The Tax Man

[syrenn]

Flat tax for ALL. I dont care if you only have one dollar of 100 billion dollars. Everyone pays he same %

 

[Anachronism]

Flat tax for ALL. I dont care if you only have one dollar of 100 billion dollars. Everyone pays he same %

I totally agree.

The only caveats I'd put on that is that any dollar should only get taxed ONCE per level of government (federal, state, local). If there's an income tax, then no sales or excise tax. If there's a sales or excise tax, then no income tax. Also, it should only be on NEW income, not on additional monies made by dollars which have already been taxed once. IE.... bank interest, dividends, stock or property sales, etc...

 

[syrenn]

Flat tax for ALL. I dont care if you only have one dollar of 100 billion dollars. Everyone pays he same %

I totally agree.

The only caveats I'd put on that is that any dollar should only get taxed ONCE per level of government (federal, state, local). If there's an income tax, then no sales or excise tax. If there's a sales or excise tax, then no income tax. Also, it should only be on NEW income, not on additional monies made by dollars which have already been taxed once. IE.... bank interest, dividends, stock or property sales, etc...

I think new money earned off of old money should be taxed as income. Income is income.

 

[Anachronism]

I think new money earned off of old money should be taxed as income. Income is income.

I disagree. I have no problem with giving Ceasar what is Ceasar's; but I have a MAJOR problem with giving him more than ONE bite at the same apple. Allowing the government multiple opportunities to reap the rewards of an individual's skills, talents, and work is a major disincentive for people like me to work harder or smarter to increase their own personal wealth. At least that's how I see it.

It's definitely part of the reason why I don't put a lot of money away in the bank, invest in stocks or property, or work any more overtime than I absolutely have to. Going those extra miles would simply provide the Government with additional means to PUNISH me for attempting to be successful. Sorry, they get too much of my money already; I'm not giving them any more of it than I have to, thank you very much.

 

[Cuyo]

7% general sales tax on all retail transactions
+
7% income tax on individual income in excess of $3 million per year. EVERYONE earns their first $3 million tax free.

No corporate tax other than on what they spend, no bullshit loopholes or special treatment, no huge IRS bureaucracy to support collecting at the retail level because consumption taxes are collected at the wholesale level.

A consumption tax is inherently unfair to the lower incomes.
An income tax is inherently unfair to the upper incomes.

Simple taxes = fair taxes. A simple blend of consumption and income taxes is fair.

It ain't enough money to run this place, Joe...

 

[johnwk]

Flat tax for ALL. I dont care if you only have one dollar of 100 billion dollars. Everyone pays he same %

Everyone does not pay the same under a flat tax on income. The most productive members of society are gouged while those who sit on their fat behinds and are not gainfully employed pay squat. But there was a time in our country when the idea of everyone paying the same was understood and practiced!

A wonderful example of this principle is exhibited in the public laws of Maryland’s Dorchester County, under which all able bodied residents of the county above twenty and under fifty years of age were “compelled to labor two days at least in every year in repairing the roads of said county, with the privilege, however, of furnishing a substitute or paying to the road supervisors seventy-five cents for each day such person may be summoned to labor, the money thus paid to be expended in repairing the roads.”

And the law went on to indicate that “anyone neglecting or refusing to perform such labor, or to provide a substitute, or to pay seventy-five cents per day for each and every day he may be summoned to work, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon trial and conviction before a Justice of the Peace, shall be fined seventy-five cents for each day`s delinquency and costs, and shall stand committed until the fine and costs are paid.”___ SEE SHORT vs. STATE OF MARYLAND, decided February 27th, 1895, upholding the law and not violating (a) the 13th or 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, or (b) the 40th section of Art. 3 of the Constitution of Maryland.



The fact is, there are a number of obvious objections to a federal tax which would tax everyone on their “income” by calculating the share using a fixed percentage.

1.

