Representation without Taxation

[Deputy Nutz]

This funny, either you have to have no job, or you're too wealthy to pay taxes. When was the last time that you did your taxes? Maybe you should pay more attention, because I certainly haven't paid taxes for the last 4 years and last year my wife was actually working as an attorney.

I would get a better accountant if I was you.

How?

Most employers pay FICA off the top and then you have to pay state/local wage tax.

Do you mean you don't have to pay more in taxes (i.e., you paid enough along the way)?

I just don't see how people don't pay taxes....

Barrys talking about federal income tax. Most people with a mortgage, kids, medical bills, retirement contributions, flexible spending accounts, charitable contributions, pay little or no federal income tax when its all said and done. This is dem rhetoric we hear ever four years.

Total election year hooey.

Well lets all give Sheepshead a big round of applause, he figured it out. He is smarter than packinpatland.

Enjoy the compliment because I only hand those out to really special people.

[LL2]

This funny, either you have to have no job, or you're too wealthy to pay taxes. When was the last time that you did your taxes? Maybe you should pay more attention, because I certainly haven't paid taxes for the last 4 years and last year my wife was actually working as an attorney.

I would get a better accountant if I was you.

How?

Most employers pay FICA off the top and then you have to pay state/local wage tax.

Do you mean you don't have to pay more in taxes (i.e., you paid enough along the way)?

I just don't see how people don't pay taxes....

Barrys talking about federal income tax. Most people with a mortgage, kids, medical bills, retirement contributions, flexible spending accounts, charitable contributions, pay little or no federal income tax when its all said and done. This is dem rhetoric we hear ever four years.

Total election year hooey.

Well lets all give Sheepshead a big round of applause, he figured it out. He is smarter than packinpatland.

Enjoy the compliment because I only hand those out to really special people.

[sheepshead]

DN you really need to get a life man, honest to God. (what's Packinpatland have to do with anything?)

[Deputy Nutz]

DN you really need to get a life man, honest to God. (what's Packinpatland have to do with anything?)

She is the one who questioned how I didn't pay taxes.


By the way my life is just fine, loving every minute of it.

[HowardRoark]

Does anyone know what Jefferson originally had in place of 'pursuit of happiness'

I'm not sure, but I DO think that Obama (and a few people here) should rent the movie The Pursuit of Happyness.

[mraynrand]

Does anyone know what Jefferson originally had in place of 'pursuit of happiness'

I'm not sure, but I DO think that Obama (and a few people here) should rent the movie The Pursuit of Happyness.

The answer is: Property; "Life, Liberty and Property"

[texaspackerbacker]

If Taxation without Representation is tyranny, what is Representation without Taxation?

According to IRS data, in the early 1980’s, 17% of the public did not pay any taxes to the Federal Government. By 1990 that number was up to 21%. 1993, it was 24%......01 it was 27%....04 it was 33%.

Under Obama’s plan it will hit 44%. By 2014, it will hit the 50% level.

How is it again that you cook a frog?

Howard, I ask you, seriously, WHAT DO YOU HAVE AGAINST THE IDEA THAT OTHER PEOPLE AREN'T PAYING TAXES--as long as it does NOT lead to you and others on your income level having to pay more tax?

Permit me to anticipate your answer. No, I'm NOT gonna accuse you of whining about the unfairness of it. I predict your answer will be that eliminating tax on more on the lower end (or even the negative income tax concept which Obama is pushing--which we really already have--called Earned Income Credit) actually DOES necessarily result in higher taxes for you and others on the high end.

If THAT is your position, your thinking is just like that of Obama and his kind--those who whine and rant about how you have to "pay for" tax cuts. While under Obama's redistribution scheme, it might well end up being that way--higher taxes on you and other upper income types, IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE THAT WAY!

I would be all for the low end portion of Obama's scheme--to INCLUDE the paying out of money to lower end people who already don't pay taxes. THAT could easily be done WITHOUT the raising of taxes on the wealthy.

In fact, when I read your thread title, it brought to mind an old idea I had--an economic model where there would be NO TAXES WHATSOEVER--no income tax, no sales tax, no property tax, no tariffs, NO TAXES AT ALL. What would the government do for revenue? Just create it--print whatever money elected representatives of the people deemed necessary to spend.

You think it wouldn't work? Why? It would merely be the ultimate extension of deficit spending. There wouldn't even be a need or reason to keep track of government "debt", as the government would not "borrow" money. It would merely create it. I challenge anybody to spell out any way that wouldn't work. Inflation? Possibly some--we have some now--but not extreme. We would still have production, commerce, velocity of money, and of course, multiplied benefit of all money injected.

