What do you think about the Income Tax? Income Tax was a provisory tax made during the war, to help paying for it. We still have it. Why do we have to pay for what we fought to have? And most important: Why banks and multinationals don't pay Income Tax!?!?!? They would give much more money to the government... What do you think?
I think, at a minimum, you should support this statement with facts. I know it won't happen, as this is probably something that your grandmother told you when she revealed the inner flux of the Is, but please take a stab at it. Peace.
goofyfish, Everyone knows that banks and multinationals use "tricks" not to pay Income Tax... Some even just don't pay and that's all. And the government do nothing about it... Love, Nelson
Income tax. In theory levies the most money from those who benefit most from a society run by rule of law. A proportional tax. Seems fair.
I think corporates pay business rather than income taxes. I would agree with the bold assertion that they tend to avoid paying what they in theory owe. The argument is that if you close the looppholes, they'll always move their head office to some offshore haven. Capital is now global, the reach of the IRS is not.
Almost like I was psychic. Three decades ago, corporations paid about a quarter of all U.S. federal taxes. Now the corporate share is down to approximately 10 percent. The nominal tax rate on corporations is 35 percent, but the effective tax rate on big corporations is approximately 21 percent, according to the Washington, D.C.-based Citizens for Tax Justice So, while it is true that the chances are that you paid more in taxes, as a percentage of your income and maybe even in real dollars, than GE, Exxon, General Motors, IBM, and others, you are claiming that no corporations pay taxes. This is simply not true. Politically, it should be harder to push through significant corporate tax cuts than the tax reductions for individuals. But if you will recall, in May of last year, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill (a former CEO himself) said he "absolutely" backed the abolition of taxes on corporations; as in all federal income taxes. O'Neill's argument was that it is irrational to force corporations to pay taxes, rather than individuals, as corporations just pass on the cost of taxes to consumers. This ignores the evidence showing that corporations cannot simply pass all costs on to consumers. The underlying notion that corporations just represent the sum of interests of shareholders ignores the fact that corporations retain huge earnings, and the institutional reality that corporations have a life, identity, and existence of their own. But the American population are cattle. Easily stirred to a quick stampede of indignation, before quickly settling back to cud-chewing complacency. Peace.
Most of the income tax goes to the rich bussinesmen. War brings HUGE profits. Retired Major General Smedley Butler wrote a book (titled "War Is A Racket") explaining it. you can read what's in the book here: http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
Well Nelson, if you read my post, you'll know. Or were you pointing out that you are still unable to state your position clearly, and rely on others to do this for you?
Enron? Anyone? Anyone? Enron didn't pay taxes I'm presently looking around to see if there's anything on how much Enron received in corporate welfare. On the subject of income taxes: Why didn't the Bush administration just lower taxes? The entirety of my first-ever positive return came from a tax credit. If it was lower taxes, then, certes, the money is mine. But the tax credit is a credit against public revenues otherwise collected. Now, I don't expect to see that return in my hand, since I do, in fact, owe the federal government for an old loan. But never let it be said that the Bush administration didn't do anything for me. Because of this socialist-seeming allocation of public revenues, yet another chunk of my debt will be paid by the people. That's right, Bush is trying to buy my respect by paying public money toward my own irresponsibility. It would have been nice to have it in-hand, but since it's money I otherwise would have paid out to the public trust, I'm happy with the resolution. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Er i don't live in the US but in Australia Income tax is the largest reviue raiser for the fedral goverment (the states use the GST to get there revinue) as long as its fair whats the problem?
I think what TruthSeeker is hoping that others will establish for him is that the current system of taxation is not fair. That may be generally agreed on, but begs the question of where federal income will come from if income tax is eliminated. What will pay for government-funded programs? What will happen to countries receiving our aid? How will the military be supported? I guess we'll just send them into harm's way with big boxes of Love and Illusion, right Nelson? If we eliminate the income tax, where do you see revenue being generated to replace it? Peace.
goofyfish, That's your government's problem... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The idea of this thread was to see how many people are aware about the issue and to clarify it for those who didn't know... Oh... and how many agree with it and how many don't want Income Tax anymore. And as you see at the results, people also probably think about what you talked about (how to replace...)... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Love, Nelson
Tax is good. I like to play tax games. Like 90% this year and 0% next year for emergency funding to buy troops and star ships.
"He who contributes the most, pays the most?" So, in other words, if you produce a product which is something new, unprecedented, and enriched the lives of millions (For argument's sake, a cure for cancer) and thereby made a bundle of cash, you must then pay more of this bundle than anyone else simply because you have it? Seems UNfair.
You earn a billion say. Let's even assume that you did so producing a brilliant new life-saving cancer treatment rather than leaching off the work of others. We'll assume the most self-less, dedicated useful product has been invented by you and you've earned a fortune. Well done. Good stuff. Now I would say that you will probably get a few prizes and much respect for your work. You'll also get to spend that money you earned on a nice mansion, some cars, plane (do you like sailing? maybe a yacht as well then) etc. Now, what made all this possible, apart from your natural brilliance that is? A civil soociety. All those things we take for granted - security, education, the rule of law, emergency services, roads, utilities, the list is endless. Most importantly, the tacit consent of everyone to live in a mutually beneficial way and not take or attack or kill anything or anyone we want. There is a social contract. We have to pay for it. I don't think it's unfair to say that those who benefit most from this arrangement should pay most, proportionally. They're getting the best out of the tacit deal. What's 200 or 300 million out of a billion? Given a choice, I'd take 60% tax if I could earn 1 million a year rather than taking my chances with a flat rate. You're still rich, you just can't stretch to the Shuttle ride, but at least you're helping my local hospital to treat the cancer patients you cared so much about in the first place...
