government, (Provide for national defense, & promote the general welfare etc.), our elected officials will continue to deceive and rob us of the fruits and spoils of our labor.

And swear it is for our own good.

To the subject of this thread, I believe taxes should be collected directly from the exchange of value for labour, consumer purchases, and military. Plus, reasonable community services ie; Police, Fire, schools and infrastructure construction and maintenance.
Sales taxes, and yes, property taxes on real property to support local government, seem reasonable avenues.

Our government should consider working with charitable organizations instead of competing and regulating them. End the monolithic welfare systems that are full of corruption, abuse, and waste. Americans, as a whole, may well spend as much on welfare programs as they do no but it would be by choice, not mandate. And those in need would get better served as well.

Currently, every American taxpayer is on the hook for close to $265,000 thanks to the reckless borrowing, and spending, practices of our elected officials. There seems to be no end in sight for this approach of tax spend. Time for change or we will go down.

Question?
Can the US government fille a chapter 7?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doc
For now, I will settle for a Trump win and the appointment of Elon Musk (the smartest guy in the world) as some sort of spending Czar.

With no hard facts to back up my assertion, I gotta believe having someone like Musk performing his duties as a wasteful spending nazi will save us hundreds of billions of dollars a year if not more.

Small steps, but smart steps.
 
For now, I will settle for a Trump win and the appointment of Elon Musk (the smartest guy in the world) as some sort of spending Czar.

With no hard facts to back up my assertion, I gotta believe having someone like Musk performing his duties as a wasteful spending nazi will save us hundreds of billions of dollars a year if not more.

Small steps, but smart steps.
I have the same hope.
Musk and Trump will need a willing Congress to get anything like that done.
 
Just to toss a little more information into this pool of ideals here is a CNBC article about a Trump plan.

The article mentions nothing about cutting spending. But does suggest that Trumps plan, at least as it is now, can't cover his tax cuts. Trump further asserts that his TARIFFS would result in new jobs for America because it would effectively force companies to 're-shore' factories from overseas or build new factories here. Maybe I missed it but I don't see that in the article. Further, the article says that it will raise prices that ultimately get passed to consumers, which can be true, but is negated by the idea that the tariffs would create job and move factories back to the US.




Former President Donald Trump’s tax reform ideas could offer total or partial income tax exemptions to roughly 93.2 million Americans, a meaningful chunk of the U.S. electorate, according to CNBC’s analysis of several estimates.
As part of his economic pitch to voters, Trump has floated a sweeping tax overhaul, including a slate of income tax breaks.
So far, the Republican presidential nominee has officially proposed eliminating income tax on tips and Social Security benefits, along with overtime pay. And last week, in an interview on the sports media site OutKick, Trump said he would consider tax exemptions for firefighters, police officers, military personnel and veterans.
These exemptions are part of Trump’s larger vision to transition away from the income tax system and replace it with the revenue he says would be generated by his hardline tariff proposals.
“In the old days when we were smart, when we were a smart country, in the 1890s and all, this is when the country was relatively the richest it ever was. It had all tariffs. It didn’t have an income tax,” Trump said at a sit-down with voters in New York on Friday for “Fox & Friends.” “Now we have income taxes, and we have people that are dying.”
Trump has pledged to impose a 20% universal tariff on all imports from all countries with a specific 60% rate for Chinese imports.
Tax experts reject the notion that tariff revenue could offset the losses incurred by eliminating income taxes.
“The math doesn’t work out,” Garrett Watson, a senior policy analyst at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, told CNBC.
He said Trump’s tariffs would raise approximately $3.8 trillion over the next decade, far less than the roughly $33 trillion of estimated revenue generated by income taxes over the same period.
Given that tariffs are paid by U.S. importers and those costs have historically been passed on to consumers, Trump’s strategy appears to be based around a notion of replacing income tax revenue with a kind of invisible sales tax.
Tariffs, much like sales tax and other point-of-sale costs, tend to have the biggest impact on low-income consumers, for whom the amounts represent proportionately larger slices of their monthly budgets.
If implemented, Trump’s income tax exemptions could affect tens of millions of taxpayers.
Roughly 68 million Americans receive Social Security benefits each month, according to the Social Security Administration. And in 2023, about 4 millionworkers were in tipped jobs, according to an estimate from Yale University’s Budget Lab.
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs approximated in March 2023 that there were 18.6 million living veterans. There are 1.3 million active-duty military personnel, according to the Department of Defense. And there are 800,000 sworn law enforcement officers and roughly 500,000 paid firefighters.
Taken together, these reforms could leave about 93.2 million people off the hook for at least a portion, if not all, of their income taxes. . . .
 
Just to toss a little more information into this pool of ideals here is a CNBC article about a Trump plan.

