South Is Usa's Poverty Belt, Gop Wants Same For Whole Country

[Castiel233]

 you can live in an evidence-free world.

I am so using that quote 

[mymistake]

MM, you can say I have a choice but then you can say the same thing about the Jews in Nazi Germany.  There were some that left, but others stayed  and ultimately died in concentration camps.  

 

SO....because some decided to stay, that was their fate and they should have accept it?  No different than saying I am making a choice to live here.  What makes you any different than a Nazi? 

 

 

Oh fuck.  The Nazis did not give the Jewish people a choice.  And nobody is carting you off to a death camp.  All that is expected of you is that if you eat at a restaurant then you should pay your bill.  There is no gun to your head.  You are not being rounded up and sent to a death camp.

 

Quit being so melodramatic.  Everybody else pays their tax without whining about it or comparing it to genocide.

[mymistake]

Wah!  Wah!  Wah!

 

I ate at Red Lobster and after I was done they gave me a bill.

 

They expected me to give them my money!

 

They were holding a gun to my head!!!

 

It was like Nazi germany rounding up all the Jews and killing them by the millions!!!!!!

 

Wah!  Wah!  Wah!

 

I didn't agree to give them my money.  I thought the food was free.  I shouldn't have to pay them just because I took the free food.  How was I suppose to know you have to pay?  Sure it was all explained to me but I didn't agree.

 

It's not fair.  It's like genocide I tell ya!

 

Wah!  Wah!  Wah!

 

Anybody who doesn't agree with me is a hall monitor.

[Ramen666]

Seems it is just another case of entitlement to me, you know the very stuff Libertarians complain about. They want the food without paying for it like the rest of us.

[Ramen666]

Not sticking a gun to your head if you have free will, which you do, you just are not using it. Not my problem or anyone else if you don't like it.

 

It was your choice to come and eat in the restaurant that makes you pay for the food. You choose to stay and eat the food. The only difference is you want the food for free while everyone else is paying for it. You don't like the rules, go to another restaurant, no one is stopping you.

[Ramen666]

Where  have I said not paying for food?

 

 

Where I have said you aren't, you are, you just don't want to. Basically no different that someone who feels they are entitled to getting it for free.

 

You are basically the person who is in the restaurant, who gets the bill, whines and cries and stomps his foot because he doesn't like it. You are right you will get in trouble if you don't pay the bill and that business has that right to penalize you. Again, you entered the restaurant, but you feel you should be the one making the rules not the owners. 

[RankStranger]

Let's not forget BO that according to your supposedly iron-clad property rights, you're living on stolen land. Stolen at GUNPOINT no less.

 

As a faithful supporter of Natural Rights ™, it is incumbent upon you to relinquish said property to its rightful owners (who you could easily track down).

 

Now sure you'll be out a little money. But you can sue the people who sold you the stolen land. I'm pretty sure you'll win because courts are magic- just say the right words at the right time. Justice will smile upon you!

[Ramen666]

 

BO,do you not know what analogy is? I am not going to explain it to you.

[RankStranger]

 

Let's not forget BO that according to your supposedly iron-clad property rights, you're living on stolen land. Stolen at GUNPOINT no less.

As a faithful supporter of Natural Rights ™, it is incumbent upon you to relinquish said property to its rightful owners (who you could easily track down).

Now sure you'll be out a little money. But you can sue the people who sold you the stolen land. I'm pretty sure you'll win because courts are magic- just say the right words at the right time. Justice will smile upon you!

 

 

 

I do believe you error:

 

Indian land tenure systems were varied. While some ownership was completely or almost completely communal, other ownership was more like today’s fee simple.[2][/size] The degree of private ownership reflected the scarcity of land and the difficulty or ease of defining and enforcing rights. [snippeed]

 

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/property-rights-among-native-americans

 

And so according to Natural Rights your land is communally owned by whatever tribe was run out at gunpoint.

 

I mean I would think that a guy who objects so strongly to having his own property taken would respect others' property rights. Don't tell me you're OK with ownership at gunpoint so long as it benefits you- say it ain't so!

 

Nope... you gotta give your land back to the tribe. Then sue whomever sold you the stolen goods. I'm sure the courts will just blow a wad of justice all over you.

