President Trump’s tax plan keeps the socialist communist progressive income tax alive

[johnwk]

.


Well, now that the Republican tax reform is finalized on paper, we see that it not only keeps the socialist, communist, progressive income tax alive, but President Trump has already given thumbs up to this Washington Sewer Rat’s method of taxation which does nothing to remove the iron fist of our federal government from the necks of America’s hard working productive citizens and business owners; does nothing to end the American People from having to divulge the most personal information of their private lives; does nothing to end our despotic federal government from arbitrarily deciding what is and what is not taxable income; does nothing to end Washington Sewer Rats from picking winners and losers; does nothing to end our Washington Establishment’s use of taxation to intentionally seek out America’s most productive hard working citizens and business owners and transfer the bread they have produced to a dependent voting block who prostitutes its vote for free government cheese; does nothing to end taxation being used as a political weapon to silence, threaten and punish political foes while rewarding the friends of a tyrannical bloated federal government; Does nothing to end the never ending class-warfare tax game used by Washington Sewer Rats to divide and conquer the American People; and does nothing to encourage Congress to adopt sound fiscal policies and immediately extinguish year end deficits.

This is what President Trump, who asserts a love for a free market system and a distain for Washington’s Sewer Rats has given an approving nod to . . . a continuation of the socialist, communist, progressive income tax ___ the very vehicle used by Washington Sewer Rats since 1913 to stifle our Founders’ intended free market system and allows the iron fist of Washington’s sewer rats to clench and squeeze the necks of the American people.

And what did one of our forefathers say with regard to this notoriously evil system of direct taxation?

See Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes January 18th, 1797 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=006/llac006.db&recNum=191):


"History, Mr. Williams said, informed them of the annihilation of nations by means of direct taxation. He referred gentlemen to the situation of the Roman Empire in its innocence, and asked them whether they had any direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and taxes upon luxuries and spices from the Indies were their sources of revenue; but, as soon as they changed their system to direct taxation, it operated to their ruin; their children were sold as slaves, and the Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we then follow this system? He trusted not."


Let us not fool ourselves. Trump’s tax plan is nothing more than a manipulation of the existing and notoriously evil income tax which has proven to be a root cause of many of our nation’s sufferings. Real tax reform is found in the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which begins with the following 32 words, which would restore our Constitutions’ original tax plan as our founders intended it to operate:

“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.

But don’t expect our politically motivated media outlets, including Fox News, to ever discuss the merits, wisdom and brilliance of our Founders’ nonpartisan, make-America-Great tax plan. They are more interested in how to manipulate the existing communist, socialist progressive income tax to carry out their self-righteous personal views of justice, fairness and reasonableness instead of allowing the market place to play its intended role in raising a federal revenue, and preventing the devastating consequences of an unbridled direct tax in incomes.

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.

[nikcers]

Since fiscal policy isn't changing i'm not too confident foreign policy will either. I think my biggest fear is that the next theme will be that the Russians hacked our economy... https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/12/suspicious-event-routes-traffic-for-big-name-sites-through-russia/

[Madison320]

.
Well, now that the Republican tax reform is finalized on paper, we see that it not only keeps the socialist, communist, progressive income tax alive, but President Trump has already given thumbs up to this Washington Sewer Rat’s method of taxation which does nothing to remove the iron fist of our federal government from the necks of America’s hard working productive citizens and business owners;

About the only good thing is that they slightly lowered the top rate and the corporate rate. I think that's offset by the elimination of the ability to deduct state income tax from your federal tax. I think that's a horrible idea, the most productive citizens could potentially owe MORE than 100% of their income!

[johnwk]

About the only good thing is that they slightly lowered the top rate and the corporate rate. I think that's offset by the elimination of the ability to deduct state income tax from your federal tax. I think that's a horrible idea, the most productive citizens could potentially owe MORE than 100% of their income!

And why is it that we never get real tax reform?

[johnwk]

I saw Ivanka on Fox News this morning promoting the communist/socialist/progressive income tax plan cooked up by the Republican Leadership in the House and Senate.

It's amazing that a family who has pledged to drain the swamp, is now embracing the very tool, the communist inspired income tax, which gives swamp creatures the power to do their evil.


JWK






Are we really ok with 45 percent of our nation's population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation's hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes when our Constitution requires Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States�?

[Madison320]

I saw Ivanka on Fox News this morning promoting the communist/socialist/progressive income tax plan cooked up by the Republican Leadership in the House and Senate.

It's amazing that a family who has pledged to drain the swamp, is now embracing the very tool, the communist inspired income tax, which gives swamp creatures the power to do their evil.


JWK






Are we really ok with 45 percent of our nation's population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation's hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes when our Constitution requires Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States�?


Unfortunately the answer is yes, most people are OK with it, even here.

It's good to know that there's at least one other member on RPF that hates the progressive income tax. I've always felt that the progressive income tax is about the biggest injustice in most countries. It's also about the biggest cause of poverty. Marxist class warfare feeds on envy and is a powerful force. We should be embarrassed that we live in a country with a top rate of 39%!

[Madison320]

And why is it that we never get real tax reform?

Politicians don't want to lose the ability to buy votes.

[johnwk]

Politicians don't want to lose the ability to buy votes.

I think it has more to do with our media personalities who are delinquent in discussing our Founder's solution to tax reform. Have you ever heard one of our "conservative" media personalities ever discussing it, and in particular, the rule of apportionment as our founders applied it to direct taxation?

JWK

[Madison320]

I think it has more to do with our media personalities who are delinquent in discussing our Founder's solution to tax reform. Have you ever heard one of our "conservative" media personalities ever discussing it, and in particular, the rule of apportionment as our founders applied it to direct taxation?

JWK

I've never heard anyone talk about apportionment other than Peter Schiff. I'm not totally sure how apportionment works either. I always assumed it meant that the government has to ask each state for a lump sum and then the state collects it however it wants. That would definitely be a good thing.

The best solutions I've heard to prevent progressive taxation are the ones that only allow net taxpayers to vote.

[johnwk]

I've never heard anyone talk about apportionment other than Peter Schiff. I'm not totally sure how apportionment works either. I always assumed it meant that the government has to ask each state for a lump sum and then the state collects it however it wants. That would definitely be a good thing.



You basically have the concept correct.


Let us take a look at the wisdom and brilliance of our Founder's original tax plan which is proposed as follows.


The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment


“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.us/?p=1360) as they intended it to operate! They would also end the failed experiment with allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from lawfully earned "incomes" which now oppresses America‘s economic engine 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 an annual deficit would be:


States’ population

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

Total U.S. Population


The above 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 a proportional financial obligation!


Note also that each State’s number or Representatives, under our Constitution is determined by the rule of apportionment:


State`s Pop.
------------------- X House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
U.S. Pop.


"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 (?) years after the required number of States have ratified it.


JWK


“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

[dude58677]

Unfortunately when Congress is filled with lawyers who are part of the American Bar Association which loves the tax laws not much can be done. Donald Trump wants to get something passed so he has no choice but to go along with it. What he has done is cut regulations so it isn't that he isn't trying.

[johnwk]

This same kind of “tax reform” has happened a number of times during my life time, the last time being under President Reagan. When the Washington Sewer Rats realize the American People are getting sick and tired of the corrupt taxing “code” and how it is destroying America from within, our Congress critters back off with an illusion of “tax reform” which cleverly keeps the notoriously evil income tax alive and available to Congress to slowly re-create the same miseries which aroused the people into wanting “tax reform” in the first place.

How many freaken times must dim wits in America go through the same kabuki dance under tax reform to realize the problem is the freaken income tax which Congress uses to carry out its evil doings generation after generation?

When will the American people realize that repeating the same action over and over [tax reform which keeps the income tax alive] will never yield a different result?

The worm at the root of the rotten tree is in fact our nation’s love affair with the communist, socialist, progressive inspired incometax.

JWK


The unavoidable truth is, the social democrats’ plan for “free” college tuition will be paid for by taxing the paychecks of millions of college graduates who worked their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs.

[dude58677]

This same kind of “tax reform” has happened a number of times during my life time, the last time being under President Reagan. When the Washington Sewer Rats realize the American People are getting sick and tired of the corrupt taxing “code” and how it is destroying America from within, our Congress critters back off with an illusion of “tax reform” which cleverly keeps the notoriously evil income tax alive and available to Congress to slowly re-create the same miseries which aroused the people into wanting “tax reform” in the first place.

How many freaken times must dim wits in America go through the same kabuki dance under tax reform to realize the problem is the freaken income tax which Congress uses to carry out its evil doings generation after generation?

When will the American people realize that repeating the same action over and over [tax reform which keeps the income tax alive] will never yield a different result?

The worm at the root of the rotten tree is in fact our nation’s love affair with the communist, socialist, progressive inspired incometax.

JWK


The unavoidable truth is, the social democrats’ plan for “free” college tuition will be paid for by taxing the paychecks of millions of college graduates who worked their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs.

I know what you are saying but Congress is the problem. If Ron or Rand Paul were President, the exact thing would happen. Congress would ignore either of them, they do while he is in Congress so why wouldn't they when he is President? It sucks but unfortunately that's what we face. We have senators and congressman who were in office for decades and who are also tax lawyers writing the code for the ABA. The 2016 Presidential Election was a major milestone as a step away from this but it is by no means a cure all.

[Madison320]

The worm at the root of the rotten tree is in fact our nation’s love affair with the communist, socialist, progressive inspired income tax.


What bothers me is that it seems only a small percentage of RPFs actually give a crap about this. Everyone is up in arms over police brutality but not too many care about the property rights of the most wealthy. What they don't realize is that police brutality is the symptom, but the erosion of property rights is the cause. A flat tax would benefit the poor 1000 times more than whining about police brutality.


"Taxes, to be legitimate, must be imposed with the consent of the people on whom they will be levied. Progressive income taxes, by their very nature, violate this fundamental principle of legitimacy. They represent the very worst sort of “tyranny of the majority,” for they subject a small portion of citizens—those with the highest incomes—to taxes imposed by the “consent” of other citizens, the majority of voters, who do not pay taxes."


HAYEK: "But the argument based on the presumed justice of progression provides for no limitation, as has often been admitted by its supporters, before all incomes above a certain figure are confiscated and those below left untaxed. Unlike proportionality, progression provides no principle which tells us what the relative burden of different persons ought to be. It is no more than a rejection of proportionality in favor of a discrimination against the wealthy without any criterion for limiting the extent of this discrimination."


HAYEK: "It is the great merit of proportional taxation that it provides a rule which is likely to be agreed upon by those who will pay absolutely more and those who will pay absolutely less and which, once accepted, raises no problem of a separate rule applying only to a minority. Even if progressive taxation does not name the individuals to be taxed at a higher rate, it discriminates by introducing a distinction which alms at shifting the burden from those who determine the rates onto others. "


http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Argument:_Progressive_taxation_is_a_form_of_tyrann y_of_the_majority

[Madison320]

I know what you are saying but Congress is the problem. If Ron or Rand Paul were President, the exact thing would happen. Congress would ignore either of them, they do while he is in Congress so why wouldn't they when he is President? It sucks but unfortunately that's what we face. We have senators and congressman who were in office for decades and who are also tax lawyers writing the code for the ABA. The 2016 Presidential Election was a major milestone as a step away from this but it is by no means a cure all.

I agree it would happen with Ron or Ran Paul but Trump isn't even in favor of free market reforms.

[Swordsmyth]

What bothers me is that it seems only a small percentage of RPFs actually give a crap about this. Everyone is up in arms over police brutality but not too many care about the property rights of the most wealthy. What they don't realize is that police brutality is the symptom, but the erosion of property rights is the cause. A flat tax would benefit the poor 1000 times more than whining about police brutality.

I think that most RPF members do care about this subject but the cop issues are more emotional and the income tax is boring, also there are many different opinions on on what should replace the income tax and discussions tend to get bogged down debating them so most people would rather just avoid the subject.

[Madison320]

I think that most RPF members do care about this subject but the cop issues are more emotional and the income tax is boring, also there are many different opinions on on what should replace the income tax and discussions tend to get bogged down debating them so most people would rather just avoid the subject.

That's probably true but there's also a good percentage who think the rich have all these secret loopholes so we need to tax them at a higher percentage.

[dude58677]

I agree it would happen with Ron or Ran Paul but Trump isn't even in favor of free market reforms.

Sure he is as he owns a business. He doesn't want too much overhead not hurt his employees.

[Madison320]

Sure he is as he owns a business. He doesn't want too much overhead not hurt his employees.

I agree he's in favor of some good stuff on smaller things, like lower regulations, but not the most critical things like cutting spending and normalizing rates.

[euphemia]

All-or-nothings drive me crazy. Appreciate the steps. They might lead somewhere good.

[enhanced_deficit]

On a side note, heard very strange conspiracy theory yesterday that Rubio wanted changes that would help produce more future Rubio voters and thus help him get elected to White House. Because many of his supporters were hispanic who had higher birth rates relatively.

[oyarde]

I think that most RPF members do care about this subject but the cop issues are more emotional and the income tax is boring, also there are many different opinions on on what should replace the income tax and discussions tend to get bogged down debating them so most people would rather just avoid the subject.

Considering about every crack pot has a tax plan and about 99 percent of them actually raise my tax . Yeah , it is boring. LOL

[dude58677]

I agree he's in favor of some good stuff on smaller things, like lower regulations, but not the most critical things like cutting spending and normalizing rates.

The spending and tax rates require an act of Congress.Even if he asked for a smaller defense budget it would be overridden for an even higher defense budget then what he proposed. The things he has control over he has done very well. In the long run he has opened the door for more nonpolitician to come forward and clean house. He is an asset to this country. He is Ross Perot but only in the White House and slightly better platform and he is far more entertaining. So enjoy these next 4-8 years.

[nikcers]

This is definitely a new direction in foreign policy following this weeks developments especially regarding Trumps speech which hinted that we should of never started doing trade with our competitiors (like with china).


Taxes

The draft US tax bill, if passed as written a week ago, would represent a break with global fair-taxation rules as applied to corporations (http://www.dw.com/en/us-republicans-unveil-final-version-of-trumps-tax-reform-bill/a-41821213), and represent a thinly disguised form of trade war.


WTO negotiation

the top US trade representative has launched a broadside at the trade body's 164 members, saying they seek litigation instead of negotiations to obtain advantages. Despite his sharp criticism of the 164-member trade body's inability to negotiate new agreements, Lighthizer managed to attract enough allies at the meeting to form smaller groups of countries to pursue new rules for open electronic commerce and to break down unreasonable trade barriers on food safety.

[Madison320]

All-or-nothings drive me crazy. Appreciate the steps. They might lead somewhere good.

Are you referring to me? I'm not like that at all. I'm all about small steps. The problem with Trump is that most of the small steps are leading towards bigger government.

[Madison320]

The spending and tax rates require an act of Congress.Even if he asked for a smaller defense budget it would be overridden for an even higher defense budget then what he proposed. The things he has control over he has done very well.

Like appointing dovish Jerome Powell to chair the federal reserve? After Trump campaigned on sound money?

If Trump wanted smaller government he would ask for it and he could veto any bill that increases spending and let congress override him. Instead he's asking for bigger government.

I had hope that Trump would be good but damn, the evidence is in. He's not good. Loot at how he flipped on the stock market, calling it a big fat ugly bubble as a candidate and now taking credit for the bubble as president.

[dude58677]

Like appointing dovish Jerome Powell to chair the federal reserve? After Trump campaigned on sound money?

If Trump wanted smaller government he would ask for it and he could veto any bill that increases spending and let congress override him. Instead he's asking for bigger government.

I had hope that Trump would be good but damn, the evidence is in. He's not good. Loot at how he flipped on the stock market, calling it a big fat ugly bubble as a candidate and now taking credit for the bubble as president.

Congress would override him with a bigger defense budget.

[johnwk]

This same kind of “tax reform” has happened a number of times during my life time, the last time being under President Reagan. When the Washington Sewer Rats realize the American People are getting sick and tired of the corrupt taxing “code” and how it is destroying America from within, our Congress critters back off with an illusion of “tax reform” which cleverly keeps the notoriously evil income tax alive and available to Congress to slowly re-create the same miseries which aroused the people into wanting “tax reform” in the first place.

How many freaken times must dim wits in America go through the same kabuki dance under tax reform to realize the problem is the freaken income tax which Congress uses to carry out its evil doings generation after generation?

When will the American people realize that repeating the same action over and over [tax reform which keeps the income tax alive] will never yield a different result?

The worm at the root of the rotten tree is in fact our nation’s love affair with the communist, socialist, progressive inspired incometax.

JWK


The unavoidable truth is, the social democrats’ plan for “free” college tuition will be paid for by taxing the paychecks of millions of college graduates who worked their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs.



I know what you are saying but Congress is the problem. If Ron or Rand Paul were President, the exact thing would happen. Congress would ignore either of them, they do while he is in Congress so why wouldn't they when he is President? It sucks but unfortunately that's what we face. We have senators and congressman who were in office for decades and who are also tax lawyers writing the code for the ABA. The 2016 Presidential Election was a major milestone as a step away from this but it is by no means a cure all.

People vote in our members of Congress. The people have more to do with our present circumstances than some are willing to admit. Unfortunately, and with regard to "tax reform", I have yet to find more than a handful of people who can discuss the issue on the same intellectual level as our founders discussed tax reform when framing our Constitution. And I have yet to find one radio or tv personality who is willing to expose their audience to the wisdom, merits and brilliance of our Founder's original tax plan.

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.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by johnwk
The worm at the root of the rotten tree is in fact our nation’s love affair with the communist, socialist, progressive inspired income tax.


What bothers me is that it seems only a small percentage of RPFs actually give a crap about this. Everyone is up in arms over police brutality but not too many care about the property rights of the most wealthy.


I think you are pointing out the vast majority of the people have no moral compass when it comes to passing laws which promote the "common defense and general welfare of the United States".


JWK

[euphemia]

Please stop painting with such a broad brush. Many of us care about both the immorality and the cost of the current system, but many of us can also appreciate a step in the right direction, even if it’s a tiny step. When Rand dropped out of the race, it was clear Trump was the only one who understood what a billion dollars was and how much it costs the taxpayer. Of course we would rather have Ron or Rand in control, but we don’t and it doesn’t help for people to keep being bitter, angry, and ungrateful.

