A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Invitiation to the end of the IRS



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 22nd 04, 03:19 AM
Jim Fisher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Otis Winslow" wrote in message
The answer is the flat tax.


I used to be in favor of that but the problem is that a flat tax is, in
fact, a regressive tax. Yeah, I know everyone pays the same percentage but
$200.00 a year to someone making $10,000.00 a year is still a lot while
$2000.00 a year to someone making a hundred grand really isn't that much.

A national sales tax is a much more-better idea. You buys lots of stuff?
You pays The Man. This would also encourage folks to save instead of
spending more than they make. . . . Aw hell, I wasn't gonna even reply to
this silly thread but couldn't help it. I'm going to bed before I get wound
up.

--
Jim Fisher


  #2  
Old April 22nd 04, 03:33 AM
Greg Copeland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 21:19:15 -0500, Jim Fisher wrote:

"Otis Winslow" wrote in message
The answer is the flat tax.


I used to be in favor of that but the problem is that a flat tax is, in
fact, a regressive tax. Yeah, I know everyone pays the same percentage but
$200.00 a year to someone making $10,000.00 a year is still a lot while
$2000.00 a year to someone making a hundred grand really isn't that much.

A national sales tax is a much more-better idea. You buys lots of stuff?
You pays The Man. This would also encourage folks to save instead of
spending more than they make. . . . Aw hell, I wasn't gonna even reply to
this silly thread but couldn't help it. I'm going to bed before I get wound
up.


Well, even with a flat tax, the IRS wouldn't be going anywhere. At best,
it would be greatly reduced in size. For those that are below the poverty
line, other ammendments, refunds and services can be provided to offset
anything they paid as part of a flat tax program. In fact, many of these
services are already available today. I've heard this argument used time
and time again. It never holds water. A flat tax system is by far, the
most fair and easiest methods of collecting taxes.

Even if I had to pay any extra two or three hunded dollars a year in
taxes, it would easily be offset by the amount that I already pay in
having my taxes done. Last I heard, if a flat tax program were to be
implemented, the average American would pay +-500 dollars within what they
currently pay. That means some of us would actually do better. Others
would do slight worse. In either case, not having to pay for taxes
services would certainly help to offset the difference.


  #3  
Old April 22nd 04, 12:42 PM
Jay Honeck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Well, even with a flat tax, the IRS wouldn't be going anywhere.

The IRS isn't the enemy. They are a necessary and legal part of our
government.

The enemy is Congress, who keeps passing absurdly more intricate and
inscrutable tax laws, which must then be incorporated and interpreted by the
IRS.

Congress is supposedly made up of our representatives, but I haven't seen
much evidence of that in my lifetime.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


  #4  
Old April 22nd 04, 09:37 PM
Tom Sixkiller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:7dOhc.2204$_L6.387680@attbi_s53...
Well, even with a flat tax, the IRS wouldn't be going anywhere.


The IRS isn't the enemy. They are a necessary and legal part of our
government.


They may be legal but they're certainly not necessary, especailly their
Gestapo mentaility ("We're always right even when were wrong")


The enemy is Congress, who keeps passing absurdly more intricate and
inscrutable tax laws, which must then be incorporated and interpreted by

the
IRS.


Which plays the bully with such relish.


Congress is supposedly made up of our representatives, but I haven't seen
much evidence of that in my lifetime.


True enough but every time some Rep tries to reign in the IRS they get
stepped on.


  #5  
Old April 22nd 04, 06:53 AM
Tom Sixkiller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
. ..
"Otis Winslow" wrote in message
The answer is the flat tax.


I used to be in favor of that but the problem is that a flat tax is, in
fact, a regressive tax. Yeah, I know everyone pays the same percentage

but
$200.00 a year to someone making $10,000.00 a year is still a lot while
$2000.00 a year to someone making a hundred grand really isn't that much.


The flat tax (which I'm against) doesn't even kick in until you make like
$30K.


A national sales tax is a much more-better idea. You buys lots of stuff?
You pays The Man. This would also encourage folks to save instead of
spending more than they make. . . . Aw hell, I wasn't gonna even reply to
this silly thread but couldn't help it. I'm going to bed before I get

wound
up.


Good idea. :~)

BTW, I heard on the radio that something like one-fourth of households now
pay NO taxes whatsoever (aside from local)...so who are the parasites?




  #6  
Old April 22nd 04, 02:14 PM
Otis Winslow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

The flat tax (which I'm against) doesn't even kick in until you make like

$30K.


BTW, I heard on the radio that something like one-fourth of households now
pay NO taxes whatsoever (aside from local)...so who are the parasites?



Everyone should pay something. From the first dollar. There should be no
parasites.

As for a consumption tax .. it's a great idea. But would be a night mare to
enforce and I think the resources required to chase it down and enforce
it would offset the reduction in govt size from implementation of a flat
tax. People would just pay cash and barter to avoid it like they avoid
sales
tax.

However .. both of these methods are far superior to the current one.


  #7  
Old April 22nd 04, 09:46 PM
Tom Sixkiller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Otis Winslow" wrote in message
.. .

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

The flat tax (which I'm against) doesn't even kick in until you make

like
$30K.


BTW, I heard on the radio that something like one-fourth of households

now
pay NO taxes whatsoever (aside from local)...so who are the parasites?



Everyone should pay something. From the first dollar. There should be no
parasites.

As for a consumption tax .. it's a great idea. But would be a night mare

to
enforce


No moreso than sales tax already is. Even more, there is much less that can
be manipulated via "interpretations".

and I think the resources required to chase it down and enforce
it would offset the reduction in govt size from implementation of a flat
tax. People would just pay cash and barter to avoid it like they avoid
sales tax.


Only commodities (primarily) can be bartered.

One last thought: The US existed for it's first 125 years without an IRS,
and with only excise taxes. We started to rapidly lose our liberties and
privacy when the Income Tax and the IRS came into being in 1913 (just in
time for World War One).



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.