PDA

View Full Version : Would you support the following tax reform legislation?




johnwk
06-15-2011, 04:02 PM
The old saying goes, if you are not part of the solution you’re probably part of the problem.


For lack of a better reference to the proposed legislation, let’s call it The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment.


Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.


“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 The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other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 father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN (http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360) 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!


"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."


NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the apportioned tax to be laid.


"SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised by dividing its total population size by the total population of the united states and multiplying that figure by the total being raised by Congress, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."


NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish a deficit would be:


States’ population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE

Total U.S. Population


This formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to insure that those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution, i.e., representation with proportional obligation!



"SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."


NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.



"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than one year after the required number of States have approved it.


JWK


“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 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=254&itemLink) “Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax.” 3 Elliot’s, 244 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=255&itemLink)___ Mr. George Nicholas during the ratification debates of our Constitution

Cutlerzzz
06-15-2011, 04:21 PM
I would support it in that it is better than the current system, but taxation is still theft and those taxes would be extremely destructive.

Zippyjuan
06-15-2011, 04:24 PM
Let me get this straight. It proposes getting rid of taxes except for duties and excise taxes while at the same time requiring a balanced budget? Not gonna happen.

Let us consider the 2009 budget (the 2010 budget does not give us revenue breakdowns).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

How much of the revenues that year came from excises and duties? Less than $100 billion. Just to pay the interest on the debt alone you would have to nearly triple that.

Estimated receipts for fiscal year 2009 are $2.7 trillion (+7.1%).


$1.21 trillion - Individual income tax
$949.4 billion - Social Security and other payroll taxes
$339.2 billion - Corporate income tax
$68.9 billion - Excise taxes
$29.1 billion - Customs duties
$26.3 billion - Estate and gift taxes
$47.9 billion - Other


And your expenditures:

Mandatory spending: $1.89 trillion (+6.2%)
$644 billion - Social Security
$408 billion - Medicare
$224 billion - Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
$360 billion - Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
$260 billion - Interest on National Debt

Discretionary spending: $1.21 trillion (+4.9%)

$515.4 billion - United States Department of Defense
$145.2 billion(2008*) - Global War on Terror
$70.4 billion - United States Department of Health and Human Services
$68.2 billion - United States Department of Transportation
$45.4 billion - United States Department of Education
$44.8 billion - United States Department of Veterans Affairs
$38.5 billion - United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
$38.3 billion - State and Other International Programs
$37.6 billion - United States Department of Homeland Security
$25.0 billion - United States Department of Energy
$20.8 billion - United States Department of Agriculture
$20.3 billion - United States Department of Justice
$17.6 billion - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$12.5 billion - United States Department of the Treasury
$10.6 billion - United States Department of the Interior
$10.5 billion - United States Department of Labor
$8.4 billion - Social Security Administration
$7.1 billion - United States Environmental Protection Agency
$6.9 billion - National Science Foundation
$6.3 billion - Judicial branch (United States federal courts)
$4.7 billion - Legislative branch (United States Congress)
$4.7 billion - United States Army Corps of Engineers
$0.4 billion - Executive Office of the President
$0.7 billion - Small Business Administration
$7.2 billion - Other agencies
$39.0 billion(2008*) - Other Off-budget Discretionary Spending


The financial cost of the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan are not part of the defense budget; they are appropriations.


I ran the numbers before but for now, I am going off the top of my head. If you keep spending where it is now, you need to have a tarrif of something like 300% on each and every item we import- including oil- to balance your budget just using that as revenue. $300 a barrel of oil which would possibly translate to $15 a gallon of gas. Much of the goods we buy are imported. Prices for them would triple. The concept of a terrif or import duty to pay for our taxes sounds like we citizens get around paying it for ourselves, but we don't. It will be added on to every good we buy. Domestic suppliers rely on imported parts- including that oil for energy. They would no longer have to compete with imports on prices so they would be freer to raise their own prices. As the tarrifs came into place, our demand for imported goods would of course fall which would mean that the tarrifs would have to be raised even further. The countries we trade with would impose tarrifs on our exports in responce which would reduce them and lower jobs in this country. No- it would not be a simple and harmless form of taxation.

tremendoustie
06-15-2011, 04:26 PM
I wouldn't vote for it personally, because it endorses and perpetuates extortion based on threats of agression.