[dude58677]

People vote in our members of Congress. The people have more to do with our present circumstances than some are willing to admit. Unfortunately, and with regard to "tax reform", I have yet to find more than a handful of people who can discuss the issue on the same intellectual level as our founders discussed tax reform when framing our Constitution. And I have yet to find one radio or tv personality who is willing to expose their audience to the wisdom, merits and brilliance of our Founder's original tax plan.

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.




Now to be President you have to either be a celebrity, business owner, etc. So there is really no point in being a career politician and if you are the American people will not reelect you. So there is no longer a career ladder in politics. So now if someone gets into political office it will be for the right reasons. If someone has a cause such as what you are talking about then that would be great. The election also showed that alternative nedia is taking over. So if you wanting start your own YouTube talk show and promote this cause and encourage others to run for office then great as well. You might even decided to run for Congress on this cause yourself. So yeah the 2016 presidential election is far reaching.

[johnwk]

All-or-nothings drive me crazy. Appreciate the steps. They might lead somewhere good.

Yup. The "steps" always lead back to keeping the worm at the root of the rotten tree which is the income tax.

This same kind of “tax reform” has happened a number of times during my life time, the last time being under President Reagan. When the Washington Sewer Rats realize the American People are getting sick and tired of the corrupt taxing “code” and how it is destroying America from within, our Congress critters back off with an illusion of “tax reform” which cleverly keeps the notoriously evil income tax alive and available to Congress to slowly re-create the same miseries which aroused the people into wanting “tax reform” in the first place.

How many freaken times must dim wits in America go through the same kabuki dance under tax reform to realize the problem is the freaken income tax which Congress uses to carry out its evil doings generation after generation?

When will the American people realize that repeating the same action over and over [tax reform which keeps the income tax alive] will never yield a different result?

The worm at the root of the rotten tree is in fact our nation’s love affair with the communist, socialist, progressive inspired income tax.

JWK



If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

[johnwk]

Considering about every crack pot has a tax plan and about 99 percent of them actually raise my tax . Yeah , it is boring. LOL



Under the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment there would be no federal tax calculated from your profits, gains, wages, tips, or other lawfully earned incomes.


JWK




Are you really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?

[Sonny Tufts]

Under the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment there would be no federal tax calculated from your profits, gains, wages, tips, or other lawfully earned incomes.

But there would be much higher state income taxes, since federal excises wouldn't come close to covering the federal budget, and the states would need to come up with revenue when Congress imposes a direct tax. Since all but a handful of the states already have an income tax system in place, the natural source for the required revenue would be additional income taxes.

The notion that the members of Congress (and the people who elect them) would agree to slash federal spending down to the level of the revenue from federal excises is pure fantasy.

[Superfluous Man]

This is so repetitive.

johnwk, you should just copy the text of the OP and make a bot to post it on your behalf every couple weeks.

[johnwk]

But there would be much higher state income taxes, since federal excises wouldn't come close to covering the federal budget . . .

So, now you are complaining the States would have to tax their own citizens to hand out free government cheese?


JWK



They are neither “liberals” nor “progressives”. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use government force to steal and then enjoy the property which labor, business and investors have worked to create.

[johnwk]

This is so repetitive.

johnwk, you should just copy the text of the OP and make a bot to post it on your behalf every couple weeks.

So, instead of talking about real tax reform, you came here to post a wise crack.


JWK

[johnwk]

I could be very cynical and say, ever since the communist/socialist/progressive 16th Amendment was adopted, it seems that every 20 to 25 years or so tax “reform” becomes a very real issue because the people begin to realize how oppressive, discriminatory and screwed up the federal income tax system has become. And it becomes so messed up because our scheming Congress critters over this span of years, has used the system to sell discriminatory tax breaks in return for political campaign contribution; has used the system to reward friends and feather their own nests, not to mention how Congress uses “income taxation” to buy the votes of our nations hard working wage earners by promising to increase special exemptions and to lower a tax on their earn wages which ought never have been taxed from the beginning!

This somewhat summarizes the repeated cycle since the adoption of the notoriously evil “income tax” and especially the direct un-apportioned tax on working peoples earned wages which began under the unconstitutional, rope-a-dope “Temporary Victory Tax” of 1943 ___ an alleged temporary direct tax on working people’s earned wages to fund the war effort. And this “Temporary Tax” completed Congress’ lust for a totalitarian tax system designed by communists, socialists, and progressives which is now used to subvert our founders’ intended free market system and is used by our Washington Swamp creatures to not only manipulate our economy, but also used for a number of nefarious purposes.

And what did one of our forefathers say with regard to an unbridled direct tax? See Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes on January 18th, 1797 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=006/llac006.db&recNum=191):

"History, Mr. Williams said, informed them of the annihilation of nations by means of direct taxation. He referred gentlemen to the situation of the Roman Empire in its innocence, and asked them whether they had any direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and taxes upon luxuries and spices from the Indies were their sources of revenue; but, as soon as they changed their system to direct taxation, it operated to their ruin; their children were sold as slaves, and the Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we then follow this system? He trusted not."

There is no question in my mind that the tax plan which Trump has signed will help improve the economy and provide much needed tax relief. But as I have said before, the worm at the root of the rotted tree is in fact the communist, socialist, progressive tax calculated from profits, gains, tips, wages and other lawfully earned incomes, a system of taxation which not only allows Congress to engage in activities destructive to our nation’s common defense and general welfare, but actually encourages and entices members of Congress to use the system for their personal political gains. Must we go through the same misery every 20 or 30 years without identifying the cause of our sufferings?

Is it not time to discuss the merits, wisdom and brilliance of returning to our founder’s original tax plan which can be accomplished by adopting the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment ___ a tax plan designed by our Founders to control and regulate Congress actions?


JWK



“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people?Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

[Superfluous Man]

So, instead of talking about real tax reform, you came here to post a wise crack.


JWK

Taxation is theft.

In the mean time, any tax cut is a welcome improvement.

[nikcers]

Taxation is theft.

In the mean time, any tax cut is a welcome improvement.
Yes but its just fake tax cuts. You can't cut tax without cutting spending, spending is the real tax. There is no free lunch, if you think something is free then you are the product.

[johnwk]

Taxation is theft.
.


And by your logic so is the payment of rent a theft! :rolleyes:

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 (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=55)

[Sonny Tufts]

So, now you are complaining the States would have to tax their own citizens to hand out free government cheese?

It's not so much a complaint as it is an observation of what would occur with almost 100% certainty under your tax plan.

[devil21]

Some food for thought regarding income taxes. "Income" tax only applies to employees of the federal government. What does that make the average taxpayer? Yep, a federal employee. What does a self-made declaration of being a US Citizen imply? It implies that the Citizen is willingly an employee of the corporation called "government" and therefore is voluntarily responsible to pay the debts incurred by the corporation. The interest on that debt is serviced by....wait for it.....income taxes! This is why income tax was created at same time as Federal Reserve was. (Same system applies to state income taxes also.)

[johnwk]

Under the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment there would be no federal tax calculated from your profits, gains, wages, tips, or other lawfully earned incomes.



But there would be much higher state income taxes, since federal excises wouldn't come close to covering the federal budget

Not if each States' Congressional Delegation decided to federally fund only those functions listed under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, and the States were thus forced to end free government cheese being handed out to the able bodied slugs and parasites who are now too lazy to work enough hours to meet their own economic needs. And, let us not forget we were talking about imposts, duties AND internal federal excise taxes being levied before laying a federal direct tax upon the states.

JWK

[johnwk]

So, now you are complaining the States would have to tax their own citizens to hand out free government cheese?






It's not so much a complaint as it is an observation of what would occur with almost 100% certainty under your tax plan.


First of all, it's not my tax plan. It's our Constitution's original tax plan as it was intended to operate by our founders.


Additionally, your "observation" of what would occur does not take into account the founder's plan would encourage each State's government to keep a jealous eye on the spending habits of its Congressional Delegation to avoid the apportioned tax, and likewise encourage each State's government to make certain able bodied slugs and parasites within their State who are now too lazy to work enough hours to meet their own economic needs would no longer become a public burden and get free government cheese.


JWK

[Superfluous Man]

Yes but its just fake tax cuts. You can't cut tax without cutting spending, spending is the real tax. There is no free lunch, if you think something is free then you are the product.

I agree that ultimately total taxation is always exactly equal to total spending.

However, tax cuts are always good. And cutting taxes before cutting spending is still good. The main reason is that practically speaking, government revenue must decrease before government spending ever will. We have to starve the Leviathan.

[Superfluous Man]

First of all, it's not my tax plan. It's our Constitution's original tax plan as it was intended to operate by our founders.


They're not my founders. And besides, they were wrong.

Taxation is theft.

[Slave Mentality]

Some food for thought regarding income taxes. "Income" tax only applies to employees of the federal government. What does that make the average taxpayer? Yep, a federal employee. What does a self-made declaration of being a US Citizen imply? It implies that the Citizen is willingly an employee of the corporation called "government" and therefore is voluntarily responsible to pay the debts incurred by the corporation. The interest on that debt is serviced by....wait for it.....income taxes! This is why income tax was created at same time as Federal Reserve was. (Same system applies to state income taxes also.)

All under the guise of “muh government services”.

[Sonny Tufts]

Additionally, your "observation" of what would occur does not take into account the founder's plan would encourage each State's government to keep a jealous eye on the spending habits of its Congressional Delegation to avoid the apportioned tax, and likewise encourage each State's government to make certain able bodied slugs and parasites within their State who are now too lazy to work enough hours to meet their own economic needs would no longer become a public burden and get free government cheese.

First of all, state governments don't elect their Congressional Delegations -- the people do, and they aren't about to allow the federal budget to be cut to the bone as your plan would require. Second, Congressional Delegations don't curb their spending habits now, and there's no reason to believe they would do so under your plan.

[Sonny Tufts]

"Income" tax only applies to employees of the federal government.

A tax protester myth.


This is why income tax was created at same time as Federal Reserve was.

The federal income tax was created 62 years before the Federal Reserve.

[nikcers]

A tax protester myth.



The federal income tax was created 62 years before the Federal Reserve.

That was when dollars were a unit of measuring how much money you have though. Our tax system doesn't work because whatever gets bought by printed money inflates in price and distorts the cost of doing business. Lowering some people's taxes is just picking winners and losers, not paying for the cuts guarantees the lower class gets hurt the most because if the cost of doing business goes up some businesses that don't have competition can just raise their prices so the cost of living goes up.

[Madison320]

I think that most RPF members do care about this subject but the cop issues are more emotional and the income tax is boring, also there are many different opinions on on what should replace the income tax and discussions tend to get bogged down debating them so most people would rather just avoid the subject.

So far there's only about 7 replies but none of them seem to be worried at all about the injustice of progressive taxation. Wealth envy is alive and well, even on a libertarian site. Look up the thread called "Which is worse, Obama's support for progressive taxation or Trump's support for tariffs?".

Wealth envy is alive and well, even on a libertarian site. I'm disappointed.

[devil21]

A tax protester myth.



The federal income tax was created 62 years before the Federal Reserve.

If it's a tax thread, you can bet your bottom dollar that Sonny Tufts will be on it setting us all straight on the truth :rolleyes:

(16th Amendment -1913 Federal Reserve - 1913)

[Marenco]

The Case Against the Income Tax

Could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of its history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker’s paycheck. In the late 1800s, when Congress first attempted to impose an income tax, the notion of taxing a citizen’s hard work was considered radical! Public outcry ensued; more importantly, the Supreme Court ruled the income tax unconstitutional. Only with passage of the 16th Amendment did Congress gain the ability to tax the productive endeavors of its citizens.

Yet don’t we need an income tax to fund the important functions of the federal government? You may be surprised to know that the income tax accounts for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Only 10 years ago, the federal budget was roughly one-third less than it is today. Surely we could find ways to cut spending back to 1990 levels, especially when the Treasury has single year tax surpluses for the past several years. So perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all.

The harmful effects of the income tax are obvious. First and foremost, it has enabled government to expand far beyond its proper constitutional limits, regulating virtually every aspect of our lives. It has given government a claim on our lives and work, destroying our privacy in the process. It takes billions of dollars out of the legitimate private economy, with most Americans giving more than a third of everything they make to the federal government. This economic drain destroys jobs and penalizes productive behavior. The ridiculous complexity of the tax laws makes compliance a nightmare for both individuals and businesses. All things considered, our Founders would be dismayed by the income tax mess and the tragic loss of liberty which results.

America without an income tax would be far more prosperous and far more free, but we must be prepared to fight to regain the liberty we have lost incrementally over the past century. I recently introduced “The Liberty Amendment,” legislation which would repeal the 16th Amendment and effectively abolish the income tax. I truly believe that real tax reform, reform that so many frustrated Americans desperately want, requires bold legislation that challenges the Washington mind set. Congress talks about reform, but the current tax debate really involves nothing of substance. Both parties are content to continue tinkering with the edges of the tax code to please various special interests. The Liberty Amendment is an attempt to eliminate the system altogether, forcing Congress to find a simple and fair way to collect limited federal revenues. Most of all, the Liberty Amendment is an initiative aimed at reducing the size and scope of the federal government.

Is it impossible to end the income tax? I don’t believe so. In fact, I believe a serious groundswell movement of disaffected taxpayers is growing in this country. Millions of Americans are fed up with the current tax system, and they will bring pressure on Congress. Some sidestep Congress completely, bringing legal challenges questioning the validity of the tax code and the 16th Amendment itself. Ultimately, the Liberty Amendment could serve as a flashpoint for these millions of voices.

-- Ron Paul

[johnwk]

They're not my founders. And besides, they were wrong.

Taxation is theft.


:rolleyes:

[johnwk]

First of all, state governments don't elect their Congressional Delegations -- the people do, and they aren't about to allow the federal budget to be cut to the bone as your plan would require. Second, Congressional Delegations don't curb their spending habits now, and there's no reason to believe they would do so under your plan.

First of all, and for the second time, it's not my tax plan. It's our Constitution's original tax plan as our Founders intended it to operate.

Aside from that your post is a very, very clever deflection.

:rolleyes:

[johnwk]

So far there's only about 7 replies but none of them seem to be worried at all about the injustice of progressive taxation. Wealth envy is alive and well, even on a libertarian site. Look up the thread called "Which is worse, Obama's support for progressive taxation or Trump's support for tariffs?".

Wealth envy is alive and well, even on a libertarian site. I'm disappointed.

You have to understand most of these political forum sites, where people can actually have productive discussions and exchange ideas, are infested with operatives whose mission is to disrupt any productive discussion which may actually lead to real tax reform.


JWK

[johnwk]

I heard on Fox News this morning that the promise of tax simplification has gone by the wayside. As long as we have the communist/socialist/progressive income tax, the promise of tax simplification is dead on arrival, and Paul Ryan along with Brady knew this from the very beginning.

Our Washington Sewer Rats will cling, with all their life, to the communist/socialist/progressive income tax which they use to confiscate and then spread the wealth which is created by labor, business and investors.

JWK




There was a time not too long ago in New York when the able-bodied were ashamed to accept home relief, a program created by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1931 when he was Governor. Now, New York City and many other major cities are infested with countless government cheese factions, including recent abled bodied immigrants, who not only demand welfare, but use it to buy beer, wine, drugs, sex, and Lotto tickets.

[Sonny Tufts]

If it's a tax thread, you can bet your bottom dollar that Sonny Tufts will be on it setting us all straight on the truth :rolleyes:

(16th Amendment -1913 Federal Reserve - 1913)

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, authorizing federal taxation - 1787

First federal income tax -- 1861 http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=012/llsl012.db&recNum=340

Unanimous Supreme Court decision upholding its constitutionality - 1880 http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/102/586.html

[oyarde]

I of course think the current forms of tax are horrible . Using that though , for years I had a lot of mortgage interest which I could deduct , I still have a lot of property tax , which I can deduct . It does not personally benefit me for those to go away . If any think the current congress and senate are going to give you a better deal on taxes and spending , I say you have more faith than I .

[spudea]

I heard on Fox News this morning that the promise of tax simplification has gone by the wayside. As long as we have the communist/socialist/progressive income tax, the promise of tax simplification is dead on arrival, and Paul Ryan along with Brady knew this from the very beginning.

Our Washington Sewer Rats will cling, with all their life, to the communist/socialist/progressive income tax which they use to confiscate and then spread the wealth which is created by labor, business and investors.

JWK

Prior tax law 70% of filers used the standard deduction. With the new tax law, could up that to 90% filers using the standard deduction. This is welcome simplification.

[Madison320]

I heard on Fox News this morning that the promise of tax simplification has gone by the wayside. As long as we have the communist/socialist/progressive income tax, the promise of tax simplification is dead on arrival, and Paul Ryan along with Brady knew this from the very beginning.

Our Washington Sewer Rats will cling, with all their life, to the communist/socialist/progressive income tax which they use to confiscate and then spread the wealth which is created by labor, business and investors.

JWK




There was a time not too long ago in New York when the able-bodied were ashamed to accept home relief, a program created by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1931 when he was Governor. Now, New York City and many other major cities are infested with countless government cheese factions, including recent abled bodied immigrants, who not only demand welfare, but use it to buy beer, wine, drugs, sex, and Lotto tickets.

Do you agree with me that while a flat income tax is annoying, it's FAR more moral than a progressive tax because at least the pain is divided among all of us? In my mind progressive tax is much worse because it targets a defenseless minority. I'm disappointed hardly anyone agrees with this on this site. Can you imagine if we had an income tax that only targeted asians for example? Really any law that targets a minority would normally cause everyone here to be outraged. What if smoking weed was only illegal for blacks? But violating the property rights of the rich is ok apparently as long as we leave the middle class alone.

I feel like I was the only one who stayed awake when the Pods came here and converted everyone onto Zippy and TheCount. We're all Democratic Underground now Comrades!!!

[johnwk]

Do you agree with me that while a flat income tax is annoying, it's FAR more moral than a progressive tax because at least the pain is divided among all of us? In my mind progressive tax is much worse because it targets a defenseless minority. I'm disappointed hardly anyone agrees with this on this site. Can you imagine if we had an income tax that only targeted asians for example? Really any law that targets a minority would normally cause everyone here to be outraged. What if smoking weed was only illegal for blacks? But violating the property rights of the rich is ok apparently as long as we leave the middle class alone.

I feel like I was the only one who stayed awake when the Pods came here and converted everyone onto Zippy and TheCount. We're all Democratic Underground now Comrades!!!