[BrotherJosh]

 

 

 

Let's not forget BO that according to your supposedly iron-clad property rights, you're living on stolen land. Stolen at GUNPOINT no less.

As a faithful supporter of Natural Rights ™, it is incumbent upon you to relinquish said property to its rightful owners (who you could easily track down).

Now sure you'll be out a little money. But you can sue the people who sold you the stolen land. I'm pretty sure you'll win because courts are magic- just say the right words at the right time. Justice will smile upon you!

 

 

I do believe you error:

 

Indian land tenure systems were varied. While some ownership was completely or almost completely communal, other ownership was more like today’s fee simple.[2][/size] The degree of private ownership reflected the scarcity of land and the difficulty or ease of defining and enforcing rights. [snippeed]

 

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/property-rights-among-native-americans

And so according to Natural Rights your land is communally owned by whatever tribe was run out at gunpoint.

 

I mean I would think that a guy who objects so strongly to having his own property taken would respect others' property rights. Don't tell me you're OK with ownership at gunpoint so long as it benefits you- say it ain't so!

 

Nope... you gotta give your land back to the tribe. Then sue whomever sold you the stolen goods. I'm sure the courts will just blow a wad of justice all over you.

 

 

Do they have a written title? My bet is 'NO'.  That is what determines ownership. 

 

 

So when the Spanish landed in Pensacola they could look at, in your case the Muskogean, demand a title and then take the land when no title was proffered? 

[BrotherJosh]

 

 

 

 

 

Let's not forget BO that according to your supposedly iron-clad property rights, you're living on stolen land. Stolen at GUNPOINT no less.

As a faithful supporter of Natural Rights ™, it is incumbent upon you to relinquish said property to its rightful owners (who you could easily track down).

Now sure you'll be out a little money. But you can sue the people who sold you the stolen land. I'm pretty sure you'll win because courts are magic- just say the right words at the right time. Justice will smile upon you!

 

 

I do believe you error:

 

Indian land tenure systems were varied. While some ownership was completely or almost completely communal, other ownership was more like today’s fee simple.[2][/size] The degree of private ownership reflected the scarcity of land and the difficulty or ease of defining and enforcing rights. [snippeed]

 

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/property-rights-among-native-americans

And so according to Natural Rights your land is communally owned by whatever tribe was run out at gunpoint.

 

I mean I would think that a guy who objects so strongly to having his own property taken would respect others' property rights. Don't tell me you're OK with ownership at gunpoint so long as it benefits you- say it ain't so!

 

Nope... you gotta give your land back to the tribe. Then sue whomever sold you the stolen goods. I'm sure the courts will just blow a wad of justice all over you.

 

 

Do they have a written title? My bet is 'NO'.  That is what determines ownership. 

 

 

So when Spanish landed in Pensacola they could look at, in your case the Muskogean, demand a title and then take the land when no title was proffered? 

 

 

Nope, that was lost in a war.  In war, there is an old saying, "To the victor goes the spoils".  

 

 

So the war was justified? In this case, they had a "gun pointed at their head" and they lost. So following this logic, the federal government and IRS has won because "to the victor goes the spoils" in this case, taxes. 

[BrotherJosh]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's not forget BO that according to your supposedly iron-clad property rights, you're living on stolen land. Stolen at GUNPOINT no less.

As a faithful supporter of Natural Rights ™, it is incumbent upon you to relinquish said property to its rightful owners (who you could easily track down).

Now sure you'll be out a little money. But you can sue the people who sold you the stolen land. I'm pretty sure you'll win because courts are magic- just say the right words at the right time. Justice will smile upon you!

 

 

I do believe you error:

 

Indian land tenure systems were varied. While some ownership was completely or almost completely communal, other ownership was more like today’s fee simple.[2][/size] The degree of private ownership reflected the scarcity of land and the difficulty or ease of defining and enforcing rights. [snippeed]

 

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/property-rights-among-native-americans

And so according to Natural Rights your land is communally owned by whatever tribe was run out at gunpoint.

 

I mean I would think that a guy who objects so strongly to having his own property taken would respect others' property rights. Don't tell me you're OK with ownership at gunpoint so long as it benefits you- say it ain't so!

