[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[PMZ]

None of which entitled you to the money any other individual earns. We had roads before the income tax. We'd be fine without the redistribution of wealth.

Now that the wealthy with their bought and payed for political party have had a decade of redistributing wealth up, and the wealthy are in possession of all but the 15% of it shared by 80% of us, they think that they are entitled to what they stole from the middle class.

So they say "We'd be fine without the redistribution of wealth."

They would, the country won't be. There is no doubt that the efforts of the wealthy to have it all are destructive to the country. No question that their successful wealth redistribution efforts have put the entire country at risk.

Fortunately we know how to restore what works. And we will.

Restore what works? Also I'm far from wealthy. What's being restored that works so well? Taking my money?

Return to the country democracticly run by the majority, who are middle class wealth creating workers.

 

[johnwk]

Of course the exception to Mr Jefferson's words are the Ammendments since then, including our move from his Plutocracy to our Democracy.

Exception? Jefferson's words express the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction. And with regard to your comment about "our Democracy", the fact is, we have a constitutionally limited "Republican Form of Government" guaranteed under Article 4, Section 4 of our Constitution.

And just what did our Founding Fathers think of “democracy”? Madison, in Federalist No. 10 says in reference to “democracy” they



…have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

And during the Convention which framed our federal Constitution, Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman, delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut, urged the Convention to create a system which would eliminate "the evils we experience," saying that those "evils . . .flow from the excess of democracy..."

And, then there was John Adams, a principle force in the American Revolutionary period who also pointed out "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel..."

And Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and favoring the new Constitution as opposed to democracy declared: " Democracy never lasts long” . . . "It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.". . . "There was never a democracy that ‘did not commit suicide.’"


And during the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."

And then there was Benjamin Franklin, who informed a crowd when exiting the Convention as to what system of government they created, he responded by saying "A republic, if you can keep it."

Democracy, or majority rule vote, as the Founding Fathers well knew, whether that majority rule is practiced by the people or by elected representatives, if not restrained by specific limitations and particular guarantees in which the unalienable rights of mankind are put beyond the reach of political majorities, have proven throughout history to eventually result in nothing less than an unbridled mob rule system susceptible to the wants and passions of a political majority imposing its will upon those who may be outvoted, and would result in the subjugation of unalienable rights, and especially rights associated with property ownership and liberty [witness the recent Kelo case]. And so, our Founding Fathers gave us a constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government, guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.




JWK



The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

Thus the importance of the Ammendments that took the founders aristocracy of wealthy white males, to a full representative democracy.

As long as we avoid having a monarch we will remain a republic.

Your post makes no sense to me. You will have to explain your assertions in clear language.


JWK

 

[johnwk]

If a Direct tax is defined as Pinckney did (as it should be). I would not have much of a problem applying apportionment.

That being said I see an income tax as an indirect tax and so could still support one, as indirect taxes need no apportionment.

POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO is one of the many idiotic decisions made by the supreme court, and is defunct now anyway.

And, you still have not answered the question.

I happen to support our Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted. JWK

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

I answered the question....all u gotta do is read with a little comprehension.

I will not presume to know what you intended to express. I take it that you do not want to answer the question, and that's ok by me. The question was Do you support the constitutional requirement that No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken?


JWK


The liberty to fail or succeed at one’s own hand is a PROGRESSIVE‘S nightmare and not the American Dream

 

[uhkilleez]

With all due respect, let me speculate that while you were in college you certainly did not study our Constitution’s original tax plan as our founders intended it to operate. If you had, I do not believe you would assert “indirect taxes are equally as evil as direct taxes.”

I read the entire constitution, and I still assert the same opinion. What difference does the form in which they steal your money make? It is just a petty nitpicking of the inevitable. With a fixed flat tax, the government gets an equal portion of everyone's income and nothing more. It is fair and easy to budget, and will still save you close to 40% of what you are currently paying in taxes. In fact, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if you even realize how much you pay in taxes, and when you do it. A fixed flat rate is straight forward and fair, indirect taxing is unfair and often hidden. What is more evil, bluntness or deception?

Congress is granted power to lay and collect internal “excise” taxes. This power, as intended by our founders allows Congress to lay and collect a tax upon specifically chosen articles of consumption, preferable specifically selected articles of luxury.

Hamilton stresses in Federalist No 21 regarding taxes on articles of consumption:

“There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, 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 at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his 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. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counter balanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.


