Fair tax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luvmylabs23139

Not really a fair tax. Why should I pay more to the gooberment, even though I use less services, just because I happen to have a higher disposable income???
A per head tax taxes everyone for their use of services. I am sick and tired of paying for other people who use more services than I do. I do not believe in socialism or redistribution of income. My husband and I busted our butts to get we we are with no parental or gov't help as did our parents. Right now our reward for our hard work is a penalty. Bust your ass, work hard, live well within yor means, and as a result the gooberment will take it away from you and give it to some lay around good for nothing, multiplying like a rabbit piece of garbage.

---

The VAT is a consumption based tax, not an income tax. If you consume, you pay. If you don't consume, you pay nothing.

I salute your the enterprise and success. However, the truth is that we are ALL subsidized by government in one way or another.

I suppose you don't like the government spending money on trips overseas with the Army to shoot up bad guys at taxpayers expense? You don't want the government to give to assist a medical student? You don't want the government supporting your local hospital? You don't want government giving out family planning info so that poor people won't be 'multiplying like a rabbit piece of garbage."? You don't want to pay for police services? You don't want that inexpensive piece of lumber raised at government expense in national forests? You want to pay a toll to a private company to use a turnpike? How about paying $25 to a private concessionaire to hold a picnic in a national forest site like several sites I saw in Colorado?

Taxes are no damn fun to pay. I am not advocating that we spend even a thin dime of taxpayer's money recklessly. But if you demand the services then pay up. Don't destroy your children's future with a mortgage financed by the Chinese.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zeus3925

The VAT is a consumption based tax, not an income tax. If you consume, you pay. If you don't consume, you pay nothing.

---

If you believe this to be a good method & I think there are several countries that do this, please enlighten us as to where those countries are better off than we are.

Quote:

---

I salute your the enterprise and success. However, the truth is that we are ALL subsidized by government in one way or another.

---

There are services only the government can handle that were contained in the original documents. I would not consider those any sort of subsidy.

Quote:

---

I suppose you don't like the government spending money on trips overseas with the Army to shoot up bad guys at taxpayers expense? You don't want the government to give to assist a medical student? You don't want the government supporting your local hospital? You don't want government giving out family planning info so that poor people won't be 'multiplying like a rabbit piece of garbage."? You don't want to pay for police services? You don't want that inexpensive piece of lumber raised at government expense in national forests? You want to pay a toll to a private company to use a turnpike? How about paying $25 to a private concessionaire to hold a picnic in a national forest site like several sites I saw in Colorado?

---

Why don't you do a poll - you get 10 categories.

Quote:

---

Taxes are no damn fun to pay. I am not advocating that we spend even a thin dime of taxpayer's money recklessly. But if you demand the services then pay up. Don't destroy your children's future with a mortgage financed by the Chinese.

---

What are you doing about that? Vote for Franken?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marvin S

If you believe this to be a good method & I think there are several countries that do this, please enlighten us as to where those countries are better off than we are.

---

First I am not putting a good or bad on the Vat but throwing it out for discussion. It is the basis of Hucklebee's "Fair Tax" proposal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marvin S

There are services only the government can handle that were contained in the original documents. I would not consider those any sort of subsidy.

---

Well they are. Then there are tobacco subsidies and agricultural subsidies to keep you food prices low. That is a subsidy to you as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marvin S

Why don't you do a poll - you get 10 categories.

---

Poll what? and only 10 categories?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marvin S

What are you doing about that? Vote for Franken?

---

I did not vote for Franken. I don't vote for professional funny men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zeus3925

The VAT is a consumption based tax, not an income tax. If you consume, you pay. If you don't consume, you pay nothing.


Taxes are no damn fun to pay. I am not advocating that we spend even a thin dime of taxpayer's money recklessly. But if you demand the services then pay up. Don't destroy your children's future with a mortgage financed by the Chinese.

---

Many people consume but do not pay. UNder a VAT system people do not pay equally.
Every person, no matter what their age, receives equal benefit from our armed services regardless of whether or not they pay any VAT, they still CONSUME the same benefit.

AS for police services, I ave no problem paying for that service. I do however resent the fact that while I pay thru my property taxes, my area is not patroled, while those that pay nothing have a large police presence right in their living complex. Thus they are consuming while I am not, yet I am the one paying for their consumption.

I do not use the school system yet I pay while those that use do not.

I do not see any reason why I should pay for birth control in foreign countries. As far as in the US goes, still no, they should plain and simply abstain if they can't pay for it. It's not my problem if they can't keep their legs crossed. I could go on and on.

I didn't work hard to have my money confiscated by the GOOBerment and given to someone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by M Remington

Steve, that's right up there with property requirements and literacy tests.

---

Isn't it a little embarrassing that your party depends on the ill informed and irresponsible to win an election. :?:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luvmylabs23139

AS for police services, I ave no problem paying for that service. I do however resent the fact that while I pay thru my property taxes, my area is not patroled, while those that pay nothing have a large police presence right in their living complex. Thus they are consuming while I am not, yet I am the one paying for their consumption.

---

You are not getting benefit from the police keeping a watch on the bandits where they live? You have any bandits in your neighborhood?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luvmylabs23139

I do not use the school system yet I pay while those that use do not.

