Willardians should be happy now ! Predict win for Romney ...

[eye95]

15% of gross ... no deductions for anything...interest income included ...

That is YOUR idea of a "fair share." Everyone has a different idea, which is why we should eschew that silly term. Through our elected representatives, we set the legally required apportionment.

Personally, I think the whole idea of an income tax is downright stupid and, except for the presence of the 16A, unconstitutional. Check out fairtax.org. Despite the ironic and silly name, it is the best proposal out there!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[WalkingWolf]

That is YOUR idea of a "fair share." Everyone has a different idea, which is why we should eschew that silly term. Through our elected representatives, we set the legally required apportionment.

Personally, I think the whole idea of an income tax is downright stupid and, except for the presence of the 16A, unconstitutional. Check out fairtax.org. Despite the ironic and silly name, it is the best proposal out there!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

5% across the board, do away with IRS. All imports 25% at the docks, and airports, 5% on imports at the cash register. All politicians pay 5% more than the rest of the country. Of course this could never happen.

 

[eye95]

The thing I like about the Fair Tax is that it is as rational as it is simple.

Oh, and the IRS would be gone, along with the requirement for us to testify against ourselves.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Ca Patriot]

the Obamacare Act created 17,000 new IRS agents.

 

[eye95]

Getting rid of the income tax gets rid of Obamacare. Check out Justice Roberts opinion. The income tax, the 16A, is what gave Obama the authority to do to us what he did.

The income tax, the IRS, and the 16A must go!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[OC for ME]

Please explain?

The rich now are paying more than their fair share, so you are saying that would be anti-liberty for them to pay less? Are you a socialist?

I instinctively consider "fair share" as another term of "redistribution."

 

[davidmcbeth]

Getting rid of the income tax gets rid of Obamacare. Check out Justice Roberts opinion. The income tax, the 16A, is what gave Obama the authority to do to us what he did.

The income tax, the IRS, and the 16A must go!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Nothing gave obamalama the right to tax a person for just existing ... the supreme court was just plain wrong ...

 

[OC for ME]

Congress has always had the power to tax anything and everything. The trick is to have whatever tax Congress imposes not be so onerous that the tax forces the taxpayer into poverty, there by creating a citizen that can not pay the tax. For each citizen that Congress forces into poverty as a result of onerous taxes the Congress will turn to those who can pay the tax. Eventually Congress will run out of other people's money.

 

[eye95]

Congress has always had the power to tax anything and everything. The trick is to have whatever tax Congress imposes not be so onerous that the tax forces the taxpayer into poverty, there by creating a citizen that can not pay the tax. For each citizen that Congress forces into poverty as a result of onerous taxes the Congress will turn to those who can pay the tax. Eventually Congress will run out of other people's money.

Congress has not always had the power to directly tax people's income. They tried. It was ruled unconstitutional. They amended the constitution to put in the income tax. The Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate because it is a tax on income that can be avoided by purchasing "approved" health care. Assessing a tax on income is constitutional. Allowing people to escape some of their tax burden because of their economic activity (such as paying mortgage interest) is constitutional. Therefore, the tax structure of Obamacare (which is what the mandate is) is constitutional--because of the 16A.

We must repeal the 16A.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[OC for ME]

Congress has not always had the power to directly tax people's income. They tried. It was ruled unconstitutional. They amended the constitution to put in the income tax. The Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate because it is a tax on income that can be avoided by purchasing "approved" health care. Assessing a tax on income is constitutional. Allowing people to escape some of their tax burden because of their economic activity (such as paying mortgage interest) is constitutional. Therefore, the tax structure of Obamacare (which is what the mandate is) is constitutional--because of the 16A.

We must repeal the 16A.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Repealing the 16A is needed. But....Article I, Section 2 states:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States.....