There are two major problems with a “flat income tax”. Can you solve them?

What is the definition of taxable income? As we have learned, our Washington Sewer Rats constantly give arbitrary and new meanings to what is and what is not taxable income. How do we fix the definition of "income" so it is agreeable, and beyond manipulation by our Washington Sewer Rats?

The second big problem is, a flat tax on “income” punishes a hard working wage earner living in an inner city who may work two or three jobs to improve his economic conditions. Under a flat tax on income he is required to pay more in federal taxes than an able bodied lazy slug who is too lazy to work enough hours to better his economic conditions. In other words, a flat tax in income is still a socialist/communist/progressive kind of tax in that it is designed to seek out and punish those who work to better their economic circumstances while allowing the lazy to escape contributing an equal share of this tax.

JWK




The unavoidable truth is, the social democrats’ plan for “free” college tuition will be paid for by taxing the paychecks of millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs.

[johnwk]

Prior tax law 70% of filers used the standard deduction. With the new tax law, could up that to 90% filers using the standard deduction. This is welcome simplification.



See President Trump said H&R Block would go out of business because his tax overhaul would be so simple (http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/17/pf/taxes/gop-tax-plan-simplify/index.html)

”The final tax bill, released on Friday, does indeed deliver some simplification, but not as much as promised. And it adds plenty of complications, particularly for small businesses.

Republicans have said that under their tax plan your tax return could be filed on a postcard. That seems unlikely. But even if the IRS shrinks the 1040 you'd still need to check a bundle of instructions to fill it out.”





JWK

[nikcers]

China said on Thursday that it would temporarily exempt foreign companies from paying tax (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/business/tax-bill-china.html) on their earnings, a bid to keep American businesses from taking their profits out of China following Washington’s overhaul of the United States tax code.

Officials worry that a significant repatriation of foreign earnings could set off a broader capital flight, and weaken the country’s currency, the renminbi. A sharp fall in the renminbi could spark a vicious cycle with even more companies — and possibly individuals — looking to minimize losses by moving their money out of China.
Business lobbying groups said it was unlikely that the government’s latest measures would be significant enough to keep many American companies from repatriating profits.

[Superfluous Man]

There are two major problems with a “flat income tax”. Can you solve them?

What is the definition of taxable income? As we have learned, our Washington Sewer Rats constantly give arbitrary and new meanings to what is and what is not taxable income. How do we fix the definition of "income" so it is agreeable, and beyond manipulation by our Washington Sewer Rats?

The second big problem is, a flat tax on “income” punishes a hard working wage earner living in an inner city who may work two or three jobs to improve his economic conditions. Under a flat tax on income he is required to pay more in federal taxes than an able bodied lazy slug who is too lazy to work enough hours to better his economic conditions. In other words, a flat tax in income is still a socialist/communist/progressive kind of tax in that it is designed to seek out and punish those who work to better their economic circumstances while allowing the lazy to escape contributing an equal share of this tax.

JWK




The unavoidable truth is, the social democrats’ plan for “free” college tuition will be paid for by taxing the paychecks of millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs.



3. Taxation is theft.

[johnwk]

3. Taxation is theft.

And yet, you travel upon roads financed by taxation.

:rolleyes:

[Superfluous Man]

And yet, you travel upon roads financed by taxation.

:rolleyes:

Of course.

And you travel on roads financed by kinds of taxation you disapprove of.

Obviously it would be better if we didn't finance roads with taxes. But in the mean time, refusing the drive on the roads we're forced to buy makes no sense.

[johnwk]

Of course.

And you travel on roads financed by kinds of taxation you disapprove of.



All taxation is not theft as you assert. But there are forms of taxation which are theft, especially a direct tax upon one individual which is then transferred to another individual for their personal economic needs. On the other hand, a tax levied upon gasoline which is used to build public roads cannot reasonably be asserted to be theft as you indicate.


JWK

[nikcers]

All taxation is not theft as you assert. But there are forms of taxation which are theft, especially a direct tax upon one individual which is then transferred to another individual for their personal economic needs. On the other hand, a tax levied upon gasoline which is used to build public roads cannot reasonably be asserted to be theft as you indicate.


JWK
I do not consent to it, I am compelled by government force to pay gasoline taxes. That's like saying your car isn't stolen because it was towed and you are able to pay for it to be returned.

[johnwk]

I do not consent to it, I am compelled by government force to pay gasoline taxes. That's like saying your car isn't stolen because it was towed and you are able to pay for it to be returned.

Huh? I do not understand the gist of you post. Do you drive your car on public roads? Should you not help to pay for their upkeep? Is a tax on gasoline not a reasonable way to collect revenue for the purpose of building and repair of public roads?


JWK

[Superfluous Man]

All taxation is not theft as you assert. But there are forms of taxation which are theft, especially a direct tax upon one individual which is then transferred to another individual for their personal economic needs. On the other hand, a tax levied upon gasoline which is used to build public roads cannot reasonably be asserted to be theft as you indicate.


JWK

That encapsulates what's wrong with all of your posts here.

You portray yourself as a radical tax reformer. But when all is said and done, you're still pro-tax.

[Superfluous Man]

Huh? I do not understand the gist of you post. Do you drive your car on public roads? Should you not help to pay for their upkeep? Is a tax on gasoline not a reasonable way to collect revenue for the purpose of building and repair of public roads?


JWK

Have you really been here since 2008 and still think the free market wouldn't work for roads?

[nikcers]

Huh? I do not understand the gist of you post. Do you drive your car on public roads? Should you not help to pay for their upkeep? Is a tax on gasoline not a reasonable way to collect revenue for the purpose of building and repair of public roads?


JWK
The money from the gas tax gets misappropriated into the government general fund. So its absolutely theft if you think that the roads are being bought with gas taxes.

[johnwk]

That encapsulates what's wrong with all of your posts here.

You portray yourself as a radical tax reformer. But when all is said and done, you're still pro-tax.

Another absurd and inaccurate post. I am not a radical tax reformer. I support and defend our Constitution's original tax plan, as it was intended to operate by our founders. You, on the other hand, believe all taxation is theft, including those agreed to by the States to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.


JWK

[johnwk]

The money from the gas tax gets misappropriated into the government general fund. So its absolutely theft if you think that the roads are being bought with gas taxes.

Yes. The money raised from the gas tax does get misappropriated, which happens to be a criminal offense in my mind. But the misappropriation of revenue, for purposes not authorized by a constitution, does not make all taxation theft.


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 (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=55)

[Zippyjuan]

Another absurd and inaccurate post. I am not a radical tax reformer. I support and defend our Constitution's original tax plan, as it was intended to operate by our founders. You, on the other hand, believe all taxation is theft, including those agreed to by the States to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.


JWK

Duties and imposts and excise taxes are not the only taxes allowed in the Constitution. There is one word before that you miss.


The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,

It does not limit taxes to tariffs and import duties and excises.

[euphemia]

That encapsulates what's wrong with all of your posts here.

You portray yourself as a radical tax reformer. But when all is said and done, you're still pro-tax.

Taxes are not wrong in themselves. They are wrong when they are used to promote injustice. That would include engineering social policy such as buying a house, marrying, or having children. Those kinds of things discriminate in favor of people who do certain things. Coupled with a welfare policy that encourages the opposite, well, that kind of promotes more injustice.

Taxation should only support a very limited government where all citizens own their inalienable rights without interference from government.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by johnwk
Another absurd and inaccurate post. I am not a radical tax reformer. I support and defend our Constitution's original tax plan, as it was intended to operate by our founders. You, on the other hand, believe all taxation is theft, including those agreed to by the States to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.


JWK





Duties and imposts and excise taxes are not the only taxes allowed in the Constitution. There is one word before that you miss.



It does not limit taxes to tariffs and import duties and excises.

Did you miss the comma after the word taxes, after which the taxes are specifically listed?


Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, . . . but all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States.


And what does you post have to do with what you quoted? Are you here to troll and misdirect the subject of the thread?

:rolleyes:

[Sonny Tufts]

Did you miss the comma after the word taxes, after which the taxes are specifically listed?


The term "taxes" clearly isn't restricted to duties, imposts, and excises for the simple reason that Congress has the power to impose direct taxes. Whether the term includes something more than direct taxes, duties, imposts, and excises is another matter, although this issue was anticipated over 200 years ago.


There may perhaps be an indirect tax on a particular article that cannot be comprehended within the description of duties or imposts or excises; in such case, it will be comprised under the general denomination of "taxes." For the term "tax" is the genus, and includes
1. Direct taxes.
2. Duties, imposts, and excises.
3. All other classes of an indirect kind, and not within any of the classifications enumerated under the preceding heads.

Justice Chase, in Hylton v. U.S.. 3 U.S. 171 (1796)

If it can be considered as a tax neither direct within the meaning of the Constitution nor comprehended within the term "duty, impost or excise," there is no provision in the Constitution one way or another, and then it must be left to such an operation of the power as if the authority to lay taxes had been given generally in all instances, without saying whether they should be apportioned or uniform, and in that case I should presume the tax ought to be uniform, because the present Constitution was particularly intended to affect individuals, and not states, except in particular cases specified. And this is the leading distinction between the articles of Confederation and the present Constitution.

Justice Iredell, in Hylton

[johnwk]

The term "taxes" clearly isn't restricted to duties, imposts, and excises for the simple reason that Congress has the power to impose direct taxes. Whether the term includes something more than direct taxes, duties, imposts, and excises is another matter, although this issue was anticipated over 200 years ago.

:rolleyes: You trolls never give up. Do you? What does that have to do with the subject of the thread? ZIP! If you are not interested in the subject of the thread, please go troll somewhere else, and take you pal with you.


JWK

[Sonny Tufts]

What does that have to do with the subject of the thread?

It has everything to do with your inability to read and understand the taxing clause or to comprehend that your version of the "original tax plan" is completely unworkable in a country of over 300 million.

[johnwk]

It has everything to do with your inability to read and understand the taxing clause or to comprehend that your version of the "original tax plan" is completely unworkable in a country of over 300 million.

Your post has nothing to do with the subject of the thread. If you are not interested in the subject of the thread, please go troll somewhere else, and take you pals with you.

[nikcers]

Yes.. But the misappropriation , theft.

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"

[Zippyjuan]

Did you miss the comma after the word taxes, after which the taxes are specifically listed?


Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, . . . but all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States.



There is also a coma after duties and imposts- it is a series of items which are all related- like apples, pears, bananas, and peaches. Apples are similar but distinct from pears and bananas but they are related. That is why this list too is separated by comas. The coma means "and". Taxes AND duties AND imposts AND excises. Taxes are similar to but distinct from duties, imposts, and excises which means that there can be taxes in addition to imposts, duties, and excises according to the Constitution. Imposts, duties, and excises are not the only forms of taxation the Constitution allows. If they only intended those three, they would have used a colon, not a coma, following "taxes".


The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes: Duties, Imposts and Excises,

[timosman]

Apples are similar but distinct from pears and bananas but they are related.

Great job, Alexa.

[Zippyjuan]

Great job, Alexa.

Thank you for your informative contribution to the discussion.

[johnwk]

There is also a coma after duties and imposts- it is a series of items which are all related- like apples, pears, bananas, and peaches. Apples are similar but distinct from pears and bananas but they are related. That is why this list too is separated by comas. Taxes are similar to but distinct from duties, imposts, and excises which means that there can be taxes in addition to imposts, duties, and excises according to the Constitution. Imposts, duties, and excises are not the only forms of taxation the Constitution allows. If they only intended those three, they would have used a colon, not a coma, following "taxes".

You just can't stop trolling. Can you?


Your post has nothing to do with the socialist income tax, which is the topic of the thread.

[Zippyjuan]

You just can't stop trolling. Can you?


Your post has nothing to do with the socialist income tax, which is the topic of the thread.

It shows that it is not in violation of the Constitution.


The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes

[johnwk]

. Originally Posted by johnwk
Yes.. But the misappropriation , theft.






"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"

Why did you alter what I wrote? What I wrote was "But the misappropriation of revenue, for purposes not authorized by a constitution, does not make all taxation theft."

JWK

[nikcers]

Why did you alter what I wrote? What I wrote was "But the misappropriation of revenue, for purposes not authorized by a constitution, does not make all taxation theft."

JWK

It's because you are splitting hairs here, taxation, in its current form is theft. Misappropriation is a form of theft.

[johnwk]

It shows that it is not in violation of the Constitution.

Your post is irrelevant to Trump's tax plan. Why do you keep on trolling, and trying to switch the subject?

[johnwk]

It's because you are splitting hairs here, taxation, in its current form is theft. Misappropriation is a form of theft.

:rolleyes:

It's amazing how may trolls have been attracted to this forum.

[nikcers]

:rolleyes:

It's amazing how may trolls have been attracted to this forum.

Wow so you just call names when you lose arguments?

[johnwk]

Wow so you just call names when you lose arguments?

I haven't lost anything. But you sure love to ignore the subject of the thread and run down rabbit holes having nothing to do with Trump's tax plan.

JWK

[nikcers]

I haven't lost anything. But you sure love to ignore the subject of the thread and run down rabbit holes having nothing to do with Trump's tax plan.

JWK

Trump's Theft plan.

[Zippyjuan]

Your post is irrelevant to Trump's tax plan. Why do you keep on trolling, and trying to switch the subject?

Trump's tax plan is irrelevant (actually it isn't his plan- it is the Congressional Republican's plan- they wrote and passed it). It changed nothing except giving more money to corporations and the wealthy while increasing the national debt. It didn't simplify taxes and get rid of loopholes and deductions. It didn't put thousands of dollars into the middle class as it was sold as doing. It won't add thousands of jobs (the last time similar changes in the tax code were made it didn't do anything either).

[johnwk]

Trump's Theft plan.

And part of the reason is, it keeps the socialist, communist, progressive income tax alive.




JWK

[johnwk]

Trump's tax plan is irrelevant




To you it may be irrelevant, but it's the subject of this thread. If you are not interested in the subject, have the decency to not post in the thread.


JWK

[Zippyjuan]

To you it may be irrelevant, but it's the subject of this thread. If you are not interested in the subject, have the decency to not post in the thread.


JWK

Your argument is that it is unconstitutional. Law and court cases have ruled that the income tax is Constitutional- even without the 16th Amendment. That reduces your argument to that you don't personally like it.

[johnwk]

Your argument is that it is unconstitutional. Law and court cases have ruled that the income tax is Constitutional- even without the 16th Amendment. That reduces your argument to that you don't personally like it.

The topic of the thread is Trump's approval in keeping the socialist, communist, progressive income tax alive. Whether or not it is constitutional is irrelevant to the nature of the tax.

Stop trolling.


JWK

[Zippyjuan]

Let us again examine your alternative. Part one is get rid of the income tax. Moving on to Part 2.


"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."

To achieve the goal of only raising money to finance the country via "impost duties and excise taxes" we will need to impose a 200% tariff on every single item we import assuming we meet the requirement that we balance our budget (it is afterall, the "The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment"). That is also a socialist tax- it hits some groups of society more than others. Some benefit more than others.

"But spending will be lower- the tax would not be that high!" A false assumption. To be realistic, we need to start with where spending is right now- not some fantasy land of tiny federal government spending. If we impose your system today, we have to use today's budget figures to see the real impact. Tariffs hurt anybody buying anything imported- companies to individuals. Tariffs reduce competition meaning domestic companies can charge higher prices than if they faced foreign competition. It will mean higher prices on everything- not just imports.

And the imposts don't happen in a vacuum. The countries we have the tariffs on will respond with high tariffs on goods we export- killing the exporting segment of our economy. Domestic consumption of imported goods will drop significantly with a 200% tariff so the revenues will also fall dramatically which will require even higher tariffs. Revenues will not be adequate to fund the budget. That will force the next part into operation:


"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."

Direct tax meaning a head tax? Yep.


"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."

Take the deficit and hit everybody with a head tax equal to the amount of "their fair share" of the deficit. The States will be in charge of collecting it and sending the money to the Treasury. How do states collect money? Not from tariffs and duties but from property and income taxes. That means that income taxes at the state level will rise- the income tax will not go away. Your "socialist tax" does not go away.

Numbers time again. Numbers getting really rough now.

The current budget is roughly $4 trillion and tariffs, imposts, and excise taxes raise about $150 billion. That is it. Imports total about $2.2 trillion. Let's assume we impose a 100% tariff on all imports and our imports don't decline (knowing that this will not be the case). That would double the price on everything and raise $2.2 trillion. We need another $1.8 trillion so we send a bill to the states for the balance. $1.8 trillion. With a population of 330 million, that comes out to $5,454 a person. Family of four would have to cough up almost $22,000. But they will like it better than the way things are today- it will be fairer with everybody paying the same amount regardless of their income and assets. Who cares if the only made $40,000 and the guy making $1 million also only had to pay $22,000. It is fair, right? Meanwhile the costs of everything you buy has also gone up significantly. The gap between the wealthy and the poor will grow larger. They economy would grow much more slowly as well.

Are you better off with this system than you were before?

[johnwk]

Let us again examine your alternative . . .

The subject of the thread is "President Trump’s tax plan keeps the socialist communist progressive income tax alive." Do you agree?


JWK

[Zippyjuan]

The subject of the thread is "President Trump’s tax plan keeps the socialist communist progressive income tax alive." Do you agree?


JWK

I do agree with that. I also agree that your suggestion of the "The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment" you included in the discussion doesn't get rid of it either. It may end the income tax at the Federal level but not at the state level (it increases the income tax burden at the state level because it would be unable to raise enough revenues via tariffs and excise taxes) and it replaces it with another system which is also socialist (redistributing wealth).

[johnwk]

I do agree with that. I also agree that your suggestion of the "The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment" you included in the discussion doesn't get rid of it either. It may end the income tax at the Federal level but not at the state level (it increases the income tax burden at the state level because it would be unable to raise enough revenues via tariffs and excise taxes) and it replaces it with another system which is also socialist (redistributing wealth).

Our Constitution's original tax plan does not increase any taxes within a State. If the direct tax is found necessary, it is only because the various state congressional delegations want to keep the federal free cheese train coming their way. But the apportioned tax makes it quite clear, there is no free federal government cheese!

JWK

[Zippyjuan]

Our Constitution's original tax plan does not increase any taxes within a State. If the direct tax is found necessary, it is only because the various state congressional delegations want to keep the federal free cheese train coming their way. But the apportioned tax makes it quite clear, there is no free federal government cheese!

