• 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

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

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.

as i stated many times in order to government to do things it must have authority, there is no authority for transfer of wealth, if government wants authority more power it must write and amendment and have it approved for that power.

you cant take money from one citizen and give it to another, in congress duties, what are no social duties involved people personal life's.

government by the founders was created as negative force on society, meaning government is not here to take care of you, if government how the power to care for you, then they have the ability to control you, your rights.

government was not created as positive force, to institute programs, provide a house ,food or water, or pay their utility bills .

now many people would say," oh your mean and greedy, and think only of yourself", and that is not the issue, feelings do not play a part in the law, when government gives to one, it steals from another because government has no money it must take it from citizens by taxation.

the general welfare means, what government does must benefit every citizen by what they do, and stealing does not do that.
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

as i stated many times in order to government to do things it must have authority, there is no authority for transfer of wealth, if government wants authority more power it must write and amendment and have it approved for that power.

you cant take money from one citizen and give it to another, in congress duties, what are no social duties involved people personal life's.

government by the founders was created as negative force on society, meaning government is not here to take care of you, if government how the power to care for you, then they have the ability to control you, your rights.

government was not created as positive force, to institute programs, provide a house ,food or water, or pay their utility bills .

now many people would say," oh your mean and greedy, and think only of yourself", and that is not the issue, feelings do not play a part in the law, when government gives to one, it steals from another because government has no money it must take it from citizens by taxation.

the general welfare means, what government does must benefit every citizen by what they do, and stealing does not do that.

The list that HoJ posted and I responded to was "public health, scientific research, and interstate highways". The ongoing discussion followed from that list. These fit your criteria that expenditures to promote the general welfare must benefit every citizen. I don't see that we have any significant difference of oppinion regarding the constitionality of such expenditures. Somehow you seem to have drifted to the question of whether the government is constitutionally authorized to be an intermediary wealth under the justification of "promoting the general welfare".
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

The list that HoJ posted and I responded to was "public health, scientific research, and interstate highways". The ongoing discussion followed from that list. These fit your criteria that expenditures to promote the general welfare must benefit every citizen. I don't see that we have any significant difference of oppinion regarding the constitionality of such expenditures. Somehow you seem to have drifted to the question of whether the government is constitutionally authorized to be an intermediary wealth under the justification of "promoting the general welfare".

posted by you in post #21 which you (highlighted)

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".

which is why i responded in kind.

as to the others "public health, scientific research, and interstate highways". ...are these listed in congress 18 duties...........no

it says built post roads, not highways crossing the nation, and i will show you something else the Constitution it states in the same article, ..that no one mentions...who is for big government.

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings"

this states congress has only authority in a 10 sq mile area of d.c. , or only where the federal government and the states both agree on, government has no authority on state or private land...unless violations of the constitution were taking place.
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

I think the only way to fix it, would be to take it out of the hands of the politicians.
I think the removal of all forms of income tax, and all withholding taxes, those being
replaced with a final point of sale consumption tax.
I have thought about excluding food and housing from the sales tax, but it may be simpler
to just collect the tax on everything.
The mechanisms to collect a federal sales tax are already in place, and monitoring would be much simpler
than the income tax.
 
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 USSC does not govern the Constitution. It's hilarious how you constantly make a balls out of basic constitutional law.


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;”

Game over for tea party lumpenconstitutional theory.
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

The USSC does not govern the Constitution. It's hilarious how you constantly make a balls out of basic constitutional law.

well, its CLEAR you didn't look, i was responding to someone else who stated the preamble to me, and its power....to which there is no power.


Game over for tea party lumpenconstitutional theory.

i am truly sorry that your heart of hate for your fellow man, is making you so angry, that you go out on a lark.

but seek Jesus he will sooth your soul
 
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?

Tax freedom day is April 18th this year, 5 days later than last year.
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

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?"

I suppose it can be repealed or capped by Constitutional Amendment (not that that is likely.) Still reducing the scope of government would help reduce outlays and thus reduce the need of money going to government and would allow reform to be more palatable.
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank


You can find this very interesting paper on the irs website. Given this chart why couldn't we have the following tax rate table ?