---

You don't receive the benefits of a good vet trained in a tax supported University? You don't receive the benefit of a trained engineer that designs your dog truck or your airliner? We all receive benefit from the work of people who are well trained in their professions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luvmylabs23139

I do not see any reason why I should pay for birth control in foreign countries. As far as in the US goes, still no, they should plain and simply abstain if they can't pay for it. It's not my problem if they can't keep their legs crossed. I could go on and on.

---

Yeah, lets let them multiply and when the food runs out or their economy sags under the load, they can raft over to good old USA where they will find employers just too happy to hire them.

If you thought Prohibition was a disaster, try outlawing sex. People and sex go together like franks and beans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luvmylabs23139

I didn't work hard to have my money confiscated by the GOOBerment and given to someone else.

---

There isn't a way to make a tax structure fair for everyone in every situation. The only thing a "GOOBerment" can do is to make it even handed and as efficient as humanly possible. Even if you had a tax structure conceived by God, there would always someone objecting and not wanting to pay their full dues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zeus3925

Even if you had a tax structure conceived by God, there would always someone objecting and not wanting to pay their full dues.

---

Problem is many due not pay their full dues, and I for one am sick and tired of paying for them. Heck they pay nothing and just take take take. Nothing you say will convince me that I am not being robbed blind by the gooberment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luvmylabs23139

Problem is many due not pay their full dues, and I for one am sick and tired of paying for them. Heck they pay nothing and just take take take. Nothing you say will convince me that I am not being robbed blind by the gooberment.

---

Have you considered getting involved then? There are a lot of non governmental actions that can be done to lower expenditures on welfare ( I assume you are focused on the relief roles). A person with your organizing skills may consider working with a faith based organization in setting up a center for the unemployed to find jobs, provide networking and emotional support. We have several churches in the area that are running successful programs. One of the more prominent ones is the Colonial Church of Edina, Minnesota.

A lot of chronically unemployed have really no idea on how to get a job. Even a modest program to impart those skills can make a huge difference.

How about organizing an effort in your area to hire Americans first? I know the U.S. Chamber of Commerce doesn't like immigration reform, but they don't want money to go to welfare or unemployment insurance either. Dah-ah!

Could your community benefit from a micro loan bank on the Grameen model?

The opportunities to make a difference are limited only by our imaginations and our determination to see them through.

Sarge, I would like to know how much actual exposer you have had to the people luvmylab has been talking about, the "users" of the system. I'm not talking about handing them a plate of food at a church function, but actual exposer. I believe if you really knew some of the people you think the taxpayers should take care of you would feel differently. The vast majority are people who have both hands out at all times. These are people who hide behind their children, knowing society will not let them go hungry or without shelter. So they push their children out front and live off our pity for them. The welfare system and liberals who think throwing money at every one of societies problems have perpetuated this. There is no longer any shame in taking handouts, and therefore no incentive to get off it. What happens is the people get comfortable with the standard of living given to them. It's not much different then feeding deer for most of the winter then stopping. The deer no longer have the ability to take care of themselves and will starve. We should start weaning them off, rather then furthering the dependency. The most cruel thing you can do is to continue to convince people, and groups of people that they cannot make it without the pity of others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoosier

Sarge, I would like to know how much actual exposer you have had to the people luvmylab has been talking about, the "users" of the system. I'm not talking about handing them a plate of food at a church function, but actual exposer. I believe if you really knew some of the people you think the taxpayers should take care of you would feel differently. The vast majority are people who have both hands out at all times.

---

I have had enough exposure to welfare people to trump anyone here. The typical recipient is a separated or newly divorced parent in their late 20's or early 30's with two kids. Most are off the roles within two years. Most of the budget actually goes to service providers rather than to the actual recipient. While the professional grifter does exist, exhaustive efforts go on to root them out. They are not as prevalent as commonly thought. But, as they say, perception is reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoosier

The welfare system and liberals who think throwing money at every one of societies problems have perpetuated this. There is no longer any shame in taking handouts, and therefore no incentive to get off it. What happens is the people get comfortable with the standard of living given to them.

---

The welfare system came about as a response to the political will of the people. If the majority of the people didn't want it, it wouldn't exist.

You are not going to find disagreement that the system at times is perverted. I can provide you with lots of stories how the system has been dysfunctional and examples where it has done the right things as well.

You are also correct in saying throwing money is not going to cure poverty. Poverty has a cultural component that perpetuates it. That has to be addressed before any progress can be made in eliminating it.

The society has lost a lot of shame in general. Bernie Maddow is a poster boy for that statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoosier

We should start weaning them off, rather then furthering the dependency. The most cruel thing you can do is to continue to convince people, and groups of people that they cannot make it without the pity of others.

---

I agree again. Prior to 1996, getting out of the welfare black hole was very daunting task. With the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 there were some significant changes to address this. It permits states to set limits on the total length of time a recipient can receive assistance. Most states it is 24 months for a lifetime total. In Minnesota it is 60 months.

It emphasizes work first. In MN a welfare applicant must first register with the job center first and commit to 20 hours a week acquiring job seeking skills and applying for employment, BEFORE receiving entering an application for assistance. There is no assistance for single adults.