JWK

Since tariffs could not raise enough money, it does force states to raise their taxes to abide by your plan. The "head tax" then adds to the gap between the wealthy- increasing the tax burden on the poor at the expense of the wealthy (compared to the current system). If any tax collection is required by the states, those at the lowest income levels will be paying the highest tax rates as a percentage of their incomes if the dollar amount is per person. Inverse socialism? If the states don't do it per person then we are back at your socialist progressive income tax. In either system, one group is benefiting more than another.

[johnwk]

Since tariffs could not raise enough money, it does force states to raise their taxes to abide by your plan.
.

The truth is, as I previously pointed out, If the direct tax is found necessary, it is only because the various state congressional delegations want to keep the federal free cheese train coming their way. But the apportioned tax makes it quite clear, there is no free federal government cheese! I take it you will demand the federal free cheese train must continue?

Additionally, the "plan" is our Constitution's original tax plan, as it was intended to operate by our Founders.

Go back to page two and read. Your assertions have already been addressed.


JWK

[Zippyjuan]

Every tax system has its own winners and losers. National sales tax or value added tax? Those hit the lower income people harder since they spend more of their money on goods and services.

Tariffs? I have already discussed some of their shortcomings.

Income tax? Maybe- if you have zero exclusions or exemptions or deductions and charge everybody the same rate- that is actually the fairest. But what do you apply it to? All sources of income? Those at the high end tend to make income from investments as well as wages. If you only tax wages, you are giving a break to those who get their income from non- wage sources.

Sure the ideal would be a free world with zero taxes and everybody getting everything they want and do whatever they want to any time they want- and a tiny government which settles disputes but otherwise stays out of the way- but that is not the real world. The real world is complicated.

[Zippyjuan]

The truth is, as I previously pointed out, If the direct tax is found necessary, it is only because the various state congressional delegations want to keep the federal free cheese train coming their way. But the apportioned tax makes it quite clear, there is no free federal government cheese! I take it you will demand the federal free cheese train must continue?

Additionally, the "plan" is our Constitution's original tax plan, as it was intended to operate by our Founders.

Go back to page two and read. Your assertions have already been addressed.


JWK

To have tariffs and excises pay for all of government and avoid extorting the money from the states, you need to do some massive adjustments to the spending. I have asked you before how you would address this but have received no response. What would you want to cut to reduce our budget? A 100% tariff on all imports allows you to spend $2.2 trillion (and would almost double the prices of everything you buy). How would you reduce spending? (oh- the tax would force them to do it! - actually not- it gives them an out by forcing the states to pay for their excess- under the current system they just borrow the money). I am ignoring the impact of a 100% tariff reducing imports (and hence revenues) and its impact on slowing the economy due to higher prices and the loss of exports by retaliating trading partners raising their tariffs on US goods.

How would you suggest reducing $2 trillion from this? Keep in mind that people like their cheese like Social Security and Medicare/ Medicaid. Cutting them is a good way to lose the next election. Voters blame "Congress" for spending too much, but like it when their individual representative brings them goodies so while "Congress" has very low approval ratings, they keep sending their own reps back again and again.

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/pres_budg_total_spending_pie.png

[johnwk]

I do agree with that. I also agree that your suggestion of the "The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment" you included in the discussion doesn't get rid of it either. It may end the income tax at the Federal level but not at the state level (it increases the income tax burden at the state level because it would be unable to raise enough revenues via tariffs and excise taxes) and it replaces it with another system which is also socialist (redistributing wealth).

There is no redistribution of wealth. The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment is a method to raise revenue, and if the direct tax is ever found necessary, and to be laid directly upon the people, which would be a form of a capitation tax, it turns out to be an equal per capita tax. Socialists, Communists and Progressive fear with a passion equal direct taxation. They love their one man one vote, but when it comes to one vote on dollar [the apportioned fair share tax upon individuals] they cry how some are not paying a fair share.

And just what did our founder say with regard to 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 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=004/lled004.db&recNum=317&itemLink)

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 (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.

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 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=266&itemLink)

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 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=52)

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

[johnwk]

To have tariffs and excises pay for all of government and avoid extorting the money from the states, you need to do some massive adjustments to the spending...


And the Fair Share Balanced Budget encourages each States Congressional Delegation to spend no more than is brought in from impost, duties and internal excise taxes to avoid the dreaded apportioned tax which would deplete each state's treasury.


JWK

[johnwk]

How would you suggest reducing $2 trillion from this? Keep in mind that people like their cheese like Social Security and Medicare/ Medicaid

How? Let us take food stamps for example. The federal government simply ends all federal payments for food stamps and reduces federal taxes by that amount which leaves this money within the states, and allows the people in each state to do what they want with this federal tax saving. Keep in mind, doing this also lowers the amount of money paid to federal workers [pensions, healthcare and salaries] which are now paid.

Do you have something against federalism, our Constitution's plan?


JWK

[Zippyjuan]

There is no redistribution of wealth. The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment is a method to raise revenue, and if the direct tax is ever found necessary, and to be laid directly upon the people, which would be a form of a capitation tax, it turns out to be an equal per capita tax. Socialists, Communists and Progressive fear with a passion equal direct taxation. They love their one man one vote, but when it comes to one vote on dollar [the apportioned fair share tax upon individuals] they cry how some are not paying a fair share.



The law as you proposed only requires that the states turn over a sum equal to the per capita share. It does not force them to raise that money by charging a per capita fee to every person in their state. They can do that by raising their current income tax rates if they wish.


They love their one man one vote, but when it comes to one vote on dollar [the apportioned fair share tax upon individuals] they cry how some are not paying a fair share.

Not everybody would agree with the head tax being fair. If I make $1 million should I pay $20,000 in taxes and the person who makes only $30,000 a year is also forced to pay $20,000 in taxes (leaving him with only $10,000 or one quarter of what he earned)? The burden of taxation is falling much more severely on the lower income person. They spend a much higher portion of their working day earning money just to pay his taxes while I only had to work a few minutes a day. $20,000 is nothing to me. It is everything to him. He can't afford to buy a car- I spend the same amount just putting gas in my car. Is that fair?

[johnwk]

The law as you proposed only requires that the states turn over a sum equal to the per capita share. It does not force them to raise that money by charging a per capita fee to every person in their state. They can do that by raising their current income tax rates if they wish.

So? You have a problem with federalism, and the people of each state determining how they shall pay their share of the apportioned tax if it should be levied?


JWK

[johnwk]

Not everybody would agree with the head tax being fair. If I make $1 million should I pay $20,000 in taxes and the person who makes only $30,000 a year is also forced to pay $20,000 in taxes (leaving him with only $10,000 or one quarter of what he earned)? The burden of taxation is falling much more severely on the lower income person. They spend a much higher portion of their working day earning money just to pay his taxes while I only had to work a few minutes a day. $20,000 is nothing to me. It is everything to him. He can't afford to buy a car- I spend the same amount just putting gas in my car. Is that fair?

Well, since the “lower income” people make up a vast majority of each states’ population, perhaps they ought to stop electing members to Congress who would spend more that is brought in from imposts, duties and internal excise taxes in order to avoid the apportioned direct tax.

Additionally, our founders intended to allow each state to raise its share of a direct tax in its own chosen way. They never intended that a direct tax on individuals [a capitation or "head tax"] would be required when laying the apportioned tax.

JWK

[Zippyjuan]

How? Let us take food stamps for example. The federal government simply ends all federal payments for food stamps and reduces federal taxes by that amount which leaves this money within the states, and allows the people in each state to do what they want with this federal tax saving. Keep in mind, doing this also lowers the amount of money paid to federal workers [pensions, healthcare and salaries] which are now paid.

Do you have something against federalism, our Constitution's plan?


JWK

Congratulations. You just reduced Federal Spending by about $70 billion by getting rid of SNAP. Now you only need to bill the states for $2.13 trillion in my example. Your family of four share is now $25,818 a year.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by johnwk
How? Let us take food stamps for example. The federal government simply ends all federal payments for food stamps and reduces federal taxes by that amount which leaves this money within the states, and allows the people in each state to do what they want with this federal tax saving. Keep in mind, doing this also lowers the amount of money paid to federal workers [pensions, healthcare and salaries] which are now paid.

Do you have something against federalism, our Constitution's plan?


JWK


Congratulations. You just reduced Federal Spending by about $70 billion by getting rid of SNAP. Now you only need to bill the states for $2.13 trillion in my example. Your family of four share is now $25,818 a year.


Stop being cute. I gave you an example which is applicable to other federal socialist "programs" such as housing, education, unemployment insurance, etc.




JWK

[Zippyjuan]

Stop being a cute. I gave you an example which is applicable to all federal socialist "programs".


JWK

So you would shift the spending and the taxes to the states. That has zero net effect on the taxpayers and isn't really getting rid of anything.

How much do you think could be reasonably raised via tariffs and imposts and duties? (they currently account for only $140 billion in revenues)

Keep in mind that the more money you raise, the higher the rates have to be and the bigger the negative impacts on your economy.

[Zippyjuan]

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/218/trade/benefits-and-costs-of-tariffs/



The effect of tariffs on producers

Domestic producers will benefit from the introduction of tariffs. This is because it makes their domestic production relatively more competitive compared to imports. Agricultural tariffs have benefited European farmers as they have been protected from cheaper competition.

However, it is argued that the restriction of competition encourages inefficient firms. Therefore, in the long run, domestic firms may not make the necessary improvements that they would have done without tariffs.

Also, the introduction of tariffs usually leads to retaliation. Therefore, other countries will place tariffs on UK exports. Therefore, some exporting firms will lose out and sell fewer exports.

The effect of tariffs on government

Tariffs will increase government revenue. However, it will be a small percentage of total tax revenue. If the tariff is too high then the UK may no longer import the good, so the government will not get any tariff revenue.

Also, there will be other effects. Tariffs lead to a decline in disposable income and a net loss of economic welfare – this will lead to less noticeable falls in tax revenue elsewhere in the economy.

Also, import tariffs may lead to retaliation, meaning UK export firms will face higher tariffs, and they could suffer falling demand. This will lead to lower corporation tax revenue.

The effect of tariffs on employment

It is often argued that tariffs can help protect jobs. If the US government place high tariffs on car imports, this can make US car industry more competitive – safeguarding jobs in US car industry.

However, whilst these jobs are quite obvious and visible. Less visible is the harmful effect on employment elsewhere in the economy.

Consumers face higher prices for cars, leaving less disposable income for buying other goods. Therefore, other domestic industries may see a fall in demand – leading to less employment

If the US place tariffs on car imports. Other countries – Japan, EU may retaliate and place tariffs on US exports – leading to less employment in export industries which are internationally competitive.


Tariffs, imposts, and duties are a lousy way to try to raise revenues. That is why governments don't use them much. The negatives outweigh any positives. They are protectionist- lead to higher prices and fewer jobs and don't provide the revenues anticipated (since demand falls as the rates go up). The Constitution does not restrict the taxes Congress can impose to just duties, imposts, and excises.

[johnwk]

So you would shift the spending and the taxes to the states. That has zero net effect on the taxpayers and isn't really getting rid of anything.



It will only have a zero net effect on taxpayers if each state continues with these socialist programs at their existing levels. And if there is no change in a particular state, the people deserve the tax misery they allow. This is the beauty of federalism. But I suspect taxpayers will revolt in a number of the socialist/communist states once they realize there is no free government cheese, especially cheese handed out to able bodied slugs and parasites who are too lazy to work enough hours to meet their own economic needs.


JWK



There was a time not too long ago in New York when the able-bodied were ashamed to accept home relief, a program created by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1931 when he was Governor. Now, New York City and many other major cities are infested with countless government cheese factions, including recent abled bodied immigrants, who not only demand welfare, but use it to buy beer, wine, drugs, sex, and Lotto tickets.

[johnwk]

Tariffs, imposts, and duties are a lousy way to try to raise revenues.

They are self regulating and allow the market place to determine an allowable limit as Hamilton points out.

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.”


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 (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=55)

[Zippyjuan]

So how much revenue, roughly, do you think you could raise via your tax system?

[johnwk]

So how much revenue, roughly, do you think you could raise via your tax system?

Under our Constitution's original tax plan, Congress would have no problem what-so-ever in raising sufficient revenue to provide for its constitutionally authorized functions which are listed beneath Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1.


JWK

[Zippyjuan]

They are self regulating and allow the market place to determine an allowable limit as Hamilton points out.

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.” [/]


Tariffs are hardly a free market so a "free market tariff rate" will not be found. Hamilton is right that if duties are too high that collections will fall. That will mean that collection will roll over to your fail-safe of demanding funds from the states which will have to raise their taxes on their citizens. Imports and exports (due to retaliatory tariffs imposed on our own goods) will head towards zero. Imports account for ten percent of our economy and imports about 18%. So the economy will likely shrink by 30% or more further reducing revenues and demand for government services and move away from your goal of a smaller government and lower taxes.

[Zippyjuan]

Under our Constitution's original tax plan, Congress would have no problem what-so-ever in raising sufficient revenue to provide for its constitutionally authorized functions which are listed beneath Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1.


JWK

Preferring to not offer an estimate of how much tax you could collect, eh? I understand. That is hard- the higher the rate, the lower the revenues you will get (and the worse for the economy). At current spending levels, you could not fund the government in that way. Yet you don't offer any real suggestions for reducing the spending.

You need a 200% tariff today to meet your balanced budget requirement. But if imports fell by 50% due to those tariffs and duties, then you need a 400% tariff (meaning prices for imports would be five times what they are now- a $50 barrel of oil would cost $250 a barrel) which would cause imports to fall even more..... it collapses on itself.

That means that if your program were implemented, basically the states would be paying a head tax to fund the Federal Government. With zero revenues from duties and tariffs and $4.2 trilion in spending spread over 330 million people that leaves $12,727 a person the states would have to collect. Family of four? $51,000 a year with a median income of $59,000.

The numbers just don't add up. Your tax system is doomed to failure. You can't realistically raise enough revenue or cut enough spending to make it work.

Plus the economic losses outweigh the revenue raised. It would cost the economy more than the money it was spending on an income tax.

[Zippyjuan]

A look at how a tariff on imported tires from China impacted the US- then try to apply that to everything we import.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432462/donald-trumps-protectionist-tariffs-would-hurt-working-class-americans


Luckily, we don’t have to guess how such a tariff would impact the economy, because the Obama administration attempted a version of Trump’s idea seven years ago. It did not go well.

“It’s basically a real-world case study on what would happen if we imposed 35 percent tariffs on Chinese imports,” says Scott Lincicome, an international trade attorney and adjunct fellow at the Cato Institute. “In this case, we saw huge costs for consumers, gains by other foreign competitors, and almost no gains for American workers, even under the most generous of assumptions.” By 2009, the United States was importing tires from China at a rate of about 50 million per year. The United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial, and Service Workers International Union complained to the Obama administration that there was a “large, rapid, and continuing” increase in the number of Chinese-made tires entering American markets. In September of that year, Obama approved relief for domestic producers by increasing tariffs on most new tire imports for three years.

“The president decided to remedy the clear disruption to the U.S. tire industry based on the facts and the law in this case,” then–White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said at the time. Economists Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Sean Lowry note that the number of Americans employed in tire manufacturing increased from 50,800 in September 2009 to 52,000 in September 2011. If all 1,200 jobs were attributed to the tariff — an exceedingly generous assumption — they calculate that Obama’s move could be credited with saving or creating $48 million of additional worker income and purchasing power.

But the tariff also forced consumers to spend $1.1 billion more on tires than they otherwise would have — or roughly $900,000 per U.S. tire industry job created. And retaliatory tariffs imposed by the Chinese further hurt our economy. In early 2010, China’s Ministry of Commerce imposed tariffs ranging from 50.3 to 105.4 percent on American poultry imports, which “reduced exports by $1 billion as U.S. poultry firms experienced a 90 percent collapse in their exports of chicken parts to China,” according to Hufbauer and Lowry.



That was a 25% tariff for three years. Tire sales were about $900 million a year so it would have raised $22.5 million a year for the government. It cost $1 billion in the form of higher prices for consumers and another $1 billion in lost exports (retaliation). The economic costs were ten times the revenues raised by the taxes.

[johnwk]

Preferring to not offer an estimate of how much tax you could collect, eh? .

It is irrelevant and a waste of time to speculate. What is relevant is, under our Constitution's original tax plan, Congress would have no problem what-so-ever in raising sufficient revenue to provide for its constitutionally authorized functions which are listed beneath Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1.


JWK

[johnwk]

Tariffs are hardly a free market .


They are similar to a fee paid to set up a table and sell one's goods and wares at a flea market.

:rolleyes:

[johnwk]

You need a 200% tariff today to meet your balanced budget requirement. .



You are repeating a previous false assertion and ignoring our constitution's original tax plan has different methods to raise a federal revenue, internal and external, direct and indirect taxation.


JWK

[Zippyjuan]

They are similar to a fee paid to set up a table and sell one's goods and wares at a flea market.

:rolleyes:

Not even close. As as vendor, you pay the fee for the table and get to keep everything you earn off what you sell. If you face a tariff, you get a free table but your customers have to pay an extra amount for whatever they buy from you- in our 200% case (balancing the budget at current import levels), they have to pay three times what the tag on your table says. That $10 toaster is going to cost them $30. The money didn't come from your pocket, but it hurt your sales because they can't afford what you are selling (or at least can't afford as much of it if they do still want to buy something from you). Tariffs are not simply annoying fees. You lost and your customer lost. You lost sales and he lost because he was forced to pay more (or avoid buying altogether).

[Zippyjuan]

You are repeating a previous false assertion and ignoring our constitution's original tax plan has different methods to raise a federal revenue, internal and external, direct and indirect taxation.


JWK

I was following the rules you laid out in your plan.


money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes

True I do not include excise taxes. What sorts of goods are you thinking about adding excise taxes to?

[johnwk]

you don't offer any real suggestions for reducing the spending.




That's not true. I gave you an example how our federal government's existing spending could be drastically cut. See posts 112 and 117.

Stop making crap up.

JWK

[johnwk]

Not even close.



Your opinion is noted.

JWK

[johnwk]

I was following the rules you laid out in your plan.

It's not my plan. It's our Constitution's original tax plan, as it was intended to operate by our Founders. Stop trolling and making crap up.

