(Potentially) Controversial Opinions

Jim, darling, second paragraph:

Quote:

---

The only laws governing abortion should be guarding against inhumane and unnecessarily cruel methods (these laws would cover late-term abortions except under certain medical situations).

---

In the third trimester, her right to abort ends, as far as I'm concerned. Not because I think she loses a right to her body--she doesn't--but because it would be too inhumane unless there is a serious medical situation. If labor could be induced at the point when the fetus is viable and then the mother immediately and irrevocably loses parental rights and never has to think about it again, grand.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

Zuul, what about thrid trimester? The fetus is now viable with medical help? What about after 8 months where the fetus is usually viable with minimal help or even none? I think there comes a point where the mother needs to finish the job and give the baby up for adoption as the fetus is viable and killing it would be murder. Exceptions of course where the fetus is question is clearly deformed badly or the mother is endangered. The mother should of course come first. But if no danger or serious deformity, the baby should be carried to term in my opinion. I'm not going to rally for a full ban of third trimester abortions, I would never align myself to the so-called Pro-Life groups. But there comes a point where the mother to be has waited too long. To me it seems to be third trimester.

---

I think I'm a start an abortion thread because I also have opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

Loki, since I think a lot of organizations should pay taxes that don't now, present laws about those organizations don't dissuade me. ;)

---

I'd like to be clear here. As long as you're talking about doing a comprehensive revamping of the 501 (c) regulations, I'm not going to scream bloody murder. I can see a number of reasons for putting such organizations back on the tax rolls.

But what you and others were talking about wasn't such a comprehensive revamping - rather a specific targeting of certain organizations that people had a hard-on for. I hope you'll admit that there's a large difference between those two courses of action.

Loki, I'm more thinking along the lines of changing the regulations in general. Churches came up first because ivan was discussing their status, but they aren't a specific target in my mind on this matter. There are far better things to focus on when it comes to religion than taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

Jim, darling, second paragraph:

In the third trimester, her right to abort ends, as far as I'm concerned. Not because I think she loses a right to her body--she doesn't--but because it would be too inhumane unless there is a serious medical situation. If labor could be induced at the point when the fetus is viable and then the mother immediately and irrevocably loses parental rights and never has to think about it again, grand.

---

Well then, it looks like we agree. My reading compreshension failed in this case. Sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OtakuLoki

But what you and others were talking about wasn't such a comprehensive revamping - rather a specific targeting of certain organizations that people had a hard-on for. I hope you'll admit that there's a large difference between those two courses of action.

---

Not Zuul, but I will admit to target certain organizations and the ignorance already mentioned above.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Exy

I think I'm a start an abortion thread because I also have opinions.

---

http://www.mellophant.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10160

I don't think Michael Jackson was a child molester.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

I don't think Michael Jackson was a child molester.

---

I'm not about to declare him not a child molester, but in my opinion it's definitely not clear that he was.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

I don't think Michael Jackson was a child molester.

---

Well we don't know, but would you have left a young boy with him overnight?

I don't think Michael Jackson was a child molester either, or at least I think it's more likely that he was a very emotionally stunted adult man that was trying to have friendships with children on the level of a child.

And Jim? That is why I wouldn't leave my hypothetical son with him, because even without molestation I don't see that as a healthy relationship for either person.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

Well we don't know, but would you have left a young boy with him overnight?

---

No, but I wouldn't leave a young boy alone with anyone who seemed that immature and keen on hanging out with kids, even if I didn't think the man was a molester. Like Taumpy said, it seems like he was trying to have relationships with boys on the same level as being another boy himself. I don't personally think there's enough evidence to say the guy was doing anything perverted, but I wouldn't want my kid being involved in that sort of unhealthy relationship either.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

I don't think Michael Jackson was a child molester.

---

I read about both the alleged molestation cases after he died and I have to say it's really not as clear as I thought it was, and that if I had to decide I would say he was likely innocent. Like Zuul indicates, though, he was still using kids in a selfish and unhealthy manner and I wouldn't want any of my children exposed to that.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrnalene

I read about both the alleged molestation cases after he died and I have to say it's really not as clear as I thought it was, and that if I had to decide I would say he was likely innocent. Like Zuul indicates, though, he was still using kids in a selfish and unhealthy manner and I wouldn't want any of my children exposed to that.

