Why are taxes done as a percentage of income and not as a set number (e.g. everyone pays in the same amount of $100 this year, or however much)? Wouldn't a set number be most fair?
>>70169470
because jews
it would have to be reduced to what the poorest could pay and then it wouldn't be nearly enough total
Income taxes are a Jew scheme anyway that don't go to pay for anything.
But that's OK, goyim. You just keep arguing over it.
>>70169666
This. It's just a wealth transfer scheme.
>>70169470
I literally do not understand this "tax is a jewish conspiracy theory" meme.
If you are greedy enough to not want to pay tax, you are going to be too greedy to pay for the upkeep of roads directly yourself.
>>70169664
If the poorest can't afford it, then maybe the government can't afford it. If the rich want more, they can always pay for it out of their own pocket.
>>70170118
We're just talking about the income tax, which did not exist until about 100 years ago when the Third National Bank (aka Federal Reserve) finally got railroaded through congress and London took over the US once again.
What you'd want to do is take a read of, "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffen. Even a congressional commision, known as the Grace Commission, in 1981, issued as part of its summary that "not one nickel" of the income tax goes to pay for anything. It all goes into the pockets of the owners (jews and proxy jews -- proxy to Rothschild) of the Federal Reserve Bank.
>>70170118
And if theres no tax for welfare, crime will explode with no police force to curb it. People will set up militias/gangs and run around executing their own morals because of there being no justice department.
Also any foreign nation could invade straight away because there would be no armed forces.
What the fuck is this meme. Its like asking for Mad Max to be a reality.
>Jew who makes 10 million a year off of other people's labor pays the same income tax as a paramedic or old folks nurse
Fuck off goldberg.
>>70170118
Prior to the prohibition USA didn't have *any* Income Taxes, period.
Yet they still had roads and public services...
They Taxed buying luxuries and alcohol, which pulled in more money per capita than the current income tax system does.
Now stop and think for a second, what government charges outrageous personal income taxes, also charges outrageous alcohol and fuel tariffs, taxes luxury consumption and yet is STILL in a financial black hole and never ever builds new roads?
The Commonwealth of Australia m8.
Income Tax is a scam.
>>70170591
Increased taxes aren't the proper avenue to deal with filthy rich executives.
>>70170886
And before prohibition, we just has tariffs and fees.
But oy vey that could never work!
>>70170591
Right now, the Paramedic *will* be paying more in Income Tax.
$10million is enough that retaining an offshore law firm, say Mossack Fonseca, to juggle your money and find loopholes so you don't even have to pay any tax is *CHEAPER* than the otherwise expected tax bill.
You don't make the rich pay taxes by increasing taxes - that only makes them more likely to hide money and never pay tax.
>>70169664
People who can't pay the tax get deported to cambodia.
>>70170886
There wasn't an interstate system before the 40s. The road system was pretty shit. I took over a week to cross the country, and you couldn't at all in certain times of the year.
>>70171531
Thank Albert Speer for that.
The whole world marvelled at the Autobahn.
>>70169470
It's called a regressive tax, and in a lot of cases it's not a great idea.
Because part
of the three principles of taxation is equality or theoretical justice. That means it is based on the ability to pay; progressive (ability-to-pay principle). Not all people can afford to pay $100. That being said, progressive taxes arent perfect either because they can be seen as punishment for those successful people who are actually working hard and creatively making money or working on their business and helping in the GDP. Also, there are so many taxes. What about taxes on real properties? if you own a tiny hut and still required to pay the same amount that people aith big mansions have, isnt that unfair? What about taxes on donation, succession, partnerships, corporations, trusts, fringe benefit taxes?
>>70171656
Roads are just plain a good idea. Even the Romans knew it. I'd pay twice my city taxes if they kept the roads up better.
And what did I hear on the local radio station but how they were going to try to fix the roads better last year. Two years ago I got a very unprofessional letter from one of the city legislators ragequitting over the roads. Six months before that, I got a questionaire in the mail asking me if I though the roads were shit and only the rich people got priority for getting nice roads, and I've never in my life gotten a questionaire about anything.
There's a good reason why the tired troll for libertarians is roads.
>>70172105
>What about taxes on real properties?
>What about taxes on donation, succession, partnerships, corporations, trusts, fringe benefit taxes?
What about them? Why have them? Why couldn't there simply be a price per head per year (or other unit of time, as you so wish) and be done with it?
x / p = t
were x is the total money to be collected
p is the population expected to pay up
t is the enforced tax
If it's too much for the poor to handle, your government is too bloated and is asking for too much.
>>70172214
>There's a good reason why the tired troll for libertarians is roads.
And, as always, the response is, why is the government in charge of roads anyway? Let private businesses handle it.
In world of printed fiat currency created by Jews the value decteases over time hence why costs go up never really down. That is why they can't have a set amount in a years time it's worth less so they squeeZe you more.
>>70170143
Sensible words but ultimately words which no government will ever listen to.
>>70173661
There's a curious parallel between government and jobless kids, right? All they care about is keeping their jobs and getting paid.
>>70170389
Recommended reading for sure.
>>70172842
Because there is simply not enough money for the government. You know this. Crooks or not, there is simply not enough. It isnt like back then when the government only levied taxes for war funds. Now, the only two things in life that will always be there for us are death and taxes. Unlike in business where less expenditures is OK, in government, more expenditures for the public is the one thats OK. Also, there cant be a price per head per year because that will accumulate too much cost and time and effort since not every people lives in the same situation and/or will fall in the same situation. Its like the government making zero-based budgeting every new year. Price per head is simply too costly. Not to mention, taxes also serve as punishment for those who will go against the law and as I've said, not everyone will fall under the same criterion or situation.
for example:
A proprietary educational institution and the improperly accumulated earnings tax. Corporations and their quarterly NCIT & MCIT tax. A normal couple who then breaks up and settles their properties legally in court. There is simply too much to account to. Too many transactions that can happen. People who earn in installments and the constructive taxing method. They dhouldnt be taxed when they still havent received anything. All these cannot be solved by just "lel pepe just price per head everybody! itll be enough!". A partnership where one partner says "to hell with you all", and still gets taxed on a per year basis even when he's out of the business? Family where a member dies. You cant pinpoint when a person will die. "Oh! You'll still pay for $xxx this year. Youre still good to go". Bad news is that taxes accumulate. The remaining family members cant and shouldn't answer for such unfair treatment. Death of a taxpayer or his/her dependent/s and the one year rule. Etc. Lets not even get into the maddening world of investments and why govertments start to bloat in debt.
