King Georges solution to the tax problem!

Nevaeh420 · Nov 19, 2013

I'm George but I'm only a King in My mind.

I think only the well off, rich people should have to pay taxes and not the poor people.

I would not tax the people that make under $100k per year, they wouldn't even have to pay sales tax because there will be no sales tax for anyone. The people that make under $100k won't even have to submit a tax form at the end of the year.

The people that make over $100k per year would have to pay a 10% tax on their gross income.

People that make over $200k per year would have to pay a 20% tax on their gross income.

People that make over $300k per year would have to pay a 30% tax on their gross income.

People that make over $1 million dollars would have to pay a 50% tax on their gross income.

I would limit an individuals gross income to $1 billion dollars a year. If an individual made over $1 billion dollars a year then any extra money would go directly towards helping the poor. So the maximum an individual could earn per year is $1 billion dollars and then after the 50% tax, they could only earn $500 million dollars per year, any extra income would go towards the poor people.

An individual could only have $1 billion dollars in total assets at any time, including money in the bank, homes, vehicles, etc. No one needs more than $1 billion dollars worth of stuff.

But a company could earn more then an individual, but that amount could be dictated by you, the ONLINE GOVERNMENT. The online government is basically a government that is run via the internet and every person over 18 can vote on which laws to pass.

I think the best way to get rid of inflation would be to make BABIES the "gold standard". Every baby could bring an extra $100 million dollars into circulation, and if someone dies that $100 million would be taken out of circulation. This would make people the gold standard. There would be no way to inflate or deflate the currency if this was implemented. It would be a resource based economy.

These are just My theories, I think they would work but when will they ever be implemented? These numbers that I choose are just arbitrary and whimsical, the actual numbers might be adjusted to best fit the economy. I think My numbers are good enough for you to get the point though. I'm sure there are flaws in My logic, and I'm sure you guys will point them out but look at the bigger picture.

Its so lucid, I think it could work.

EDIT- This form of taxing would be incentive for the government to create good paying jobs so they could pay taxes. Because if someone was making under $100k per year then they wouldn't have to pay any taxes, not even on sales tax.

~PEACE~

beenthere · Nov 19, 2013

Nevaeh420 said:
I'm George but I'm only a King in My mind.

I think only the well off, rich people should have to pay taxes and not the poor people.

I would not tax the people that make under $100k per year, they wouldn't even have to pay sales tax because there will be no sales tax for anyone. The people that make under $100k won't even have to submit a tax form at the end of the year.

The people that make over $100k per year would have to pay a 10% tax on their gross income.

People that make over $200k per year would have to pay a 20% tax on their gross income.

People that make over $300k per year would have to pay a 30% tax on their gross income.

People that make over $1 million dollars would have to pay a 50% tax on their gross income.

I would limit an individuals gross income to $1 billion dollars a year. If an individual made over $1 billion dollars a year then any extra money would go directly towards helping the poor. So the maximum an individual could earn per year is $1 billion dollars and then after the 50% tax, they could only earn $500 million dollars per year, any extra income would go towards the poor people.

An individual could only have $1 billion dollars in total assets at any time, including money in the bank, homes, vehicles, etc. No one needs more than $1 billion dollars worth of stuff.

But a company could earn more then an individual, but that amount could be dictated by you, the ONLINE GOVERNMENT. The online government is basically a government that is run via the internet and every person over 18 can vote on which laws to pass.

I think the best way to get rid of inflation would be to make BABIES the "gold standard". Every baby could bring an extra $100 million dollars into circulation, and if someone dies that $100 million would be taken out of circulation. This would make people the gold standard. There would be no way to inflate or deflate the currency if this was implemented. It would be a resource based economy.

These are just My theories, I think they would work but when will they ever be implemented? These numbers that I choose are just arbitrary and whimsical, the actual numbers might be adjusted to best fit the economy. I think My numbers are good enough for you to get the point though. I'm sure there are flaws in My logic, and I'm sure you guys will point them out but look at the bigger picture.

Its so lucid, I think it could work.

