Senator Cruz on tax reform: Abolish the IRS

[Skylar]

Look, we impose fines to discourage some behavior. If you speed 60MPH in a 40MPH zone you get a fine. Go 80MPH and you might lose your license. And it discourages speeding.
So if you impose a fine, now called a tax, on earning money what happens? You discourage high earners. High earning people get that way because they generate lots of activity that others feed off of. Imagine how much advertising a successful real estate agent buys every year.
So why do we want to discourage that? We should make taxes regressive, with lower income people paying the highest rates to encourage them to work more.

And yet we have more high earners now than we did before the income tax. We have a more stable economy, with more years in expansion and fewer years in contraction than before the implementation of income tax. Not by a little either. But about double the expansion and half the contraction.

If your claims were valid, how would this be possible?

 

[The Rabbi]

Look, we impose fines to discourage some behavior. If you speed 60MPH in a 40MPH zone you get a fine. Go 80MPH and you might lose your license. And it discourages speeding.
So if you impose a fine, now called a tax, on earning money what happens? You discourage high earners. High earning people get that way because they generate lots of activity that others feed off of. Imagine how much advertising a successful real estate agent buys every year.
So why do we want to discourage that? We should make taxes regressive, with lower income people paying the highest rates to encourage them to work more.

And yet we have more high earners now than we did before the income tax. We have a more stable economy, with more years in expansion and fewer years in contraction than before the implementation of income tax. Not by a little either. But about double the expansion and half the contraction.

If your claims were valid, how would this be possible?

You're not actually proposing that the income tax did all that, right?
For starters we have many more people than we did in 1916.
In any case, we have probably proportionally fewer very wealthy people now.

 

[Old Rocks]

Look, we impose fines to discourage some behavior. If you speed 60MPH in a 40MPH zone you get a fine. Go 80MPH and you might lose your license. And it discourages speeding.
So if you impose a fine, now called a tax, on earning money what happens? You discourage high earners. High earning people get that way because they generate lots of activity that others feed off of. Imagine how much advertising a successful real estate agent buys every year.
So why do we want to discourage that? We should make taxes regressive, with lower income people paying the highest rates to encourage them to work more.

My, my. I did not realize Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and Elon Musk were so discouraged. Please give them my sympathy when you see them again.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

if Sharpton and Rangel dont have to pay taxes, why should anyone?

The left is all about taxing people except those on their side. It's crazy. Dianne Feinstein is setting her husband up for a billion dollar retirement deal. Sharpton owes 4.5 million and counting but still gets White House visit's. Obama made a shady land deal that went unreported and not cared about. Reid came into the senate middle class and is leaving with millions in the bank. Rangle is a special kind of piece of shit for his deeds. But the left loves these people.

 

[Skylar]

Look, we impose fines to discourage some behavior. If you speed 60MPH in a 40MPH zone you get a fine. Go 80MPH and you might lose your license. And it discourages speeding.
So if you impose a fine, now called a tax, on earning money what happens? You discourage high earners. High earning people get that way because they generate lots of activity that others feed off of. Imagine how much advertising a successful real estate agent buys every year.
So why do we want to discourage that? We should make taxes regressive, with lower income people paying the highest rates to encourage them to work more.

And yet we have more high earners now than we did before the income tax. We have a more stable economy, with more years in expansion and fewer years in contraction than before the implementation of income tax. Not by a little either. But about double the expansion and half the contraction.

If your claims were valid, how would this be possible?

You're not actually proposing that the income tax did all that, right?
For starters we have many more people than we did in 1916.

The 16th amendment was passed in 1913.......but if you want to draw your lines at 1916, I suppose I can oblige. Seems a bit arbitrary. But I'm game.

In any case, we have probably proportionally fewer very wealthy people now.

Says who? You haven't done a bit of research on the topic. So by your own admission, you don't know what you're talking about.

Second, a more useful measure of economic health would be the earning potential of folks in the middle class. As that's where most people exist. A economy that had a handful of fabulously wealthy multi-millionaires and a comparatively poor middle class wouldn't be an indication of a working economic system. But a broken one.

Third, you refused to address the issue of economic expansion and contraction. We've seen far more economic expansion and far less economic contraction since the passage of the 16th amendment. And you don't seem to dispute this fact. If dramatically greater economic expansion is the 'effect' of an income tax, I say game on.

