-7 votes

Keep 100% of Your Paycheck?!

How would you like to keep 100% of your paycheck?! I know I would....

Libertarian Mafia wants to show you how!

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

If you put a tax on everything under the sun, it's no longer


Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.


So if I want to buy something new but don't want to pay the sales tax I don't have to? Is that what you are saying?

I suggest you enroll in some business law and economics courses.

No, current, and even the

No, current, and even the fairtax plan says if you buy something USED you don't pay sales tax on it.

I don't buy new TV's now, don't buy new cars. Heck I don't buy new furniture, except for mattresses, and those come from a local company.

I don't know

I don't know what country you live in but here in the USA when I buy a used car in a state with sales tax, I pay sales tax. When I buy a used product at the Goodwill store or the Salvation Army store, I pay sales tax.

In what country do you live BTW?

That varies by state to

That varies by state to state, in Iowa where I live if you buy a used good, you do not pay sales tax on that item. Sales tax is only applicable to new goods, as would it be under the FairTax plan.

And not all states collect sales tax on used cars, yes you pay a registration and title fees based on the value of the automobile.

The fact is that all taxation

The fact is that all taxation is voluntary. When you pay you are voluntarily cooperating with the state. However, to your demise if you refuse. Either way the state is going to use force to make people abide by their rules. you think sales taxes are voluntary but what about the businesses that are forced to make people pay them? Why shouldn't the business owner be able to make decisions regarding their property? I don't feel force is right to get your way in any situation, and taxation is theft plain and simple. Not only is it morally wrong but it is economically stupid.


I got downvoted for stating free market ideas... this site is getting more and more useless by the day. to hell with you!

I doubt you're getting downvoted for the free market stuff

I think it's more that you're hounding so hard on the no taxes at all thing as pretty much a first step.

It's kind of like being trapped in Jurassic Park and spending all your effort trying to convince the others how dumb it was to go in the first place.

Would you give us a hint on how to calmly transition to this wonderful place you envision without putting millions more out of work tomorrow and causing martial law from the ensuing chaos?

I sugest you

Study the issue much closer...
You obviously missed some chapters!

When Fascism goes to sleep, it checks under the bed for Ron Paul!

Again opinions, not facts

How else do you propose we pay for society? This is my suggestion.

Do your own homework!

I can explain it to you, but i can't understand it for you...

When Fascism goes to sleep, it checks under the bed for Ron Paul!

Suppose society pays for

Suppose society pays for itself? No need to get government involved with taxes and other infringements on the free market.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.


Pay for Society? uhhh the

Pay for Society? uhhh the market is society. Society pays for itself.
Do you mean pay for government? I think you just answered your own question in either case.
People need things, that fact will never change therefor there will always be a market. We could do without government, hell start over with a constitutional government and we may be well off for another 100 years or so, but haven't we already proven that constitutional government doesn't work? Government doesn't work because force(violence) doesn't work. Governments can only steal and grow and use violence to achieve both means.

Do some research on Austrian Economics which is what this site advocates and anyone who claims to be a libertarian should at least have a basic knowledge of.

The only money we need to run our government

(which you refer to as a society) is the amount that would be fairly generated by a tax on the creation of money. This is the only thing I don't consider a bad tax.

If society is in need of some increase in money supply, it should not come at the cost of inflation to those living in that society and it should not benefit those who benefited from making that money. So, if we tax the big banks for creating fiat money for us and tax the little banks for fractional reserve lending and tax the speculative and leveraged investors who also create money, then it becomes a simple issue. All we have to do is balance the generation of money with the benefits we need from our government.

Currently a .5% tax on this activity would be needed to more than fund our government and pay off past debts.

If we kept all of our money, as you suggest, many more things would occur. People would avoid interest first. Homes would be paid off more often. Self sustainability would soar. Banking would wane. Investing would return to local. Prosperity would thrive. Quantity and disposability would be replaced with longevity and quality. As people got things paid off earlier, retirement ages would plummet. As that happened, unemployment would go negative and workers would again call the shots on wage terms. Price inflation would eventually be combatted by this being 'hard earned' money, not free gifts. The result of that would be a push for automation to make up the shortfall replacing today's fluff and mundane jobs. Getting a good job would be very simply and not require a 4 year degree just to mop a floor. Savings rates would skyrocket while debt would crash. The social ladder would no longer be tied to personal wealth and money would lose its status. The welfare state would crumble. Big government would become a footnote in history as would central banks having any power.

