Abolish the 16th Amendment and return power to the people

[sealybobo]

Sen Martinez must be looking out for the hispanic vote. So he's allowing illegals in and that also makes the corporations happy and the rich people in florida don't care.

Yea, I can see how thats a toughy.

Which is exactly why they should not be allowed to make a permanent camp in Washington. Special interests find their way into the pockets of these people and "we the people" get screwed.

Immie

How about the AIPCA, or whatever that Israeli lobby group is called. Our foreign policy is being dictated by sons of Israel, not American Jews who just care about their homeland. I thnk they care more about israel.

Just like the gun lobby cares more about their profits than citizens.

That's why we have government. To referee.

 

[auditor0007]

I am not for abolishing the ability of the government to collect income taxes... we're not going to be able to fund our government on just tariffs, etc

But I am ALL for laws that change and simplify HOW taxes are collected.. ensuring a completely equal % burden on all tax collection.... taking the tax code to be centered around equal treatment and making it so that we do not need such a huge sized government agency that is responsible for tax collection

Without a doubt, the government cannot fund itself without an income tax. And I don't buy into the idea of a national sales tax either. Tax collection should be simple and across the board, one rate for everyone on all net earnings, with a standard deduction for everyone. Once that deduction is met, everything should be taxed at the same rate. With the standard deduction, it still would be a progressive tax as the wealthier would pay a much bigger portion of their total income to taxes, but the rate would be the same for everyone.

 

[Immanuel]

Sen Martinez must be looking out for the hispanic vote. So he's allowing illegals in and that also makes the corporations happy and the rich people in florida don't care.

Yea, I can see how thats a toughy.

Which is exactly why they should not be allowed to make a permanent camp in Washington. Special interests find their way into the pockets of these people and "we the people" get screwed.

Immie

How about the AIPCA, or whatever that Israeli lobby group is called. Our foreign policy is being dictated by sons of Israel, not American Jews who just care about their homeland. I thnk they care more about israel.

Just like the gun lobby cares more about their profits than citizens.

That's why we have government. To referee.

The government does not referee. Those who govern... govern for those who will fill their coffers the fastest.

Immie

 

[Agnapostate]

The jury is out if that is the best way to fund the government. However it is a stated necessity of a "socialist" government. (Don't hyperventilate, I'm not saying we have a socialist government, I'm saying a progressive income tax is A "feature" of a socialist government. It's not the ONLY feature.)

That's mere economic fallacy. Considering the apparently perpetually ignored role of the diminishing rate of marginal utility and the role of welfare in maintaining the physical efficiency of the workforce, progressive taxation is a component in the stabilization of capitalism, and is thus opposed to socialism.

 

[Tech_Esq]

The jury is out if that is the best way to fund the government. However it is a stated necessity of a "socialist" government. (Don't hyperventilate, I'm not saying we have a socialist government, I'm saying a progressive income tax is A "feature" of a socialist government. It's not the ONLY feature.)

That's mere economic fallacy. Considering the apparently perpetually ignored role of the diminishing rate of marginal utility and the role of welfare in maintaining the physical efficiency of the workforce, progressive taxation is a component in the stabilization of capitalism, and is thus opposed to socialism.

Well, you may think that if you wish, but Karl Marx says differently. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx says the following relating to the characteristics of the "advanced" (ie socialist) state:

Nevertheless in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.

In deciding whom to believe in describing the socialist system, you or Marx, I believe Marx.

 

[editec]

For those worried about funding the government, the income tax would not be necessary for a government that actually followed the Constitution.

I'd like to see those numbers.

 

[sealybobo]

For those worried about funding the government, the income tax would not be necessary for a government that actually followed the Constitution.

I'd like to see those numbers.

Without the central bank siphoning off the wealth of our nation, there would be no need for a personal income tax.