The first problem encountered with a flat tax on income is a working definition of “ taxable income”. The current definition of “taxable income” is both arbitrary and capriciously invented from day to day by those who hold political power.


2.

A tax calculated from “income” ___ which I imagine would include earnings realized by our productive members of society ___ is a tax under which government force is intentionally used in a fashion which forcefully penalizes and punishes our productive members of society for their productivity while it rewards the unproductive members of society by allowing them to escape from shouldering an equal burden in supporting the functions of our federal government.


3.

An income tax imposed as a general tax among the States violates the Great Compromise made during the framing of our Constitution which commanded representation in Congress, but only with proportional obligation!. The people of the states contributing the lion’s share under a “flat tax” would be denied their representation in Congress proportionately equal to the States contribution.

Socialists, “progressives”, and the friends of big government are great at spending other people’s money and always demand their one man one vote part of the Constitution when it comes to spending from the federal treasury. But when it comes time to fill the national treasury in a general tax among the states, as would be the case under the proposed “flat income tax”, they are relieved from the one vote one dollar part of the Constitution, which is also part of the apportionment formula and gave them their one man one vote.

Bottom line is, from where I stand I agree with our Constitution’s original tax plan which I outlined in POST NO. 8, and I do so because it was based upon principles which are as valid today as when our founders created our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN


JWK


The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion
3 Elliot’s 41

 

[Anachronism]

johnwk, the problems with your plan as I see it are two-fold.....

First of all, I don't believe we should be allowing foreign goods or services into the United States, so the idea that most of the Federal Revenue would come from import tarrifs and such would bring no monies in at all.

Secondly, the special tax system which you discussed requires a SET NUMBER for the Federal Governmental expenditures and we both know that this government will not operate in that sort of system for any single year, nevermind every year.

 

[Polk]

The tax code is fine. We are in more need of honest taxpayers. Treasury loses $250 billion each year.

So would you support increasing IRS funding so more audits can be conducted?

 

[Polk]

7% general sales tax on all retail transactions
+
7% income tax on individual income in excess of $3 million per year. EVERYONE earns their first $3 million tax free.

No corporate tax other than on what they spend, no bullshit loopholes or special treatment, no huge IRS bureaucracy to support collecting at the retail level because consumption taxes are collected at the wholesale level.

A consumption tax is inherently unfair to the lower incomes.
An income tax is inherently unfair to the upper incomes.

Simple taxes = fair taxes. A simple blend of consumption and income taxes is fair.

Why consumption tax is unfair to lower incomes?

Lower income means you have to spend a higher proportion of your income on goods and services. Therefore, higher effective tax rate.

 

[AVG-JOE]

7% general sales tax on all retail transactions
+
7% income tax on individual income in excess of $3 million per year. EVERYONE earns their first $3 million tax free.

No corporate tax other than on what they spend, no bullshit loopholes or special treatment, no huge IRS bureaucracy to support collecting at the retail level because consumption taxes are collected at the wholesale level.

A consumption tax is inherently unfair to the lower incomes.
An income tax is inherently unfair to the upper incomes.

Simple taxes = fair taxes. A simple blend of consumption and income taxes is fair.

It ain't enough money to run this place, Joe...

So start off with 10 + 10 on 3 and insist that congress curb their spending. The formula remains fair.

 

[johnwk]

johnwk, the problems with your plan as I see it are two-fold.....

First of all, I don't believe we should be allowing foreign goods or services into the United States, so the idea that most of the Federal Revenue would come from import tarrifs and such would bring no monies in at all.

Secondly, the special tax system which you discussed requires a SET NUMBER for the Federal Governmental expenditures and we both know that this government will not operate in that sort of system for any single year, nevermind every year.

My plan? I’m flattered, but what I have outlined is our Constitution’s original tax plan as our founding fathers intended it to operate.

As to your first stated “problem” with our Constitution’s original tax plan, you meant to write “objection”. That you object allowing foreign goods or services into the United States. Your objection is noted.


