End income tax

[there4eyeM]

Regressive taxes at such a magnitude should be a non-starter.

 

[my2¢]

I'm in favor of keeping the income tax over all other replacement tax legislation that's been proposed. But ideally I favor taxing only dead people.

 

[LoneLaugher]

What the fuck kind of excuse is, "Everybody else does it this way!"?

None...until you consider that there is likely a reason for it. Which I have done.

The reason for it is to ass rape the common taxpayer.

OK. The industrialized world's entire population is retarded and you aren't. Good luck with that.

 

[g5000]

What the fuck kind of excuse is, "Everybody else does it this way!"?

None...until you consider that there is likely a reason for it. Which I have done.

The reason for it is to ass rape the common taxpayer.

OK. The industrialized world's entire population is retarded and you aren't. Good luck with that.

The industrialized world's entire population is being ass raped. Have you looked at the amount of national debts they all have hanging over their heads? Have you noticed how many of their countries are on the verge of financial collapse?

Yeah.

Tax expenditures are the single biggest cause of national debt. Ours add up to $1.2 trillion a year. More than twice the federal deficit.

Do the math.

You can't hide those government gifts in a Fair Tax (sales tax). The gig would be up. The playing field would finally be level.

 

[g5000]

The rest of the industrialized world is doubly deep ass fucked. They have income tax and a consumption tax (VAT).

 

[Conservative65]

25% of income taxes are spent on our military.

RW's want no income tax and a better, stronger military.

maybe they can figure that one out.

Actually, it was 16% or $610 billion for FY 2015. Compare that to spending on Medicaid and food stamps, both redistribution of wealth programs, that spent $602 billion in FY 2015. The difference is military spending is a delegated power of Congress granted by the Constitution and there is no mention whatsoever of the social welfare programs.

Maybe one day you lefties can figure that out. I have a solution. Stop the wasteful spending on social welfare that has produce no viable results nor is mentioned in the Constitution and use that money on the military, something that specifically is mentioned.

 

[Conservative65]

25% of income taxes are spent on our military.

RW's want no income tax and a better, stronger military.

maybe they can figure that one out.

And yet that is one of the few things that is Constitutional spending by the Congress..

Silly far left drone!

The lefties regularly have a problem with spending on things specifically in the Constitution but have no problem with spending on things that aren't there. I can point to the Article, Section, and Clause that permits military spending as a delegated power. I have yet to have one lefty show me the word food stamps, WIC, government housing, Medicaid, etc. in the Constitution.

 

[Timmy]

All these "alternate" tax proposals are usually shell games that end lowering the wealthys tax payments .

 

[BluesLegend]

There's no need for an income tax, or any tax, liberals will voluntarily give most of their money to the government for redistribution. Right libs, you people will lead by example, practice what you preach?

 

[Timmy]

25% of income taxes are spent on our military.

RW's want no income tax and a better, stronger military.

maybe they can figure that one out.

And yet that is one of the few things that is Constitutional spending by the Congress..

Silly far left drone!

The lefties regularly have a problem with spending on things specifically in the Constitution but have no problem with spending on things that aren't there. I can point to the Article, Section, and Clause that permits military spending as a delegated power. I have yet to have one lefty show me the word food stamps, WIC, government housing, Medicaid, etc. in the Constitution.

That clause literally says "general welfare" .

 

[ScienceRocks]

Yep,
End our leadership in science, tech and watch our infrastructure go to shit!

Good way to become a third world shit hole even faster.

 

[g5000]

No, logic says that if a Tax Deduction is a Gov expenditure, by extension the money must be theirs to spend.

Wow! I'm debating with someone who doesn't know what a tax expenditure is!

Here you go: Tax expenditure - Wikipedia

 

[Doc1]

Yep,
End our leadership in science, tech and watch our infrastructure go to shit!

Good way to become a third world shit hole even faster.

You need to bone up, the best engineers in the Hi-Tech field are NOT American. Intel hires ore Indians and Asians than anything else.

 

[g5000]

Yep,
End our leadership in science, tech and watch our infrastructure go to shit!

Good way to become a third world shit hole even faster.

You need to bone up, the best engineers in the Hi-Tech field are NOT American. Intel hires ore Indians and Asians than anything else.

Let's continue our tax expenditure discussion in this topic, instead of the civil rights topic.

