Creating Fair Taxation

I do live in the Carolina Colonies but am subject to no one especially the British Crown. True I am an American but not a US citizen and any ignorance regarding your statement would be entirely yours. You have no clue who I am nor what I am capable of other than what I decide to state, so your claim in itself is totally ignorant and without fact.

That addresses that issue and leaves but the general statement that I made in which again the ignorance would be entirely yours unless you can somehow provide something other than your conjecture that those facts are not so.

 

Really and still the issue is what psychopathic notion somehow makes you god and determine how another may be coerced into divesting himself of the fruits of his labor?

 

They already try and after all, doesn't your child not belong to you but belongs to the whole community as was stated by that bimbo over at MSNBC?

 

Tax is an absolute requirement of civilization.

Basically, you are trying to justify being a parasite.

 

Obviously the government has no "right to the property" of the dead but it does have the right and authority to tax income and the "inheritance" is income to the person receiving it. The government can't confiscate the property but it can tax that property when it changes hand from the deceased to the heir.

Where I found the problem of "fairness" was that the "inheritance tax exemption" today only covers inheritance while many others receive a similar "once-in-a-lifetime-windfall-income" but they don't get the exemption for the same "dollars" of income.

That was really unfair in my opinion because a dollar is a dollar is a dollar regardless of source so I addressed it that way.

 

I'm not. The US Constitution authorizes it.

 

Theoretically, from an economic perspective, the "fairest" form of taxation is a land value tax.

The famous free market economist Milton Friedman was quoted as saying, "the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago".

If you look into the arguments behind land value taxation, you can see why.

While land value taxation may theoretically be the best form of taxation, in actual practice there are several potential problems, including practical implementation, and even danger of overconcentration of political power. The fact that the U.S. Constitution contains a provision (Article I, section 9, clause 4) requiring taxes on property (such as land) to be specially apportioned among the States based on population is worth noting. It was intended to be a safeguard to prevent the central government from being able to raise taxes too high and having too much control.

 

No, tax is the absolute bane of any civilization. However the constitution provided very amply for the funding of the functions of the Republic.

Parasite, that is a purely idiotic response. I pay for what I use as the Republic intended but I refuse the benefits and wish you good luck on paying for them, has nothing to do with me at all. In fact the parasites are the ones like yourself that rejoice in slavery and wants all to bend to those shackles you can't shake.

 

No, there has never been a civilization that didn't have taxes. And, the reason for that is that there can not be civilization without it. Civilizations have overhead.

What we get from our government is mostly paid for through taxation, not user fees.

If you aren't paying taxes, you are highly unlikely to be paying for what you take benefit from. Everybody takes benefit from our legal system (even if you yourself never have a court case), our police, our military, our transportation systems, our power distributions systems, our banking system (even if you don't have a personal account and don't borrow money), our SEC, our FDA, our education system (even if you never went to public school), etc., etc., etc.

These things ALL give us benefit even if only through the secondary affects of having them available to those who provide us with the things we actually pay for. All those things and more are required for America to be America - for our civilization.

 

Really and just where in the constitution do we find where "I created" (I being you)?

 

The 16th Amendment authorized the income tax.

I merely make a proposal that eliminates the nefarious cronyism and favoritism that the politicians have embedded into our income tax system since it was authorized by the 16th Amendment. In my proposal, which I take great pride in, I've addressed "fair taxation" as opposed to "crony taxation" and in that regard it most certainly is mine. To my knowledge no one else, no politicians or expert, has ever made a proposal exactly or even close to what I propose. So yes, this proposal for fair taxation that fully funds the authorized expenditures of Congress is "Mine" and I take pride in that fact.

Of course most people can't claim any proposal as belonging to them because they haven't made any proposal.

Now if anyone has a superior proposal that's more fair than mine for everyone in the United States, rich and poor, then I'd love to read it but like me they have to subject it to peer review and be willing to answer the tough questions.

 

Always has been and still is: theft. Just because the government wields the gun doesn't change it one iota.