As to your second stated “problem”, that our Constitution’s original tax plan requires “a SET NUMBER for the Federal Governmental expenditures”, that is not so. I suggest you go to POST NO.8 and re-read the post.

Aside from that, I believe we may partially agree on imports, but only to a limited degree. Keep in mind that taxes at our water’s edge, which our founding fathers were very much in favor of utilizing to promote America’s best interests, were paid to our federal government at custom houses prior to the imports reaching our market place, and once paid, the imports were then allowed to advance to our market place.


In fact our founding fathers use of their power over trade and taxation was very much responsible for America becoming the economic marvel of the world, until our modern day Congress became infested with disloyal money hungry members who were, and are, more than willing to sell out America to foreign manufactures to personally profit in the process! When these members of Congress talk about “free trade”, they are talking about allowing foreign manufactures to freely flood our market with untaxed cheap inferior goods, while Congress then freely taxes America’s manufactures, industries and labor to fill its national treasury. That is what they mean when they talk about “free trade” ___ capitulating and selling out to international corporate giants who have no allegiance to American or any nation … their bottom line is what is important and not America’s best interests!


By contrast, instead of taxing our domestic manufactures, industries and labor to fill our national treasury, our founding fathers taxed at our water’s edge and had foreigners paying for the privilege of doing business on America soil! What a novel idea … an America first policy!

Madison sums up our trade policy as follows during the creation of our Nation‘s first revenue raising Act

“…a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.”

The Act went on to tax specifically chosen imported articles and not one dime was raised by taxing American domestic manufacturers, the working man’s wage, or the returns on invested capital ___ all of which contributed enormously to America becoming the economic marvel of the world! It should also be noted the Act was signed by George Washington on July 4th, 1789, as if to give England a second notice of America’s independence while exercising her power to tax foreign imports in order to fill our national treasury.

In addition to imposing a specific amount of tax on specifically chosen articles imported, our founding fathers imposed an across-the-board tax on imports which was higher for imports arriving in foreign owned foreign built vessels, and discounted the tax for imports arriving in American owned American built ships:

"...a discount of ten percent on all duties imposed by this Act shall be allowed on such goods, wares, and merchandise as shall be imported in vessels built in the United States, and wholly the property of a citizen or citizens thereof." see: An Act imposing duties on Tonnage July 20, 1789

This patriotic use of taxing at our water’s edge not only filled our national treasury, but gave American ship builders a hometown advantage and predictably resulted in America's ship building industry to flourish and America’s merchant marine to become the most powerful on the face of the planet. Unfortunately, last time I visited the docks in New York's Hell's Kitchen area, I was very saddened that I can no longer read the names on the docked ships as they all seem to now be foreign owned foreign built vessels...an irrefutable sign of America's decline traceable to the ravages of our international “free trade crowd” and the sellout of America’s sovereignty to the highest international bidders.

Bottom line is, taxing at our water’s edge as our Founding Fathers practiced paved the way for America to become the economic powerhouse of the world, and part of the proof is, by the year1835 America, still in its adolescent years, was manufacturing everything from steam powered ships, to clothing spun and woven by powered machinery and the national debt [which included part of the revolutionary war debt] was completely extinguished and Congress enjoyed a surplus in the federal treasury from tariffs, duties, and customs. And so, by an Act of Congress in June of 1836 all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and eventually a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall.

I have full confidence in our Constitution’s original tax plan because it was based upon principles which do not change with the passage of time, and it not only encouraged good government, but it was designed to protect a free market system on American soil!


