Creating Fair Taxation

No argument from me but Congress determines what the "necessary" expenditures are and not you or I.

I do find it humorous though when some extreme "tea party" advocates state we should go back to government expenditures that pre-date the income tax because the allocation for national defense would drop into the "millions of dollars" as opposed the the hundreds of billions of dollars. Based upon the "pre-income tax" authorizations for the military, adjusted for inflation, we couldn't even afford even a single squadron of advanced tactical fighters to defend the United States if I recall correctly. Of course if we weren't creating enemies around the world the threat to America would be dramatically reduced.

We can also note that if employers paid a liveable wage and provided employee benefits (like health insurance and pension plans) that the expenditures for government provided welfare assistance would only be a tiny fraction of what they are now. So how do we convince employers to provide a liveable wage and employee benefits is the key question so that government spending can be dramatically reduced.

That is true but if we end the federal government's "War on Drugs" and change our immigration laws to allow immigration for peaceful purposes we could dramatically reduce federal expenditures for law enforcement. Is that not true? If the "people" were to stop civil rights violations (e.g. discrimination in employment based upon prejudice) then we could end or greatly reduce federal spending on civil rights law enforcement so how do we accomplish that?

 

Obviously. This is simply a discussion about what each of us thinks they ought to do.

Nevertheless, if the federal government restricted itself to defending our shores, its expenditures would be a tiny fraction of what they are now.

As I said, the government should stick to governing, not redistributing income.

The federal government should not be involved in law enforcement. That is not its job. That is the states jobs.

 

Finally, a post that I can agree with. Our Federal government is supposed to govern with the consent of the governed, and our Constitution was written in a way that until passage of the 16th and 17th amendments the people elected persons to represent them in Congress and the State governments did the same sending Senators to represent them. As such, the Congress was held accountable by their constituents, both the people and the States who would be held responsible for taxing them to fund the operations approved by the Congress which they would be made responsible for providing the funding of. Any redistribution of wealth would/should be kept to being both collected and provided within the State, which would then require each of the State governments to create and maintain an environment under which their population could find productive employment allowing them to live with little or no dependency on government, local or State, allowing private/personal charities to provide short/long term assistance to those in need based on each individual case. The Federal government needs to get completely out of the 'pork' business, allowing the people to determine how they want to spend their money. States should be left free to tax their citizens by whatever tax system they find most acceptable by their citizens, be it a flat tax, a 'Fair' tax, a progressive tax, or some totally different other tax system. Unlike a forest where trees are rooted and difficult to move and keep alive, people are mobile and can and will find where they are able to best acquire their needs and wants for survival. Societies, small communities are most peaceful and crime free when they are populated by persons who have most in common with one another, and show that they are contributing to the advancement of their community either productively, intellectually, or some other means by which they acquire their needs and/or wants.

 

Once agian this thread is on taxation and not spending so we won't go into spending authorizations because that's a whole different can of worms.

Of course the federal government has a significant role related to law enforcement. The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and the federal government is the "law enforcement agency" with juridiction over enforcement of the US Constitution and federal laws created under it. Of course there can be questions related to whether the federal laws are Constitutional but that's another topic completely because we're limited to addressing taxation in this thread.

 

An interesting opinion that, with the exception of mentioning the 16th Amendment (Income Tax), takes us off topic because this thread is solely about taxation... but I would give you two points to ponder.

When the nation was founded Article I established that members of the House of Representatives were to be selected by the People. Later, with the 17th Amendment, the popular elections of Senators was also established (driven by the fact that the States were failing to meet the requirements to appoint senators as required in Article I). The 15th and 19th Amendments addressed cases where statutory laws prevented some people from voting and the 26th Amendment extended the voting age to those over 18. We've addressed a few cases where the "people" were denied the Right to Vote under statutory law with Constitutional amendments but we still have laws preventing some of the "People" from voting. In 19th Century we literally had 40 states and territories that protected the Right to Vote for these "People of the United States" but now that Right to Vote has been revoked under statutory law.

Can you identify who these "People of the United States" are and try to explain why they're not allowed to vote for the election of the members of Congress (and the President based upon the Electoral College)?

When this nation was founded it was based upon a federalist form of government.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/federalism?s=t

While there are overlapping responsibilities between the federal government and state government, as noted, there are many roles and responsibilities that should be considered to be exclusively the role and responsibility of either the federal government or the state government as noted. Generally speaking we can say that the federal government has the responsibility of providing for the "general welfare of the States" and the state government's have the responsibility to provide for the "specific welfare of the People" under our form of government.

As the People of the United States we rely on both the federal and the state governments to fulfill their responsibilities under our federalist form of government but historically the States have failed miserably when it comes to fulfilling their responsibilities to the People of the State.

So what is the remedy when the States are failing to fulfill their responsibility to provide for the specific welfare of the People?

