• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

“In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Franklin

WhyNotWhyNot

Active member
Joined
Sep 20, 2012
Messages
483
Reaction score
168
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
In recent years, federal income tax policy arguments have been a central feature of every election campaign. It has become a lightning rod in the daily rhetoric of discord of the House, the Senate, and the President. If we are not careful, the tax system will divide and destroy our union. Modern election strategies have been designed to fracture the populace into small interest segments and then to play to the favorable segments and attack the unfavorable segments. A common strategy is to “fight for the middle class” and denigrate the rich. This is the “Robin Hood” strategy that seeks to establish a “middle class voting block” motivated to vote for the candidate who will make the bad rich people pay for their mythical sins. The opposing strategy, which is equally common, is to “fight to protect us from Government take-over by taxation.” This strategy seeks to create an “establishment voting block” motivated to vote for the candidate who will protect rich people and businesses from losing their fruits of success. Tax policy is the favored tool of those who feature class warfare in their election strategies. On the one hand there are the candidates who accuse “the rich” and the “corporations” of avoiding taxes and not paying their “fair share”.

Extracted from the essay "Certainty" in The Wind of Hope

So no memes, no name calling, no blaming. How should we go about getting this under control?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

So no memes, no name calling, no blaming. How should we go about getting this under control?

Return the government to the 18 enumerated powers of the constitution and eliminate everything else.
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

Well I am officially in the same effective tax bracket as Mitt not Barack so I guess I am okay ;)

If we required everybody to be taxed on a cash accounting method, we would be able to cut a ton out of the tax code.
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

If you don't want to take deductions, don't take them. Nobody is forcing you to. I sure as hell will take mine -- they make economic sense.

Why would anybody argue that deductions are a bad thing?
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

Return the government to the 18 enumerated powers of the constitution and eliminate everything else.

Yeah, forget all that stuff about public health, scientific research, and interstate highways. Let's go back to the good old economy of 1870
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

Yeah, forget all that stuff about public health, scientific research, and interstate highways. Let's go back to the good old economy of 1870

not duties delegated in the constitution, therefore not unlawful
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

If you don't want to take deductions, don't take them. Nobody is forcing you to. I sure as hell will take mine -- they make economic sense.

Why would anybody argue that deductions are a bad thing?

why do we need deductions, why just have a simple 1 page tax system, instead of 10's of thousands of tax regulations...which cost the tax payer to enforce.
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

not duties delegated in the constitution, therefore not unlawful

The SC disagrees with you. You lose. But it's fun to watch you try hard.
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

why do we need deductions, why just have a simple 1 page tax system, instead of 10's of thousands of tax regulations...which cost the tax payer to enforce.

If that's how you feel, don't take any deductions. Stop trying to take mine away.

As to the tax regs, most are related to industry and most are there because industry wants them, since they reflect economic reality. I can do my taxes in about 1/2 hour, deductions and all!

So stop pretending you're trying to solve a real problem. You just want lower taxes for the rich.
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

The SC disagrees with you. You lose. But it's fun to watch you try hard.

no...... its just tells me you dont believe in the constitution and will violate it at every turn, to achieve your personal goals.
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

If that's how you feel, don't take any deductions. Stop trying to take mine away.

As to the tax regs, most are related to industry and most are there because industry wants them, since they reflect economic reality. I can do my taxes in about 1/2 hour, deductions and all!

So stop pretending you're trying to solve a real problem. You just want lower taxes for the rich.

lower taxes for the rich?...no i want to return to voluntary taxation, as the founding fathers designed our system of government.

i dont have feelings in my heart of hate for people who have more money than me, and wish to steal from them, and redistribute that money to consolidate a position of power as you do.
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

If you don't want to take deductions, don't take them. Nobody is forcing you to. I sure as hell will take mine -- they make economic sense.

Why would anybody argue that deductions are a bad thing?

