The truth about the fiscal cliff .....

KP

Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
16,637
Reaction score
18,960
Personally I think there should be a flat tax across the board, abolish the IRS.

I have been saying this for decades. 10% with no exemptions and no loopholes. That would be every individual, every business and to the dismay of many every church turning a profit with schools and such.
 

Bluesky

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
13,662
Reaction score
16,229
I have been saying this for decades. 10% with no exemptions and no loopholes. That would be every individual, every business and to the dismay of many every church turning a profit with schools and such.

hey as long as they want us to share make everyone pay equal too right? :hmm: :dude:
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,930
So for 40% of the population in america you are going to give them government money, and then they have the government take it back?
Sounds very efficient ...
 

mudfinger

Thanks for the memories.
V.I.P. Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
17,258
Reaction score
50,513
In a perfect world maybe....but too many take advantage.

The only program that bothers me personally is welfare; I would prefer to see a New Deal type program that puts recipients to work in some capacity. Our infrastructure could use the attention, and I think quite a few public sector jobs could be performed by those with the limited work skills that many current welfare recipients have.

I'd also be in favor of KP's idea, a flat tax, with one caveat: Anyone under the poverty line would be exempt from paying taxes, and the very lowest taxable incomes would enjoy some form of tax relief that doesn't force them below that poverty line after taxes.

But, it seems to me, the more pressing issue is corruption. Until and unless we do something about corporate influence on our political system, I don't expect much progress.
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,930
The only program that bothers me personally is welfare; I would prefer to see a New Deal type program that puts recipients to work in some capacity. Our infrastructure could use the attention, and I think quite a few public sector jobs could be performed by those with the limited work skills that many current welfare recipients have.

........
But, it seems to me, the more pressing issue is corruption. Until and unless we do something about corporate influence on our political system, I don't expect much progress.


No jobs, no recovery.

Kill the Corporatocracy! :dude:
 

poncho

Banned
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Messages
11,939
Reaction score
44,813
Can somebody smart here explain flat tax to me? It seems like an infantile solution to a greater problem, at least to me. Er, no offense, proponents

I know some Eastern European places have adopted it to middling levels of success



We do want to be like them, or we don't? I'm confused(like usual)
 

Thumpalumpacus

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
76,196
Reaction score
187,661
Can somebody smart here explain flat tax to me? It seems like an infantile solution to a greater problem, at least to me. Er, no offense, proponents

I know some Eastern European places have adopted it to middling levels of success



We do want to be like them, or we don't? I'm confused(like usual)

I think the principle is -- eliminate all loopholes, and tax people and corporations at the same rate.
 

poncho

Banned
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Messages
11,939
Reaction score
44,813
Yeah, I got that part, but why is it a good idea?
 

Thumpalumpacus

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
76,196
Reaction score
187,661
Yeah, I got that part, but why is it a good idea?

Probably because it doesn't allow for any pussyfooting -- no corporate vs private classification, not income cutoff levels, no bullshit -- "tell us how much you made, and fork over the same as everyone else, X% of your income."

That's the appeal it holds to me, done properly.
 

KSG_Standard

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
29,895
Reaction score
43,968
Yeah, I got that part, but why is it a good idea?

It takes the politicians and the special interests out of the picture. It prevents spending money on finding ways to avoid paying taxes. It makes us more competitive. It brings certainty to payers and the gov't. It means real fairness. It increases savings and investment, as those behaviors aren't taxed. It could/should lead to a stronger economy and more jobs. Etc., etc.
 

StubbyJ

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
1,598
Reaction score
967
I realize that the following doesn't mean squat, but:

Even the framers of the Constitution admitted that a flaw exists in our Democracy/Republic...you stand a chance, as will most likely happen, of a great sum of people voting themselves into entitlements......and when this happens you get...you can do the math.

The math....the only new thing under the sun is the history you have not read about.

There, this solves everything.
 

AngryHatter

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
17,182
Reaction score
13,127
How would that pertain to anything in this discussion? Current downturn included? :hmm:

Originally Posted by Scooter2112
Why didn't you say so sooner??

We could have averted many economic downturns over the past 40+ years. I'm shocked that they haven't thought of this before.

By all means...print away.

What could possibly go wrong?
--------------------------------
So I said...
Name an economic downturn directly attributable to moving off the gold standard.


Are you coherent?
What geo has been explaining is since the currency is no longer backed by an actual commodity, it is nothing more than our promise to pay.
When we left the gold standard, our debt changed fundamentally.
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,930
What makes our current situation difficult is that the final move to a fiat money was not deliberate or purposeful, it wasn't planned or thought out. It occurred by default as links to gold became impossible to maintain. Nor did the final abandonment of gold occur suddenly or cleanly. The United States began to halt its redemptions of dollars into gold for international transactions in 1967 and 1968. The actions of 1971 and 1973 were not the adoption of floating exchange rates and fiat money, but the loss of the ability to redeem dollars at a fixed price. Floating occurred by default.

So we have a mixed bag of old laws, and ideas about money, that are not in keeping with the realities of a true fiat system. We are closely getting to the point that a decision to move forward or backward will have to be made. My guess is that forward towards a full fiat would be most prudent, as there isn't enough gold in the world to cover the needs for currency, to cover the growth in GDP that the world has experienced.... plus eliminate the need for fake fiscal cliffs and wasted BS that happens in Congress regarding the economy.
 

Latest Threads



Top