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.”

Let us say for conversation purposes that Congress is only allowed to raise its revenue by selecting specific articles of luxury and placing a specific amount of tax on each article selected. The flow of revenue into the federal treasury under such an idea would of course be determined by the economic productivity of the nation. If the economy is healthy and thriving and employment is at a peak, the purchase of articles of luxury will be greater than if the economy is stagnant and depressed. And thus, Congress is encouraged to adopt policies favorable to a healthy and vibrant economy because the flow of revenue into the federal treasury can be disrupted should Congress adopt oppressive regulations which impeded and burden our founder’s intended free market system.


And so, if Congress is limited to raising its revenue by taxing specifically selected articles of luxury, it suddenly becomes in Congress’ best interest to work toward a healthy and vibrant economy which in turn produces a productive flow of revenue into the federal treasury! It should also be noted that taxing any specific article too high, will reduce the volume of its sales and diminish the flow of revenue into the national treasury, and thus, taxing in this manner allows the market place to determine the allowable amount of tax on each article selected as Hamilton indicates above.

The same efforts to productivity would be true under a fixed flat direct tax, the income of the government would be solely dependent on economic prosperity at a flat tax rate of 10% of income. A key problem that I have with taxes on the articles of consumption is it allows Congress to legislate without passing legislation, and the best example of this is in cigarettes. It would be relatively hard for Congress to ban smoking altogether, although clearly not impossible as we nearly have no freedoms left in this country, however with the ability to apply taxes on articles of consumption they may purposefully overtax the product in order to influence the market as they see it fit. This is an inescapable consequence of indirect taxing, just as the waste that is the prohibition of drugs is the inescapable consequence of the Commerce Clause. In giving Congress the ability to legislate over inter-state commerce, consequently our founding fathers handed Congress the key to taking freedoms as they please. After studying the constitution I have found it is not even close to a perfect document, and our founding fathers were not right 100% of the time, they just had the right idea. They laid down a great foundation for a prosperous nation, but they also left gaps for Congress to over reach.

Some may claim that if Congress is required to select each specific article for taxation and place a specific amount of tax on each article, such a system would invite abuse and allow Congress to exercise favoritism with impunity and would certainly pander to countless lobbyists looking for an advantage in the selection of taxable articles.

I suppose that's what I get for reading whilst I reply, but yes some would make such claims and I am obviously of that sector, moving on. ;D

But let us take a closer look at the consequences involved if Congress should attempt to abuse this power. If Congress should abuse the system and tax one article while excluding another for political gain, consumers are treated to a tax free article and Congress reduces its own flow of revenue into the national treasury. In addition, for every penny lost by excluding a lobbyist’s particular article from taxation, another article’s tax will have to be increased to reclaim that penny. And with each increase upon any specific article the reality of diminished sales becomes a very sobering factor for Congress to deal with as explained by Hamilton in Federalist No. 21.

Quite simply. this is not true. Political favoritism of this sort comes in the form of stifling competition, and the reality of what you would see is a high tax on any specific article of consumption, and consequently subsidies for the lobbyists to ensure their ability to maintain prices for the consumer, while the competition pays the tab. If you'd like to see this in action, look outside. It's going on all around you. With a flat tax, this would be impossible, and it would save everyone the hassle of a grossly overcomplicated tax code.

Finally, under our Constitution’s original tax plan, let us remember that if Congress does not raise sufficient revenue from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on specifically chosen article of consumption and spends more than is brought in which creates a deficit, it is at this time that the apportioned tax is to be used to extinguish the deficit created, and each state’s congressional delegation must return home with a bill in hand for its state’s apportioned share of this tax and place this burden upon their Governor and State Legislature, and would deplete their own state’s treasury.


The bottom line is, what do you think would happen if New York State’s big spending Congressional Delegation had to return home with a bill for New York to pay an apportioned share to extinguish the 2013 federal deficit? I kind of think tea parties would change to tar and feather parties and big spenders in Congress would REAP THEIR JUST REWARDS for their irresponsible and tyrannical spending.

Why is it that not one of our “conservative” media personalities [Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Doc Thompson, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz, Mike Huckabee, Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, Herman Cain, etc.] will discuss the wisdom of our Constitution’s original tax plan, especially when it paved the way to not only control Congress, but created the economic underpinning which led to America becoming the economic marvel of the world?