[Zippyjuan]

That's not true. I gave you an example how our federal government's existing spending could be drastically cut. See posts 112 and 117.

Stop making crap up.

JWK

Oh- those "drastic cuts". From post #112:


How? Let us take food stamps for example. The federal government simply ends all federal payments for food stamps and reduces federal taxes by that amount which leaves this money within the states, and allows the people in each state to do what they want with this federal tax saving. Keep in mind, doing this also lowers the amount of money paid to federal workers [pensions, healthcare and salaries] which are now paid.

Do you have something against federalism, our Constitution's plan?


JWK

As I noted in my response, that would be a $70 billion cut in a $4.2 trillion budget. "Drastic"? Hardly. Social Security and Medicare/ Medicaid and Defense spending account for three fourths of the entire budget.

[johnwk]

Oh- those "drastic cuts". From post #112:



As I noted in my response, that would be a $70 billion cut in a $4.2 trillion budget. "Drastic"? Hardly.


And you ignored post 117.

Stop trolling and trying to be cute.

JWK

[Zippyjuan]

And you ignored post 117.

Stop trolling and trying to be cute.

JWK

If you insist. Post #117.


Stop being cute. I gave you an example which is applicable to other federal socialist "programs" such as housing, education, unemployment insurance, etc.


JWK

Housing: $90 billion.
Education. $85 billion.
Unemployment insurance: $80 billion

Interest on the debt alone is bigger than all three of those combined ($300 billion). Still not "drastic cuts". They combine for about seven percent of $4.2 trillion total spending.

Staying away from the Big Three: Social Security, Medicare/ Medicaid, and Defense Spending. Those three account for three fourths of the budget ($3.5 trillion). (Ron Paul avoided suggesting cuts in them as well).

I am flattered that you think I am cute.

[johnwk]

If you insist. Post #117.



Housing: $90 billion.
Education. $85 billion.
Unemployment insurance: $80 billion

Combine for about seven percent of total spending.

Interest on the debt alone is bigger than all three of those combined ($300 billion). Still not "drastic cuts".

Staying away from the Big Three: Social Security, Medicare/ Medicaid, and Defense Spending. Those three account for three fourths of the budget ($3.5 trillion).

I am flattered that you think I am cute.

So, now you ignore "etc." in your calculations which includes other socialist expenditures.


I see you have no intention to stop trolling.


Getting back to the subject of the thread, President Trump’s tax plan keeps the socialist communist progressive income tax alive!


JWK

[Zippyjuan]

So, now you ignore "etc." which includes other socialist expenditures.


I see you have no intention to stop trolling.


Getting back to the subject of the thread, President Trump’s tax plan keeps the socialist communist progressive income tax alive!


JWK

I was trying to examine your proposed alternative to the Congressional Republican tax plan. It just doesn't seem to work.

[johnwk]

I was trying to examine your proposed alternative to the Congressional Republican tax plan. It just doesn't seem to work.

It's not my plan. It's our Constitution's original tax plan as it was intended to operate by our founders. It doesn't seem to work for those Republicans who want a federal nanny state, and federal government cheese.


JWK

[Superfluous Man]

Tariffs, imposts, and duties are a lousy way to try to raise revenues. That is why governments don't use them much. The negatives outweigh any positives. They are protectionist- lead to higher prices and fewer jobs and don't provide the revenues anticipated (since demand falls as the rates go up). The Constitution does not restrict the taxes Congress can impose to just duties, imposts, and excises.

Being a lousy way to raise revenue is a positive, not a negative.

The first goal of any tax reform should always be to reduce revenue.

[Sonny Tufts]

under our Constitution's original tax plan, Congress would have no problem what-so-ever in raising sufficient revenue to provide for its constitutionally authorized functions which are listed beneath Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1.

Not by relying on consumption taxes. As Hamilton noted in Federalist 30, it is foolish to think that imposts and duties can be relied upon forever, and reliance on the States to supply the revenue deficiency is unworkable.


The more intelligent adversaries of the new Constitution admit the force of this reasoning; but they qualify their admission by a distinction between what they call INTERNAL and EXTERNAL taxation. The former they would reserve to the State governments; the latter, which they explain into commercial imposts, or rather duties on imported articles, they declare themselves willing to concede to the federal head. This distinction, however, would violate the maxim of good sense and sound policy, which dictates that every POWER ought to be in proportion to its OBJECT; and would still leave the general government in a kind of tutelage to the State governments, inconsistent with every idea of vigor or efficiency. Who can pretend that commercial imposts are, or would be, alone equal to the present and future exigencies of the Union? Taking into the account the existing debt, foreign and domestic, upon any plan of extinguishment which a man moderately impressed with the importance of public justice and public credit could approve, in addition to the establishments which all parties will acknowledge to be necessary, we could not reasonably flatter ourselves, that this resource alone, upon the most improved scale, would even suffice for its present necessities. Its future necessities admit not of calculation or limitation; and upon the principle, more than once adverted to, the power of making provision for them as they arise ought to be equally unconfined…

To say that deficiencies may be provided for by requisitions upon the States, is on the one hand to acknowledge that this system cannot be depended upon, and on the other hand to depend upon it for every thing beyond a certain limit. Those who have carefully attended to its vices and deformities as they have been exhibited by experience or delineated in the course of these papers, must feel invincible repugnancy to trusting the national interests in any degree to its operation. Its inevitable tendency, whenever it is brought into activity, must be to enfeeble the Union, and sow the seeds of discord and contention between the federal head and its members, and between the members themselves. Can it be expected that the deficiencies would be better supplied in this mode than the total wants of the Union have heretofore been supplied in the same mode? It ought to be recollected that if less will be required from the States, they will have proportionably less means to answer the demand. If the opinions of those who contend for the distinction which has been mentioned were to be received as evidence of truth, one would be led to conclude that there was some known point in the economy of national affairs at which it would be safe to stop and to say: Thus far the ends of public happiness will be promoted by supplying the wants of government, and all beyond this is unworthy of our care or anxiety. How is it possible that a government half supplied and always necessitous, can fulfill the purposes of its institution, can provide for the security, advance the prosperity, or support the reputation of the commonwealth? How can it ever possess either energy or stability, dignity or credit, confidence at home or respectability abroad? How can its administration be any thing else than a succession of expedients temporizing, impotent, disgraceful? How will it be able to avoid a frequent sacrifice of its engagements to immediate necessity? How can it undertake or execute any liberal or enlarged plans of public good?

Let us attend to what would be the effects of this situation in the very first war in which we should happen to be engaged. We will presume, for argument's sake, that the revenue arising from the impost duties answers the purposes of a provision for the public debt and of a peace establishment for the Union. Thus circumstanced, a war breaks out. What would be the probable conduct of the government in such an emergency? Taught by experience that proper dependence could not be placed on the success of requisitions, unable by its own authority to lay hold of fresh resources, and urged by considerations of national danger, would it not be driven to the expedient of diverting the funds already appropriated from their proper objects to the defense of the State? It is not easy to see how a step of this kind could be avoided; and if it should be taken, it is evident that it would prove the destruction of public credit at the very moment that it was becoming essential to the public safety. To imagine that at such a crisis credit might be dispensed with, would be the extreme of infatuation. In the modern system of war, nations the most wealthy are obliged to have recourse to large loans. A country so little opulent as ours must feel this necessity in a much stronger degree. But who would lend to a government that prefaced its overtures for borrowing by an act which demonstrated that no reliance could be placed on the steadiness of its measures for paying? The loans it might be able to procure would be as limited in their extent as burdensome in their conditions. They would be made upon the same principles that usurers commonly lend to bankrupt and fraudulent debtors, with a sparing hand and at enormous premiums.

[Madison320]

There are two major problems with a “flat income tax”. Can you solve them?

What is the definition of taxable income? As we have learned, our Washington Sewer Rats constantly give arbitrary and new meanings to what is and what is not taxable income. How do we fix the definition of "income" so it is agreeable, and beyond manipulation by our Washington Sewer Rats?

The second big problem is, a flat tax on “income” punishes a hard working wage earner living in an inner city who may work two or three jobs to improve his economic conditions. Under a flat tax on income he is required to pay more in federal taxes than an able bodied lazy slug who is too lazy to work enough hours to better his economic conditions. In other words, a flat tax in income is still a socialist/communist/progressive kind of tax in that it is designed to seek out and punish those who work to better their economic circumstances while allowing the lazy to escape contributing an equal share of this tax.


All taxes have problems, although some more that others. My issue (apparently not shared with anyone else on this forum) is when laws are used to specifically persecute a minority. If we made a law that said murdering whites should be punished with the death penalty but murdering non-whites was 1 year parole, everyone would be outraged. If we made a national sales tax and said that only people making between 30K and 100K have to pay everyone would be outraged. But when we make laws and taxes that target the top 1%, nobody gives a crap. And that wouldn't bother me so much except it includes the people on a Ron Paul forum, who should know better. Remember, any tax or law can be made progressive, not just the income tax.

Seriously, if someone is only in favor of protecting property rights of certain groups, how can they be libertarian? Even the moderator of this forum advocates a steeply progressive tax plan. I don't get it.

On a related topic my solution to the problems with the income tax is to only allow net taxpayers to vote.

[Swordsmyth]

All taxes have problems, although some more that others. My issue (apparently not shared with anyone else on this forum) is when laws are used to specifically persecute a minority. If we made a law that said murdering whites should be punished with the death penalty but murdering non-whites was 1 year parole, everyone would be outraged. If we made a national sales tax and said that only people making between 30K and 100K have to pay everyone would be outraged. But when we make laws and taxes that target the top 1%, nobody gives a crap. And that wouldn't bother me so much except it includes the people on a Ron Paul forum, who should know better.

Seriously, if someone is only in favor of protecting property rights of certain groups, how can they be libertarian? Even the moderator of this forum advocates a steeply progressive tax plan. I don't get it.

On a related topic my solution to the problems with the income tax is to only allow net taxpayers to vote.

I think more people agree with you than you know, I certainly do.

I want tariffs and a cash-flow tax on state budgets, I might go for a sales tax but that is better if it is done at the state level and the feds use the cash-flow tax on the states' budgets.

[Madison320]

I think more people agree with you than you know, I certainly do.

I want tariffs and a cash-flow tax on state budgets, I might go for a sales tax but that is better if it is done at the state level and the feds use the cash-flow tax on the states' budgets.

Maybe but I haven't found anyone yet, other than you. It is good to know that at least someone does.

I'll bet if Trump proposed a change to the income tax, where the only change was to drop the brackets by 5%(10% goes to 5%, 15% goes to 10%, etc) , except for the top bracket, leave that at 39%, 99% here would support it.

By the way isn't it annoying how the anarchists conveniently wash their hands of any injustice by saying all taxes are wrong.

[Swordsmyth]

I'll bet if Trump proposed a change to the income tax, where the only change was to drop the brackets by 5%(10% goes to 5%, 15% goes to 10%, etc) , except for the top bracket, leave that at 39%, 99% here would support it.

While it is certainly NOT what I would do if I held office I might be forced to consider it an improvement to lower taxes even if it left the top bracket unchanged.

So long as we don't control the government we will be forced to take what we can get rather than what would be best.

[Madison320]

While it is certainly NOT what I would do if I held office I might be forced to consider it an improvement to lower taxes even if it left the top bracket unchanged.

So long as we don't control the government we will be forced to take what we can get rather than what would be best.

No it would not be an improvement! For two reasons. First it's simply wrong to persecute a minority. Second, in the long run, a flatter tax structure means more people feel the pain and thus vote accordingly.

Would it be an "improvement" if we legalize all drugs, but for politicians only?


Arghhhh! Now there's not even one that agrees with me!

[Swordsmyth]

No it would not be an improvement! For two reasons. First it's simply wrong to persecute a minority. Second, in the long run, a flatter tax structure means more people feel the pain and thus vote accordingly.

Would it be an "improvement" if we legalize all drugs, but for politicians only?


Arghhhh! Now there's not even one that agrees with me!

I understand your point and I really am torn, that is why I want to completely change the kind of tax used rather than tinker with the income tax, tariffs and sales taxes etc. can't be targeted in the way the income tax can be.

Spending is the real problem, if we can cut it to the bone people won't care as much who is paying the taxes since everybody would be paying less, but until then any reduction in taxes that doesn't increase taxes elsewhere is an improvement that will help the economy for everyone.

[Madison320]

I understand your point and I really am torn, that is why I want to completely change the kind of tax used rather than tinker with the income tax, tariffs and sales taxes etc. can't be targeted in the way the income tax can be.


Except that all taxes can be targeted. Maybe not as easily as the income tax, but it's doable. They could have a sales tax of 10% for sales of under 1K and 20% for sales over 20K. Or tax houses that are under a million at 10% and over a million at 20%. Food at 5%, luxury goods at 50%, etc, etc.







Spending is the real problem, if we can cut it to the bone people won't care as much who is paying the taxes since everybody would be paying less, but until then any reduction in taxes that doesn't increase taxes elsewhere is an improvement that will help the economy for everyone.

I agree, spending is what really matters, but a flat tax for everyone should, in theory, stop the spending (assuming we couldn't just borrow and print, ha ha). Dumping the pain on a minority only insures that the spending will continue. If every voter's rate went to 40% you'd see spending come to a crashing halt.

[Swordsmyth]

Except that all taxes can be targeted. Maybe not as easily as the income tax, but it's doable. They could have a sales tax of 10% for sales of under 1K and 20% for sales over 20K. Or tax houses that are under a million at 10% and over a million at 20%. Food at 5%, luxury goods at 50%, etc, etc.
I agree that we need to fight targeting for any system but the income tax is perfect for it, it is much easier to target people and much harder to evade the targeting.








I agree, spending is what really matters, but a flat tax for everyone should, in theory, stop the spending (assuming we couldn't just borrow and print, ha ha). Dumping the pain on a minority only insures that the spending will continue. If every voter's rate went to 40% you'd see spending come to a crashing halt.

Actually it would lead to calls for targeting the rich, we have to win the battle for the hearts and mind of the public on spending before we can get anything more than some kind of mixed bag compromise.

[Madison320]

I agree that we need to fight targeting for any system but the income tax is perfect for it, it is much easier to target people and much harder to evade the targeting.


Actually it would lead to calls for targeting the rich, we have to win the battle for the hearts and mind of the public on spending before we can get anything more than some kind of mixed bag compromise.

That's why I think the only permanent fix would be to only let net taxpayers vote. Otherwise any law that applies to evenly to everyone will inevitably get undone.

[Swordsmyth]

That's why I think the only permanent fix would be to only let net taxpayers vote. Otherwise any law that applies to evenly to everyone will inevitably get undone.

I have always liked the concept but I have always found it hard to conceive of a good way to implement it, especially with the better forms of taxation since they don't keep records of what you pay and may even be hidden in the cost of items you buy rather than be listed as a "tax" on the bill, also it can be very difficult to determine how much you benefit from many different kinds of government spending.

[Madison320]

I have always liked the concept but I have always found it hard to conceive of a good way to implement it, especially with the better forms of taxation since they don't keep records of what you pay and may even be hidden in the cost of items you buy rather than be listed as a "tax" on the bill, also it can be very difficult to determine how much you benefit from many different kinds of government spending.

What if we only had an income tax, and used it specifically to keep track of who should be allowed to vote? I haven't thought it all the way thru but it seems like it might work. One thing I don't like about a sales tax is that it places a much bigger burden on the retailors who collect the tax.

[johnwk]

Not by relying on consumption taxes. As Hamilton noted in Federalist 30, it is foolish to think that imposts and duties can be relied upon forever, and reliance on the States to supply the revenue deficiency is unworkable.

I noticed you omitted internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. I cannot imagine why imposts, duties and internal excise taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption cannot provide sufficient revenue to fund Congress' constitutionally listed functions which are found beneath Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1. But if there were a deficiency, or an emergency should arise calling for additional revenue, I find the founders intended apportioned tax to meet such a deficiency an agreeable and principled approach to disburse the burden, so long as the people of each state, through their elected state officials, are left free to raise their share in their own chose way.


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.

[johnwk]

One thing I don't like about a sales tax is that it places a much bigger burden on the retailors who collect the tax.

I do not support a “sales tax” for a variety of reasons. But laying an excise tax on specifically selected articles of consumption, as our founders intended, seems agreeable to me.


In regard to your above point about burdening retailors, let me remind that the use of an internal excise tax on a number of specifically selected articles of consumption are paid by the manufacturer ____ did you ever notice the “tax stamp” on a pack of cigarettes? It is paid by the manufacturer.

Additionally, selecting specifically chosen articles of consumption, and placing a specific amount of tax on each article selected, gives Congress the latitude to exclude from the list of taxable articles those considered to be necessities of life. This is eluded to in Federalist No 21:


”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. “

It should also be noted that the use of this type of tax allows the market place to determine the limit of tax placed upon each article.


”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.” ___ Fed. No. 21

Hamilton’s reasoning was proven correct when Congress decided to place an outrageous 10 percent "luxury" tax on a number of articles considered to be luxury under the “Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990”


SEC. 11221. TAXES ON LUXURY ITEMS.

“`SEC. 4001. PASSENGER VEHICLES.

`(a) IMPOSITION OF TAX- There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any passenger vehicle a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $30,000.

`SEC. 4002. BOATS.

`(a) IMPOSITION OF TAX- There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any boat a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $100,000.

`SEC. 4003. AIRCRAFT.

`(a) IMPOSITION OF TAX- There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any aircraft a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $250,000.

`SEC. 4006. JEWELRY.

`(a) IMPOSITION OF TAX- There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any jewelry a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $10,000.

`SEC. 4007. FURS.

`(a) IMPOSITION OF TAX- There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any furs a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $10,000


The luxury tax, particularly on boats, was found so onerous that sales dropped dramatically and the tax was repealed the following year!


I am convinced our Founders got the tax system right. The problem is, there is not one radio or tv talk show host, to the best of my knowledge, and that includes “conservatives”, expounding upon the merits, wisdom and brilliance of our Constitution’s original tax plan.

I must admit, I spent hundreds, perhaps thousands of hours researching this very issue at the University of Maryland back in the 1980s. So, it is safe to say our “conservative” talk show personality’s delinquency in not presenting our Constitution’s original tax plan and its benefits to their audiences may be nothing more than one of ignorance.

