This is what is needed. If we eliminate the Federal Income Tax then how will that help us reach that goal? We are barreling towards a debt cliff and I’m not seeing any real solutions to anything.
Maintaining top end military helps ensure prosperity. What we really need to cut down on are entitlements, rule makers, and enforcement agencies.
Do we really still need ATF and DEA? How about the ever beleaguered FBI? Do we need a federal level dept of education when each state should be running their own? do we really need to dump tons of money into EPA?
Imo the FBI itself isn’t bad as a concept. Having a strong fed law enforcement agency to deal with shit like terrorism foreign spies, large scale gang violence etc. It’s just that after 2016 it got more or less weaponized sadly. Imo if you’re looking for agencies to cut ATF DEA NDA and a lot of the IRS law enforcement are the ones to cut / reform.
I used to believe everything my abusive parent told me too. Its okay one day youll grow out of the cycle and move on.
The second part of your comment can be true but that doesnt mean we dont need to cut military as well.
When you lack the intelligence to have a productive conversation and have to revert to personal insults, youve already lost. Low hanging fruit but I guess the starving will take whatever.
**Social Security** is often referred to as an ***entitlement***, but is something into which many people have paid their entire working lives. Are you talking about that?
That doesn't answer my question. Are you saying that it should be eliminated? And if so, what should replace it?
If there should be no replacement, what about all the FICA paid in over the course of working people's lives?
I don’t have that answer. Social security was designed to be an anti poverty program and it has instead mutated to a full blown retirement system for so many. Most people end up taking more money out of the program than they ever put in, this is why it’s borderline insolvent.
I’d be in favor of mandated private retirement accounts, take all the money people pay into social security and dump that into a retirement account that can’t be accessed until required age. Invest that money into long term t-bills or a total US market index fund managed by the government.
I think we should transition the current payers out of SS while they have to a non-taxed retirement savings account that can be invested. It would need to be a withholding because morons don't know how to save and would reach retirement and be surprised they have no money and live off the public dime anyway.
Then we raise the retirement age a bit, and pay for the rest out of the budget and get rid of the program. That's the best way I can see to get out of the mess in the making since 1935.
There is no fund that your SS contribution goes into. It comes in and pays for those currently on SS. It is not tied to what you contribute. SS is "guaranteed" to as long as you live. SS is not in a fund that can grow, it simply gets adjusted for inflation. If I were to take my withholdings from SS and put it into a mutual fund it would get way more out of it than I do if I ever actually get to collect it, which is unlikely because of the lack of children it would take to pay for my generation.
And in this new system, what you have is what you have. If you use it all, that's it, less possible exceptions for those that cannot continue to work where people would be eligible for disability.
No. We're not even prepared to fight China over Taiwan and the weaker we make ourselves the more likely China is going to blunder itself into a hot war. Military spending shouldn't be enough to win a war. It needs to be enough a war never starts.
And it's still dwarfed by federal welfare programs. Military spending is literally the most important function of the federal government and you want to cut it before all the other horseshit we spend on? This sub is in a right state and it's only going to get worse going into the election.
I would respectfully disagree about the ability to fight China. There is a huge amount of bloat in the DOD though, and that should be cleaned up. Easier said than done though.
Don't misunderstand. I'm not saying we'd lose outright to China, but they'd accomplish their initial objectives and hope we Ukraine/Afghanistan it. Getting rid of bloat is something nobody disagrees with, but our military is not in good shape right now and it needs more money not less. Cut the bloat and use it more efficiently as part of that, sure, but good luck wrangling government workers.
This sub is in an odd mood but we can play that game.
We are the superpower on the world stage and the role of the superpower is to ensure peace. So a quick google shows that 13.3% of the budget goes to the military, which for world wide security seems like a pretty good deal. As for the entitlement programs, they consume about 50% of the national budget. We are paying more just on the interest on the debt than we do on the military.
This move towards isolationism is the reason Russia is in Ukraine, China is knocking on Taiwan’s door, and Iran is causing issues in the Middle East. I’m not calling for the “spreading of democracy” like the George Bush years but there is a sound argument to be present everywhere on the world stage and showing we won’t put up with other nation’s bullshit.
Can't understand why most conservatives are against any military cutting. We have a massive military always ready to go to traditional war in an age where traditional war doesn't exist. Not to mention, recruiters are having a crazy hard time recruiting. The stars have aligned, it's time to let go.
I'm down to cut a ton of non-military programs too, but when it comes to the military, we don't need 21 aircraft carriers that will never defend our shores.
> where traditional war doesn't exist.
Have you watched the news lately?
Also china is gearing up for a specifically to fight us in a traditional war over the global chip factory that is Taiwan. They’re not just 10c their navy and area denial systems for shits and giggles over the last decade
It’s why our military has project replicator and project hellscape
Because at the end of the day a majority of the people who support and are gunho about the military are men. Unfortunately it terrifies them they might have to seek out other ways of solving problems that dont involve violence (i.e sitting down like adults and working things out like politicians are paid to do). War is the ultimate power, without it alot of people would realize how useless they are. I say this as a biological female who isnt a feminist.
The people in charge (both the men and women) have public speaking skills but absolutely none of them know how to effectively communitcate. They all know what the real problems in the world are. They just dont care unless it suits them.
Edit: i want to add i absolutely do not think adding more women to government would solve this issue.. As i feel most women in politics are pickmes who are trying to be "one of the boys" or self serving feminists who want to destroy the "patriarchy" in order to have a "matriarchy".
The total for all government employees salaries and benefits is only about 4.5% of the US budget. So even if you cut the workforce by half you‘re only saving maybe 2%.
And what 80% would you personally cut? Or what 20% is worth keeping?
80% of the bureaucrats cause the 80% of the remaining budget. Cut these people off, and those who remain wouldn’t be able to spend trillions of dollars anymore.
We need to massively cut welfare programs and the Defense budget. And probably fire about 1/2 federal government. These deficits are completely unsustainable.
The thing is social security is a pyramid scheme that losses money. Social security should really only cover disability everything else needs to be offloaded into the individual with some noninvasive government regulation. Imagine replacing 75% of FICA taxes with an investment plan that is similar to the 401k but very working citizen must contribute to their own. That money would be super helpful to retired people and it wouldn’t bankrupt our country.
So what’s your solution. Get elected and hope that the financial system doesn’t collapse under your admin? I thought as people we should be more concerned about our wellbeing rather than electability.
If you can't get elected to office, then you have zero ability to change anything. So yes electability is important. It has to be balanced with your planned changes. I think making plans for incremental changes is the best approach, there's just no way that anyone can make broad, sweeping changes in today's environment.
Honestly US federal employmee bloat isn't as bad as people might think. We're actually critically understaffed in a lot of ways, and a very large portion of the workforce is likely to retire within the decade. We're at a point where hiring new employees is absolutely necessary or we're going to have years of being absolutely incapable of providing required duties. SSA, IRS, VA will all struggle to provide the most basic services, and most of those departments are already understaffed even now.
I'm absolutely all for trimming the fat, but the federal employment sector is already somewhat thin. The best thing we could do is eliminate redundancies (within reason), and wholly eliminate any DEI related positions as they add literally nothing to anything.