Let us not forget by the year 1835, under our constitution’s original tax plan, America 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. Why do so many willingly ignore the wisdom of our founding fathers?



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

While in many parts I strongly agree with you, our only disagreement is on the morality of direct taxes versus indirect taxes. Taxes in their nature are a theft, and as such a necessary evil-- the question is to which degree. Indirect taxing simply leaves too much room for abuse, and there is no getting around it. On top of that issue, indirect taxing also bears the consequence of over complicating the tax code, also leaving much room for unfair practices as we see today.

When it comes to the blissful ignorance the majority of this country is in a state of, it really all comes down to money and competition. There are five major media corporations in this country, none of which want the public knowing what goes on behind closed doors. Politicians collect campaign contributions from these five media corporations, and are just as content with an ignorant population. The media corporations control their media personalities, and if one steps out of line there isn't much opposition to go work for. They don't want you to know anything, they want you to go to work, buy their products, and pay your taxes.

As for the founding fathers, they were very wise but that is not to be confused with perfect. This subject is the epitome of that point.

 

[dcraelin]

its always amazing to me how poor "conservatives" are so willing to cut the taxes of rich liberals. Quite a few of the rich are singing and acting stars, mostly liberal. At one point a few years ago I believe it was 9 out of the top 10 richest congresspeople were democrats, i think it is still a majority of dems. Nancy Pelosi must just smirk silently when "conservatives" argue for less taxes on folks like herself.

 

[ShawnChris13]

its always amazing to me how poor "conservatives" are so willing to cut the taxes of rich liberals. Quite a few of the rich are singing and acting stars, mostly liberal. At one point a few years ago I believe it was 9 out of the top 10 richest congresspeople were democrats, i think it is still a majority of dems. Nancy Pelosi must just smirk silently when "conservatives" argue for less taxes on folks like herself.

Less taxes for everybody is the argument that fits. Taxes should be a percentage equal to everyone. Not more taxes for being successful because the poorer classes are jealous of wealth and want free stuff. Work your way to wealth and pay the same taxes you paid when you were less wealthy. %%%%%%%%

 

[PMZ]

Exception? Jefferson's words express the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction. And with regard to your comment about "our Democracy", the fact is, we have a constitutionally limited "Republican Form of Government" guaranteed under Article 4, Section 4 of our Constitution.

And just what did our Founding Fathers think of “democracy”? Madison, in Federalist No. 10 says in reference to “democracy” they



…have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

And during the Convention which framed our federal Constitution, Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman, delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut, urged the Convention to create a system which would eliminate "the evils we experience," saying that those "evils . . .flow from the excess of democracy..."

And, then there was John Adams, a principle force in the American Revolutionary period who also pointed out "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel..."

And Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and favoring the new Constitution as opposed to democracy declared: " Democracy never lasts long” . . . "It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.". . . "There was never a democracy that ‘did not commit suicide.’"


And during the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."

And then there was Benjamin Franklin, who informed a crowd when exiting the Convention as to what system of government they created, he responded by saying "A republic, if you can keep it."

Democracy, or majority rule vote, as the Founding Fathers well knew, whether that majority rule is practiced by the people or by elected representatives, if not restrained by specific limitations and particular guarantees in which the unalienable rights of mankind are put beyond the reach of political majorities, have proven throughout history to eventually result in nothing less than an unbridled mob rule system susceptible to the wants and passions of a political majority imposing its will upon those who may be outvoted, and would result in the subjugation of unalienable rights, and especially rights associated with property ownership and liberty [witness the recent Kelo case]. And so, our Founding Fathers gave us a constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government, guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.




JWK



The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

Thus the importance of the Ammendments that took the founders aristocracy of wealthy white males, to a full representative democracy.

As long as we avoid having a monarch we will remain a republic.

Your post makes no sense to me. You will have to explain your assertions in clear language.


JWK

I did.

The Founders designed an aristocracy in the fashion of their times. Only white wealthy males voted.

Through the years we, the people, amended their design until by 1930 we had universal suffrage and full representative democracy.

A republic is defined as a government without a monarch.

 

[PMZ]

And, you still have not answered the question.

I happen to support our Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted. JWK

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

I answered the question....all u gotta do is read with a little comprehension.

I will not presume to know what you intended to express. I take it that you do not want to answer the question, and that's ok by me. The question was Do you support the constitutional requirement that No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken?


