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.Originally Posted by 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.
Last edited by johnwk; 12-27-2017 at 09:14 AM.
See President Trump said H&R Block would go out of business because his tax overhaul would be so simple
”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
China said on Thursday that it would temporarily exempt foreign companies from paying tax 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.
3. Taxation is theft.
And yet, you travel upon roads financed by taxation.
Of course.And yet, you travel upon roads financed by taxation.
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.
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.
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
Last edited by johnwk; 12-30-2017 at 12:52 PM.
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.
Have you really been here since 2008 and still think the free market wouldn't work for roads?
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.
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
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
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.The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 12-31-2017 at 02:32 PM.
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.
#NashvilleStrong
“I’m a doctor. That’s a baby.”~~~Dr. Manny Sethi
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?
Last edited by johnwk; 01-01-2018 at 09:24 AM.
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
We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold
Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous
JWK
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.
We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold
Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous
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.
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"
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,
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 01-05-2018 at 01:20 PM.
Great job, Alexa.
Thank you for your informative contribution to the discussion.
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
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
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us