Where In The Constitution Does It Say This?

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
1/11 NYTimes editorial, my question is the purpose of the tax system. Seems to me that no matter how you stretch it, 'general welfare' in meaning income theft from one group to give to another is the reason for the tax system?


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/11/o...e30190b8f&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Editorial
Tax Cuts and Consequences

The tax system in the United States is supposed to mitigate inequality. But a recent report by Congress’s budget agency provides fresh evidence that Bush-era tax cuts have done more to reinforce inequality than to redress it.

The agency found that in 2004, the latest year for which comprehensive data were available, the top 1 percent of households pocketed 14 percent of total after-tax income in the United States, up from 12.2 percent in 2003. That increase, the third largest in one year since the agency started keeping track in 1979, works out to an extra $128 billion. And yet despite that hefty gain, the effective federal tax rate of the top 1 percent decreased slightly.
 

William Joyce

Chemotherapy for PC
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
9,758
Reaction score
1,146
Points
190
Location
Caucasiastan
Great question.

In law school, I wrote a paper arguing that the only legitimate federal spending was in support of Article I powers. That means the bulk of taxing and spending by the federal government is unConstitutional. There is no Constitutional authority for welfare, Social Security, the Dept. of Education, you name it.

I even asked my Constitutional law professor: if it's Constitutional to tax 15 or 30 percent of our incomes, why not 99 percent? He said, "no problem" (legally, that is). Now THAT is a scary thought.

It all makes a mockery of the idea of limited government. The federal government has assumed UNLIMITED POWER to tax and spend --- any time, anywhere, for any purpose, at any amount. And see how they do!
 
OP
Annie

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Great question.

In law school, I wrote a paper arguing that the only legitimate federal spending was in support of Article I powers. That means the bulk of taxing and spending by the federal government is unConstitutional. There is no Constitutional authority for welfare, Social Security, the Dept. of Education, you name it.

I even asked my Constitutional law professor: if it's Constitutional to tax 15 or 30 percent of our incomes, why not 99 percent? He said, "no problem" (legally, that is). Now THAT is a scary thought.

It all makes a mockery of the idea of limited government. The federal government has assumed UNLIMITED POWER to tax and spend --- any time, anywhere, for any purpose, at any amount. And see how they do!
I agree, the legislature is charged with 'levying taxes', but where for the purpose of mitigating inequality? LOL! Methinks the NYTimes needs better editors for writing their main editorial?
 

William Joyce

Chemotherapy for PC
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
9,758
Reaction score
1,146
Points
190
Location
Caucasiastan
I agree, the legislature is charged with 'levying taxes', but where for the purpose of mitigating inequality? LOL! Methinks the NYTimes needs better editors for writing their main editorial?
Yeah, that's unusually awkward liberal bias, even for the Times. How about the raising armies part? Better phrased, "I, Sally Bignose Liberal, believe that taxes are great and grand because they help to mitigage inequality. But..."
 
OP
Annie

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Yeah, that's unusually awkward liberal bias, even for the Times. How about the raising armies part? Better phrased, "I, Sally Bignose Liberal, believe that taxes are great and grand because they help to mitigage inequality. But..."
To my mind the only things government should be doing are things the people can't do for themselves. First it should be asked, why can't I do it myself? Then, ok 'we' need a park, put it to the town, city, etc., vote/referendum. Ok, we need an interstate, whoops that would be federal-but why not with a fixed time attached for collecting taxes? On the state level in IL, we pay tolls-which have already paid for each of the tollroads multiple times, the rates were raised last year. :rolleyes:
 

Redhots

Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2006
Messages
507
Reaction score
36
Points
16
Where in the constitution does it say I can't drive 55?
 

trobinett

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
1,832
Reaction score
162
Points
48
Location
Arkansas, The Ozarks
As much as I beat up on charities for being poorly ran, and getting less than 40% of "donated"monies out to those that it was given to. Government is WORST.

The COST of our government, just at the Federal level is I'm sure, mind boggling.

Add in the cost of State, and local costs, and we're lucky if the government can hit the 40% mark.

I grow weary of this burden.

Governments job is NOT to despence welfare, nor to be involved in retraining, retirement, providing medical benefits, or any number of other services, that have been added to the docket over the years. Just look at the amount of payroll, that the government must spend just to administer these programs.

The number one job of the Federal government is protecting this country , and its world wide security. The rest is lefty feel good bull pucky, and is costing this country more than just money.
 

pegwinn

Top of the Food Chain
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
2,549
Reaction score
330
Points
98
Location
Texas
Taxes are a necessary evil.

Not sure about mitigating anything.

What I know is that the current code sucks and won't change anytime soon.

The obvious question is how can we force a change? I'm not sure it's possible without a serious backlash against congress. A backlash is unlikely since we can barely convince sixty percent of eligible voters to do so.
 