JWK

[Swordsmyth]

What if we only had an income tax, and used it specifically to keep track of who should be allowed to vote? I haven't thought it all the way thru but it seems like it might work. One thing I don't like about a sales tax is that it places a much bigger burden on the retailors who collect the tax.

The income tax is too intrusive and too easy to use to target minorities, I don't think a sales tax is any more intrusive for the retailers than the income tax is either, but if you wanted to implement your net-taxpayer voters scheme a flat income tax would be your best bet.

Personally I think the feds should be limited to tariffs and a cash-flow tax on state budgets and leave anything else up to each state, I don't think any system will work right unless you can convince the people that government spending should be severely restricted, even your net-taxpayer voters idea would be subject to abuse by those who promoted types of government spending that didn't directly benefit them.

[Swordsmyth]

I do not support a “sales tax” for a variety of reasons. But laying an excise tax on specifically selected articles of consumption, as our founders intended, seems agreeable to me.


In regard to your above point about burdening retailors, let me remind that the use of an internal excise tax on a number of specifically selected articles of consumption are paid by the manufacturer ____ did you ever notice the “tax stamp” on a pack of cigarettes? It is paid by the manufacturer.

Additionally, selecting specifically chosen articles of consumption, and placing a specific amount of tax on each article selected, gives Congress the latitude to exclude from the list of taxable articles those considered to be necessities of life. This is eluded to in Federalist No 21:


”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. “

It should also be noted that the use of this type of tax allows the market place to determine the limit of tax placed upon each article.


”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.” ___ Fed. No. 21

Hamilton’s reasoning was proven correct when Congress decided to place an outrageous 10 percent "luxury" tax on a number of articles considered to be luxury under the “Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990”


SEC. 11221. TAXES ON LUXURY ITEMS.

“`SEC. 4001. PASSENGER VEHICLES.

`(a) IMPOSITION OF TAX- There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any passenger vehicle a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $30,000.

`SEC. 4002. BOATS.

`(a) IMPOSITION OF TAX- There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any boat a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $100,000.

`SEC. 4003. AIRCRAFT.

`(a) IMPOSITION OF TAX- There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any aircraft a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $250,000.

`SEC. 4006. JEWELRY.

`(a) IMPOSITION OF TAX- There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any jewelry a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $10,000.

`SEC. 4007. FURS.

`(a) IMPOSITION OF TAX- There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any furs a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $10,000


The luxury tax, particularly on boats, was found so onerous that sales dropped dramatically and the tax was repealed the following year!


I am convinced our Founders got the tax system right. The problem is, there is not one radio or tv talk show host, to the best of my knowledge, and that includes “conservatives”, expounding upon the merits, wisdom and brilliance of our Constitution’s original tax plan.

I must admit, I spent hundreds, perhaps thousands of hours researching this very issue at the University of Maryland back in the 1980s. So, it is safe to say our “conservative” talk show personality’s delinquency in not presenting our Constitution’s original tax plan and its benefits to their audiences may be nothing more than one of ignorance.

JWK

Good points about excise taxes.

[Madison320]

I do not support a “sales tax” for a variety of reasons. But laying an excise tax on specifically selected articles of consumption, as our founders intended, seems agreeable to me.

I agree, however the real problem is the size of government, not the type of tax. If our federal government was only providing defense and a court system, any tax would be ok. We could fund that with an income tax or sales tax of less than 1%.

My issue is with progressive tax combined with democracy. I think that's the main reason government grows unchecked because the majority votes to steal from a minority. I think that's THE flaw that needs to be fixed.

[timosman]

I agree, however the real problem is the size of government, not the type of tax. If our federal government was only providing defense and a court system, any tax would be ok. We could fund that with an income tax or sales tax of less than 1%.

My issue is with progressive tax combined with democracy. I think that's the main reason government grows unchecked because the majority votes to steal from a minority. I think that's THE flaw that needs to be fixed.

Are you questioning our diversity program, again?:cool:

[Madison320]

... but if you wanted to implement your net-taxpayer voters scheme a flat income tax would be your best bet.


I think it's the other way around. A net-taxpayer voting scheme would result in a flat tax. Suppose you started with a steeply progressive tax, where only the top 1% paid a 50% tax, for example. That 1% would be the only voters and they would vote for politicians who would spread the tax pain more evenly. The resulting tax scheme should logically be one that spreads the taxes as evenly as possible, since the voters are always going to be trying to reduce their taxes. Since everyone has to pay, there's an incentive for smaller government as it will make most of the voters tax burden go down. When only a minority has to fund government the incentive is for bigger government. When a majority has to fund government the incentive is for smaller government.


Personally I think the feds should be limited to tariffs and a cash-flow tax on state budgets and leave anything else up to each state, I don't think any system will work right unless you can convince the people that government spending should be severely restricted, even your net-taxpayer voters idea would be subject to abuse by those who promoted types of government spending that didn't directly benefit them.

My belief is that "trying to convince people that government spending should be restricted" is not going to work. It's going to take a fundamental change in the democratic process, not "talk". I think the fundamental flaw is unrestricted democracy and unless you fix that flaw somehow, no amount of talk is going to help because people are always going to act in their self interest. Look at you for example. You admitted you'd be in favor of reducing all but the top tax bracket, even though you know it's morally wrong to put more of the burden on the rich. That's because you're acting in your self interest.

[Swordsmyth]

I think it's the other way around. A net-taxpayer voting scheme would result in a flat tax. Suppose you started with a steeply progressive tax, where only the top 1% paid a 50% tax, for example. That 1% would be the only voters and they would vote for politicians who would spread the tax pain more evenly. The resulting tax scheme should logically be one that spreads the taxes as evenly as possible, since the voters are always going to be trying to reduce their taxes. Since everyone has to pay, there's an incentive for smaller government as it will make most of the voters tax burden go down. When only a minority has to fund government the incentive is for bigger government. When a majority has to fund government the incentive is for smaller government.

How are you going to get people to submit to a system that takes away their right to vote?
Unless you are planning a coup you have to change the tax system first so that most people are still qualified to vote after you restrict it to net-taxpayers.




My belief is that "trying to convince people that government spending should be restricted" is not going to work. It's going to take a fundamental change in the democratic process, not "talk". I think the fundamental flaw is unrestricted democracy and unless you fix that flaw somehow, no amount of talk is going to help because people are always going to act in their self interest.

You will never get people to give up their right to vote, you will need to get them to cut spending and flatten taxes first.


Look at you for example. You admitted you'd be in favor of reducing all but the top tax bracket, even though you know it's morally wrong to put more of the burden on the rich. That's because you're acting in your self interest.
I said I would consider it an improvement if those in power reduced taxes even if the reduction was uneven, I specifically said I wouldn't do things that way if I had power, to clarify I will state that I would vote for a tax flattener rather than an uneven tax reducer, there is a difference between what I will do and what I would consider an improvement if it happens beyond my control.

[Madison320]

You will never get people to give up their right to vote, you will need to get them to cut spending and flatten taxes first.


I agree. It's more of a theoretical argument that'll probably never happen. There's no chance people will give up their right to vote (not really a true right by the way). Then again the chances of us cutting spending are not much better.



I said I would consider it an improvement if those in power reduced taxes even if the reduction was uneven, I specifically said I wouldn't do things that way if I had power, to clarify I will state that I would vote for a tax flattener rather than an uneven tax reducer, there is a difference between what I will do and what I would consider an improvement if it happens beyond my control.

No not uneven, the example I gave was more progressive! That's a critical difference. I absolutely think it's NOT an improvement if you reduce taxes at the lower end but keep them high at the top end. That makes them even more progressive. If you don't agree with that, we're not on the same page at all.

[Swordsmyth]

I agree. It's more of a theoretical argument that'll probably never happen. There's no chance people will give up their right to vote (not really a true right by the way). Then again the chances of us cutting spending are not much better.



No not uneven, the example I gave was more progressive! That's a critical difference. I absolutely think it's NOT an improvement if you reduce taxes at the lower end but keep them high at the top end. That makes them even more progressive. If you don't agree with that, we're not on the same page at all.

I don't think it is right to make the tax system more progressive, but I also don't think it is right to keep taxes as high as they are, if either one is reduced I consider it an improvement, if I were in power I would reduce both and I will vote for someone who will reduce both before somebody who will only reduce one, I will also vote for the flattener before the person who reduces taxes in a way that makes the system more progressive but I will consider the tax reduction an improvement if it happens.

[Sonny Tufts]

if there were a deficiency, or an emergency should arise calling for additional revenue, I find the founders intended apportioned tax to meet such a deficiency an agreeable and principled approach to disburse the burden

I don't see anything in Federalist 30 that suggests that an apportioned tax would be the default rule to be used to meet a deficiency. Just the opposite: "Its [the country's] future necessities admit not of calculation or limitation; and upon the principle, more than once adverted to, the power of making provision for them as they arise ought to be equally unconfined…"

Hamilton's distrust of requisitions (which differ little as a practical matter from direct taxes upon the States) is pointed out in Federalist 30, but a more glaring flaw lies in the timing gap between the federal government's need for revenue and the time it would take for the States to come up with their shares. States with no income tax may find it necessary to enact one, and the resistance to such a proposal could easily cause a delay (or complete failure) in enacting it. Even those States with existing income tax systems could experience legislative deadlock in determining whether to raise income taxes or to seek another way to raise the needed revenue. The point is that there will inevitable be a gap between the time Congress passes a direct tax and the time the Treasury receives the money. In the interim, the federal government would either have to divert money from certain programs (as pointed out by Hamilton) or engage in borrowing, thereby increasing the interest on the national debt and compounding the deficiency.

Others have pointed out the mammoth increase in consumption taxes that would be necessary if the income tax were eliminated, and the squabbles in the state legislatures on how to meet a direct tax bill would pale in comparison with the fight in Congress on what articles or transactions would be subject to a consumption tax. Increase the gasoline tax? The oil and gas interests would scream. Impose a stock transfer tax? The capital markets would have a stroke. Impose a tax on the internet? No aye vote gets reelected.

Relying on consumption taxes has the inevitable result of increasing prices for the objects of the tax, thereby increasing the demand for foreign goods and putting domestic producers at a comparative disadvantage. Attempting to cure this via tariffs simply results in a trade war that does nothing to solve the problem.

As I mentioned before, there's no reason to think that a tax plan that might have worked for a nation with 3.6 million people would cut it for one with almost 100 times the population.

[Madison320]

I don't think it is right to make the tax system more progressive, but I also don't think it is right to keep taxes as high as they are, if either one is reduced I consider it an improvement, if I were in power I would reduce both and I will vote for someone who will reduce both before somebody who will only reduce one, I will also vote for the flattener before the person who reduces taxes in a way that makes the system more progressive but I will consider the tax reduction an improvement if it happens.

What if we reduced all the brackets to 0, but kept the upper bracket at 39? Would you consider that an improvement?

[Swordsmyth]

What if we reduced all the brackets to 0, but kept the upper bracket at 39? Would you consider that an improvement?

That would be beyond the threshold of where it would be an improvement, as the tax system becomes more progressive the benefit of reducing taxes becomes smaller and the negative of increasing the progressiveness increases.

[Madison320]

That would be beyond the threshold of where it would be an improvement, as the tax system becomes more progressive the benefit of reducing taxes becomes smaller and the negative of increasing the progressiveness increases.

So a 50% reduction to the lower brackets only is ok but not 100%?

I shouldn't be giving you such a hard time on this, I actually struggled with this myself a while age. I finally realized that the progressive part takes total precedence over any overall "decrease". Think about the other example I mentioned where you legalize drugs, but only for a certain group. That's a step in the wrong direction, even though overall less people are affected by the bad law. Equal application of the law is more important to liberty than granting immunity to certain groups.

[johnwk]

I don't see anything in Federalist 30 that suggests that an apportioned tax would be the default rule to be used to meet a deficiency.

And? What is your point?


JWK

[Swordsmyth]

So a 50% reduction to the lower brackets only is ok but not 100%?

The example you gave was:


I'll bet if Trump proposed a change to the income tax, where the only change was to drop the brackets by 5%(10% goes to 5%, 15% goes to 10%, etc) , except for the top bracket, leave that at 39%, 99% here would support it.
I'm not sure where the crossover point is where the increased progressiveness is worse the the tax reduction that is why I want both reduction and flattening and I prefer flattening to reduction, but so long as I am not in power I am forced to deal with whatever those in power do and try to decide whether it is an improvement or not.



I shouldn't be giving you such a hard time on this, I actually struggled with this myself a while age. I finally realized that the progressive part takes total precedence over any overall "decrease". Think about the other example I mentioned where you legalize drugs, but only for a certain group. That's a step in the wrong direction, even though overall less people are affected by the bad law. Equal application of the law is more important to liberty than granting immunity to certain groups.

Total exemptions are different from varying levels of obligation and laws are different from taxes so it is possible for the benefit of a tax reduction to outweigh the negative of increased progressiveness, however you are correct that there is some level of similar injustice which is why I agree that the tax system needs to flattened and why I prefer flattening to reduction.

[Madison320]

I'm not sure where the crossover point is where the increased progressiveness is worse the the tax reduction that is why I want both reduction and flattening and I prefer flattening to reduction, but so long as I am not in power I am forced to deal with whatever those in power do and try to decide whether it is an improvement or not.


Usually when there's a "crossover point" that's a sign that something is wrong with your logic. Not always, but usually.




Total exemptions are different from varying levels of obligation and laws are different from taxes so it is possible for the benefit of a tax reduction to outweigh the negative of increased progressiveness, however you are correct that there is some level of similar injustice which is why I agree that the tax system needs to flattened and why I prefer flattening to reduction.

I think we're close to agreeing.

[Swordsmyth]

Usually when there's a "crossover point" that's a sign that something is wrong with your logic. Not always, but usually.
It certainly is a sign of a flaw in the approach to tax reduction that we are discussing which is why it is not how I would do things if were in charge.





I think we're close to agreeing.
I have said so all along, I have considered this a friendly discussion of a difficult subject rather than an argument.

I have nothing more to add to this topic for now since we have covered it pretty thoroughly, like I said at the beginning I think there are more people who agree with you at least as closely as I do than you know but we are not in charge so we have to deal with what happens and try to decide whether it is an improvement or not rather than whether it is the best thing to do.

[johnwk]

I think it's the other way around. A net-taxpayer voting scheme would result in a flat tax. Suppose you started with a steeply progressive tax, where only the top 1% paid a 50% tax,

A 50% tax on what?

JWK

[Madison320]

A 50% tax on what?

JWK

Income, although it could be other types.

[johnwk]

Income, although it could be other types.

What is the definition of taxable "income"? What are its defined characteristics? And what is a "net-taxpayer voting scheme"?


JWK

[The Rebel Poet]

And why is it that we never get real tax reform?

Because people keep voting for "outsiders" like Trump and Obama who promise to shrink government. Even though they out of the same mouth promise to increase government, people keep delusionally pretending that they are anti-establishment. We will never get any economic, foreign-policy, or social reform until we stop electing people who only pretend to be different and only even pretend 10% of the time.

[The Rebel Poet]

ungrateful.

Ungrateful? This perfectly sums up what is wrong with the Trump religion. No one has to be grateful that we are plummetting into the abyss with the help of Trump. If anyone is on the fence about joining the Trump cult, look good and hard at what you are flirting with.

[euphemia]

Ungrateful? This perfectly sums up what is wrong with the Trump religion. No one has to be grateful that we are plummetting into the abyss with the help of Trump. If anyone is on the fence about joining the Trump cult, look good and hard at what you are flirting with.

At least you posted something. You can hang on to your bitterness all you want. Some of us just make a choice not to live like you do. It was a choice I made all through the Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush41, Clinton, Bush43, and Obama years. I don't want to be someone who never sees the good in anything, so just get a grip. If you don't like what I post, don't read it.

[Madison320]

What is the definition of taxable "income"? What are its defined characteristics? And what is a "net-taxpayer voting scheme"?


JWK

I've never really thought about a good working definition for income. If you're employed it would be your paycheck. If you own a business it'd be your profit. A net tax payer scheme is where only people who pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits are allowed to vote.

[Madison320]

Because people keep voting for "outsiders" like Trump and Obama who promise to shrink government. Even though they out of the same mouth promise to increase government, people keep delusionally pretending that they are anti-establishment. We will never get any economic, foreign-policy, or social reform until we stop electing people who only pretend to be different and only even pretend 10% of the time.

I don't know what the answer is but I feel certain it's some kind of restricted voting plan. Unlimited voting will almost always make government bigger as people vote for free stuff.

[euphemia]

Run the numbers. Trump instituted a hiring freeze when first elected. While lifted to some degree, he has not replaced those who retired or moved on. There are fewer federal employees now than when he first took office.

I think it is entirely reasonable to let the first step have full effect before reducing or eliminating departments. It's not how I would do it, but there you go. EPA and Ed would have gone my second day.

[johnwk]

I've never really thought about a good working definition for income. If you're employed it would be your paycheck. If you own a business it'd be your profit.

Now why would a working person's paycheck be taxable income, but a business owners be "profit"?


JWK

[Zippyjuan]

Now why would a working person's paycheck be taxable income, but a business owners be "profit"?


JWK

Profits are also taxed.

[johnwk]

Profits are also taxed.

:rolleyes:

[euphemia]

The reaction of rich liberals and liberal states is really hilarious. Their filthy secret has finally been revealed. Their federal deductions have been forcing the rest of us to subsidize their lavish living. They really don’t think the wealthy should pay their share. Go figure.

[Swordsmyth]

Now why would a working person's paycheck be taxable income, but a business owners be "profit"?


JWK

He said both were taxable income.

[johnwk]

He said both were taxable income.

What he said was "If you're employed it would be your paycheck. If you own a business it'd be your profit."

JWK

[johnwk]

The reaction of rich liberals and liberal states is really hilarious. Their filthy secret has finally been revealed. Their federal deductions have been forcing the rest of us to subsidize their lavish living. They really don’t think the wealthy should pay their share. Go figure.

And that is why they hate with a passion our founders' original tax plan, part of which would tax articles of luxury!


JWK

[dude58677]

This is all the more reason why it was so good that Hillary lost the election as a career politician and why she should go to jail. Once she goes to prison it will deter future canidates for office from intending to be corrupt career politicians. You can't think of getting rid of the income tax till you get rid of corrupt politicians. Do so is putting the wheel before the horse.

