Obamanomics

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Obamanomics

Evidence uncovered by former FBI agent William J. Benson reveal that only 27 states properly ratified it, which calls into question whether or not the American taxpayers have been hoodwinked.

From the Wikipedia article you cited: "The Benson arguments have been rejected in every court case where they have been raised, and were explicitly ruled to be fraudulent in 2007...The court ruled that 'Benson's position has no merit and he has used his fraudulent tax advice to deceive other citizens and profit from it'..."

You still buyin' it?

[matapule]

Re: Obamanomics

Legally, though, it is questionable whether the income tax is even a legal tax. .

I'm with you! I absolutely hate the natrional highways, the national park system, the National Guard (especially when they help out in emergencies), the Coast Guard (which doesn't charge for responding), and all the other national and Federal services we take for granted. Those services should be provided free to me by somebody but I don't want to pay for them. This makes a lot of sense, ya betcha (wink, wink).

[808shooter]

Re: Obamanomics

I'm not so sure. One idea that is being floated is that the US introduce a VAT and eliminate the income tax. That way, you are taxed on consumption and not on income. Some argue that a VAT tax would be "regressive" taxing the poor at higher percentage than the wealthy. I'm not so sure, that depends on a lot of factors.

FWIW, Mexico has both an income tax (which the wealthy rarely pay) and a 16% VAT on everything.

I didn't realize Mexico had the VAT. There is no comparing Mexico and the US. I was looking to Europe where the VAT has taken over and coexists with Income tax. Not sure I want the US becoming more like Europe.

I was talking to a Wall Street executive last week and she was sure the VAT was on it's way. No way will it replace the income tax - but in addition to the income tax. It would be regressive. How can it not be? Unless you start issuing government VAT rebates to poor folks and that really gets peoples "income distribution" blood boiling.

edit: yeah let's turn the good old usa into tax purgatory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_of_Europe

[TuNnL]

Re: Obamanomics

I'm with you! I absolutely hate the natrional highways, the national park system, the National Guard (especially when they help out in emergencies), the Coast Guard (which doesn't charge for responding), and all the other national and Federal services we take for granted. Those services should be provided free to me by somebody but I don't want to pay for them.

The Coast Guard was founded by Alexander Hamilton in 1790 — more than a century before the income tax was implemented. The National Guard? Try 1636. Just because there is no income tax, doesn’t mean that we can’t find ways to pay for these things. No need to resort to sarcasm. BTW — I take no “national” or “federal” services for granted. Social security is nearly bankrupt, as will be our country at the rate we continue to spend money we don’t actually have. *sigh* But that’s the plan anyway.

[matapule]

Re: Obamanomics

Just because there is no income tax, doesn’t mean that we can’t find ways to pay for these things.

How do you propose we pay for them if not an income tax? The Republican Senatorial candidate from Nevada proposes the barter system. You trade chickens if the National Guard assists in hurricane relief. If the Guardsmen already have plenty of chickens, then you are SOL.

Social security is nearly bankrupt,

As you know, SocSec is not paid out of the income tax. How do you propose that we get it back on sound financial footing? We can either cut benefits or increase the current limit on SocSec wages that are taxed. Which do you choose?

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Obamanomics

How do you propose we pay for them if not an income tax?

It's funny, but Glenn Beck recently said something that I would actually quote.

He said the Democrats are the party of tax and spend, while the Republicans are just the party of spend.

(Exact quote: "One party will tax and spend; one party won't tax but will spend." From the Conservative Political Action Conference held in February.)