Why An Income Tax is NOT Necessary to Fund the U.S. Government

See, you are falling for that bullshit pie chart they show us where so much goes to defense, so much goes to general government, etc. It's bullshit: The Federal Pie Chart

 

[Iriemon]

For those worried about funding the government, the income tax would not be necessary for a government that actually followed the Constitution.

I'd like to see those numbers.

Without the central bank siphoning off the wealth of our nation, there would be no need for a personal income tax.

Why An Income Tax is NOT Necessary to Fund the U.S. Government

See, you are falling for that bullshit pie chart they show us where so much goes to defense, so much goes to general government, etc. It's bullshit: The Federal Pie Chart

Utter nonsense. That article is so full of false statements that its not worthy of being used for bird cage liner.

 

[sealybobo]

For those worried about funding the government, the income tax would not be necessary for a government that actually followed the Constitution.

I'd like to see those numbers.

Remember, the same thieves that are stealing our money via tarp funds, are the same ones that own/run the federal reserve.

They act like they are different, but they are all one and the same. All they did was consolidate power and take $700 billion more from us. Not to mention put all the losses on the government.

Are we all really this stupid that we will continue to let them control/run our country? We bailed them out and now they want to jack up our credit card interest so they can "recoup" the losses? What fucking losses?

Same people predatory lending us mortgages and credit cards.

Same ones lobbying for deregulations.

Same ones that got Bush elected.

And people think Government is more of a problem than these bankers? Only if we let the politicians cater to them instead of us. So if you vote GOP, you are voting for the bankers.

And, in Editec's defense, if we don't tell the Dems to stop catering to them, they will continue to bend over for them too.

But the difference between dems and GOP is that the GOP voters actually bend over for the bankers too. It isn't just the party, it's also their constituents.

So Editec. Maybe there is very little difference between the parties, but you must admit, there is a world of difference between you and right wing republicans.

 

[MaggieMae]

I can't believe sealybobo is arguing for abolishing the income tax. How would Obama fund all these pet projects, which you argue were necessary?

I am against abolishing the income tax. Simplifying it is another story. We have to have a way to fund our government, but not to the extent so that the government can control every aspect of our lives.

One way to improve the income tax methodology would be to completely eliminate all subsidies, but of course that wouldn't just include items like Earned Income Tax Credit, it would mean removing the mortgage interest and sale tax deductions which would affect the more affluent far more than the middle-class and lower, who almost always use the standard deductions.

So...we can see where a battle royal would ensue even if there's an attempt to tweak the Tax Code, let alone remove a Constitutional Amendment entirely.

 

[sealybobo]

I'd like to see those numbers.

Without the central bank siphoning off the wealth of our nation, there would be no need for a personal income tax.

Why An Income Tax is NOT Necessary to Fund the U.S. Government

See, you are falling for that bullshit pie chart they show us where so much goes to defense, so much goes to general government, etc. It's bullshit: The Federal Pie Chart

Utter nonsense. That article is so full of false statements that its not worthy of being used for bird cage liner.

I didn't read thru the whole thing.

These two things are true:

With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Government contributions to transfer payments.

In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their government."

 

[MaggieMae]

I can't believe sealybobo is arguing for abolishing the income tax. How would Obama fund all these pet projects, which you argue were necessary?

I am against abolishing the income tax. Simplifying it is another story. We have to have a way to fund our government, but not to the extent so that the government can control every aspect of our lives.

Ever hear of PayGo? If you want a bridge, you levy a tax for that bridge. And when the bridge is built, that tax is over/finished!

But because you and way too many people don't get that, the bankers continue to own/control our country.

“Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who
makes her laws” Mayer Amschel Rothschild quotes

Your example isn't PAYGO. It would be described as an earmark not a special tax, if it involves federal spending on one specific bridge. PAYGO requires new proposals must be offset with savings derived from existing funds elsewhere.

 

[Iriemon]

Without the central bank siphoning off the wealth of our nation, there would be no need for a personal income tax.