 

[Skylar]

Look, we impose fines to discourage some behavior. If you speed 60MPH in a 40MPH zone you get a fine. Go 80MPH and you might lose your license. And it discourages speeding.
So if you impose a fine, now called a tax, on earning money what happens? You discourage high earners. High earning people get that way because they generate lots of activity that others feed off of. Imagine how much advertising a successful real estate agent buys every year.
So why do we want to discourage that? We should make taxes regressive, with lower income people paying the highest rates to encourage them to work more.

My, my. I did not realize Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and Elon Musk were so discouraged. Please give them my sympathy when you see them again.

Remember when Reagan increased the capital gains rate and taxed it as regular income......and Warren Buffet divested himself from the stock market in an Ayn Rand inspired tantrum?

Neither do I.

 

[The Rabbi]

Look, we impose fines to discourage some behavior. If you speed 60MPH in a 40MPH zone you get a fine. Go 80MPH and you might lose your license. And it discourages speeding.
So if you impose a fine, now called a tax, on earning money what happens? You discourage high earners. High earning people get that way because they generate lots of activity that others feed off of. Imagine how much advertising a successful real estate agent buys every year.
So why do we want to discourage that? We should make taxes regressive, with lower income people paying the highest rates to encourage them to work more.

And yet we have more high earners now than we did before the income tax. We have a more stable economy, with more years in expansion and fewer years in contraction than before the implementation of income tax. Not by a little either. But about double the expansion and half the contraction.

If your claims were valid, how would this be possible?

You're not actually proposing that the income tax did all that, right?
For starters we have many more people than we did in 1916.

The 16th amendment was passed in 1913.......but if you want to draw your lines at 1916, I suppose I can oblige. Seems a bit arbitrary. But I'm game.

In any case, we have probably proportionally fewer very wealthy people now.

Says who? You haven't done a bit of research on the topic. So by your own admission, you don't know what you're talking about.

Second, a more useful measure of economic health would be the earning potential of folks in the middle class. As that's where most people exist. A economy that had a handful of fabulously wealthy multi-millionaires and a comparatively poor middle class wouldn't be an indication of a working economic system. But a broken one.

Third, you refused to address the issue of economic expansion and contraction. We've seen far more economic expansion and far less economic contraction since the passage of the 16th amendment. And you don't seem to dispute this fact. If dramatically greater economic expansion is the 'effect' of an income tax, I say game on.

Please explain how taxing income reduces economic contraction. This ought to be good.

Never mind that the Federal Reserve came into being about that time and probably had much more effect on the economy than income tax.
But stupid people can't understand multiple causes or explanations.

 

[Skylar]

Please explain how taxing income reduces economic contraction. This ought to be good.

It provides the federal government with a stable and comparatively vast money supply that can be used to intervene in economic downturns....nipping them in the bud.

Again, look at the economic records. I'll gladly compare the century after income tax with the century before.And demonstrate the increases in periods of economic expansion by about double. While the periods of economic contraction were cut to about half. These aren't subtle numbers.

If your claims regarding economic discouragement of income are accurate, how is this possible? As once again, history demonstrates the exact of what you insist must happen.

History is a far better source on economic outcome than you, Rabbi. As you don't know what you're talking about.

Never mind that the Federal Reserve came into being about that time and probably had much more effect on the economy than income tax.

Economic interventionism had the effect. With the Fed being able to float more US debt because the US had such a robust revenue stream in income taxes. First the revenue stream, THEN the capacity to float more debt.

See how that works?

But stupid people can't understand multiple causes or explanations.

Then explain how we've seen such wildly better economic results since the institution of the income tax than what you predicted should have happened. And feel free to use as many 'causes' as you like.

Just remember to account for why you were wrong.

 

[johnwk]

You are a freaken liar. I never made the claim you assert. Get lost sonny.


JWK

So you never posted this?

“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

NOTE: these words would return us to our founding fathers ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the existing chains of taxation which now oppresses America‘s free enterprise system and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!

Johnwk
Opening Post of this Thread

Senator Cruz on tax reform Abolish the IRS US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Because the OP says you did. The founders never forbid an income tax. Nor has it ever been unconstitutional. Income taxes were simply limited by apportionment. And apportionment was what the 16th amendment lifted.

