What is the best tax policy?

same tax rate for all, and no loopholes (i.e. no way to get out of paying your share).

No tax for the poor or the middle class. Some for the rich.

Higher taxes for the poor and welfare for the rich.

Thanks for the laugh

Tax the deadbeats.

I think if you are too poor to pay taxes, we should demand payment in blood. Like literally; we show up and draw your blood. How much can you lose before dying? Like 20% of total volume? Then we tax you 15%! Blood tax!

Barring that, if you don't want to pay taxes, you can spend a weekend with the pain monster

Higher taxes on the poor. Because they're poor and it's funny.

You can institute whatever rules/regulations you want, but if companies like Apple, the rest of silicon valley, as well as dozens more Fortune 500 companies, are allowed to hide their money offshore thus avoiding paying hundreds of billions of dollars in yearly federal taxes, none of it will matter at all.

You want to talk about taxing the rich -- go ahead and talk. You want to talk about lowering/eliminating taxes on middle/poor class -- go ahead and talk. But it's all talk until we go after the real money.

The only good tax is no tax

So the current system.

How about getting informed on the tax breaks already available.

Related: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-02/this-country-is-mopping-up-trickle-down-economics

In a world where capital earns more capital, a flat tax rate results in continually growing inequality.

Close the tax loopholes, then lower the taxes for the rich to compensate.

Interesting read...20 years is a good long experiment. Maybe it doesn't work out so well in the real world after all.

I liked the part where it said the president had "assumed they tried it in Western states" lol

The best tax policy is "the broadest shoulders carry the widest load"

And give more tax breaks for in country businesses.

It's the American way.

The one where I pay the least amount of taxes possible.

I just remembered Ayn Rand's Objectivism where there is virtually no tax and government services and facilities would just rely on donations. It just made me lol

If I have more money, I don't mind paying more taxes. Seems only fair.

-Byshop

Those with the most discretionary wealth pay more than those with less. IE close loopholes and tax the wealthy more. They've skated long enough....looking at you Trump ya filthy deadbeat.

Most of our taxes go towards useless federal departments anyways. We need to cut taxes as much as possible and reduce federal spending so more jobs can be created.

The current tax rate for the creators of this country are insane and doesn't promote innovation. No one is entitled to my paycheck, what I produce is mine and mine solely. This notion that I "have" to provide for others because "the government says so" just seems a little authoritarian to me.

And why shouldn't they? Many of them have worked their entire lives to amass that wealth and some of them got lucky and were born into it; however, what gives you or anyone else the authority to force people to share their money?

Loopholes seem like the only logical conclusion to me, especially if I'm that intelligent/lucky to amass that wealth in the first place.

Get rid of the fed, income tax, and bring back pre-1913 tariffs.

Issue bonds to the American people rather than foreign countries.

lol this policy has never worked that way. The rich just horde their money and let it sit in some bank account.

The fact that they live in this country. It's part of the social contract - if you agree to living in the US that means you agree to pay the cost of living there, one of which is paying income tax to help your fellow man. If you don't like this concept you can freely move to another country.

This is a great thread.

Nah I'm okay, I'd rather stay in my country and lower its taxes then move. Maybe you should move "freely" instead, because the USA was never about what you're talking about, in fact it was founded on lack of Government intrusion and personal liberty. The tax rate is insane and I'll oppose it because that is my right.

I horde my money, because its mine. Not yours, not my "fellow man" or anyone else's. I'll horde it all I want, because I earned it. Why are you so concerned with rich people's money and how they spend it? It's theirs. Not yours.

tax capital gains as income

@perfect_blue: At the end of the day your opinion just intrudes on everyone else's lives, while mine takes an approach that lets pretty much anyone do what they want within limits.

Your post just screams micro-managing everyone because you can't handle it in life. Well I can. Just because you suck at the game means I have to pay for you and useless programs? No thanks. I have no contract for you or anyone else. The state isn't entitled to my money, I'm entitled to my hard-earned money.

US was also founded on slavery lol and taxation is constitutional so I'm not sure what point you are making. The Founding Fathers were okay with taxation as well. You are free to oppose whatever you want I didn't say otherwise. This is a forum, you made a post and I replied to it. I'm not "concerned" I was simply telling you the rationale for it. If you don't want to pay taxes then you shouldn't be allowed to use public highways, the fire department, clean water, police, etc. etc. and plenty of other things that taxes pay for. You can't have it both ways. There is also no need to get so offended lol good grief, are you 15? You seem so sensitive over a few sentences I calmly typed.