JWK

America, we have a problem, we have been attacked from within! We are being destroyed from within by a group of DOMESTIC ENEMIES who have managed to seize political power and whose mission is in fact to bring “change” to America ___ the dismantling of our military defensive power; the allowance of our borders to be overrun by foreign invaders, the diluting of our election process by allowing ineligible persons to vote; the destruction of our manufacturing capabilities; the strangulation of our agricultural industry and ability to produce food under the guise of environmental necessity; the destruction of our nation’s health care delivery system, the looting of both our federal treasury and a mandatory retirement pension fund; the brainwashing of our nation’s children in government operated schools; the trashing of our nation’s traditions and moral values; the creation of an iron fisted control unauthorized by our written Constitution over America’s businesses and industries; the devaluation of our nation’s currency, and, the future enslavement of our children and grand children via unbridled debt and inflation, not to mention an iron fisted government which intends to rule their very lives!

 

[Ame®icano]

7% general sales tax on all retail transactions
+
7% income tax on individual income in excess of $3 million per year. EVERYONE earns their first $3 million tax free.

No corporate tax other than on what they spend, no bullshit loopholes or special treatment, no huge IRS bureaucracy to support collecting at the retail level because consumption taxes are collected at the wholesale level.

A consumption tax is inherently unfair to the lower incomes.
An income tax is inherently unfair to the upper incomes.

Simple taxes = fair taxes. A simple blend of consumption and income taxes is fair.

Why consumption tax is unfair to lower incomes?

Lower income means you have to spend a higher proportion of your income on goods and services. Therefore, higher effective tax rate.

Whats wrong with living within means? That's exactly a reason why we are in this shit today. Those who don't have, wants to have something they can't afford.

Cant afford a house, don't buy it. Can't drive Cadillac, well... drive FIAT.

 

[Polk]

Why consumption tax is unfair to lower incomes?

Lower income means you have to spend a higher proportion of your income on goods and services. Therefore, higher effective tax rate.

Whats wrong with living within means? That's exactly a reason why we are in this shit today. Those who don't have, wants to have something they can't afford.

Cant afford a house, don't buy it. Can't drive Cadillac, well... drive FIAT.

It's not about "living within means". It's about simply living. If someone makes 25k a year, pretty much all of their income goes to consumption, be in housing, food, utilities, car, whatever. That's not the case for most people making 200k a year. A large portion of their income will be saved.

 

[johnwk]

Lower income means you have to spend a higher proportion of your income on goods and services. Therefore, higher effective tax rate.

Whats wrong with living within means? That's exactly a reason why we are in this shit today. Those who don't have, wants to have something they can't afford.

Cant afford a house, don't buy it. Can't drive Cadillac, well... drive FIAT.

It's not about "living within means". It's about simply living. If someone makes 25k a year, pretty much all of their income goes to consumption, be in housing, food, utilities, car, whatever. That's not the case for most people making 200k a year. A large portion of their income will be saved.

And? Are you suggesting those earning 25K should be relieved from contributing to the support of government?


Why shouldn’t “the poor” contribute to financing government? Eh? As I wrote so many times before, there was a time in our country when even “the poor” and unemployed were expected and required to contribute their fair share in meeting the expenses of government. A wonderful example of this principle is exhibited in the public laws of Maryland’s Dorchester County, under which all able bodied residents of the county above twenty and under fifty years of age were “compelled to labor two days at least in every year in repairing the roads of said county, with the privilege, however, of furnishing a substitute or paying to the road supervisors seventy-five cents for each day such person may be summoned to labor, the money thus paid to be expended in repairing the roads.”

And the law went on to indicate that “anyone neglecting or refusing to perform such labor, or to provide a substitute, or to pay seventy-five cents per day for each and every day he may be summoned to work, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon trial and conviction before a Justice of the Peace, shall be fined seventy-five cents for each day`s delinquency and costs, and shall stand committed until the fine and costs are paid.”___ SEE SHORT vs. STATE OF MARYLAND, decided February 27th, 1895, upholding the law and not violating (a) the 13th or 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, or (b) the 40th section of Art. 3 of the Constitution of Maryland.