The article mentions nothing about cutting spending. But does suggest that Trumps plan, at least as it is now, can't cover his tax cuts. Trump further asserts that his TARIFFS would result in new jobs for America because it would effectively force companies to 're-shore' factories from overseas or build new factories here. Maybe I missed it but I don't see that in the article. Further, the article says that it will raise prices that ultimately get passed to consumers, which can be true, but is negated by the idea that the tariffs would create job and move factories back to the US.




Former President Donald Trump’s tax reform ideas could offer total or partial income tax exemptions to roughly 93.2 million Americans, a meaningful chunk of the U.S. electorate, according to CNBC’s analysis of several estimates.
As part of his economic pitch to voters, Trump has floated a sweeping tax overhaul, including a slate of income tax breaks.
So far, the Republican presidential nominee has officially proposed eliminating income tax on tips and Social Security benefits, along with overtime pay. And last week, in an interview on the sports media site OutKick, Trump said he would consider tax exemptions for firefighters, police officers, military personnel and veterans.
These exemptions are part of Trump’s larger vision to transition away from the income tax system and replace it with the revenue he says would be generated by his hardline tariff proposals.
“In the old days when we were smart, when we were a smart country, in the 1890s and all, this is when the country was relatively the richest it ever was. It had all tariffs. It didn’t have an income tax,” Trump said at a sit-down with voters in New York on Friday for “Fox & Friends.” “Now we have income taxes, and we have people that are dying.”
Trump has pledged to impose a 20% universal tariff on all imports from all countries with a specific 60% rate for Chinese imports.
Tax experts reject the notion that tariff revenue could offset the losses incurred by eliminating income taxes.
“The math doesn’t work out,” Garrett Watson, a senior policy analyst at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, told CNBC.
He said Trump’s tariffs would raise approximately $3.8 trillion over the next decade, far less than the roughly $33 trillion of estimated revenue generated by income taxes over the same period.
Given that tariffs are paid by U.S. importers and those costs have historically been passed on to consumers, Trump’s strategy appears to be based around a notion of replacing income tax revenue with a kind of invisible sales tax.
Tariffs, much like sales tax and other point-of-sale costs, tend to have the biggest impact on low-income consumers, for whom the amounts represent proportionately larger slices of their monthly budgets.
If implemented, Trump’s income tax exemptions could affect tens of millions of taxpayers.
Roughly 68 million Americans receive Social Security benefits each month, according to the Social Security Administration. And in 2023, about 4 millionworkers were in tipped jobs, according to an estimate from Yale University’s Budget Lab.
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs approximated in March 2023 that there were 18.6 million living veterans. There are 1.3 million active-duty military personnel, according to the Department of Defense. And there are 800,000 sworn law enforcement officers and roughly 500,000 paid firefighters.
Taken together, these reforms could leave about 93.2 million people off the hook for at least a portion, if not all, of their income taxes. . . .

Tariffs, much like sales tax and other point-of-sale costs, tend to have the biggest impact on low-income consumers, for whom the amounts represent proportionately larger slices of their monthly budgets.

Yes but the tugs and drug king pins don't pay taxes and they by stuff so I'm all for sales tax no loopholes other than like prescriptions and medical devices.
Tariffs in the short term will hit everyone in the pocket until products are rehomed.
I don't see that happening too soon we cant get enough people at the plant I worked at and are rotating shutting down machines for "manpower issues" they keep raising the starting wages and benefits at day 1 but its not filling the plant, and causing disgruntlement with the senior people not getting raises comparable to starting raises. so senior people are leaving for more money elsewhere.
My project got done last week and i've had 2 head hunters contact me to come to work I'm seriously compilating one of them my age (68) didn't seem to affect selection.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doc
Tariffs, much like sales tax and other point-of-sale costs, tend to have the biggest impact on low-income consumers, for whom the amounts represent proportionately larger slices of their monthly budgets.

Yes but the tugs and drug king pins don't pay taxes and they by stuff so I'm all for sales tax no loopholes other than like prescriptions and medical devices.
Tariffs in the short term will hit everyone in the pocket until products are rehomed.
I don't see that happening too soon we cant get enough people at the plant I worked at and are rotating shutting down machines for "manpower issues" they keep raising the starting wages and benefits at day 1 but its not filling the plant, and causing disgruntlement with the senior people not getting raises comparable to starting raises. so senior people are leaving for more money elsewhere.
My project got done last week and i've had 2 head hunters contact me to come to work I'm seriously compilating one of them my age (68) didn't seem to affect selection.
True, but the Trump tariffs are very targeted at the products from the nations that tariff our goods. So reciprocal tariffs, not broad tariffs.
 
Top