n***b
发帖数: 5914 | 1 如果收费公路和那几座大桥本身都是用taxpayers的钱去盖和维护的,
然后当taxpayers要用这些设施的时候还要额外交钱，这逻辑合理么？
就比如别人找你无偿索钱去修他家房子前面的公共sidewalk，不但不用感谢你的慷慨，然后你想经
过一下还要额外付钱那么不可理喻 | s**x
发帖数: 7506 | 2 is even income tax logical? LOL
the following is from Ron Paul:
“I want to abolish the income tax, but I don’t want to replace it with
anything. About 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal
income tax. That means that about 55 percent — over half of all revenue —
comes from other sources, like excise taxes, fees, and corporate taxes.
We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still
fund the same level of big government we had in the late 1990s. We don’t
need to “replace” the income tax at all. I see a consumption tax as being
a little better than the personal income tax, and I would vote for the Fair-
Tax if it came up in the House of Representatives, but it is not my goal. We
can do better.”
On May 7, 2001, Ron Paul wrote the following column:
The Case Against the Income Tax
Could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet
in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first
126 years of its history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with
revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without
ever touching a worker’s paycheck. In the late 1800s, when Congress first
attempted to impose an income tax, the notion of taxing a citizen’s hard
work was considered radical! Public outcry ensued; more importantly, the
Supreme Court ruled the income tax unconstitutional. Only with passage of
the 16th Amendment did Congress gain the ability to tax the productive
endeavors of its citizens. | G****s
发帖数: 3523 | 3 maintenance cost.
however, they are charging way more than the maintenance cost when the
bridge toll personnel got paid 90+k.
，然后你想经
【在 n***b 的大作中提到】
: 如果收费公路和那几座大桥本身都是用taxpayers的钱去盖和维护的,
: 然后当taxpayers要用这些设施的时候还要额外交钱，这逻辑合理么？
: 就比如别人找你无偿索钱去修他家房子前面的公共sidewalk，不但不用感谢你的慷慨，然后你想经
: 过一下还要额外付钱那么不可理喻
| s*******e
发帖数: 4188 | 4 如果tax payer的钱不够修、建，怎么办？用的人多交一点is what most people would
agree. | b*******r
发帖数: 6655 | 5 谁使用谁付费，专款专用，是最合理的制度，不合理的是政府挪用过桥费用作其它，或
者限制路桥建设，使得私人不能修建收费路桥。
没有专门用途的genernal税收最不合理，就是共产， | n***b
发帖数: 5914 | 6 谁使用谁付费很合理， 既然这些路桥都是用加州纳税人的钱盖的，已经等于纳税人都
prepaid了,而
且这些funding每年都没有断过, 为啥加州居民使用这些infrastructure还要额外付费？
【在 b*******r 的大作中提到】
: 谁使用谁付费，专款专用，是最合理的制度，不合理的是政府挪用过桥费用作其它，或
: 者限制路桥建设，使得私人不能修建收费路桥。
: 没有专门用途的genernal税收最不合理，就是共产，
|
|