And yet, here we are today with countless factions seeking to manipulate taxation so as to relieve their identifiable group from its burden, while creating various other groups upon who the burden is placed. And it is well worth to note that in many instances, those who do not share in financing the government are actually rewarded and allowed to feed from the public trough. How sad and discouraging it is to hear the cries and well rehearsed arguments and excuses of those who today support and promote such tyranny. A tyranny under which the force of government is used to transfer the property of one group of citizens to another, which is carried out under the cloak of taxation. But keep in mind, there is no magic wand in the force of government which changes the definition of theft!

And exactly what was our founding father’s thinking in a matter in which the property of one is transferred to another using government force? Representative Giles, speaking before Congress February 3rd, 1792 sums it up as follows:

"Under a just and equal Government, every individual is entitled to protection in the enjoyment of the whole product of his labor, except such portion of it as is necessary to enable Government to protect the rest; this is given only in consideration of the protection offered. In every bounty, exclusive right, or monopoly, Government violates the stipulation on her part; for, by such a regulation, the product of one man's labor is transferred to the use and enjoyment of another. The exercise of such a right on the part of Government can be justified on no other principle, than that the whole product of the labor or every individual is the real property of Government, and may be distributed among the several parts of the community by government discretion; such a supposition would directly involve the idea, that every individual in the community is merely a slave and bondsman to Government, who, although he may labor, is not to expect protection in the product of his labor. An authority given to any Government to exercise such a principle, would lead to a complete system of tyranny."

I see nothing wrong in taxing consumption as our founders intended, and they intended to not tax the necessities of life when selecting articles to be taxed.

Hamilton explains taxing consumption in the following manner, they:

may be compared to a fluid, which will in time find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be by his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his own resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions

"It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”___ Federalist No 21

If the necessities of life are not taxed as our founders intended, then taxes upon articles of consumption are not oppressive upon “the poor“.

Our founding fathers were spot on to require the federal government to raise its necessary revenue by taxing first at our water’s edge, and if necessary then laying excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption, preferably articles of luxury, and if an emergency should arise, such as war, then, and only then, the use of the apportioned tax among the states is very appropriate as it turns out to be an equal per capita tax if laid directly upon the people.


JWK



Our tyrants in Washington force the productive to pay taxes so they can spread their wealth, but they do not force their beloved 40 % who pay no income taxes to work for the taxes they get.

 

[Anachronism]

My plan? I’m flattered, but what I have outlined is our Constitution’s original tax plan as our founding fathers intended it to operate.

It's the plan you're supporting, so it is effectively your plan as well, regardless of who originally came up with it.

As to your first stated “problem” with our Constitution’s original tax plan, you meant to write “objection”. That you object allowing foreign goods or services into the United States. Your objection is noted.

Good. Now we just need to put that objection into practice and close off the borders completely. No human traffic, no electronic traffic, no business traffic.

As to your second stated “problem”, that our Constitution’s original tax plan requires “a SET NUMBER for the Federal Governmental expenditures”, that is not so. I suggest you go to POST NO.8 and re-read the post.

I've read the post three or four times. To be able to set a number from which to run the mathematical equations, one has to have a finite number to work from. Personally, I'm in favor of a system that takes estimated flat tax revenue for the year, reduces that number by ten percent and makes that a HARD CAP number on what the Federal Government can spend; by Constitutional Amendment. That additional 10% would be used to pay off debt, and once that's gone be put into a "War Chest" to fund future defensive military actions against foreign entitites that try to stick their nose into America's business. Nukes and never gas don't come cheaply, you know.

side from that, I believe we may partially agree on imports, but only to a limited degree. Keep in mind that taxes at our water’s edge, which our founding fathers were very much in favor of utilizing to promote America’s best interests, were paid to our federal government at custom houses prior to the imports reaching our market place, and once paid, the imports were then allowed to advance to our market place.

I'm aware of how the system worked. If one were to assume that in the current business climate, where American products are not selling as well here or overseas as foreign ones are here, that such a policy would not decimate what small amount of exports we currently have, it might be an interseting idea. However, since we can't get Americans to BUY American products, I don't see that it would do anything other than further abuse the American economy by raising the price of all these imported foreign goods.

