StarDestroyer.Net BBS

http://harrybrowne.org/GLO/GreatLibertarianOffer.htm

I didn't post the article here because it comes with some nice graphs....

Its good to know that someone actually knows why Americas Tax Burden keeps increasing and that he has a plan to deal with it. I definatly recommend this read.

BTW does anyone here agree with that we are indeed being seriously over-taxed? (I certainly think so)

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:http://harrybrowne.org/GLO/GreatLibertarianOffer.htm

I didn't post the article here because it comes with some nice graphs....

Its good to know that someone actually knows why Americas Tax Burden keeps increasing and that he has a plan to deal with it. I definatly recommend this read.

BTW does anyone here agree with that we are indeed being seriously over-taxed? (I certainly think so)

My effective tax rate last year was 9.62% so I dont think Im terribly burdened. Almost nobody pays 47% percent. If you are you are not doing your taxes right.

Although I agree our leaders are not very fiscally responsible.

TrailerParkJawa wrote:

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:http://harrybrowne.org/GLO/GreatLibertarianOffer.htm

I didn't post the article here because it comes with some nice graphs....

Its good to know that someone actually knows why Americas Tax Burden keeps increasing and that he has a plan to deal with it. I definatly recommend this read.

BTW does anyone here agree with that we are indeed being seriously over-taxed? (I certainly think so)

My effective tax rate last year was 9.62% so I dont think Im terribly burdened. Almost nobody pays 47% percent. If you are you are not doing your taxes right.

Although I agree our leaders are not very fiscally responsible.

Uhh...... Im thinking that the 9.62% is your Federal income tax rate.... Your probably not figuring in ALL the taxes that you pay and the costs that are passed on to you because of coporate taxes.

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:

TrailerParkJawa wrote:

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:http://harrybrowne.org/GLO/GreatLibertarianOffer.htm

I didn't post the article here because it comes with some nice graphs....

Its good to know that someone actually knows why Americas Tax Burden keeps increasing and that he has a plan to deal with it. I definatly recommend this read.

BTW does anyone here agree with that we are indeed being seriously over-taxed? (I certainly think so)

My effective tax rate last year was 9.62% so I dont think Im terribly burdened. Almost nobody pays 47% percent. If you are you are not doing your taxes right.

Although I agree our leaders are not very fiscally responsible.

Uhh...... Im thinking that the 9.62% is your Federal income tax rate.... Your probably not figuring in ALL the taxes that you pay and the costs that are passed on to you because of coporate taxes.

No, that is my total tax rate for all federal and state taxes.

I think he means things like sales tax, homeowners tax, license registration, plus the taxes that are passed on to the consumer that corporations pay.

Sonnenburg wrote:I think he means things like sales tax, homeowners tax, license registration, plus the taxes that are passed on to the consumer that corporations pay.

I know what he means, but it still does not add up to 47%. Property tax, license registration, and some purchases are deductable. Obviously you dont get a dollar for dollar back, but it really brings down your tax burden.

TrailerParkJawa wrote:

Sonnenburg wrote:I think he means things like sales tax, homeowners tax, license registration, plus the taxes that are passed on to the consumer that corporations pay.

I know what he means, but it still does not add up to 47%. Property tax, license registration, and some purchases are deductable. Obviously you dont get a dollar for dollar back, but it really brings down your tax burden.

The percent I got comes from the link I posted. The percent is the percent of US income taken by combining federal, state, and local taxes. In this context, the fact that you might have a signifigantly lower tax rate is irrelevent. Your standard of living is reduced by these taxes even if you are not taxed to the same degree your neighbors are.

That, and you didn't address a single point in the article.

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:That, and you didn't address a single point in the article.

You ASKED if we thought we were over taxed and I said no.

The article states a 47% tax rate, which I think is false. Nobody pays 47% to fed, state, and local. Dont confuse tax brackets and tax rates they are different.

--- edit

In case your are curious I agree with the article that ethanol is a waste of time.

TrailerParkJawa wrote:

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:That, and you didn't address a single point in the article.

You ASKED if we thought we were over taxed and I said no.

The article states a 47% tax rate, which I think is false. Nobody pays 47% to fed, state, and local. Dont confuse tax brackets and tax rates they are different.

Whose talking about tax brackets and tax rates, read what I said.

The percent is the percent of US income taken by combining federal, state, and local taxes.

This means everything, ALL US INCOME. Just because one particular Individual pays less then 47% dosen't mean that the government dosen't gobble that much income. Also the fact remains that the standard of living decreases overall across the nation when taxes are this high, it even hurts people whose % payment to taxes are lower then the %income taken by the Goverment.

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:http://harrybrowne.org/GLO/GreatLibertarianOffer.htm

I didn't post the article here because it comes with some nice graphs....