EDIT- This form of taxing would be incentive for the government to create good paying jobs so they could pay taxes. Because if someone was making under $100k per year then they wouldn't have to pay any taxes, not even on sales tax.

~PEACE~

Barry thinks you are right on the money, fortunately he understand that Americans do NOT.

kelly4 · Nov 19, 2013

You and Fin should get together and brainstorm...

NorthofEngland · Nov 19, 2013

Each new baby would free up $100million....!
And this would prevent inflation - even hyperinflation, how?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a guess that you've never studied economics?

Edit
Also
$99,000 pays no tax but $100,000 pays 10%.
He's already $9000 worse off than the tax free person.

Taxation HAS to be done on a sliding scale and a no tax threshold needs to be much lower than $2000 per week.

Taxes are the price we pay for civilisation.
People need to start thinking about how lucky they are to live in the kind of societies that take tax and (generally) spend it well.

Only 5% of Pakistani's pay tax - and I am willing to hazard a guess that not many of us would move to Pakistan for the 'personal economic freedoms' that they could bestow on us...?

Pay your taxes and take pride in the schools and roads they pay for
...I almost said 'Hospitals' but remembered that, as a Brit, my taxes may never have put a man on the moon but they did help my best friend beet cancer.
The moon can wait - there's nothing there, anyway.

chewberto · Nov 19, 2013

kelly4 said:
You and Fin should get together and brainstorm...

Or get an apartment!

Nevaeh420 · Nov 19, 2013

beenthere said:
Barry thinks you are right on the money, fortunately he understand that Americans do NOT.

Who's Barry?

Of course I'm right on the money, lol.

kelly4 said:
You and Fin should get together and brainstorm...

I've been hearing a lot about Finshaggy lately and people think I'm him or whatever.

NorthofEngland said:
Each new baby would free up $100million....!
And this would prevent inflation - even hyperinflation, how?

Its just an neat arbitrary and whimsical number, it should be decided on what the online government dictates. We all would be a part of the online government and we all would be able to vote on any issue.

But if people were the gold standard then there would be NO INFLATION at all. There would always be $100 million dollars in circulation per person, or whatever the amount is.

NorthofEngland said:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a guess that you've never studied economics?

Nope, I went to school for electronics.

NorthofEngland said:
Edit
Also
$99,000 pays no tax but $100,000 pays 10%.
He's already $9000 worse off than the tax free person.

Thats one of the bugs that I was talking about. I was also thinking about a way to get around this but I was stumped.

Good point, and thanks for pointing that out for everyone. Maybe someone could find a solution to that problem.

NorthofEngland said:
Taxation HAS to be done on a sliding scale and a no tax threshold needs to be much lower than $2000 per week.

I agree that the rich people should pay most of the taxes and the poor people shouldn't pay any taxes.

NorthofEngland said:
Taxes are the price we pay for civilisation.
People need to start thinking about how lucky they are to live in the kind of societies that take tax and (generally) spend it well.

I would rather the Rothchilds pay all the taxes. The Rothschilds own roughly $500 trillion dollars or about half the worlds wealth. Let them pay the deficit.

NorthofEngland said:
Only 5% of Pakistani's pay tax - and I am willing to hazard a guess that not many of us would move to Pakistan for the 'personal economic freedoms' that they could bestow on us...?

Pay your taxes and take pride in the schools and roads they pay for
...I almost said 'Hospitals' but remembered that, as a Brit, my taxes may never have put a man on the moon but they did help my best friend beet cancer.
The moon can wait - there's nothing there, anyway.

I like British peoples accents.

chewberto said:
Or get an apartment!

I bought My house CASH when I was 21 years old, I'm now 28. I need a room mate so I can afford to live in My house now but I'm looking for a chick to live with.

~PEACE~

squarepush3r · Nov 19, 2013

The problem with this, is also what I think has been going on in our country with progressive tax rates, is essentially you get the rich who end up writing the laws.