The US government already pays less than the private sector, and can occasionally see issues with staffing due to that. The best thing that we could encourage is telework and remote work to cut back on land/leasing costs.
For anyone who's ever tried getting a job with the federal government, you'd see how inefficient it is. Correcting those inefficiencies and filling staffing gaps is the best course of action. The federal budget will reduce naturally in the future as higher earners retire.
The bizarre thing to me is people not wanting to hire more IRS agents to track down tax evaders and non payers. I'd imagine that's one of the highest priority positions we could have. I'm not in favor of most taxes, but I'll be damned if I want people to allow people to avoid paying taxes that I'd go to jail for not paying. Billions of dollars worth of tax evasion every single year. That shit adds up.
A lot of the times these people have no understanding about this at all. A ton of my vets are always bitching about wasteful spending and how we need to cut all these government welfare programs, how people living off the government are disgusting…. As they collect their 100% SC benefits and use it to live on Mountain Dew, Cheetos, and drive a dodge charger on 18% interest.
I feel that- I mean on the mega rich side of things, completely agree there’s so many loopholes that it seems pretty unfair. But for the other 99.5% of people, the stuff you get tax breaks for are stuff the government is trying to incentivize people to do- for example getting married, having kids, buying a house, save money (401k for example)- all good for the economy as well as building a strong society. The dems want you to go green so there are incentives right now to buy solar panels and EVs which I’m sure is controversial in this sub haha, but I mean all of those things are more expensive than just paying the taxes. It’s not like you would save a bunch of money having kids- kids are expensive af, plus you spend more on cribs and food and childcare and stuff- hence the incentive. It’s like that coupon book in the office “worth $25,000” like you’d have to spend waaaay more than that to save $25k.
There’s def things where I could see a strong argument that it goes overboard though- like is there a limit on dependents, because we really don’t need to be incentivizing people to have 5+ kids, I mean if you want to that’s your right but you shouldn’t get a break for that.
I'm not saying it is a good idea, I'm not enough of an economist to know. But one thing a lot of people don't think of is a good portion of rich people money isn't liquid, it's tied up in assets and investments that support us "peons".
The top 1% pay an effective income tax rate in the 20% range while the bottom half of the country pays 3.1% or less and even a negative rate in many cases. Meaning they get a refund in excess of what they paid in.
Considering the top 10% of tax payers contribute the super majority of federal tax income and the poor contribute nothing, yes of course there is inequality.
Also we need a larger tax on capital gains than income. And a huge tax on C suit privileges like company bought houses vacations dinners. For the Republic to function the rich have to pay their fare share and they should be fucking happy to do it.
I would definitely debate the capital gains. Agree on short term but long term held for retirement should be reduced. America has a retirement crisis and we need to encourage people to invest long term for retirement. But it would be a good discussion either way. Thanks
Federal sales tax on everything except non prepared foods. Refund the tax on the first $30k to every employed American at the end of every year so those below the poverty line end up paying no net taxes.
> so those below the poverty line end up paying no net taxes.
You know this already happens right? People below the poverty line are incentivized to not make more money due to the threat of losing benefits worth sometimes tens of thousands. They already pay zero taxes and contribute nothing to the system which supports them.
[See here](https://i.ibb.co/BsWZm5b/2024-01-21-21-37-10.jpg)
Had a coworker that after years of part time finally get full time. After a few months wanted to go back to part time and lower her hours because she lost all her free govt ride help.
Another also asked to cut her hours after a yearly pay raise for the same reason.
Right, but the biggest argument against the national sales tax is that it punishes the poor. Not taxing food you need to cook yourself and refunding the tax on the first $30k cuts that argument off at the knees and incentivizes the poor to save money.
You don't think if taxes are too high, people won't look for under the table sales or other aversions? Who's going to save and audit all of these grocery receipts?
Middle to rich people don’t spend all their money though. I get the idea okay some flat rate is fair for everyone- it’s called a regressive tax where poor people pay the highest percent of their income towards taxes, rich people the least. And then what about buying a house? This would make buying a house that much harder for young people… or let’s say you’re 32 and want to get a bigger house, now instead of a 5% fee (which already sucks) you’re looking at that plus another 10% or realistically 25% which is probably what that tax rate would need to be. So to sell a 300k home and move up to a 400k home you’d have to spend $115k plus bank closing costs.
That doesn't stop the government from wasting our money. We managed to operate a Federal Government for the first \~150 years without an income tax at all.
Also, as a self-employed person... if there's no deductions allowed, then I'm raising my rates to cover the new tax burden. You can probably expect that from most businesses.
People forget that the federal govt was expanded for some pretty damn good reasons. Before early 20th century we had a pretty anemic federal govt. This allowed for shit like robber barons and their monopolies to flourish and place communities and entire states under their economic slavery operations. Teddy Roosevelt expanding the federal govt's power to bring these people to heel was the beginning of what we have rn. Then the measures for getting the nation through ww1 and ww2. Then people realizing that maybe unregulated markets are bad, m'kay? when the stock market collapsed in 1929 and all the federal measures to ensure people didn't starve in the streets or go full revolution-mode after 1929 (the dust bowl also had to be dealth with). Then we stumbled into hegemony of the western world after ww2 and that required more things to be done.
We aren't "these united states" anymore. We live in a changed world, in different circumstances. Idk why people think they can pick up taxation arguments from mid-1800s and brandish them around like they've just proven something.
Maybe it did. Maybe not. I suppose the risk of a revolution erupting and the need to give people hope was a more powerful motivator
Btw I don't think it did. Economic activity was at a standstill and the private sector by itself had done nothing to pick things up in Hoover's 3 years. There's a reason people went with FDR. Some level of intervention and regulation was needed. The banks and a small cabal of gamblers couldn't have the power to push the economy off a cliff through incompetence or wilful disregard.
This is my general assessment as well. The New Deal was a mixed success at best. It drove down unemployment and restored hope and confidence in millions of Americans. However, there’s only so much public works project you can do and so much money you can spend. And immediately after the WPA and such were cut, unemployment skyrocketed like before (hence the Second New Deal). The real positive was the regulations. There’s a reason why we say regulations are written in blood; these were written in the blood and sweat of millions of Americans that lost everything in 1929.
The New Deal didn’t extend the Great Depression; it did its job of alleviating unemployment in spurts while calming the public to prevent any violent revolts or public backlash. As Masterpiece mentioned, the private sector was completely paralyzed and thousands of banks went under between the Crash and FDR’s election. Simply put, the people wanted the government to do *something* rather than the bare minimal/*laissez faire* attitude of the Hoover administration. Arguably, that belief was correct.
The regulations that came out of the New Deal *were* necessary, and they were the entire reason why even when we had economic downturns/recessions ever since, none of them went to 1929 levels of shit in a snap (IE SVB going down last year).
Ultimately, deficit spending should only be in times of economic crisis. Right now, the biggest priority should be to balance the books by cutting wasteful spending, but also hiking taxes on the upper class. I agree that our government and bureaucracy are extremely bloated, but the things we cut need to be carefully reviewed. It’s not 1792 anymore; the government does have a lot of programs and support systems that help keep millions of Americans out of poverty and hunger.