Haha, you don't know me or how much money I make. I use very little of the stuff taxes pay for and have a great paying job. In fact I have a salary of someone that a low tax rate would be VERY beneficial for. Yes, you have a contract with the state since you live there.

Haha, you don't know me or how much money I make. I use very little of the stuff taxes pay for and have a great paying job. In fact I have a salary of someone that a low tax rate would be VERY beneficial for. Yes, you have a contract with the state since you live there.

Its cool that you make a lot guy, but its irrelevant to me in this discussion. When I said "you" I was talking about the leeches of society, not you specifically. You're coming at my maturity, but it seems you feel the need to justify your career on a gaming forum; furthermore, you say I have no right to judge you, when you judge me on my maturity, another fallacy.

If you don't want to pay taxes then you shouldn't be allowed to use public highways, the fire department, clean water, police, etc. etc. and plenty of other things that taxes pay for. You can't have it both?

Did I say that? I said if I was rich yes I'd take the loopholes but so what? Thats my opinion. Actually I said I want to lower taxes, which can be done since there is so many useless federal departments that can be cut in the Govt. The Dept of Education, the IRS and the EPA are all useless programs for example.

This is where you're uninformed, because most of our taxes don't go towards those things you listed. They go towards an over-bloated military budget, useless federal departments and profiteered wars.

US was also founded on slavery lol and taxation is constitutional so I'm not sure what point you are making.

As an African-American former HS APUSH student, this is incorrect. The US was founded because of tyrannical big government. Slavery was a tool used to build the nation; however, it wasn't a main reason why the nation was founded.

Taxation is constitutional

Wrong. Actually the 16th amendment states:

"power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration,"

The imposition of the federal income tax is still of debate, because it is actually illegal in the constitution. If anything I'd be embarrassed about asserting that taxation is constitutional when there is an amendment which straight up says it isn't lmao. Your entire post is based on emotion/duty and was just annihilated by actual facts.

The Founding Fathers were actually okay with taxation.

Really dude? Really? LOL is this a troll post? Sure there were federalists and anti-federalists, but dude.

Also why would I be offended? As far as I'm concerned my posts seem more inviting towards people who prefer facts and who don't like regulating mommies.

I'm immature but you don't know that federal taxation is actually unconstitutional? You also think all the founding fathers were okay with taxation? Maybe our public education system and public services you seem to boast about don't seem to be working out too well for you there LOL.

Really? If you want to avoid confusion then please be more clear. These are your exact words:

How else could I have interpreted that as you specifically talking about me? If you were speaking in a general sense then whatever okay, but it absolutely not as clear as you're making it seem.

As for the second section: uh, yes you did. Numerous times in this thread actually. Again, here are your exact words:

You even quoted me and said the exact same thing, in that first quote up there. If you're going to lie and play the "I didn't say that game!" what's the point in even being on a forum?

I never said the US was founded "because" of slavery, I said ON. Read my post again. You basically agreed with me and said slavery was a tool... essentially the same thing I have said. You are arguing with something you agree with.

What in the world are you talking about? Federal taxation is absolutely legal, and your own post proves that lol. Read what you said again. How does it say it's illegal? The text itself is: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." How did you conclude it's "straight up" unconstitutional? Yes, prior to the amendment income taxes were considered unconstitutional only because of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895) but the amendment overturned that and made them legal. So again, what are you talking about? You mention facts yet you've managed to lie, argue with yourself, and post "straight up" falsehoods about the constitutionality of income taxes in the same post. Well done!

lol 16th amendment lol

No, apparently the 16th amendment makes it so it's actually ILLEGAL! Didn't you know? It means the opposite of what it says!

Ah the, attack my opinion tactic because I just provided solid facts that dismantled your post faster than Wikileaks dismantled the entire Democratic Party.

You provided quotes of me saying you're not entitled to my money and that I don't want to provide for others. What is your point? I never said I wanted to abolish taxes in any of those posts.

Look you can twist my words however you'd like but you said the founding fathers (assuming all) were for taxation and that taxation is constitutional (Which it isn't). You're not educated on basic history which makes it harder to take you seriously with each post.

The guy commented on the 16th ammendment. But he clearly misinterpreted it. But he is probably trolling, considering the logical fallacies in his posts, like when he said this,

"As an African-American former HS APUSH student, this is incorrect." A shining example of an ipse dixit.

I think this quote sums up it well,

"If you need to invoke your academic pedigree or job title for people to believe what you say, then you need a better argument." -Neil deGrasse Tyson

And using high school nonetheless to use said ipse dixit argument... I got into the "honors" program as well, but HS is very elementary knowledge, it is the mere basics. Hell, anything up to and including the last year of a bachelors is arguably the basics in a field.

