Actually not, Americans gave up the idea of divine right to rule more than a couple of centuries ago. What inter-generational impact, the teaching of future generations the evils of theft by calling it taxation. And in today's world, it would seem the British have become the decedents of America.
There's no justification for theft, but we do have to pay for the government we agree to, so the fairest tax system would apply an equal cost to everyone either in currency or labour. I would eliminate the death tax completely.
Both parents don't need to work today but Americans are spending champions! We waste more money on nonsensical spending than we ever earn! Americans living standards are far above their counterparts around the world. There's nothing that says how we lived 100 years ago we must also be able to live today? For every thing you mention about how things were I can mention a positive statement about how things are today...who cares? People create their lives and if they don't like them then they should change something. Reduced taxes or government intervention, etc. will never solve the income and wealth problems many people perceive...
That is an interesting idea but the drawback to state-run systems are: 1. 51 sets of laws rather than just 1. Our existing system where we have several sets of laws with federal and state laws is already over-complicated. 2. A race to the bottom in some cases. People who are most benefited by a system will move to that state while those least benefited will move away and will interfere with states being able to make effective policy.. 3. States are really too small population size. The average state has around 6 million people with a bunch with less than 2 million and with such tiny areas with different laws make no sense.
Fair is a very vague term and can mean several competing things: 1. Taxing everyone at the exact same dollar amount in the same way two customers pay the same amount for the same product. 2. Taxing everyone at the same percent. 3. Taxing everyone at the same income/lifestyle impact. Being richer means that you have a lot higher percentage of income to save and invest and the same tax rate will hurt ordinary people with much less disposable income much harder than the rich so it fair to make the rate a bit higher for the rich to make up for this. 4. Taxing every income group for equal growth. If most of the growth goes to the rich and their incomes explode while those for the middle class stay the same it makes sense to give more tax breaks to the middle class and new taxes to the rich. So adjust tax rates to make up for growth differences. I think if we use a combination of #2, #3, and #4 we will get a rational and fair system. A flat tax will require us to slash the taxes for the rich, raise them modestly for the middle class, and hike them greatly for the poor. Ordinary people have been seeing no growth and have been struggling while the rich have seen massive rises in incomes and wealth when they are already getting most of the growth as it stands so your policy gives tax cuts to people who need it the least and tax hikes/program cuts to those who can afford it the least. So your principal leads to very harmful outcomes therefore it is a bad principal and shouldn't be followed.
1. Only 7 States currently have NO income tax. So most States already have income tax laws, and some use a single tax rate while others use a progressive tax rate. 2. Each State/local government would be able to more rationally manage their resources and people in a more fiscally responsible way. 3. Laws would be adjusted to what need be for the most benefit of each State. The Federal government, with the consent of the people and the States, by their Representatives would still make Federal laws, but they should be more simplistic and easily understood leaving little room for interpretation of their intent while allowing States to implement them differently. An example might be a Federal minimum wage law. It would simply state that each State must determine and set a minimum wage for workers to be paid within their State. Mississippi for example might find a lower wage would be more appropriate than what California or New York might set and achieve the best results in creating jobs and greater employment. Some States might produce much better results than others, and that would allow each State to see what works best and possibly make similar or the same changes to their own laws.
I see, a view of finance based on talking points without actual knowledge of what it all means. A view that is not only limited but tainted. To accumulate wealth can be accomplished in two manners, the old fashioned earn it or the modern steal it (yes, bankers stealing money by debt is theft). It seems that stealing is so much easier than earning. There is no such thing as a tax free account, some government is getting it's cut. Tax free is but another government that is jealous it's not getting a cut. As to leeches, that would be the welfare recipients. Those refusing to be robbed to support the welfare leches would more properly be anti-welfare heroes. And the elitist wouldn't have any money to share without a government that grants them immunity from morality, you know, like the Clintons.
Bless you, you shall receive your just rewards. But the current system favors those without capital, in a very large way. Having capital is a liability, not an asset. If you have a 1913 dollar, congratulations it's effective buying power is now less than 4 cents. Lower and middle class has not gained at all, they have lost ground, significantly. And the further back you go in the 20th century, the more significant the loss.
What are you talking about? What justification do you use for any of these claims? And those 100 million Americans you are talking about would be the welfare cases. Of course they demand government, after all stealing on your own is unlawful.
