Of course the political class in this scheme could cut their cost by cutting the needs for so much government revenue instead of 4 trillion and growing, they could cut it to 3 trillion, 2 trillion or even 1 trillion or less. Inflation and excessive regulations usually hurt the poor and lower middle class more than the rich but it would help the rich including the political class rich in most cases to end most of these regulations because a population and work force that has many more choices and chances is generally more happy, more productive, more creative, of course the political class stands a great chance of a work force with a lot more choices ignoring the political class so the political class would need to do better marketing but if they are sucessful in marketing their benefit then several members of the political class will actually become even better off but it is likely some political class members if not many will lose their membership but even many of them will be better off outside of the political class.--- In [email protected], "terry12622000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Actuallu Uncool Rabit both you and Tom are on to something but just > like the opposite side that gives the impression that only the well > to do pay taxes that hurt you two are also overgeneralizing but you > are overgeneralizing more than Tom. Tom's idea and the Boston Tea > Party is partly on the right road but still greatly fails to adress > the issue of the real class problem in the US and it slightly > overgeneralizes the 3 classes that are far from the real > problem. > The real class problem is not between the poor, middle and > upper classes but between the political class and everybody else, > everbody else by a big percent are probably members of the lower and > middle class especially the very middle and below, the political > class as a percentage probally tend to be members of the upper class > and the upper middle class in other words those making over the > median family income of around 60,000 is where the vast majority of > the political class with a majority probably being in the top 1% of > income earners and or asset controlers, the majority of the political > class tend to get much more of their income from other sources other > than wages or salary that the nonpolitical class, the political class > tends to get much more of its income from government prvildge than > the non political class > does. > Now this does not mean that every rich person is a member of the > political class and no poor or lower middle class are members of the > political class so the income tax is a piss poor way of dealing with > the problem of class, it is a piss poor way of dealing with justice > and it tends to harm the real economy, sales tax, property tax and > even the Land value tax aren't much better, actually the property tax > and Land value tax are much more unjust if people are runned out of > their homes and non corporate business because they can't pay the > property tax but the Land value tax generally would be much better > for the economy since the owner has no input to creating the > unimproved value of his > site. > I do almost agree with you that since the well off gain more from > government then it should be the well off who pays for the biggest > share of government funding but I would say that it should be the > well off political class and they should pay for the Lions share of > government funding, the non poltical class rich, middle class and > poor should pay nothing because it is not their government, they may > want a government and I do too because one way or another you are > going to have a government or governments unless people in general > just give way compltetly to short term instant gratification but what > we have is the political class's government so they should be the > only ones to pay for their government. > The few poor and lower middle > class political class members should pay something to be fair but the > well to do political class members should pay the biggest > percentage. > One possible source of revenue would be to charge the > Federal Reserve a fee on the Federal Reserve note and the notations > represented by the Federal Reserve Note, a economist from the > University of WIS. at Madison describes both as a user fee and a > tranasction tax, cash tranactions would never be taxed except when > they go into the Banking system and when they go out, Liberty > Dollars, E-gold Time Dollars, Atica Dollars and barter would not be > taxed since they do not deal with the Federal Reserve/FDIC baning > system or the Federal Reserve Notes. > The US has over 850 trillion > dollars of tranactions per year increasing yearly, less than 5% of > tranactions are cash, less than 5% are wages, less than 5% are retail > sales. At least 80% are currency trading tranactions ( with a great > majority being speculative, government bond trading, corporate bond > trading, stock options, futures and Real Easte > tranactions. > Current total government spending for all US governments > is around 4 trillion a year, so without any drop in tranactions, a > transaction fee of a little less than 0.475% or 4 dollars and 75 > cents on every 1000 dollars in transctions or less than 10 cents for > every 20 dollars or 4 thousand 7 hundred and 50 dollars on every > million. If wages, retail, wholesale, jobber, manufacturing, farming, > mining, utilities and non finical or real estate tranactions are > exempt then increase the fee by 20% for a fee a little less than > 0.57% or 5 dollars and 70 cents on every 1,000 dollar tranaction > where the fee applies. Of course tranactions will be reduced > especially since much of the tranactions are speculative FOREX type > currecy trades on a daily base. If all taxable tranactions are cut in > half, doubling the tax to over 1.1% is likely not to make up the > short fall, so it is likely the fee could not be flat on all the > taxable > tranaction. > Increasing the fee on the unimproved land and natural > resource value tranactions, on government privildge such as corporate > copyrights, corporate trademarks, corporate patents, corporate > licences in the use of broadcasting, the use of utlity right of ways, > corporate hospital lincence and corporate or LLC professional licence > would likely result in being able to cut the tranaction fee a lot on > currency trades. Also small corporations and LLCs could probably be > exempt from most of the above fees without much reduction in revenue > but I see no reason to cut the fees of large nonprofit corporations > including those run by the government including the pension funds > corporations of government employees.--- In > [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <uncoolrabbit@> wrote: > > > > Why give in to defeatism? Solutions are possible if people persever > > and do not give in to the justifiable feelings of powerlessness. > > > > From Thomas Knapp's blog: > > > > The Boston Tea Party calls for legislation adopting an annual, > > regularized increase in the personal exemption to the federal > income > > tax of $1,000 or more, and the additional application of said > > personal exemption to all FICA/Social Security taxes paid by > > employees and employers. > > > > Members of Congress (mostly Democrats) routinely propose and vote > > for increases to the personal exemption, so it's politically doable. > > > > Increases to the personal exemption give EVERYONE who pays taxes a > > tax cut, from the janitor at the local factory to Bill Gates. > > > > Increases to the personal exemption remove people from the tax > rolls > > and withholding treadmill entirely (every time the exemption goes > > up, more people's income falls below the taxable amount). > > > > Applying the personal exemption to Social Security payments would > > address the extreme regressivity of the Social Security system. The > > poorest people pay proportionately the most in Social Security > taxes > > (since the requirement to pay is capped at a certain income level > > in, I believe, the $60K range), and they receive the fewest > benefits > > (due to shorter lifespan). > > > > Eliminating the income tax is the best option. Failing that, > cutting > > it is. Replacing it with a tax that doesn't cut taxes, doesn't > > remedy redistribution problems, doesn't eliminate (or probably even > > reduce) the associated bureaucratic and administrative costs, and > > puts every American on government welfare is just a scam if the > goal > > is to reduce or eliminate taxation. > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "big_azz_ham" <big_azz_ham@> > > wrote: > > > > > > >> Though they pay more of the total of goverment income, > > individualy > > > they are not paying a larger percentage of there disposable > > income. > > > > > > Why should anyone have to pay any percentage of their income, > > > disposable or not? > > > > > > Yes, I am for eliminating the income tax. However, it's a moot > > point > > > as we have passed the point of no return. We are going to > achieve > > > economic armeggedon in my life time. The federal debt is $8.5 > > TRILLION > > > and getting larger every year. Last year, the interest payments > > alone > > > amounted to $406 BILLION. 95% of all income taxes are paid by > the > > > upper 50% of household income which means half the households > > don't pay > > > anything. Eventually, countries like China will stop buying our > > debt > > > when it looks like we will become insolvant. That's when the > > > government will crank up up the printing presses and try to print > > their > > > way out of this mess. The dollar, which is already a fiat > > currency, > > > will be become worthless. It's so predictable. > > > > > > In a word, we are screwed. > > > > > >
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
