I have one more question. When you spend less on taxes (23% on what I buy is much better than the 32% taken out of my paychecks!) doesen't this mean, the state gets after all less money?
So the state has to reduce he payment somewhere.
They could reduce the military budget. -->See the littles statistic.
But I can't believe, they ever will.
So where will they stop spending money on? I guess: social institutions, education (of cause not elite universities), environment, health (just for those who can't effort paying for it).

Don't what to blame anyone, but I think elite universities aren't payed by the state. They payed by the parents who send their children there.


Greetings
BigBob

PS: the statistics' topic is "Military Budget in Billions of US-Dollar", just for our English speaking friends to say

This post was last modified: 21.05.2008 19:02 by BigBob89.

a lot of that had to do with the fact that we are in war, thats why it says 2003-2005. once we get out of there it will drop drastically. im all for the war but i do believe it is time to be getting out for the simple fact that it has cost us so damn much.

The United States are always at war!

http://www.multied.com/USEFOFORCE.html

Why do you support this war for oil?

HORRIBLE if you replaced all the taxes with a retail tax then many of the economic braches of the US and many of the citizens would take a huge financail impact and make the government increasingly poorer with each passing month until it can no longer fund itself nor its citizens thus making health and education problems once more and the country will be run by its citizens where the upper class citizens could control the lower class seeing as the government would barely be able to, if at all afford a armed forces or a police and law system.

Not really. Currently schools receive most of their funding from local property taxes (which is inherently unfair to property owners who don't have children or choose private schooling) and from state taxes. The US government provides very minimal funding to schools, and it usually gives it to smaller states which is also inherently unfair to taxpayers from large states which have the same educational needs.

Education spending is an afterthought in Washington, whereas military spending is always number one. Look at it from the Pentagon's point of view: We don't want children getting too smart, otherwise they won't join the military when they get older. Or worse yet they might figure out what a horrible job the US Government is doing in taking care of it's people and demand change.

A flat national sales tax would properly tax those who consume the most and would force Washington to come up with viable and lasting economic policies. Otherwise they will continue to fund the military at astronomical rates while lowering the taxes of the rich and telling everyone it's all gonna be oooooo-kaaaaay.

The government could probably survive with a 15% tax on people's income if we weren't so fevered to increase our defense budget with every single Presidency.

I'm not sure how, but America needs a big tax reform. The IRS needs to be simply abolished.

This post was last modified: 27.05.2008 23:04 by FutureFilmmaker.

Not really. Currently schools receive most of their funding from local property taxes (which is inherently unfair to property owners who don't have children or choose private schooling) and from state taxes. The US government provides very minimal funding to schools, and it usually gives it to smaller states which is also inherently unfair to taxpayers from large states which have the same educational needs.

Education spending is an afterthought in Washington, whereas military spending is always number one. Look at it from the Pentagon's point of view: We don't want children getting too smart, otherwise they won't join the military when they get older. Or worse yet they might figure out what a horrible job the US Government is doing in taking care of it's people and demand change.

A flat national sales tax would properly tax those who consume the most and would force Washington to come up with viable and lasting economic policies. Otherwise they will continue to fund the military at astronomical rates while lowering the taxes of the rich and telling everyone it's all gonna be oooooo-kaaaaay.

the US government isnt doing a horrible job iof you compare it to other countries and a tax in which high consumers pay more would result in everyone being of the same social level because the tax would even out the spending so that once bills come in everyone would be recieving roughly the same amount of money so people would eventually only be able to afford what other people can, it may also cause inflation or deflation depending upon the publics reactions, and either way the government will either have too much or too little money so the country would have to re-arrange the taxes again and it would take years to recover, and the government does the best job it can but it is truly the peoples fault if they elect people dumb enough to make those poor decisions so if we dont want a messed up government we should take the time to assess each candidate for whatever it is, and try to force the government to address the issue of illegal immigrants and, as an idea, make a tax for people who have commited a felony or federal crime while over the age of 18 and have that tax double during war to lower the pressure on citizens.

Just set a flat tax of maybe 10% plus a national sales tax. Eventually you could get rid of that flat tax too. This is the national sales tax plan with added bureaucracy.

The main reason why taxes are considered such a problem in the U.S., is due to the very low wages they're being paid. By turning away the focus on the working standards, taxes receive all the blame for the lack of social mobility. Many american working class families face extreme difficulties in trying to feed their stomacks with such circumstances.

Better just invent a progressive taxation, by raising the burden on the bourgeois upper classes, and lowering the taxation on the low income groups (unless vast efforts are made to the working standards). Letting most of the surplus value disappear into the pockets of the fatcats is part of the problem anyway.

As of the recession, one of the answers could be the high price regulations, so the working wages can keep up with the price levels we're facing. This will only be costly to the CEOs' profit rates.