 

Nope... you gotta give your land back to the tribe. Then sue whomever sold you the stolen goods. I'm sure the courts will just blow a wad of justice all over you.

 

 

Do they have a written title? My bet is 'NO'.  That is what determines ownership. 

 

 

So when Spanish landed in Pensacola they could look at, in your case the Muskogean, demand a title and then take the land when no title was proffered? 

 

 

Nope, that was lost in a war.  In war, there is an old saying, "To the victor goes the spoils".  

 

 

So the war was justified? In this case, they had a "gun pointed at their head" and they lost. So following this logic, the federal government and IRS has won because "to the victor goes the spoils" in this case, taxes. 

 

 

The difference is that there ways legislatively, constitutionally and administratively to replace those direct taxes with more voluntary taxes.  In a war it is simply who has the biggest guns and the most assets and men to throw at it. 

 

 

In this case, the Spanish and later European explorers had the biggest guns and more assets - therefore it follows that the US Government has the biggest guns and more assets to throw at you, as such they are justified in their forcing you to pay taxes. It is a war after all. If they imprison or kill you does this not fall under the criteria of conflict? Also, I fail to see how the colonization and genocide of an entire continent of indigenous people qualifies as "war". 

[Ramen666]

Hey Ramen, when are you going to hurl another baseless accusation at me?  

 

Yep you don't know what an analogy is then. You clearly did not understand it.

[BrotherJosh]

I am not justifying it.  But the people who, personally would have owned it, are not alive anymore.  As long as I am alive and I have title to the land I am on it is mine.  As for the taxes, I can oppose them.  I can do what ever I can to avoid, oppose, and fight them.  

 

You imply you have natural rights to the land, that you say was not taken in a justified manner? Most of the Muskogean were transplanted to Oklahoma, against their will. It can be assumed if they were not transplanted they would still reside in Pensacola. Again, they did not have a "title" to the land but under your assumption they have a right to the land - unless it is taken by a gun pointed to their head at which case "to the victor go the spoils". Is the US Government not a victor in the case of taking your taxes? They can, in your own words, hold a gun to your head, imprison and kill you, does that not make them victorious to some extent? And as I said, these violent efforts qualify as open conflict, in which case there is a war being waged against you. 

[BrotherJosh]

 

 

I am not justifying it.  But the people who, personally would have owned it, are not alive anymore.  As long as I am alive and I have title to the land I am on it is mine.  As for the taxes, I can oppose them.  I can do what ever I can to avoid, oppose, and fight them.  

 

You imply you have natural rights to the land, that you say was not taken in a justified manner? Most of the Muskogean were transplanted to Oklahoma, against their will. It can be assumed if they were not transplanted they would still reside in Pensacola. Again, they did not have a "title" to the land but under your assumption they have a right to the land - unless it is taken by a gun pointed to their head at which case "to the victor go the spoils". Is the US Government not a victor in the case of taking your taxes? They can, in your own words, hold a gun to your head, imprison and kill you, does that not make them victorious to some extent? And as I said, these violent efforts qualify as open conflict, in which case there is a war being waged against you. 

 

 

 

Sure they could violently take it from me.  That does not make it right.  They did it against Randy Weaver and many other people.  The problem is that we are supposed to have a constitution that protects our rights, yet we have a government that tries to trample on them.  There have been court cases.  I suspect that if the tribes of the area went to court, they would be compensated for their loss, or at least they should be.  Even if the county or state today wants your land say for a road or some other public use they are required to compensate them at fair market value.  Perhaps the government should pay them for the loss of that land.  

 

 

Or give them back the land? Unfortunately, land deals, court cases, and judicial processes have not been in favor of Native Americans. Historically, Native Americans have not been considered citizens thereby granting them full rights or access to the judicial process. They had a gun held to their head and they were forced off their land, which you now inhabit - and think you have a natural right to and therefore don't have to pay taxes. 

[BrotherJosh]

 

 

 

 

I am not justifying it.  But the people who, personally would have owned it, are not alive anymore.  As long as I am alive and I have title to the land I am on it is mine.  As for the taxes, I can oppose them.  I can do what ever I can to avoid, oppose, and fight them.  