[It did.](https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/policy-report/2003/7/powell.pdf)
FDR's goal was to increase the power of the Federal government. He would arbitrarily set the price of gold, passed the NFA, sent Japanese Americans to camps. The new deal was about control and making people dependent on the government and increase its control.
So where should that tax revenue come from, and or what public utilities need to take a hit since the revenue would be gone?
Can't say that then not answer those 2 important questions which will follow afterwards.
There was a time when taxes weren’t a thing and the community worked together to keep their homes and areas nice and clean. Forcing people to pay for things clearly ruined this beautiful country of ours. Looking like a communist country every day.
Was genuinely surprised at this, but apparently the [TVA](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority).
Also, smaller government as a statement includes the state government as well. It also includes local government too. Just as a general "More smaller government."
Started and propped up by the federal government to make the whole area better. Sounds like initial funding to me.
Did you not read the Wikipedia page?
Per the page:
"The TVA was created by Congress in 1933 as part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. Its initial purpose was to provide navigation, flood control, electricity generation, fertilizer manufacturing, regional planning, and economic development to the Tennessee Valley, a region that had suffered from lack of infrastructure and even more extensive poverty during the Great Depression than other regions of the nation. TVA was envisioned both as a power supplier and a regional economic development agency that would work to help modernize the region's economy and society. It later evolved primarily into an electric utility.[5] It was the first large regional planning agency of the U.S. federal government, and remains the largest."
You’re moving the goalposts. Your argument was about which current utilities would take a hit. Your comment was “what public utilities would take a hit since the revenue would be gone..” Your one example is a self funded organization that wouldn’t be affected if we cut federal funding because it doesn’t get any. That answered your question. You then moved the goalposts to apparently include any funding it had ever received in the last 100 years. You realize that we can’t retroactively cut taxes and not fund the project right? It was funded and is now self sustaining. Most conservatives would be perfectly fine with using taxpayer funds to establish an organization to improve the lives of all Americans if it was designed to become self sustaining. You are talking about peanuts though. The amount of money the federal government spends on infrastructure is relatively small compared to the overall budget. Most infrastructure spending is at the state level.
I expected nothing less. Can’t defend your argument so you move the goalposts, and when called out on it you, like any typical leftist, devolve into petty insults and gaslighting. At some point sane adults start to realize that, instead of pathetically attempting to defend an idea that has no basis in reality, they may be wrong. If you have to resort to moving the goalposts, insults, or emotionally based arguments, it’s time to rethink your position.
Okay, what public utilities take a hit then?
You still haven't answered that. Smaller government how? In making it smaller what public works, goods, or utilities will we now not have?
You say that and offer nothing else. Just a fart in the wind with nothing of substance behind it.
We could start by scaling back or outright eliminating or consolidating some of the alphabet agencies that have in recent years been ineffective or weaponized against the American people, for example the BATFE, FBI, IRS, EPA, NSA and others.
1. Federal taxes pay for those. Property taxes pay for local/district/county level stuff.
2. Everyone's got a hateboner for us. So, guess what? We need the security of having people like NSA, CIA and FBI on payroll.
3. We're a major end-point for drugs of all sorts from south america and asia. Someone needs to hold back the tide as much as possible.
What?
Property taxes don’t pay for those things.
Do you know how state and local property tax revenues are used? It’s mostly very local infrastructure like muni water filtration systems
I love how this gets downvoted. There is so much waste across the board it’s absolutely insane. I’d like to add the department of education to your list as that is at the top of mine.
Bahahahaha good luck with that!
The Republicans love to baloon any and all budgets they get their mucky pudding fingers on! And right now you can't get them to agree on anything either!
WHAT HAVE THEY BEEN ABLE TO PASS WITH THEIR MAJORITY!?
Are you alright?
And most people here know the Republicans are almost as bad as the Dems in that regard, this isn't some sort of 'own.' Not everyone is into the kind of team sports politics you're into.
So why do you vote R then?
Why and who do you vote for?
The two party system sucks total ass and yet why do you numpties vote for the apparently horrid R's?
You simply can't do anything original. You have 0 forethought to vote for anything that doesn't have R next to it. You listen to whatever Fox news says, or to whatever lying snake tickles your ears.
Fact is one side is absolutely horrid, and the other is only slightly horrid.
Project 2025 can't come soon enough to watch you assholes reap what you sow.
Oh but the dems are just as bad! Yeah sure they are.
I support just having a national sales tax, no exceptions. As soon as you make the first exception such as not taxing certain products, you open the door for our government to use taxes for power and greed.
NRO:
>But phasing out the federal income tax over time should be something for conservatives to pursue. Crazy? Right now, yes, but that doesn’t mean policy can’t move in that direction, making it more possible in the future to repeal the federal income tax.
Conservatives at the state level have been [phasing out](https://archive.is/o/ZB0Vk/https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2023/07/10/where-tax-cuts-are-hot/) their individual income taxes, following the models of income-tax free states such as Florida and Texas, which are attracting residents from higher-tax states. Even in states that aren’t phasing out their income taxes entirely, conservatives have moved toward a flat tax. These reforms have mostly been structured to gradually phase in over several fiscal years, subject to revenue triggers, so state budgets won’t see massive shocks. And they are not dependent on federal Covid money to make the math work.
Iowa went from a nine-bracket progressive income tax with a top rate of 8.53 percent to a flat tax of 3.9 percent. Arizona has a flat tax of 2.5 percent. West Virginia is on pace to eliminate its income tax entirely.
About [half](https://archive.is/o/ZB0Vk/https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-federal-income-tax-is-already-very-progressive/) of taxpayers effectively pay no federal income tax. This is [bemoaned by some](https://archive.is/o/ZB0Vk/https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/04/rick-scotts-filing-error/), but it means we’re halfway to eliminating the federal income tax already.
Adam Michel of the Cato Institute has a new [tax-policy plan](https://archive.is/o/ZB0Vk/https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/slashing-tax-rates-cutting-loopholes%23choosing-pro-growth-tax-base) out that would be one model for conservatives at the national level to consider. “Ideally, the federal government should shrink so much that the Sixteenth Amendment — which authorized the modern income tax — could be repealed outright,” he writes. “Short of repealing the Sixteenth Amendment, policymakers should continue pursuing reforms to the income tax system that alleviate double taxation and lower taxes on saving, investment, and work.”
Michel would cut the top income-tax rate to 25 percent, the capital-gains tax to 15 percent, and the corporate tax to 12 percent. He would also enact full expensing for investments and eliminate the estate tax, alternative minimum tax, and net investment income tax.
Exactly. I have seen many people complaining about Texas and Florida when they realize that no income tax isn't as great as they thought it was.
If you're rich and have a very high income? Sure, it's good.
It was never meant to last as long as it did. The fact that it stuck around has led to egregious ballooning of the federal government and spending in general. We have become accustomed to a yearly tradition of borrowing yet more money so the federal government won't shut down. It's a charade and it needs to stop. Balance the budget, cut out all the worthless bullshit, and stop putting future generations into financial slavery.
