Couldn't agree more
The assumptions made on my political or religious leanings are usually wrong lol funny how certain behaviors make people associate one with various narratives or groups. I just read a lot of history. And I can substantiate my reasoning for every priority I have currently.
I think axing property taxes would be first in my book. I don't like that we are practically forced to rent from the government.
So what taxes are you opposed to? Income tax? Sales tax? Property tax? Corporate tax? Payroll tax? Funeral tax?
Most of those actually. Should be zero. America was fine running that way for hundreds of years. The government shouldn't be large enough for you to care what they do. What matters is the actual people of the country. The government cannot fix our issues.
Lacks logic
Its just a huge waste to everyone's time.
I agree with you on nearly all cases. If you're waiting on the government to solve your probelms, you're going to be waiting a long time.Most of those actually. Should be zero. America was fine running that way for hundreds of years. The government shouldn't be large enough for you to care what they do. What matters is the actual people of the country. The government cannot fix our issues.
It's so funny when people want to tax the billionaires thinking it will change something. Isn't the government in bed with them? So giving them even more money is supposed to help something?
I think state and county level taxes that I vote for are fine. Not income. Just how it was before.
I also like free markets. Zero tarrifs. There were issues in the 1800's that led us to impose them. And the liquidity crisis's in the 1800s also led to formation of the federal reserve. Central bankers in Europe were screwing us over big time. Its pretty wild we survived after war of 1812. If British weren't so focused on Napoleon, they might have wiped us out. We were very weak as a nation for most of our history.
I'm a staunch advocate for the Monroe doctrine of 1823. Are you? I am anti imperialist and anti communist. Just to give you an idea of my value.
i pay taxes to two countries... I feel your pain, but mine is a dual pronged pain, I get nothing from the US, and as I cannot vote in japan it really gives me nothing special either. yet i pay both.
all of them except sales tax? you want a caddie, pay for a caddie, you want a yugo , pay for a yugo.
On all income sources – wages, investments, dividends, capital gains, and any other earnings. Without deductions or loopholes – ensuring everyone pays their fair share.
Eliminating this loophole would be a major step toward a more equitable tax system.Yeah with dirt roads, no infrastructure or anything else that looked like a modern civilisation.
Never but abolishing tax won’t change that.
Taxes are relatively high here in Spain but we have healthcare that’s free at the point of use & higher education is free or really cheap, as is public transportation. We gave up driving to airports or big cities years ago- a 3 hour journey on a European style long distance bus costs about €25 return. As much as we complain about taxes we should remember what happened & is happening in the UK as folks were convinced that a 2 or 3 % tax cut would benefit everyone as public services disappeared.Tax cuts favour the wealthiest & if you don’t have a private jet, helicopter, indoor heated pool level of income it will come back to bite you. Tax the oligarchsThis is my opinion on taxes -- probably not the popular opinion on here but to me more reality based.
Taxes are the foundation of a functioning society, funding essential infrastructure and services—roads, utilities, defense, education, and countless other public goods. While the debate over taxation is often polarized, one thing is clear: eliminating one form of tax will inevitably lead to increases elsewhere.
For example:
A More Fair Tax System
- If income tax were abolished, sales or property taxes would need to rise to compensate, shifting the financial burden in ways that may not be equitable.
- Sales taxes are inherently regressive, disproportionately affecting lower-income individuals who spend a greater percentage of their earnings on necessities.
- Property taxes are somewhat more neutral but can still be regressive if home values do not align with an owner’s ability to pay.
- Flat income taxes disproportionately impact lower-income earners unless significant exemptions—such as exempting the first $80,000 of income—are introduced. Without such measures, the burden of taxation falls largely on the middle class.
If true fairness were the goal, taxation should be:
One of the biggest loopholes benefiting the wealthy is the ability to:
Government Inefficiencies and Waste
- Use owned assets as collateral to borrow money, allowing them to live virtually tax-free.
- Upon their death, their assets receive a stepped-up basis, meaning that their property value increase over a lifetime goes untaxed if sold.
Government waste is a legitimate concern. First-hand experience in the military revealed shocking inefficiencies:
A better approach?
- Basic supplies—bolts, screws, and nuts—purchased at 10x their retail price due to bureaucratic procurement processes.
- Justification? MIL-SPEC standards requiring excessive testing and certification, even for items that didn’t need it.
- A hammer, for example, should simply be a hammer—meeting reasonable material and durability standards.
- Allow bulk purchasing based on common specifications.
- Conduct random sample testing instead of excessive certifications.
- Reform government procurement to eliminate excessive bid requirements that drive up costs and allow for corruption.
Federal vs. Local Tax Collection and Spending
A fundamental economic principle:
- The federal government is the most efficient entity for collecting taxes.
- Local governments are the most efficient at spending tax revenue.
Example: Federal Highway System
- Northeastern states pay far more into the federal highway fund than they receive.
- Rural states like Texas, Arizona, and Nevada receive more funding than they contribute to maintain vast highway networks.
- While this redistribution is necessary, it highlights inefficiencies in centralized tax allocation.
