Seth, I thought what you wrote was so good, I mailed it to a number of my friends. Two so far got back to me and truly enjoyed your comments. I did to by the way. I am not as hard on the rich as you are.
Anytime someone takes another individual's justly acquired property without their consent, it is theft. And it doesn't matter if the person doing the taking calls themselves "government" and their thievery "taxation".
Hey there, Penrod, So you think we can finance the federal government through tariffs? If my memory serves me, that was how the federal government was financed before the income tax.
Congress could certainly pay for exercising its powers through a combination of tariffs and user fees. Tariffs could pay for the defense of the states, congress's salaries, and the federal courts. User fees could pay for the other constitutional federal powers: coining money, patents, post offices and post roads, establishing weights and measures, etc.
Thanks, Robert. Much appreciated. I don't mean to be hard on the rich. I don't resent the rich at all. I really have no "class envy" of them at all. But that's pretty close to the point I was making. As I said, my wife and I are in the top 10%. But we are not in the top 5% or 1%. Do I care? Hell, no! Life is comfortable and secure, and when it gets that way, you lose that envy. And it's for that reason that I really don't mind paying my taxes, having higher income people pay a higher rate, and shielding lower income people from income taxes or at least giving them a lower rate. Like I said above, there's plenty to be thankful for, we get to live in a great country, and I don't mind doing my share to contribute to it.
Well, it is true that is was done 150 years ago. I don't know if it would work today, but it's an interesting idea.
Then be real patriotic and give more. Does it bother you that your taxes go to pay for unconstitutional things like welfare?
Have you seen this ? [video=youtube;kE8RtL3azDg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE8RtL3azDg[/video] Great documentary Heres another must watch [video=youtube;lu_VqX6J93k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu_VqX6J93k[/video]
There are plenty of other ways the government gets money besides federal income tax. Things like corporate taxes for instance and sin taxes. Again these are whats paying for it now not your income taxes. That goes to the FED and waste The creation of the FED led to the great depression and it has destroyed the dollar it was supposed to protect. There is nothing federal about the FED
When it came out, I purchased the official movie called America, from freedom to fascism. Russo has since died. I plan to watch the video you asked me last about, on the federal reserve.
It would appear to be 'anything' a majority of both Houses of Congress and/OR the POTUS does not condone. While 'legally' income taxes cannot be called theft, it's quite likely future generations whose lives will be greatly impacted by the debt and inflation may at some point begin to consider our current/previous government spending to have been theft from them. We should require all levels of government to increase taxes to cover their projected budgets, and then maybe people would begin to demand some fiscal responsibility.
Of course it's theft. You make the money and someone comes and takes part of it saying if you do not pay, bad things will happen to you. Sounds more like a mob 'protection' scam...You know where some knuckle-dragger says if you don't pay up, you lose 'protection' from the 'enforcer' which, of course is the knuckle-dragger himself.
So many will complain when the unemployment rate goes up, how do we fund the business stimulus and the infrastructures?
Unburden the job creators and limit government 'infrastructure.' Anything government gets involved with gets very expensive because of bureaucratic control over the free market. Aside from responsible safety regulation, government does not need a huge 'infrastructure' other than wide ranging projects like roads, dams, etc. Government over-regulation and unreal PC, political mandates placed upon the free market is always a disaster for everyone.
I am certainly not a friend of taxes, especially since I have to pay note able income tax in my country and there are also several idiotic taxes here, whose meaning and sense does not come to me! For example we have still a tax on Champagne which was implemented in 1904 to finance the Navy of the German Emperor before World War 1. Well we have 2016 and in meantime no Emperor, a Republic after before Hitler and a 2nd World War since then with a new Republic, 40 years of divided Germany and not a single of Emperors Battle Ships exists anymore, but the tax on Champagne is existing! BUT We all say that the State and Government of our countries has duties to do and even we dont agree with this or that detail often, all these things cost money which has to be paid by the State and government. From where and whom shall this money come please, if not taxes like income tax?