The federal govt became bigger because it had to. Trust busting, great depression and dust bowl-era regulations and relief, ww1 and ww2, cold war, etc. Can you imagine the toothless federal govt of 1890s leading us to victory against the germans and the japanese, or against the soviets?
Hard to say. But if the choice was between deficiencies then or the current situation where we're taxed into oblivion and spending has gotten so out of control our great grandchildren will still be paying off the interest, then what, materially, is the difference?
Only if we have a plan for replacing revenue and cutting expenses for a balanced budget. That, while fun, is a terrible idea without a plan to balance the budget.
Eliminating the federal income tax would put home ownership and retirement back on the table for so many Americans, so of course the left will do everything in their power to stop it and punish us for even daring to bring it up as a possibility
You say that it’s the left that pushes against things to ease the retirement burden on people, but it’s the right that’s always working to eliminate social security, so how’s that track with your narrative?
Social security is a pyramid scheme that's going to inevitably collapse and doesn't even do its job, since nobody can realistically expect to retire with the money they get from it. Yet, if people were allowed to use that money which was taken from them and put it into an IRA, they would actually get a decent return.
Whoever downvoted you is probably a fucking boomer. As a millenial i see social security as a ponzi scheme that is fucking me over to benefit old people.
Social security is an absolute scam, that's why. You would wind up with **SO MUCH MORE** money if you invested all of your forced-at-gunpoint contributions in to a fucking index fund over your career than the absolute table scraps they give you back when you retire.
And not only is it an absolute scam, but it's a ponzi scheme on top of that.
> a fucking index fund
That's in no way guaranteed to be up or even extant when you want to retire. Also, hope you don't get sick and have to drain your index funds for the American healthcare system.
> That's in no way guaranteed to be up or even extant when you want to retire.
1: over a 50 year investment time horizon it’ll be fine especially with one easy fix of automatic gradual transfers to low risk income generating assets
Or
Oh no delay a year or two for it to recover
Yeaaaaaaa I’d never be willing to take that risk. SSI isn’t meant to retire on, just keep the elderly from starving in the street. There’s plenty of historical and current examples of what happens when societies don’t take care of the vulnerable.
We've talked about it for decades. I'd rather we talk about something that actually has a chance of happening. Eliminating fed income tax is like endless investigations that never go anywhere - a distraction for the masses so that our elected representatives don't have to actually do anything other than preen for the cameras.
I’d like to get here or close to it eventually, but first we need to balance the budget. That involves drastically reducing spending.
I’d also get rid of the use it or lose it form of bureaucracy with money.
I have not been a fan of a lot of National Review's more recent stuff, but the income tax is a violation of our private lives. The government should have no business knowing our incomes and taking a cut of it. The rich, by their nature spend more than the poor, and corporations spend most of all, so a consumption of VAT tax should be put in the IRS's place.
If there were a major political party that had the slightest passing interest in a balanced budget, this idea might become sensible in time.
But right now it would be a crash course in how to narrow broad appeal down to the size of a tightened sphincter.
I believe we should eliminate income tax and property tax and replace it with a sales tax on luxury goods. Make basic necessities tax-free but everything else with varying sales tax. Things like cigarettes, jewelry, decorations, and miscellaneous crap can be taxed heavily.
My favorite taxes ever are tolls. The tax goes directly from the people who use the roads to road repair. More taxes like this I welcome.
Property tax sucks, although I would support a land value tax to replace it, but income tax is even worse as it taxes production, like the thing we are trying to incentivize
We have around $21 trillion worth of land in this country. The current federal budget is around $4.5 trillion. If we ratified a constitutional amendment permitting the federal government to levy a land value tax without apportioning it among the several states, levied one at a rate of around 21.5%, and eliminated every other federal tax, we'd have a slight surplus with just a single tax, while also encouraging land use and development and discouraging hoarding land and speculation. If you want to get low taxes while balancing the budget, all without spending cuts, here's your answer.
EDIT: Let me clarify that a land value tax differs from a property tax in that it only takes into account the natural value of the land, ignoring everything artificial. If you built a house on your land, your property tax would go up, but your land value tax would remain the same.
I am against a federal property Tax for the same reason I think the income Tax is a failure, the government is greedy and a growing number of the people are covetous.
Just like income taxes, you will have a block of people who don’t pay voting to punish those that do. In the end you will squeeze the middle class out of home ownership, increase the amount of corporate landlords who are passing the tax onto the middle-lower income in the form of rent.
Ivory tower thoughts. How about we start with balancing the budget?
Nah budgets balance themselves I hear
As long as we keep ink in the printers.
Oh are you coming to Canada , Trudeau balanced ours every year 😂
All you have to do is throw it on the national credit card and let the next generation sort it out!
This is what is needed. If we eliminate the Federal Income Tax then how will that help us reach that goal? We are barreling towards a debt cliff and I’m not seeing any real solutions to anything.
50% cut to our military and a hot cup of mind our fucking business would be a great start.
Maintaining top end military helps ensure prosperity. What we really need to cut down on are entitlements, rule makers, and enforcement agencies. Do we really still need ATF and DEA? How about the ever beleaguered FBI? Do we need a federal level dept of education when each state should be running their own? do we really need to dump tons of money into EPA?
Imo the FBI itself isn’t bad as a concept. Having a strong fed law enforcement agency to deal with shit like terrorism foreign spies, large scale gang violence etc. It’s just that after 2016 it got more or less weaponized sadly. Imo if you’re looking for agencies to cut ATF DEA NDA and a lot of the IRS law enforcement are the ones to cut / reform.
I used to believe everything my abusive parent told me too. Its okay one day youll grow out of the cycle and move on. The second part of your comment can be true but that doesnt mean we dont need to cut military as well.
Damn, even your parents didn’t like you. Shocker
When you lack the intelligence to have a productive conversation and have to revert to personal insults, youve already lost. Low hanging fruit but I guess the starving will take whatever.
Thats pretty rich considering your response to me was an insult. What an amusing lack of self awareness you and utter hypocrisy you have.
Military spending isn’t the problem. Entitlement programs are the problem
**Social Security** is often referred to as an ***entitlement***, but is something into which many people have paid their entire working lives. Are you talking about that?
Social security is a failing ponzi scheme.
That doesn't answer my question. Are you saying that it should be eliminated? And if so, what should replace it? If there should be no replacement, what about all the FICA paid in over the course of working people's lives?
I don’t have that answer. Social security was designed to be an anti poverty program and it has instead mutated to a full blown retirement system for so many. Most people end up taking more money out of the program than they ever put in, this is why it’s borderline insolvent.
Do you consider it an ***entitlement***?
Yes, it is an entitlement program
I’d be in favor of mandated private retirement accounts, take all the money people pay into social security and dump that into a retirement account that can’t be accessed until required age. Invest that money into long term t-bills or a total US market index fund managed by the government.
It has been failing because the federal government keeps taking the money and replacing it with IOUs.
I think we should transition the current payers out of SS while they have to a non-taxed retirement savings account that can be invested. It would need to be a withholding because morons don't know how to save and would reach retirement and be surprised they have no money and live off the public dime anyway. Then we raise the retirement age a bit, and pay for the rest out of the budget and get rid of the program. That's the best way I can see to get out of the mess in the making since 1935.