William Joyce

Chemotherapy for PC
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
9,758
Reaction score
1,146
Points
190
Location
Caucasiastan
It doesn't matter, since speed limits, including those on federal highways, are set at the state level.
AHA!!!

My friends, you will be disappointed to know that even this regulation isn't truly state.

Let me explain.

Yes, states set speed limits.

But the federal government, as we note above, does A LOT of taxing and spending.

And guess who pays for interstate highways?

And guess who often creates "requirements" for a state's acceptance of the money?

That's right.

Da feds.

There was even a Constitutional showdown over this. South Dakota wanted, not unreasonably, a higher speed than 55. But the DOT said, no. We give the money, we set the standard. South Dakota called that coercive. Guess who won?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole

The one who always wins.

Now, you could persuasively argue that if the federal government is taxing us at such a high rate, the requirements attached to spending become less "sour with the sweet" and more like... direct regulation. I'd believe you. A few conservative law profs would believe you. But that's about it.
 

pegwinn

Top of the Food Chain
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
2,549
Reaction score
330
Points
98
Location
Texas
Nothing new, anyone who gives money to anyone sets conditions. Hence the original 55mph speed limit, the 21 drinking age, and the .08 BAC standard.

The solomon act does the same thing for recruiting.

IF you want local control you must live on local money.
 

William Joyce

Chemotherapy for PC
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
9,758
Reaction score
1,146
Points
190
Location
Caucasiastan
Nothing new, anyone who gives money to anyone sets conditions. Hence the original 55mph speed limit, the 21 drinking age, and the .08 BAC standard.

The solomon act does the same thing for recruiting.

IF you want local control you must live on local money.
Mon frere, I must disagree!

You can't stay local if the federal government won't let you keep the money to stay local. The citizens of South Dakota fork over more of their earnings to the federal budget than to South Dakota itself. I'm sure South Dakota could afford fine highways of its own if it weren't competing with the federal government for tax dollars. So to tell South Dakota to "lump it or leave it" isn't really fair... because they're not allowed to leave!
 

pegwinn

Top of the Food Chain
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
2,549
Reaction score
330
Points
98
Location
Texas
Mon frere, I must disagree!

You can't stay local if the federal government won't let you keep the money to stay local. The citizens of South Dakota fork over more of their earnings to the federal budget than to South Dakota itself. I'm sure South Dakota could afford fine highways of its own if it weren't competing with the federal government for tax dollars. So to tell South Dakota to "lump it or leave it" isn't really fair... because they're not allowed to leave!

You are free to disagree in Philosophical terms all you wish. The reality is as I said it. Go to any community that makes a genuine effort to be self sufficient (specifically trying to not take fed or state dollars) and you will be surprised at the size of the governing body and the involvment of the citizenry.

SDakota lost the case for the same reasons the law schools lost to the Soloman. SDakota is free to decline specific line items of fed money and then they make the rules.

As to the citizens donating more to the fed than the state, that is a compliment on the tax situation of the state. Here in TX I don't pay income tax to the state and thus I donate more to the fed. I do pay sales and property tax though.

Here is the best, most realistic answer currently with a shot.
 

mattskramer

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
5,852
Reaction score
362
Points
48
Location
Texas
The preamble to the Constitution speaks of insuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general Welfare. How do you interpret this? Did the founding fathers think that the government, via taxation, should help those who fall on hard times?
 

pegwinn

Top of the Food Chain
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
2,549
Reaction score
330
Points
98
Location
Texas
The preamble to the Constitution speaks of insuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general Welfare. How do you interpret this? Did the founding fathers think that the government, via taxation, should help those who fall on hard times?
I would say not, since the text of the constitution doesn't support it.
 

mattskramer

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
5,852
Reaction score
362
Points
48
Location
Texas
I would say not, since the text of the constitution doesn't support it.
Good point. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."in in the Declaration of Independence but not in the constitution. Therefore, did the founding fathers intend for us to believe in God.

Sorry but I just love these tests of intellectual consistency and honesty.
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
Taxation is the cost of living in a complex, interwoven society. Unfortunately, the system of assessing and collecting taxes, as well as the distribution of tax revenues in this country is hopeless flawed as it is in the hands of politicians.

But if you don't want to pay taxes, I would suggest you go live in a cave.
 

pegwinn

Top of the Food Chain
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
2,549
Reaction score
330
Points
98
Location
Texas
Good point. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."in in the Declaration of Independence but not in the constitution. Therefore, did the founding fathers intend for us to believe in God.

Sorry but I just love these tests of intellectual consistency and honesty.
I cannot say. The constitution doesn't claim to solve the riddle of God. It merely ensures that the Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. I'd say that was about as simple as you can get. But it gets twisted and reinterpreted virtually daily by all concerned.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top