Fair Taxation
 

If you were in charge of revenue generation for the government, which tax system would you implement as the most "fair"?

Fair tax is the best for my money

What is considered fair? I'm sure a lot of people think that the more you make the higher your rate should be is fair. It doesn't seem fair to me that almost half of this country pays no income taxes. It doesn't seem fair to me to keep beating up on ciggy smokers. New $1.60 tax per pack in NY.

My personal opinion is that one rate is the way to go. Why? Because "fair" cannot be defined mathematically. The closest we will ever come to fair is "proportional". And that means one rate. Take the first, I don't know, say, $50,000. Nobody pays taxes on their first $50k. Anything above that is at the same rate, whether you make $55,000 or $550,000. The same fraction of your income goes to the government. That's it.

I'll go along with that.

It's called the " Fair Tax"...there are books out there explaining it! Fo reals..

As long as Congress doesn't exempt itself from it and the rate is "fair", it sounds good to me.

In principal, it sounds good, but we would self destruct as a country.

I like the idea of a sales tax on all items bought or sold, non-essential items being taxed more than say food and clothes and toilet paper. No income tax at all.

Welcome to Europe...seriously...no income tax? I like that idea too, but probably not realistic

How about abolishing the Fed, which is a foreign owned and privately held corporation. Before having it illegally shoved down our throats (it never made it past congress, but here we are with it anyways), there was no income tax paid on wages earned.

Now, most tax money goes to paying off the national debt, medical BS and defense.

So, instead of having the government print up money like they used to, they now have big central banks print it for them, with interest thrown in, of course.

Flame away.

It worked great for the first 140 or so years here.

Those days are long forgotten and gone though.

Yeah prolly not but it is my opinon that the founding fathers didnt really envision the kind of taxes we pay out of our paychecks as the kind of tax that they were reffering to when they said it was ok to collect income tax.

I think the FDA should rule..

sorry IC..couldn't resist.

Unfortunately, nothing on a grand scale will ever happen..at least in our lifetime... so you can try affect the next 30 years or you can try and overthrow the Fed.

And I doubt they thought that a well armed militia meant that my neighbor could own an AK 47, but I digress.

Wages earned were not taxed, period, until we had the Federal Reserve, a non government entity, shoved down our throats.

That's the day the shackles were thrown on us.

I bet a combination of a national sales tax and a flat income tax could work. We could have a national sales tax of 6% or something like that. And then you could have a flat income tax of around 10% for anyone that makes over $100,000 or something like that.

I'd be curious to see the math on how big of a sales tax and flat income tax we would need to generate as much in taxes as is being paid right now.

If we continue to spend like drunken sailors, yeah, we're cooked, but we could definitely bring in enough revenue with a flat system for reasonable expenditure. We would need to finally rid ourselves of many unending and ineffectual government programs.

We have to also take into account that a simple system with no "bracket creep" would also stimulate the economy too, because everybody from laborers to entrepeneurs would be able to make profits without a "gotcha" of getting slammed in a new bracket.

If individuals or companies know they can make a buck they will not hold back on some of the hiring and expansion that creates new jobs.

regular joe's should not be able to own assault / (semi) automatic rifles. It just doesnt make sense.

Regular shot guns / hand guns, is fine. (for hunting and protection)

why? and when most people say that, they are thinking of ak-47's and the like( and i can certainly understand the reasoning, however many just are gun collectors and enthusiasts)...when in fact, the term semi-automatic covers a variety of guns, including a shotgun i own, as well as a hundred year old .25 colt that we inherited.
now, i firmly believe if you're on the no fly list for planes, you should be excluded from purchasing guns. if you're a felon, insane, have an order of protection against you, etc, you should be excluded. but for cities or towns to tell the average, law abiding citizen that they can't own a weapon imo is unconstitutional, and does nothing to limit gun crime. after all, those of us who follow the law aren't the problem! the simple act of owning a gun doesn't mean someone has a criminal mind, or has criminal intent.

