the infrstructure of tax collection

[JosephTheLibertarian]

How should it operate? err how would it operate? Let's say...

*national sales tax

*fairtax

*let states decide - how would the federal government be funded?

but, how would it be collected? How will we transfer the money from the individual to the treasury? Would we use a gutted IRS to make sure the money gets there? It's easy to say "let's do this" but it's harder to explain how money goes from point A to point B

Furthermore, how would it go from the state level to the federal level?

[fsk]

How about no compulsory taxation at all? That's the only system that can honestly be defended.

Do you have the right to use force to steal from me? Can you, by voting, authorize other people to steal from me?

Any careful analysis leads to the conclusion that all forms of taxation are evil.

All services currently provided by the government can be more easily be provided by multiple competing vendors in a free market.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

How about no compulsory taxation at all? That's the only system that can honestly be defended.

Do you have the right to use force to steal from me? Can you, by voting, authorize other people to steal from me?

Any careful analysis leads to the conclusion that all forms of taxation are evil.

All services currently provided by the government can be more easily be provided by multiple competing vendors in a free market.

that doesn't even answer my question. I am asking: how would money go from individual to government? would the individual send it to the address?

I am actually a supporter of voluntary "taxation"

[noxagol]

16th Amendment aside, the proper constitutional way to tax is thus. The federal government comes up with a budget and looks at the states. It splits the cost up based on population (enumeration). So if California has 10% of the population it has 10% of the cost. It is then up to the states to decide how to collect this money. It is pretty clear that the founders did not want the federal government to have hardly any direct impact in a person's day to day life.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

16th Amendment aside, the proper constitutional way to tax is thus. The federal government comes up with a budget and looks at the states. It splits the cost up based on population (enumeration). So if California has 10% of the population it has 10% of the cost. It is then up to the states to decide how to collect this money. It is pretty clear that the founders did not want the federal government to have hardly any direct impact in a person's day to day life.

that sounds good for the US.. why not do it that way? does it have a name? You need a catchy name for everything these days lol

"flat tax"

"sales tax"

"fair tax"

how about.. "state tax"

[noxagol]

that sounds good for the US.. why not do it that way? does it have a name? You need a catchy name for everything these days lol

"flat tax"

"sales tax"

"fair tax"

Yeah, the Constitutional tax.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

What if a state says.. no lol

[noxagol]

What if a state says.. no lol

They can't. But they can throw a hissy fit, which is what should happen. Right now the states are bent over taking it in the ass from the fed. Also, originally, senators were picked by state legislators and not the people. They were to represent the state while the house represented the people.

Here is where the Constitution talks about taxing:

Article 1, Section 2, 3rd paragraph:

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons"

Article 1, Section 9, 4th paragraph:

"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

And this one is much more specific in the types of taxes it can make, from Article 1, Section 8, 1st paragraph:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Interesting. But what if a state just says no? The state being senators. Would politicians be uhh impeached by the federal government?

[noxagol]

Interesting. But what if a state just says no? The state being senators. Would politicians be uhh impeached by the federal government?

They would say no with their vote against the budget bill, but if it passes they would be obligated to present the funds, just like anything else that people vote no on.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

wow, this needs to be repealed

[M.Bellmore]

Why not just reduce spending by more than 1/3rd, and not require any tax? 2/3rds come from somewhere else.

[freedominnumbers]

Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

wow, this needs to be repealed

In the following Supreme Court Opinions Income is defined:http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=348&page=426
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=252&invol=189#207

Income is defined nowhere in federal law. Federal law only defines "Gross Income" and "Net Income" which are tax terms both of which refer to "income" within their definition. A word cannot define itself and as such the supreme court is where we have to turn for a definition of income.

Income as determined by the supreme court is a GAIN, or accession to wealth. Some examples of 'income' would be cash dividends on stock (minus expenses), rental income (minus expenses) or a gain on sales (minus expenses).

How then are 'wages' defined as income? For wages to meet the definition of income the total receipts must be greater than the total value of what you spent earning those wages, yielding a gain.

This is where the tax authority tricks you. By being intentionally vague they let you assume your wages are 'income'.

In fact they are a neutral trade for your time and effort. A gain can only be realized when you receive something of value beyond the value of what you traded it for.

It can easily be demonstrated as follows:

You buy an apple for .50 and sell it to your neighbor for .50, there is no gain.

You come to a contractual agreement with ABC CO masonry to trade 40 hours of labor for $1,000. You and ABC CO determined the value of your labor to be $25/hour. You expend your labor and time, neither of which can be recovered and as such are a more finite resource even than gold. You receive $1,000 after completing 40 hours of work. You realized no income (gain).

You agree to 40 more hours with ABC CO for $1,000. At the end of the 40 Hours ABC CO pays you an extra $500 bonus for excellent work. You have previously contractually determined your labor to be valued at $25/hour. You have realized a gain, and therefore income of $500.

The above can be argued, but in doing so you would say that a mans time and labor holds no value. This is the position of the IRS.

[noxagol]

Why not just reduce spending by more than 1/3rd, and not require any tax? 2/3rds come from somewhere else.

Right. In end, this is what should be done. If they want to stimulate the economy, get rid of income taxes and social security taxes and you will see the economy boom like never before. People will have ~30% more money and stores will be able to charge ~20% less on things. I would not work where I work if such a thing were to happen, it's already busy enough.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Right. In end, this is what should be done. If they want to stimulate the economy, get rid of income taxes and social security taxes and you will see the economy boom like never before. People will have ~30% more money and stores will be able to charge ~20% less on things. I would not work where I work if such a thing were to happen, it's already busy enough.

I like "your" "constitutional tax" proposal. Why hasn't Ron Paul endorsed this system?


16th Amendment aside, the proper constitutional way to tax is thus. The federal government comes up with a budget and looks at the states. It splits the cost up based on population (enumeration). So if California has 10% of the population it has 10% of the cost. It is then up to the states to decide how to collect this money. It is pretty clear that the founders did not want the federal government to have hardly any direct impact in a person's day to day life.

this

[noxagol]

He has, just not with the same words. Plus, you can't just get rid of the income tax and the social security tax at this point. We have too much debt and too many dependent on the system. It must be turned off slowly so we can pay off the debt and those who are dependent don't get fucked completely.

Also, a lot of people wouldn't need the money the government gives them if the government didn't take away ~30% of their paychecks. So long as they do, the people need the money from the government.

[fsk]

There is another way to handle the debt. You can default.

You can say "I am defaulting on the national debt. As much as possible, I'm going to avoid paying taxes and supporting a corrupt economic and political system."