Can someone explain why this was downvoted?

All I'm saying is that those who make money from thin air are the only ones we could justifiably tax. In other words, eliminate the banks' abilities to create money at all and we'll just fund the government with their founder-granted ability to print sovereign notes.

(Yes, I know I'm not addressing the issue of printers-gone-wild)


When I want a car, I buy a car with my own money. When I go to dinner, I pay with my own money. If I want recreation, I go to Disneyland or Six Flags or a movie theater and pay for it with my own money. Where is the need to put a gun to my head and extract money from me to pay for these things?

I'm cool with private roads, power companies, water companies, schools and would just as soon eliminate all government police agencies for they are about as useful as teats on a bull.

The DP is for people who like liberty and not coercive government, so maybe you are posting to the wrong website. Are there not some "progressive" Obama-endorsing sights that might be more open to your tax and spend philosophy.

I would prefer all of those

I would prefer all of those too. But with too many people expecting a cut of your check, how do you propose we get to that place of a complete volunteer society?

I belief the first step to enlighten people to the true cost of society, and all the "benefits" is to get rid of income taxes, and make people see every time they're at a check out what the cost of government really is. That is the end game for FairTax.

When too many people expect a cut of your check

is it wise to encourage them by meekly handing over all the money they demand? Or do you "get to" the voluntary society by figuring out ways to KEEP your own earnings? When you've figured out a way to keep ALL your earnings, to spend on goods and services of your own choosing, then you, personally, have achieved a voluntary society. Encourage others to do the same.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

The OP seems to be open to dialog....

...we shouldn't jump on him/her. Ask questions. Have discussions, but don't make people feel like they're going to get jumped on if they make a mistake. I make mistakes all the time, and I once thought taxation was necessary...until I realized the State is not.

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!


Clarification needed...

Please define "we" and "society"?

Also, please provide the underlying principles you used to determine the implied obligation to pay for said society.

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!


It's not me that demands

It's not me that demands these things, I have been planning for the last 16 years (since I turned 18) to not depend on social security and medicare when I retire. Or on the government for catastrophic incidents. It's the promise that has been made to the millions of people we should uphold. Millions of people rely on the promise, and we do have a duty to keep that promise. This is how I think it should be accomplished.

I don't believe in the implied social contract, and would like to see social welfare programs weened out of existence. I see a lot of people holding the banner for liberty, but have no plan to pay for the existing liabilities, besides a societal collapse. And yet I have to see a single person put forth a plan or idea on how to fix the current problems.

The solution

The solution is to follow the US constitution. If we did that, about 90% of the federal government would vanish and that would move us closes to our goal.

The problem is getting people to kick their addiction to government. I don't know how to tell people that everything they "know" about society and government is wrong. People cling to their illogical and destructive beliefs fiercely due to fragile egos. Just read some of the Christian posts if you don't believe me.

So you're saying screw the 40

So you're saying screw the 40 million seniors that currently depend on the promise made to them, and the money they paid into the system? Or the millions of baby boomers who already too far along in life to plan for an alternative?

I don't want to maintain the current US welfare policies, or the socialistic policies we've been fighting. But I do want to take care of the people who where made promises, and fund that promise.

Why assume that screws them?

Just because they might not get all of their money back from that one plan doesn't mean they won't prosper overall much more than they are now.

Here's some quick math.

Wage price today: $100 for 5 hours
Direct taxes $30
Indirect taxes $20
Price paid for some product $50
Labor and materials portion of that price $10
Bank induced overhead in that product's price $20-30
Company profit, overhead, transportation and passed on costs $20-30
Remainder zero

Removing the banks role in the entire system wipes out "Indirect taxes" and "Bank induced..." portions. The new remainder now becomes $40-50.

However, it gets better. People pay taxes first and then bills, right? Then most people take savings, fun and retirement out of the left-overs. With $45 more left over more than the typical $2 of today, that leaves them with 22 times as much 'playing money' for savings, fun and retirement.

So, is this a 40% raise or a 2200% raise?

Either way, cutting out the banks' take would immediately filter through the economy, giving everyone a raise. Those on SSI would see a big raise in purchasing power even if their nominal amount was cut in half!

You've missed ALL of my posts?

That's what I do. I write the exact plans you are looking for and I post them here (for now). Take a peek at my latest 8 posts and you'll find 4 separate plans. hth

Good post!

I bumped it!

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!