|
NeedToUseYou -> RE: Ron Paul: Get government out of healthcare! (12/13/2007 6:18:36 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mistermaster111
quote:
He is right on about getting government out of healthcare, and about abolishing the IRS.
The IRS's budget is approximately $30 per American citizen. If Ron Paul thinks that a amount equal to the Federal Income Tax can be cut from the Federal Budget, why would he choose that tax specifically? The IRS is one of the tightest ships in our government.
And (coincidentally, of course) the one that imposes the largest tax burden on the rich.
I think he's more concerned about the costs imposed by that 30.00 dollars. So, it costs them(IRS) 30.00 dollars according to you to run the IRS per citizen. Well, that's all good and whatnot. However, it costs 100's to file on average, unless you do it yourself, then it takes at least a 100.00 dollars worth of time, if you actually pay any taxes. By that I mean, sure if you are broke and getting 100% refund. It is simple, or if you have no investments, it's simple. But if you've acquired anything, or run even a small business, then the costs of complying with the IRS, dwarf that 30.00 dollar figure, whether it be in your own time, or the money you pay an accountant to do it.
The figure I've heard thrown about is 250 billion in costs associated with complying with the IRS(or trying to find ways around taxes). Who really cares what the IRS costs to run. It's the costs they incur that is the problem. We haven't even gotten to the actual taxes. I can't back up that number but it undoubtedly is HUGE. I mean we pay an accountant, for our little business, and I know we pay him at least a couple thousand a year. I can only imagine the costs a GM or INTEL, pay to comply with the IRS. Now, no one gets to upset when rich people get screwed into paying money like the megacorps., but that is money that is 100% put into NON-productive effort(100% waste), it's merely complying with the convoluted tax structure, and more importantly only those mega-corps can afford to have full time workers and lawyers whose sole job is to figure out ways to get out of taxes and defend their viewpoints in court. Small business, still get stuck with compliance costs, but don't get anywhere near the deductions the MegaCorps attempt to get.
Of course none of that has anything to do with why Ron Paul objects to the IRS. He objects to the government claiming your income. He doesn't object to all taxes either, he objects to the Income tax.
I wouldn't have an objection to a retail tax across the board even. Why? because it would be a choice to select to partake in taxable transactions. An Income tax is evil in that you are pre-taxed based around the assumption of a burden you might place on the infrastructure, and society. So, you are taxed before you consume, and the consumption, is what incurs the costs, the government is supposed to collects taxes for(roads, bridges, FDA, etc.). Taxes, should be solely based on consumption(IMO), whenever taxes are present. The present system is unfair, it penalizes you under the assumption that you will consume according to your wages. It does not encourage savings(As you paid the tax already, if you only paid tax on money spent then people would save more).
The above isn't what Ron Paul supports it was just a side rant, and something I could support as well.
So, anyway, Ron Paul doesn't want to destroy the IRS because of 30.00 dollars, he wants to get rid of the IRS, because the IRS is in charge of stealing your money. And it is stealing. Here's a good example, if I buy everything used locally, and repair stuff others have trashed, I would not put near the stress on the infrastructure, as someone, that buys the newest gizmo, when the dryer breaks they don't repair it they buy a new one. That Consumer(the latter), is putting a much larger strain on the infrastructure(pollution, wear on roads transporting the item, manufacturing the item, etc), than the miser. Therefore the Consumer should pay the bulk of taxes. However, under the present system, we all pay like we are the Consumer unless you are below the poverty line, then they charge you very little, even though you might strain the government more than someone making more who is frugal.
The tax system in my opinion is patently evil, in that it encourages consumption, penalizes savings, penalizes frugal behavior. So, if for example, let's say you did have a retail tax, as opposed to a income tax. You might pay 25% more for new items, than at present. Wouldn't that automatically make the consumer more concerned with the quality of the item, the repairability of the item. It would also make repairing the item a lot more affordable, as the repair guy wouldn't pay any taxes on the profit of repairing it, and the value of the item would reflect it's true cost to the economy, instead of being subsidized by the Income tax.
At the hear of it all the Income tax is nothing more than a subsidy to the retail industry(by that I mean, new consumer products), as it shifts the costs from that counter price to your pay check stub. So, in the end you have less incentive to be frugal, repair, by quality, because you will be taxed regardless.
The IRS is evil, there are few things I think qualify for that label, but it really is. Taxes aren't necessarily evil. IRS does not equal taxes. You can have taxes without the IRS.
I will never vote for anyone ever again that is for maintaining the IRS. I'm really glad Ron Paul has gotten the issue with the IRS highlighted to some degree, I think there is a good chance the Income tax will be removed at some point, whether he wins or not.
I am 100% sure it is the most evil part of the the government, well after the Federal Reserve. LOL.
People arguing about different INCOME(as opposed to taxes in general) tax plans, remind me of two slaves fighting over which job they should do. One might get an easier job than the other, but until they turn on the slave master, they are both getting getting fucked, regardless.
(Hrmmm, wonders to myself, if calling the IRS evil, and comparing them to a slave master, that needs turned upon, makes me a domestic terrorist, LOL. reference: to the new Domestic terrorism bill)
I went ahead and looked up the cost of compliance(Just googled it),and the first link agreed with my recalled 250 billion(estimate for 2006, in the first link) in costs number. I didn't look any farther. Feel free to enlighten me with info showing a lower cost.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/96.html
Sorry for the confusing post, I get talking taxes, and IRS, and I just keep going and going like the energizer bunny. I hate the frickin IRS.
|
|
|
|
