2007-10-19 06:47:28 · 13 answers · asked by Darth Vader 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
YES!
2007-10-19 06:49:48 · answer #1 · answered by - 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely.......We can start by eliminating the IRS, then we can proceed to the Dept of Education,then about 40 of the 44 national security agencies, then the elected officials entitlements, then we can eliminate HUD, and the Dept of Agriculture, then Health and human services.....If we did that in the first year, that would be a good start, and we would save a whole lot of money. In the second year, we would need to start trimming all the foreign aid we give out, and we would have to look at things like The national endowment for the arts, the FDA, and anything else that doesn't make any constitutional sense at all.
Then we can start over, and decide what regulating interstate commerce and providing for the common defense entails.
I think if we did that, and funded only those things with an income tax, it might be bearable. As it stands now, the national budget is going to exceed the GNP, with none left over for the people who earn it.
2007-10-19 14:07:06 · answer #2 · answered by maryjellerson 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely YES. Both Fed and State Income taxes are a huge burden on society. Fees, sales taxes, and other ways of income could be a much better way to support government. Both Income Tax and Property Taxes on Homes are hugely overwhelming on the American tax payer.
I Cr 13;8a
2007-10-19 20:34:51 · answer #3 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Not if you want effective armed forces and an infrastructure.
As it is, we're spending billions of dollars on all the WRONG things. Any money spent on Iraq is a total waste. But we don't spend enough on, oh, disaster relief, bridge inspections/repairs, access to basic health care....and the list goes on.
Think of the U.S. as a club you belong to. The taxes are like the membership dues. If you want goods and services, you have to pay for them.
Also, we don't make the wealthy and the corporations pay their fair share.
2007-10-19 13:53:07 · answer #4 · answered by catrionn 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes
And the size of the federal government reduced by 50%
2007-10-19 14:19:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes. We managed for quite a long time before having income taxes.
2007-10-19 14:02:43 · answer #6 · answered by MoltarRocks 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
yes this system of double and triple taxation is killing working class americans
should be only a flat tax on unneccessary consumer items
and the gov needs to learn to live on less
2007-10-19 14:17:38 · answer #7 · answered by 1 free American 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No.
It should be made as originally intended: progressive.
Instead of what it's become, where people with hardly any money at all, have most of it take out in tax, and people who have almost all the money paying almost nothing, it should be made, well, as I said, progressive.
The more money you make, the more you should pay. Those with nothing, pay nothing; those with little, pay very little; those with more, pay more; those who make huge piles of money have to pay their fair share.
That would be reasonable.
2007-10-19 22:31:15 · answer #8 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
-and ruin any possibility of having funding for our armed forces with which to defend us?
I disagree totally.
Good luck selling that extra Brooklyn Bridge.
2007-10-19 13:52:56 · answer #9 · answered by paradigm_thinker 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. There should be a flat tax on what you spend, not what you make.
2007-10-19 13:51:36 · answer #10 · answered by smellyfoot ™ 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Sure, we can eliminate our roads, bridges, military and all the other Federal programs to pay for it.
2007-10-19 13:50:58 · answer #11 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