Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#105 - hauntzor ONLINE (11/15/2012) [-]
Not gonna lie, love this dude, but there was one policy of his that really turned me off in voting for him.

Getting rid of income tax? How else would the government gain revenue to provide services? It seems like a real step backwards to me. inb4 tax marijuana doood 420 blaz it phaggot Maybe I just don't know anything about government so I shouldn't be making this argument.
#176 to #105 - swagbot (11/15/2012) [-]
Oh, god, another one of you people;

Let me explain this very clearly in small words for you;

1. The federal government should not have responsibilities such that they need to tax people in the first place. Not roads, not schools, not post, DEFINITELY NOT WELFARE/SOCIAL SECURITY, and only a fraction of the military they have nowadays.

2. States can charge whatever taxes they want, and set up their own services.

3. National Sales tax, perhaps?


and BTW, out of ALL this good tings RP had going for him, that 'one issue' turned you off entirely from voting? yeah.. right.
#187 to #176 - hauntzor ONLINE (11/15/2012) [-]
You didn't have to talk down to me like that, especially when I literally admitted not knowing how the US government works.  It was the reason I voted so conservatively to begin with because I didn't know any better.   
   
Thanks for the info and for putting me in my place, I guess.
You didn't have to talk down to me like that, especially when I literally admitted not knowing how the US government works. It was the reason I voted so conservatively to begin with because I didn't know any better.

Thanks for the info and for putting me in my place, I guess.
#191 to #187 - swagbot (11/15/2012) [-]
Actually, i feel like a total asshole, because i read your comment AFTER i wrote and posted mine...

...so, yeah, sorry about that....

Here's some puppies to make up.
#197 to #191 - hauntzor ONLINE (11/15/2012) [-]
Thanks   
Have some pizza
Thanks
Have some pizza
User avatar #167 to #105 - upunkpunk (11/15/2012) [-]
Theres also the consumption tax option
#162 to #105 - bulbakip (11/15/2012) [-]
Oh sweet zombie jesus let me tackle this one.

1. those services are a myth, government takes and we get the shaft of hardly any services because the takers haven't earned the money therefore they have no incentive to provide actual good services. ie the Department of motor vehicles.

2. there was no income tax before 1912

3. there are a LOT of other tax revenue sources, like sales tax and property tax.

remember: Taxation is theft.

User avatar #108 to #105 - mikepetru (11/15/2012) [-]
he wants to eliminate the income tax and institute a flat rate federal tax to provide only for the government services the Constitution allows the Fed to have.
User avatar #116 to #108 - mikepetru (11/15/2012) [-]
in other words, the rate you pay will not increase because you have more money. For example:
A flat tax of 15% on an income of 300,000 dollars would yield 45000 in taxess
as opposed to
our current system which tacks on a higher percentage the richer you are
so if you have a 15% rate plus let's say extra 4% because your income is over 250,000 dollars, you would be paying 57,000 dollars as opposed to 45,000 in taxes
User avatar #113 to #108 - ragdollrade (11/15/2012) [-]
Flat rate tax is crazy unfair for the poor
#180 to #113 - swagbot (11/15/2012) [-]
you're halfway right.

TAXES ARE UNFAIR TO EVERYONE, ALWAYS.
- If you have a flat-fee tax, that's unfair to poor people.
- If you have a flat-rate tax, then the rich pay more overall $$$, so it's unfair to them (inb4 'they can afford it' - that's not your goddam business! It's THEIR MONEY!)
- If you have a progressive tax (rich pay less by %).... that's just retarded.

Taxes are always unfair.
+3
#128 to #113 - daytoday **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #126 to #113 - koobzacc (11/15/2012) [-]
In what way is equality unfair?
User avatar #173 to #126 - ragdollrade (11/15/2012) [-]
Applying say a ten percent tax rate to all incomes mean that higher income groups pay more and lower income groups pay less in terms of amount, and as such is deemed fair by you. Simplifying the counter-argument for the sake of time; Consider needs, housing, food, water, clothing etc. costs a constant amount for a household and this takes up a smaller percentage of total income for higher income groups, f.ex 40% for middle income households approx, but 80% for lower income households, a 10 percent flat tax rate will take away 50% of the lower class remaining purchasing power, whilst taking away only 16% of the middle income houses purchasing power, and for high income households only take away close to 10% purchasing power (if needs cost <1% of income). These extreme differences in loss of purchasing power is what makes flat tax rates unfair.
User avatar #477 to #173 - koobzacc (11/16/2012) [-]
but increasing taxes on the rich doesnt make that 80% any easier on the poor. I think what you are really trying to say is "flat taxes are too easy on the rich" not "flat taxes are too hard on the poor"

The amount of money taxed on a rich man has little to no affect on the quality of life of a poor man.
User avatar #485 to #477 - ragdollrade (11/16/2012) [-]
I am saying flat taxes are too straining on the poor and too insignificant for the rich
+5
#107 to #105 - schutzstaffel **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
 Friends (0)