[HowardRoark]

If Taxation without Representation is tyranny, what is Representation without Taxation?

According to IRS data, in the early 1980’s, 17% of the public did not pay any taxes to the Federal Government. By 1990 that number was up to 21%. 1993, it was 24%......01 it was 27%....04 it was 33%.

Under Obama’s plan it will hit 44%. By 2014, it will hit the 50% level.

How is it again that you cook a frog?

Howard, I ask you, seriously, WHAT DO YOU HAVE AGAINST THE IDEA THAT OTHER PEOPLE AREN'T PAYING TAXES--as long as it does NOT lead to you and others on your income level having to pay more tax?

Permit me to anticipate your answer. No, I'm NOT gonna accuse you of whining about the unfairness of it. I predict your answer will be that eliminating tax on more on the lower end (or even the negative income tax concept which Obama is pushing--which we really already have--called Earned Income Credit) actually DOES necessarily result in higher taxes for you and others on the high end.

If THAT is your position, your thinking is just like that of Obama and his kind--those who whine and rant about how you have to "pay for" tax cuts. While under Obama's redistribution scheme, it might well end up being that way--higher taxes on you and other upper income types, IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE THAT WAY!

I would be all for the low end portion of Obama's scheme--to INCLUDE the paying out of money to lower end people who already don't pay taxes. THAT could easily be done WITHOUT the raising of taxes on the wealthy.

In fact, when I read your thread title, it brought to mind an old idea I had--an economic model where there would be NO TAXES WHATSOEVER--no income tax, no sales tax, no property tax, no tariffs, NO TAXES AT ALL. What would the government do for revenue? Just create it--print whatever money elected representatives of the people deemed necessary to spend.

You think it wouldn't work? Why? It would merely be the ultimate extension of deficit spending. There wouldn't even be a need or reason to keep track of government "debt", as the government would not "borrow" money. It would merely create it. I challenge anybody to spell out any way that wouldn't work. Inflation? Possibly some--we have some now--but not extreme. We would still have production, commerce, velocity of money, and of course, multiplied benefit of all money injected.

Why?

1. Just to be informative.

2. Sick of hearing from The Autobiographer and his Obamaheads talking about how we need a “fairer” tax system.

3. In any given election, soon, the majority of potential voters will have no direct stake in the federal government spending responsibility. Kind of like my kids at home concerning the family budget.

[texaspackerbacker]

If Taxation without Representation is tyranny, what is Representation without Taxation?

According to IRS data, in the early 1980’s, 17% of the public did not pay any taxes to the Federal Government. By 1990 that number was up to 21%. 1993, it was 24%......01 it was 27%....04 it was 33%.

Under Obama’s plan it will hit 44%. By 2014, it will hit the 50% level.

How is it again that you cook a frog?

Howard, I ask you, seriously, WHAT DO YOU HAVE AGAINST THE IDEA THAT OTHER PEOPLE AREN'T PAYING TAXES--as long as it does NOT lead to you and others on your income level having to pay more tax?

Permit me to anticipate your answer. No, I'm NOT gonna accuse you of whining about the unfairness of it. I predict your answer will be that eliminating tax on more on the lower end (or even the negative income tax concept which Obama is pushing--which we really already have--called Earned Income Credit) actually DOES necessarily result in higher taxes for you and others on the high end.

If THAT is your position, your thinking is just like that of Obama and his kind--those who whine and rant about how you have to "pay for" tax cuts. While under Obama's redistribution scheme, it might well end up being that way--higher taxes on you and other upper income types, IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE THAT WAY!

I would be all for the low end portion of Obama's scheme--to INCLUDE the paying out of money to lower end people who already don't pay taxes. THAT could easily be done WITHOUT the raising of taxes on the wealthy.

In fact, when I read your thread title, it brought to mind an old idea I had--an economic model where there would be NO TAXES WHATSOEVER--no income tax, no sales tax, no property tax, no tariffs, NO TAXES AT ALL. What would the government do for revenue? Just create it--print whatever money elected representatives of the people deemed necessary to spend.

You think it wouldn't work? Why? It would merely be the ultimate extension of deficit spending. There wouldn't even be a need or reason to keep track of government "debt", as the government would not "borrow" money. It would merely create it. I challenge anybody to spell out any way that wouldn't work. Inflation? Possibly some--we have some now--but not extreme. We would still have production, commerce, velocity of money, and of course, multiplied benefit of all money injected.

