The 'General Welfare' thread

[BenNatuf]

If the result doesn't matter, why are you whining like such a bitch about it?

Who's whining? The only thing I've done in this thread is argue the constitutionality of redistributing income based on individuals qualifications, and the constitutionality of disbersing payments to individuals in general. If you didn't want to have the discussion, why did you start the thread?

I've been having multiple productive discussions. I've even learned some stuff I didn't know.

But for what it's worth, you don't appear to be open to considering points of view that aren't your own.

if by "open" what you mean is to ignore the definition of words so I can make them mean what you want them to... no.

if by "open" what you mean is reccognize that there is a way the federal government could at least disberse moneys with the intent to provide for the welfare of the poor... I've already done that. Though to be sure there is no mechanism for the federal government to ensure the states actually spent the money on what they intended it to be used for, except not doing it in the first place.

You are the one who's closed your mind to everything except reading into the constitution what you want to be in it... but isn't.

The deffinition of open minded is not reading orange and pretending its apple. It's reading orange and figuring out how to make juice.

 

[BenNatuf]

The reason that making mortage interest and taxes deductible is constitutional is that it is 100% non discriminatory--ANYBODY who takes out a mortgage on their dwelling--is eligible for the deduction, and it is uniformly applied across all 50 states. The fact that some cannot or choose not to benefit from the deduction does not make it unconstitutional any more than does the fact that all won't need or use certain postal services or interstate highways or a passport.

no fox it is not....

many people can not afford a home and just because one is wealthier and can, should NOT give them perks that others do not get.

it is playing favoritism and part of the push towards a flat tax is that certain groups can not play the system in their favor.

A flat standard deduction for EVERY ONE allows those who do own homes keep their money and use towards their homes and it also allows those who do not yet own homes, keep their money to use towards buying a home someday, if that's what they wish to use it for...

we can't have all of these things tax deductible as we did with the progressive income tax...which plays favoritism from the get go, on allowed itemized deductions.

I own my home outright...what makes you deserve a tax break and not me?

Why have any deductions or exemptions when you can forego them and just charge a lower rate?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The whole idea of the 'general welfare' is that it has demonstrated positive benefit to the community and is available to all citizens irrespective of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic or political status, or any other criteria used.

The concepts of "general welfare" and "common defense", as the terms were intended when written, are defined by the powers granted in the remiander of Article I section 8.

 

[manifold]

Who's whining? The only thing I've done in this thread is argue the constitutionality of redistributing income based on individuals qualifications, and the constitutionality of disbersing payments to individuals in general. If you didn't want to have the discussion, why did you start the thread?

I've been having multiple productive discussions. I've even learned some stuff I didn't know.

But for what it's worth, you don't appear to be open to considering points of view that aren't your own.

if by "open" what you mean is to ignore the definition of words so I can make them mean what you want them to... no.

if by "open" what you mean is reccognize that there is a way the federal government could at least disberse moneys with the intent to provide for the welfare of the poor... I've already done that. Though to be sure there is no mechanism for the federal government to ensure the states actually spent the money on what they intended it to be used for, except not doing it in the first place.

You are the one who's closed your mind to everything except reading into the constitution what you want to be in it... but isn't.

The deffinition of open minded is not reading orange and pretending its apple. It's reading orange and figuring out how to make juice.

The definition of an open mind is maintaining a willingness to change one's mind in the face of new information or superior reasoning. Given that fact that since the OP, I've already changed my opinion and now agree that federal wealth redistribution 'ought' to be unconstitutional makes your assertion regarding my closed-mindedness as laughable as your failed attempts to contribute any value to this discussion.

True story

 

[BenNatuf]

giving some a tax break and not others, in a flat tax situation would once again, be playing favoritism and get us all screwed up as we are now....

the only fairness in a flat tax, would be if everyone got the same standard deduction and personal exemption, then everything from everyone, above that, would be taxed at the same flat tax.

income taxing which is legally taxing us for profit according to the constitution and the law, can only be done, if a minimal amount for the cost of living, is given as a deduction, to EVERY ONE....

those that own homes can use it towards that, those that rent can use it towards that etc....