 

You imply you have natural rights to the land, that you say was not taken in a justified manner? Most of the Muskogean were transplanted to Oklahoma, against their will. It can be assumed if they were not transplanted they would still reside in Pensacola. Again, they did not have a "title" to the land but under your assumption they have a right to the land - unless it is taken by a gun pointed to their head at which case "to the victor go the spoils". Is the US Government not a victor in the case of taking your taxes? They can, in your own words, hold a gun to your head, imprison and kill you, does that not make them victorious to some extent? And as I said, these violent efforts qualify as open conflict, in which case there is a war being waged against you. 

 

 

 

Sure they could violently take it from me.  That does not make it right.  They did it against Randy Weaver and many other people.  The problem is that we are supposed to have a constitution that protects our rights, yet we have a government that tries to trample on them.  There have been court cases.  I suspect that if the tribes of the area went to court, they would be compensated for their loss, or at least they should be.  Even if the county or state today wants your land say for a road or some other public use they are required to compensate them at fair market value.  Perhaps the government should pay them for the loss of that land.  

 

 

Or give them back the land? Unfortunately, land deals, court cases, and judicial processes have not been in favor of Native Americans. Historically, Native Americans have not been considered citizens thereby granting them full rights or access to the judicial process. They had a gun held to their head and they were forced off their land, which you now inhabit - and think you have a natural right to and therefore don't have to pay taxes. 

 

 

Ahh...Why do you keep saying that I don't have to pay taxes?  I have never said that.  I OPPOSE direct taxes.  I have no problem with indirect taxation, such as user fees or sales/excise taxes.  What gives? 

 

 

Direct property taxes on land that was taken in an unjustified manner? 

[BrotherJosh]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am not justifying it.  But the people who, personally would have owned it, are not alive anymore.  As long as I am alive and I have title to the land I am on it is mine.  As for the taxes, I can oppose them.  I can do what ever I can to avoid, oppose, and fight them.  

 

You imply you have natural rights to the land, that you say was not taken in a justified manner? Most of the Muskogean were transplanted to Oklahoma, against their will. It can be assumed if they were not transplanted they would still reside in Pensacola. Again, they did not have a "title" to the land but under your assumption they have a right to the land - unless it is taken by a gun pointed to their head at which case "to the victor go the spoils". Is the US Government not a victor in the case of taking your taxes? They can, in your own words, hold a gun to your head, imprison and kill you, does that not make them victorious to some extent? And as I said, these violent efforts qualify as open conflict, in which case there is a war being waged against you. 

 

 

 

Sure they could violently take it from me.  That does not make it right.  They did it against Randy Weaver and many other people.  The problem is that we are supposed to have a constitution that protects our rights, yet we have a government that tries to trample on them.  There have been court cases.  I suspect that if the tribes of the area went to court, they would be compensated for their loss, or at least they should be.  Even if the county or state today wants your land say for a road or some other public use they are required to compensate them at fair market value.  Perhaps the government should pay them for the loss of that land.  

 

 

Or give them back the land? Unfortunately, land deals, court cases, and judicial processes have not been in favor of Native Americans. Historically, Native Americans have not been considered citizens thereby granting them full rights or access to the judicial process. They had a gun held to their head and they were forced off their land, which you now inhabit - and think you have a natural right to and therefore don't have to pay taxes. 

 

 

Ahh...Why do you keep saying that I don't have to pay taxes?  I have never said that.  I OPPOSE direct taxes.  I have no problem with indirect taxation, such as user fees or sales/excise taxes.  What gives? 

 

 

Direct property taxes on land that was taken in an unjustified manner? 

 

 

Yes.  It was taken by government intimidation/force.  

 

 

The same government that is now using intimidation/force to make you pay taxes on the land it won so that you could now inhabit it?

[BrotherJosh]

And there are means of remediation.  The tribes could do one of two things.  They can raise up a military with enough firepower to over power the US government.  OR they can take it up in court.  Just because they have not had luck in the past does not mean they may not have some luck in the future.  They can sue for just compensation. 

 

Ah, but the question remains - to the victor goes the spoils, in this case the US Government. Therefore it is the US Governments land, and you are now living on that land. You bought it, so you have have a title, but ultimately the spoils were won in an unjustified manner which you now inhabit. 