Why An Income Tax is NOT Necessary to Fund the U.S. Government

See, you are falling for that bullshit pie chart they show us where so much goes to defense, so much goes to general government, etc. It's bullshit: The Federal Pie Chart

Utter nonsense. That article is so full of false statements that its not worthy of being used for bird cage liner.

I didn't read thru the whole thing.

These two things are true:

With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Government contributions to transfer payments.

In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their government."

Sealy, that is just nonsense too.

I don't know what you mean by "two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected" so I can't respond to that.

But 100% of what is collected is not "absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Government contributions to transfer payments."

In FY2008 the Govt collected about $2.5 trillion in tax revenues.

Interest on the debt was $451 billion last year.

Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

That includes interest on the "debt owed to the public" (ie private holders of debt) and interest on debt owed for intragovernment transfers (ie loans from the SS trust).

The Govt also earns interest on loans outstanding. Thus, in 2008, the net interest paid was 249 billion. You can see that figure here, table F-5: http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/HistoricalMar09.xls

I agree that the interest obligation is a growing problem and you could even argue that the bulk of Obama's current deficits are really caused by interest we owe on the Republican debt to this point.

But the statment that 100% of what is collected is not "absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Government contributions to transfer payments" is simply incorrect, as is the statement, "In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their government."

 

[sealybobo]

Utter nonsense. That article is so full of false statements that its not worthy of being used for bird cage liner.

I didn't read thru the whole thing.

These two things are true:

With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Government contributions to transfer payments.

In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their government."

Sealy, that is just nonsense too.

I don't know what you mean by "two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected" so I can't respond to that.

But 100% of what is collected is not "absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Government contributions to transfer payments."

In FY2008 the Govt collected about $2.5 trillion in tax revenues.

Interest on the debt was $451 billion last year.

Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

That includes interest on the "debt owed to the public" (ie private holders of debt) and interest on debt owed for intragovernment transfers (ie loans from the SS trust).

The Govt also earns interest on loans outstanding. Thus, in 2008, the net interest paid was 249 billion. You can see that figure here, table F-5: http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/HistoricalMar09.xls

I agree that the interest obligation is a growing problem and you could even argue that the bulk of Obama's current deficits are really caused by interest we owe on the Republican debt to this point.

But the statment that 100% of what is collected is not "absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Government contributions to transfer payments" is simply incorrect, as is the statement, "In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their government."

Maybe I heard it wrong. Or, maybe what I heard was wrong. Numbers are not my thing.

But one thing is for sure, the debt just keeps getting bigger and bigger.

 

[sealybobo]

I can't believe sealybobo is arguing for abolishing the income tax. How would Obama fund all these pet projects, which you argue were necessary?

I am against abolishing the income tax. Simplifying it is another story. We have to have a way to fund our government, but not to the extent so that the government can control every aspect of our lives.

Ever hear of PayGo? If you want a bridge, you levy a tax for that bridge. And when the bridge is built, that tax is over/finished!

But because you and way too many people don't get that, the bankers continue to own/control our country.

“Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who
makes her laws” Mayer Amschel Rothschild quotes

Your example isn't PAYGO. It would be described as an earmark not a special tax, if it involves federal spending on one specific bridge. PAYGO requires new proposals must be offset with savings derived from existing funds elsewhere.

You and Iremon trying to make me look bad?

 

[Agnapostate]

Well, you may think that if you wish, but Karl Marx says differently. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx says the following relating to the characteristics of the "advanced" (ie socialist) state:

Nevertheless in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.

In deciding whom to believe in describing the socialist system, you or Marx, I believe Marx.

I can understand why this would be a popular excerpt on rightist websites, but unfortunately, there are several problems.

Firstly, the term "income tax" is a mistranslation; Marx uses the term "steuer," which merely meant "tax" or "taxation," and does not specify an income tax.

Secondly, I didn't claim that progressive taxation couldn't be an element of "socialism"; I merely claimed that taxation as currently used was just as effectively a stabilizer component of capitalism, and considering the role of the diminishing rate of marginal utility (which always seems to be neglected by rightists on Internet forums; did Hazlitt not cover it?), and the complementary role of welfare in maintaining the physical efficiency of the workforce, progressive taxation functions as an especially beneficial agent of stabilization.