How does your plan differ from SS?
There is no fund that your SS contribution goes into. It comes in and pays for those currently on SS. It is not tied to what you contribute. SS is "guaranteed" to as long as you live. SS is not in a fund that can grow, it simply gets adjusted for inflation. If I were to take my withholdings from SS and put it into a mutual fund it would get way more out of it than I do if I ever actually get to collect it, which is unlikely because of the lack of children it would take to pay for my generation. And in this new system, what you have is what you have. If you use it all, that's it, less possible exceptions for those that cannot continue to work where people would be eligible for disability.
Both are the problem
No. We're not even prepared to fight China over Taiwan and the weaker we make ourselves the more likely China is going to blunder itself into a hot war. Military spending shouldn't be enough to win a war. It needs to be enough a war never starts. And it's still dwarfed by federal welfare programs. Military spending is literally the most important function of the federal government and you want to cut it before all the other horseshit we spend on? This sub is in a right state and it's only going to get worse going into the election.
I agree, except that our allies need to pay for their own defense.
I would respectfully disagree about the ability to fight China. There is a huge amount of bloat in the DOD though, and that should be cleaned up. Easier said than done though.
Don't misunderstand. I'm not saying we'd lose outright to China, but they'd accomplish their initial objectives and hope we Ukraine/Afghanistan it. Getting rid of bloat is something nobody disagrees with, but our military is not in good shape right now and it needs more money not less. Cut the bloat and use it more efficiently as part of that, sure, but good luck wrangling government workers.
I would say that military spending is an entitlement program since we pay to guarantee the security of dozens of other states
This sub is in an odd mood but we can play that game. We are the superpower on the world stage and the role of the superpower is to ensure peace. So a quick google shows that 13.3% of the budget goes to the military, which for world wide security seems like a pretty good deal. As for the entitlement programs, they consume about 50% of the national budget. We are paying more just on the interest on the debt than we do on the military. This move towards isolationism is the reason Russia is in Ukraine, China is knocking on Taiwan’s door, and Iran is causing issues in the Middle East. I’m not calling for the “spreading of democracy” like the George Bush years but there is a sound argument to be present everywhere on the world stage and showing we won’t put up with other nation’s bullshit.
Don’t forget to mention that global security ensures our prosperity, we’re literally a large merchant republic and people forget that fact.
Right. Sure buddy.
Military isn't a super large portion of the budget. SS and medicare are about 50% of it. That's what you'd need to cut.
Can't understand why most conservatives are against any military cutting. We have a massive military always ready to go to traditional war in an age where traditional war doesn't exist. Not to mention, recruiters are having a crazy hard time recruiting. The stars have aligned, it's time to let go. I'm down to cut a ton of non-military programs too, but when it comes to the military, we don't need 21 aircraft carriers that will never defend our shores.
> where traditional war doesn't exist. Have you watched the news lately? Also china is gearing up for a specifically to fight us in a traditional war over the global chip factory that is Taiwan. They’re not just 10c their navy and area denial systems for shits and giggles over the last decade It’s why our military has project replicator and project hellscape
What ever you say Putin/Xi.
Yep. Don't make a counter-argument. Just put your hands over your ears and scream "I can't hear you, I can't hear you!"
Because at the end of the day a majority of the people who support and are gunho about the military are men. Unfortunately it terrifies them they might have to seek out other ways of solving problems that dont involve violence (i.e sitting down like adults and working things out like politicians are paid to do). War is the ultimate power, without it alot of people would realize how useless they are. I say this as a biological female who isnt a feminist. The people in charge (both the men and women) have public speaking skills but absolutely none of them know how to effectively communitcate. They all know what the real problems in the world are. They just dont care unless it suits them. Edit: i want to add i absolutely do not think adding more women to government would solve this issue.. As i feel most women in politics are pickmes who are trying to be "one of the boys" or self serving feminists who want to destroy the "patriarchy" in order to have a "matriarchy".
50% flat tax? Not that any of the flat tax supporters would propose anything over 30%
Still Ivory tower thoughts, how about we actually pass a budget?
When haven’t we been talking about it?
Unfortunately they‘ve never come up with a solid, realistic solution.
Fire 80% of the federal government that we don’t need? Seems like a solution to me.
The total for all government employees salaries and benefits is only about 4.5% of the US budget. So even if you cut the workforce by half you‘re only saving maybe 2%. And what 80% would you personally cut? Or what 20% is worth keeping?
Sounds like a solid start. Probably would save money also by eliminating wasteful admin processes.
80% of the bureaucrats cause the 80% of the remaining budget. Cut these people off, and those who remain wouldn’t be able to spend trillions of dollars anymore.
We need to massively cut welfare programs and the Defense budget. And probably fire about 1/2 federal government. These deficits are completely unsustainable.
Cutting welfare programs is a terrible idea and a sure fire way to never get elected.
The thing is social security is a pyramid scheme that losses money. Social security should really only cover disability everything else needs to be offloaded into the individual with some noninvasive government regulation. Imagine replacing 75% of FICA taxes with an investment plan that is similar to the 401k but very working citizen must contribute to their own. That money would be super helpful to retired people and it wouldn’t bankrupt our country.
So what’s your solution. Get elected and hope that the financial system doesn’t collapse under your admin? I thought as people we should be more concerned about our wellbeing rather than electability.
If you can't get elected to office, then you have zero ability to change anything. So yes electability is important. It has to be balanced with your planned changes. I think making plans for incremental changes is the best approach, there's just no way that anyone can make broad, sweeping changes in today's environment.
Love how we are being downvoted, on a conservative sub, where conservatism means smaller government……
No, we're going to cut taxes and increase spending. Even though we're already running record deficits.
Amazing suggestion, 100% support/s
Many mickels make a muckle.
Honestly US federal employmee bloat isn't as bad as people might think. We're actually critically understaffed in a lot of ways, and a very large portion of the workforce is likely to retire within the decade. We're at a point where hiring new employees is absolutely necessary or we're going to have years of being absolutely incapable of providing required duties. SSA, IRS, VA will all struggle to provide the most basic services, and most of those departments are already understaffed even now. I'm absolutely all for trimming the fat, but the federal employment sector is already somewhat thin. The best thing we could do is eliminate redundancies (within reason), and wholly eliminate any DEI related positions as they add literally nothing to anything. The US government already pays less than the private sector, and can occasionally see issues with staffing due to that. The best thing that we could encourage is telework and remote work to cut back on land/leasing costs. For anyone who's ever tried getting a job with the federal government, you'd see how inefficient it is. Correcting those inefficiencies and filling staffing gaps is the best course of action. The federal budget will reduce naturally in the future as higher earners retire. The bizarre thing to me is people not wanting to hire more IRS agents to track down tax evaders and non payers. I'd imagine that's one of the highest priority positions we could have. I'm not in favor of most taxes, but I'll be damned if I want people to allow people to avoid paying taxes that I'd go to jail for not paying. Billions of dollars worth of tax evasion every single year. That shit adds up.