You will get no argument from me that if we're going to use an income tax it should be one standard rate for everyone and there should be no deductions at all. Why bother with a standard deduction when you can just adjust the rate lower and tax it all? In fact, allowing a standard deduction would ensure that those with a lower income were taxed at a lower rate, so allowing any deduction still results in some people paying more than their share and some paying less while still other pay none at all. In fact, it insures that every person, unless they have the same exact income as another, pays a different rate.

So if you want to tax income with a flat tax (which I don't support any more than I do the current system), then do it with no exemptions and get the 49% of freeloaders who have no current obligation to start paying their share.

Because INCOME is legally defined has PROFIT by our government....this is why there are minimal standard deductions and personal exemptions in the income tax system we have now....why none of us pay any federal income tax on the first +/- 10k we earn now....

Income = profit according to law.....just as the corporate income tax....these are taxes on profit only, not the taxes on the the corporations sales.

I just read this recently...

Of course they are, but if you buy into that then a person with a higher house payment has less profit because they have more cost and providing a minimum deduction does not change the fact that people costs differ.

In some parts of the country you can rent a house for less than 500 a month, in others you can't touch one for less than 1200. If both people have an 800 allowance for "costs" built in to their standard deduction then the person whio pays 500 has an advantage over the person who pays 1200, and the person who pays 1200 ends up with a higher percentage of thier "profit" being taxed.

The better idea would be to not tax income at all.

 

[Foxfyre]

You say it's non discriminatory and then proceed to specify that it's only available to people who take out a mortgage. That's the very definition of discriminatory.

According to this line of reasoning, food stamps are also non discriminatory since ANYBODY who makes below a certain threshold is eligible.

If every legal government function had to benefit every citizen uniformly we would have no government functions. If I choose to have a septic system even while paying taxes to support th city sewer system, that does not change the fact that I am eligible to hook onto the city sewer system if I want to. If I pay school taxes even though I have no children in school at this time, that does not change the fact that my kids, if I had any at home, would not be eligible to attend school. If some of my taxes go to pay for the federal and state highway system despite the fact that somebody doesn't own a car and never leaves his/her neighborhood, that does not change the fact that those highways are as available to him/her as to anybody else.

The whole idea of the 'general welfare' is that it has demonstrated positive benefit to the community and is available to all citizens irrespective of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic or political status, or any other criteria used.

So we're right back where we started. The mortgage interest deduction is no different than food stamps in the context of your argument.

Yes it is because it takes nothing from you that I don't also have to pay in order for me to receive a government service. The person receiving food stamps does not pay into the system in order to receive them and therefore is being supported by somebody else. If everybody of all socioeconomic status was contributing to and was eligible for food stamps, then it might be said to be a matter of general welfare though in practicality, it would be really stupid to do it that way instead of just letting everybody keep their money in their pockets to begin with.

The general welfare was never intended to interfere with anybody's unalienable rights. An unalienable right is that which requires no contribution from anybody else.

 

[manifold]

Because INCOME is legally defined has PROFIT by our government....this is why there are minimal standard deductions and personal exemptions in the income tax system we have now....why none of us pay any federal income tax on the first +/- 10k we earn now....

Income = profit according to law.....just as the corporate income tax....these are taxes on profit only, not the taxes on the the corporations sales.

I just read this recently...

Excellent point Care.

And arguments about disparities in the cost of living fail to undermine this point because the choice to live in a bigger home, or a more affluent community are just that, 'choices'.

 

[BenNatuf]

I've been having multiple productive discussions. I've even learned some stuff I didn't know.

But for what it's worth, you don't appear to be open to considering points of view that aren't your own.

if by "open" what you mean is to ignore the definition of words so I can make them mean what you want them to... no.

if by "open" what you mean is reccognize that there is a way the federal government could at least disberse moneys with the intent to provide for the welfare of the poor... I've already done that. Though to be sure there is no mechanism for the federal government to ensure the states actually spent the money on what they intended it to be used for, except not doing it in the first place.