Taxes where nothing but a way for tyrants to steal from the people to keep them in line but at least the Romans where somewhat honest about it, pay for the retirement of those that enslaved you.

But it seems that England did very well up until the invasion in 1066, so I guess that pretty much does away with your claim of no civilization without taxes. In fact, England had a great civilization until 1066. But then it took until 1215 to clean up that mess.

But now France is pretty typical of what a civilization really means and they paid for it with a Revolution. The Clergy and nobles exempt and the peasants picking up the tab for their endeavors.

But now back to home where the founders declared independence over a mere little 17% tax from the king among other things.

When they established and ordained the constitution there were many debates on the point and during ratification, Hamilton wrote 7 of the Federalist papers on the subject, Federalist 30 to Federalist 36. But it was only in Federalist 36 that he finally mentioned the direct tax and then it was three paragraphs latter that he offered such a short remark.

Now these united States managed to get along quite well and this country was very prosperous, right up to the point where Wilson sold the country to the bankers. So you say anything you want about taxes, I prefer to rely on the history.

As to the income tax, there is that wonderous multi-volume dichotomy of Title 26 against the 16th Amendment, not to mention the numerous opinions of those mysterious supreme beings in black robes keep alluding without being really honest that the 16th Amendment conveyed no new taxes and that the income tax is voluntary. What those mystical beings say in this instance are true and when you find the secret, a well hidden secret I may add, you are free. But if one does it wrong, you will be accosted by all the guns the IRS can be made to bear and you will be violated.

So in short, you believe in what you believe and pay all they believe is due and I will rejoice in my freedom and pay what I owe, nothing. And unlike yourself that tries to find ways to cheat and be dishonest in your earnings and deductions to minimize what you owe, I have offered to pay every penny owed, promptly and without question. It seems that sum is always ZERO.

 

There's also an old saying...

When you've got nothing you've got nothing to lose.​

While everyone benefits from government those with the most to lose benefit the most from government.

For example if the US was invaded and our country was taken over who's probably going to lose more; the millionaire or the minimum wage worker with no money in the bank?

 

And what does that have to do with fair taxation?

 

Yes, taxes have been abused by various governments over the years. But, that isn't a defense for your position.

And, England was a civilization, so they very definitely had tax.

Hint: Ask the serfs.

If you are paying no tax then you are living some remote hut, loading your own ammo to hunt for food.

And, even then, you undoubtedly buy stuff from time to time, and there is tax built into every product you can possibly purchase.

Still, don't let me harsh your high - you may still have a legitimate claim of being a criminal.

 

Very true. But, it goes way farther than that.

Take health care. Our entire health system is organized around the premise that people have gigantic amounts of money. Then, we back fill by trying to figure out how to make hospitals accessible to those who aren't wealthy.

 

But the point still remains: They are a violation of property rights.

 

That would be your opinion of which I prize very lowly to not at all. Your opinion lacks the knowledge to make any kind of determination.

Seems a little problem with apprehension as England, as stated by a history document, did not get taxation until the Roman invaded in the 11th Century (1066 sound familiar?). So unless you have some sort of source that can prove otherwise, you just pissing in the wind.

[

HINT: They are all dead and long turned to DUST

Again trying to make a determination on that which you seem to having a problem comprehending, perhaps it is your understanding that is in the way. I pay no "INCOME" tax, haven't for almost two decades. No criminal intent at all, I have offered to pay all owed immediately, but seems I have been deemed not a taxpayer by them that should know. Isn't it amazing what one can accomplish when one does their homework and can ask the right questions.

I do not live in a remote hut but I do live in the country on acreage, all completely paid for, no other interest except some claim by the state that I am working on removing. Not too big hurry as the sum is minuscule. It is so remote I have fiber optic service right into the house. My little coop phone company gives me unlimited internet, IP telephony and HighDef TV service, all on glass.

I do have a Hornaday Progressive reloader and can reload ammo, but it hasn't been out of it's box in 20 years. Used to "hot" load 9mm to qualify minor in combat target. Never got good enough for major competition but still I could put 18 rounds into the "4" ring of 9 targets with two mandatory clip changes in less than 15 seconds. The really good guys were under 10 seconds with larger caliber weapons.