JWK


The liberty to fail or succeed at one’s own hand is a PROGRESSIVE‘S nightmare and not the American Dream

My answer would be that I support the Constitution unconditionally, as amended, including what has been extracted from it as to its interpretation.

 

[PMZ]

its always amazing to me how poor "conservatives" are so willing to cut the taxes of rich liberals. Quite a few of the rich are singing and acting stars, mostly liberal. At one point a few years ago I believe it was 9 out of the top 10 richest congresspeople were democrats, i think it is still a majority of dems. Nancy Pelosi must just smirk silently when "conservatives" argue for less taxes on folks like herself.

Less taxes for everybody is the argument that fits. Taxes should be a percentage equal to everyone. Not more taxes for being successful because the poorer classes are jealous of wealth and want free stuff. Work your way to wealth and pay the same taxes you paid when you were less wealthy. %%%%%%%%

Taxes are a means to correct capitalism's wealth redistribution up. Capitalism and America probably would not survive without that, as at a certain level of wealth inequality, society goes unstable.

 

[PMZ]

With all due respect, let me speculate that while you were in college you certainly did not study our Constitution’s original tax plan as our founders intended it to operate. If you had, I do not believe you would assert “indirect taxes are equally as evil as direct taxes.”

I read the entire constitution, and I still assert the same opinion. What difference does the form in which they steal your money make? It is just a petty nitpicking of the inevitable. With a fixed flat tax, the government gets an equal portion of everyone's income and nothing more. It is fair and easy to budget, and will still save you close to 40% of what you are currently paying in taxes. In fact, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if you even realize how much you pay in taxes, and when you do it. A fixed flat rate is straight forward and fair, indirect taxing is unfair and often hidden. What is more evil, bluntness or deception?

Congress is granted power to lay and collect internal “excise” taxes. This power, as intended by our founders allows Congress to lay and collect a tax upon specifically chosen articles of consumption, preferable specifically selected articles of luxury.

Hamilton stresses in Federalist No 21 regarding taxes on articles of consumption:

“There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, 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 at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his 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. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counter balanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.


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.”

Let us say for conversation purposes that Congress is only allowed to raise its revenue by selecting specific articles of luxury and placing a specific amount of tax on each article selected. The flow of revenue into the federal treasury under such an idea would of course be determined by the economic productivity of the nation. If the economy is healthy and thriving and employment is at a peak, the purchase of articles of luxury will be greater than if the economy is stagnant and depressed. And thus, Congress is encouraged to adopt policies favorable to a healthy and vibrant economy because the flow of revenue into the federal treasury can be disrupted should Congress adopt oppressive regulations which impeded and burden our founder’s intended free market system.


And so, if Congress is limited to raising its revenue by taxing specifically selected articles of luxury, it suddenly becomes in Congress’ best interest to work toward a healthy and vibrant economy which in turn produces a productive flow of revenue into the federal treasury! It should also be noted that taxing any specific article too high, will reduce the volume of its sales and diminish the flow of revenue into the national treasury, and thus, taxing in this manner allows the market place to determine the allowable amount of tax on each article selected as Hamilton indicates above.

The same efforts to productivity would be true under a fixed flat direct tax, the income of the government would be solely dependent on economic prosperity at a flat tax rate of 10% of income. A key problem that I have with taxes on the articles of consumption is it allows Congress to legislate without passing legislation, and the best example of this is in cigarettes. It would be relatively hard for Congress to ban smoking altogether, although clearly not impossible as we nearly have no freedoms left in this country, however with the ability to apply taxes on articles of consumption they may purposefully overtax the product in order to influence the market as they see it fit. This is an inescapable consequence of indirect taxing, just as the waste that is the prohibition of drugs is the inescapable consequence of the Commerce Clause. In giving Congress the ability to legislate over inter-state commerce, consequently our founding fathers handed Congress the key to taking freedoms as they please. After studying the constitution I have found it is not even close to a perfect document, and our founding fathers were not right 100% of the time, they just had the right idea. They laid down a great foundation for a prosperous nation, but they also left gaps for Congress to over reach.



I suppose that's what I get for reading whilst I reply, but yes some would make such claims and I am obviously of that sector, moving on. ;D

But let us take a closer look at the consequences involved if Congress should attempt to abuse this power. If Congress should abuse the system and tax one article while excluding another for political gain, consumers are treated to a tax free article and Congress reduces its own flow of revenue into the national treasury. In addition, for every penny lost by excluding a lobbyist’s particular article from taxation, another article’s tax will have to be increased to reclaim that penny. And with each increase upon any specific article the reality of diminished sales becomes a very sobering factor for Congress to deal with as explained by Hamilton in Federalist No. 21.

