English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-07-09 06:20:24 · 19 answers · asked by Eric R 6 in Business & Finance Taxes Other - Taxes

The answer is simple...

We should ONLY LOWER the income tax rate. Time after time, it has been shown that decreasing taxes has only increased our tax revenue.

2007-07-09 07:05:19 · update #1

I am definitely a FAIR TAX SUPPORTER.

check it out at

www.fairtax.org

2007-07-09 07:31:29 · update #2

19 answers

Not one penny of all the income tax collected goes to support our government. All of it is used to pay interest on our national debt! Not one penny is used to pay down the principal. So seeing this, just what benefit would we see from them confiscating even more?
Lets talk about the "Fair tax", this proposed national sales tax would put the federal government in every cash register and allow them to see most every penny we spend. We would need a national ID card system to make this work. All this intrusion into our lives and still every penny would go to the international bankers as interest payments. There is no guarantee they would drop the IRS, in fact they wouldn't!

All this and more are reasons I support Dr. Ron Paul for president! He is probably the only one in congress that truly understands our corrupt monetary system and he certianly is the only one with workable plans to fix this problem!

2007-07-09 07:24:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Because as we all want to get raises the govt also wants a raise, it helps with pork barreling, war, to pay the Representatives their wage increases and retirements benefits. Oh yes and occasionally it will go to help clean the air, the water, solve science problems, solve welfare problems create reform etc. I on the other hand get maybe a 25 to 50 cent an hour raise, then I have to live on that budget for a whole year facing increasing energy bills, cigarette taxes and a host of other increases. Although my take home pay is more then it was last year, I actually have less spendable income. Which if I had more then I would spend more and help support the needed programs. Of course it is all in the way you look at things.

2007-07-09 18:47:47 · answer #2 · answered by Donald C 3 · 1 0

Our taxes should be roughly equal to our expenditures. Some administrations like to guise tax increases in the form of deficit spending (basically a tax increase for our children).

If we want to buy something (like good education, fix our roads, or conduct a war), and our taxes don't cover the expense, then the only way is to increase taxes (or don't spend).

Deficit spending is sneaky way to raise taxes without the current taxpayers being immediately impacted. They basically pass the buck. Republican and Democratic policies have shown that people don't get it. Republicans will borrow whereas Democrats will tax. Taxing is a more fiscally responsible procedure.

When comparing policies, we should add total taxes plus total borrowed to come up with a "total taxed" number. Then we would be comparing apples to apples


Simple economics

2007-07-09 13:24:42 · answer #3 · answered by mark 7 · 1 0

Assuming the national debt is reduced by the money produced by the new tax, and national spending cap/control is set and put into law and that the tax will DEFINITELY be repealed once the ND is reduced then I would consider it so my grand children will not have to move to Sweden.

I would also pay a tax to have a conscious surgically implanted in our current and future government representatives -- I almost said LEADERS but the only thing the majority lead in is stuffing their pockets.

2007-07-09 13:28:46 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Income tax comes primarily from personal wages/salaries, capital gains and corporate profits

Simply put, if wages, cap gains and profits don't keep up with inflation then the fed and state governments bring in less money relative to inflation.

To compensate for the drop in revenue they either have to cut back on budgets or raise tax rates to keep pace with their budgets (which are also affected by inflation).

2007-07-09 14:06:32 · answer #5 · answered by kevinjohnbrown 2 · 1 0

In order to balance the budget and eliminate the accumulating debt. Since a huge portion of our tax dollars go to servicing our debt, it would save us all a lot of money in the long term if we could eventually pay off that debt and never acquire more.
However, that would assume fiscal discipline in not increasing spending to match the increased revenue. It would be best to have some kind of amendment in advance.

2007-07-09 13:25:28 · answer #6 · answered by Diminati 5 · 1 0

Currently, the USA imposes 25% of the world's debt. Asia has been generous financing our tax cuts, our highway improvements and our entitlements. Congress recently squandered away $54 billion for the next ten years by authorizing everything the drug companies want.

America has three choices: stop spending anything on America to maintain our national identity; introduce more world debt and accept fiscal management oversight by a consorteum of foreign countries; or raise revenues.

2007-07-09 13:28:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

inflation. The costs of running our federal state and local governments are not static. As interest rates increase, taxable income decreases, therefore tax revenue decreases.

2007-07-09 14:08:10 · answer #8 · answered by extra_37 4 · 1 0

Nary a one.

Politicians like to blame the people for tax increases, pretending that the people always want more in government services but never want to raise taxes to pay for them.

What they never point out is that there is very little overlap between the people who clamor for more government services and those who will be required to pay for them.

As former Senate Finance Committee Chairman Russell Long was fond of saying, "Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree!"

2007-07-09 13:34:47 · answer #9 · answered by Cogito Ergo Sum 5 · 1 1

One very good reason is to provide funding for governmental services as the police and fire departments. Everyone wants lower taxes, but doesn't everyone also want police there when they have a problem and the fire department there when their house is burning down?

2007-07-09 13:23:58 · answer #10 · answered by JaretR72 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers