Prepared Society Forum banner
1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
1. Taxes on wages and salaries with large individual exemptions but no deductions, i.e., all wages and salaries over the individual exemption would be taxed.

2. Federal, state and local retail sales taxes worth an aggregate total of 8% total.

3. A tax on individual and corporate debt with large exemptions for first mortgages on primary residences.

4. Various excise taxes on an assortment of goods and services, i.e., tax things we’d want less of.

5. A protective tariff.

6. A tax on energy that comes from non-renewable sources with all forms being taxed at the same rate according to their BTU content.

7. Property taxes on commercial and residential real estate.

8. Various fees on things like business licenses, automobiles and building permits.

9. A progressive wholesale sales tax, i.e., the more you buy in the wholesale market the higher your tax rate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
You should re-post this as a poll so people can vote with one click. I don't want to pay any taxes at all.
I am not talking about replacing income taxes with just one of the other taxes I gave. I would replace income taxes with a combination that includes all of the taxes I listed. The surest way to have less of something is to tax it, so if the government taxes just one thing and that one thing is eliminated the government's only source of revenue would be gone.

Not every taxpayer would end up paying every one of these taxes so the more types of taxes you have the more secure the source of revenue would be since everybody would likely end up paying taxes of one kind or another, and no segment of the population would end up carrying most of the tax burden.
 

·
YourAdministrator, eh?
Joined
·
8,000 Posts
If I have to pay tax - I want it to be a "one-tax-rule" only, none of this "tax on a tax on a tax" that happens.

Here is a scenerio:

Now, when ore is taken from the ground, the government taxes the company that smelts it. Then the ore is sold to a mill and it is worked into sheets or bars or whatever and the government taxes that company. Then the company ships that steel over the rail-lines - and they pay taxes as well. Finally - it gets to the metal supplier and he is taxed as well. Then it goes to the fabricator, then to the end user ... and they are all being taxed at each and every level!

What we end up with is the end user paying the taxes for all the levels above him - business tax, fuel tax, income tax - etc. If the government took their fingers out of every single level but one - the "end price" to the end user would be close to half of what it is now. It might even be less.

Right now we are selling basic steel plate for around $0.70 / pound. After talking with some of my co-workers, we figure that out of that $0.70 we are paying close to $0.55 / pound in taxes ... and the actual cost is closer to $0.15 / pound if the government would take their fingers out of the pot.

BTW: I work in the metal supply / fabrication end of the industry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
If I have to pay tax - I want it to be a "one-tax-rule" only, none of this "tax on a tax on a tax" that happens.

Here is a scenerio:

Now, when ore is taken from the ground, the government taxes the company that smelts it. Then the ore is sold to a mill and it is worked into sheets or bars or whatever and the government taxes that company. Then the company ships that steel over the rail-lines - and they pay taxes as well. Finally - it gets to the metal supplier and he is taxed as well. Then it goes to the fabricator, then to the end user ... and they are all being taxed at each and every level!

What we end up with is the end user paying the taxes for all the levels above him - business tax, fuel tax, income tax - etc. If the government took their fingers out of every single level but one - the "end price" to the end user would be close to half of what it is now. It might even be less.

Right now we are selling basic steel plate for around $0.70 / pound. After talking with some of my co-workers, we figure that out of that $0.70 we are paying close to $0.55 / pound in taxes ... and the actual cost is closer to $0.15 / pound if the government would take their fingers out of the pot.

BTW: I work in the metal supply / fabrication end of the industry.
The simplest tax would to add up what the government spends divide the number you get by the number of men, women and children in the country and levy a head tax on each one. But how would you ever collect such a tax?

If taxes are inevitable, why not use tax policy to control behavior, i.e., tax whatever you want less of and not tax what you want more of- crude oil and biodiesel; virgin paper and recycled paper).
 

·
YourAdministrator, eh?
Joined
·
8,000 Posts
The simplest tax would to add up what the government spends divide the number you get by the number of men, women and children in the country and levy a head tax on each one. But how would you ever collect such a tax?

If taxes are inevitable, why not use tax policy to control behavior, i.e., tax whatever you want less of and not tax what you want more of- crude oil and biodiesel; virgin paper and recycled paper).
You are moving into the realm of government controlling population and corporations via taxes. That is a very scary propostition given the fact that most survivalists are looking to get rid of "government" as we know it. Most homesteaders are looking for ways to limit their dependance on government and the "establishment".

I feel that there is too much government already and that all politicians that have been voted into an office should be there without monetary compensation (ie: they work for free). I heard that the mayor of NewYork city does not pull a wage - and - I feel that is the way it should be at all levels of a "voted in position of power".

In the clubs that I belong to - we have a voted in "government". None of them are paid.

A friend of mine is the leader of his community - he does not pull a wage (and hasn't for ~30 years).

Another friend of mine has been organizing sports for years. It is a voted-in-position - and - she does not make money doing it.

Those are the people we need in government .. not the ones that are there to make a fast buck and then to be taken care of for the rest of their pitiful lives.
 

·
Amateur Radio call sign KM4GDU
Joined
·
51 Posts
so if under that theory only people who were had lots of there own money could be in government because the rest of us that have to get a weekly pay check to make end meet could not afford to be in a government office.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
You are moving into the realm of government controlling population and corporations via taxes. That is a very scary propostition given the fact that most survivalists are looking to get rid of "government" as we know it. Most homesteaders are looking for ways to limit their dependance on government and the "establishment".
In other words most homesteaders/survivalists are simply libertarians who are using otherwise admirable lifestyles to mask their desire for anarchy. You just can't wait for disaster to give you an excuse to grab your guns and head for the hills.

Historically speaking the homesteading experience in America illustrates the necessity of society. If every American colonist that came to the Eastern Seaboard and every American homesteader that went west had to rely solely on their own skills and luck to survive, America would not exist. The world ran out of the resources needed for everyone to live a self-sufficient, subsistence existence a long time ago. There is practically no situation possible where an individual can survive apart from civil society in today's world.

A friend of mine is the leader of his community - he does not pull a wage (and hasn't for ~30 years).
So he's been a career politician for decades and therefore must share the blame for why government no longer works.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
so if under that theory only people who were had lots of there own money could be in government because the rest of us that have to get a weekly pay check to make end meet could not afford to be in a government office.
There was some contention over this issue at the Constitutional Convention. Many of the delegates (such as Washington and Morris) had inherited large fortunes. Others (such as Franklin and Sherman) had made large fortunes through their own labor and investment. Ultimately the Convention concluded that denying a salary to government officials would create an aristocratic ruling class that would be anathema to America's republican ideals.

I don't have any objection to giving office holders a reasonable compensation for the reasons discussed at the Constitutional Convention. But at the same time I do object to letting anyone and everyone vote. People who don't pay taxes should not be in a position to vote themselves the largesse of the people that do.

Even with salaries for office holders, we still have the situation you outline since it takes so much money to bring down an incumbent. But we do not need government financing of political campaigns; I don't want my tax money used to propagate ideas that I object to on moral or religious grounds. What we need is constitutional term limits and limits on campaign contributions (if you cannot vote for a candidate, you shouldn't be allowed to give him money).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,512 Posts
There is practically no situation possible where an individual can survive apart from civil society in today's world.
Not true. Look up the word survive in the dictionary. All a person must do to survive is to continue to exist. That's all. Certainly possible anywhere without any intervention.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Not true. Look up the word survive in the dictionary. All a person must do to survive is to continue to exist. That's all. Certainly possible anywhere without any intervention.
Get real. In many emergency situations you would have precious little chance of surviving if you couldn't rely on the resources and skills that other people, i.e., society, have accumulated. Even if everybody but you were vaporized in an atomic war, you'd still have, for a while, some of the farms, stores and warehouses that other people had established to rely on. Without the work of other people, your chance of survival would diminish.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
The only thing you need is food, water, and shelter. That's it.
What if you are disabled and thus cannot secure enough food, water or shelter solely on your own? Or what if you become injured or otherwise incapacitated while in the process of securing your own food, water and shelter?

What if your food and water runs out or is or becomes polluted/poisoned?

What if you develop an illness or have a chronic medical condition like high blood pressure or diabetes that requires healthcare or medication that you cannot provide for yourself?
 

·
YourAdministrator, eh?
Joined
·
8,000 Posts
so if under that theory only people who were had lots of there own money could be in government because the rest of us that have to get a weekly pay check to make end meet could not afford to be in a government office.
Ahh ... yes. What I propose is for someone who is "old-n-wise" to become the leaders of the country. People who are "retired" for lack of a better word, people who can live off of a "reasonable" amount of money in an average house that has been paid off. People who have saved their pennies for the day that they didn't need to work to live (ie: over 65 years of age). I would prefer to see people in government who are grandparents - not people who still have children in school or college.

What if you are disabled and thus cannot secure enough food, water or shelter solely on your own? Or what if you become injured or otherwise incapacitated while in the process of securing your own food, water and shelter?

What if your food and water runs out or is or becomes polluted/poisoned?