In fact our founding fathers use of their power over trade and taxation was very much responsible for America becoming the economic marvel of the world, until our modern day Congress became infested with disloyal money hungry members who were, and are, more than willing to sell out America to foreign manufactures to personally profit in the process! When these members of Congress talk about “free trade”, they are talking about allowing foreign manufactures to freely flood our market with untaxed cheap inferior goods, while Congress then freely taxes America’s manufactures, industries and labor to fill its national treasury. That is what they mean when they talk about “free trade” ___ capitulating and selling out to international corporate giants who have no allegiance to American or any nation … their bottom line is what is important and not America’s best interests!

I'm not a fan of international "free trade". I'm an Isolationist, a Nationalist, and a Protectionist. I am a fan of forcing companies that want to do business here in the US to be based here, to make their products here with American labor, and to keep the money from said business here in the United States rater than allowing it to leave the country.

By contrast, instead of taxing our domestic manufactures, industries and labor to fill our national treasury, our founding fathers taxed at our water’s edge and had foreigners paying for the privilege of doing business on America soil! What a novel idea … an America first policy!

I'm all for America First. I'm also for America ONLY. That seems to be the difference between the two of us. Tsunami in Bangladesh.... So sorry to hear about your loss. Best of luck to you. War in the Congo.... good luck with that folks. Famine in Korea.... hope that works out for you folks.

 

[johnwk]

My plan? I’m flattered, but what I have outlined is our Constitution’s original tax plan as our founding fathers intended it to operate.

It's the plan you're supporting, so it is effectively your plan as well, regardless of who originally came up with it.

As I have previously written, I’m flattered you would suggest our Constitution’s original tax plan is my creation. But I do wonder why you would press the issue by asserting our Constitution’s original tax plan is “effectively’ my plan since I support it.

As to your first stated “problem” with our Constitution’s original tax plan, you meant to write “objection”. That you object allowing foreign goods or services into the United States. Your objection is noted.

Good. Now we just need to put that objection into practice and close off the borders completely. No human traffic, no electronic traffic, no business traffic.

I will not comment further on your “objection“.

As to your second stated “problem”, that our Constitution’s original tax plan requires “a SET NUMBER for the Federal Governmental expenditures”, that is not so. I suggest you go to POST NO.8 and re-read the post.

I've read the post three or four times. To be able to set a number from which to run the mathematical equations, one has to have a finite number to work from.

Keep in mind that Congress was intended to finance its functions from imposts, duties, and excise taxes. As to the mathematical equation you mention which is tied to the apportioned tax among the States, that is only to be used in emergencies and to raise a specific sum of revenue. Our Constitution’s fair share formula is really not that hard to fathom. If you understand how each State’s number of Representatives are determined, then you should have no trouble figuring each State’s share of the apportioned tax which is to be used to raise a specific sum of revenue:

States’ population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE

Total U.S. Population

The idea expressed in words would be Representation with proportional obligation, and idea which socialists, progressives and the friends of big government fear with a passion, and why they worked so hard to get the 16th Amendment adopted.

aside from that, I believe we may partially agree on imports, but only to a limited degree. Keep in mind that taxes at our water’s edge, which our founding fathers were very much in favor of utilizing to promote America’s best interests, were paid to our federal government at custom houses prior to the imports reaching our market place, and once paid, the imports were then allowed to advance to our market place.

I'm aware of how the system worked. If one were to assume that in the current business climate, where American products are not selling as well here or overseas as foreign ones are here, that such a policy would not decimate what small amount of exports we currently have, it might be an interseting idea. However, since we can't get Americans to BUY American products, I don't see that it would do anything other than further abuse the American economy by raising the price of all these imported foreign goods.

