Taxes in America: how much longer do we tolerate taxes like these?
Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
2012/07/04 18:38:36
|
|
|||||
|
19 votes
|
|
18% | |||
|
72 votes
|
|
67% | |||
|
16 votes
|
|
15% | |||
"Nothing is certain but death and taxes." But today we celebrate a time when Americans said they were done tolerating taxes like these:
So what about it? Why do we tolerate a progressive income tax? But our Supreme Court just said that Congress can tax anything! So what do we do about it?
The Molasses Act
of 1733, imposed taxes on imports of molasses, which were used
primarily for the production of rum. This tax was not passed to raise
revenue but to regulate trade. It was repealed in 1764.
The Stamp Act of 1765 taxed every single piece of paper the Colonists used. It was repealed in 1766.
The Townshend Act of 1767 was a series of five Acts of indirect taxes placed on paper, paint, lead, glass and tea that were imported into the colonies. The implementation of this tax led to the occupation of Boston in 1768 and the subsequent Boston Massacre of 1770.The Tea Act of 1773, contrary to popular belief, did not impose taxes but undercut the business of local merchants. (It did this by giving favored tax
treatment to the British East India Company.) The Tea Act is commonly
associated with the Boston Tea Party.
So what about it? Why do we tolerate a progressive income tax? But our Supreme Court just said that Congress can tax anything! So what do we do about it?
Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/07/04...
Top Opinion
-
mal 2012/07/04 19:10:40Fight! This is the sort of thing we fought against! If we don't fight now, wh...
You want to insult, lets insult, you stupid, dumb hill jack of a Texan, i did not insult you, i did not come at your in any disrespectful way and yet you took the opportunity to insult, why?
Taxes have existed since before and after the founding of the US and will always exist.
If you have problem with taxes, then win the hearts/minds of the people and convince them to vote for politicians who will lower tax rates. Taxes are a necessary evil and no civilization can exist without them.
I do agree taxes are too high, but it is because of the demands society has placed on the government. Which is why I believe in a small Federal Government.
Also, Hong Kongs economic model wouldnt work in the US, economic models have to reflect population, geography and resources. Whilst I am, in general, sceptical about the sustainability of the 'Tiger' model, I do admire how HK have made their little enclave work so well for them. HK is to capitalism what Norway is to social democracy haha.
Well, academic work has proven inconclusive on whether tax systems do encourage or discourage investment. The consensus at present is that there is no race to the bottom or to the top and that investment decisions are based on more factors than tax alone.
However, regards the point that it should not be used for social policy ends, I would say this- tax credits for low-income earners are in many ways more efficient than benefit cheques and the VAT rate should be looked at within the context of the wider distribution of the tax burden and its impact on lower income families.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/new...
Hong Kong is ranked 40th in the world for total crime rate, the United States is ranked no 1. (United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute).
http://www.nationmaster.com/c...
http://www.batgung.com/safety
Your Google works as good as mine, or else you are just spreading disinformation.
As for Me, I would take Hong Kong any day of the week
over Detroit
Detroit seems to be our economic model, I think that is going in the wrong direction.
Honk Kong is a much better economic model.
http://www.hardrainproject.co...
Yeah lets race to the bottom.
I am wondering though how come you did not post a picture of the interior small cities of the American Midwest states like Oklahoma, Iowa, Illinois, Arkansas, or Southern States i have feeling you used Detroit as a punching bag, not realizing there are a helluva lot of cities that are experiencing the same industrial decline as Detroit. But only you can discern why you chose Detroit and not some other city say like in Iowa or Oklahoma.
The rest is all Bull Shiat and you know it.
2001 (Clinton/Republican Budget) Surplus 128.2 billion
2002 (Bush/Republican budget) Deficit 157.8 billion
2003 deficit 377.6 billion
2004 deficit 412.7 billion
2005 deficit 318.3 billion
2006 deficit 248.2 billion
2007 (last year of the Bush/Republican budgets) deficit 160.7 billion
2008 (first year of Bush/Democrat budgets) deficit 458.6 billion
2009 (Last Bush/ Democrat budget) deficit 1412.7 billion
2010 (First Obama/Democrat Budget) deficit 1293.5
2011 (Senate Never voted on a budget) deficit 1299.6 billion
2012 (again, Harry Reid Never allow a Budget Vote) deficit 1327 billion
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sit...
page 21 to 23