Its good to know that someone actually knows why Americas Tax Burden keeps increasing and that he has a plan to deal with it. I definatly recommend this read.

BTW does anyone here agree with that we are indeed being seriously over-taxed? (I certainly think so)

We need to end income taxation at the federal level and instead have a 6% flat federal sales tax without exemptions.

This means everything, ALL US INCOME. Just because one particular Individual pays less then 47% dosen't mean that the government dosen't gobble that much income. Also the fact remains that the standard of living decreases overall across the nation when taxes are this high, it even hurts people whose % payment to taxes are lower then the %income taken by the Goverment.

I think you and I are debating different paragraphs. I see what you were pointing to now, this is the paragraph I was looking at.

I still challenge people to show how 47% or there abouts of every 100 dollars you make goes to taxes.

Dont get me wrong, I think the tax code could use a serious overhaul. We need to not deficit spend since a large portion of our taxes goes to just service the debt. But IMO, the Libertarian tax policies only work in a small agricultural nation we stopped being long time ago.

I still challenge people to show how 47% or there abouts of every 100 dollars you make goes to taxes.

Off the top of my head I know that the US GNP is somewhere between 4-6 Trillion Dollars. The new budget is 2+ Trillion. Its not hard to image state and local governments taking up the rest of the "slack".

Dont get me wrong, I think the tax code could use a serious overhaul. We need to not deficit spend since a large portion of our taxes goes to just service the debt.

Under the current monetary system the U.S. HAS to have debt or there would be no money. Thats right, US currency is back by nothing but debt. If the national debt were to be paid off all the US money would literally disappear.

Whats really needed is a change in the current monetary system to a 100% commidity based/backed currency. The reading Ive done indicates that using Gold and a Gold Standard would probably work the best.

But IMO, the Libertarian tax policies only work in a small agricultural nation we stopped being long time ago.

You better elaborate on that, if the Government were reduced to its basics and reduced to a defensive military then Liberatarian tax policies would be more the sufficient. Show me otherwise.

And you people complain about being taxed? Take a look at most European countries and thank your lucky stars your taxes are as low as they are.

Taxes here start from around 15 to 25% and get progressively higher when your salary rises, and if you do overtime work, the tax rate shoots so high it's no use. If you get taxed between 66 and 75% for any overtime and roughly 40 to 50% (including state and municipal taxes) of your salary (at the higher end, e.g. my father pays around 50%) off the bat and then paying 8% for food, (and a couple of other things), 12% for books (I think, if not, then it's 8% for them) and 22% for everything else in sales taxes, that is high taxation.

This is just my personal opinion, but compared to what we have here, you people are a bunch of bawling crybabies. Quit whining.

Edi

PS. Not that you don't have the right to disagree with the state of affairs, but you're not very hard done by with taxation, really. Incidentally, I think the situation here is so ridiculous that it boggles the mind and it needs to change, but that has to be done carefully so that everything doesn't fall apart.

First I need to correct an error I made. My effective tax rate is 12.31%, sorry for the mistake. My fault. ( this does not include sales taxes )

Under the current monetary system the U.S. HAS to have debt or there would be no money. Thats right, US currency is back by nothing but debt. If the national debt were to be paid off all the US money would literally disappear.

Whats really needed is a change in the current monetary system to a 100% commidity based/backed currency. The reading Ive done indicates that using Gold and a Gold Standard would probably work the best.

How do you figure we would have no money? Please explain. The American Dollar is backed by the faith of people all over the world that its is worth a dollar. The gold standard is not needed, I dont believe there is enough gold in the world equal the amount of dollars in circulation.

You better elaborate on that, if the Government were reduced to its basics and reduced to a defensive military then Liberatarian tax policies would be more the sufficient. Show me otherwise.

Depends on what you believe is essential? A basic govt cant provide an interstate highway system. A basic govt cant be a superpower, but if you dont think we should be I can understand that. A basic govt wont provide for projects like Hoover Dam. Dont forget courts, good courts are essential to a functional economy. At the state level there is police and fire protection.

Where do you think we should cut the federal govt? What programs should go?

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:http://harrybrowne.org/GLO/GreatLibertarianOffer.htm

I didn't post the article here because it comes with some nice graphs....

Its good to know that someone actually knows why Americas Tax Burden keeps increasing and that he has a plan to deal with it. I definatly recommend this read.

BTW does anyone here agree with that we are indeed being seriously over-taxed? (I certainly think so)

The Libertarian "Offer" is to cut or privatize any government service they see as uneccessary or better off in the private sector. In other words, virtually all services save the military. In 1908 the U.S. government consumed 8% of the GNP? Well, in 1908 there was no such thing as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, a National Highway System, Federal research institutions such as the NIH, the Centers for Disease Control, AFDC, NASA, the CIA, the Federal Reserve... on and on and on. Hell, the FBI wasn't more than a small investigatory branch of the Justice Department in 1908 (when it was created).