Top 1% pays 25% of income

1% to 10% bracket pays 17%

11% to 20% pays 13%

21% to 30% pays 11%

and so forth

Apply the table to all income making entities - individuals, families, businesses.

No deductions
 
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
Was the economy in economic disrepair in 1870? I don't think so.
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

Was the economy in economic disrepair in 1870? I don't think so.

From Wikipedia
After years of study, argument and lobbying by influential people such as Theodore Judah as to where the "eastern" terminus would be and how the cost of construction would be paid the construction and operation of a transcontinental line was authorized by the Pacific Railroad Acts of 1862 and the even more generous act of 1864[5] during the American Civil War when southern Democratic opposition in the Congress to the central route near the 42 parallel was absent. Other railroads were also authorized under much the same terms. Two railroad companies, the Union Pacific Railroad and Central Pacific Railroad, were chosen for the first transcontinental railroad and supported by 30-year U.S. guaranteed government bonds (at 6% interest). The bonds were to be issued at $16,000/mile for track laid at level grade, $32,000/mile for track laid in foothills and $48,000/mile for track laid in mountains. In addition, a 400 feet (120 m) right-of-way grant and land needed for all sidings, stations, rail yards, maintenance stations, etc. on which to build the railroad were granted. Extensive land grants of alternate sections of government-owned lands along the tracks for 10 miles (16 km) on both sides of the track--6,400 acres (2,600 ha) per mile (1.6 km) of track were granted. Grants were not allowed or given in cities or at rivers or on non-government property. While some of this land had potentially exploitable minerals, was good farm or forest land, and quite valuable, much of it was essentially valueless desert. Provisions in the Pacific Railroad Acts were made for the telegraph companies, who had just completed the First Transcontinental Telegraph in 1861, to combine their lines with the Railroad's telegraph lines as they were built. Railroad allocated land not sold in three years was to be sold at the same government price homesteads were sold at, $1.25 per 1 acre (0.40 ha) if there were any buyers. If the bonds were not repaid all remaining railroad property, including trains and tracks, were to revert to the U.S. government for disposal—they were all repaid with interest.

Government investment in the 1860's tied the nation together and enabled a coast to coast economy to grow. Sounds something like this

The Interstate Highway Act literally brought Americans closer together. We were connected city-to-city, town-to-town, family-to-family, as we had never been before. That law did more to bring Americans together than any other law this century – President Clinton

Our problem is that we have not had guiding economic vision for decades so our spending is not targeted. We are simply throwing money at every social problem and perceived security problem that we can imagine and praying that those receiving the money will spend it in a way that stimulates new economy.
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

You can find this very interesting paper on the irs website. Given this chart why couldn't we have the following tax rate table ?

Top 1% pays 25% of income

1% to 10% bracket pays 17%

11% to 20% pays 13%

21% to 30% pays 11%

and so forth

Apply the table to all income making entities - individuals, families, businesses.

No deductions

Why not just a national sales tax on individuals and that's it.
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

Why not just a national sales tax on individuals and that's it.

Sales tax as an alternative to income tax has been a background discussion for years. Interest in it has seemed to grow and fall and then revive but it never gains enough traction for serious consideration. I think the reasons are fourfold. First, there is a strongly established general consensus tradition of raising federal revenue by levying income tax – income tax is woven into our American governance fabric. Second, until we recently became obsessed with the middle class, we were concerned with the economics of being poor. There was general consensus encompassing liberals and conservatives that we should not burden poor people with taxes. Sales tax does that. Third, we understand that the sales tax collectors are American businesses and a national sales tax will increase business overhead costs and add to the regulatory burden that is already weighing them down. Fourth, we generally accept the concept of a progressive tax rate table. Not because we want to redistribute wealth, but rather because there is a correlation between the benefits received from government and income. Consider myself as an example. It has been well established in older threads on this forum that my income is in the top 10%. My income was enabled by my Ph.D. which was paid for by a National Science Foundation research grant and made possible by a state and federal funded university laboratory. I should pay a higher rate than a middle income worker because the government enabled me more than it did the middle income worker.