Only the rich pay taxes, taxes support the government. Therefore the rich literally have ownership of the government, and the poor really do not matter. That to a lesser extent is what is already going on in our country (50% pay no federal taxes), the rich pay the lion's share of taxes, but also write laws, get preferential treatment, etc...

If you want equality say in the government, its not simply enough that you are a warm body, you have to contribute equally (this is how the things really work).

chewberto · Nov 19, 2013

Nevaeh420 said:
I bought My house CASH when I was 21 years old, I'm now 28. I need a room mate so I can afford to live in My house now but I'm looking for a chick to live with.

~PEACE~

Might I suggest Femspermy?

Dr Kynes · Nov 19, 2013

kelly4 said:
You and Fin should get together and brainstorm...

and all i can see in my mind's eye is two retards sharing bathtub, farting and laughing at each other's brilliant contribution as the bubbles reach the surface.

heckler73 · Nov 19, 2013

Dr Kynes said:
and all i can see in my mind's eye is two retards sharing bathtub, farting and laughing at each other's brilliant contribution as the bubbles reach the surface.

I take it no one has seen what Fin is doing with petri dishes lately?
:lol:

Dr Kynes · Nov 19, 2013

Nevaeh420 said:
I'm George but I'm only a King in My mind.

I think only the well off, rich people should have to pay taxes and not the poor people.

I would not tax the people that make under $100k per year, they wouldn't even have to pay sales tax because there will be no sales tax for anyone. The people that make under $100k won't even have to submit a tax form at the end of the year.

The people that make over $100k per year would have to pay a 10% tax on their gross income.

People that make over $200k per year would have to pay a 20% tax on their gross income.

People that make over $300k per year would have to pay a 30% tax on their gross income.

People that make over $1 million dollars would have to pay a 50% tax on their gross income.

I would limit an individuals gross income to $1 billion dollars a year. If an individual made over $1 billion dollars a year then any extra money would go directly towards helping the poor. So the maximum an individual could earn per year is $1 billion dollars and then after the 50% tax, they could only earn $500 million dollars per year, any extra income would go towards the poor people.

An individual could only have $1 billion dollars in total assets at any time, including money in the bank, homes, vehicles, etc. No one needs more than $1 billion dollars worth of stuff.

But a company could earn more then an individual, but that amount could be dictated by you, the ONLINE GOVERNMENT. The online government is basically a government that is run via the internet and every person over 18 can vote on which laws to pass.

I think the best way to get rid of inflation would be to make BABIES the "gold standard". Every baby could bring an extra $100 million dollars into circulation, and if someone dies that $100 million would be taken out of circulation. This would make people the gold standard. There would be no way to inflate or deflate the currency if this was implemented. It would be a resource based economy.

These are just My theories, I think they would work but when will they ever be implemented? These numbers that I choose are just arbitrary and whimsical, the actual numbers might be adjusted to best fit the economy. I think My numbers are good enough for you to get the point though. I'm sure there are flaws in My logic, and I'm sure you guys will point them out but look at the bigger picture.

Its so lucid, I think it could work.

EDIT- This form of taxing would be incentive for the government to create good paying jobs so they could pay taxes. Because if someone was making under $100k per year then they wouldn't have to pay any taxes, not even on sales tax.

~PEACE~

i might add that your ideas are doomed to fail. when there is a cap on success, achievement is stifled.
your comment made less sense than this word salad:

even spam-bots are crafting better posts than yours.

beenthere · Nov 19, 2013

dr kynes said:
and all i can see in my mind's eye is two retards sharing bathtub, farting and laughing at each other's brilliant contribution as the bubbles reach the surface.

lmfao......

see4 · Nov 19, 2013

Dr Kynes said:
i might add that your ideas are doomed to fail. when there is a cap on success, achievement is stifled.

What do you mean "cap on success"? Are you saying when corporations and the very wealthy "job creators" are taxed high that economies fail? Because you and I both know that answer, we don't have to go back 100 years to see that in action........ do we?