---

I don't remember all the details but at the time of the trial it seemed likely to me that he was not guilty as charged but had made himself vulnerable through something untoward.

I wouldn't leave my kids with him because (a) why are children having sleepovers with pop stars and (b) while I'm not sure he did molest any kids, I'm not sure he didn't either.

Well I think Michael Jackson absolutely was a child molester. I don't believe anything he did with those boys was innocent. Furthermore, I think he was perfectly capable of grooming and seducing young boys and then moving on to the next young, pretty, 11-13 year old who was vulnerable enough to exploit. I think if you look at the boys who accused him of molesting them, as well as the boys who never did but still spent an unhealthy amount of time with them, he clearly has a type both physically and emotionally/mentally. I think his bedroom might have been huge, but it was also a fortress (according to the series of Vanity Fair articles about him) and if anybody got close enough to the door, there were sensors under the carpet to alert him to their presence. In other words, it was the perfect place to get himself balls deep in an underaged boy. I think like nearly all pedophiles, he was perfectly capable of hiding it, and I think he was far more intelligent than his public persona would have us believe.

Like I said, I'm not sure he wasn't a pedophile, but I just have a very hard time imagining him being quite that calculated. The guy was so out of it that I just can't picture him acting in such a deliberately predatory manner.

The sexual drive is pretty much the most powerful motivator for human behavior. Just because his public persona was that of some sort of idiot-man child who was off in his own little world didn't mean he was actually Peter Pan without sexual desire. If he wanted to have sex with children, literally nothing would have stood between him and what he wanted. Nobody would stop him, and in fact, nobody did stop him. You don't have to be some clever mastermind to manipulate a 13 year old boy into an inappropriate sexual relationship, especially when you're wealthy beyond most people's wildest dreams and you're the most famous pop star in the world. You don't even have to be particularly evil. He could have thought he wasn't really doing anything wrong--most pedophiles are usually very good at justifying and rationalizing their behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pepperlandgirl

The sexual drive is pretty much the most powerful motivator for human behavior. Just because his public persona was that of some sort of idiot-man child who was off in his own little world didn't mean he was actually Peter Pan without sexual desire.

---

I don't disagree with this at all. Which is why, given his obvious and screwy obsession with children, I think it's quite possible he did. But I just don't think the evidence is clear.

Quote:

---

most pedophiles are usually very good at justifying and rationalizing their behavior.

---

God knows that's true. I've read plenty of stuff by pedophiles attempting to excuse it.


I just find it very difficult to imagine him being together enough to molest multiple children and keep it hidden at least successfully enough to avoid criminal charges. And it doesn't help that the families who did make the accusations really seemed screwy and exploitive. If he had molested lots of children, it seems like someone more plausible would have come forward rather than the families that did.

Just for the record, I wasn't one of the crazy Michael Jackson supporters, nor do I claim to have always believed in him. This is kind of a big reason as to why I doubt the accusations.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

Just for the record, I wasn't one of the crazy Michael Jackson supporters, nor do I claim to have always believed in him. This is kind of a big reason as to why I doubt the accusations.

---

Sadly you have linked to a hoax. A nasty self-serving hoax by MJ's fandom. This was never a real story and I will cite Snopes to support my statement. http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/chandler.asp

I still think MJ was a dirty scumbag. Maybe I don't believe it as strongly as Pep, but I find her view is far more likely than yours.

Ugh. Well, thank you for pointing that out to me, Jim. I'd first found it referenced in a blog I considered reputable until this very moment. :smack

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

Ugh. Well, thank you for pointing that out to me, Jim. I'd first found it referenced in a blog I considered reputable until this very moment. :smack

---

Tis cool, does it change your opinion on MJ at all then?

If you haven't read Vanity Fair's series of articles about Michael Jackson, I'd recommend it. The fans say it's biased, but I think it's pretty evenhanded.

