Yeah! That will get them to reduce spending! Just like previous tax cuts reduced government spending! Government is so small you can barely see it!Originally Posted by Superfluous Man
Just goes to show how poorly drafted the Amendment is. As it reads, the direct tax would apply to all real property, including land owned by the State, the federal government, churches, and charities, thereby making it certain that the Amendment would never be ratified.
There would need to be federal assessors to value such land.
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
Let's try some new numbers. Let's use current spending and tariff revenues. Reality. $4 trillion in spending, $150 billion in tariffs leaving $3.85 trillion to finance from the states.
Let's go to Texas. US has 330 million people- Texas has about 29 million or 8.8% of the US population. Their fair share would be $338 billion (which is 50% more than their entire state budget for this year). Say Texas stiffs the Feds. They put a lien on only state owned lands. Texas is 269,000 square miles and one percent is owned by the state- 2,700 square miles. That comes to $125,000 a square mile or about $200 an acre.
If they DO pay it off, that is about $12,000 for every resident of the state.
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-30-2017 at 07:21 PM.
It becomes an extortion racket to force the states to pay for what the Federal Government does. Rather than issuing debt they just send the bills on to the states and say "here, you pay for it!"
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-30-2017 at 04:26 PM.
I have already gone over the irrelevancy of your projected numbers. And yet, you rehash the same drivel. I wrote:
There you go again with an intentional distraction. Current spending levels are encouraged with the current communist/socialist inspired income tax. Under the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment the socialist/communist love affair with government "free cheese", which drives up spending, will come to an abrupt end. So, your nonsensical "current spending levels" are nothing more than a distraction and an attempt to avoid a discussion of the merits, wisdom and brilliance of our Constitution's original tax plan, which would be re-established under the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment ___ a proposal which our sewer rats in Washington fear with a passion. How dare someone promotes allowing working people to bring home a paycheck untaxed by our federal government and required Congress to balance the annual budget, even if it means imposing the apportioned direct tax.
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
Only for those who support the communist/socialist inspired income tax.
JWK
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
Oh.... wait...... You're serious.....
Well, that is just silly.
This just in, taking your money -property- directly from you isn't a direct tax. That makes as much sense as people thinking Trump was interested in reducing government spending. The mental hoops you people will jump through to try and twist language to fit justify your actions is both astounding and depressing.
Exactly the problem with all tax plans. And a great argument for getting rid of them all.
What you fail to realize is, unlike picking winners and losers under income taxation, and the countless abuses attached to income taxation, taxing specifically selected articles of consumption is the least susceptible to such abuses and allows the market place to determine important limits which are beyond Congress’ power. Let us examine this manner of taxation.
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.”
Let us say for conversation purposes that Congress is only allowed to raise its revenue by selecting specific articles of luxury and placing a specific amount of tax on each article selected. The flow of revenue into the federal treasury under such an idea would of course be determined by the economic productivity of the nation. If the economy is healthy and thriving and employment is at a peak, the purchase of articles of luxury will be greater than if the economy is stagnant and depressed. And thus, Congress is encouraged to adopt policies favorable to produce a healthy and vibrant economy because the flow of revenue into the federal treasury can be disrupted should Congress adopt oppressive regulations which impeded and burden our founder’s intended free market system.
And so, if Congress is limited to raising its revenue by taxing specifically selected articles of luxury, it suddenly becomes in Congress’ best interest to work toward a healthy and vibrant economy which in turn produces a productive flow of revenue into the federal treasury! It should also be noted that taxing any specific article too high, will reduce the volume of its sales and diminish the flow of revenue into the national treasury, and thus, taxing in this manner allows the market place to determine the allowable amount of tax on each article selected as Hamilton indicates above.
Some may claim, as you seem to do, that if Congress is required to select each specific article for taxation and place a specific amount of tax on each article, such a system would invite abuse and allow Congress to exercise favoritism with impunity and would certainly pander to countless lobbyists looking for an advantage in the selection of taxable articles. But let us take a closer look at the consequences involved if Congress should attempt to abuse this power. If Congress should abuse the system and tax one article while excluding another for political gain or financial contributions, consumers are treated to a tax free article and Congress reduces its own flow of revenue into the national treasury. In addition, for every penny lost by excluding a lobbyist’s particular article from taxation, another article’s tax will have to be increased to reclaim that penny. And with each increase upon any specific article the reality of diminished sales becomes a very sobering factor for Congress to deal with as explained by Hamilton in Federalist No. 21.
So, your assumption turns out to be not as great as you would have us believe.
JWK
What previous tax cuts?
If tax revenue didn't make it easier for politicians to spend money, then there wouldn't be any taxes. Starving Leviathan may not immediately cause it to shrink, but it won't spend as much with less tax revenue as it would have spent with more.
It's also silly for those who don't support it. It's just all around ridiculous.
The numbers DO matter. It isn't a "distraction". It is an attempt to see what your plan would actually mean in the real world- not a fantasy hypothetical one. What happens if we replace the income tax with tariffs and excise taxes?
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-30-2017 at 06:21 PM.
If you give up the principle--you're just negotiating price.
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
Bull-crapski! Your numbers assume Congress will not cut spending in order to avoid the apportioned direct tax.
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
You assume they will cut spending. Cutting popular spending programs means getting voted out of office. They don't want that.
