|
Post by abbey1227 on Sept 27, 2024 12:38:45 GMT
Here's just an experimental suggestion..........
What if they changed it so ONLY the wealthy had to pay taxes? No more nonsense talk about 'fair share', right?
1. How would you define wealthy at that point?
2. Would you expect anything from the Govt in return for that Upper Class getting stuck with the whole $Bill?
|
|
|
Post by hugsfromlv426 on Sept 27, 2024 12:39:40 GMT
Here's just an experimental suggestion..........
What if they changed it so ONLY the wealthy had to pay taxes? No more nonsense talk about 'fair share', right?
1. How would you define wealthy at that point?
2. Would you expect anything from the Govt in return for that Upper Class getting stuck with the whole $Bill?
Having one dollar more than me.
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Sept 27, 2024 12:54:46 GMT
Here's just an experimental suggestion..........
What if they changed it so ONLY the wealthy had to pay taxes? No more nonsense talk about 'fair share', right?
1. How would you define wealthy at that point?
2. Would you expect anything from the Govt in return for that Upper Class getting stuck with the whole $Bill?
Having one dollar more than me.
you would cut it that close? What if you got a raise or won a slot machine jackpot?
|
|
|
Post by vegas on Sept 27, 2024 12:59:41 GMT
Here's just an experimental suggestion..........
What if they changed it so ONLY the wealthy had to pay taxes? No more nonsense talk about 'fair share', right?
1. How would you define wealthy at that point?
2. Would you expect anything from the Govt in return for that Upper Class getting stuck with the whole $Bill?
1) Anyone making over $1,000,000 a year... 2) A fully functioning infrastructure... that allows the population who can now afford to buy even more of the goods and services from the rich... thus making them even more money. Good job. You solved the economy.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Sept 27, 2024 13:00:48 GMT
2. Would you expect anything from the Govt in return for that Upper Class getting stuck with the whole $Bill?
More wars?
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Sept 27, 2024 13:02:11 GMT
2. Would you expect anything from the Govt in return for that Upper Class getting stuck with the whole $Bill?
More wars?
I'm in the US.......how could we possibly have more?
|
|
|
Post by hugsfromlv426 on Sept 27, 2024 13:03:17 GMT
Having one dollar more than me.
you would cut it that close? What if you got a raise or won a slot machine jackpot?
Obviously it would be adjusted at that point! Think, McFly, think!
|
|
|
Post by Factchecker3Point0 on Sept 27, 2024 13:12:09 GMT
What services would you cut (Besides eliminating public education of course, learning isn’t for "certain people")?
Police? Fire? Infrastructure? Ambulance/EMT?
When you eliminate Social Security would the people get their contributions refunded?
When Medicare is eliminated who pays to have the bodies cremated and/or buried? Will the death panels that your ilk promised Obama would bring finally have something to do?
When sewers inevitably back up due to lack of maintenance, who will clean up that mess?
I have a few more questions but don't want to overwhelm you.
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Sept 27, 2024 13:43:30 GMT
What services would you cut (Besides eliminating public education of course, learning isn’t for "certain people")? Police? Fire? Infrastructure? Ambulance/EMT? When you eliminate Social Security would the people get their contributions refunded? When Medicare is eliminated who pays to have the bodies cremated and/or buried? Will the death panels that your ilk promised Obama would bring finally have something to do? When sewers inevitably back up due to lack of maintenance, who will clean up that mess? I have a few more questions but don't want to overwhelm you.
What services would YOU cut? Nothing the Govt gets up to is wasteful, in your opinion? or just plain NOT their business?
I have brought up eliminating fire depts before. I certainly think it's possible to cut back on them in many ways. I could probably think of similar ways to cut back on the police, as well.
Infrastructure? Like roads and bridges? No, i'd simply make every single penny collected on gasoline taxes that was supposed to go towards that infrastructure be spent ONLY on infrastructure.
Ambulance and EMT services could be scaled back, too. Easily. Just by identifying and eliminating many 'repeat offenders' you could save a bunch of money.
Social Security? It's a Ponzi scheme and should be done away with. Live up to the promises made to those who have contributed for years, but phase it out in the near future and tell the younger crowd to find a better avenue for retirement.
Cremation? Plenty of things are cremated and for far less than they charge for humans in funeral homes.