 

Option 1 - unlikely, to happen given the centuries of oppression and genocide

 

Option 2 - unlikely, as it would be seen as reparations - and who would foot the bill? Should you be taxed and the profits go directly to the Native Americans displaced? 

[BrotherJosh]

 

Ah, but the question remains - to the victor goes the spoils, in this case the US Government. Therefore it is the US Governments land, and you are now living on that land. You bought it, so you have have a title, but ultimately the spoils were won in an unjustified manner which you now inhabit.

 

 

At the time it was taken in war yes it was theirs.  However, it was later given or sold to the predecessors of who I got mine from.  It is the government who should compensate the tribes for that land in fair market value. 

 

Try Option three...I was let getting on there. 

 

As for paying for it, if they use indirect taxes, have a portion of that go to them, fine.  Just not direct taxation. 

 

 

I don't want my tax dollars, even indirect, to go towards a specific people whose land I don't directly inhabit, why should I be punished when you are living on their land? If every US citizen has a gun to their head and face jail time and imprisonment does that not qualify as open conflict? I would argue that the US Government has more assets and bigger guns - therefore they are the victor. 

[BrotherJosh]

If there was an indirect form of taxation, would not have to pay them.  You could avoid the activity or buying the products that has the tax and none of it would go to them. You are therefore not being punished. If you are saying the government is the victor, from a purely brute force standpoint, sure, but that does not make it right and I have the right to oppose it and I have on many occasions.  

 

Alright, so you have three options

 

Option 1: Raise an army

 

Option 2: Sue the US Government 

 

Option 3: Introduce legislation

[BrotherJosh]

 

 

If there was an indirect form of taxation, would not have to pay them.  You could avoid the activity or buying the products that has the tax and none of it would go to them. You are therefore not being punished. If you are saying the government is the victor, from a purely brute force standpoint, sure, but that does not make it right and I have the right to oppose it and I have on many occasions.  

 

Alright, so you have three options

 

Option 1: Raise an army

 

Option 2: Sue the US Government 

 

Option 3: Introduce legislation

 

 

In Tennessee, I opposed an income tax (which we won that battle) by using direct action.  That would be a very peaceful version of option 1.  We also used Option three, by getting a state constitutional amendment passed through the legislature and is on the ballot for the public to vote on this November.  

 

On the federal level, I am pushing for this this:  http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer  This may take some time but it is worth pushing for. 

 

 

If that's what you want - to the victor goes the spoils, as they say (if you have a big enough gun)...though in this case that consumer based tax rate would discourage consumption of new goods and ultimately create a black market of used goods thereby driving down production and jobs. But I will agree that a reform of the US tax code is needed. 

 

Edit: Also, a single point of sale tax would encourage dodging of the sales tax which would inevitably create a market to avoid the sales tax - a VAT system like in Europe would tax each single stage of development but also increase the cost of goods - would this match with wages? I answer, no. 

 

Edit 2: Also, a flat sales tax rate of 20-ish% affects the lower end consumer far more than an upper class consumer. The first $20 in $200,000 means less to a person than the first $20 in a person's $200 paycheck. 

[BrotherJosh]

 

 

 

 

If there was an indirect form of taxation, would not have to pay them.  You could avoid the activity or buying the products that has the tax and none of it would go to them. You are therefore not being punished. If you are saying the government is the victor, from a purely brute force standpoint, sure, but that does not make it right and I have the right to oppose it and I have on many occasions.  

 

Alright, so you have three options

 

Option 1: Raise an army

 

Option 2: Sue the US Government 

 

Option 3: Introduce legislation

 

 

In Tennessee, I opposed an income tax (which we won that battle) by using direct action.  That would be a very peaceful version of option 1.  We also used Option three, by getting a state constitutional amendment passed through the legislature and is on the ballot for the public to vote on this November.  

 

On the federal level, I am pushing for this this:  http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer  This may take some time but it is worth pushing for. 

 

 

If that's what you want - to the victor goes the spoils, as they say (if you have a big enough gun)...though in this case that consumer based tax rate would discourage consumption of new goods and ultimately create a black market of used goods thereby driving down production and jobs. But I will agree that a reform of the US tax code is needed. 

