Flat 10% income tax

[NYcarbineer]

And where is spending money on infrastructure in the Constitution?

Where is it prohibited?

The 10th Amendment makes clear that any power not explicitly given to the federal government by the Constitution is not a legitimate power of the Constitution. This means that the Constitution must list the powers of the federal government, not list those powers the federal government does not have.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So by your logic federal funding of the Interstate Highway system - which by definition is infrastructure - is unconstitutional.

 

[Darkwind]

Where is it prohibited?

The 10th Amendment makes clear that any power not explicitly given to the federal government by the Constitution is not a legitimate power of the Constitution. This means that the Constitution must list the powers of the federal government, not list those powers the federal government does not have.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So by your logic federal funding of the Interstate Highway system - which by definition is infrastructure - is unconstitutional.

Not if funded under the Defense Department. Or were you unaware of the purpose of the Interstate Highway system?

But simply because it was funded in the past does not mean it is a proper role of the Federal Government. As it stands, the States bear the brunt of maintainence of the Interstate highways system and get stipends from the Feds.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I have always found it amusing that people of the ideological left are so fearful of life that they are willing to enslave themselves to the wishes and choices of others.

.

It's always ironic when - and occurs even more frequently of late - the states rights-ers invoke 'enslavement' in their argument.

 

[Darkwind]

I have always found it amusing that people of the ideological left are so fearful of life that they are willing to enslave themselves to the wishes and choices of others.

.

It's always ironic when - and occurs even more frequently of late - the states rights-ers invoke 'enslavement' in their argument.

A simple, objective look at the expansion of the Fed and a knowledge of history makes the conclusion obvious.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Where is it prohibited?

The 10th Amendment makes clear that any power not explicitly given to the federal government by the Constitution is not a legitimate power of the Constitution. This means that the Constitution must list the powers of the federal government, not list those powers the federal government does not have.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So by your logic federal funding of the Interstate Highway system - which by definition is infrastructure - is unconstitutional.

Yes.

 

[caela]

Where is it prohibited?

The 10th Amendment makes clear that any power not explicitly given to the federal government by the Constitution is not a legitimate power of the Constitution. This means that the Constitution must list the powers of the federal government, not list those powers the federal government does not have.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Nice try Kevin..

But in 200 years, nobody has interpreted it that way.

Now this has always bothered me. The Amendment is pretty damned clear in what it says. It says if the powers weren't specifically spelled out for the Feds that they go to the States and the People. This isn't something that needs interpretation unless you're a moron or a power-hungry politician deliberately turning a blind eye. This isn't like the Second Amendment where people could make a loose argument about "militias vs. ordinary citizens" owning weapons, it's pretty damned clear..."If we didn't give you the power, it isn't yours."

But then most people in this country can't even tell you who the damned VP is so how would the know that the gov't is running roughshod over their rights. Long as they have their beer and football they're happy to be sheep.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The 10th Amendment makes clear that any power not explicitly given to the federal government by the Constitution is not a legitimate power of the Constitution. This means that the Constitution must list the powers of the federal government, not list those powers the federal government does not have.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Nice try Kevin..

But in 200 years, nobody has interpreted it that way.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would disagree with you fully.

They'd probably think we dress funny too.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I have always found it amusing that people of the ideological left are so fearful of life that they are willing to enslave themselves to the wishes and choices of others.

.

It's always ironic when - and occurs even more frequently of late - the states rights-ers invoke 'enslavement' in their argument.

It's a shame when anti-states' righters ignore the proud history of the states that relied on the states' rights argument to not enforce the Fugitive Slave Act within their borders, and would rather attempt to incorrectly label states' rights as simply a tool for racists.

 

[Darkwind]

Nice try Kevin..

But in 200 years, nobody has interpreted it that way.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would disagree with you fully.

They'd probably think we dress funny too.

Have you seen how some of these kids dress these days?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The 10th Amendment makes clear that any power not explicitly given to the federal government by the Constitution is not a legitimate power of the Constitution. This means that the Constitution must list the powers of the federal government, not list those powers the federal government does not have.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So by your logic federal funding of the Interstate Highway system - which by definition is infrastructure - is unconstitutional.

Yes.

So you're a fringe creature in a tiny minority. That probably has snob appeal to some degree, no?

Eisenhower championed the interstate highway system on the grounds of its value to national defense,
which even (I think) you would agree is constitutional.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So by your logic federal funding of the Interstate Highway system - which by definition is infrastructure - is unconstitutional.

Yes.

So you're a fringe creature in a tiny minority. That probably has snob appeal to some degree, no?

Eisenhower championed the interstate highway system on the grounds of its value to national defense,
which even (I think) you would agree is constitutional.

I'm a snob because I'm in a minority? I'm not sure I see the logic behind that one.

National defense is certainly constitutional. However, the interstate highway system does not fall under the category of national defense, regardless of Eisenhower's original intentions.

 

[Darkwind]

Yes.

So you're a fringe creature in a tiny minority. That probably has snob appeal to some degree, no?

Eisenhower championed the interstate highway system on the grounds of its value to national defense,
which even (I think) you would agree is constitutional.

I'm a snob because I'm in a minority? I'm not sure I see the logic behind that one.

National defense is certainly constitutional. However, the interstate highway system does not fall under the category of national defense, regardless of Eisenhower's original intentions.

Well, in fact, that was the whole purpose of the Interstate Highway system. It was funded and created so that the Military could move resources around the country quickly in times of emergency. Like invasion. Have you ever noticed that the Interstate system are all wide open and conducive to the rapid movement of military equipment?