Why?

1. Just to be informative.

2. Sick of hearing from The Autobiographer and his Obamaheads talking about how we need a “fairer” tax system.

3. In any given election, soon, the majority of potential voters will have no direct stake in the federal government spending responsibility. Kind of like my kids at home concerning the family budget.

When I asked "Why?", I meant ECONOMICALLY why do you think it wouldn't work. It never even crossed my mind that your argument would be that non-taxpayers would abuse their vote.

I suppose you would need a Constitutional prohibition (or at very least, strict limitation) of direct government payouts to people. Those with documented need for welfare would get barely adequate non-cash benefits--like the old commodities handouts instead of food stamps and something similar with regard to housing.

It would still be the same representative government we have now, and presumably, the mix of voters would be the same as now, so IMO, the abuses you are apparently speaking of would be unlikely.

And as for government spending virtually anything else--defense, infrastructure, non-cash social programs, you name it, let it happen. That money injected would multiply, stimulate consumption, production, jobs, and more and more income--the good old Multiplier.

And no, this would NOT be socialism--not by any of the several definitions of socialism, as after the original injection of money from the government, everything would be private enterprise, just like now.

Those with the worst tax burden now should have the least complaint about a system like this, as they would have the most to gain. Liberals might argue that it is regressive, since the rich would save more money. The only way, however, that it would actually be regressive is if inflation got out of hand, and I doubt that would happen.

This is, of course, pie-in-the-sky idealism that will never happen. I'm just saying, economically speaking, it would work.

And BTW, to answer your original rhetorical question, if taxation without representation is tyranny, then the converse--representation without taxation, logically, would be the opposite of tyranny: freedom.

[mraynrand]

In fact, when I read your thread title, it brought to mind an old idea I had--an economic model where there would be NO TAXES WHATSOEVER--no income tax, no sales tax, no property tax, no tariffs, NO TAXES AT ALL. What would the government do for revenue? Just create it--print whatever money elected representatives of the people deemed necessary to spend.

You think it wouldn't work? Why? It would merely be the ultimate extension of deficit spending. There wouldn't even be a need or reason to keep track of government "debt", as the government would not "borrow" money. It would merely create it. I challenge anybody to spell out any way that wouldn't work. Inflation? Possibly some--we have some now--but not extreme. We would still have production, commerce, velocity of money, and of course, multiplied benefit of all money injected.

Thomas Sowell: " One of the biggest taxes is one that is not even called a tax -- inflation. When the government spends money that it creates, it is transferring part of the value of your money to themselves. It is quiet taxation but often heavy taxation, falling on everyone, no matter how low their incomes might be.

By the end of the 20th century, a $100 bill would not buy as much as a $20 bill would buy in the middle of that century. For people who saved cash, inflation amounted to an 80 percent tax. For others, it was an 80 percent tax minus whatever cumulative interest or dividends they received on the money they invested. "

[HowardRoark]

[mraynrand]

The New Prosperity:

[texaspackerbacker]

In fact, when I read your thread title, it brought to mind an old idea I had--an economic model where there would be NO TAXES WHATSOEVER--no income tax, no sales tax, no property tax, no tariffs, NO TAXES AT ALL. What would the government do for revenue? Just create it--print whatever money elected representatives of the people deemed necessary to spend.

You think it wouldn't work? Why? It would merely be the ultimate extension of deficit spending. There wouldn't even be a need or reason to keep track of government "debt", as the government would not "borrow" money. It would merely create it. I challenge anybody to spell out any way that wouldn't work. Inflation? Possibly some--we have some now--but not extreme. We would still have production, commerce, velocity of money, and of course, multiplied benefit of all money injected.

Thomas Sowell: " One of the biggest taxes is one that is not even called a tax -- inflation. When the government spends money that it creates, it is transferring part of the value of your money to themselves. It is quiet taxation but often heavy taxation, falling on everyone, no matter how low their incomes might be.

By the end of the 20th century, a $100 bill would not buy as much as a $20 bill would buy in the middle of that century. For people who saved cash, inflation amounted to an 80 percent tax. For others, it was an 80 percent tax minus whatever cumulative interest or dividends they received on the money they invested. "

Accepting your figures of 80% over 50 years or so, that comes to about 1.6% per year--not too shabby if you ask me.

