Creating Fair Taxation

Great idea but to be effective not only does Amendment 16 need to be repealed but Amendment 17 also to give the states in the say. While the House is empowered to originate all bills regarding revenue, the Senate must approve before it is sent to the chief tyrant.

 

That's correct, and I've said that numerous time, along with repeal of the Federal Reserve Act.
In 2010, the most recent year I could find actual figures, only 6 States of the 50 actually provided more revenue to the Federal government than was returned to them. And those States were Ohio $100 million or $9 per person, Illinois $1 billion or $78 per person, Nebraska $1.1 billion or $602 per person, Delaware $7.2 billion or $8,018 per person, Minnesota $23.6 billion or $4,450 per person, and New Jersey $37.9 billion or $4,311 per person.
Alaska and Hawaii were the worst case subsidized States receiving $7.9 billion or $11,123 per person and $14.6 billion or $10,733 per person more than the revenue collected from each State respectively. The 2010 Federal budget cost was $11,628 per person.

 

Kinda difficult when the government confiscates 15.3% of ones income. That money going into private accounts would generate real wealth. The fix for those not saving enough would be to convert those funds going to a failing Ponzi scheme into private investments under a mandated system.

 

The only fair taxation is a progressive system, with no loopholes for the upper class.

So no federal income taxes on the working poor, a rate for the middle, and a much higher rate for the top dogs.

All of these other plans are just attempts at cutting taxes on the rich, and getting more from the middle. Some will even take taxes from the working poor.

 

For the most part. Money represents ones labor that was not traded for other goods and sevices. No, you nor the government have a moral authority to confiscate it for redistribution.

 

Yeah, I did leave out the Federal Reserve, thanks for adding that. In my view that is the real key, getting rid of the bankers and getting congress back in control of the currency.

As for the states, they need to learn to get away from the Federal tit. The more a state takes from the fed, the further they are under control of the states.

 

That's only the ponzi scheme part, how about all those taxes to support the Federal Reserve?

 

The only fair taxation would be the elimination of the income tax.

 

I'm guessing that we pay interest on new money creation by the fed. But, if the government were to make its own bonds, it would still have to pay interest. Private central banks managing the money supply is an unnecessary overhead on a country. It also provides the means to unnecessary wars.

 

Very true, but then the government can print money with no penalty to support the GDP growth. They would only have to pay interest on the bonds they float that are in excess of revenues. But they should never be in excess of revenues as the direct taxes they collect are in such abundance, they had to start giving it away. Yeah, all that bribe money they pay corrupt regimes of other countries so the IMF can rape them.

 

Fair means impartial, unbiased, equal. Asking one man to pay more than another for the same citizenship, is not fair. Necessary maybe, considering we spend more than $15,000 per person. But not fair.

There is no fair way for us to collect the $3.5 trillion we want to spend each year.




​

 

My federal income tax proposal is "impartial, unbiased, equal" because every household receives the same exemption from taxation (based upon family size and median income) and every household pays the identical tax rate on income above the exemption level.

The millionaire receives the same exemption that the minimum wage earner has and the millionaire pays the same tax rate on income above the exemption level that a household with only $1,000 above the exemption level pays. There is no favoritism for anyone under my proposal.

All income regardless of source above the exemption level is taxed the same and there are no special deductions, tax credits, or variable tax rates that create "unfair" taxation.

General income tax revenue doesn't have to fund the entire $3.5 trillion federal budget because over $1 trillion is based upon the Social Security Tax. As my analysis of 2013 reflected a single tax rate on income above the "exemption" of 29% would have fully funded all general expenditures (i.e. no deficits). The "exemption" ensures that every household that is subjected to the tax is fully capable of paying that tax rate because they have more than enough income to live on that is untaxed because of the exemption.

 

It's legitimate to state that a family of four with a household income of $30,000 or $40,000 trying to pay for food, rent, utilities, transportation (like a used car that requires repairs) so they can get to work, plus car insurance, life insurance, health insurance, and hopefully even investing 10% of their income for retirement (they can't work forever) in addition to their other basic expenditures is incapable of paying any taxes.

It's not legitimate to state that a family of four with a $60,000, $100,000 or million dollar plus income can't afford to pay any taxes because they own two new BMW's, live in a $500,000 to million dollar home, and take that two-week "European" vacation every year.

 

Government does not provide income, it provides citizenship. Income is a measure of what we provide others. Providing the same citizenship to two men, but asking for less contribution from the second -- that is favoritism.

It is not possible for us to fairly collect what the federal government spends. To spend that we must collect more from those who have more. Those who do less simply do not produce enough to pay a fair bill. They do not have the capacity to contribute a fair share of the amount we spend on our equal citizens.

It is necessary for us to ask more of those who can contribute more. It is not fair.