How Do We Fund National Defense Without Taxes?
If not through taxation, how do we:
- Fund the military?
- Protect against external threats?
Historically, the U.S. initially operated without income tax, relying on state-collected property taxes—a system that aligned with the era when only landowners had voting rights. However, during World War II, federal personal income tax was introduced to finance the war effort, though the first federal income tax actually began during the Civil War in 1861 and was later codified with the 16th Amendment in 1913.
Even President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against unchecked military spending, stating:
Structural Reforms for Fair Governance
If fairness in governance were truly the goal, several reforms should be implemented:
1. Term Limits for Elected Officials
2. Campaign Finance Reform
- Senators: Maximum six 2-year terms.
- House Representatives: Maximum three 6-year terms.
- Judiciary: Maximum 20-year terms, with the option to reapply for reappointment.
3. Outlaw Gerrymandering
- PACs and lobbyists should be barred from direct campaign contributions.
- Instead, all campaign funding should come from a single, publicly managed fund, allocated equally based on qualifying support levels—ensuring a level playing field.
The most fair districting system would involve:
- A nonpartisan committee of 12, composed of:
- 4 members from each major party
- 4 randomly selected citizens
- This would ensure fair, unbiased representation, preventing manipulation for political advantage.
Exactly - power to create money should go back to congress - then we won't need to borrow and be slave to banks anymore (in addition to no more funding of wars)
Look at our spending. This is a huge misconception. Our money is not going to infrastructure. Have you seen our trains? Local governments can easily pay for that as well.
Looks like an AI response without any effort at allThis is my opinion on taxes -- probably not the popular opinion on here but to me more reality based.
Taxes are the foundation of a functioning society, funding essential infrastructure and services—roads, utilities, defense, education, and countless other public goods. While the debate over taxation is often polarized, one thing is clear: eliminating one form of tax will inevitably lead to increases elsewhere.
For example:
A More Fair Tax System
- If income tax were abolished, sales or property taxes would need to rise to compensate, shifting the financial burden in ways that may not be equitable.
- Sales taxes are inherently regressive, disproportionately affecting lower-income individuals who spend a greater percentage of their earnings on necessities.
- Property taxes are somewhat more neutral but can still be regressive if home values do not align with an owner’s ability to pay.
- Flat income taxes disproportionately impact lower-income earners unless significant exemptions—such as exempting the first $80,000 of income—are introduced. Without such measures, the burden of taxation falls largely on the middle class.
If true fairness were the goal, taxation should be:
One of the biggest loopholes benefiting the wealthy is the ability to:
Government Inefficiencies and Waste
- Use owned assets as collateral to borrow money, allowing them to live virtually tax-free.
- Upon their death, their assets receive a stepped-up basis, meaning that their property value increase over a lifetime goes untaxed if sold.
Government waste is a legitimate concern. First-hand experience in the military revealed shocking inefficiencies:
A better approach?
- Basic supplies—bolts, screws, and nuts—purchased at 10x their retail price due to bureaucratic procurement processes.
- Justification? MIL-SPEC standards requiring excessive testing and certification, even for items that didn’t need it.
- A hammer, for example, should simply be a hammer—meeting reasonable material and durability standards.
- Allow bulk purchasing based on common specifications.
- Conduct random sample testing instead of excessive certifications.
- Reform government procurement to eliminate excessive bid requirements that drive up costs and allow for corruption.
Federal vs. Local Tax Collection and Spending
A fundamental economic principle:
- The federal government is the most efficient entity for collecting taxes.
- Local governments are the most efficient at spending tax revenue.
Example: Federal Highway System
- Northeastern states pay far more into the federal highway fund than they receive.
- Rural states like Texas, Arizona, and Nevada receive more funding than they contribute to maintain vast highway networks.
- While this redistribution is necessary, it highlights inefficiencies in centralized tax allocation.
How Do We Fund National Defense Without Taxes?
If not through taxation, how do we:
- Fund the military?
- Protect against external threats?
Historically, the U.S. initially operated without income tax, relying on state-collected property taxes—a system that aligned with the era when only landowners had voting rights. However, during World War II, federal personal income tax was introduced to finance the war effort, though the first federal income tax actually began during the Civil War in 1861 and was later codified with the 16th Amendment in 1913.
Even President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against unchecked military spending, stating:
Structural Reforms for Fair Governance
If fairness in governance were truly the goal, several reforms should be implemented:
1. Term Limits for Elected Officials
2. Campaign Finance Reform
- Senators: Maximum six 2-year terms.
- House Representatives: Maximum three 6-year terms.
- Judiciary: Maximum 20-year terms, with the option to reapply for reappointment.
3. Outlaw Gerrymandering
- PACs and lobbyists should be barred from direct campaign contributions.
- Instead, all campaign funding should come from a single, publicly managed fund, allocated equally based on qualifying support levels—ensuring a level playing field.
The most fair districting system would involve:
- A nonpartisan committee of 12, composed of:
- 4 members from each major party
- 4 randomly selected citizens
- This would ensure fair, unbiased representation, preventing manipulation for political advantage.
