Complaining about Taxes is pointless

For thousands of years, people have been complaining about taxes. But in all of that time, no one has come up with a replacement for taxes that did not involve the collapse of the state.

So, there is no alternative to taxes. And it's very unlikely that someone in the future will come up with a way to end taxes. So, pay your taxes knowing that the government needs it to pay for things and do stuff.

 

Even most all of the most radical Libertarians recognize that there is a practical need for some sort of taxation. The disagreement is only over what type of taxation and the amount of taxation.

One possible system to avoid taxation would be to have government own a large quantity of investment assets. This is mostly the situation in China right now, there is not much need for the government to impose taxation because the government already has a large share of ownership in the land, natural resources, and large companies. However, despite allowing for lower taxes, Libertarians would probably oppose this type of system for other reasons, for one thing it would give government even more power. Some countries like Venezuela receive most of their revenue from the export of oil and the government monopoly on this industry. That is only an option in a small number of countries, however. Iran is another country that has lower taxation, due to a large share of government revenue coming from oil exports. It has been pointed out that this is not without trade-offs, however, since it tends to make the government less accountable to the people, when the government does not need to tax the people for its revenue.

 

We've known for centuries that government can be funded by requiring those who benefit from government spending to repay the subsidy they are given. The recipients of the subsidy just don't want to repay it, and have the political power to refuse. So instead of justice, we have taxes.

 

I know but the poor can't or won't pay back their benefits.

 

They don't get any significant benefits because they have to pay their landlords full market value for permission to access any desirable public services or infrastructure they want to access. That's why we have spent trillions on the poor and they are no better off: their landlords have just taken it all. It's obvious if you think about it. The working poor toil their lives away and end up with nothing; landowners contribute nothing and end up rich. It's obvious that the landowners are stealing the working poor's wages, and the Law of Rent and the Henry George Theorem explain exactly how they are doing it.

 

Paying taxes should be simple. It's a shame some have to pay a firm every year to calculate their tax return. In my state we have a sales tax on most items and it's collected by the merchant at the time of the purchase. There is nothing to file with the state at the end of the year. Clean and simple. I have always prepared and filed my own federal income tax return. Filing on paper and then for the past 25 years filing with my home computer. I take the standard deduction and it takes me about 4 hours to complete the process, including going over the entire return the next day. This past year I received an inheritance from my late brother's estate. The money received was under $200,000. Looking at all the paper work I received I decided to have a tax firm do my taxes. Good thing I did because I would have never known what to do. Looks like I'll have to pay taxes on money my brother had already paid taxes on. Why is our income tax system is so complicated we have to pay someone to file our tax return? The politicians like it this way because it gives them control over us and allows them to experiment with social programs. Why should a person with kids pay less taxes than a childless person? Why should a person with a mortgage pay less taxes? Why does our income tax system penalize success by higher tax brackets and yet allowing some low income earners to pay no tax?

 

because the income tax system was created by congress to give the federal government massive powers that the founders never intended it to have. It is an end around the fourth amendment and a tailor made tool where politicians by the votes of the many by promising them the wealth of a few. It also appeals to one of the darkest powers in humankind-envy. Lots of people blame others for their failures and see the government and the tax system as an avenger-allowing them to get even with successful folk

 

Agreed, they need funds to discharge their duties. However throwing money endlessly at ill-defined objectives, half-formed plans, and every brainfart that arises needs to be controlled.

 

That may have been the original purpose for taxes when they conned the people into supporting taxation when they were told it would only be on the rich.

But it seems that lately, the tax system is overcomplicated to benefit the rich.

 

that's amazing given the top one percent pay almost 40% of the income tax and all the death tax

 

What about all the stories about CEOs paying $0 income tax?

 

well I guess that means more of us in the top one percent are paying even more to come up with that 40%. How many of those people actually had earned income rather than were paid in say what is deemed something else? Warren Buffet-who determines his compensation-only takes about 100K in salary which is taxed around 40% and the rest is in other forms of compensation which is taxed less. Then he whines that he pays less a percentage of taxes than his secretary who has a salary of about 300K and that is all earned income

 

You are right that they are taxed less.

Most of the rich file their taxes as a corporation which means that they can deduct their expenses. Something that most people who pay income taxes can't do.

 

the most taxed group in the USA are those making between about 400K and 10M a year. those making far more are able to do what you say. But 95% or more of the top 1% are in that group I mentioned. True the super rich get the press but that gives the masses a false picture

 

The top 1% of taxable income recipients is not the richest 1%, who often contrive to pay no income tax:

"We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes." -- real estate billionaire Leona Helmsley

"It shows I'm smart." -- real estate billionaire Donald Trump, on contriving to pay no income tax

And FYI, there is no "death tax," little relation between estate taxes and income, and many ways for the rich to avoid the estate tax. It is basically rich folks who die unexpectedly young whose estates pay the most estate tax, because they did not prepare for it.

 

you seem confused because the top 1 percent are well over 3 million people and you think a few billionaires are all that exist in that group

 

No, YOU are confused because you don't understand the difference between wealth and income.

 

well I suspect I pay more in taxes on a quarter than you make in a year and I fully understand the difference very well. I love being lectured by those who whine about the rich when it is clear they really don' have much in the way of income and they pretend to know more about it than those of us who do

 

It's all an attempt to justify government spending. If the government had a fixed income and a balanced budget forced on them, tax increases wouldn't be necessary. If they had to, they could send some of their responsibilities down to the states where they belong anyway.

10% sales tax + balanced budget amendment = limited federal government control over our lives They can sell most of their federally owned land so that it can generate tax revenue instead of costing tax money to keep up.

Congressional term limits and no lifetime salary would be a nice thing also. It's a golden parachute club with legalized insider trading.

 

So you don't want to pay for what you are taking. I get it.

So you are only pretending not to?

<yawn> Let me know if you ever have anything relevant to offer.

 

I certainly don't get a half million dollars worth of benefits from the federal government

 

Oh, no? How much are your assets worth, and what fraction of that is the value of privileges like land titles, IP monopolies, oil and mineral rights, broadcast spectrum allocations, bank licenses, etc.?

 

LOL,you really haven't a clue. None of the above

 

When someone earns an income, who do you think they are "taking from". An employee in a private company generates wealth for his employer and he is paid a portion of that wealth at an agreed upon rate. They aren't taking wealth from poor people. Private companies provide a product or service that people are willing to pay for. When money changes hands, tax revenue is generated through sales tax and income taxes.

The only people who take money are the poor(sometimes a necessary thing), and the government takes from the working to fund itself and constitutional spending.

I'm middle class and I sent over $30k to the federal government last year.

 

Do you understand that there is a difference between earning and getting?

That depends on what the company does to obtain revenue.

Or don't provide anything because they are legally entitled to demand that people pay them for what would otherwise have been available anyway.

That depends on why the money changes hands.

No, that's just baldly false. Google "rent seeking" and start reading.

Why would it take money from those who are contributing rather than those who are taking? Other than to serve the takers at the expense of the contributors?

Then why are you trying to rationalize and justify the subsidies to rich, greedy, privileged parasites?