http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr11.htm Inherently the income tax, if it meets the criteria established by John Locke, is not theft but we must understand the conditions that Locke establishes. First of all the tax comes from the "estate" of the person which is reflected by "assets in excess of liabilities" and as this relates to "income taxes" it's the income above the minimum-mandatory expenditures of the household in providing for their "support and comfort" (ref "Of Property" Chapter 5). The "minimum-mandatory" expenditures can be established by quantitative analysis (MIT quantified it with their Living Wage Calculator) and then defined in the law (e.g. Cost of Living for a Household of two adults, one child, and one working adult to match the "average household" in America) where an "exemption" from taxation on this income is provided. In short we're establishing the baseline for a "positive" or "net estate" to be taxed because you cannot tax a negative estate. The second criteria is that the tax must be proportionate for the (net) estate and this is accomplished by a single tax rate applied to all household income above the "exemption" that establishes the "net estate" of the household. So if the exemption is established at $50,000 for the household then anyone making $50,000 or less pays no income tax. Anyone making more pays the same tax rate on all income (regardless of source) above $50,000. The final criteria for the tax itself is that the rate of taxation on the "net estate" of the household must fund the entire cost of the government. As also noted the tax must be established by majority of either the people directly or by their representative in government. If all of those criteria are met then the tax is not "theft" but instead is a payment being made to support the government that is agreed to voluntarily that is fair because it's proportionate to the "net estate" of those benefiting from the existence of the government. Our income tax laws do not meet this criteria because of: deductions unrelated to the minimum-mandatory expenditures; taxing at different so-called progressive tax rates; different tax rates for earned income and unearned income; different corporate tax rates; and the taxation is not fully funding the authorized expenditures and that transfers the tax load onto future taxpayers.
Your deceitful deflection is duly noted and ignored. That you cannot honestly address the problem with subsidizing the 1% and corporations says volumes.
There are four fundamental problems with the "Fair Tax" proposal that is a consumption (sales) tax with a prebate: First is that it's unconstitutional in the United States for the federal government to tax retail sales. Second is that as proposed by FairTax,org the "prebates" were inadequate to cover the minimum-mandatory cost of living. Third is that it isn't proportionate for the population as higher income households have a lower effective tax rate because they spend less (i.e. a lower percentage of income) on consumption.. Fourth is that, as proposed, it doesn't fully fund the authorized expenditures of Congress.
A tax can only be imposed on a "profit" and not on a cost. Taxation is imposed on "net income" and not gross income (or gross revenue for a business). The reason that 47% of households don't pay an income tax is because their income is below the minimum-mandatory "cost" of living and they don't have a "net" income that can be taxed. Of course these 47% of households are paying an "income tax" but it's just not the personal income tax. They're paying the FICA/Payroll tax with their labor that's a dedicated income tax funding Social Security and Medicare. .
The "Fair Tax" (i.e. consumption tax with prebates) as proposed by Fair Tax Act (H.R. 25/S. 155) in 1999 is far more flawed than our current income tax system.
Let us return to taxation based upon the Natural Rights of the People/Person where John Locke addressed taxation. http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr11.htm The "estate" is equal to "financial assets less financial obligations" to determine the "net estate" of the person/household. That can be determined in two ways. It can be based upon the liquidation of the entire estate, such as what happens upon a person's death, were the liabilities are paid off and what remains is the "net" estate. Or it can calculated annually based upon income where it is equal to the annual gross revenue (income) minus the annual minimum-mandatory expenditures for the household. Because annual liquidation of the entire estate is an absurd proposition to meet Locke's criteria the net estate must be based upon gross personal/household income minus the non-discretionary (minimum-mandatory) personal/household expenditures. Then the net estate, based upon income, must be taxed at the same rate for it to be "proportionate" and the rate must fully fund the authorized expenditures of government. Any person/household earning less than the non-discretionary (minimum-mandatory) personal/household expenditures has a negative estate and a negative estate cannot be taxed. While our current tax codes don't reflect taxation that is justifiable based upon the Natural Rights of the People/Person they can be and I've made an income tax proposal based upon Locke's arguments in the past.
Do you or do you not desire to pay rates lower than the top rate? I believe corporate profits should only be taxed when they are passed to the owners. As a trade off,owners should have no company perks, and should not be able to enjoy luxurious travel, accommodations, luxury automobiles and homes disguised as business expenses. Corporations should not supplement the owners lifestyles. Owners should pay themselves and be subject to the same w2 wage taxation the rest of us are subject to. All income, wage and gains should be taxed at parity and subject to every payrol tax the rest of us are subject to.