[johnwk]

The reaction of rich liberals and liberal states is really hilarious. Their filthy secret has finally been revealed. Their federal deductions have been forcing the rest of us to subsidize their lavish living. .

I don’t think you even know how right you are, especially when it comes to our pinko Hollywood crowd, which is now furious over Trump and the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act”.

See: Deductions for Actors (https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/deductions-actors.html):

”Prior to the enactment of the TCJA, any ordinary and necessary expenses that actors paid for out of their own pockets that were directly related to their acting activity were deductible. If you were an employee-actor, you deducted the expense as an unreimbursed employee expense. Independent contractors deducted the costs as a business expense.

Typical deductible expenses for actors include, but are not limited to, the following:

Business Travel: Airfare or other transportation costs and hotel or other lodging expenses, and 50% of the cost of meals.

Local Travel Expenses: Deductible local travel may include trips to performances (both as player and observer), rehearsals, acting classes, auditions, and to pick up supplies.

Agent Fees: All fees an actor pays to an agent.

Manager Fees: Talent manger fees.

Office Expenses: An outside office or office in the home used exclusively for an acting business.

Property and Supplies Used for Acting: The cost of video cameras, sound equipment, digital cameras, sound equipment, theater and film books, musical scores, computers, and cell phones.

Union Dues: Dues to belong to Actors Equity or other unions or organizations.

Education: Acting classes and coaching lessons.

Promotional expenses: Photos, videos, websites (including Internet connection costs), listings in professional registries, advertisements in trade publications, business cards, and other promotional expenses

Make-up and Hair Care: Deductible only when incurred directly in connection with a specific job.

Wardrobe: The cost of any clothing not suitable for street wear--for example, the cost of a modern business suit is not deductible, but an ape costume is deductible.

Subscriptions: The cost of magazine, journal, newsletter, and other subscriptions useful for your acting business--for example, trade newspapers like Daily Variety.

Legal and Professional Services: Fees paid to attorneys, accountants, consultants, and other professionals.

Tickets for Viewing Films and Plays: Actors need to attend plays and films to keep up with what's going on in their industry. They may also subscribe to services like Netflix and HBO. These costs are deductible as "research."

All of these expenses can really add up for professional actors, easily equaling 20% to 35% of acting income.”



And let us not forget how rich pinko corporate executives deduct everything imaginable as a business expense in order to arrive at their taxable income. . . even meals at the most expensive restaurants in town and countless forms of entertainment.


Now, why confine the tax on businesses to profits, and not do the same for wage earners? Under the notoriously evil income tax system the constitutional meaning of what is and what is not taxable income is a vital question which must be addressed. Seems to me the meaning of taxable “income” boils down to profits and or gains, collectively called “income”. And to arrive at one’s “income” all necessary outlays and expenses must be deducted from gross receipts to arrive at one’s “income”. at least this rule applies to some.


In Eisner vs Macomber 1920 the court stated:


”After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L. D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 [58 L. Ed. 285]; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 [62 L. Ed. 1054]), 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case, 247 U.S. 183, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 (62 L. Ed. 1054)."


As you can see, defining what is and what is not taxable income requires a taxpayer to deduct all necessary expenses and outlays from gross receipts in order to arrive at taxable income. Income from a business which was wholly illegal was held subject to income tax in United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259. Nevertheless, it was necessary to determine what that income was, and the cost of an illegal purchase of liquor was subtracted from proceeds of the illegal sale of the liquor in order to arrive at the gain from the illegal transaction which were subjected to a tax in that case.


And, in Sullenger vs. Commissioner, 11 T.C. 1076 ,1948, the Court allowed the business owner [who made illegal purchases of meat] to deduct the cost of meat purchased at a higher price then set by the Office of Price Administration, a World War II price control agency, which he then resold for profit. The “income” from those sales was being taxed which was at issue in the case. The Court went on to cite Sullivan and concluded: “No authority has been cited for denying to this taxpayer the cost of goods sold in computing his profit, which profit alone is gross income for income tax purposes.”


So, what is the cost of goods sold by a wage earner? Is it not his/her time, labor, skills, etc? Are these not capital outlays, the value of which must be deducted from gross receipts in order to arrive at an alleged profit or gain?



Shouldn't a working person be allowed to deduct transportation costs to and from work in calculating their profit or gain? How about the costs involved with providing one's labor ___ the necessities of life or medical expenses which a wage earner incurs and makes their labor possible? Shouldn't the wage earned be allowed to deduct these costs from gross receipts in calculating his/her profit or gain? How about the eight hour of life which a working person invests in earning a wage? Is this not to be considered as their property and a capital outlay, the value of which ought to be deducted from gross receipts in order to arrive at an alleged profit or gain? According to our pinkos in Hollywood, the answer is “No”! “Let them eat cake.”


Do you now see how right you really are?


JWK

[Madison320]

What he said was "If you're employed it would be your paycheck. If you own a business it'd be your profit."

JWK

"it" refers to income in both cases.

I'm assuming you want to go back to the founder's idea of taxation, and that's definitely an improvement over what we have now, but remember that it didn't last. Socialism was still able to slowly take over. That's why I wonder if there's a better way, that's more self sustaining. I'm confidant it has some thing to do with the pool of voters. Think about it, in almost every private group situation the members of the group that contribute the most, get the most input into how the group is run. The biggest shareholders of a corporation have the most votes. If you and your friends decide to buy a keg, the ones who chip in the most get to decide what kind of beer. Only with government does everyone get the same "say" even when one guy is contributing millions and another is receiving that stolen money. That's clearly a logical flaw. That's why I wonder if maybe an income tax is actually superior because if you are going to reward the contributors you need to keep track of how much they had stolen from them.

[Madison320]

Run the numbers. Trump instituted a hiring freeze when first elected. While lifted to some degree, he has not replaced those who retired or moved on. There are fewer federal employees now than when he first took office.

I think it is entirely reasonable to let the first step have full effect before reducing or eliminating departments. It's not how I would do it, but there you go. EPA and Ed would have gone my second day.

Those are rounding errors compared the ways Trump is expanding government. He wants to greatly expand the military, he wants to spend more on "infrastructure", and probably worst of all he appointed another dove to the federal reserve after he campaigned on the opposite.

Watch this video of Trump's reversals:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsvud_CTRuk

[johnwk]

"it" refers to income in both cases.



I know it refers to “income” in both cases. That is why I asked my next question which was: ”… why would a working person's paycheck be taxable income, but a business owners be "profit"?

In reference to your tax scheme, I asked you for a definition of taxable "income"? What are its defined characteristics? Your answer indicates with reference to a working person, taxable income would be their paycheck while a business owner’s would be profit.

So why, under your tax scheme, would a working person's paycheck be taxable income, but a business owners taxable income be limited to "profit"?

Before answering the question, perhaps you ought to see post number 189, and then get back to me.

JWK




The major inequity found in socialism, communism and a progressive government is, those in charge of redistributing wealth always live large, and at the expense of those who have actually worked to create wealth.

[Sonny Tufts]

And let us not forget how rich pinko corporate executives deduct everything imaginable as a business expense in order to arrive at their taxable income. . . even meals at the most expensive restaurants in town and countless forms of entertainment.

You really should read the law and educate yourself. Start with IRC Section 274, which includes various restrictions on the deductibility of entertainment expenses, including limiting the deduction for food and entertainment expenses to only one-half of the cost and completely disallowing any deduction for lavish food and beverage expenses.


Now, why confine the tax on businesses to profits, and not do the same for wage earners? Under the notoriously evil income tax system the constitutional meaning of what is and what is not taxable income is a vital question which must be addressed. Seems to me the meaning of taxable “income” boils down to profits and or gains, collectively called “income”. And to arrive at one’s “income” all necessary outlays and expenses must be deducted from gross receipts to arrive at one’s “income”. at least this rule applies to some.

Deductions are matters of legislative grace. The only exception is that a producer or seller of goods may deduct its cost of goods sold before arriving at gross income. Some wage earners have argued that they should be allowed to deduct their living expenses as an analogue to cost of goods sold, but aside from a specific statutory disallowance of deducting personal living expenses (see IRC Section 262), the analogy is misplaced:


Respondent disallowed the miscellaneous deductions claimed by petitioners in the amount of $10,952.91 as being personal, living, or family expenses not expressly deductible under the 1954 Code, and hence expressly nondeductible under section 262. He also determined that petitioners owed self-employment tax on petitioner's self-employment income of $13,837.63, as reported on the Schedule C. Respondent does not dispute petitioners' entitlement to the business expense deductions claimed on the Schedule C.

Petitioners do not argue that the various expenditures at issue in this case are without the scope of section 262 or that respondent has improperly calculated the amount of self-employment tax in accordance with sections 1401 and 1402. Rather, their principal argument is that Congress, by denying deductions for personal, living, and family expenses in the computation of taxable income, has exceeded its authority under the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution to lay and collect taxes on "incomes." The cornerstone of petitioners' argument is the definition of income stated by the Supreme Court in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 (1920), as "the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined." They argue that the "gain" from labor cannot be determined until the "cost of doing labor," i.e., their expenditures at issue, has been subtracted from the amount received from the sale of labor. Petitioners attempt to support their method of arriving at the figure reflecting "income" which may constitutionally be taxed by analogizing the "living expenses" of one who depends upon the sale of his services for his livelihood to the "cost of goods sold" concept in certain business contexts. See Sullenger v. Commissioner, 11 T.C. 1076 (1948); Anderson Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Hofferbert, 102 F. Supp. 902 (D.C. Md. 1952), affd. 197 F.2d 504 (4th Cir. 1952). Appeal is made to history and philosophy and to analysis of legal, social, and economic concepts, none of which leads, however, to the result they seek.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to respond to arguments such as petitioners have put forth without becoming embroiled in a game of semantics. The logical force requiring rejection of their arguments—apart from their assertions of personal political philosophy which do not provide a basis for us, a Court sitting to interpret the law, to decide the questions dispositive of this case—is essentially a matter of the definition of terms. Thus, should we hold that "gain" is an essential element of income, compare Conner v. United States, 303 F. Supp. 1187 (S.D. Tex. 1969), affd., revd., and remanded 439 F.2d 934 (5th Cir. 1971), with McGuire v. United States, an unreported case (N.D. Cal. 1970, 25 AFTR2d 1127, 70-1 USTC par. 9384), we would still face the problem of defining what constitutes "gain." Compare Conner v. United States, supra, with McCabe v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 1745, 1748 (1970). It is in situations like this that one can truly admire the wisdom of Mr. Justice Holmes, in particular, as he expressed in United States v. Kirby Lumber Co., 284 U.S. 1 (1931), "We see nothing to be gained by the discussion of judicial definitions."

Nevertheless, accepting the conclusion that some kind of "gain" must be realized for there to be income, the flaw in petitioners' analogy of what they call the "cost of doing labor" to the "cost of goods sold" concept—essentially its failure to acknowledge the difference between people and property—may be shown. The "cost of goods sold" concept embraces expenditures necessary to acquire, construct or extract a physical product which is to be sold; the seller can have no gain until he recovers the economic investment that he has made directly in the actual item sold. See Estate of Johnson v. Commissioner, 42 T.C. 441, 444-445 (1964), affd. per order 355 F.2d 931 (6th Cir. 1965), and cases cited thereat. Labor, on the other hand, is, in the current context, behavior performed by human beings in exchange for compensation. One's living expenses simply cannot be his "cost" directly in the very item sold, i.e., his labor, no matter how much money he spends to satisfy his human needs and those of his family. Of course we recognize the necessity for expenditures for such items as food, shelter, clothing, and proper health maintenance. They provide both the mental and physical nourishment essential to maintain the body at a level of effectiveness that will permit its labor to be productive. We do not even deny that a certain similarity exists between the "cost of doing labor" and the "cost of goods sold" concept. But the sale of one's labor is not the same creature as the sale of property, and whether the distinction comports with petitioners' philosophical rationalization for their argument, it is recognized for Federal income tax purposes. See Hahn v. Commissioner, 30 T.C. 195 (1958), affd. per curiam 271 F.2d 739 (5th Cir. 1959). One's gain, ergo his "income," from the sale of his labor is the entire amount received therefor without any reduction for what he spends to satisfy his human needs.

Without constitutional backing for their position concerning the definition of income, petitioners are left with a bald assertion that section 262 is unconstitutional. However, it has long been established that "Congress has power to condition, limit, or deny deductions from gross income in order to arrive at the net that it chooses to tax." Helvering v. Independent Life Ins. Co., 292 U.S. 371, 381 (1934). And, as the Supreme Court has also stated:

For income tax purposes Congress has seen fit to regard an individual as having two personalities: "one is [as] a seeker after profit who can deduct the expenses incurred in that search; the other is [as] a creature satisfying his needs as a human and those of his family but who cannot deduct such consumption and related expenditures." [Fn. ref. omitted.] United States v. Gilmore, 372 U.S. 39, 44 (1963). This Court has no power to enlarge the deductions for personal exemptions authorized by section 151 to comport with petitioners' actual living expenses. Crowe v. Commissioner, 396 F.2d 766 (8th Cir. 1968).

Reading v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 730, (1978)



Income from a business which was wholly illegal was held subject to income tax in United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259. Nevertheless, it was necessary to determine what that income was, and the cost of an illegal purchase of liquor was subtracted from proceeds of the illegal sale of the liquor in order to arrive at the gain from the illegal transaction which were subjected to a tax in that case.

You might want to actually read the case. The Court never addressed that issue, although the cost of purchasing illegal liquor for resale would certainly be a part of the cost of goods sold. Sullivan wanted to deduct other expenses, however, but the Court declined to address the matter: "It is urged that if a return were made the defendant would be entitled to deduct illegal expenses such as bribery. This by no means follows but it will be time enough to consider the question when a taxpayer has the temerity to raise it." http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/274/259.html

A current sore spot to marijuana retailers is IRC Section 280E, which disallows any deduction for expenses incurred in a business that consists in trafficking in controlled substances. This means that expenses such as rent, utilities, and employee salaries aren't deductible. It's a stupid law, but it's on the books.

[johnwk]

You really should read the law and educate yourself. Start with . . .Deductions are matters of legislative grace.

The meaning of income within the 16th Amendment is profit and or gain. In order to arrive at a profit or gain, all necessary expenses and outlays must be deducted from gross receipts to arrive at one's profit or gain.



:rolleyes:

[devil21]

The meaning of income within the 16th Amendment is profit and or gain. In order to arrive at a profit or gain, all necessary expenses and outlays must be deducted from gross receipts to arrive at one's profit or gain.



:rolleyes:

Hmm....does that mean that the ALL CAPS NAME (JOHN W. K., eg) we labor under is actually a business and we can deduct all expenses related to our work? Or maybe incorporating ourselves as C or S Corps (JOHN W.K., LLC, eg) and deduct expenses like any other corp does and even trigger the corp tax rates instead of personal rates? Your point brings up an interesting legal question worth exploring. Instead of paying for gas and groceries and other basic expenses without recourse, incorporate your own name into an LLC and deduct it all as expenses of maintaining the "business" (aka your life as a laborer)...

[johnwk]

Hmm....does that mean . . . we can deduct all expenses related to our work?

It seems abundantly clear to me that a working person who sells the property they have in their own labor, must deduct all necessary expenses incurred from gross receipts in order to arrive at a taxable profit or gain, collectively defined as incomes under the 16th Amendment. See post NUMBER 189 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?517790-President-Trump’s-tax-plan-keeps-the-socialist-communist-progressive-income-tax-alive&p=6571278&viewfull=1#post6571278) for my legal reasoning.

JWK

[Madison320]

I know it refers to “income” in both cases. That is why I asked my next question which was: ”… why would a working person's paycheck be taxable income, but a business owners be "profit"?

In reference to your tax scheme, I asked you for a definition of taxable "income"? What are its defined characteristics? Your answer indicates with reference to a working person, taxable income would be their paycheck while a business owner’s would be profit.

So why, under your tax scheme, would a working person's paycheck be taxable income, but a business owners taxable income be limited to "profit"?

Before answering the question, perhaps you ought to see post number 189, and then get back to me.



What difference does it make whether you can deduct gas from your paycheck? No tax system is perfect and there's always going to be grey areas. What about a car that gets assembled in the US but the half the parts come from China? How would you tax those under an import tax? How do you define retail under a retail sales tax?

You almost make it sound like the business owners and corporate executives are getting a great deal in comparison to the average worker, which is complete nonsense if you look at the facts. People at the lower end of the wage scale pay a MUCH lower tax rate, anyway you figure it. And workers can't get sued for discrimination, or safely hazards, or harassment. Workers know in advance whether what they do is illegal, business owners have to worry about unconstitutional post de facto laws (the government making up laws after the fact) as is the case with antitrust laws.

I just thought about something else. What about the standard deduction, which was 6K last year? Most people are averaging under 1K a year in gas to get to work.

[johnwk]

I know it refers to “income” in both cases. That is why I asked my next question which was: ”… why would a working person's paycheck be taxable income, but a business owners be "profit"?

In reference to your tax scheme, I asked you for a definition of taxable "income"? What are its defined characteristics? Your answer indicates with reference to a working person, taxable income would be their paycheck while a business owner’s would be profit.

So why, under your tax scheme, would a working person's paycheck be taxable income, but a business owners taxable income be limited to "profit"?

Before answering the question, perhaps you ought to see post number 189, and then get back to me.





What difference does it make whether you can deduct gas from your paycheck? No tax system is perfect and there's always going to be grey areas. What about a car that gets assembled in the US but the half the parts come from China? How would you tax those under an import tax? How do you define retail under a retail sales tax?

You almost make it sound like the business owners and corporate executives are getting a great deal in comparison to the average worker, which is complete nonsense if you look at the facts. People at the lower end of the wage scale pay a MUCH lower tax rate, anyway you figure it. And workers can't get sued for discrimination, or safely hazards, or harassment. Workers know in advance whether what they do is illegal, business owners have to worry about unconstitutional post de facto laws (the government making up laws after the fact) as is the case with antitrust laws.

So, instead of answering my questions concerning your proposal, you decide to deflect and obfuscate. That tells me you may not be able to defend your proposal, especially when asked legitimate questions. Did it ever dawn on you your proposal may have some very serious flaws? Perhaps you should work on dealing with those flaw instead of switching the subject when they are brought to your attention.


BTW, keep in mind I do not support any form of federal taxation which is calculated from profits, gains, or other lawfully realized incomes, not for individuals or corporations. And I don't support it because it is a communist, socialist, progressive system of taxation and opens the door to countless types of mischief and abuse in addition to allowing the iron fist of government to clench the necks of America's labor and businesses.