I think folks who keep arguing for more and more tax revenue should forgo taking deductions and hand over more money to the government.

they should put their money where their mouth is.... be principled... be consistent.


yes,I know that's a fantasy...at the end of the day, they don't want more of their money going to government, just more of other peoples money going to government....they'll continue to protect their money by every legal means at their disposal, whilst whining about everybody else not handing over enough.
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

If that's how you feel, don't take any deductions. Stop trying to take mine away.

As to the tax regs, most are related to industry and most are there because industry wants them, since they reflect economic reality. I can do my taxes in about 1/2 hour, deductions and all!

So stop pretending you're trying to solve a real problem. You just want lower taxes for the rich.

why do you want lower taxes for yourself but not for others?
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

Return the government to the 18 enumerated powers of the constitution and eliminate everything else.

Yeah, forget all that stuff about public health, scientific research, and interstate highways. Let's go back to the good old economy of 1870

It would go back further than that, some of these people think they can still undo Marbury v Madison. Hell perhaps they want to undo the Louisiana Purchase, where Thomas Jefferson despite no constitutional authority to do so purchased a couple thousand square miles of territory basically doubling the size of the United States. Or perhaps we should excel those states not part of the original 13 who somehow one way or another managed to have Congress approve their joining of the Union despite no explicit power to do so in the Constitution.

Of course no would ever challenge the right of Congress to determine when a territory or other nation could join the United States, because it would have been impossible for the country to grow at all without admitting new states, but technically its not in the Constitution.

I'm curious just how originalist you want to get, the Constitution doesn't authorize an Air Force for example.
 
Last edited:
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

Return the government to the 18 enumerated powers of the constitution and eliminate everything else.

Nice standard "head in the sand" response. The number one thing that we must do to achieve effective governance is to accept reality that can't be changed. Income tax is a given that can't be reversed. So, "How would you go about 'de-politicizing' it?"
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

If you don't want to take deductions, don't take them. Nobody is forcing you to. I sure as hell will take mine -- they make economic sense.

Why would anybody argue that deductions are a bad thing?


The President attacks them all the time - of course only the ones that fit his political attack points. In his current budget he has proposed some additional ones. They are used to establish political position - attack the bad guys (oil companies etc.) and offer goodies to the good guys (voters). Don't single out this President. They all have done it and so have Congressional leaders - that is why it is such a mess.

Consider that 80% of taxes are paid by 20% of taxpayers. If the purpose of deductions is to indirectly legislate behavior, then it is a very ineffective way because the audience is only 20% of taxpayers - there must be better ways.

Come put forth an idea.
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

So no memes, no name calling, no blaming. How should we go about getting this under control?

Stop unnecessary war. Cost of War to the United States | COSTOFWAR.COM

The USA can handle itself just fine. We are only a problem when we let Corporate America take control of America. If you need proof, check the "Iraq" number on that post and wonder why it's still rolling up. It's because one of the board members of the Federal Reserve is Haliburton and they are the ones rebuilding Iraq...............because we rebuild Countries we destroy....................sometimes.......today....or nvm..
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

If you don't want to take deductions, don't take them. Nobody is forcing you to. I sure as hell will take mine -- they make economic sense.

Why would anybody argue that deductions are a bad thing?

Deductions exist because we are overtaxed and the tax code is a mess. Charge less taxes and you wouldn't need them all these special little loopholes. BTW, as a good little progressive, you shouldn't take any deductions. Pay your fair share.
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

we all benefit from societal structure, and some are able to use that structure to generate a lot more wealth than they could have without it. the structure costs money, and a progressive income tax is probably the best way to do it.

that doesn't mean that it couldn't be simplified and improved, however. it's my opinion that investment income should also be taxed as income above a certain cap. additionally, all of the marginal rates should be returned to 1990s levels, not just the top rate. finally, deductions and loopholes should be examined and consolidated.

there has always been a lot of ranting and wailing over taxes. I'd say we have one of the best systems, though it's pointlessly complex because people and entities bought themselves loopholes. either way, it beats the **** out of regional warlords or let them eat cake. I've been bumped up a tax bracket once when I got a really good contract job, and I was ok with it. it's a good problem to have.
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