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am2

It is "generally" accepted that "direct taxes" is synonymous with "internal taxes", not duties or imposts (import/export taxes), "external taxes", of foreign trade. http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/calvinjohnson/directtax.pdf

What the 16A did was effectively remove the apportionment requirement. Apportionment is a concept that "forces" a equal amount of tax money to be provided to the federal government by the taxed regardless of the population tax base. The tax base was calculated differently back in the Framers day.

So, as an example, and with this in mind, it is conceivable that Connecticut citizens (a relatively "rich" state based on the tax base - twice that of a poor state) and Mississippi citizens (a relatively "poor" state based on the tax base - half that of rich state) would "pay" the same amount but the poor state citizens would have to pay twice the tax because their tax base is half of that of the rich state citizens, apportion.

The Congress, via the Articles of Confederation, could only raise revenues via a "requisition" upon each state requiring them to pay their quota of monies. This is how the federal government financed themselves and the Revolutionary War. The states raised the tax money in whatever way they saw fit. Then they would pay, if the state was so inclined to, their quota to the federal government.

The 16A was apparently a compromise, in my view, on abrogating the unfair, illogical, and now irrelevant apportionment requirement (there is no need for apportionment after the requisition system was abandoned and the incorporation of the 13A) for direct taxes, and permitting Congress to confiscate our property (income/money) directly from the citizen there by circumventing the "several states" consent used under the requisition system.

What our Framers did not foresee (and why should they have back then) and would have categorically rejected if they thought about it (the Anti-Federalists unknowingly danced around the idea back then) was the direct confiscation of my money, regardless of how my income was derived, by the federal government. This is the evil that is the 16A.

 

[eye95]

Taxes were apportioned based upon population, not income. By changing the tax to an income tax, it allowed the federal government to interact with and control the individual in a very personal and unconstitutional way.

There other ways to ensure distribution of taxes among the States based on relative wealth without the 16A and without income taxes. The easiest would be a national sales tax, such as the poorly-named "Fair Tax." It would already be constitutional, even after the repeal of the 16A, as one way to implement an excise tax would be as a percentage of the purchase price of goods.

With a sales tax, the feds will be much less intrusive, we won't have to testify against ourselves just to determine our taxes, and the feds can't use the tax code to get around the 18 enumerated powers.

The implementation of the income tax gave the progressives the power they needed to effect the erstwhile unconstitutional changes that they wanted.

Repeal the 16A.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Citizen]

No offense, Eye, but you're not making complete sense.

If we repeal the 16th we're back to the fedgov taxing the states "apportionately" to coin a word.

And, if as you suggest the government is then limited to its enumerated powers, where does the fedgov get the power for a national sales tax? Does the commerce clause actually permit a tax on commerce, or just regulations designed to foster orderly commerce and prevent states from making economic difficulties for one another?

I agree that the 16A has to go. I just don't see the cohesive argument in your text.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Taxes were apportioned based upon population, not income. By changing the tax to an income tax, it allowed the federal government to interact with and control the individual in a very personal and unconstitutional way.

There other ways to ensure distribution of taxes among the States based on relative wealth without the 16A and without income taxes. The easiest would be a national sales tax, such as the poorly-named "Fair Tax." It would already be constitutional, even after the repeal of the 16A, as one way to implement an excise tax would be as a percentage of the purchase price of goods.

With a sales tax, the feds will be much less intrusive, we won't have to testify against ourselves just to determine our taxes, and the feds can't use the tax code to get around the 18 enumerated powers.

The implementation of the income tax gave the progressives the power they needed to effect the erstwhile unconstitutional changes that they wanted.

Repeal the 16A.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

A VAT tax huh? The income tax not constitutional? I think the gov't has decided it was. Like it or not, unless you wish to repeal the 16th.

A VAT tax is the worst kind of tax ... it would be unabated since different goods and services would be taxed differently, increasing the tax is too easy. I lived in the EU and I can tell you that they hate the VAT.