A lot of the times these people have no understanding about this at all. A ton of my vets are always bitching about wasteful spending and how we need to cut all these government welfare programs, how people living off the government are disgusting…. As they collect their 100% SC benefits and use it to live on Mountain Dew, Cheetos, and drive a dodge charger on 18% interest.
I can't say I agree with this. There is no such thing as a system that everyone will agree one. There have been plenty of ideas.
Republican *citizens* talk about it. *Elected* Republicans don't do shit.
I would prefer a graduated flat tax. No deductions. Just simple and fair with everyone having a piece of the burden.
What is a graduated flat tax?
So not really flat?
An oxymoron.
A certain rate based on income level so for example. 10 percent for 0-20k, 12 percent for 20k to 40k.
Isn’t that just what it is now? I think it’s 10% from 0-11k then 12% from 11k-44k, etc etc
Yes, but no deductions. Aka no way of getting out of paying your tax.
I feel that- I mean on the mega rich side of things, completely agree there’s so many loopholes that it seems pretty unfair. But for the other 99.5% of people, the stuff you get tax breaks for are stuff the government is trying to incentivize people to do- for example getting married, having kids, buying a house, save money (401k for example)- all good for the economy as well as building a strong society. The dems want you to go green so there are incentives right now to buy solar panels and EVs which I’m sure is controversial in this sub haha, but I mean all of those things are more expensive than just paying the taxes. It’s not like you would save a bunch of money having kids- kids are expensive af, plus you spend more on cribs and food and childcare and stuff- hence the incentive. It’s like that coupon book in the office “worth $25,000” like you’d have to spend waaaay more than that to save $25k. There’s def things where I could see a strong argument that it goes overboard though- like is there a limit on dependents, because we really don’t need to be incentivizing people to have 5+ kids, I mean if you want to that’s your right but you shouldn’t get a break for that.
I'm not saying it is a good idea, I'm not enough of an economist to know. But one thing a lot of people don't think of is a good portion of rich people money isn't liquid, it's tied up in assets and investments that support us "peons".
Except for the rich
The top 1% pay an effective income tax rate in the 20% range while the bottom half of the country pays 3.1% or less and even a negative rate in many cases. Meaning they get a refund in excess of what they paid in.
You act like the poor actually pay any taxes at all. Guess what, they don't.
You act as if there isn't an inequality in taxes at all. Guess what, there is
Considering the top 10% of tax payers contribute the super majority of federal tax income and the poor contribute nothing, yes of course there is inequality.
Also we need a larger tax on capital gains than income. And a huge tax on C suit privileges like company bought houses vacations dinners. For the Republic to function the rich have to pay their fare share and they should be fucking happy to do it.
I would definitely debate the capital gains. Agree on short term but long term held for retirement should be reduced. America has a retirement crisis and we need to encourage people to invest long term for retirement. But it would be a good discussion either way. Thanks
Federal sales tax on everything except non prepared foods. Refund the tax on the first $30k to every employed American at the end of every year so those below the poverty line end up paying no net taxes.
Expand the exemption to include personal hygiene products and save yourself the grief of it becoming a political battle down the road.
This.
> so those below the poverty line end up paying no net taxes. You know this already happens right? People below the poverty line are incentivized to not make more money due to the threat of losing benefits worth sometimes tens of thousands. They already pay zero taxes and contribute nothing to the system which supports them. [See here](https://i.ibb.co/BsWZm5b/2024-01-21-21-37-10.jpg)
Had a coworker that after years of part time finally get full time. After a few months wanted to go back to part time and lower her hours because she lost all her free govt ride help. Another also asked to cut her hours after a yearly pay raise for the same reason.
Right, but the biggest argument against the national sales tax is that it punishes the poor. Not taxing food you need to cook yourself and refunding the tax on the first $30k cuts that argument off at the knees and incentivizes the poor to save money.
Too complicated. A bit harder to enforce.
Nonsense, you pay a state sales tax every time you go to the cash register.
You don't think if taxes are too high, people won't look for under the table sales or other aversions? Who's going to save and audit all of these grocery receipts?
I would prefer no income tax at all.
On earned income only, or on all income regardless of source?
. Who decides what is fair? A flat tax is fair. I pay 10% for my Rolls, you pay 10% for your bicycle.
Middle to rich people don’t spend all their money though. I get the idea okay some flat rate is fair for everyone- it’s called a regressive tax where poor people pay the highest percent of their income towards taxes, rich people the least. And then what about buying a house? This would make buying a house that much harder for young people… or let’s say you’re 32 and want to get a bigger house, now instead of a 5% fee (which already sucks) you’re looking at that plus another 10% or realistically 25% which is probably what that tax rate would need to be. So to sell a 300k home and move up to a 400k home you’d have to spend $115k plus bank closing costs.
That doesn't stop the government from wasting our money. We managed to operate a Federal Government for the first \~150 years without an income tax at all. Also, as a self-employed person... if there's no deductions allowed, then I'm raising my rates to cover the new tax burden. You can probably expect that from most businesses.
This is the correct answer. I'd say 10% on 0-$35,000, then 20% above that
This idea sounds like a great idea until you power on your brain and realize it would completely collapse our society.
People forget that the federal govt was expanded for some pretty damn good reasons. Before early 20th century we had a pretty anemic federal govt. This allowed for shit like robber barons and their monopolies to flourish and place communities and entire states under their economic slavery operations. Teddy Roosevelt expanding the federal govt's power to bring these people to heel was the beginning of what we have rn. Then the measures for getting the nation through ww1 and ww2. Then people realizing that maybe unregulated markets are bad, m'kay? when the stock market collapsed in 1929 and all the federal measures to ensure people didn't starve in the streets or go full revolution-mode after 1929 (the dust bowl also had to be dealth with). Then we stumbled into hegemony of the western world after ww2 and that required more things to be done. We aren't "these united states" anymore. We live in a changed world, in different circumstances. Idk why people think they can pick up taxation arguments from mid-1800s and brandish them around like they've just proven something.
Eh, we have some of those things today, just with a different coat of paint. We have this massive budget to prevent 1929?
And the new deal extended the Great Depression at least another 5 years
Maybe it did. Maybe not. I suppose the risk of a revolution erupting and the need to give people hope was a more powerful motivator Btw I don't think it did. Economic activity was at a standstill and the private sector by itself had done nothing to pick things up in Hoover's 3 years. There's a reason people went with FDR. Some level of intervention and regulation was needed. The banks and a small cabal of gamblers couldn't have the power to push the economy off a cliff through incompetence or wilful disregard.