I wrote the essay “Certainty” seeking to identify very basic broad taxation principles that have consensus support in America so that we can have a foundation of agreement that we can build upon to eliminate the divisive politics built into the existing system through simplification. I believe that two of the foundation elements are that the core of our revenue raising system should be tax on income generating activities and the tax rate table should be progressive. We certainly have no consensus on thresholds, progression formula, definition of taxable entities other than individuals, whether some activities should be tax exempt, etc. But, I am convinced a group of committed individuals can treat this as a social design problem and arrive at a unifying solution that is better than our current polarizing law.
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

All true, but poor people would purchase much less then the rich and therefore pay less taxes. I believe the reason why the rich that run this country prefer income taxes is because that way the tax is directly identified by the person and if we went to a sales tax all the tax loopholes, deductions and exemptions would not be so easy to apply.
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

All true, but poor people would purchase much less then the rich and therefore pay less taxes. I believe the reason why the rich that run this country prefer income taxes is because that way the tax is directly identified by the person and if we went to a sales tax all the tax loopholes, deductions and exemptions would not be so easy to apply.
You missed the part where a consumption tax takes a larger share of a low quintile income as compared to a higher quintile. We all have base level of spending to live, a tax on spending hits a low income person to a much greater degree.
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

You missed the part where a consumption tax takes a larger share of a low quintile income as compared to a higher quintile. We all have base level of spending to live, a tax on spending hits a low income person to a much greater degree.

Wouldn't there still be entitlements and welfare? In the end we would all end up subsidizing them much as we do now. We could just as easily make EBT cards exempt from sales tax. Food and essentials are free from sales tax now. Just making suggestions.
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

You missed the part where a consumption tax takes a larger share of a low quintile income as compared to a higher quintile. We all have base level of spending to live, a tax on spending hits a low income person to a much greater degree.

Did you miss the part where many proposals advocate some sort of prebate to address your concerns?
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

Wouldn't there still be entitlements and welfare?
I don't know, you are the one revamping the fed system.

In the end we would all end up subsidizing them much as we do now. We could just as easily make EBT cards exempt from sales tax. Food and essentials are free from sales tax now. Just making suggestions.
Ah.."essentials".....see, you keep moving a goal post.

But again, consumption taxes always hits lower incomes harder, if your plan is to "make taxes more fair", then a consumption tax is not "more fair".
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

Did you miss the part where many proposals advocate some sort of prebate to address your concerns?
From Blax? Yes I did:
Why not just a national sales tax on individuals and that's it.
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

From Blax? Yes I did:

Maybe you should research the actual proposals. It would be better than making unfounded points in your replies...
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

Did you miss the part where many proposals advocate some sort of prebate to address your concerns?

Yes I did.
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

Maybe you should research the actual proposals. It would be better than making unfounded points in your replies...
I wasn't debating an "actual" proposal, I was debating a statement by Blax, smart guy.

What was unfounded was assuming that Blax was arguing any "actual" proposal
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

I wasn't debating an "actual" proposal, I was debating a statement by Blax, smart guy.

What was unfounded was assuming that Blax was arguing any "actual" proposal

Most individuals advocating for a national sales tax have the Fair Tax proposal as their foundation, though it may not be eloquently expressed...
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

Most individuals advocating for a national sales tax have the Fair Tax proposal as their foundation, though it may not be eloquently expressed...
Oh..well..."most"....and they don't even have to reference it! We should know, even when those talking about it don't know that they are talking about it, that they are talking about it!

Omniecessence!!!
 
Re: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”–B Frank

Oh..well..."most"....and they don't even have to reference it! We should know, even when those talking about it don't know that they are talking about it, that they are talking about it!

Omniecessence!!!

Possibly I was wrong to assume that you were a fairly informed poster. My bad...
 
Back
Top Bottom