The Libertarian Party website is chock full of old and tired myths that are fabricated to make their ideology seem less reactionary and more pragmatic (the U.S. Government spent $5 Trillion to combat poverty since 1960 = LIE). In essence, the Libertarian economic platform calls for a rollback of U.S. economic policy (which, through use of Keynesian economics has virtually eliminated depressions from modern life) to one that would more resemble the patterns of the Gilded Age of the 19th Century. Libertarians implemented their policies for a sixteen year period in near-laboratory like conditions in Chile from 1973 to 1989, and the result was a massive depression and unrivaled unemployment.

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:

I still challenge people to show how 47% or there abouts of every 100 dollars you make goes to taxes.

Off the top of my head I know that the US GNP is somewhere between 4-6 Trillion Dollars. The new budget is 2+ Trillion. Its not hard to image state and local governments taking up the rest of the "slack".

Dont get me wrong, I think the tax code could use a serious overhaul. We need to not deficit spend since a large portion of our taxes goes to just service the debt.

Under the current monetary system the U.S. HAS to have debt or there would be no money. Thats right, US currency is back by nothing but debt. If the national debt were to be paid off all the US money would literally disappear.

Whats really needed is a change in the current monetary system to a 100% commidity based/backed currency. The reading Ive done indicates that using Gold and a Gold Standard would probably work the best.

But IMO, the Libertarian tax policies only work in a small agricultural nation we stopped being long time ago.

You better elaborate on that, if the Government were reduced to its basics and reduced to a defensive military then Liberatarian tax policies would be more the sufficient. Show me otherwise.

The Gold Standard? The only reason to go back to the Gold Standard is the unjustified fear that, under the current system, printing money causes inflation and retracting money causes recessions. The truth is that its a double-edged sword; printing money cures recessions, and retracting money and retracting it cures inflation. The policies of the Federal Reserve (which wouldn't even exist under a commodity-backed currency), used for the past sixty years, have eliminated depressions and massive inflation seen under the gold standard. Under that system governments would be completely subject to the whims of the business cycle.

Blancho wrote:
The Libertarian "Offer" is to cut or privatize any government service they see as uneccessary or better off in the private sector. In other words, virtually all services save the military. In 1908 the U.S. government consumed 8% of the GNP? Well, in 1908 there was no such thing as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, a National Highway System, Federal research institutions such as the NIH, the Centers for Disease Control, AFDC, NASA, the CIA, the Federal Reserve... on and on and on. Hell, the FBI wasn't more than a small investigatory branch of the Justice Department in 1908 (when it was created).

What, exactly, have any of these things done for us? Short of the CDC and the CIA I see little need for any of that, and we surely don't need the FBI. Though I suppose a legitimate case can be argued for funding highways; the rest, however, is socialism, and an unnecessary drain on the government, like all socialist ideals.

The Libertarian Party website is chock full of old and tired myths that are fabricated to make their ideology seem less reactionary and more pragmatic (the U.S. Government spent $5 Trillion to combat poverty since 1960 = LIE). In essence, the Libertarian economic platform calls for a rollback of U.S. economic policy (which, through use of Keynesian economics has virtually eliminated depressions from modern life)

What's wrong with depressions persay? If you're intelligent you can ride through them, and they market naturally corrects for them. Japan shows what happens if you take Keynesian economics to an extreme. Even in the 1930s we were about to recover from the Great Depression, but FDR's Keynesian policies just excerbated it.

to one that would more resemble the patterns of the Gilded Age of the 19th Century.

Which showed the greatest growth in American history, period.

Libertarians used implemented their policies for a sixteen year period in near-laboratory like conditions in Chile from 1973 to 1989, and the result was a massive depression and unrivaled unemployment.

You're spinning. The numbers in Chile don't lie; and they tell a very different story than "depression" and "unrivaled unemployment". The simple fact is that Chile today is a functional democracy, and that its economy recovered with incredible rapidity from the horrors and depredations of Salvadore Allende to unparalled heights for such a state, and such recent extremities as were inflicted upon it by the Allende regime.

What you are is a Fabian Socialist who cannot accept reality, and must spin it away.

http://www.amchamchile.cl/economica/macro.htm

- You don't need to look very far at all to see that Chile is in excellent shape, and that Blancho is lying through his teeth. The Economic Jaguar of South America continues right on track.

If anything, more rigorous application of Chicago economics would be helping Chile even more in the here-and-now.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: What, exactly, have any of these things done for us? Short of the CDC and the CIA I see little need for any of that, and we surely don't need the FBI. Though I suppose a legitimate case can be argued for funding highways; the rest, however, is socialism, and an unnecessary drain on the government, like all socialist ideals.