Nothing will come of the tax reform concept. The reason is that a simplified tax system is not in the interest of the politicians even though it might be in the interest of the public. This is particularly true when democrats are in power. They favor "fairness" over equality and the progressive tax system speaks to fairness and and against equality.
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

not duties delegated in the constitution, therefore not unlawful

The preamble of the US Constitution states, “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The preamble counts as part of the constitution. It sets out the general principles that we seek to accomplish with the structure set forth by the rest of the document and its amendments. The stuff that you list certainly falls within the specified duty "promote the general welfare". Our debate should be about how much promotion is appropriate and how paying for it can negatively impact the next duty "secure the blessings of liberty".
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

Deductions exist because we are overtaxed and the tax code is a mess. Charge less taxes and you wouldn't need them all these special little loopholes. BTW, as a good little progressive, you shouldn't take any deductions. Pay your fair share.

Here is another quote from the essay that started this thread

The tax incentive reductions tend to be applied by those who have higher than average income. A low income person will normally rent and not own a home – hence no mortgage deduction and opportunity for efficient appliance deduction for example. More often than not, low income people file the standard deduction and don’t itemize their deductions. For this reason the tax deductions are common targets of the Robin Hood band who claim that they exist to favor the rich over the poor. As a nation we are constantly wrangling over the morality of all of the tax reduction options that are present in the tax code. What we fail to recognize is that tax rates are set planning that these deductions and credits will be taken by those who can afford to own a house, have a college fund, have a health savings account, buy into oil exploration ventures, etc. In other words a tax rate is set at 35% intending that the target is to get most people in that tax bracket to pay an effective rate to 25% of their total income by using the available deductions and credits, whereas 15% is set for an income range where the deductions will reduce it to 13% on average.
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

The preamble of the US Constitution states, “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The preamble counts as part of the constitution. It sets out the general principles that we seek to accomplish with the structure set forth by the rest of the document and its amendments. The stuff that you list certainly falls within the specified duty "promote the general welfare". Our debate should be about how much promotion is appropriate and how paying for it can negatively impact the next duty "secure the blessings of liberty".

Another liberal attempt to circumvent the constitution by picking a word or two our of context and assigning the implication of authority to it. Sorry the "Promotion of the General Welfare" is NOT one of the 18 enumerated powers. Try again.
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

The preamble of the US Constitution states, “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The preamble counts as part of the constitution. It sets out the general principles that we seek to accomplish with the structure set forth by the rest of the document and its amendments. The stuff that you list certainly falls within the specified duty "promote the general welfare". Our debate should be about how much promotion is appropriate and how paying for it can negatively impact the next duty "secure the blessings of liberty".

well first the USSC has rule the preamble has not legislative authority.

the preamble does not mean anything under the sun congress want to do.

Question: When confronted by the indisputable facts, what excuse do those in Washington use to justify actions that factually exceed enumerated constitutional limits? Answer: They hide behind that ubiquitous General Welfare Clause. And what is the General Welfare Clause?

Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

Now we’ve argued about the definition of this for over 200 years in the courts, in the congress and on the streets and you can reference almost any opinion you like because most will seek out the interpretation that justifies their action. Given the difference of opinion over the years, whose opinion really counts? Whose view is definitive? Speaking as a simple solider, I’d say it would be the folks that wrote the original document even more so than the subsequent courts that bastardized it.

What did the Founders really mean? After all, they’re the ones that can actually answer questions first hand concerning original meaning/intent and not be speculative or twisted politically by the passage of time wouldn’t you think?

OK, let’s see what they had to say and put this question to rest. Let’s ask James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Could they possibly shed any light on this?

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” – James Madison in letter to James Robertson

“[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.” – James Madison, Federalist 14

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” – James Madison, Federalist 45

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” – James Madison, 1792

“The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed” – Thomas Jefferson, 1791

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1798

There you have it. James Madison, the Constitution’s author and Thomas Jefferson the author of the Declaration of Independence, specifically say that Congressional powers are to be limited and defined – unlike most modern interpretations!