If passed, it might be somewhat of an improvement over the current situation, but I suspect that the feds would still overspend on a regular basis, then demand money from the states to make up the shortfall.

I view state nullification and independence as a far greater incremental improvement towards liberty.

johnwk
06-15-2011, 07:56 PM
Let me get this straight. It proposes getting rid of taxes except for duties and excise taxes while at the same time requiring a balanced budget? Not gonna happen.

Let us consider the 2009 budget (the 2010 budget does not give us revenue breakdowns).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

How much of the revenues that year came from excises and duties? Less than $100 billion. Just to pay the interest on the debt alone you would have to nearly triple that.


And your expenditures:



Mandatory spending: $1.89 trillion (+6.2%)
$644 billion - Social Security
$408 billion - Medicare
$224 billion - Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
$360 billion - Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
$260 billion - Interest on National Debt

Discretionary spending: $1.21 trillion (+4.9%)

$515.4 billion - United States Department of Defense
$145.2 billion(2008*) - Global War on Terror
$70.4 billion - United States Department of Health and Human Services
$68.2 billion - United States Department of Transportation
$45.4 billion - United States Department of Education
$44.8 billion - United States Department of Veterans Affairs
$38.5 billion - United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
$38.3 billion - State and Other International Programs
$37.6 billion - United States Department of Homeland Security
$25.0 billion - United States Department of Energy
$20.8 billion - United States Department of Agriculture
$20.3 billion - United States Department of Justice
$17.6 billion - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$12.5 billion - United States Department of the Treasury
$10.6 billion - United States Department of the Interior
$10.5 billion - United States Department of Labor
$8.4 billion - Social Security Administration
$7.1 billion - United States Environmental Protection Agency
$6.9 billion - National Science Foundation
$6.3 billion - Judicial branch (United States federal courts)
$4.7 billion - Legislative branch (United States Congress)
$4.7 billion - United States Army Corps of Engineers
$0.4 billion - Executive Office of the President
$0.7 billion - Small Business Administration
$7.2 billion - Other agencies
$39.0 billion(2008*) - Other Off-budget Discretionary Spending


The financial cost of the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan are not part of the defense budget; they are appropriations.



I ran the numbers before but for now, I am going off the top of my head. If you keep spending where it is now, you need to have a tarrif of something like 300% on each and every item we import- including oil- to balance your budget just using that as revenue. $300 a barrel of oil which would possibly translate to $15 a gallon of gas. Much of the goods we buy are imported. Prices for them would triple. The concept of a terrif or import duty to pay for our taxes sounds like we citizens get around paying it for ourselves, but we don't. It will be added on to every good we buy. Domestic suppliers rely on imported parts- including that oil for energy. They would no longer have to compete with imports on prices so they would be freer to raise their own prices. As the tarrifs came into place, our demand for imported goods would of course fall which would mean that the tarrifs would have to be raised even further. The countries we trade with would impose tarrifs on our exports in responce which would reduce them and lower jobs in this country. No- it would not be a simple and harmless form of taxation.


After reading your post, I have become more convinced then ever that we should adopt the “fair share balanced budget amendment” which would force Congress to close down almost all of the bullshit departments and agencies you listed.


JWK

Southron
06-15-2011, 08:03 PM
I am all for returning to an original taxation plan. It would require massive cuts but I'm willing to make the sacrifice.;)

Austrian Econ Disciple
06-15-2011, 08:06 PM
I am all for returning to an original taxation plan. It would require massive cuts but I'm willing to make the sacrifice.;)

What sacrifice? It would be as if a huge boulder was lifted from our backs. No sacrifice at all.

lx43
06-15-2011, 08:10 PM
What sacrifice? It would be as if a huge boulder was lifted from our backs. No sacrifice at all.

Its more like a blackhole, nothing can escape its destructive force.

How about let people opt-out of taxes and regulation?