Alright, I enjoy pot, and believe it should be legalized. Big deal. The unpopular portion of my post? I believe all drugs should be legalized. Even the harsh, physically detrimental ones that I wouldn't use. What adults choose to do in the comfort of their homes isn't my business, nor the governments, and it shouldn't be their obligation to keep it from the public. In fact, their efforts to keep it from the public is ridiculously costly and in some ways as or MORE dangerous and harmful than not. Tell me where my belief has holes, and if I'm perhaps being dumb.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AndrewRyan

Alright, I enjoy pot, and believe it should be legalized. Big deal. The unpopular portion of my post? I believe all drugs should be legalized. Even the harsh, physically detrimental ones that I wouldn't use. What adults choose to do in the comfort of their homes isn't my business, nor the governments, and it shouldn't be their obligation to keep it from the public. In fact, their efforts to keep it from the public ridiculously costly and in some ways as or MORE dangerous and harmful than not. Tell me where my belief has holes, and if I'm perhaps being dumb.

---

I think I agree with you. I don't see it being any more expensive to society to deal with the legal usage of drugs than it is to deal with the illegal usage of drugs. And right now we have the added expense of law enforcement and prosecution. So, let people have it if they want it...it's not like they can't get a hold of it now, anyway.

Things like heroin and cocaine were legal once, and not too long ago. While the rationale to make pot illegal was pretty bullshit, people had a very good reason to want to get opiate-based drugs and the like out of the local pharmacies. They were hugely detrimental on society in general (not to mention the major personal toll and the thousands of lives and minds lost to addiction). Normally, I support the "adults should be able to do what they want in their own homes" argument, but drug use never stays within a person's home. Drug use has a major impact on children in those homes (I mean, you would support mother's breastfeeding while on meth, right? Or cooking up the meth in the kitchen? Yeah, I'm using the "won't somebody think of the children" argument because there are children in nearly all of these scenarios). Drug use can also cause major accidents and deaths. People who are addicted to heroin can't hold down jobs. They sure as fuck can't support themselves after a certain point. Meth is destroying communities in Utah, in Wyoming, in Idaho, in Montana. And that's not an exaggeration. Meth use is a plague in the western US, and there are unbelievable rates of teenage addiction. Do you think that situation would improve if they could just go to the drug store and check out the various brands available in the meth aisle?

I don't disagree that many of the decisions that resulted from the War on Drugs were wrong-headed and detrimental. I think that the so-called war should be focused on rehabilitation and prevention, not criminalization. But I honestly have to question if anybody who supports complete legalization after experienced the effects of drug abuse on a person, a family, and the community at large.

Update on the young-earth-anti-gay-christian-fundamentalist who took me out on a date.

Yesterday I received a booty call.

So as not to offend her by telling her that she was bat-shit-crazy, I explained my decline of her kind offer as being that I did not want to steer her from her relationship with her god. That might have been a mistake, for now she really, really, really likes me because I am a moral sinner.

Son, never stick your dick in crazy. Words to live by.

Meanwhile, in other Muffin news, the woman with whom my neighbour is trying to set me up darn near knocked me off of a ski chair lift today while demonstrating how she hits (bodychecks) opponents in the roller derby. You know, there are times when I think that concerning women, it is too dangerous out there, and that I should stay inside, with my helmet on.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pepperlandgirl

Things like heroin and cocaine were legal once, and not too long ago. While the rationale to make pot illegal was pretty bullshit, people had a very good reason to want to get opiate-based drugs and the like out of the local pharmacies. They were hugely detrimental on society in general (not to mention the major personal toll and the thousands of lives and minds lost to addiction). Normally, I support the "adults should be able to do what they want in their own homes" argument, but drug use never stays within a person's home. Drug use has a major impact on children in those homes (I mean, you would support mother's breastfeeding while on meth, right? Or cooking up the meth in the kitchen? Yeah, I'm using the "won't somebody think of the children" argument because there are children in nearly all of these scenarios). Drug use can also cause major accidents and deaths. People who are addicted to heroin can't hold down jobs. They sure as fuck can't support themselves after a certain point. Meth is destroying communities in Utah, in Wyoming, in Idaho, in Montana. And that's not an exaggeration. Meth use is a plague in the western US, and there are unbelievable rates of teenage addiction. Do you think that situation would improve if they could just go to the drug store and check out the various brands available in the meth aisle?

