On the elimination of the Federal Income Tax.

The people who buy stuff pay the taxes, whether the government collects from the corporation that makes the stuff they will sell, or at the Pump, or ionclusions in the Energy Bills, etc.

If a Sales Tax was implimented people would pay when the bought stuff, and see how much the politicians are actually charging.

 

We need to eliminate our warfare-State to eliminate the Income tax. A welfare-State has no need to tax the Incomes of real persons in our republic.

 

No it does not. there are enumerated POWERS to provide for BOTH the common defense and the general welfare in Article 1, Section 8.

One POWER to promote the general defense is below:

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;​

One POWER to provide for the general welfare is below:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries​

Where is the POWER to provide financial assistance to the poor and often lazy?

 

Our mission statement should remove any doubt as to what we are supposed to do, when supplying supply side economics.

 

Yep, as "general welfare" is defined by enumerated powers which don't include checks to the poor and often lazy. Besides, according to our "mission statement" the general welfare is only to be "promoted" while "liberty" is to be secured. How do you promote something, by advertising it and hoping someone does the right thing on their own?

I keep asking and no one has replied. Perhaps you can answer the question...

"How do Democrats 'secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity'?"

 

I support a FairTax system.

 

Actually, that is not literally true in the federal districts where our federal Congress can "legislate in all cases whatsoever", can can literally pass legislation that specifically includes: "checks to the poor and often lazy".

 

Don't know how you figure... Can the Federal Government legally imprison DC residents with red hair or mandate all DC residents go to Church on Sunday? If not why not? I guess the Bill of Rights would prohibit such activities. Of course originally the argument was that the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government, and NOT the States.

Your argument is silly since the Federal Government can't regulate anything for which they lack the legal power and authority.

Why haven't you answered my question?

"How do Democrats 'secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity'?"

 

I think the problem is that with most of these, you run into the "Tyranny of the Majority" principle. Whats stopping the "have nots" from forcing their will on the "haves." The idea of social justice through taxation is not anything we don't have today. Today's political discussion is ripe with social justice taxation. Plus, Life is also protected, not just property. So, maybe "defense spending" is there to protect life, not property. Property protection is carried out by police and the court system. Infrastructure is something that benefits the "public welfare" meaning that it benefits society as a whole.

Also, I think what you do in the process of taxing those who have the ability to gather resources (which is beneficial to the entire world) is to create the rational of "Greed." I dont know if greed is the right word, but think about it. You are now going to ask this company that invests its own capital and resources to now pay more to the government, when the government does absolutely nothing to help out. There are already taxes like this, and it has encouraged off-shoring, out-sourcing, Automation, and the most recent, ObamaCare part time expansions.

Bottom line is that much of what the government does is "Non-Essential." Not saying that it is unimportant, or that they dont perform needed tasks. Leaving people out of paying taxes for services they don't use would be another way of accomplishing your same goals, just without creating new taxes. I think the tax issue could be solved by allowing people to direct their taxes to services they want. Allow people to vote with their taxes for instance. But it would be quite slow with our current, out-dated systems. I think, they need an APP. If you can mobile bank, you should be able to mobile vote.

I don't think an income tax is necessary either. Before it, we used excise taxes and import taxes to fund things. Defense has become much more expensive, and the US role in global defense is something that maybe through creating expanded coalitions with larger countries could reduce the burdens imposed by the global community on the US. (If the US goes to war they complain, if the US doesn't go to war they complain type (*)(*)(*)(*))

 

Are you going to actually debate the issue or simply resort to fallacy for your Cause?

Subject to our federal Constitution, why do you believe our federal Congress cannot resort to sufficient socialism, to enact laws that have an effect on our Institution of money based markets; and social programs to correct for less efficient capitalism.

 

​

1. What "fallacy?" You havn't named ONE, and you haven't answered my questions.

Don't be deluded enough to think just because you can't answer my questions, that any of the questions are a "fallacy." Usually if one can't answer a question they lose the argument!


2. Capitalism is not in any way "less efficient" than socialism. Capitalism produces EXCESSES. Socialism and Communism produce scarcity. Would you rather live in a society with too much or too little of what you need?

To answer your question, simply quote me some power in the Constitution for the government to run the economy as in a Socialist/Communist country, and redistribute the earned wealth of others. That's all. IF you can't, your argument is illegitimate because you are arguing about all the good things your side will do with the money after you steal it from the bank.

 

Regrettably, I forget to post the link to the citation above...

Here it is

http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html

 

I propose replacement of the positive income tax with the negative income tax as a replacement for unemployment insurance.

 

In response to your points, as I see them, Infrastructure may be a benefit to public welfare in a broad sense. When it allows companies to operate people can have jobs and income is generated. In a more narrow sense the government funds spent maintaining the roads to a trucking terminal, for instance, mostly help the owners of that trucking terminal. Funds spent building and maintaining draw bridges mostly help the barge owners who's river traffic make the bridges necessary.

You said;" You are now going to ask this company that invests its own capital and resources to now pay more to the government, when the government does absolutely nothing to help out." How do you determine that the government does nothing to help out? Does not the government provide protection for unruly mobs and foreign invaders and maintain access to physical plants for these companies. The government also negotiates trade deals for these companies with foreign governments, something companies can't do on their own.

Your take on letting people choose which taxes to pay has a big problem. How many people even know which taxes they actually pay? The dumbing down of the general population has given us an unworkable congress. As long as votes are cast based on the effectiveness of the ads and not on the worth of the candidate or issue people can be relied on to vote against their own interests.

 

FIT will never be eliminated because: People won't be able to play the political class warfare game; Earned income Credit is a welfare program dependent on the income tax system; other taxing methods would require everyone to have to contribute and we can't have that; and the government likes nosing into people's activities to glean information for its social engineering efforts.

 

Non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies.

Capitalism, as an analogous form of "subject matter specialist" must be less efficient in those sector in which it does not specialize.

Socialism includes Government and must generalize to the extent required for central forms of planning.

Subject to our federal Constitution, why do you believe our federal Congress cannot resort to sufficient socialism, to enact laws that have an effect on our Institution of money based markets; and social programs to correct for less efficient capitalism.