Oh sure, private corporations die from the wish of building kilometers long particle beam accelerators for studying physic,only an hardcore socialist like me would deny that.

Admiral Piett wrote: Oh sure, private corporations die from the wish of building kilometers long particle beam accelerators for studying physic,only an hardcore socialist like me would deny that.

Well, I grant that such an item might not be constructed. However, for things like space exploration - That could be handled by the military. Space should have been militarized a long time ago, and would have been, were it not for treaties with the USSR.

Once space is militarized and the refined technology becomes available to the civilian field, private companies can exploit it with relative ease.

As for particle beam accelerators, they might have similiar applications. Or the state governments could fund them; California has a GDP the size of France's, and would have a bigger one without loony socialist-style economics.

(Though I acknowledge that the States have a right to do what they want with their budgets. I only really want a libertarian Federal government. I think the States should be close to libertarian, but it is up to the voters in the invidual States. For my State, I would not necessarily be opposed to limited additional services.)

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: . Space should have been militarized a long time ago, and would have been, were it not for treaties with the USSR.

Space was militarized,to a certain extent.Reconnaisance satellites et all.
It was not filled by weapons,but one would tend to question the cost effectiviness of weapons placed there.FOBS was a technological masturbation,as well as many of the others schemes proposed for placing weapons in orbit.Now you are building an ABM system.Lasers based in orbit? No, good old land based missiles.Try to guess why.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
As for particle beam accelerators, they might have similiar applications. Or the state governments could fund them; California has a GDP the size of France's, and would have a bigger one without loony socialist-style economics.

Some small ones actually have it.The 28 km ones (such as that at the CERN or one of similar size in the USA) necessary for scientifical researchs
do not.Fat chance of a corporation or even the military investing money in one of those to discover if some some exotic particle has mass or not.
Eventually in the long term it might give some useful results, but typically the military and private companies do not fund this type of very long term, high risk researchs.It is not profitable.And the military would prefer to buy
some additional toys or researching something of more immediate applications,such as better materials for lighter armors and that sort of stuff.
Sure in theory,California might build one of them.
But it will not happen.The average California voter will ask why California citizens should pay zillions of $$$ while the taxpayers in Montana are exempted from that.
Even if you have a very laissez faire attitude towards economy you cannot avoid to recognize that there are at least few things in a modern industrial world that simply cannot be handled like they were in the 18th century.

a question to the "lower taxes people":

where should the government get it´s money from if not by collecting taxes. i believe that we all agree that the gov NEEDS money.

and it´s not like the money is completely wasted. sure some of it is gone due to corruption. but the rest of the money goes back to the population. it sponsors welfare (lousy enough in the us), mediccare, the military, foreign aid (= better future trading partners) and on.

cutting down taxes to a minimum is surely nice for the individual on short term but on long term it doesnt work.
taxes are a necessary evil.

salm wrote:a question to the "lower taxes people":

where should the government get it´s money from if not by collecting taxes. i believe that we all agree that the gov NEEDS money.

To carry salm's question further-

The liberterian idea that taxes are a burden put upon us by a greedy government is based on a faulty first principle: that we have some right to our pretax income. Most liberterians, and indeed most Americans, look at their paycheck and see that a chunk of their pretax income goes to to government. They interpret this as something akin to theft, and from this draw the conclusion that taxes are unjust.

In fact, they are failing to see the big picture. They ignore two things:
1. The government needs money to exist and to carry out certain functions.
2. There would be no "pretax income" if it weren't for government.

You see, if no government existed, a stable society would be impossible. The standard of living in a society with no formal governing body is very low, and it's more-or-less the same for everyone. This is to be expected. To quote Liam Murphy and Thomas Nagel, "It is illegitimate to appel to baseline of property rights in, say, 'pretax income' for the purpose of evaluating tax policies, when all such figures are the product of a system of which taxes are an inextricable part."

Therefore, the government can levy whatever taxes they need to cover its own expenses and to provide for public goods. Public goods are things that benefit everyone and cannot be provided for anyone without being provided for everyone. Examples include a military, police, fire department, highways, a functioning legal system, welfare system, health care, education, and so on.

Now, unquestionably the US government fails to provide all of these public goods. Likewise, the tax code needs to be restructured and the places the money goes must be examined. However, simply lowering the tax rates and cutting out services that the government is morally responsible for providing is not the answer.

What's wrong with depressions persay ? If you're intelligent you can ride through them, and they market naturally corrects for them. Japan shows what happens if you take Keynesian economics to an extreme. Even in the 1930s we were about to recover from the Great Depression, but FDR's Keynesian policies just excerbated it.

Define survive? You might be able to survive with your life, but not your assest in a depression. If you are advocating otherwise please explain how.

Just curious are you against unemployment compensation?