I don't disagree that many of the decisions that resulted from the War on Drugs were wrong-headed and detrimental. I think that the so-called war should be focused on rehabilitation and prevention, not criminalization. But I honestly have to question if anybody who supports complete legalization after experienced the effects of drug abuse on a person, a family, and the community at large.

---

Eh, ya know, whenever kids are entered into the equation, it always does get more complicated. And I'm from Utah, and have seen the terrible effects of meth on people. My only argument would be, those who have chosen to use those terrible drugs, with or without kids, won't have their situation swayed worse because of the drugs that are destroying their lives legality. However, OUR tax paying dollars wouldn't go to a losing war on drugs, and the penalties for being caught with said drugs wouldn't ruin the already drug ruined lives of its users. As for the kids that might be affected, well they aren't any worse off than when it was illegal. The kid of a meth user is the kid of a meth user, whether its legal or not. Its kind of like prohibition and illegal alcohol consumption. Making something illegal that the population wants won't stop its consumption, it just causes large amounts of budget to fight, and creates a dangerous environment surrounding its illegal movement and distribution. No large strides in the war on drugs will ever stop drug distribution. So why not legalize it, boost the economy with its production, and maybe soften the populations of major prisons. Sure this might make the consumption of the more seriously detrimental drugs easier, but lets face it even if its harsh; its not as if making meth legal is the thing that kept a meth addict from going to rehab. "Well I was gonna go to rehab, until it became legal and easier to get." A meth addict has made his choice. Sure, the situation wouldn't improve, but if you're a meth addict, it wouldn't get that much worse either. Harsh, yes. But, true.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AndrewRyan

Alright, I enjoy pot, and believe it should be legalized. Big deal. The unpopular portion of my post? I believe all drugs should be legalized. Even the harsh, physically detrimental ones that I wouldn't use. What adults choose to do in the comfort of their homes isn't my business, nor the governments, and it shouldn't be their obligation to keep it from the public. In fact, their efforts to keep it from the public is ridiculously costly and in some ways as or MORE dangerous and harmful than not. Tell me where my belief has holes, and if I'm perhaps being dumb.

---

I tend to agree with some hesitation. Overall I believe we might as well legalize, regulate and heavily tax. (Yes, I am a pro-sin-tax person). At least this way we would have the funds to run the rehabs needed and educational programs.

Also it would stop sending young people to jail (where they end up screwed up for life and learn only to be actual criminals.) It would also remove the primary funding for the groups and gangs in Mexico and throughout South and Central America and of course remove funding from groups like the Taliban.

I love taxes in general.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RabbitMage

I love taxes in general.

---

Even when they get to be over 1/2 of your gross?

Drugs are baaaad, m'kay?
http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleim...ls/horses4.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Glazer

Even when they get to be over 1/2 of your gross?

---

As long as I both have enough after taxes to live on and see a proportional benefit to what I'm paying, then sure.

Is there anywhere/one who pays that much in taxes?

If you have earned a billion dollars and are begrudging divvying up half to keep the country afloat who you owe your opportunities to, then you are a greedy bastard.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RabbitMage

Is there anywhere/one who pays that much in taxes?

---

It's not all that rare, AIUI. Suppose you live in NYC:

Highest Federal tax rate is about 35%

FICA rate is about 6.2% (But is capped, and only applies to the first $106,800 of income.)

Highest NYS tax rate is about 9%

Highest NYC income tax rate is about 3.7%

Doing some quick math, here - and note this is just income tax, a person can still be hit for property taxes, school taxes, sales tax and other major tax bills - it's possible to have a nominal income tax rate as high as 54%. Now, granted, I'm cherry picking my example. Not all that many municipalities impose an income tax like NYC does. Similarly, it's not quite kosher to combine the highest NYS/NYC tax rates with the FICA tax: NYS, at least, you only hit the highest rate on income over $500,000, while as I noted FICA stops being levied against income long before that.

ETA: It's also worth noting, the way that the tax brackets work, you don't pay the highest rate on all the money you make, just on that portion of your income that is within that bracket.

I'll still stand by the claim that there are people who do pay more than 50% of their income as taxes. And that ignores, completely, those times that jurisdictions get around raising taxes by imposing what are often little more than monopoly fees. Just for example, MA collects an annual excise tax on automobiles within the state, every year. In addition to any registration fees that the DMV collects to keep the vehicle in legal, drivable status.

