Bankruptcy and Reorganization for Detroit?

Suuure it does. lol

At least, until they have to 'consume'.


Some will buy a new car,

With their food money?

 

It is when it starves essential government services.

 

essential government services are VERY few and don't require the
federal income tax which came into being in 1913 with the federal
reserve. What the federal government is needed for is very very little.
Everything else is better done locally. That way if a government becomes
too much of a burden you can move to the next city, county, or state.

 

oh good Lord, a right-wing anti-government kook.

Makes no sense.

Yeah, charge everybody another 30% when they buy a car. That'll get
more people to buy cars!

No they won't. If your tax is revenue neutral, in fact, the middle
class will pay more because the rich will pay less.

What burden does the income tax put on cars?

You've been worshipping at the foot of right-wing talk radio too long;
it's mushed your brain.

 

Totally false and totally ridiculous.

Uh, the gov't is constitution, doofus.

Does Lich. have a military? Border guards? Prisons? Poor people?
Does it get most of its money from things like banks HQed there?

 

I'd ask for a cite, but crazy stuff like that is all over the web -
usually written by well-off healthy white males.

 

So you must consider theft from some people for the benefit of some
other people an essential service. Only government can do what would be
illegal for a private person to do.

And if you need a cite for when the federal reserve and current federal
income tax came into being you're woefully ignorant.

 

Everyone who is against theft by government is "a right-wing
anti-government kook" to a central planner.

There is income tax (corporate or otherwise) is included in the price of
every product.

I thought socialists and central planners loved all forms of taxation.
Isn't the huge VAT something we are supposed to see as an enlightened
form of european life? That's all he's saying is to have a VAT.

The middle class will always pay the most regardless of what scheme.
That's the whole point of a progessive income tax, it's to make sure
those who are wealthy stay wealthy and in power. As far as a tax on
consumption those who are not wealthy can at least control how much they
are taxed. They can *choose* to buy less stuff while an income tax
steals it off the top. Both are vile, but a tax on consumption is
slightly less vile.

How do you think corporations get the money to pay corporate income
taxes?

 

Entirely true.

You can has cheezeburger? The federal government is lawless and has
been so for many many years. Notice today's $45 billion given to the
rockefeller business known as citibank.

Heaven forbid the US stop being an empire with ~700 military bases
around the world and stop putting people in prison for their vices
(drug use). Don't worry lloyd, the US isn't going to care about freedom
any time soon. We'll just have left wing version of national socialism
now. We've even got a classical piece of fascism that's been lacking for
the last 8 years, a popular leader.

 

Yep - there we go, classic k00kery.

an essential service. Only government can do what would

You just slid right off your 'city, county, or state' argument into the
no-tax abyss.

You are willing to stay off the tax-maintained roads, are you? If so, can
you afford ICBMs?

 

LOL You certainly are intent on pricing your belief system out of the
marketplace of ideas. =)

 

Refusal to discuss and labeling. Classic.

I guess you're unable to grasp the meaning of that.

What does government's monopoly on the road system have to do with
anything? Could a private road company tax gasoline to fund its roads?
No. Like I said, government can do what is illegal for a private person
or company.

I have no use for ICBMs because I don't want a world wide empire.

 

Is that all you have? One insulting statement after another? Quite the
small mind you have.

 

A ridiculous lie.


Classic.

A ridiculous lie.

And it's as irrelevant a straw man as it was when you first said it.

Others do. Do-overs for you.

 

No, that's another Conservative myth. Revenues dropped steeply after the
ill-advised tax cuts, and have yet to return to Clinton-era levels.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/16/failing-to-pass-the-laffer-test/
-- Ernie

 

Not quite.
http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Europe/Liechtenstein-TAXATION.html
-- Ernie

 

A progressive tax rate increases as you go up the income scale. You mean
regressive: one that decreases as income increases.
-- Ernie

 

1) it doesn't say the quote is false.
2) under 18% is a lot lower than 50%.

 

No, I mean a progressive income tax. A progressive income tax is a
demotivator to increasing one's income. If you start out poor and are
working your way up it is more difficult with the government's ever
growing monkey on your back. If you're already wealthy you can protect
yourself.

The federal income tax goes hand and hand with the federal reserve
system and fiat money. It all goes together for the same ends. To
benefit the wealthy (read: rockefeller and morgan, etc, not the guy
across town who makes $500K/yr) at the expense of everyone else.

 

I'd rather hear your reasoned explanation for "We'll just have left wing
version of national socialism now." I'm sure you can put me right in my
place.