Quite simply. this is not true. Political favoritism of this sort comes in the form of stifling competition, and the reality of what you would see is a high tax on any specific article of consumption, and consequently subsidies for the lobbyists to ensure their ability to maintain prices for the consumer, while the competition pays the tab. If you'd like to see this in action, look outside. It's going on all around you. With a flat tax, this would be impossible, and it would save everyone the hassle of a grossly overcomplicated tax code.

Finally, under our Constitution’s original tax plan, let us remember that if Congress does not raise sufficient revenue from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on specifically chosen article of consumption and spends more than is brought in which creates a deficit, it is at this time that the apportioned tax is to be used to extinguish the deficit created, and each state’s congressional delegation must return home with a bill in hand for its state’s apportioned share of this tax and place this burden upon their Governor and State Legislature, and would deplete their own state’s treasury.


The bottom line is, what do you think would happen if New York State’s big spending Congressional Delegation had to return home with a bill for New York to pay an apportioned share to extinguish the 2013 federal deficit? I kind of think tea parties would change to tar and feather parties and big spenders in Congress would REAP THEIR JUST REWARDS for their irresponsible and tyrannical spending.

Why is it that not one of our “conservative” media personalities [Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Doc Thompson, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz, Mike Huckabee, Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, Herman Cain, etc.] will discuss the wisdom of our Constitution’s original tax plan, especially when it paved the way to not only control Congress, but created the economic underpinning which led to America becoming the economic marvel of the world?

Let us not forget by the year 1835, under our constitution’s original tax plan, America 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. Why do so many willingly ignore the wisdom of our founding fathers?



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

While in many parts I strongly agree with you, our only disagreement is on the morality of direct taxes versus indirect taxes. Taxes in their nature are a theft, and as such a necessary evil-- the question is to which degree. Indirect taxing simply leaves too much room for abuse, and there is no getting around it. On top of that issue, indirect taxing also bears the consequence of over complicating the tax code, also leaving much room for unfair practices as we see today.

When it comes to the blissful ignorance the majority of this country is in a state of, it really all comes down to money and competition. There are five major media corporations in this country, none of which want the public knowing what goes on behind closed doors. Politicians collect campaign contributions from these five media corporations, and are just as content with an ignorant population. The media corporations control their media personalities, and if one steps out of line there isn't much opposition to go work for. They don't want you to know anything, they want you to go to work, buy their products, and pay your taxes.

As for the founding fathers, they were very wise but that is not to be confused with perfect. This subject is the epitome of that point.

Theft is defined by the law.

 

[ShawnChris13]

its always amazing to me how poor "conservatives" are so willing to cut the taxes of rich liberals. Quite a few of the rich are singing and acting stars, mostly liberal. At one point a few years ago I believe it was 9 out of the top 10 richest congresspeople were democrats, i think it is still a majority of dems. Nancy Pelosi must just smirk silently when "conservatives" argue for less taxes on folks like herself.

Less taxes for everybody is the argument that fits. Taxes should be a percentage equal to everyone. Not more taxes for being successful because the poorer classes are jealous of wealth and want free stuff. Work your way to wealth and pay the same taxes you paid when you were less wealthy. %%%%%%%%

Taxes are a means to correct capitalism's wealth redistribution up. Capitalism and America probably would not survive without that, as at a certain level of wealth inequality, society goes unstable.

The issue with capitalism in America is the unchecked salaries and bonuses received by top executives. In Europe CEOs earn significantly less than in America. If people being overrated is your issue I agree. Wall Street should be held more accountable for their vagrant lack of judgement in compensation. Not to mention white collar criminals that take advantage of the system with no serious repercussions. (2008)

 

[originalthought]

Less taxes for everybody is the argument that fits. Taxes should be a percentage equal to everyone. Not more taxes for being successful because the poorer classes are jealous of wealth and want free stuff. Work your way to wealth and pay the same taxes you paid when you were less wealthy. %%%%%%%%

Taxes are a means to correct capitalism's wealth redistribution up. Capitalism and America probably would not survive without that, as at a certain level of wealth inequality, society goes unstable.