 

 

Consumption has not been curtailed in Tennessee.  Hell, Tennessee has not fared badly in this recession.  The area around Nashville has not felt hardly any downturn, or at least not as bad as most of the rest of the country.  There are new retail businesses going in all over the place, if you look at a map of the area, the growth is taking place in Williamson, Rutherford, Wilson, Dixon, Sumner counties and I am sure I am missing some.  The area around Memphis (outside the city itself) is doing well.  Consumption is doing fine there.  It was always fine when i lived there. People were buying new cars, new clothes, and other new goods.  

 

 

By contrast we have states such as Kansas which is falling apart due to budget shortfalls because of slashed taxes - it was believed that these low taxes would create an economic boom. Instead, Kansas has lagged behind the national average and now faces a budget shortfall. Job creation has fallen, and the state's economy is not doing well. Deep tax cuts enacted in 2012 were projected to create an economic boom as businesses flocked to the area - this has not happened. As the budget runs out spending cuts will be needed - inevitably these cuts will come from various sources such as schools and infrastructure. 

 

Tennessee still has a property tax at 25%, a sales tax rate of 7%, and various other taxes such as inheritance, bonds, and stocks. Additionally, Tennessee has the third highest unemployment rate of all southern states, only has three counties with incomes above the national average, and slowing taxable growth, along with serious agricultural concerns such as corn - it does however, seem to be on the national average of recovery according to this economic report - hardly something to write home about though. 

 

http://cber.bus.utk.edu/erg/erg14ch2.pdf

[BrotherJosh]

 

 

 

 

 

 

If there was an indirect form of taxation, would not have to pay them. You could avoid the activity or buying the products that has the tax and none of it would go to them. You are therefore not being punished. If you are saying the government is the victor, from a purely brute force standpoint, sure, but that does not make it right and I have the right to oppose it and I have on many occasions.

Alright, so you have three options

 

Option 1: Raise an army

 

Option 2: Sue the US Government

 

Option 3: Introduce legislation

In Tennessee, I opposed an income tax (which we won that battle) by using direct action. That would be a very peaceful version of option 1. We also used Option three, by getting a state constitutional amendment passed through the legislature and is on the ballot for the public to vote on this November.

 

On the federal level, I am pushing for this this: http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer This may take some time but it is worth pushing for.

If that's what you want - to the victor goes the spoils, as they say (if you have a big enough gun)...though in this case that consumer based tax rate would discourage consumption of new goods and ultimately create a black market of used goods thereby driving down production and jobs. But I will agree that a reform of the US tax code is needed.

Consumption has not been curtailed in Tennessee. Hell, Tennessee has not fared badly in this recession. The area around Nashville has not felt hardly any downturn, or at least not as bad as most of the rest of the country. There are new retail businesses going in all over the place, if you look at a map of the area, the growth is taking place in Williamson, Rutherford, Wilson, Dixon, Sumner counties and I am sure I am missing some. The area around Memphis (outside the city itself) is doing well. Consumption is doing fine there. It was always fine when i lived there. People were buying new cars, new clothes, and other new goods.

By contrast we have states such as Kansas which is falling apart due to budget shortfalls because of slashed taxes - it was believed that these low taxes would create an economic boom. Instead, Kansas has lagged behind the national average and now faces a budget shortfall. Job creation has fallen, and the state's economy is not doing well. Deep tax cuts enacted in 2012 were projected to create an economic boom as businesses flocked to the area - this has not happened. As the budget runs out spending cuts will be needed - inevitably these cuts will come from various sources such as schools and infrastructure.

 

Tennessee still has a property tax at 25%, a sales tax rate of 7%, and various other taxes such as inheritance, bonds, and stocks. Additionally, Tennessee has the third highest unemployment rate of all southern states, only has three counties with incomes above the national average, and slowing taxable growth, along with serious agricultural concerns such as corn - it does however, seem to be on the national average of recovery according to this economic report - hardly something to write home about though.

 

http://cber.bus.utk.edu/erg/erg14ch2.pdf

As a state, they have a balanced budget, and NO KIDDIG, FREE COMMUNITY COLLEGE for in state residences, paid for with the state lottery funds, the best, or among the beast roads in the country according to most road studies since at least the 1970's

 

 

Aside from the fact that they have followed the national average unemployment rate, are below the national average income, face a slowing economy, and have future agricultural concerns? What this says to me is that Tennessee is following the trend of a national average due to a recovering national economy. 

