As long as those increased taxes go to health care for all (Like Canada and Demark), then i'm okay with that.
2007-01-04 04:20:06
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Taxation is often touted as a means to support the impoverished but ends up in pork barrel. Ear marking, special projects and social programs that don't work (Americorps, Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare) often consume more in administrative costs than in actual benefit to the end user. By increasing taxes, and this is in a bipartisan view, the politicians see more money to spend on personal pet projects aka Robert Byrd and Ted Stevens. A flat tax projected on gross domestic sales revenue would give a far better return, plus eliminate the IRS and the tax lawyer/accountant industry.
A democracy founded on taxation without representation should not be incurring the level we have. Thusly, the flat tax is the only logical choice for returning to the basic premise of taxation with representation
2007-01-04 04:29:01
·
answer #2
·
answered by Jim from the Midwest 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Our tax dollars are spent by our elected leaders. We taxpayers have a very limited amount of ability to affect how they are spent, and there is very little real transparency to the process. Legislation to to create a Federal Spending Database, which would have ensured transparency and accountability, was blocked last year by Ted Stevens, a Republican senator from Alaska. It was later passed.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/30/secret.senators/index.html
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN02590:@@@L&summ2=m&
Taxes will rise and rise, so long as we are willing to pay them and don't ask uncomfortable questions. Making certain that the money is being spent wisely is critical to maintaining any semblance of integrity in our government. As it stands now, I personally am very reluctant to approve ANY tax increase,on either a state or federal level, until a full accounting of how the money is being spent is provided to the public on a continuous basis. With the advent of the Internet, there is no excuse to not do so, other than the fact that our leadership has much to hide.
I don't think any Americans mind paying reasonable taxes, so long as the money is well spent. At this point, it clearly is going places it should not--billions spent on no-bid contracts to major corporations, subsidies to oil companies--give me a break. I work too hard for my pay to want to throw it away so carelessly.
2007-01-04 04:43:18
·
answer #3
·
answered by functionary01 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The definition of freedom is the ability to make a choice. If you're money is taken from you by force (taxes) then you have no choice, and therefore, no freedom. How can restricting my freedom now, be an investment in more freedom in the future?
2007-01-04 04:19:05
·
answer #4
·
answered by Aegis of Freedom 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
no it is not an investment in freedom.if it were there would not be as many people complain about high taxes. if you think taxes supports freedom try asking some one from Rhodesia,now Zimbabwe , or South Africa when the U,S, AND BRITAIN FORCED BOTH COUNTRY'S TO GIVE OVER POWER TO THE BLACKS AND ARE NOW STARVING, I mean the ones they have not killed yet, These country's had a healthy and prosperous society with plenty for all , now look what our country has did to them, "our tax money at work" now we are having to feed them when before they had plenty to export, our politicians knew what they were doing from the beginning so can some one tell me why? we forced good productive people out and put in communist criminals, one who was trying to destroy the country by force , our great Nelson Mandela, who spent over 20 years in prison for his crimes, after being convicted by a legitimate court,
or our taxes spent for welfare to able bodied people who are more able to work than the tax payer, or the at least 1000 other freebies given to these worthless scum and to other country's who are killing and destroying others, homes family's etc,
yes it is great to see our taxes at work.
2007-01-04 04:34:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by james w 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think your question is faulty. The questions are how is the tax burden shared among classes of income groups, how well is it spent without creating what everyone would consider waste, is a deficit necessary at a given time and how much, what is it spent on, and how are the benefits of the spending distributed by income groups. No single question among these can be considered just in itself without consideration of the others.
2007-01-04 04:35:55
·
answer #6
·
answered by rhino9joe 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, it's too often an investment in pork barrel spending, and increased social services for too many unworthy... IE: Illegal immigrants, able bodied people, etc..
2007-01-04 04:17:46
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, the money is to support the illegals in our country...so I would say it is Americans paying illegals to take our country and our way of life!
2007-01-04 04:20:00
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Not paying taxes is a good thing... if you don't like streetlights, sewer processing facilities, decent roads, police... you know, stuff like that.
2007-01-04 04:21:52
·
answer #9
·
answered by LatexSolarBeef 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
A flat tax sounds ..... fair and just.....( like buying insurance...the more you've got to lose, the more you pay ) What? too fair..!!!
2007-01-04 04:17:32
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