"........ falling on everyone ........" There ya go! The FAIRNESS you guys crave!

The thing is, if put into practice, my no-tax hypothesis should NOT be particularly inflationary at all. Why would it be?

Inflation occurs when the money supply increase faster than the economy grows. You guys surely wouldn't argue that point. And WITHOUT taxes, you would have MORE growth than now. Assuming that practically every dollar injected would result in growth--MULTIPLIED growth, there should be minimal or no inflation.

[Fosco33]

In fact, when I read your thread title, it brought to mind an old idea I had--an economic model where there would be NO TAXES WHATSOEVER--no income tax, no sales tax, no property tax, no tariffs, NO TAXES AT ALL. What would the government do for revenue? Just create it--print whatever money elected representatives of the people deemed necessary to spend.

You think it wouldn't work? Why? It would merely be the ultimate extension of deficit spending. There wouldn't even be a need or reason to keep track of government "debt", as the government would not "borrow" money. It would merely create it. I challenge anybody to spell out any way that wouldn't work. Inflation? Possibly some--we have some now--but not extreme. We would still have production, commerce, velocity of money, and of course, multiplied benefit of all money injected.

Thomas Sowell: " One of the biggest taxes is one that is not even called a tax -- inflation. When the government spends money that it creates, it is transferring part of the value of your money to themselves. It is quiet taxation but often heavy taxation, falling on everyone, no matter how low their incomes might be.

By the end of the 20th century, a $100 bill would not buy as much as a $20 bill would buy in the middle of that century. For people who saved cash, inflation amounted to an 80 percent tax. For others, it was an 80 percent tax minus whatever cumulative interest or dividends they received on the money they invested. "

Accepting your figures of 80% over 50 years or so, that comes to about 1.6% per year--not too shabby if you ask me.

"........ falling on everyone ........" There ya go! The FAIRNESS you guys crave!

The thing is, if put into practice, my no-tax hypothesis should NOT be particularly inflationary at all. Why would it be?

Inflation occurs when the money supply increase faster than the economy grows. You guys surely wouldn't argue that point. And WITHOUT taxes, you would have MORE growth than now. Assuming that practically every dollar injected would result in growth--MULTIPLIED growth, there should be minimal or no inflation.

So, you're saying go from gold standard to 'US backed standard' to really no standard. If you're serious, I'm wondering why? Do we not have enough corruption already? Do we want the gov't to essentially 'set prices' for all goods/services (as they set the monetary rate)?

Do we not also consider wage 'inflation' in the above debate as well? Or is this debate wage adjusted inflation? Sorry, not enough time to research more...

[mraynrand]

The thing is, if put into practice, my no-tax hypothesis should NOT be particularly inflationary at all. Why would it be?

Inflation occurs when the money supply increase faster than the economy grows. You guys surely wouldn't argue that point. And WITHOUT taxes, you would have MORE growth than now. Assuming that practically every dollar injected would result in growth--MULTIPLIED growth, there should be minimal or no inflation.

Your plan might be more simple, but it seems like it would achieve the same result. Instead of the government confiscating monies to use, they would print monies that would cause inflation, and devalue the money that people keep. If they print too much, inflation rises too fast relative to growth; if they print less, presumably there would be massive growth, just like if they cut spending and taxes across the board. At the level the govt. is spending now, using your scheme, those who spend the largest % of income on essentials would be hit the hardest, just like they would be hit the hardest with a 'fair' or consumption tax, that did not have a pay back up to a certain amount.

I don't know what you are referring to when you say 'this is the fairness you talk about' What is your definition of 'fair?' I personally don't think there is much fairness or possibility of fairness - life is inherently unfair and not government nor anything else can change that.

[texaspackerbacker]

In fact, when I read your thread title, it brought to mind an old idea I had--an economic model where there would be NO TAXES WHATSOEVER--no income tax, no sales tax, no property tax, no tariffs, NO TAXES AT ALL. What would the government do for revenue? Just create it--print whatever money elected representatives of the people deemed necessary to spend.

You think it wouldn't work? Why? It would merely be the ultimate extension of deficit spending. There wouldn't even be a need or reason to keep track of government "debt", as the government would not "borrow" money. It would merely create it. I challenge anybody to spell out any way that wouldn't work. Inflation? Possibly some--we have some now--but not extreme. We would still have production, commerce, velocity of money, and of course, multiplied benefit of all money injected.