However, the maintainability of the Interstate system should be funded under the DoD.

 

[Sinatra]

This nation's tax code is so bereft of common sense as to make the entire institution teeter on the brink of total collapse.

Currently nearly half of all Americans pay NO income tax. With Obama's desire to increase taxes on the rich, while also increasing "relief" to the "working poor", this number is sure to increase.

And it is not Obama's intent that is soley to blame - GW Bush was responsible for nearly doubling the percentage of lower income non taxpayers with his tax cuts. While the common liberal cries of the Bush tax cuts helping the rich - they actually did far more to expand the base of non-paying federal income tax payers in America.

With 15% of earners paying nearly 85% of all income taxes, they system is so far out of whack we are destined to the proverbial tipping point far sooner than later.

A flat tax has merit, as ALL wage earners should be paying into the federal income tax pool Those who earn more will pay more while those who earn less pay less. Such an approach is both simple and fair.

As it is now, why should roughly half of "voters" be allowed to vote in federal elections if they are not paying into the federal income tax system? Why are they allowed to simply mooch the system and then have a say in helping to maintain their ability to continue doing so?

A far simpler tax code is long overdue - one that has all wage earners paying into the system vs simply being allowed to enjoy the benefit given them off the backs of the minority who actually do pay federal income taxes.

 

[AVG-JOE]

So you're a fringe creature in a tiny minority. That probably has snob appeal to some degree, no?

Eisenhower championed the interstate highway system on the grounds of its value to national defense,
which even (I think) you would agree is constitutional.

I'm a snob because I'm in a minority? I'm not sure I see the logic behind that one.

National defense is certainly constitutional. However, the interstate highway system does not fall under the category of national defense, regardless of Eisenhower's original intentions.

Well, in fact, that was the whole purpose of the Interstate Highway system. It was funded and created so that the Military could move resources around the country quickly in times of emergency. Like invasion. Have you ever noticed that the Interstate system are all wide open and conducive to the rapid movement of military equipment?

However, the maintainability of the Interstate system should be funded under the DoD.

Eisenhower wasn't like the politicians we have today... he was the last president with vision to serve a full term. Defense may have been the political / legal reasoning behind the push through congress of the original concept, but I believe Eisenhower went to Germany, drove on the Autobahn and said something like "Wow!"

 

[DiamondDave]

This nation's tax code is so bereft of common sense as to make the entire institution teeter on the brink of total collapse.

Currently nearly half of all Americans pay NO income tax. With Obama's desire to increase taxes on the rich, while also increasing "relief" to the "working poor", this number is sure to increase.

And it is not Obama's intent that is soley to blame - GW Bush was responsible for nearly doubling the percentage of lower income non taxpayers with his tax cuts. While the common liberal cries of the Bush tax cuts helping the rich - they actually did far more to expand the base of non-paying federal income tax payers in America.

With 15% of earners paying nearly 85% of all income taxes, they system is so far out of whack we are destined to the proverbial tipping point far sooner than later.

A flat tax has merit, as ALL wage earners should be paying into the federal income tax pool Those who earn more will pay more while those who earn less pay less. Such an approach is both simple and fair.

As it is now, why should roughly half of "voters" be allowed to vote in federal elections if they are not paying into the federal income tax system? Why are they allowed to simply mooch the system and then have a say in helping to maintain their ability to continue doing so?

A far simpler tax code is long overdue - one that has all wage earners paying into the system vs simply being allowed to enjoy the benefit given them off the backs of the minority who actually do pay federal income taxes.

It is a power base for the extreme liberals and far lefties.... if you don't make a group of people pay taxation, and you let them get entitlements, they will continue to vote you into power... it's like a junkie will still proclaim you as the best person ever, as long as you feed them their drugs

 

[JWBooth]

This year I want a flat 10% income tax with a single deduction of 85,000 so that anyone making below that will not pay any and any amount above that pays a single flat rate without any loopholes or complications.

If any republican or democrat wants my vote then they better do that.

Hmmmm so massive redistribution of wealth via the tax code is your goal? Under the current code virtually no one pays taxes under 34k pays taxes now. True they are withheld but those folks get it all back plus a bit after filing. Under your proposal the entire burden for funding the government would fall on only a very few and its benefits would be spread amongst those who have made no contribution.

Want real tax reform and smaller government? Invert the tax tables. Make the rates highest on those that earn the least.

or

Repeal the 16th amendment.

 

[uscitizen]

You have to explain your thought (?) better. Are you saying you think this won't produce enough revenue? It is the incomes over 50,000 that pay the lion's share of the taxes. And most of that is lost by way of 'targeted tax cuts' that bleed the treasury more than the benefit society.

And most 'infrastructure' is the responsibility of the states and counties anyway. They just need to do a better job.

I replied to the nut that said, "Why do you want to be taxed"?
Our infrastructure is crumbling. The US was the leader in train travel. Now we're at the bottom on the pile.

And yet our privately owned railroads were more profitable and efficient than the government run railroads.

Umm not really, the railroads failing was why we have Amtrack now.

 

[sarahgop]

this is a good idea.

 

[uscitizen]

this is a good idea.

Yep but better if no exemptions just a pure flat tax on All income.

 

[Douger]

This year I want a flat 10% income tax with a single deduction of 85,000 so that anyone making below that will not pay any and any amount above that pays a single flat rate without any loopholes or complications.

If any republican or democrat wants my vote then they better do that.

Move to Costa Rica. That's what it is there.