Thirdly, your comment about "the socialist system" indicates that you believe that the only form of socialism that exists is Marxism, which is similarly fallacious. For instance, we could consider anarchists like Mikhail Bakunin, who find their groundings in a form of libertarian socialism separate from Marxism. As he writes in his 1871 manuscript Statism and Anarchy:

We have already expressed several times our deep aversion to the theory of Lassalle and Marx, which recommends to the workers, if not as a final ideal at least as the next immediate goal, the founding of a people’s state, which according to their interpretation will be nothing but “the proletariat elevated to the status of the governing class.”

It's also necessary to consider market socialists who oppose an ultimate establishment of any communist economic framework and prefer to retain wages and competitive enterprise, though they favor some form of collectivization of the means of production.

 

[Iriemon]

I didn't read thru the whole thing.

These two things are true:

With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Government contributions to transfer payments.

In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their government."

Sealy, that is just nonsense too.

I don't know what you mean by "two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected" so I can't respond to that.

But 100% of what is collected is not "absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Government contributions to transfer payments."

In FY2008 the Govt collected about $2.5 trillion in tax revenues.

Interest on the debt was $451 billion last year.

Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

That includes interest on the "debt owed to the public" (ie private holders of debt) and interest on debt owed for intragovernment transfers (ie loans from the SS trust).

The Govt also earns interest on loans outstanding. Thus, in 2008, the net interest paid was 249 billion. You can see that figure here, table F-5: http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/HistoricalMar09.xls

I agree that the interest obligation is a growing problem and you could even argue that the bulk of Obama's current deficits are really caused by interest we owe on the Republican debt to this point.

But the statment that 100% of what is collected is not "absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Government contributions to transfer payments" is simply incorrect, as is the statement, "In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their government."

Maybe I heard it wrong. Or, maybe what I heard was wrong. Numbers are not my thing.

But one thing is for sure, the debt just keeps getting bigger and bigger.

Well that is certainly a statement I can agree with.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Well, you may think that if you wish, but Karl Marx says differently. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx says the following relating to the characteristics of the "advanced" (ie socialist) state:

Nevertheless in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.

In deciding whom to believe in describing the socialist system, you or Marx, I believe Marx.

I can understand why this would be a popular excerpt on rightist websites, but unfortunately, there are several problems.

Firstly, the term "income tax" is a mistranslation; Marx uses the term "steuer," which merely meant "tax" or "taxation," and does not specify an income tax.

Secondly, I didn't claim that progressive taxation couldn't be an element of "socialism"; I merely claimed that taxation as currently used was just as effectively a stabilizer component of capitalism, and considering the role of the diminishing rate of marginal utility (which always seems to be neglected by rightists on Internet forums; did Hazlitt not cover it?), and the complementary role of welfare in maintaining the physical efficiency of the workforce, progressive taxation functions as an especially beneficial agent of stabilization.

Thirdly, your comment about "the socialist system" indicates that you believe that the only form of socialism that exists is Marxism, which is similarly fallacious. For instance, we could consider anarchists like Mikhail Bakunin, who find their groundings in a form of libertarian socialism separate from Marxism. As he writes in his 1871 manuscript Statism and Anarchy:

We have already expressed several times our deep aversion to the theory of Lassalle and Marx, which recommends to the workers, if not as a final ideal at least as the next immediate goal, the founding of a people’s state, which according to their interpretation will be nothing but “the proletariat elevated to the status of the governing class.”

It's also necessary to consider market socialists who oppose an ultimate establishment of any communist economic framework and prefer to retain wages and competitive enterprise, though they favor some form of collectivization of the means of production.

I congratulate you sir, you have the most intellectual deflections I've seen. Nearly as comprehensible as Thorsten Veblen. However, it is, at bottom, a deflection.