Thomas Sowell: " One of the biggest taxes is one that is not even called a tax -- inflation. When the government spends money that it creates, it is transferring part of the value of your money to themselves. It is quiet taxation but often heavy taxation, falling on everyone, no matter how low their incomes might be.

By the end of the 20th century, a $100 bill would not buy as much as a $20 bill would buy in the middle of that century. For people who saved cash, inflation amounted to an 80 percent tax. For others, it was an 80 percent tax minus whatever cumulative interest or dividends they received on the money they invested. "

Accepting your figures of 80% over 50 years or so, that comes to about 1.6% per year--not too shabby if you ask me.

"........ falling on everyone ........" There ya go! The FAIRNESS you guys crave!

The thing is, if put into practice, my no-tax hypothesis should NOT be particularly inflationary at all. Why would it be?

Inflation occurs when the money supply increase faster than the economy grows. You guys surely wouldn't argue that point. And WITHOUT taxes, you would have MORE growth than now. Assuming that practically every dollar injected would result in growth--MULTIPLIED growth, there should be minimal or no inflation.

So, you're saying go from gold standard to 'US backed standard' to really no standard. If you're serious, I'm wondering why? Do we not have enough corruption already? Do we want the gov't to essentially 'set prices' for all goods/services (as they set the monetary rate)?

Do we not also consider wage 'inflation' in the above debate as well? Or is this debate wage adjusted inflation? Sorry, not enough time to research more...

I'm serious in the sense that I think the idea has merit and would work. I'm not serious in the sense that I have no expectation that anything remotely like this would ever even be tried.

Why do you think the government would "set prices"? The market would do that, same as now. It would NOT be a matter of intentionally causing inflation or even controlling it downward by either increasing or decreasing the money supply arbitrarily--at least not to any greater amount than the very limited way monetary policy is used now. It would merely be the result of carrying out the business of the government. I say again, unless government spending/increasing of the money supply occurred at a greater rate than the growth of the economy, there would be no significant inflation.

Aynrand, inflation should NOT "rise too fast relative to growth" because the spending that would tend to cause inflation would also stimulate growth.

Liberals might argue, as you say, "those who spend the largest % of income on essentials would be hit the hardest, just like they would be hit the hardest with a 'fair' or consumption tax". It's equally credible, however, to argue that the "haves"--those with savings and low-return investments would be hit the hardest.

The fact is, though, neither of those groups should be hit hard because there should NOT be any significant inflation.

[HowardRoark]

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/g...21207-left-one

By 2012, it will be more than half on the dole, and this will be an electorate where the majority of the electorate will be able to vote itself more lollipops from the minority of their compatriots still dumb enough to prioritize self-reliance, dynamism and innovation over the sedating cocoon of the Nanny State. That is the death of the American idea – which, after all, began as an economic argument: "No taxation without representation" is a great rallying cry. "No representation without taxation" has less mass appeal. For how do you tell an electorate living high off the entitlement hog that it's unsustainable, and you've got to give some of it back?

[Partial]

I've paid 27% of my income in taxes (combined) this year. That is absolutely insane.

[Cleft Crusty]

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/government-obama-point-2221207-left-one

By 2012, it will be more than half on the dole, and this will be an electorate where the majority of the electorate will be able to vote itself more lollipops from the minority of their compatriots still dumb enough to prioritize self-reliance, dynamism and innovation over the sedating cocoon of the Nanny State. That is the death of the American idea – which, after all, began as an economic argument: "No taxation without representation" is a great rallying cry. "No representation without taxation" has less mass appeal. For how do you tell an electorate living high off the entitlement hog that it's unsustainable, and you've got to give some of it back?

When do I get my monies? Clefty is very sick and in need of lots of healthcare.

[bobblehead]

If Taxation without Representation is tyranny, what is Representation without Taxation?

According to IRS data, in the early 1980’s, 17% of the public did not pay any taxes to the Federal Government. By 1990 that number was up to 21%. 1993, it was 24%......01 it was 27%....04 it was 33%.

Under Obama’s plan it will hit 44%. By 2014, it will hit the 50% level.

How is it again that you cook a frog?

What/who makes up the ones that are not paying taxes?

The "Ones" that we have been waiting for.

I am seriously trying to understand this. If you're not paying taxes, then you must not be employed. Or you're wealthy enough to afford loopholes.
Which is it?

seriously...you have been spouting off about palins wardrobe and you don't know this most basic political/tax reality??? Honestly you should have remained silent and let us think you're a fool...instead you spoke up and removed all doubt.