Of the 19 Presidential candidates in 2016, whose tax plan did you prefer the most?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

No more IRS. Think about how many problems and $$ that would save.
No more bitching about tax returns
Loss of lobbyists in Washington
Products would be less. Then again, consumption tax would raise it back up... Hmmm
Everyone would pay their "fair share"
Loopholes? What fucking loopholes?

Never going to happen

 

[Doc1]

No, logic says that if a Tax Deduction is a Gov expenditure, by extension the money must be theirs to spend.

Wow! I'm debating with someone who doesn't know what a tax expenditure is!

Here you go: Tax expenditure - Wikipedia

With all due respect your post assumes that your position is automatically correct.
You should actually read what you post friend.

"The history of tax expenditures"

In 1967, the tax expenditure concept was created by Stanley S. Surrey, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury", as a way to represent the political use of tax breaks for means that were usually accomplished through budget spending." Secretary Surrey argued that members of Congress were using tax policy as a ``vast subsidy apparatus to reward favored constituencies or subsidize narrow policy areas."The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974 (CBA) defines tax expenditures as "those revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability" (Surrey 1985).

Your source makes my point clear, that to view "Tax Breaks" as expenditures ALL monies belong to the Gov. "Revenues" is a misnomer, there are no real "revenues" in Gov, only confiscation.

The definition of "Revenue":

"Revenue is the amount of money that is brought into a company by its business activities. Revenue is also known as sales, as in the price-to-sales ratio, an alternative to the price-to-earnings ratio that uses revenue in the denominator.

Read more: Revenue Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/revenue.asp#ixzz4VhGk9LaS
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

So you see, revenue is a word that does not apply in Gov, they don't create or make anything. They confiscate.
Just because the Gov decides to "define" something in no way makes it applicable to anything or anyone. So in order to define tax breaks as an "expenditure" you must START with the idea that ALL monies belong to the Gov.

 

[g5000]

No, logic says that if a Tax Deduction is a Gov expenditure, by extension the money must be theirs to spend.

Wow! I'm debating with someone who doesn't know what a tax expenditure is!

Here you go: Tax expenditure - Wikipedia

With all due respect your post assumes that your position is automatically correct.
You should actually read what you post friend.

"The history of tax expenditures"

In 1967, the tax expenditure concept was created by Stanley S. Surrey, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury", as a way to represent the political use of tax breaks for means that were usually accomplished through budget spending." Secretary Surrey argued that members of Congress were using tax policy as a ``vast subsidy apparatus to reward favored constituencies or subsidize narrow policy areas."The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974 (CBA) defines tax expenditures as "those revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability" (Surrey 1985).

Your source makes my point clear, that to view "Tax Breaks" as expenditures ALL monies belong to the Gov. "Revenues" is a misnomer, there are no real "revenues" in Gov, only confiscation.

The definition of "Revenue":

"Revenue is the amount of money that is brought into a company by its business activities. Revenue is also known as sales, as in the price-to-sales ratio, an alternative to the price-to-earnings ratio that uses revenue in the denominator.

Read more: Revenue Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/revenue.asp#ixzz4VhGk9LaS
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

So you see, revenue is a word that does not apply in Gov, they don't create or make anything. They confiscate.
Just because the Gov decides to "define" something in no way makes it applicable to anything or anyone. So in order to define tax breaks as an "expenditure" you must START with the idea that ALL monies belong to the Gov.

Everyone understands what tax expenditures are, except you and a shitload of other pseudocons. You are demonstrating your lack of comprehension. You have had a mental block installed by pseudcon propaganda.

So tell me. Of the 19 Presidential candidates in 2016, whose tax plan did you prefer the most?

ETA: I have to take one of my tax credits to a friend's house for a sleepover. Be right back.

 

[Doc1]

No, logic says that if a Tax Deduction is a Gov expenditure, by extension the money must be theirs to spend.

Wow! I'm debating with someone who doesn't know what a tax expenditure is!

Here you go: Tax expenditure - Wikipedia

With all due respect your post assumes that your position is automatically correct.
You should actually read what you post friend.