You're quite wrong on this, John.

There is nothing in what you quoted supporting your claim that I asserted ...a prohibition on income taxes was the founders 'original plan' ...


Stop freaken lying!

This thread is about tax reform and what Senator Cruz stated. Stop trolling the thread and taking it off topic!


JWK

 

[johnwk]

I wonder why Senator Cruz said we cannot get meaningful tax reform while Obama is president. He probably was referring to the president's veto power. But if the Republican controlled Congress sent an amendment to the states such as the FAIR SHARE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT, it would effectively remove Obama from the process. Is it possible that Senator Cruz may have missed this pathway to real tax reform? Keep in mind that Republican Governors are in control in a majority of the States! Sending an amendment to the states at this point in time which offers real tax reform seems like a good idea!


JWK


“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

 

[Siete]

this guy?




well,he's an idiot, sooooooooo

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I think a direct tax on labor is immoral.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

this guy?




well,he's an idiot, sooooooooo

Coming from the bunch who's intellectual superhero's are assclowns like Obama, Maddow and Schultz... yeah, whatever.

 

[Billy000]

Only a moron like Ted Cruz would propose to abolish the IRS. It amazes me you people don't see through this. He is so obviously just pandering to the knuckle dragging teabaggers of his base. Over dramatic and ridiculous rhetoric as always.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Only a moron like Ted Cruz would propose to abolish the IRS. It amazes me you people don't see through this. He is so obviously just pandering to the knuckle dragging teabaggers of his base. Over dramatic and ridiculous rhetoric as always.

Some of us Billy actually pay taxes... so we have an interest in seeing the IRS done away with. Now, moochers like you see the IRS as Mommy & Daddy... the gift that makes sure you get yours without working.

 

[Billy000]

Only a moron like Ted Cruz would propose to abolish the IRS. It amazes me you people don't see through this. He is so obviously just pandering to the knuckle dragging teabaggers of his base. Over dramatic and ridiculous rhetoric as always.

Some of us Billy actually pay taxes... so we have an interest in seeing the IRS done away with. Now, moochers like you see the IRS as Mommy & Daddy... the gift that makes sure you get yours without working.

Um no you are the moochers by not wanting to pay taxes. You expect the government to pay for everything for you. You do realize revenue pays the bills right?

 

[Skylar]

this guy?




well,he's an idiot, sooooooooo

He's bold, but stupid. He doesn't have exit strategies nor does he think in the long term.

Take the government shutdown of 2013. Cruz assured his constituents that defunding Obamacare would be 'easy', and bullied House members to support a government shutdown to do exactly that. As many a republican senator noted, it was one of the dumbest things they'd ever heard of.

Cruz had no exit strategy. He shut down the government and then.......nothing. His plan ended there.

He had no back up for when the White House predictably refused to capitulate to his demands. Or when the public predictably turned against the GOP on the issue exactly as his fellow republican senators said it would. And the result was a humiliating and very public backing down by the GOP, GOP internal division put on spectacular display, and the GOP's approval rating plummeting to the lowest level of any major part........ever.

Worse for Cruz, he burned so many bridges with the GOP establishment and House republicans. If you're going to bully a plan of action through congress, it damn well better work. And Cruz's effort failed spectacularly. What's left is a plethora of House republicans that resent his interference in the House, lack any confidence in his capacity to form a plan, and a GOP establishment that is increasingly unwilling to work with the man.

All in exchange for nothing. And he thought it was going to be 'easy'.

Like I said.....bold but stupid.

 

[Skylar]

There is nothing in what you quoted supporting your claim that I asserted ...a prohibition on income taxes was the founders 'original plan' ...

Obvious nonsense. I direct you to section 1 of your post:

“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

Johnwk

There's your prohibition of income taxes.

I direct you to your own note on section 1:

NOTE: these words would return us to our founding fathers ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the existing chains of taxation which now oppresses America‘s free enterprise system and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!

Johnwk

There's your claim that this prohibition of income taxes was the founders 'original plan'. Exactly as I said.

You've quite simply abandoned the useless flostam of your post treating it like the garbage that it is. If even you are going to treat your words as meaningless babble, surely you'll understand why we treat your words the same way.