Dr Kynes · Nov 20, 2013

see4 said:
What do you mean "cap on success"? Are you saying when corporations and the very wealthy "job creators" are taxed high that economies fail? Because you and I both know that answer, we don't have to go back 100 years to see that in action........ do we?

are you seriously harking back to the "Good Old Days" of a bygone era?

the current taxation and regulatory scheme precluded returning to the old methods of taxing producers importers and industry, and letting the costs "trickle down" through market prices.

in the entire history of commerce, no seller has ever paid a tax, this cost is always passed on to the buyer, but now we tax the buyer directly through his wages, again through taxation of his employer, and again through taxation of the producers of the things he buys, and again through regulation that does nothing but prevent new enterprises from entering the market.

if you want to return to those halcyon days when industry and importers were taxed, and the people were not, well, sorry bro, you just became a Teabagger.

heres your new chapeau

Nevaeh420 · Nov 20, 2013

squarepush3r said:
The problem with this, is also what I think has been going on in our country with progressive tax rates, is essentially you get the rich who end up writing the laws.

Only the rich pay taxes, taxes support the government. Therefore the rich literally have ownership of the government, and the poor really do not matter. That to a lesser extent is what is already going on in our country (50% pay no federal taxes), the rich pay the lion's share of taxes, but also write laws, get preferential treatment, etc...

If you want equality say in the government, its not simply enough that you are a warm body, you have to contribute equally (this is how the things really work).

I would let My online government dictate all the laws, so the rich people wouldn't be writing the laws, everyone would be writing the laws.

chewberto said:
Might I suggest Femspermy?

Whats Femspermy?

Dr Kynes said:
and all i can see in my mind's eye is two retards sharing bathtub, farting and laughing at each other's brilliant contribution as the bubbles reach the surface.

LMAO, you're funny. I don't even know Finshaggy, a long time ago I watched a couple of his videos but thats it.

heckler73 said:
I take it no one has seen what Fin is doing with petri dishes lately?

What did he do?

see4 said:
What do you mean "cap on success"? Are you saying when corporations and the very wealthy "job creators" are taxed high that economies fail? Because you and I both know that answer, we don't have to go back 100 years to see that in action........ do we?

You get the point.

I think a wealth cap of 1 billion dollars is very fair. How many people do you know that own a billion dollars?

But this number of 1 billion dollars is an arbitrary number, My online government would ultimately dictate that amount. Everyone over the age of 18 would be able to vote in My online government.

~PEACE~

Nevaeh420 · Nov 20, 2013

Does anyone have a better solution to the tax problem besides the idea of a "slide rule" where poor people don't pay any taxes but as you make more money you pay more taxes?

Anyone have a better idea to solve the tax problem?

~PEACE~

kelly4 · Nov 20, 2013

nevaeh420 said:
does anyone have a better solution to the tax problem besides the idea of a "slide rule" where poor people don't pay any taxes but as you make more money you pay more taxes?

Anyone have a better idea to solve the tax problem?

~peace~

bitcoins!! :dunce:

BrewsNBuds · Nov 20, 2013

This should explain why it doesn't work:

Taxation in America, explained in beer.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100...

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7..
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do..

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat
friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

BrewsNBuds · Nov 20, 2013

Nev: Yes. It's easy. Tax people when they spend money, not when they earn it.

Tax John Kerry and Mitt Romney when they buy a yacht, don't tax middle class workers' ever-shrinking paychecks.

Rob Roy · Nov 20, 2013

BrewsNBuds said:
Nev: Yes. It's easy. Tax people when they spend money, not when they earn it.

Tax John Kerry and Mitt Romney when they buy a yacht, don't tax middle class workers' ever-shrinking paychecks.

I rarely drink beer, but am having one now, enjoyed the story.

However I'm not sure that taxing a person before or after they buy something addresses the root of the problem with taxation. Wouldn't it be better to charge people when they engage in consensual interactions. Taxing them in the beginning or the end doesn't address that all taxation relies upon threats. The free market has demonstrated that people can and do purchase things on a consensual basis every day and threats are not included.

King Georges solution to the tax problem!

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member