And in order for someone to be in that highest tax bracket, how much are they making annually? I'm with Ivan on this one. If we're talking about someone who's still raking in $750,000 AFTER taxes, I'm hard-pressed to really feel bad for the amount of taxes they pay.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RabbitMage

And in order for someone to be in that highest tax bracket, how much are they making annually? I'm with Ivan on this one. If we're talking about someone who's still raking in $750,000 AFTER taxes, I'm hard-pressed to really feel bad for the amount of taxes they pay.

---

Don't worry, they never pay close to 50% anyway. They have enough loopholes and dodges to ensure they don't.

Just what do you think that people who bring home 3/4 mill do with all that money? Bury it in jars in the back yard? No they buy stock providing capital for industry to do things like hire people. They put money in the bank which loans it to small business and start ups, which buy from industry and hire people. All this industry,small business and people with jobs pay taxes. More taxes than you would have gotten by raising the millionaire's taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ivan astikov

If you have earned a billion dollars and are begrudging divvying up half to keep the country afloat who you owe your opportunities to, then you are a greedy bastard.

---

You have this backwards, it's "The People" with their hand in the pocket always wanting more free money that are choking the goose that lays the golden egg. Once the burden is too great to bear the greedy bastards will cash in and quit. Then what will you do? Who will you squeeze next?

The income tax is an abomination that should be gotten rid of. The power it gives government to snoop into every part of your life. The fact that the government decides how much of your life you owe to them makes you a slave to the state. We can all see that the government cannot control its spending habits to the point that we are in dept to our enemies to the tune of trillions of dollars. This has to stop, one way or another it will. Tax and spend is killing our country.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer Had the Fair Tax been instituted at the start of last year. Instead of a "Stimulus" that puts us in deeper dept. You would have to hide to keep from getting a good job.

I think the highest tax bracket kicks in at about $350K, so you don't have to make anywhere close to $750K to be paying it. Not that $350K isn't a lot of money, but it's a whole different world from 3/4 of a million. And the second highest bracket only drops you down to 33%, but kicks in at about I think $175K. Which is a nice income, but a whole different world from $350K, and 2% less in tax doesn't give you much of a break. As Loki said, if you live in a place where other taxes are high, you could come perilously close to 50%, even if you aren't really rich at all.

Most of the people in the highest tax bracket aren't bringing home anywhere near that kind of money. They are small business owners who report their business earnings on their personal taxes. Small business hires around 75% of the people in this country. When the government wants to tax the rich and make them pay "their fair share" this is who bares the brunt. And the money usually comes from the payroll budget because most other cost are fixed.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

As Loki said, if you live in a place where other taxes are high, you could come perilously close to 50%, even if you aren't really rich at all.

---

. . . for the portion of your income that falls into the highest bracket, that is.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Glazer

They are small business owners who report their business earnings on their personal taxes.

---

Why are they doing that if it costs them more?

Anyway, you're right, better to directly shift more of the tax burden to the poorest people, as the Fairtax people wish to do.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Exy

Why are they doing that if it costs them more?

Anyway, you're right, better to directly shift more of the tax burden to the poorest people, as the Fairtax people wish to do.

---

Federal regulations is why, all small business and LLC's report on the owners income taxes.

As to the fair tax it completely removes any one under the poverty level from the tax rolls. You only pay tax on what you spend and everyone who spends pays tax. All capital is free to earn and grow without tax until spent. The economic boom that that will result when corporations can operate without a tax burden on capital or labor will save this country.

All taxes are paid by people. How taxes are collected infers power. The Fair Tax shifts some power from the collectors to the payers. And protects our freedom when the IRS no longer has their fingers in every aspect of our lives.

I guess I'm not seeing the connection between less taxes and more freedom.

I enjoy public services such as drivable roads and schools and whatnot, too. And I'll go with Exy-why are they doing it if it costs them more? And if making more money COSTS you more money, why do people bother anyway? If taxes were truly that prohibitive I'd think no one would bother trying to work themselves into that next bracket.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Glazer

Federal regulations is why, all small business and LLC's report on the owners income taxes.