As I've said, John.....you don't handle debate well. Your posts are best suited for a blog where no one will contradict you on your obvious misconceptions of history.

This thread is about tax reform and what Senator Cruz stated. Stop trolling the thread and taking it off topic!

I'm quoting your own post. My reply is as germane as what I'm replying to.

 

[johnwk]

There is nothing in what you quoted supporting your claim that I asserted ...a prohibition on income taxes was the founders 'original plan' ...

Obvious nonsense. I direct you to section 1 of your post:

“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

Johnwk

There's your prohibition of income taxes.

I direct you to your own note on section 1:

NOTE: these words would return us to our founding fathers ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the existing chains of taxation which now oppresses America‘s free enterprise system and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!

Johnwk

There's your claim that this prohibition of income taxes was the founders 'original plan'. Exactly as I said.

You've quite simply abandoned the useless flostam of your post treating it like the garbage that it is. If even you are going to treat your words as meaningless babble, surely you'll understand why we treat your words the same way.

As I've said, John.....you don't handle debate well. Your posts are best suited for a blog where no one will contradict you on your obvious misconceptions of history.
.

And you insinuate things I never suggested. What you quoted from me correctly asserts a return to our Constitution's original tax plan, as our founders intended it to operate. And they intended that any direct tax would be apportioned among the several states.



Let us review some of our founder’s thinking regarding the rule of apportionment:

Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :


“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6


And see:

“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.


Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255


And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state are to be taxed proportionately equal to their representation in Congress, Mr. PENDLETON says:


“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

Socialist love their one man one vote part of the rule of apportionment, but run from that part of the rule of apportionment which requires one vote, one dollar.

Stop trolling the thread and making crap up.


JWK




Our tyrants in Washington force the productive to pay taxes on incomes so they can spread their wealth and buy votes, but the Washington Establishment does not force their beloved 45 % who pay no income taxes to work for the taxes they get

 

[Skylar]

There is nothing in what you quoted supporting your claim that I asserted ...a prohibition on income taxes was the founders 'original plan' ...

Obvious nonsense. I direct you to section 1 of your post:

“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

Johnwk

There's your prohibition of income taxes.

I direct you to your own note on section 1:

NOTE: these words would return us to our founding fathers ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the existing chains of taxation which now oppresses America‘s free enterprise system and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!

Johnwk

There's your claim that this prohibition of income taxes was the founders 'original plan'. Exactly as I said.

You've quite simply abandoned the useless flostam of your post treating it like the garbage that it is. If even you are going to treat your words as meaningless babble, surely you'll understand why we treat your words the same way.

As I've said, John.....you don't handle debate well. Your posts are best suited for a blog where no one will contradict you on your obvious misconceptions of history.
.

And you insinuate things I never suggested.

Oh, there's no insinuation. I'm straight up attributing to you positions you've advocated. And the prohibition of income taxes was never the founders 'original tax plan'.

And here's what you said it:

“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

NOTE: these words would return us to our founding fathers ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the existing chains of taxation which now oppresses America‘s free enterprise system and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!

Johnwk

Deny saying it, and I'll just quote you again. My side of this is remarkably easy.

What you quoted from me correctly asserts a return to our Constitution's original tax plan, as our founders intended it to operate. And they intended that any direct tax would be apportioned among the several states.

Save that there were no prohibitions against income taxes anywhere in the constitution.

“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

Yup. Their focus was on proportional taxation based on representation. Which is why direct taxes were tied to the census.

Note there's no prohibition. There are instructions on how to implement direct taxes. Your 'tax plan' forbids income taxes. The Founders' 'tax plan' never does.

And see:

“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

Still no prohibition. But apportionment. Exactly as I've said.

Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255

And no prohibition there either. Your plan forbids income tax. The founders didn't. With the constitution laying out provisions for the implementation of direct taxation.

And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state are to be taxed proportionately equal to their representation in Congress, Mr. PENDLETON says:

You need to review your 'tax plan' again. As you don't demand apportionment. You demand a straight up prohibition on all income tax:

“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

Johnwk

And that's where your claims break. Right there. With the word 'forbidden'. Not 'forbidden unless apportioned', as the founders argued. Your plan straight up forbids such taxes.

The founders never did. Your plan is not the founder's plan, no matter how furiously you polish that little rhetorical turd.