You are the one who's closed your mind to everything except reading into the constitution what you want to be in it... but isn't.

The deffinition of open minded is not reading orange and pretending its apple. It's reading orange and figuring out how to make juice.

The definition of an open mind is maintaining a willingness to change one's mind in the face of new information or superior reasoning.

niether of which you've provided. The constitution says what it says and theres nothing "new" added to it, and the superior way to reason what it says is to understand the actual meaning of the words, not to pretend they mean something else entirely.

Given that fact that since the OP, I've already changed my opinion and now agree that federal wealth redistribution 'ought' to be unconstitutional makes your assertion regarding my closed-mindedness as laughable as your failed attempts to contribute any value to this discussion.

True story

So your idea of "open mindedness" is to admit your wrong but adhere to the wrongness? The only thing I've done in this thread is point out WHY its unconstitutional. Maybe you should reread your thread? You obviously have me confused with someone else.

 

[Care4all]

The reason that making mortage interest and taxes deductible is constitutional is that it is 100% non discriminatory--ANYBODY who takes out a mortgage on their dwelling--is eligible for the deduction, and it is uniformly applied across all 50 states. The fact that some cannot or choose not to benefit from the deduction does not make it unconstitutional any more than does the fact that all won't need or use certain postal services or interstate highways or a passport.

no fox it is not....

many people can not afford a home and just because one is wealthier and can, should NOT give them perks that others do not get.

it is playing favoritism and part of the push towards a flat tax is that certain groups can not play the system in their favor.

A flat standard deduction for EVERY ONE allows those who do own homes keep their money and use towards their homes and it also allows those who do not yet own homes, keep their money to use towards buying a home someday, if that's what they wish to use it for...

we can't have all of these things tax deductible as we did with the progressive income tax...which plays favoritism from the get go, on allowed itemized deductions.

I own my home outright...what makes you deserve a tax break and not me?

Why have any deductions or exemptions when you can forego them and just charge a lower rate?

because income is defined by gvt as profit. a lower flat rate, without accounting for a minimal cost of living, would be illegal, and possibly, inhumane.

it would be the same or equal... for everyone....everyone would get the same standard deduction and personal exemption, then pay a flat tax above said deduction.

yes, some making only $10 grand a year may still end up paying no federal income tax, but the wealthiest person out there, gets the same equal treatment of their first $10 grand earned as well...so by no means is this unfair or unequal, for anyone.

anyway....to the thread author,,,

Sorry manifold, for being off topic.

 

[BenNatuf]

Because INCOME is legally defined has PROFIT by our government....this is why there are minimal standard deductions and personal exemptions in the income tax system we have now....why none of us pay any federal income tax on the first +/- 10k we earn now....

Income = profit according to law.....just as the corporate income tax....these are taxes on profit only, not the taxes on the the corporations sales.

I just read this recently...

Excellent point Care.

And arguments about disparities in the cost of living fail to undermine this point because the choice to live in a bigger home, or a more affluent community are just that, 'choices'.

profit=revenue-cost

Nowhere in that equasion does the share of cost increase or decrease from actual cost based on choices.

 

[manifold]

If every legal government function had to benefit every citizen uniformly we would have no government functions. If I choose to have a septic system even while paying taxes to support th city sewer system, that does not change the fact that I am eligible to hook onto the city sewer system if I want to. If I pay school taxes even though I have no children in school at this time, that does not change the fact that my kids, if I had any at home, would not be eligible to attend school. If some of my taxes go to pay for the federal and state highway system despite the fact that somebody doesn't own a car and never leaves his/her neighborhood, that does not change the fact that those highways are as available to him/her as to anybody else.

The whole idea of the 'general welfare' is that it has demonstrated positive benefit to the community and is available to all citizens irrespective of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic or political status, or any other criteria used.

So we're right back where we started. The mortgage interest deduction is no different than food stamps in the context of your argument.