The issue with capitalism in America is the unchecked salaries and bonuses received by top executives. In Europe CEOs earn significantly less than in America. If people being overrated is your issue I agree. Wall Street should be held more accountable for their vagrant lack of judgement in compensation. Not to mention white collar criminals that take advantage of the system with no serious repercussions. (2008)

There is no such thing as capitalism in America. Capitalism is an economy free from state control. That does not exist in America.

 

[ShawnChris13]

Taxes are a means to correct capitalism's wealth redistribution up. Capitalism and America probably would not survive without that, as at a certain level of wealth inequality, society goes unstable.

The issue with capitalism in America is the unchecked salaries and bonuses received by top executives. In Europe CEOs earn significantly less than in America. If people being overrated is your issue I agree. Wall Street should be held more accountable for their vagrant lack of judgement in compensation. Not to mention white collar criminals that take advantage of the system with no serious repercussions. (2008)

There is no such thing as capitalism in America. Capitalism is an economy free from state control. That does not exist in America.

Then it's never existed anywhere. Ideologically capitalism would leave room for monopolies.

 

[originalthought]

The issue with capitalism in America is the unchecked salaries and bonuses received by top executives. In Europe CEOs earn significantly less than in America. If people being overrated is your issue I agree. Wall Street should be held more accountable for their vagrant lack of judgement in compensation. Not to mention white collar criminals that take advantage of the system with no serious repercussions. (2008)

There is no such thing as capitalism in America. Capitalism is an economy free from state control. That does not exist in America.

Then it's never existed anywhere. Ideologically capitalism would leave room for monopolies.

You are correct that true capitalism has never existed anywhere. And it would not lead to monopolies.

 

[ShawnChris13]

There is no such thing as capitalism in America. Capitalism is an economy free from state control. That does not exist in America.

Then it's never existed anywhere. Ideologically capitalism would leave room for monopolies.

You are correct that true capitalism has never existed anywhere. And it would not lead to monopolies.

Agree to disagree

 

[originalthought]

Then it's never existed anywhere. Ideologically capitalism would leave room for monopolies.

You are correct that true capitalism has never existed anywhere. And it would not lead to monopolies.

Agree to disagree

Well no, it's just an incorrect statement that Capitalism would lead to monopolies. All monopolies have come into being through State intervention.

 

[PMZ]

Taxes are a means to correct capitalism's wealth redistribution up. Capitalism and America probably would not survive without that, as at a certain level of wealth inequality, society goes unstable.

The issue with capitalism in America is the unchecked salaries and bonuses received by top executives. In Europe CEOs earn significantly less than in America. If people being overrated is your issue I agree. Wall Street should be held more accountable for their vagrant lack of judgement in compensation. Not to mention white collar criminals that take advantage of the system with no serious repercussions. (2008)

There is no such thing as capitalism in America. Capitalism is an economy free from state control. That does not exist in America.

Capitalism is when the means of production are privately owned.

 

[PMZ]

The issue with capitalism in America is the unchecked salaries and bonuses received by top executives. In Europe CEOs earn significantly less than in America. If people being overrated is your issue I agree. Wall Street should be held more accountable for their vagrant lack of judgement in compensation. Not to mention white collar criminals that take advantage of the system with no serious repercussions. (2008)

There is no such thing as capitalism in America. Capitalism is an economy free from state control. That does not exist in America.

Then it's never existed anywhere. Ideologically capitalism would leave room for monopolies.

While it's common sense that capitalism without competition would lead to out of control profits, I don't think there is anything in the definition of it that requires competition.

 

[PMZ]

You are correct that true capitalism has never existed anywhere. And it would not lead to monopolies.

Agree to disagree

Well no, it's just an incorrect statement that Capitalism would lead to monopolies. All monopolies have come into being through State intervention.

"All monopolies have come into being through State intervention"

I would say that this statement is completely wrong. Capitalism strives for monopolies. Government prevents them. At least in America.

 

[originalthought]

Agree to disagree

Well no, it's just an incorrect statement that Capitalism would lead to monopolies. All monopolies have come into being through State intervention.

"All monopolies have come into being through State intervention"

I would say that this statement is completely wrong. Capitalism strives for monopolies. Government prevents them. At least in America.

LOL. Government prevents monopolies! WOW! So let's look in countries that are completely controlled by governments (North Korea and Cuba). Do they have monopolies? Or is the governments there preventing monopolies?
You said at least in America... So why is the local energy provider a monopoly, but it is set up by the government?