 

[Citizen]

A VAT tax huh? The income tax not constitutional? I think the gov't has decided it was. Like it or not, unless you wish to repeal the 16th.

A VAT tax is the worst kind of tax ... it would be unabated since different goods and services would be taxed differently, increasing the tax is too easy. I lived in the EU and I can tell you that they hate the VAT.

You have to take into account his implied premise. When he says the 16th is unconsitutional, he's using short-hand for saying it violated the original intent of the constitution, which was to restrain the fedgov and prevent it from directly taxing individual citizens. I don't really care much for Eye or his arrogance, but I know he's not dumb enough to think the 16th is unconstitutional when its right there in the constitution.

 

[Jack House]

The VAT is close to 20% in some places. **Filtered** that **Filtered*.

 

[davidmcbeth]

The VAT is close to 20% in some places. **Filtered** that **Filtered*.

The VAT is tied to individual products purchased .. some VAT is much greater than 20% ....

 

[eye95]

A VAT tax huh? The income tax not constitutional? I think the gov't has decided it was. Like it or not, unless you wish to repeal the 16th.

A VAT tax is the worst kind of tax ... it would be unabated since different goods and services would be taxed differently, increasing the tax is too easy. I lived in the EU and I can tell you that they hate the VAT.

The Supreme Court decide that under the original Constitution income taxes were unconstitutional, hence the 16A.

Have you read the Fair Tax proposal? You can at fairtax.org. As it is proposed, I think it is the best kind of tax. After you read the proposal, I can list for you the reasons why I believe it is the best alternative for necessary taxation.

I lived in Europe too. The problem was that they had BOTH a sales tax and an income tax assessed at the national level. Repeal the 16A, and we won't have both at the national level.

BTW, I did not say a VAT. A sales tax is different.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Tawnos]

Who is "we"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? I can't say if you are paying more than your fair share. Taking from one group to give to another(even in the form of taxes) I consider socialism.

"We" would be my wife and I, as we pay taxes based on our household income.

If that's your definition of socialism, are you an anarchist?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

"We" would be my wife and I, as we pay taxes based on our household income.

If that's your definition of socialism, are you an anarchist?

I know your post wasn't directed at me but I am using it as a point of conversation.

Many of the "fair share" crowd or socialistic/communistic leanings using the term "we" in a broad brush definition to rationalize the theft of other peoples property to "benefit" others.

I believe the use of "we" is a misleading term. I don't believe I was born with this mystical, collectivistic inclination to have an armed group of extortionist to take my money or any one else's money to help others. This word and methodology plays on our natural human instinct of wanting to help others to be able to legislate or use force for thievery.

It is my belief based on fairly proven economic thought the best way to help the poor is to let people be economically.

Ludwig VonMises, Murray N. Rothbard, Hazlit etc...have written extensively on this. There is always another side of the coin, in someone's supposed "good deeds".

I am painted by many as an anarchist, but I know you are smarter to use the term properly where the others try to use it as a derogatory term.

I am anarcho-capitalist for sure though!

 

[Citizen]

I know your post wasn't directed at me but I am using it as a point of conversation.

Many of the "fair share" crowd or socialistic/communistic leanings using the term "we" in a broad brush definition to rationalize the theft of other peoples property to "benefit" others.

I believe the use of "we" is a misleading term. I don't believe I was born with this mystical, collectivistic inclination to have an armed group of extortionist to take my money or any one else's money to help others. This word and methodology plays on our natural human instinct of wanting to help others to be able to legislate or use force for thievery.

It is my belief based on fairly proven economic thought the best way to help the poor is to let people be economically.

Ludwig VonMises, Murray N. Rothbard, Hazlit etc...have written extensively on this. There is always another side of the coin, in someone's supposed "good deeds".

I am painted by many as an anarchist, but I know you are smarter to use the term properly where the others try to use it as a derogatory term.

I am anarcho-capitalist for sure though!

+ 5 for naming those guys.

-1 for omitting Hayek.