Some choices:
Accounts Receivable
Building Permit
CDL License
Cigarette
Corporate Income
Dog License
Federal Income
Federal Unemployment (FUTA)
Fishing License
Food License
Fuel Permit
Gasoline
Hunting License
Inheritance
Inventory
Liquor
Luxury
Marriage License
Medicare
Property
Real Estate
Service chargees
Social Security
Road Usage (Truckers)
Saleses
Recreational Vehicle
School
State Income
State Unemployment (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges
Telephone State and Local
Telephone Usage Charge
Utility
Vehicle License Registration
Vehicle Sales
Watercraft Registration
Well Permit
Workers Compensation
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
2007-12-08
04:53:54
·
15 answers
·
asked by
WJ
7
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
Social Security
It keeps the old, the dumb, the scared, and the poor voting democrat just to keep them checks rollin'.
2007-12-08 05:14:21
·
answer #1
·
answered by cornbread_oracle 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
Hey, I thought we were supposed to like all of them! 8^)
Actually, I hate taxes. But the idea of borrowing the money and letting someone else pay it off, after accumulating interest, is often pretty dumb. The idea of letting valuable investments deteriorate is also dumb, and dangerous.
We've got bridges literally falling apart, with traffic on them at the time, because no one can come up with the gumption to fix them. (I actually knew one of the Minnesota victims, slightly.) Most of the anti-tax crowd have been throwing expenses over the wall and then blaming their opponents for taking responsibility for fixing the problem.
A good deal of the tax "cuts" over the past two and a half decades in the U.S. has had the ultimate effect, if not the goal, of transferring huge amounts of wealth from one economic group to another. That's okay with anti-tax enthusiasts, as long as it's a matter of concentrating wealth rather than distributing it, even though that reduces the health of the economy as a whole.
But to answer your question directly, looking at the list, where is the income tax? It has the great advantage of being distributed more closely to ability to pay. Most of the extreme irritations involved in filling out the !&@#$$$$ forms have to do with tweaks to the concept to avoid paying it, rather than with paying it.
And a whole lot of your list are actually fees, which are probably fairly close to just covering the associated costs of the licenses or of managing the permitted actions.
2007-12-08 05:13:09
·
answer #2
·
answered by Samwise 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
because of the fact it would not actual cut back the way which you're proposing it. comparable to your previous posts on financial subjects, you exhibit a ordinary loss of information with regard to the relative numbers you're pushing out. sure, that's plausible to argue that reducing the tax fee might desire to extend the tax gross revenues... very like voodoo economics, there is adequate fact to this assertion to maintain gullible people from information that that's approximately performance. The argument that tax cuts boost gross revenues relies on the (heavily fallacious) premise that tax cuts sell employment interior the main effective way. that's desperate by ability of the understanding that tax cuts finally earnings the wealthy and as all of us comprehend, the wealthy have been given wealthy by ability of giving freely their money. /sarcasm The logical fallacy right that's that those comparable voodoo economists make the automated assumption that with the wealthy paying the tax burden (and with that money being redistributed to the decrease instructions interior the form of amenities and jobs), employment ceases and the marketplace shuts down and jobs are actually not created. it is not that "libs" are making "ever-transferring excuses"... it is which you don't comprehend the argument. Voodoo economics would not artwork. it is not powerful. that's a stable short-term strengthen, yet reasons financial downturns down the line by ability of ravenous (actually) the subsistence marketplace, that's the backbone of the entire financial gadget.
2016-10-01 03:53:01
·
answer #3
·
answered by Erika 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Penalty for Underpayment of Estimated Tax.
2007-12-08 05:06:55
·
answer #4
·
answered by xtowgrunt 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Income tax.. That way we all pay our fair share of the governments (our expenses) according to what we earn. The rich who get the most benefit pay more, and the middle and lower income also pay their fair share only at a lower rate of course.
2007-12-08 05:04:12
·
answer #5
·
answered by Mezmarelda 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
I think we should enact a Idiot Tax to be administered to Registered Republicans.
There are a lot of idiots out there, so we should generate a lot of revenue that could be used for good purposes.
2007-12-08 05:08:02
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
I like the inflated housing cost tax
The more the cost the more the tax
2007-12-08 04:58:45
·
answer #7
·
answered by Guerilla Liberal fighter 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
Well permit. Just kidding. I'll go with luxury tax.
2007-12-08 04:58:31
·
answer #8
·
answered by Eisbär 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
The sin tax. Isn't that everyones favorite?
2007-12-08 04:58:07
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
Chi nailed it.
Support the troops, ha! What a joke.
2007-12-08 05:02:57
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