Sewers? You really come off like one of those "I hate Libertarians.....we wouldn't even have roads if it was up to them!" types. You realize developers install sewers and drainage systems in neighborhoods, right? And it's property taxes that are supposed to cover the operation and maintenance of said systems? It can be done privately or just on a more local basis. Heck, someone I know helped build and entire neighborhood around a private lake and all the homes were fed by a large pump house and well. Clean clear and pure water for the cost of maintaining that original equipment. Then the local Govt took over, turned off the well and forced everyone to link to their local water supply. Guess whether or not the costs remained the same?
Questions are good. I have plenty myself.
|
|
|
Post by darkramj on Sept 27, 2024 13:44:41 GMT
I reject the entire discussion. It is premised on the authoritarian assumption that government is entitled to the money you've earned without any expectation that they have to earn it in any first-specified way from you.
The very idea that there is an amount of money you can earn that automatically entitles them to take more of it is appalling.
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Sept 27, 2024 14:03:31 GMT
I reject the entire discussion. It is premised on the authoritarian assumption that government is entitled to the money you've earned without any expectation that they have to earn it in any first-specified way from you. The very idea that there is an amount of money you can earn that automatically entitles them to take more of it is appalling.
It just struck me as odd..........the wealthy already pay 70% of the bills as it is........so let's say they picked up 100%
Do these lower class people actually believe that'd solve everything like the Left claims it will? They'll suddenly have enough money for everything? They'll suddenly balance the budget? They'll suddenly be able to control costs and offer more programs?
It's a ridiculous talking point, imo But it sure seems effective. I've heard 'fair share' almost as often in recent years as I've heard 'living wage'. Talk about some BS monkey's ass parrot talking.
|
|
|
Post by darkramj on Sept 27, 2024 14:14:38 GMT
I reject the entire discussion. It is premised on the authoritarian assumption that government is entitled to the money you've earned without any expectation that they have to earn it in any first-specified way from you. The very idea that there is an amount of money you can earn that automatically entitles them to take more of it is appalling.
It just struck me as odd..........the wealthy already pay 70% of the bills as it is........so let's say they picked up 100%
Do these lower class people actually believe that'd solve everything like the Left claims it will? They'll suddenly have enough money for everything? They'll suddenly balance the budget? They'll suddenly be able to control costs and offer more programs?
It's a ridiculous talking point, imo But it sure seems effective. I've heard 'fair share' almost as often in recent years as I've heard 'living wage'. Talk about some BS monkey's ass parrot talking.
If it were up to me, any discussion about "fair share" must be serious about including specifically what the government's should be.
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Sept 27, 2024 14:17:07 GMT
If it were up to me, any discussion about "fair share" must be serious about including specifically what the government's should be.
Another of my completely kooky ideas years ago...........was to fill out a survey at the same time you do your taxes. And then you get to decide precisely where your tax dollars go.
Anything that doesn't get a checked box by people, goes away..........until such time people feel the need to start checking that box, of course.
Something tells me Govt would automatically shrink right quick.
|
|
|
Post by darkramj on Sept 27, 2024 14:54:47 GMT
If it were up to me, any discussion about "fair share" must be serious about including specifically what the government's should be.
Another of my completely kooky ideas years ago...........was to fill out a survey at the same time you do your taxes. And then you get to decide precisely where your tax dollars go.
Anything that doesn't get a checked box by people, goes away..........until such time people feel the need to start checking that box, of course.
Something tells me Govt would automatically shrink right quick.
Works for me. My pipe-dream is a Constitutional Amendment requiring any public program on which the federal government spends money includes benchmarks and an automatic cancellation where they are not met every fiscal year. $100 Billion to reduce homelessness in America? Fine. For $100 Billion dollars homelessness in America must decrease by 500,000 year one, 5,000,000 year two, 10,000,000 for years 3-the remaining term of the program. No spending can be heard on the floor of either legislative body without those components being part of the proposal.
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Sept 27, 2024 14:59:48 GMT
Another of my completely kooky ideas years ago...........was to fill out a survey at the same time you do your taxes. And then you get to decide precisely where your tax dollars go.
Anything that doesn't get a checked box by people, goes away..........until such time people feel the need to start checking that box, of course.
Something tells me Govt would automatically shrink right quick.
Works for me. My pipe-dream is a Constitutional Amendment requiring any public program on which the federal government spends money includes benchmarks and an automatic cancellation where they are not met every fiscal year. $100 Billion to reduce homelessness in America? Fine. For $100 Billion dollars homelessness in America must decrease by 500,000 year one, 5,000,000 year two, 10,000,000 for years 3-the remaining term of the program.
You can look into what a single State, like California, has already spent on that...........and what have they accomplished? Where'd all that money go? WHY can't they ever admit their failures?
All it seems to do is make more Govt.
|
|