Yes it is because it takes nothing from you that I don't also have to pay in order for me to receive a government service. The person receiving food stamps does not pay into the system in order to receive them and therefore is being supported by somebody else. If everybody of all socioeconomic status was contributing to and was eligible for food stamps, then it might be said to be a matter of general welfare though in practicality, it would be really stupid to do it that way instead of just letting everybody keep their money in their pockets to begin with.

The general welfare was never intended to interfere with anybody's unalienable rights. An unalienable right is that which requires no contribution from anybody else.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

The economic impact of taking more money from A than from B is no different than taking the same from both, and giving some back to B.

 

[Ravi]

no fox it is not....

many people can not afford a home and just because one is wealthier and can, should NOT give them perks that others do not get.

it is playing favoritism and part of the push towards a flat tax is that certain groups can not play the system in their favor.

A flat standard deduction for EVERY ONE allows those who do own homes keep their money and use towards their homes and it also allows those who do not yet own homes, keep their money to use towards buying a home someday, if that's what they wish to use it for...

we can't have all of these things tax deductible as we did with the progressive income tax...which plays favoritism from the get go, on allowed itemized deductions.

I own my home outright...what makes you deserve a tax break and not me?

Why have any deductions or exemptions when you can forego them and just charge a lower rate?

because income is defined by gvt as profit. a lower flat rate, without accounting for a minimal cost of living, would be illegal, and possibly, inhumane.

it would be the same or equal... for everyone....everyone would get the same standard deduction and personal exemption, then pay a flat tax above said deduction.

yes, some making only $10 grand a year may still end up paying no federal income tax, but the wealthiest person out there, gets the same equal treatment of their first $10 grand earned as well...so by no means is this unfair or unequal, for anyone.

anyway....to the thread author,,,

Sorry manifold, for being off topic.

The progressive tax system, supposedly, works the same way. Different incomes are taxed at different rates...it isn't PEOPLE that are taxed, it is their income.

I say supposedly because of all the loopholes and deductions.

 

[signelect]

I started paying into the SS fund in 1958 and am still paying. I am working because I made some bad choices and because BHO and Nancy, my plane is not big enough, Polosi have screwed me and other. Both grew up with affluence and have no idea what is is like to have to produce something in order to eat. The general welfare does NOT include fee education to undocumented children, free bilingual education to those who are here legally, fee health care to those who WON:T work. Life is not free and the founders never intended it to be. Grow up and get a job.

 

[BenNatuf]

no fox it is not....

many people can not afford a home and just because one is wealthier and can, should NOT give them perks that others do not get.

it is playing favoritism and part of the push towards a flat tax is that certain groups can not play the system in their favor.

A flat standard deduction for EVERY ONE allows those who do own homes keep their money and use towards their homes and it also allows those who do not yet own homes, keep their money to use towards buying a home someday, if that's what they wish to use it for...

we can't have all of these things tax deductible as we did with the progressive income tax...which plays favoritism from the get go, on allowed itemized deductions.

I own my home outright...what makes you deserve a tax break and not me?

Why have any deductions or exemptions when you can forego them and just charge a lower rate?

because income is defined by gvt as profit. a lower flat rate, without accounting for a minimal cost of living, would be illegal, and possibly, inhumane.

it would be the same or equal... for everyone....everyone would get the same standard deduction and personal exemption, then pay a flat tax above said deduction.

yes, some making only $10 grand a year may still end up paying no federal income tax, but the wealthiest person out there, gets the same equal treatment of their first $10 grand earned as well...so by no means is this unfair or unequal, for anyone.

anyway....to the thread author,,,

Sorry manifold, for being off topic.

Did you notice the qualifier you have to use?

Everyone gets the same or equal treatment of their first ten grand?

meaning of course that no-one gets the same or equal treatment of thier income as a whole.

five people with a 10% tax and 10K exemption

A earns 10K gets a 10K exemption and pays an overall tax rate of 0%

B makes 25K gets a 10K exemption and pays 1.5K in taxes for a rate of 6%

C makes 50K gets a 10K exemption pays 4000 in taxes for an overall tax rate of 8%

D earns 100K gets a 10K exemption and pays 9000 and an overall tax rate of 9%

E earns 1M gets a 10K exemption and pays 99K in taxes for an overall tax rate of 9.9%

There is nothing flat about that tax.