Admittedly, Jefferson and Madison were not our only Founders. These two were strict constitutionalists who feared the potential strength of any government. So let’s look at another Founder’s opinion—Alexander Hamilton who historically saw it in a somewhat looser vain.

“This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

Hamilton uncategorically states that all congressional powers are enumerated and that the very existence of these enumerations alone makes any belief that Congress has full and general legislative power to act as it desires nonsensical. If such broad congressional power had been the original intent, the constitutionally specified powers would have been worthless. In other words, why even enumerate any powers at all if the General Welfare clause could trump them?

“No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78

In short, Hamilton tells us that since the powers of Congress are enumerated and limit Congress to those powers, any assumed authority outside those specified that don’t have a direct relation to those explicit powers must be contrary to the Constitution and therefore — unconstitutional.

From the proverbial horses mouths to your own eyes — the all-encompassing General Welfare Clause is not as all encompassing as our current “leaders” would have us believe. In no way does that one phrase grant unlimited power to the Federal government rather it pertains only to those enumerated powers that can and ought to be applied universally and in general to the several states.
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

well first the USSC has rule the preamble has not legislative authority.

the preamble does not mean anything under the sun congress want to do.

Question: When confronted by the indisputable facts, what excuse do those in Washington use to justify actions that factually exceed enumerated constitutional limits? Answer: They hide behind that ubiquitous General Welfare Clause. And what is the General Welfare Clause?

Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

Now we’ve argued about the definition of this for over 200 years in the courts, in the congress and on the streets and you can reference almost any opinion you like because most will seek out the interpretation that justifies their action. Given the difference of opinion over the years, whose opinion really counts? Whose view is definitive? Speaking as a simple solider, I’d say it would be the folks that wrote the original document even more so than the subsequent courts that bastardized it.

What did the Founders really mean? After all, they’re the ones that can actually answer questions first hand concerning original meaning/intent and not be speculative or twisted politically by the passage of time wouldn’t you think?

OK, let’s see what they had to say and put this question to rest. Let’s ask James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Could they possibly shed any light on this?

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” – James Madison in letter to James Robertson

“[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.” – James Madison, Federalist 14

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” – James Madison, Federalist 45

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” – James Madison, 1792

“The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed” – Thomas Jefferson, 1791

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1798

There you have it. James Madison, the Constitution’s author and Thomas Jefferson the author of the Declaration of Independence, specifically say that Congressional powers are to be limited and defined – unlike most modern interpretations!

Admittedly, Jefferson and Madison were not our only Founders. These two were strict constitutionalists who feared the potential strength of any government. So let’s look at another Founder’s opinion—Alexander Hamilton who historically saw it in a somewhat looser vain.

“This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

Hamilton uncategorically states that all congressional powers are enumerated and that the very existence of these enumerations alone makes any belief that Congress has full and general legislative power to act as it desires nonsensical. If such broad congressional power had been the original intent, the constitutionally specified powers would have been worthless. In other words, why even enumerate any powers at all if the General Welfare clause could trump them?

“No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78

In short, Hamilton tells us that since the powers of Congress are enumerated and limit Congress to those powers, any assumed authority outside those specified that don’t have a direct relation to those explicit powers must be contrary to the Constitution and therefore — unconstitutional.

From the proverbial horses mouths to your own eyes — the all-encompassing General Welfare Clause is not as all encompassing as our current “leaders” would have us believe. In no way does that one phrase grant unlimited power to the Federal government rather it pertains only to those enumerated powers that can and ought to be applied universally and in general to the several states.

So how do we disagree? We seem to agree that it is appropriate to "provide for the general welfare" but such provision must be tempered by the fact that transference of wealth from citizens to government necessarily compromises liberty - hence we must have limits on these government programs. The debate is about how much - what balance do we strike.
 
Back
Top Bottom