​

 

So you are god with the ability to tell others how they will behave as slaves before you. I prefer my position as is, I do not qualify as a taxpayer and leave paying the interest on the federal debt to others.

The government doesn't need the money, it goes to the Federal Reserve. The government receives so much money in lawful excise taxes, it has so much money in abundance to has to give it away to keep the ignorant masses from realizing just what a scam the government has going.

 

Burying it with the corpse would be silly though. Why give some people an advantage over others, and inherited fortunes, given to people who did not work for it, is hardly moral. For it leads to plutocrats. A royal class which only a monarchy should do.

So let the kids of the rich, make it on their own, like the rest of America does. Special treatment is hardly a good thing. When a man is dead, he no longer owns anything. Let us construct laws to reflect that, and get rid of the rich entitled class that do nothing to get wealthy. It's vulgar and not good for a democratic nation, for it eventually usurps the republic, giving us a plutocracy, of spoiled brats who do nothing to care for themselves.

 

What one does with his personal property is not your business, dead or alive. There is a reason not to covet is a Commandment.

 

I don't know where you came up with the "citizen" argument related to income taxes because income taxes are paid by both citizen and non-citizens alike.

There is a simple fact based upon the "Natural Right of Property" that entitles a person to their basic "support and comfort" from their labor (John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter 5) and no one should have to pay taxes from income necessary for their minimum support and comfort. Taxes should never result in a person going without food, becoming homeless, or not being able to pay for the minimum mandatory (involuntary) expenditures they're required to pay for. We're not talking about voluntary expenditures (e.g. that new car or $500,000 home) but instead expenditures that a person has to pay like basic rent, food, clothing, energy, transportation, etc., that are required to live in the United States. They're also entitled to a "little left over" for comfort so that they are not just an economic slave. A person really should be able to afford a cold beer after work or a night at the movies with their family.

That's why I created an "exemption" from taxation up to median household income because that income is enough to provide for the basic support and comfort of the household. Yes, it might be a tad high providing a little more "comfort" than some might agree with (e.g. the family might be able to actually afford a vacation) but it's the same for every household, based on size, so in that sense it's fair for everyone.

The tax is the same for everyone with income in excess of the exemption because there's only one tax rate. For example everyone would have paid 29% (above the exemption) in 2013 to fully fund the general expenditures authorized by Congress.

There is no discrimination or favoritism like our current "progressive income tax rates" where the high income earner would have paid up to 39.6% on their income or where a person with "capital gains" income would pay 0% in income taxes up to $70,000 in net long term capital gains while a worker would be paying up to about 20% (if memory serves me correctly) on the same net income.

So long as the exemption is the same and the tax rate above the exemption is the same it's a fair tax because everyone is treated identically under the tax code.

 

If you're still living in the "Carolina Colonies" then you a subject of the British Crown and not an American citizen which, of course, explains the ignorance of the statement.

 

That is true but the dead are not taxed by an inheritance tax. Only the person receiving the income is taxed and that property never belonged to them to begin with. As I addressed this with my "inheritance tax proposal" it should be addressed as a "once-in-a-lifetime-windfall-income" regardless of source. It could be from inheritance, a signing bonus, or winning the lottery because the source of the income is irrelevant.

Let the person decide what "once-in-a-lifetime-windfall-income" they want to apply a special one-time exemption to regardless of source. Treat everyone the same.

 

I'm don't appose your inheritence tax formula. I was addressing what appeared to be covetous complete confiscation by the other poster.

 

What a vulgar sociopathic view. It is pure evil robbing one of the fruits of his labor, even in death. A man that spends his life working for his prosperity has a right to pass it on to whomever he desires heirs or not. It leads to no such things as plutocrats nor a royal class, just heirs that had parents with capability, not slaves. If the heir is worthy, he will expand otherwise he will fail, either way is his fate, not yours to take.

Also, this is not a democratic nation, that is what usurps a republic. It seems you are but jealous that you didn't deserve a silver spoon. That seems to be the view of many with no desire to do on their own but believes others should give to them, too bad.

 

Maybe next they're going to want to tax a child who is given money or in-kind income by his parents. Housing, food, education, allowance money. All of this is property that the child never owned and then was given, thus income.

Or maybe I shouldn't give the blood-suckers any ideas.

 

You can argue your exemption is fair. The tax you are suggesting to apply it to is not. Asking one man to pay $200,000 and another to pay nothing is not asking the same of each man. It is favoring the one you ask to provide nothing.

Asking less of one man and more of another is not treating the two identically. It may be a kind thing, it may be necessary. It is not fair.




​

 

Not really, income taxes are only paid by those too ignorant to not volunteer, unless you work for or upon government property. I enjoy not doing any of those. Now I may volunteer for some worthy things but supporting the Federal Reserve is not one of those.

Natural right of property means not being alienable by any without the consent of the owner. As to the theft of the fruits of one's labor, that is downright slavery.