 

[Care4all]

Why have any deductions or exemptions when you can forego them and just charge a lower rate?

because income is defined by gvt as profit. a lower flat rate, without accounting for a minimal cost of living, would be illegal, and possibly, inhumane.

it would be the same or equal... for everyone....everyone would get the same standard deduction and personal exemption, then pay a flat tax above said deduction.

yes, some making only $10 grand a year may still end up paying no federal income tax, but the wealthiest person out there, gets the same equal treatment of their first $10 grand earned as well...so by no means is this unfair or unequal, for anyone.

anyway....to the thread author,,,

Sorry manifold, for being off topic.

The progressive tax system, supposedly, works the same way. Different incomes are taxed at different rates...it isn't PEOPLE that are taxed, it is their income.

I say supposedly because of all the loopholes and deductions.

yes, it does supposedly work the same way....one reason why i believe the progressive income tax is not as unfair as some make it out to be...

and i say supposedly for the same reason you do....

mainly because the 'itemized deductions' that have been added over the years plays favoritism in a big way.....

i think if we ever went to a flat tax, the benefit of such simplification would become bastardized just as the progressive system with additional itemized deductions for college, a mortgage no matter the amount, a vacation home, a this and a that etc....

we need to give a standardized deduction and personal exemption for everyone's basic needs, and tax what is above that....this would bring the flat tax rate lower, than it would be if we had every deduction under the sun...where some can play the system, while others can not.

 

[Foxfyre]

So we're right back where we started. The mortgage interest deduction is no different than food stamps in the context of your argument.

Yes it is because it takes nothing from you that I don't also have to pay in order for me to receive a government service. The person receiving food stamps does not pay into the system in order to receive them and therefore is being supported by somebody else. If everybody of all socioeconomic status was contributing to and was eligible for food stamps, then it might be said to be a matter of general welfare though in practicality, it would be really stupid to do it that way instead of just letting everybody keep their money in their pockets to begin with.

The general welfare was never intended to interfere with anybody's unalienable rights. An unalienable right is that which requires no contribution from anybody else.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

The economic impact of taking more money from A than from B is no different than taking the same from both, and giving some back to B.

Well of couse we can agree to disagree, but in a discussion, all points of view are fair to be aired, yes?

Again, the Founders intent for the General Welfare was what would benefit society as a whole and the single most critical component of the Constitution was to recognize and secure the unalienable rights (stated as 'blessings of liberty') for all. If government can take the honorably acquired property from one person and give it to another person who did not work for it. we have no rights at all.

My tax deduction for my homeowner's interest has proved to benefit all by producing more stable neighborhoods, less crime, better schools, better city services, and more prosperity. Yes we all could technically qualify for food stamps, but there would be no benefit to society should we all intentionally become poor in order to qualify for them.

The general welfare is a benefit to society without violation of the inalienable rights of the individual. Poverty is not a benefit to society and, as Ben Franklin suggested, the general welfare would include leading or driving people out of it rather than subsidizing it.

 

[BenNatuf]

because income is defined by gvt as profit. a lower flat rate, without accounting for a minimal cost of living, would be illegal, and possibly, inhumane.

it would be the same or equal... for everyone....everyone would get the same standard deduction and personal exemption, then pay a flat tax above said deduction.

yes, some making only $10 grand a year may still end up paying no federal income tax, but the wealthiest person out there, gets the same equal treatment of their first $10 grand earned as well...so by no means is this unfair or unequal, for anyone.

anyway....to the thread author,,,

Sorry manifold, for being off topic.

The progressive tax system, supposedly, works the same way. Different incomes are taxed at different rates...it isn't PEOPLE that are taxed, it is their income.