What you may have missed is, when Congress is forced to raise its revenue from taxes imposed upon judiciously selected articles of consumption, this not only allows the market place to determine the allowable limit of tax on each article selected, but it is within Congress’ own interest to encourage a healthy and vibrant economy on American soil which in turn leads to a productive consumption of goods, and thus an abundant flow of revenue into the federal treasury.

In fact our founding fathers use of their power over trade and taxation was very much responsible for America becoming the economic marvel of the world, until our modern day Congress became infested with disloyal money hungry members who were, and are, more than willing to sell out America to foreign manufactures to personally profit in the process! When these members of Congress talk about “free trade”, they are talking about allowing foreign manufactures to freely flood our market with untaxed cheap inferior goods, while Congress then freely taxes America’s manufactures, industries and labor to fill its national treasury. That is what they mean when they talk about “free trade” ___ capitulating and selling out to international corporate giants who have no allegiance to American or any nation … their bottom line is what is important and not America’s best interests!

I'm not a fan of international "free trade". I'm an Isolationist, a Nationalist, and a Protectionist. I am a fan of forcing companies that want to do business here in the US to be based here, to make their products here with American labor, and to keep the money from said business here in the United States rater than allowing it to leave the country.

Aside from the “Isolationist, a Nationalist, and a Protectionist” we are pretty much in agreement.

By contrast, instead of taxing our domestic manufactures, industries and labor to fill our national treasury, our founding fathers taxed at our water’s edge and had foreigners paying for the privilege of doing business on America soil! What a novel idea … an America first policy!

I'm all for America First. I'm also for America ONLY. That seems to be the difference between the two of us.

It sure does!

JWK


“…a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.”___ Madison, during the creation of our Nation’s first revenue raising Act

 

[Skynet]

you need to determine what is "fair" when it comes to taxes. does that mean everyone pays an equal percentage of their income? or does that mean everyone pays the exact same dollar amount?

the fed needs direct tax revenue to operate, it can not come from the states collecting all the taxes and the paying the fed directly, that would change the make up of the county and give all of the power back to the states with the fed becoming extremely weak. this would in essence take us back to the civil war era, where the south wanted the power to rest with the states while the north had a strong central government. (slavery wasnt the only issue of the civil war if you know your history)

the issue with the tax code as it currently sits is that it is bloated with loop holes and exemptions. i see 2 problems with this, the obvious being those with money can pay someone to help exploit those holes (hence why many large profitable corporations and wealthy individuals pay little to no taxes) and 2) the fed never really know what the tax revenues will be.

i think putting everyone on a flat percentage on all income, including investment income (both corporate and individual) is the fairest way. that number is obviously debatable. (i think though around 15-20% total is a fair number to all) this eliminates the idea of people not paying their share. this number can then be split between the states and the fed, say if its 20% then 14% to the fed and 6% to the state. although debatable as the fed currently supplies more services than states.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Lower income means you have to spend a higher proportion of your income on goods and services. Therefore, higher effective tax rate.

Whats wrong with living within means? That's exactly a reason why we are in this shit today. Those who don't have, wants to have something they can't afford.

Cant afford a house, don't buy it. Can't drive Cadillac, well... drive FIAT.

It's not about "living within means". It's about simply living. If someone makes 25k a year, pretty much all of their income goes to consumption, be in housing, food, utilities, car, whatever. That's not the case for most people making 200k a year. A large portion of their income will be saved.

How fucking dumb and uneducated must one be to only make $25K?

 

[johnwk]

you need to determine what is "fair" when it comes to taxes. does that mean everyone pays an equal percentage of their income? or does that mean everyone pays the exact same dollar amount?

the fed needs direct tax revenue to operate, it can not come from the states collecting all the taxes and the paying the fed directly, that would change the make up of the county and give all of the power back to the states with the fed becoming extremely weak. this would in essence take us back to the civil war era, where the south wanted the power to rest with the states while the north had a strong central government. (slavery wasnt the only issue of the civil war if you know your history)

the issue with the tax code as it currently sits is that it is bloated with loop holes and exemptions. i see 2 problems with this, the obvious being those with money can pay someone to help exploit those holes (hence why many large profitable corporations and wealthy individuals pay little to no taxes) and 2) the fed never really know what the tax revenues will be.

i think putting everyone on a flat percentage on all income, including investment income (both corporate and individual) is the fairest way. that number is obviously debatable. (i think though around 15-20% total is a fair number to all) this eliminates the idea of people not paying their share. this number can then be split between the states and the fed, say if its 20% then 14% to the fed and 6% to the state. although debatable as the fed currently supplies more services than states.