I posted spending and asked you to suggest what they would or could cut. What do you think? Will they get rid of Social Security? Defense spending? Medicaid? Here is the chart again:
Can/ will they be able to get rid of half of government spending? One third? Any?
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-30-2017 at 06:29 PM.
Less taxes means less government, but do continue your own fantasy.
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
Our marketplace determines the limit of taxes raised from imposts, duties and excise taxes on articles of consumption.
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.” ___ Hamilton
JWK
And if that doesn't cover it, your plan lets them demand the states pay for it- increasing taxes on the residents of those states. Raising taxes on imposts, duties, and excise taxes reduces demand for those items (since they cost more) reducing your revenues. That gives them an out from having to balance it. (again noting that about half of all income tax filers don't pay net income taxes but they would be hit by higher prices from your new taxes).
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-30-2017 at 06:35 PM.
Nope. Wrong again.
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
What you fail to realize is, when the apportioned tax is laid to pay for those "programs", and a bill is sent to the people in each state to pay their apportioned share of the deficit, the people will begin to realize there is no free lunch, nor free government cheese.
Tell me, what do you think the people of pinko New York would do when they have to pay an apportioned amount equal to their big mouth in Congress when spending federal revenue? Picture for a moment the expression on the faces of the Governor of New York and the New York State Legislature if New York should receive a bill from for its apportioned share of the 2016 federal deficit which Chucky Boy Schumer helped to create with his pork barrel earmarks which he alleges the American Taxpayer does not care about! I suspect Chucky-boy would be met at New York's border with a dedicated crowd waiting to engage in a tar and feather party rather than a tea party! And this is why the Washington Establishment and the friends of big government hate the founders apportioned tax to extinguish a deficit ___ it creates a very real moment of accountability for every member of Congress!
JWK
Last edited by johnwk; 11-30-2017 at 06:47 PM.
Thing is that people will blame the generic "Congress" (as they always do) and keep sending their own representatives back over and over again to do the same things over and over and over again. Congress sucks but their own representatives are good (and often in gerrymandered, secure districts). And they have their pet programs they don't want to see cut- they would like to see a balanced budget but when you tell them exactly what you will have to cut, they change their story and want it protected. Even Ron Paul said he would not cut Social Security or Medicaid. He would "honor those commitments".
And again- how much would they realistically cut from the budget I posted?
What does the above gibberish have to do with what I posted above?
JWK
Not when their state Congressional Delegation brings home a bill and hands it over to the Governor and State Legislature. You ignore the fact a State's Governor and Legislature will not be very happy to have to deplete their own state treasury and send it to Washington. This of course encourages the Governor and State Legislature to keep a jealous eye on the spending practices of its Congressional Delegation and report to the People the increase in state taxes to refill their state treasury has been caused by the reckless spending of their Congressional Delegation.
You just don't like a real moment of accountability to be created, which the apportioned tax does create when used to extinguish an annual deficit.
JWK
Last edited by johnwk; 11-30-2017 at 07:02 PM.
They won't deplete their own treasuries (states don't usually have reserves in the first place). They will pass it along to the taxpayers and blame Congress.
(I asked earlier about what if a state doesn't pay up- what land is the government going to put a lien against? All the land in the state- even Federal and Private lands? Just state lands?)
Which programs would you expect Congress to slash/ get rid of if your idea passed?
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-30-2017 at 07:19 PM.
I am. And so are the courts that so ruled.
Not at all. Consider: a tax on the mere ownership of property can be imposed more than once -- real estate taxes, for example, are imposed each year. But a tax on the receipt of property is imposed only once.
It isn't, in the sense that "direct tax" is used in the Constitution. That term has always been limited to capitations and property taxes. Many taxes are collected directly from people (inheritance taxes, carriage taxes, whiskey taxes), but that doesn't mean they're direct taxes under the Constitution.
Last edited by Sonny Tufts; 11-30-2017 at 07:05 PM.
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
The primary fantasy mentioned in these posts is the notion that people will be willing to elect representatives to cut federal spending down to $150 billion (assuming that's the correct figure for imposts, duties, and excises other than income taxes). If you think the voters would stand for the elimination of Social Security, Medicare, defense, and countless other programs, you're either delusional or a complete idiot.
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
That's your argument? Insulting people? Does your employer Soros know you do this?
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
Stop with the BS!
A state will in fact have to transfer its apportioned share from its state's treasury, into the treasury of the united states. Are you really suggesting every local news outlet in the State will not report their State's Congressional Delegation has brought home a bill which will deplete the state's treasury which is funded by state tax payers?
JWK
The states don't have the money in their treasuries to transfer to the Federal Government. They will have to raise taxes on their taxpayers to get it. And they will blame the faceless Federal Government for having to do so. And then urge their representatives to kill the tax plan.
Stop with the BS!
A state will in fact have to transfer its apportioned share from its state's treasury, into the treasury of the united states. Are you really suggesting every local news outlet in the State will not report their State's Congressional Delegation has brought home a bill which will deplete the state's treasury which is funded by state tax payers?
JWK
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-30-2017 at 08:10 PM.
Technically it is not a direct tax. But the way it is enforced improperly, does make it effectively, a direct tax.
Pfizer Macht Frei!
Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.
Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!
Short Income Tax Video
The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes
The Federalist Papers, No. 15:
Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us