hopefully the massholes just forget to setup to vote by the time they can.

Like I remember hearing that people from Massachusetts had like residences up there that during election day they cross the border to meddle in their Elections

oh you ment like that....
still woo, just a little less woo.

and i'm sure the people form mass do that.
the are like the NYC of new englend.

So looking it up basically somewhere along the lines Republicans won the Executive branch of New Hampshire

Though in the 2018 election was where the Republicans lost the Majority in the State Senate and the Congress but it kind of werid in 2016 that Republicans won but they still had Democrat as Senators of the Federal Senate

And their Electoral votes going to Hillary

Like that is where you go something is up when the state in it's core turned red but still got blue

@ETBrooD My tax prof would probably say they are necessary

But screw him

<:pot_of_kek:544849795433496586>

what would you propose in lieu of consumption taxes

"leave it to the towns, let them figure out what's best for them"

but a sales tax works well enough and is simple enough.

property taxes also work well, especially on a town level as that's where most of the "services" that a government provides needs to be delt with anyway.

if you wanted to get really interesting you could have a voluntary tax system on a town level easy enough, you want a fire department? send money for it.
more police? well pony up and drop some cash.

I like the idea of income taxes the least, for several reasons, one is it's so much more complex then you would think, and why people can say "this rich guy pays no income tax!" because he is paying taxes on some other form of income that is covered under another tax.

..
were i to pick a tax system with out the option of just voluntary funding your local government, hmmm....
I think i would go with a small sales tax on the state level, less then %10 as they are really only serviceing the highways and state police.

the on a town level i would stick with a property tax based on the land you are on and not the value of what you put there.

consumption tax is pretty effective in that one of the main purposes of taxation is to reduce consumption

very direct

but it is regressive

what do you mean by "regressive"?

as opposed to progressive

impacts poorer people more

all taxes will impact the poor more, or at least the people just entering that tax bracket.

and all it does against the "rich" is force them to spend resources trying to protect themselfs form those taxes, resources better spend on other things if you want people to do well.

i mean i don't think that's true

why not?

if you tax a supper store all they are gonna do is rase their prices to keep their profits, and these aren't large profits in the long run, one of the ways Wal-Mart saves money is by haveing the boxes shipped to them be just enough to hold what they need to hold, a few cents here and there and when you save a half cent on the dollar over a million dollars that is alot of money.

yes wal-mart is what you would think of as "supper rich" but that is because they have so much money passing through them the few cents they hold on to for each dollar becomes a huge number.

...
besides that, in my view, when you tax the rich you are taxing the most productive.
to me if you make profit that means you made a surplus of value between buying the stuff you used and selling your product.
farther more, if you have a surplus of money you are giveing more finished value then you are useing.

even if we accept the rich will tax evade and so on in general you can make richer people pay more taxes than poorer people

and they already do pay way more of the tax income then the poorer people, like it isn't even close to fair.

so you don't think that all taxes will impact the poor more

I do think all taxes impact the poor more, the "rich" we are talking about are the ones who drive the economy, they are the ones who employ nearly everyone.
now if you are talking about the people who are rich because they are politicans that's it's own topic.

well what do you mean by impact in this case

you don't mean, have a larger portion of their income taxed, i assume

if you take money form the rich (or more likely the buisness they have setup) that money can't be used in growing their buisness.
they can't pay their employees as much.
they can't open that new branch the next town over.
can't spend money researching the next big money maker.

you taxing the rich and their assets is just makeing it so they can't spend that money on things that would help the poor, from employment to better/cheaper services.

assuming all of the money you have deleted would have been used for those things

which often it wouldn't have