I take it you have not read the thread before posting your suggestion. If you have then you have not offered a response to some specific objections to your proposal. See:POST NO.26

Everyone does not pay the same under a flat tax on income. The most productive members of society are gouged while those who sit on their fat behinds and are not gainfully employed pay squat. But there was a time in our country when the idea of everyone paying the same was understood and practiced!

A wonderful example of this principle is exhibited in the public laws of Maryland’s Dorchester County, under which all able bodied residents of the county above twenty and under fifty years of age were “compelled to labor two days at least in every year in repairing the roads of said county, with the privilege, however, of furnishing a substitute or paying to the road supervisors seventy-five cents for each day such person may be summoned to labor, the money thus paid to be expended in repairing the roads.”

And the law went on to indicate that “anyone neglecting or refusing to perform such labor, or to provide a substitute, or to pay seventy-five cents per day for each and every day he may be summoned to work, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon trial and conviction before a Justice of the Peace, shall be fined seventy-five cents for each day`s delinquency and costs, and shall stand committed until the fine and costs are paid.”___ SEE SHORT vs. STATE OF MARYLAND, decided February 27th, 1895, upholding the law and not violating (a) the 13th or 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, or (b) the 40th section of Art. 3 of the Constitution of Maryland.



The fact is, there are a number of obvious objections to a federal tax which would tax everyone on their “income” by calculating the share using a fixed percentage.

1.

The first problem encountered with a flat tax on income is a working definition of “ taxable income”. The current definition of “taxable income” is both arbitrary and capriciously invented from day to day by those who hold political power.


2.

A tax calculated from “income” ___ which I imagine would include earnings realized by our productive members of society ___ is a tax under which government force is intentionally used in a fashion which forcefully penalizes and punishes our productive members of society for their productivity while it rewards the unproductive members of society by allowing them to escape from shouldering an equal burden in supporting the functions of our federal government.


3.

An income tax imposed as a general tax among the States violates the Great Compromise made during the framing of our Constitution which commanded representation in Congress, but only with proportional obligation!. The people of the states contributing the lion’s share under a “flat tax” would be denied their representation in Congress proportionately equal to the States contribution.

Socialists, “progressives”, and the friends of big government are great at spending other people’s money and always demand their one man one vote part of the Constitution when it comes to spending from the federal treasury. But when it comes time to fill the national treasury in a general tax among the states, as would be the case under the proposed “flat income tax”, they are relieved from the one vote one dollar part of the Constitution, which is also part of the apportionment formula and gave them their one man one vote.

Bottom line is, from where I stand I agree with our Constitution’s original tax plan which I outlined in POST NO. 8, and I do so because it was based upon principles which are as valid today as when our founders created our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN


JWK


The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion
3 Elliot’s 41

 

[Polk]

Whats wrong with living within means? That's exactly a reason why we are in this shit today. Those who don't have, wants to have something they can't afford.

Cant afford a house, don't buy it. Can't drive Cadillac, well... drive FIAT.

It's not about "living within means". It's about simply living. If someone makes 25k a year, pretty much all of their income goes to consumption, be in housing, food, utilities, car, whatever. That's not the case for most people making 200k a year. A large portion of their income will be saved.

How fucking dumb and uneducated must one be to only make $25K?

As of the most recent year I have numbers for (2006), 42% of Americans over the age of 25 make 25k a year or less.