What if you develop an illness or have a chronic medical condition like high blood pressure or diabetes that requires healthcare or medication that you cannot provide for yourself?
Well - then I die and the birds peck out my eyes, the worms eat my liver and the dogs run off with my bones ... or, if I am lucky and there is someone who cares enough about me to toss my body onto a funeral pyre that lights up the night.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Well - then I die and the birds peck out my eyes, the worms eat my liver and the dogs run off with my bones ... or, if I am lucky and there is someone who cares enough about me to toss my body onto a funeral pyre that lights up the night.
If this is to be the summation of your life, how can you have a life worth living? If the most you hope for out of posterity is a match for your corpse, how can you contribute anything to the here and now and why would anyone want you to try?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,764 Posts
I have to agree with Canadian - Food, Shelter, Water. The whole idea behind self sufficiency is learning the skills it takes to survive. I hope I don't come off sounding like a former member of this board, but my wife and I have put a mountain of time and effort towards self reliance over the last 3 years. We grow wheat, corn, veggies, fruit and berries. The excess is canned, dried or frozen. We're still eating last years tomatoes, apples, peaches, pears, and berries in one form or another. We did run out of potatoes, peas and beans but that is being resolved in this years garden. We have goats for milk and meat, and chickens for eggs and meat. We can both hunt and process our game. I haven't done it yet, but I plan to make myself a bow sometime in the not to distant future because I know ammo for the guns is hard to come by now and could get worse.
As far as health concerns, once you get out from in front of the boob tube and start using your body the way it was intended as well as eating your own food instead of the processed food that is stripped of most of it's natural nutritional value, a lot of health problems disappear as well. Not all mind you, but a lot. Neither of us has been sick for quite some time and we attribute most of this to our change of lifestyle.

Right now I use all the petro and electric powered tools to get things done, but I have also put together a large supply of human powered tools as well. I have 2 cross-cut saws, axes, mauls, and hammers for cutting and splitting the wood that is the sole heat for our house. Yes - these are tools that someone else in society made because I don't have metal working skills but they are in my hands now and I can sharpen them and keep them in good working order which gives me one more step towards self reliance. I'm not a master carpenter but the 2 of us have put up all 4 of our outbuildings. Our next project is a greenhouse to extend our growing season by a few weeks.

So yes, I feel it is possible to live without all the things modern society has told us we can't do without. I don't care to have the .gov in my life at all if it can be avoided. This will require learning and using the skills that have been used by people for thousands of years. What kind of life you would have depends on how hard you want to work at it. Just my .02 :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
I have to agree with Canadian - Food, Shelter, Water. The whole idea behind self sufficiency is learning the skills it takes to survive.
If you have a heart condition, as I do, you must have medication or you are not likely to survive for very long regardless of what you have in the way of food, shelter and water.

As far as health concerns, once you get out from in front of the boob tube and start using your body the way it was intended as well as eating your own food instead of the processed food that is stripped of most of it's natural nutritional value, a lot of health problems disappear as well.
My heart condition would remain. I have a leaky aortic valve that allows blood to flow backwards back into my lungs. This problem was not caused by lifestyle or diet; it is likely congenital. I had a bout with pneumonia last October that put me at death's door. My heart was so weak that my doctor said open heart surgery to replace the entire aorta was a distinct possibility, and I spent 6 months taking medication to regulate my heart rate so I could avoid surgery. My heart is back to normal now, but I still have the leaky valve to deal with. I still take 5 different medications to control my blood pressure since my doctor wants my blood pressure to be very low to reduce the stress on my heart. The medication puts severe limits on my physical activity. My pulse rate averages around 55 beats a minute, and I can sleep 10-14 hours a day and still be tired most of the time. I could not be self-sufficient based only on what I can physically do myself, and without the societal infrastructure that gives me access to medication I likely wouldn't survive at all. So get off of your high horse. The world is not the idealistic, libertarian utopia you think it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,512 Posts
What if you are disabled and thus cannot secure enough food, water or shelter solely on your own? Or what if you become injured or otherwise incapacitated while in the process of securing your own food, water and shelter?

What if your food and water runs out or is or becomes polluted/poisoned?

What if you develop an illness or have a chronic medical condition like high blood pressure or diabetes that requires healthcare or medication that you cannot provide for yourself?
If you have to make the person in the example crippled in order for your theory to work then your logic is flawed.

A normal average person only needs food, water, and shelter. You make the mistake of assuming that everyone in the world is just like you. I'm young and healthy and can survive with just the basics.

What if this? What if that? What if someone comes up behind you and shoots you in the back of the head? You can throw out a million what if situations.

The fact remains food, water, shelter. For an average person.

For people with problems it's different.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
If you have to make the person in the example crippled in order for your theory to work then your logic is flawed.
If you assume that everybody is able-bodied to the point they can make a subsistence living in some cabin in the wood, then your theory is the one that is flawed.

A normal average person only needs food, water, and shelter.
Most of the world's population is either too young or too old to do much in the way of manual labor so by age alone an average person could not survive solely on his own- even if the human population were so small it could feed itself without modern industrialized agriculture.

You make the mistake of assuming that everyone in the world is just like you. I'm young and healthy and can survive with just the basics.
You make the mistake of assuming that most of the world's population is like you.

What if this? What if that? What if someone comes up behind you and shoots you in the back of the head? You can throw out a million what if situations.
My point is that most humans would not survive in your state of nature; human survival is dependent upon human society, i.e., humans working as a group to achieve common goals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,512 Posts
Human, cockroach, wild dog, etc. All they need to survive is food, water, and shelter.

If an animal can survive with just food water and shelter so can a human. We are after all just tool using animals. Take away the tools and we're still animals and capable of surviving.

I think your idea of survival includes luxuries. Survival simply means continuing to exist. That's it. Any normal human is capable of it.
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top