I don't know about what might be on right wing blogs. I got my quote from here:
The Communist Manifesto

The reason I said you are deflecting is because my original post said only that a progressive income tax was A feature of a socialist system. I went on to say that it does not mean we have a socialist system, but that it was feature of one.

You said that was a "mere fallacy." So actually you did claim that it couldn't be a part of the system because that's all I claimed it was. So despite all the smoke you blow about umpteen different varieties of socialism that need to be considered, in final analysis, I was right in what I said.

Thanks for playing though.

 

[Agnapostate]

I congratulate you sir, you have the most intellectual deflections I've seen. Nearly as comprehensible as Thorsten Veblen. However, it is, at bottom, a deflection.

I don't know about what might be on right wing blogs. I got my quote from here:
The Communist Manifesto

The reason I said you are deflecting is because my original post said only that a progressive income tax was A feature of a socialist system. I went on to say that it does not mean we have a socialist system, but that it was feature of one.

You said that was a "mere fallacy." So actually you did claim that it couldn't be a part of the system because that's all I claimed it was. So despite all the smoke you blow about umpteen different varieties of socialism that need to be considered, in final analysis, I was right in what I said.

Thanks for playing though.

Mention of Thorstein Veblen notwithstanding, your post still remains fundamentally wrong. Progressive taxation as currently utilized serves a specific role of maintaining capitalist economic stability.

 

[MaggieMae]

Well, you may think that if you wish, but Karl Marx says differently. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx says the following relating to the characteristics of the "advanced" (ie socialist) state:

Nevertheless in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.

In deciding whom to believe in describing the socialist system, you or Marx, I believe Marx.

I can understand why this would be a popular excerpt on rightist websites, but unfortunately, there are several problems.

Firstly, the term "income tax" is a mistranslation; Marx uses the term "steuer," which merely meant "tax" or "taxation," and does not specify an income tax.

Secondly, I didn't claim that progressive taxation couldn't be an element of "socialism"; I merely claimed that taxation as currently used was just as effectively a stabilizer component of capitalism, and considering the role of the diminishing rate of marginal utility (which always seems to be neglected by rightists on Internet forums; did Hazlitt not cover it?), and the complementary role of welfare in maintaining the physical efficiency of the workforce, progressive taxation functions as an especially beneficial agent of stabilization.

Thirdly, your comment about "the socialist system" indicates that you believe that the only form of socialism that exists is Marxism, which is similarly fallacious. For instance, we could consider anarchists like Mikhail Bakunin, who find their groundings in a form of libertarian socialism separate from Marxism. As he writes in his 1871 manuscript Statism and Anarchy:

We have already expressed several times our deep aversion to the theory of Lassalle and Marx, which recommends to the workers, if not as a final ideal at least as the next immediate goal, the founding of a people’s state, which according to their interpretation will be nothing but “the proletariat elevated to the status of the governing class.”

It's also necessary to consider market socialists who oppose an ultimate establishment of any communist economic framework and prefer to retain wages and competitive enterprise, though they favor some form of collectivization of the means of production.

Those who tend to scream SOCIALISM!! the loudest are those who know the least about the history of Socialism and how today's version, even in practicing European countries, barely resembles Marxism. The word has simply become bastardized in order to apply it to the shift of our country from far right to left--and not even far left. It's used to instill fear.

If the Obama Administration intended to install Socialism, they would have gone ahead and nationalized the overleveraged banks, leaving the private sector in the dust. Instead, by letting the failed banks borrow government money (aka bailouts) and figure out a way to rid themselves of their own toxic assets, private investors will see that as a way to make some money, and eventually the government will get some of its money back. To simply allow the potentially insolvent banks to fail, as some have suggested, would have meant credit/debt would reach well over 200% of GDP according to the numbers experts, which would allow everything to collapse. If all Obama wanted was socialism, he wouldn't care. He'd just send everybody checks or wipe their debt clean with a signature.