First, the only surprise in regards to government is when they aren't lying. And that surprise is normally about the level they are willing to stoop. There will always be those in any given population that refuse to live without the assistance of others. That is distinctly different than those experiencing a hardship and need a helping hand. But it wasn't until politicians discovered they could buy their way to power with the taxpayer paying the bill, that the leech became a road to riches, especially a baby factory. But what amazes me is not the government, but how it got to be what it is.
Asking again just how you define standard of living. If you are going to say that our standards are far above everyone else's in the world it would be useful to know how you come to that conclusion.
What are you talking about? Is your argument based on total tax revenue paid, percent of income paid, or what? And it could be said that the tax burden is skewed toward the middle but who knows, again to what reference are you placing your claims? And I could be mistaken, but isn't the reference you use on the 65% thing about what could be happening with the new den of thieves negotiating new rules of procedure? Fantasy land, never going to happen. There are cases wherein the former is much better off than the latter. Wise investment; let's talk about that big screen TV. You can never consume more than you produce. Somewhere, somehow, sometime, someone is going to have to pay the bill.
Reasoning, just where is any reasoning involved? Please explain how the predators fleecing the prey is somehow ok because they would just lose it anyway. But I love the support for the criminal acts of others, should I add so long as they don't apply personally?
Now I would find that amusing, truth in taxation. Imagine congress having that sort of transparency when they have to tell all them little voters; "We got to take an extra $10 this week because Welfare Suzy's kid needs new shoes. Do you not understand that this can never happen? I would suggest that you send the IRS a letter saying you will pay any tax lawfully imposed upon presentment of a verified invoice. Believe me, interesting things will ensue.
The creation of the estate was taxed so taxing again is double taxation. If death tax is good for the rich it should be good for everyone. Equal protection under the law and all.
Ever read history? Seems this has been tried before, even in this country. In fact twice in this country. The first resulted in the political overthrow of government resulting in the second time. The second time was again a dismal failure because of this silver and gold coin thing, so it is so much easier to steal from the little sheeple direct and just buy those little nuisance things called states.
You state there is no justification for theft but then you turn around and offer a lame excuse trying to justify theft by calling it government. Which is it, it can't be both?
Don't know how you got off on this tangent from what was stated. There was no mention of any state-run system, it was a reference to the constitution, article I, section 9, clause 4. Additionally... 51 sets of laws, not really as laws are immutable. You are talking about the mandates of man, not laws. The mandates of man require an ignorant population that will believe anything when told it is authority. And all the good little citizens scramble to obey for the masters have spoken. And why shouldn't they? Ever look at corporations and Delaware? That game is already being played but you're not a member. After the above, I would really love to hear the rational reasoning for this statement.
And you see no correlation to what you have espoused and how we have arrived at this point in time, or in other words why this conversation is necessary?
Taxation allows civilization to exist and helps pay for civil defense. Taxation is like rent for living in a place and using its services. If you don't like the charges imposed for living here move somewhere with a different tax system.
So there goes Amendment 14 right out the window, no equal protection at all. Just a little technicality but have you considered that the state is not real but a fiction of man. A fiction has no resources much less people so what is to manage? And please explain how any government has or can be fiscally responsible when possessed with the power of taxation? Most benefit, would you care to explain this little jewel? And just what would be adjusted? Now we approach the very core of the matter. Let's start right at the beginning, what is the consent of the people? Can the states have a different opinion than the people? If yes, how is that possible? Now my pet peeve, please explain this representative thing. Are you telling me Nancy Pelosi is actually representative of anything other than the mentally ill? Are you telling me that John McCain can represent anyone other than John McCain? Federal Laws simplistic and easily understood, now we are entering fairy tale land. Have you ever read the constitution? Ever talk to a lawyer? Minimum wage, a whole other fallacy in and of itself but that is a whole different topic but within the context of this one; by what right does any entity not directly involved get to determine who may or may not work, the real effect of minimum wage. Some states may produce better results than others but then some gamblers produce better results than other gamblers, really the same thing.
the person getting the gift is not taxed, this was the way of taxing the estate vs the person, but I am fine with a gift tax for the person getting the gift for any gifts over 5.5 million from a deceased person