I say supposedly because of all the loopholes and deductions.

yes, it does supposedly work the same way....one reason why i believe the progressive income tax is not as unfair as some make it out to be...

and i say supposedly for the same reason you do....

mainly because the 'itemized deductions' that have been added over the years plays favoritism in a big way.....

i think if we ever went to a flat tax, the benefit of such simplification would become bastardized just as the progressive system with additional itemized deductions for college, a mortgage no matter the amount, a vacation home, a this and a that etc....

we need to give a standardized deduction and personal exemption for everyone's basic needs, and tax what is above that....this would bring the flat tax rate lower, than it would be if we had every deduction under the sun...where some can play the system, while others can not.

If we must have a federal direct tax on the people, then I would prefer an automated transaction tax, but if I can't have that then a flat tax is the most preferable other option.

The fact is a court has defined income as profit only because the congress does not use its power under the necessary and proper clause to define it for themselves, if we're going to change the code, why not change the metrics? I would prefer this to allowing any exemptions, treat all income the same... period.

My preffered overall option is to apportion the budget to the states and let them collect the taxes in whatever method they see fit.

 

[BenNatuf]

here's my point.

As long as we allow exemptions we invite the congress to abuse the tax code to pander to voters. Considering the median income is around 48K, the congress could allow exemption for the first 49K and bank on getting the votes of the 51% or so of people who make 49K or less... leaving the people who make over 49K holding the bag.

If we're going to tax income pass a law defining income as what comes in (revenue) as opposed to the difference of what comes in and what goes out (profit) and tax that income at a much lower rate with ZERO exemptions and ZERO opportunities for the congress to manipulate it to pick winners and losers in the tax code.

 

[Care4all]

The progressive tax system, supposedly, works the same way. Different incomes are taxed at different rates...it isn't PEOPLE that are taxed, it is their income.

I say supposedly because of all the loopholes and deductions.

yes, it does supposedly work the same way....one reason why i believe the progressive income tax is not as unfair as some make it out to be...

and i say supposedly for the same reason you do....

mainly because the 'itemized deductions' that have been added over the years plays favoritism in a big way.....

i think if we ever went to a flat tax, the benefit of such simplification would become bastardized just as the progressive system with additional itemized deductions for college, a mortgage no matter the amount, a vacation home, a this and a that etc....

we need to give a standardized deduction and personal exemption for everyone's basic needs, and tax what is above that....this would bring the flat tax rate lower, than it would be if we had every deduction under the sun...where some can play the system, while others can not.

If we must have a federal direct tax on the people, then I would prefer an automated transaction tax, but if I can't have that then a flat tax is the most preferable other option.

The fact is a court has defined income as profit only because the congress does not use its power under the necessary and proper clause to define it for themselves, if we're going to change the code, why not change the metrics? I would prefer this to allowing any exemptions, treat all income the same... period.

My preffered overall option is to apportion the budget to the states and let them collect the taxes in whatever method they see fit.

I can see that, but any flat tax on the very lowest of income workers, who use every dime they make, on putting minimum food in their mouths and a roof over the family's head, will be TOO MUCH and make them rely on more and more other gvt programs to get by, so it defeats the purpose.

Better to not tax the first 10k per person than to take $2 grand out of their 10 grand then to only give $2-4 k back to them through another safety net program....

 

[The T]

here's my point.

As long as we allow exemptions we invite the congress to abuse the tax code to pander to voters. Considering the median income is around 48K, the congress could allow exemption for the first 49K and bank on getting the votes of the 51% or so of people who make 49K or less... leaving the people who make over 49K holding the bag.

If we're going to tax income pass a law defining income as what comes in (revenue) as opposed to the difference of what comes in and what goes out (profit) and tax that income at a much lower rate with ZERO exemptions and ZERO opportunities for the congress to manipulate it to pick winners and losers in the tax code.

Exactly. In the present tax code, it's too punative on the country's producers and does give leeway to some and not others. It's the government's way of control.

If we want to see this economy soar? Get RID of the prsent system, and go to FLAT or FAIR TAX based upon consumption (commerce). Everyone pays the same percentage no matter what.

The politicians have to wrest their control...before the people FORCE them to.