---

Are LLCs' income taxes required to be filed under the owners' personal income taxes? I can't claim to know for sure, but that sounds somewhat dubious. Anyway, if that's a problem, it's not hard to incorporate, if that's what stands in the way of paying the corporate tax rate, which of course is far from being prohibitively high.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Glazer

As to the fair tax it completely removes any one under the poverty level from the tax rolls.

---

A statement so inadequate it almost sounds like a joke.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Glazer

The economic boom that that will result when corporations can operate without a tax burden on capital or labor will save this country.

---

. . . if only that weren't a fantasy based on a discredited economic theory pushed by the ideologues on the far right.

We're closer to that point now than we have been in decades. Why didn't the reduced top marginal personal income tax rates and the reduced corporate taxes have that positive effect? If this theory is true, why was the end result of Bush-era fiscal policy the destruction of our economy?

Why doesn't it work in real life, if it's such a good idea?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RabbitMage

I guess I'm not seeing the connection between less taxes and more freedom.

---

The Fair Tax is designed to be revenue neutral. The Income Tax is a large corrupting influence on our legislators as lobbyist and large corporations "buy" tax write offs and deferrals. Congress rewards and punishes through which deductions are allowed. I'm not talking about ending taxes but changing the way they are collected. With out the invasion of privacy that is part and parcel with the Income Tax. Employers will no longer have to report to the government on their employees. Banks wont have to spy own their customers. And it will be a lot harder to cheat on your taxes. The black economy starts paying tax on unreported earnings.

I don't know nothin' 'bout no tax laws, so help me out. Let's say the US switched over to a fair tax. Let's say we did it tomorrow. What percentage of their income would each and every person be paying in order to help keep this nation afloat and providing services either on par or better than what it provides today?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Exy

Are LLCs' income taxes required to be filed under the owners' personal income taxes? I can't claim to know for sure, but that sounds somewhat dubious. Anyway, if that's a problem, it's not hard to incorporate, if that's what stands in the way of paying the corporate tax rate, which of course is far from being prohibitively high.

---

I can't claim to know either. I know there are advantages and disadvantages to both LLC's and Corporations. But their owners, employees and customers pay the taxes either way.

Quote:

---

A statement so inadequate it almost sounds like a joke.

---

Under the Fair Tax every citizen receives a prebate each month equal to the amount they would pay on the basic necessities up to the poverty level. Current calculations for a single adult is $199 a month.
http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTaxPr...lained2007.pdf
warning .pdf

Quote:

---

. . . if only that weren't a fantasy based on a discredited economic theory pushed by the ideologues on the far right.

---

Which discredited economic theory is that? That companies will move factories to whichever country will allow them to make the most profit?

Quote:

---

We're closer to that point now than we have been in decades. Why didn't the reduced top marginal personal income tax rates and the reduced corporate taxes have that positive effect? If this theory is true, why was the end result of Bush-era fiscal policy the destruction of our economy?

---

We were headed into an economic recession when Bush took office. The Bush tax cuts gave us 7 years of prosperity until his runaway spending caught up with us. Because Bush never met a spending bill he didn't love.

Quote:

---

Why doesn't it work in real life, if it's such a good idea?

---

Because it's never been tried. But to many people in power are vested in the current system and will not let go unless we make them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RabbitMage

I don't know nothin' 'bout no tax laws, so help me out. Let's say the US switched over to a fair tax. Let's say we did it tomorrow. What percentage of their income would each and every person be paying in order to help keep this nation afloat and providing services either on par or better than what it provides today?

---

0% of your income you keep everything you make. No FICA. And your employer pays no matching taxes or payroll taxes. And no tax on the company's income. Instead you pay a 23% embedded tax on all new purchases of goods and services. This sales tax replaces all the taxes that used to go into that product at every level. On average about 22% of the cost of goods. So the cost of consumer goods will go up about 1%. Anything you don't spend you can invest like a 401k with no tax and like a Roth IRA pay no tax on your dividends unless you spend them. And you receive a couple of hundred bucks a month to cover the tax on the basic necessities up to the poverty level. If you want to save money on taxes you can buy used goods. So if you spend every thing you make you pay 23%. The more you invest or save the lower your relitive tax rate.

And doing that, the country's still going to be bringing in enough money to keep things running?

(note: this system makes zero sense to me)