"The history of tax expenditures"

In 1967, the tax expenditure concept was created by Stanley S. Surrey, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury", as a way to represent the political use of tax breaks for means that were usually accomplished through budget spending." Secretary Surrey argued that members of Congress were using tax policy as a ``vast subsidy apparatus to reward favored constituencies or subsidize narrow policy areas."The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974 (CBA) defines tax expenditures as "those revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability" (Surrey 1985).

Your source makes my point clear, that to view "Tax Breaks" as expenditures ALL monies belong to the Gov. "Revenues" is a misnomer, there are no real "revenues" in Gov, only confiscation.

The definition of "Revenue":

"Revenue is the amount of money that is brought into a company by its business activities. Revenue is also known as sales, as in the price-to-sales ratio, an alternative to the price-to-earnings ratio that uses revenue in the denominator.

Read more: Revenue Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/revenue.asp#ixzz4VhGk9LaS
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

So you see, revenue is a word that does not apply in Gov, they don't create or make anything. They confiscate.
Just because the Gov decides to "define" something in no way makes it applicable to anything or anyone. So in order to define tax breaks as an "expenditure" you must START with the idea that ALL monies belong to the Gov.

Everyone understands what tax expenditures are, except you.

So tell me. Of the 19 Presidential candidates in 2016, whose tax plan did you prefer the most?

No, you've simply accepted the Govs redefinition of what "revenue" is.
You've accepted the word "revenue" in replacement of "taxation". In doing so it enables you to see "tax deductions" as expenditures, meaning only that the Gov takes less of MY money and in doing so it has therefore "spent" money that was never theirs to start with.
This is the real problem with Democratic Socialism, it seeks to (as it must) to redefine and control language thereby enabling folks like you and them to control how things are viewed. Most people don't pay attention, unfortunately for you I do.

 

[WillReadmore]

Yep,
End our leadership in science, tech and watch our infrastructure go to shit!

Good way to become a third world shit hole even faster.

You need to bone up, the best engineers in the Hi-Tech field are NOT American. Intel hires ore Indians and Asians than anything else.

We're 5% of the world population.

Are you suggesting that we try to win in hi tech while limiting ourselves to those of our kids who get to go to college?

 

[WillReadmore]

No, logic says that if a Tax Deduction is a Gov expenditure, by extension the money must be theirs to spend.

Wow! I'm debating with someone who doesn't know what a tax expenditure is!

Here you go: Tax expenditure - Wikipedia

With all due respect your post assumes that your position is automatically correct.
You should actually read what you post friend.

"The history of tax expenditures"

In 1967, the tax expenditure concept was created by Stanley S. Surrey, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury", as a way to represent the political use of tax breaks for means that were usually accomplished through budget spending." Secretary Surrey argued that members of Congress were using tax policy as a ``vast subsidy apparatus to reward favored constituencies or subsidize narrow policy areas."The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974 (CBA) defines tax expenditures as "those revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability" (Surrey 1985).

Your source makes my point clear, that to view "Tax Breaks" as expenditures ALL monies belong to the Gov. "Revenues" is a misnomer, there are no real "revenues" in Gov, only confiscation.

The definition of "Revenue":

"Revenue is the amount of money that is brought into a company by its business activities. Revenue is also known as sales, as in the price-to-sales ratio, an alternative to the price-to-earnings ratio that uses revenue in the denominator.

Read more: Revenue Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/revenue.asp#ixzz4VhGk9LaS
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

So you see, revenue is a word that does not apply in Gov, they don't create or make anything. They confiscate.
Just because the Gov decides to "define" something in no way makes it applicable to anything or anyone. So in order to define tax breaks as an "expenditure" you must START with the idea that ALL monies belong to the Gov.

Everyone understands what tax expenditures are, except you.

So tell me. Of the 19 Presidential candidates in 2016, whose tax plan did you prefer the most?

No, you've simply accepted the Govs redefinition of what "revenue" is.
You've accepted the word "revenue" in replacement of "taxation". In doing so it enables you to see "tax deductions" as expenditures, meaning only that the Gov takes less of MY money and in doing so it has therefore "spent" money that was never theirs to start with.
This is the real problem with Democratic Socialism, it seeks to (as it must) to redefine and control language thereby enabling folks like you and them to control how things are viewed. Most people don't pay attention, unfortunately for you I do.

Feel free to propose a revenue neutral direction.

Arguing terminology is just dodging the issue.