That started going to pieces via the Federal Reserve Act, finalized by Nixon in 1971.
True, at higher interest rates if nothing else.
That was my biggest problem with the wars. There is no virtue in going to war and making your grandchildren pay for it. Talk about taxation without representation!
A deduction is giving you credit for having given money to someone else. You spent it and the government is saying we will pay for some of it. Someone has to pay for you to be given that money.
You say very few things that I agree with. But this…this I agree with 100%.
But a lower tax bill is not the government paying part of it. The money I gave was my money. It was never the government’s money in the first place. The government never, by statute, has a tax claim on the money. So, you really have paid it all, the lower tax rate notwithstanding.
I agree, and that is not a statement regarding whether or not the wars were justified
The federal, state, and local governments all have the authority to tax. You may not like it, but that is a fact. And has been a fact as long as there have been governments.
I’m not sure where you got the idea I oppose the authority of government to tax. There are certain kinds of taxation I oppose ( income and property taxes ), but taxation is s necessary part of living in a free society.
Deductions cost other people money in this sense: To the extent that some people get deductions, in order to generate the same revenue, politicians will make the decision to keep the general tax rate higher, which costs everyone else. Now you may argue that a lower tax rate will generate more revenue through increased economic activity. But whether that is true or not, most politicians do not act on that assumption. So whether it makes sense or not, politicians will keep the general tax rate higher when there are deductions for some.
For what it’s worth the CBO takes the rates, deductions, exemptions, deferments, credits, etc all into account when determining projected revenues. Mathematically it doesn’t matter whether you call it a deduction or exemption, for example. Only Congress makes that distinction.
Hmmm…I don’t want several of the government services you cited. In fact, I’ve seen the government do a lousy job of managing several of the entities that you mentioned.
Should those who are opposed to the wars be allowed to pay less taxes because they are against that spending?
It becomes a bigger problem when income falls short of spending.
Like I said before, we will always have a spending problem as long as we keep electing republicans and democrats. Neither one has any real interest in reducing the scope of government.
I don’t advocate privatizing the military. Nor am I advocating for people choosing not pay taxes for the forest service, interstate service, etc. UNTIL or UNLESS those particular entities are privatized at which point people would pay for usage.
“Allow” charities to assist in disaster relief? There is nothing preventing that right now. You are essentially calling for less disaster relief, period. Is there any politician you could vote for that advocates zero disaster relief by government?
Since the interstate highway is a federal system, shouldn’t it be paid for by everyone. BTW, everyone benefits by having access to goods that are not produced in their state. The interstates are full of trucks that are just carrying goods from one state to another. The costs of goods will go up, both as a result of tolls and potential time lost going through toll points.
The contention is that if there were less taxes collected for FEMA purposes, people would donate more to organizations that assist in disaster relief and recovery.