I'd come at it from a different angle:

I wouldn't limit the type of firearm, but I would limit the ammunition. You don't have to worry about a guy with a fully automatic weapon when he only has 100 rounds. That wouldn't last 3 seconds.

Here's an off-the-cuff idea: You can buy as much ammo as you want when you're at the range to practice with. The range owners have to give you credit for any unspent shells when you leave. So you can go and practice all day so long as you can afford it. By the way, it benefits everyone to have those who exercise their second amendment rights to be as skilled as possible (less gun accidents).

But you can limit the number of boxes of ammo people buy for use outside the range. More during hunting season, less in the off season. The legitimate home defense people won't care as long as the ammo will still work (they do have a shelf life), because in the overwhelming majority of the time, the ammunition they have purchased has gone unused.

Again, it's only the nightmare inducing "gun nut" who needs several thousand rounds of ammunition on a continuous feed for a fully automatic machine gun. Couldn't carry it very far -- too heavy -- it would have to be on his roof or something.

gun ownership has risen over the last few years, especially since the terrorist attacks...yet crime has gone down, not up. food for thought. besides, the bad guys aren't as keen to forcibly enter a home if they are more concerned that harry homeowner has a means of defense.

maybe I should have dropped the semi - as you said there are different types of guns out there that would fall under the semi part. (though I still dont believe they are necessary.. I do understand the "collectors item" part)

I dont understand why anyone would want a gun that could kill hundreds in minutes. Or guns that are used for wars. Nobody needs an ak 47 or an automatic rifle.

Even semi-automatic handguns, like the ones used by the Virginia Tech killer (so he could kill lots in a short amount of time) are not necessary for people to own. the only real point of them are violence.

they do much more harm than good.. and yes I know people kill people, not guns... but a dangerous person with an ak 47 is much more harmful to us citizens..

hollow point bullets should be banned. I'd feel more comfortable if the only assault rifles in this country were located on military bases.

regular joe's should not be able to own assault / (semi) automatic rifles. It just doesnt make sense.

yes we should...crime is lower when you have the ability to defend your house.. as for handguns..eh the whole ban thing isnt working out in chi very well..10 shootings a week or so.

why do you need an AK 47 to protect your house? who would need that except people caught up in some serious crimes?

I think handguns and shotguns are plenty of protection. As is mase, a taser and a big dog!

Ban all guns. Moar knifing.

I've always been somewhat conflicted by gun regulations. As a lifelong sportsman/hunter, semi-auto shotguns and rifles are nothing unusual for me. Most firearms are in fact semi-auto, and I've hunted with them since I was 8 years old. I have a dozen guns now, but I've never bought one with the idea of home protection (I don't own any handguns).

As a gun owner, however, I don't see any use or even any appeal for fully automatic or "assault" rifles. The nuts argue that if you let them take those away, they'll come after my hunting rifles next. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't buy that argument.

Limits on ammo don't work for me either. We do a lot of trap/skeet/target shooting on the farm as opposed to a controlled range. I'm not talking about thousands of assault rounds, but it's nothing to go through a couple of cases of shotgun shells through the course of a year that includes recreational and hunting outings.

I do buy the argument about the slippery slope, though I probably would never have interest in an "assault" weapon myself.

Legislators always try to push the envelope to justify their existence, so once those weapons are banned someone will try to ban the most powerful or efficient of the remaining weapons, and so on down the line until forced disarmament of the population is on the books.

Then only the criminals will have the guns.

It doesn't even need to go that far. If the anti-gun people allow us to have 1789-style muskets, in keeping with when the second amendment was first drafted, the police, and military and any criminal would be superiorly armed. As you're packing your powder and ball shot, you'd be getting perforated like swiss cheese.

I put the quotes around "assault" above because the distinction has always been subjective outside of military circles. Any weapon used in an assault can be called an assault weapon, much like any man with a gun is, on the TV news, referred to as a "gunman".

I knew many people, back in LA, that easily got guns off the street.

The ease of getting untraceable guns makes the whole argument of gun control pretty frickin stupid.

true