[BrotherJosh]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If there was an indirect form of taxation, would not have to pay them. You could avoid the activity or buying the products that has the tax and none of it would go to them. You are therefore not being punished. If you are saying the government is the victor, from a purely brute force standpoint, sure, but that does not make it right and I have the right to oppose it and I have on many occasions.

Alright, so you have three options

 

Option 1: Raise an army

 

Option 2: Sue the US Government

 

Option 3: Introduce legislation

In Tennessee, I opposed an income tax (which we won that battle) by using direct action. That would be a very peaceful version of option 1. We also used Option three, by getting a state constitutional amendment passed through the legislature and is on the ballot for the public to vote on this November.

 

On the federal level, I am pushing for this this: http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer This may take some time but it is worth pushing for.

If that's what you want - to the victor goes the spoils, as they say (if you have a big enough gun)...though in this case that consumer based tax rate would discourage consumption of new goods and ultimately create a black market of used goods thereby driving down production and jobs. But I will agree that a reform of the US tax code is needed.

Consumption has not been curtailed in Tennessee. Hell, Tennessee has not fared badly in this recession. The area around Nashville has not felt hardly any downturn, or at least not as bad as most of the rest of the country. There are new retail businesses going in all over the place, if you look at a map of the area, the growth is taking place in Williamson, Rutherford, Wilson, Dixon, Sumner counties and I am sure I am missing some. The area around Memphis (outside the city itself) is doing well. Consumption is doing fine there. It was always fine when i lived there. People were buying new cars, new clothes, and other new goods.

By contrast we have states such as Kansas which is falling apart due to budget shortfalls because of slashed taxes - it was believed that these low taxes would create an economic boom. Instead, Kansas has lagged behind the national average and now faces a budget shortfall. Job creation has fallen, and the state's economy is not doing well. Deep tax cuts enacted in 2012 were projected to create an economic boom as businesses flocked to the area - this has not happened. As the budget runs out spending cuts will be needed - inevitably these cuts will come from various sources such as schools and infrastructure.

 

Tennessee still has a property tax at 25%, a sales tax rate of 7%, and various other taxes such as inheritance, bonds, and stocks. Additionally, Tennessee has the third highest unemployment rate of all southern states, only has three counties with incomes above the national average, and slowing taxable growth, along with serious agricultural concerns such as corn - it does however, seem to be on the national average of recovery according to this economic report - hardly something to write home about though.

 

http://cber.bus.utk.edu/erg/erg14ch2.pdf

As a state, they have a balanced budget, and NO KIDDIG, FREE COMMUNITY COLLEGE for in state residences, paid for with the state lottery funds, the best, or among the beast roads in the country according to most road studies since at least the 1970's

 

 

Aside from the fact that they have followed the national average unemployment rate, are below the national average income, face a slowing economy, and have future agricultural concerns? What this says to me is that Tennessee is following the trend of a national average due to a recovering national economy. 

 

 

 

You are not looking at something.  The cost of living in the state is lower than most states too.  So, if incomes are lower, so are prices.  It's all relative. 

 

 

Which will inevitably appeal to retirees who don't end up driving any economy aside from low-wage service jobs. Actual economic driving jobs such as production and agricultural are falling. Again, this follows the national average, and has little to do with Tennessee's tax policy. As an overall trend (unemployment, income, education, economy...), Tennessee is starting to *match* the national average. 

 

Edit: I will say this, however. I am in favor of lessening the tax burden on those who drive the economy - the middle/lower classes, and small businesses. The problem with lowering taxes (in the way it is commonly done) is that it works within the tax code system which in turn favors the rich/large corporations who use their advantage to exploit loopholes which are nonexistent to the average citizen. For example, most large corporations pay a smaller effective tax rate than your average middle-class family. 

[mymistake]

 

You are not looking at something.  The cost of living in the state is lower than most states too.  So, if incomes are lower, so are prices.  It's all relative. 

 

 

So that is why you choose to play the game here in the USA even though you knew that meant being taxed.  You make choices.  Don't whine about the consequences.