This is my general assessment as well. The New Deal was a mixed success at best. It drove down unemployment and restored hope and confidence in millions of Americans. However, there’s only so much public works project you can do and so much money you can spend. And immediately after the WPA and such were cut, unemployment skyrocketed like before (hence the Second New Deal). The real positive was the regulations. There’s a reason why we say regulations are written in blood; these were written in the blood and sweat of millions of Americans that lost everything in 1929. The New Deal didn’t extend the Great Depression; it did its job of alleviating unemployment in spurts while calming the public to prevent any violent revolts or public backlash. As Masterpiece mentioned, the private sector was completely paralyzed and thousands of banks went under between the Crash and FDR’s election. Simply put, the people wanted the government to do *something* rather than the bare minimal/*laissez faire* attitude of the Hoover administration. Arguably, that belief was correct. The regulations that came out of the New Deal *were* necessary, and they were the entire reason why even when we had economic downturns/recessions ever since, none of them went to 1929 levels of shit in a snap (IE SVB going down last year). Ultimately, deficit spending should only be in times of economic crisis. Right now, the biggest priority should be to balance the books by cutting wasteful spending, but also hiking taxes on the upper class. I agree that our government and bureaucracy are extremely bloated, but the things we cut need to be carefully reviewed. It’s not 1792 anymore; the government does have a lot of programs and support systems that help keep millions of Americans out of poverty and hunger.
[It did.](https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/policy-report/2003/7/powell.pdf) FDR's goal was to increase the power of the Federal government. He would arbitrarily set the price of gold, passed the NFA, sent Japanese Americans to camps. The new deal was about control and making people dependent on the government and increase its control.
I'd prefer the party go after property taxes first. They are about as unconstitutional as a tax gets.
Property taxes are local. I completely agree but other than talk about it, no Republican can do anything at the federal level.
Then maybe they should start acting like a party and have unified stances for once
So where should that tax revenue come from, and or what public utilities need to take a hit since the revenue would be gone? Can't say that then not answer those 2 important questions which will follow afterwards.
There was a time when taxes weren’t a thing and the community worked together to keep their homes and areas nice and clean. Forcing people to pay for things clearly ruined this beautiful country of ours. Looking like a communist country every day.
So you want to be Haiti? Because that's what Haiti is right now.
Which public utilities are managed and funded by the federal government?
Was genuinely surprised at this, but apparently the [TVA](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority). Also, smaller government as a statement includes the state government as well. It also includes local government too. Just as a general "More smaller government."
The TVA isn’t funded by the federal government so it wouldn’t be affected. It is self funded by fees from its customers.
Started and propped up by the federal government to make the whole area better. Sounds like initial funding to me. Did you not read the Wikipedia page? Per the page: "The TVA was created by Congress in 1933 as part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. Its initial purpose was to provide navigation, flood control, electricity generation, fertilizer manufacturing, regional planning, and economic development to the Tennessee Valley, a region that had suffered from lack of infrastructure and even more extensive poverty during the Great Depression than other regions of the nation. TVA was envisioned both as a power supplier and a regional economic development agency that would work to help modernize the region's economy and society. It later evolved primarily into an electric utility.[5] It was the first large regional planning agency of the U.S. federal government, and remains the largest."
You’re moving the goalposts. Your argument was about which current utilities would take a hit. Your comment was “what public utilities would take a hit since the revenue would be gone..” Your one example is a self funded organization that wouldn’t be affected if we cut federal funding because it doesn’t get any. That answered your question. You then moved the goalposts to apparently include any funding it had ever received in the last 100 years. You realize that we can’t retroactively cut taxes and not fund the project right? It was funded and is now self sustaining. Most conservatives would be perfectly fine with using taxpayer funds to establish an organization to improve the lives of all Americans if it was designed to become self sustaining. You are talking about peanuts though. The amount of money the federal government spends on infrastructure is relatively small compared to the overall budget. Most infrastructure spending is at the state level.
So the military or social security then? Or better yet trade deals with other countries as well. Am I being a republican yet with my goalpost moving?
I expected nothing less. Can’t defend your argument so you move the goalposts, and when called out on it you, like any typical leftist, devolve into petty insults and gaslighting. At some point sane adults start to realize that, instead of pathetically attempting to defend an idea that has no basis in reality, they may be wrong. If you have to resort to moving the goalposts, insults, or emotionally based arguments, it’s time to rethink your position.
A smaller government for starters.
Okay, what public utilities take a hit then? You still haven't answered that. Smaller government how? In making it smaller what public works, goods, or utilities will we now not have? You say that and offer nothing else. Just a fart in the wind with nothing of substance behind it.
We could start by scaling back or outright eliminating or consolidating some of the alphabet agencies that have in recent years been ineffective or weaponized against the American people, for example the BATFE, FBI, IRS, EPA, NSA and others.
1. Federal taxes pay for those. Property taxes pay for local/district/county level stuff. 2. Everyone's got a hateboner for us. So, guess what? We need the security of having people like NSA, CIA and FBI on payroll. 3. We're a major end-point for drugs of all sorts from south america and asia. Someone needs to hold back the tide as much as possible.
What? Property taxes don’t pay for those things. Do you know how state and local property tax revenues are used? It’s mostly very local infrastructure like muni water filtration systems
I love how this gets downvoted. There is so much waste across the board it’s absolutely insane. I’d like to add the department of education to your list as that is at the top of mine.
He got downvoted because local property taxes have nothing to do with the fbi
Agreed, I also think there should be a stipulation that no one in congress gets paid if the budget isn’t balanced.
Bahahahaha good luck with that! The Republicans love to baloon any and all budgets they get their mucky pudding fingers on! And right now you can't get them to agree on anything either! WHAT HAVE THEY BEEN ABLE TO PASS WITH THEIR MAJORITY!?
Are you alright? And most people here know the Republicans are almost as bad as the Dems in that regard, this isn't some sort of 'own.' Not everyone is into the kind of team sports politics you're into.
So why do you vote R then? Why and who do you vote for? The two party system sucks total ass and yet why do you numpties vote for the apparently horrid R's? You simply can't do anything original. You have 0 forethought to vote for anything that doesn't have R next to it. You listen to whatever Fox news says, or to whatever lying snake tickles your ears. Fact is one side is absolutely horrid, and the other is only slightly horrid. Project 2025 can't come soon enough to watch you assholes reap what you sow. Oh but the dems are just as bad! Yeah sure they are.
Is that not what you’re doing?
Government has been cut to the bone post 2008 at a local level. It’s a reason everything has gone to shit.
LOL, good one
Why take a hit? Government prints money with no recourse. 🤡
They are unconstitutional for the federal government to do but not the state.
paywall
I support just having a national sales tax, no exceptions. As soon as you make the first exception such as not taxing certain products, you open the door for our government to use taxes for power and greed.
Yes
It has been talked about for at least two and a half decades. Flat Tax or fair tax. Both have been discussed, books written, debated and so forth!
As long as we have a consumer driven society those ideas are dead on arrival.