I can hunt if I need to but I prefer other methods rather than a rifle. There are many deer here on my property. All I have to do is sit on front porch and watch them forage. But no need to, I raise a lot of what I want to eat and other farmers in the area can provide the rest.

No, there is not tax built into every product but there is tax on many things. I pay gasoline tax for use of the roads. I pay communication tax so that others don't have to pay for their communications. I pay sales tax on that which I purchase locally which is not that large amount as a lot of things are cheaper on the internet even with shipping and they bring it to me instead of the drive to town.

So you go cop your buzz and dream of being a criminal and I'll just be me, something I like so I see no need to pretend.

 

Nonsense. The are part of the deal of living in a civilization. If you want the benefits of living in a civilization, you do have to contribute.

If you don't want to contribute, then choose a place outside of a civilization.


btw, tax is NOT the only requirement for living within a civilization.

Can you guess some of the other ways you are imposed upon if you plan on doing so?


Is there some reason you guys whine about tax, but not about the other requirements?

 

If property is taken by force, then it's a violation of property rights.

Nope. Should I consider it important?

Relax. You don't need to address me in the royal plural. We're equals.

 

No, if you refuse to pay your taxes, you are highly likely to have property taken by force.

That's fully legal and to be expected.

Maybe the legal system is one of those other things guys like you should think about.

 

This is outside of the scope of my fair tax proposal. What Congress decides to do about health care, the environment, national defense or the hundreds of other issues is something I don't address. All I address is ensuring the full funding of the authorized expenditures and don't address what those expenditures might be. Obviously the less Congress spends the lower the tax rate required to pay and the more it spends the higher the tax rate for it but at least we'd see in simple terms what the "cost" is because the tax rate would vary based upon the spending authorizations.

What my proposal also indicates is that to fully fund government with fair taxation actually reduces the top tax rate imposed on many high income household while eliminating any federal personal income tax burden for households with median or less than median household income. All of society benefits from my proposal because no one's lifestyle is adversely effected while the lifestyle of most is improved.

- - - Updated - - -

Not if that property was illegally obtained.

 

The problem is that our statutory property rights established by "title of ownership" are often a violation of the "natural right of property" but that is off topic to this discussion. All this discussion is on is "fair taxation" that fully funds the authorized expenditures of Congress with the bonus of not just fixing but improving our Social Security/Medicare problem.

Taxation is not a violation of anyone's rights unless it takes from the person that which is necessary for them to live on. I've addressed that with the "exemption" from taxation in my proposal.

 

I think it has more to do with voting.

Taxation would be much more fair and Federal government spending would be much more rationally controlled were the Federal government only able to tax the States directly (with repeal of the 16th amendment), allowing each State to determine how to apply tax upon their citizenry in a way most acceptable to them, AND therefore make each State have to take responsibility for the funding of any and all laws passed by the representatives they send to represent them (with repeal of the 17th amendment) in the Senate and the people by the representatives they send to represent them in the House. The Federal government would then be able to pass a balanced budget each year and the States and the voters would probably use better judgement in who they select to represent them in Congress as well as their State government who would determine who would be sent to the Senate to represent their State.
The ultimate power resides in control of the purse.

 

It's good if you can do it but I also assume you don't drive a brand new Mercedes either. It's not impossible to keep income below the level required for the income tax and roughly 47% of American households already do but it's not by choice. It's not because they don't want to pay income taxes but instead because they can't afford to. Before retiring, when I had a six-figure income, I paid tens of thousands of dollars in income taxes and I didn't mind at all. I was living the life of luxury driving Cadilacs, Mercedes, and even a Bentley at one point, and I didn't even balance my checkbook because there was no need to. Income taxes were not something that worried me in the least because I had more than enough income to pay them.

In any case my tax proposal would result in roughly 50% of all American households also being in the same boat as you because they would have no federal income tax obligation because they don't have enough income to be able to afford the taxes.