Dunning Kruger effect anyone?

Nothing in the 16th amendment does not make a federal tax unconstitutional.

Because thats what it says LOL

You did not provide any facts. You provided assertions... assertions that just happened to be incorrect.

Oh and logical fallacies too.

You said the founding fathers were for taxation originally and that taxation isn't something of debate + is completely constitutional in your original post.

I can't take you seriously at this point. I mean you're assuming I want to abolish all taxes because I don't like welfare? It just seems like you can't form a main point so you're attacking my ideology which is embarrassing many lefties in the thread.

Dude, the fact that they made a Treasury means they were okay with it. It's really that simple. A central agency, one of their responsibilities which is to handle the government's revenue... revenue they get via taxes.

@perfect_blue: How much do you make, Aljosa, I want to know.

Less than you do, that's for sure lol. IIRC you're in some kind of science or business field? But I'm only 24 so I'm doing a decent amount better than most people my age here.

Sure the hardcore Federalist Hamilton?

You're also assuming they were all ok with it, which is also wrong. Jefferson (A founding father) vehemently opposed Hamilton's agenda. There are other anti-federalist founding fathers but this is the big-name one.

Again, no facts provided at all LOL. You're being provided historical facts and think I'm trolling its at the epitome of hilarity.

@luckylucious said:

@Maroxad said:

@luckylucious said:

Ah the, attack my opinion tactic because I just provided solid facts that dismantled your post faster than Wikileaks dismantled the entire Democratic Party.

You provided quotes of me saying you're not entitled to my money and that I don't want to provide for others. What is your point? I never said I wanted to abolish taxes in any of those posts.

Look you can twist my words however you'd like but you said the founding fathers (assuming all) were for taxation and that taxation is constitutional (Which it isn't). You're not educated on basic history which makes it harder to take you seriously with each post.

You did not provide any facts. You provided assertions... assertions that just happened to be incorrect.

Oh and logical fallacies too.

Mhm right. The 16th Amendment was proposed and passed as a way of collecting indirect taxes on unearned incomes and annual profits. You will notice absolutely no mention, anywhere, of the wages or salaries of the average citizen in the definition of "income."

The only tears from me are coming from laughter.

Try reading things without a confirmation bias. Just because something isnt directly mentioned in the constitution, doesnt make it unconstitutional.

@Maroxad said:

@luckylucious said:

@Maroxad said:

@luckylucious said:

Ah the, attack my opinion tactic because I just provided solid facts that dismantled your post faster than Wikileaks dismantled the entire Democratic Party.

You provided quotes of me saying you're not entitled to my money and that I don't want to provide for others. What is your point? I never said I wanted to abolish taxes in any of those posts.

Look you can twist my words however you'd like but you said the founding fathers (assuming all) were for taxation and that taxation is constitutional (Which it isn't). You're not educated on basic history which makes it harder to take you seriously with each post.

You did not provide any facts. You provided assertions... assertions that just happened to be incorrect.

Oh and logical fallacies too.

Mhm right. The 16th Amendment was proposed and passed as a way of collecting indirect taxes on unearned incomes and annual profits. You will notice absolutely no mention, anywhere, of the wages or salaries of the average citizen in the definition of "income."

The only tears from me are coming from laughter.

Try reading things without a confirmation bias. Just because something isnt mentioned in the constitution, doesnt make it unconstitutional.

I think you're wrong again my friend.

http://usa-the-republic.com/revenue/true_history/Chap5.html

Let me know when you want to stop.

"Direct taxes must be apportioned among the states, not among the people. The 16th Amendment did not change this! As we learned, the income tax is an excise tax on corporate profit, and always has been, therefore it does not need to be apportioned. Before the 16th Amendment, an individual's income was NOT taxable, either with apportionment or without. Eliminating apportionment, among the states, would still require the tax to be imposed on the states, not on the people."

Peck & Co. v. Lowe 247 U.S. 165, 172 (1918) "The Sixteenth Amendment . . . does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, but merely removes all occasion, which might otherwise exist, for an apportionment among the states oftaxes laid on

Again. You're wrong. Start basing your arguments on facts, rather than criticism of me.

Stanton vs Baltic Mining Co. 240 US 103, at 112 (1916) "By the previous ruling, it was settled that the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation, possessed by Congress, from the beginning, from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation, to which it inherently belonged..."

Must be embarrassing that neither of you know what the sixteenth amendment is, yet are trying to convince the thread that I don't after I provide a direct definition of it. Anything else for me to "troll" lmao.