JWK


”If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property.”__ POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 [1895]

[Sonny Tufts]

The meaning of income within the 16th Amendment is profit and or gain. In order to arrive at a profit or gain, all necessary expenses and outlays must be deducted from gross receipts to arrive at one's profit or gain.

Wages, without any deductions, have always been included in income, even as far back as the 1861 income tax. The authority to impose an income tax comes from I.8.1 and not the 16th Amendment (which was enacted to authorize the imposition of an unapportioned income tax on investment income).


The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, ‘from whatever source derived’ without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be ‘direct taxes’ within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [cites omitted] The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes ‘from whatever source derived.’
Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 173-174 (1926).

Indeed, Congress has the power to impose a tax on things that aren't income at all. Most excises tax events or transactions -- for example, the gift tax taxes the gratuitous transfer of property during lifetime, while the estate tax taxes the transfer of property at death. Congress could certainly impose an excise in the form of a gross receipts tax if it wanted to. A tax on wages can be viewed as an excise in the form of a gross receipts tax.

In other words, if the gratuitous transfer of property can be taxed, then so can a transfer of property for a consideration. A sales tax is a tax on the transfer of property for a consideration, and the only theoretical difference between it and a tax on wages is that in the latter case the liability falls on the recipient. But there's nothing that says the recipient can't be taxed -- inheritance taxes, for example, fall on the recipient, not on the estate. Moreover, if the donor of a gift fails to pay the gift tax, the donee is liable.

So there's no constitutional issue in taxing wages without permitting any offsetting deductions, just as there is no issue in denying certain deductions for business-related activities.

Incidentally, your tired rhetoric about the "communist, socialist, progressive system of taxation" is just that: tired rhetoric. The progressive income tax predates the Communist Manifesto by at least 50 years (it was introduced in Britain in 1798), and variations can be traced back to Ancient Greece.

[johnwk]

Wages, without any deductions, have always ....

:rolleyes:

We are talking about calculating one's profit or gains. Did our Supreme Court not confirm shortly after the adoption of the 16th Amendment, that the meaning of income, within the 16th Amendment refers to a profit or gain, collective called incomes?


JWK

[Sonny Tufts]

:rolleyes:

We are talking about calculating one's profit or gains. Did our Supreme Court not confirm shortly after the adoption of the 16th Amendment, that the meaning of income, within the 16th Amendment refers to a profit or gain, collective called incomes?

Yes, and it has repeatedly held that compensation for work is income, period.

But in one sense it's really not important whether pay-for-work is"gain", because its receipt can still be taxed. More important, the IRC clearly includes pay-for-work in gross income (IRC Section 61(a)(1)), so it's part of the tax base in any event.

Let me give you an example of something that's not income in any way, shape, or form but that is treated as income under the IRC and is therefore taxable. Suppose you want to help out a family member who wants to start a business or buy a house. You agree to loan him $100,000 and because he's family you agree that you won't charge him any interest. In other words, you are intentionally declining to receive interest.

This scenario used to involve no adverse tax consequences. But then two things happened: first, the Supreme Court held that the failure to charge interest constituted a gift from the lender to the borrower, resulting in the lender's having made a taxable gift. This makes sense because the lender is clearly bestowing an economic benefit on the borrower. This was followed later on by the enactment of IRC Section 7872, which treats the making of a loan with below-market interest as if the borrower really paid the foregone interest to the lender, who then turned around and transferred the interest to the borrower as a gift. In other words, the lender has to recognize the foregone interest as income, even though he never received anything and had no "gain".

But how can this be? How can the lender be taxed on phantom income he never received? Because in reality the tax is an excise on the making of a below market loan, and the measure of the tax is the foregone interest.

So even if you're right that pay-for-work isn't "gain" because it must be reduced by deductions for certain expenses (some of which, btw, would have been incurred in any event), a tax on the income can be viewed as an excise on the receipt of the pay, and the gross amount of the pay can be treated as if it were income.

[Origanalist]

Yes, and it repeatedly held that compensation for work is income, period.

:rolleyes:

[timosman]

Yes, and it has repeatedly held that compensation for work is income, period.

But in one sense it's really not important whether pay-for-work is"gain", because its receipt can still be taxed. More important, the IRC clearly includes pay-for-work in gross income (IRC Section 61(a)(1)), so it's part of the tax base in any event.

Let me give you an example of something that's not income in any way, shape, or form but that is treated as income under the IRC and is therefore taxable. Suppose you want to help out a family member who wants to start a business or buy a house. You agree to loan him $100,000 and because he's family you agree that you won't charge him any interest. In other words, you are intentionally declining to receive interest.

This scenario used to involve no adverse tax consequences. But then two things happened: first, the Supreme Court held that the failure to charge interest constituted a gift from the lender to the borrower, resulting in the lender's having made a taxable gift. This makes sense because the lender is clearly bestowing an economic benefit on the borrower. This was followed later on by the enactment of IRC Section 7872, which treats the making of a loan with below-market interest as if the borrower really paid the foregone interest to the lender, who then turned around and transferred the interest to the borrower as a gift. In other words, the lender has to recognize the foregone interest as income, even though he never received anything and had no "gain".

But how can this be? How can the lender be taxed on phantom income he never received? Because in reality the tax is an excise on the making of a below market loan, and the measure of the tax is the foregone interest.

So even if you're right that pay-for-work isn't "gain" because it must be reduced by deductions for certain expenses (some of which, btw, would have been incurred in any event), a tax on the income can be viewed as an excise on the receipt of the pay, and the gross amount of the pay can be treated as if it were income.

IRC?:D

[heavenlyboy34]

IRC?:D

Internal Revenue Code

[johnwk]

Yes, and it has repeatedly held that compensation for work is income, period.



I don't give two twits about that. My question is to explore how a working person is to calculate a taxable profit or gain from gross receipts derived from their labor, which are the characteristics defining "income".

I gave my thinking on this question in POST NO. 189 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?517790-President-Trump’s-tax-plan-keeps-the-socialist-communist-progressive-income-tax-alive&p=6571278&viewfull=1#post6571278) If your not interested in exploring this question ___ how one calculates a profit or gain from gross receipts derived from labor ___ and explore it in substantive mathematical manner and not as a tax question, then your answers are irrelevant to the discussion.


JWK

[Sonny Tufts]

If your not interested in exploring this question ___ how one calculates a profit or gain from gross receipts derived from labor ___ and explore it in substantive mathematical manner and not as a tax question, then your answers are irrelevant to the discussion.

Like it or not, it is a tax question. In your own words, "My question is to explore how a working person is to calculate a taxable profit or gain from gross receipts derived from their labor".

In order to calculate "taxable profit", you need to know what should be deducted. The Code is quite clear -- wages are includable in gross income in full, and no deductions for personal living expenses are permitted.

But let's look at your post 189:


So, what is the cost of goods sold by a wage earner? Is it not his/her time, labor, skills, etc? Are these not capital outlays, the value of which must be deducted from gross receipts in order to arrive at an alleged profit or gain?

The attempt to offset wage income by a cost of goods sold deduction is addressed in the Reading case I cited. But you have an additional misunderstanding of the economics of the situation. Capital outlays aren't currently deductible but must be capitalized and written off through depreciation or amortization deductions over time.

Moreover, only the cost of something can be deducted (or capitalized), not its value. For example, if you cut a sweet deal with your landlord and lease business space for $500 a week when the going market rate is $750, you can only take a rent deduction for what you pay, not what it's really worth. What did you pay for your time? Nothing. What did you pay for your skill? Maybe you incurred educational expenses, but the knowledge you acquired will last your entire lifetime, so at best you would have to amortize some portion of the cost over your working lifetime. But how are you going to do that if you don't know how long you're going to continue to work using the same knowledge you initially acquired? And how are you going to determine what portion of what you spent on your education is relevant to your income-producing activities? Say you work as a computer programmer -- do you really think you should be able to offset your pay by the cost of that sociology course you took or the one on Fifth Century Athens?

As far as your skill is concerned, most probably came through experience. If you have any talent at all to begin with, it obviously improves through experience, but do you pay anything for your experience?

What did you pay for your labor? Nothing. Yes, you incurred expenses for food, shelter, clothing, etc. but wouldn't you have incurred these expenses anyway? Sure, you could argue that if you didn't have a paying job you wouldn't have incurred the same level of expenses that you did, but how are you going to allocate your expenses between your work and your personal life? As just one example, why should you be able to deduct any portion of your housing costs if you work away from home? You don't use your home on the job, do you?

See, it isn't as easy as you think.

[devil21]

It seems abundantly clear to me that a working person who sells the property they have in their own labor, must deduct all necessary expenses incurred from gross receipts in order to arrive at a taxable profit or gain, collectively defined as incomes under the 16th Amendment. See post NUMBER 189 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?517790-President-Trump’s-tax-plan-keeps-the-socialist-communist-progressive-income-tax-alive&p=6571278&viewfull=1#post6571278) for my legal reasoning.

JWK

Good thinking. If one were to incorporate the name as a C corp (and file a DBA of the full name to make it fully legal compliant), after deducting all expenses and arriving at a proper "profit/gain" figure, one could then trigger the corp tax rate instead of the personal tax rate and essentially pay no tax at all and even get back much of the living expenses. This is even if working for another business instead of actually being self employed. Thoughts?

[johnwk]

I don't give two twits about that. My question is to explore how a working person is to calculate a taxable profit or gain from gross receipts derived from their labor, which are the characteristics defining "income".

I gave my thinking on this question in POST NO. 189 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?517790-President-Trump’s-tax-plan-keeps-the-socialist-communist-progressive-income-tax-alive&p=6571278&viewfull=1#post6571278) If your not interested in exploring this question ___ how one calculates a profit or gain from gross receipts derived from labor ___ and explore it in substantive mathematical manner and not as a tax question, then your answers are irrelevant to the discussion.


JWK




Like it or not, it is a tax question. In your own words, "My question is to explore how a working person is to calculate a taxable profit or gain from gross receipts derived from their labor".

In order to calculate "taxable profit", you need to know what should be deducted.


What should be deducted from gross receipts to arrive at one's profit or gain is in fact all necessary expenses and outlays. This is simple math for those whose singular object is to calculate one's profit or gain. But for those whose object is to use the force of government to create an advantage for one identifiable group over another identifiable group, such calculations are nothing more than an opportunity to create perverted rules under which an arbitrary advantage is created for the well connected by our Washington Sewer Rats, at the expense of those who are disadvantaged by "the rule of perverted law".

I see you side with "the rule of perverted tax law". Are you paid to take that position, Sonny?


JWK

[johnwk]

Good thinking. If one were to incorporate the name as a C corp (and file a DBA of the full name to make it fully legal compliant), after deducting all expenses and arriving at a proper "profit/gain" figure, one could then trigger the corp tax rate instead of the personal tax rate and essentially pay no tax at all and even get back much of the living expenses. This is even if working for another business instead of actually being self employed. Thoughts?

Your point is well made. But why should Joe Sixpack have to figure out such intricacies? Should we not have a system of taxation that is straightforward and easy to understand, even by those who are the least educated? There must be a reason, if not a few, why our federal tax system has been made so complicated that even those charged with enforcing it, more often than not, disagree when questions are presented to them.

My bottom line is, income taxation is a patently arbitrary and notoriously evil system to raise a federal revenue, and it opens the door to countless types of mischief and abuse, not to mention how discriminatory it is. And that is why I firmly support the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which begins with the following 32 words:


“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.


JWK


If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

[Sonny Tufts]

What should be deducted from gross receipts to arrive at one's profit or gain is in fact all necessary expenses and outlays.

OK, what are the "necessary expenses and outlays"? Be very specific and keep in mind that what I said earlier about capitalization vs. deduction and allocating expenses between earning pay-for-work and other activities (e.g., leisure).


This is simple math for those whose singular object is to calculate one's profit or gain.

It's not simple at all. See above.


But for those whose object is to use the force of government to create an advantage for one identifiable group over another identifiable group, such calculations are nothing more than an opportunity to create perverted rules under which an arbitrary advantage is created for the well connected by our Washington Sewer Rats, at the expense of those who are disadvantaged by "the rule of perverted law".

With the exception of a capitation tax with no exemptions, the selection of any tax base will favor some over others. Under your preferred system importers and producers of items subject to excises (e.g., luxuries) will be the losers and domestic producers of items that would be subject to tariffs if imported will be the winners. And you're incredibly naïve if you think the selection of the taxable items won't be influenced by those who are well connected to the Washington sewer rats.


I see you side with "the rule of perverted tax law". Are you paid to take that position, Sonny?

Your paranoia surfaces at last.

[johnwk]

OK, what are the "necessary expenses and outlays"? Be very specific....

I already was in post number 189. This is simple math for those whose singular object is to calculate one's profit or gain. But for those whose object is to use the force of government to create an advantage for one identifiable group over another identifiable group, such calculations are nothing more than an opportunity to create perverted rules under which an arbitrary advantage is created for the well connected by our Washington Sewer Rats, at the expense of those who are disadvantaged by "the rule of perverted law".


JWK

[Danke]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66ZK0p21re0

...

[Sonny Tufts]

I already was in post number 189.

No, you weren't specific at all. You simply listed a bunch of deductions specifically geared to actors that have little to do with the average wage earner. It's clear you don't have the necessary background in elementary economics and accounting to begin to address this issue.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

But let's look at your post 189:






"Let's." LOL. I notice you Soros employees like to use that word a lot. Nice template you have.

[devil21]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66ZK0p21re0

...

Any one that wants to know what's really going on should learn the true history of this American land mass, instead of the revised "for public consumption" version that's basically a load of bs. The catch is that TPTB and the courts and even police go by the true history while the average folk live by the fake history. Guess who has the upper hand in that situation? Look up 'The Great American Adventure' by Judge Dale in pdf online and read the entire thing. It will shed much light on how modern income taxation came to be (as well as most everything we see today...it explains a lot), without being a wonky read.

[johnwk]

OK, what are the "necessary expenses and outlays"? Be very specific....

I already was in post number 189. This is simple math for those whose singular object is to calculate one's profit or gain. But for those whose object is to use the force of government to create an advantage for one identifiable group over another identifiable group, such calculations are nothing more than an opportunity to create perverted rules under which an arbitrary advantage is created for the well connected by our Washington Sewer Rats, at the expense of those who are disadvantaged by "the rule of perverted law".


JWK



No, you weren't specific at all. You simply listed a bunch of deductions specifically geared to actors that have little to do with the average wage earner. It's clear you don't have the necessary background in elementary economics and accounting to begin to address this issue.

You apparently have a reading comprehension problem, or, you are obfuscating and being disingenuous. In post number 189 I posted the following:

_________

So, what is the cost of goods sold by a wage earner? Is it not his/her time, labor, skills, etc? Are these not capital outlays, the value of which must be deducted from gross receipts in order to arrive at an alleged profit or gain?



Shouldn't a working person be allowed to deduct transportation costs to and from work in calculating their profit or gain? How about the costs involved with providing one's labor ___ the necessities of life or medical expenses which a wage earner incurs and makes their labor possible? Shouldn't the wage earned be allowed to deduct these costs from gross receipts in calculating his/her profit or gain? How about the eight hour of life which a working person invests in earning a wage? Is this not to be considered as their property and a capital outlay, the value of which ought to be deducted from gross receipts in order to arrive at an alleged profit or gain? According to our pinkos in Hollywood, the answer is “No”! “Let them eat cake.”


____


JWK

[Sonny Tufts]

In post number 189 I posted the following:

_________

So, what is the cost of goods sold by a wage earner? Is it not his/her time, labor, skills, etc? Are these not capital outlays, the value of which must be deducted from gross receipts in order to arrive at an alleged profit or gain?



Shouldn't a working person be allowed to deduct transportation costs to and from work in calculating their profit or gain? How about the costs involved with providing one's labor ___ the necessities of life or medical expenses which a wage earner incurs and makes their labor possible? Shouldn't the wage earned be allowed to deduct these costs from gross receipts in calculating his/her profit or gain? How about the eight hour of life which a working person invests in earning a wage? Is this not to be considered as their property and a capital outlay, the value of which ought to be deducted from gross receipts in order to arrive at an alleged profit or gain?

If you'd read my post #206, you'd see the answer to some of these questions. It's clear you don't know the proper accounting principles that are used to arrive at net profit -- e.g., you can't deduct all your outlays; you must capitalize some of them. You also don't get to deduct value -- you deduct cost. What did your time cost you? Nothing. The costs for the necessities of life aren't attributable solely to your earning pay-for-work, so you need some rule to allocate them between the time you are working and the time you aren't. In addition, many of these costs are capital outlays and as such can't be deducted currently but must be capitalized.

The Reading case addresses your cost-of-goods sold argument.

The only thing I agree with you is the bit about commuting expenses. I think they should be deductible. But the law has never allowed a deduction for such expenses unless they are incurred "away from home", meaning out of town. But even then they were deductible only to the extent that they exceeded 2% of your adjusted gross income. But under the new law none of such out-of-town commuting expenses are deductible.

[johnwk]

If you'd read my post #206, you'd see .

:rolleyes:

[dude58677]

If you'd read my post #206, you'd see the answer to some of these questions. It's clear you don't know the proper accounting principles that are used to arrive at net profit -- e.g., you can't deduct all your outlays; you must capitalize some of them. You also don't get to deduct value -- you deduct cost. What did your time cost you? Nothing. The costs for the necessities of life aren't attributable solely to your earning pay-for-work, so you need some rule to allocate them between the time you are working and the time you aren't. In addition, many of these costs are capital outlays and as such can't be deducted currently but must be capitalized.

The Reading case addresses your cost-of-goods sold argument.

The only thing I agree with you is the bit about commuting expenses. I think they should be deductible. But the law has never allowed a deduction for such expenses unless they are incurred "away from home", meaning out of town. But even then they were deductible only to the extent that they exceeded 2% of your adjusted gross income. But under the new law none of such out-of-town commuting expenses are deductible.

LMAO, you are a deep statist. You take everything that johnwk said out of context and then try to get the last word in. You cried on the night of November 9th, 2016 when Donald Trump won and cheered when Ron Paul dropped out in 2008 and 2012. You also cried when Cliven Bundy got his mistrial. You are so sad!!! LMAO!