- Oct 12, 2009
- 58,613
- 10,629
- 2,030
since Midcan is MIA in his own thread (probably because it has been pointed out by many what a ridiculous premise he has made), I'm thinking perhaps we should try a different 'thought exercise'.
Taxing everyone for the benefit of the few. That's essentially what mid says we should do. Still Mid's rules though. Only thoughtful, logical answers allowed;
Why did the framers feel it necessary to include the general welfare clause? Why was it important to them that if the federal government was going to tax everyone, the benefit must be for everyone? What are the repercussions of not having this clause?
Bern80, your just a bit confused. Tariffs are mentioned in the Constitution, but taxes, particularly income tax was a much more recent misinterpretation of the Constitution. General welfare is usually mentioned in the same breath as defense in the Federalist Papers. We have a govenment way off base with what it has attempted to do with taxation and the general welfare. The repercussions of not having the clause would be no military period.