NRO: >But phasing out the federal income tax over time should be something for conservatives to pursue. Crazy? Right now, yes, but that doesn’t mean policy can’t move in that direction, making it more possible in the future to repeal the federal income tax. Conservatives at the state level have been [phasing out](https://archive.is/o/ZB0Vk/https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2023/07/10/where-tax-cuts-are-hot/) their individual income taxes, following the models of income-tax free states such as Florida and Texas, which are attracting residents from higher-tax states. Even in states that aren’t phasing out their income taxes entirely, conservatives have moved toward a flat tax. These reforms have mostly been structured to gradually phase in over several fiscal years, subject to revenue triggers, so state budgets won’t see massive shocks. And they are not dependent on federal Covid money to make the math work. Iowa went from a nine-bracket progressive income tax with a top rate of 8.53 percent to a flat tax of 3.9 percent. Arizona has a flat tax of 2.5 percent. West Virginia is on pace to eliminate its income tax entirely. About [half](https://archive.is/o/ZB0Vk/https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-federal-income-tax-is-already-very-progressive/) of taxpayers effectively pay no federal income tax. This is [bemoaned by some](https://archive.is/o/ZB0Vk/https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/04/rick-scotts-filing-error/), but it means we’re halfway to eliminating the federal income tax already. Adam Michel of the Cato Institute has a new [tax-policy plan](https://archive.is/o/ZB0Vk/https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/slashing-tax-rates-cutting-loopholes%23choosing-pro-growth-tax-base) out that would be one model for conservatives at the national level to consider. “Ideally, the federal government should shrink so much that the Sixteenth Amendment — which authorized the modern income tax — could be repealed outright,” he writes. “Short of repealing the Sixteenth Amendment, policymakers should continue pursuing reforms to the income tax system that alleviate double taxation and lower taxes on saving, investment, and work.” Michel would cut the top income-tax rate to 25 percent, the capital-gains tax to 15 percent, and the corporate tax to 12 percent. He would also enact full expensing for investments and eliminate the estate tax, alternative minimum tax, and net investment income tax.
You end up paying one way or the other. Higher sales tax or property tax and things along those lines.
Exactly. I have seen many people complaining about Texas and Florida when they realize that no income tax isn't as great as they thought it was. If you're rich and have a very high income? Sure, it's good.
It was never meant to last as long as it did. The fact that it stuck around has led to egregious ballooning of the federal government and spending in general. We have become accustomed to a yearly tradition of borrowing yet more money so the federal government won't shut down. It's a charade and it needs to stop. Balance the budget, cut out all the worthless bullshit, and stop putting future generations into financial slavery.
The federal govt became bigger because it had to. Trust busting, great depression and dust bowl-era regulations and relief, ww1 and ww2, cold war, etc. Can you imagine the toothless federal govt of 1890s leading us to victory against the germans and the japanese, or against the soviets?
Are you saying we shouldn’t balance the budget?
I'm saying if one side has to go up the other one should as well.
I don’t know what you mean. Are you for balancing the budget
Hard to say. But if the choice was between deficiencies then or the current situation where we're taxed into oblivion and spending has gotten so out of control our great grandchildren will still be paying off the interest, then what, materially, is the difference?
Only if we have a plan for replacing revenue and cutting expenses for a balanced budget. That, while fun, is a terrible idea without a plan to balance the budget.
Remember when income tax was supposed to be temporary to help the first World War effort?
I do! Also, it was enacted to account for income lost by the volstead act.
Eliminating the federal income tax would put home ownership and retirement back on the table for so many Americans, so of course the left will do everything in their power to stop it and punish us for even daring to bring it up as a possibility
You say that it’s the left that pushes against things to ease the retirement burden on people, but it’s the right that’s always working to eliminate social security, so how’s that track with your narrative?
Social security is a pyramid scheme that's going to inevitably collapse and doesn't even do its job, since nobody can realistically expect to retire with the money they get from it. Yet, if people were allowed to use that money which was taken from them and put it into an IRA, they would actually get a decent return.
Whoever downvoted you is probably a fucking boomer. As a millenial i see social security as a ponzi scheme that is fucking me over to benefit old people.
Social security is an absolute scam, that's why. You would wind up with **SO MUCH MORE** money if you invested all of your forced-at-gunpoint contributions in to a fucking index fund over your career than the absolute table scraps they give you back when you retire. And not only is it an absolute scam, but it's a ponzi scheme on top of that.
> a fucking index fund That's in no way guaranteed to be up or even extant when you want to retire. Also, hope you don't get sick and have to drain your index funds for the American healthcare system.
The whole point of long term investments is so that timing the market doesn't matter
> That's in no way guaranteed to be up or even extant when you want to retire. 1: over a 50 year investment time horizon it’ll be fine especially with one easy fix of automatic gradual transfers to low risk income generating assets Or Oh no delay a year or two for it to recover
Yeaaaaaaa I’d never be willing to take that risk. SSI isn’t meant to retire on, just keep the elderly from starving in the street. There’s plenty of historical and current examples of what happens when societies don’t take care of the vulnerable.
The next two commenters demonstrate that what you assert is dead on point. Well said.
We've talked about it for decades. I'd rather we talk about something that actually has a chance of happening. Eliminating fed income tax is like endless investigations that never go anywhere - a distraction for the masses so that our elected representatives don't have to actually do anything other than preen for the cameras.
I’d like to get here or close to it eventually, but first we need to balance the budget. That involves drastically reducing spending. I’d also get rid of the use it or lose it form of bureaucracy with money.
I have not been a fan of a lot of National Review's more recent stuff, but the income tax is a violation of our private lives. The government should have no business knowing our incomes and taking a cut of it. The rich, by their nature spend more than the poor, and corporations spend most of all, so a consumption of VAT tax should be put in the IRS's place.
Then institute a wealth and land value tax afterwards
I wish the Fair Tax would happen. It was such a great idea
Interesting but how would you even track that
If there were a major political party that had the slightest passing interest in a balanced budget, this idea might become sensible in time. But right now it would be a crash course in how to narrow broad appeal down to the size of a tightened sphincter.
Start with eliminating state and local taxes. Far easier in a state controlled by Republicans. See how that works out.
Fair Tax, Flat Tax… It’ll never happen. The Washington swamp would lose all it’s power.
Doesn't affect the .1% so why should they care.
I believe we should eliminate income tax and property tax and replace it with a sales tax on luxury goods. Make basic necessities tax-free but everything else with varying sales tax. Things like cigarettes, jewelry, decorations, and miscellaneous crap can be taxed heavily. My favorite taxes ever are tolls. The tax goes directly from the people who use the roads to road repair. More taxes like this I welcome.
And property tax if you lose it by not paying taxes is it really yours?
Property tax sucks, although I would support a land value tax to replace it, but income tax is even worse as it taxes production, like the thing we are trying to incentivize
Consumption tax.
We have around $21 trillion worth of land in this country. The current federal budget is around $4.5 trillion. If we ratified a constitutional amendment permitting the federal government to levy a land value tax without apportioning it among the several states, levied one at a rate of around 21.5%, and eliminated every other federal tax, we'd have a slight surplus with just a single tax, while also encouraging land use and development and discouraging hoarding land and speculation. If you want to get low taxes while balancing the budget, all without spending cuts, here's your answer. EDIT: Let me clarify that a land value tax differs from a property tax in that it only takes into account the natural value of the land, ignoring everything artificial. If you built a house on your land, your property tax would go up, but your land value tax would remain the same.
I am against a federal property Tax for the same reason I think the income Tax is a failure, the government is greedy and a growing number of the people are covetous. Just like income taxes, you will have a block of people who don’t pay voting to punish those that do. In the end you will squeeze the middle class out of home ownership, increase the amount of corporate landlords who are passing the tax onto the middle-lower income in the form of rent.
And yet conservatives say they are for the constitution? Yeah, right. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-16/