Once again this thread is really on taxation and not the issues I mention above but those issues are worthy of thought and consideration in a broader context. It can also be noted that many programs are "federally funded, state administered, programs" (i.e. the federal government is providing for the general welfare of the states by providing funding to all of the states while the states are providing the for the specific welfare on the people by administering the program).

 

The level of federal taxation could be massively reduced if the federal government stuck to protecting our shores, per its constitutional mandate.

 

National defense is not the only federal mandate in the US Constitution.

Federal spending would be dramatically reduced if the government (state and federal) "addressed the problems" as opposed to addressing the symptoms of the problem.

Example: If all employers paid a liveable wage it would eliminate poverty for working Americans resulting in an end any necessity for either federal or state to provide welfare assistance for working Americans. Welfare assistance mitigates the symptoms of poverty but does nothing to eliminate the poverty which creates the necessity for the welfare assistance.

To reduce/eliminate the necessity for the welfare assistance we must reduce/eliminate the need for the assistance. If there is no poverty then there is no need for the welfare assistance.

One of the positive attributes of my federal tax proposal is that as we address the problems we eliminate the necessity to spend money on them and the tax rate drops. Isn't that what we want to see happen?

 

It's pretty much the only mandate that entails any significant cost or that can't be funded by user fees. If you look at the other powers, they are either rule making powers (which don't involve much cost) or are powers to provide certain services that could be paid for by users.

Rule making powers: regulate commerce w/ foreign nations, among the several states, and w/ the indian tribes; establish rules on naturalization and bankruptcies; fix the standard of weights and measures; patents and copyrights; define piracies and felonies; grant letters of marque and reprisal and make rule concerning captures.

Powers that could be funded by user fees: coining money; post offices and post roads (roads could be funded w/ gas or mileage tax).

The remaining powers are the military ones designed to protect our shores.

The federal government has no constitutional mandate to address poverty.

 

"The Federal government needs to get completely out of the 'pork' business, allowing the people to determine how they want to spend their money. States should be left free to tax their citizens by whatever tax system they find most acceptable by their citizens, be it a flat tax, a 'Fair' tax, a progressive tax, or some totally different other tax system."

Like I said, leave taxing to the States, allowing the people and the States to have a say about how their tax dollars are spent including what spending they are willing to consent to the Federal government having the power to bill their States which will impose a tax upon them proportionate to their population.

 

Technically no but it does indirectly have that mandate by providing for the "general welfare of the United States" so on a national level it does have to be deeply concerned with poverty. We have "general poverty" created by crony capitalism and that is a national issue that can be arguably be addressed under the Interstate Commerce clause (so sayth the US Supreme Court).

Specifically the "states" do have a mandate related to poverty because the states, under our federalist system of government, are responsible for the "specific welfare of the people."

As I mentioned in a previous post most federal "programs" only relate to funding for the states (providing for the general welfare of the states) while the programs are administered by the states (providing for the specific welfare of the people) so they are "Constitutional" based upon our federalist form of government. The only "Constitutional" issue I really see is when the federal government is providing the assistance directly to the individual (e.g. Social Security).

Always remember that many of the federal programs relate to a failure of the states to fulfill their responsibilities under our federalist form of government. For example every state, including Republican states, voluntarily accepts federal aid to education to fund education that is clearly a state responsibily. If the Republicans are so opposed to federal aid to education (many keep saying they are) then why don't they raise the state taxes, fully fund education, and then decline any federal aid to education? The best way to end federal aid for education is for the states to fully fund education but even Republican states refuse to do that.

 

We live in a Republic where the legislature of the state represents the people of the state and the state legislatures ratified the 16th Amendment that enumerated the power of the federal government to impose income taxes to fund federal expenditures. The people, through their elected representatives at the state level, authorized the federal income tax.

 

The same was true of the 18th amendment.

 

No, it has a mandate to collect taxes to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

It says this where?

The federal government has no constitutional mandate to be involved in the education of the people of the states.

 

Why? Does that somehow fall outside the government's writ to provide for the general welfare.
Besides, education is probably the single most critical item in the proper functioning of a democracy since an ill educated citizenry cannot properly perform their duty as informed voters.

Of course, some people prefer this since it is easy to manipulate the ignorant and the well educated ask too many uncomfortable questions.

 

The federal government doesn't have a writ to provide for the general welfare. The federal government has the power to collect taxes to provide for the general welfare.

If you are concerned with ignorance, then I would assume you would oppose the government educating your children.

 

Yes, the federal government has the authority to collect taxes for the general welfare of the United States.

This thread is exclusively about the authority to tax and not the authority to spend so please return to the topic.

 

This thread is about fair taxation. If the federal government restricted itself to exercising the powers enumerated in Art I, section 8, it would spend significantly less overall. This would lower the tax burden on everyone.

 

That would be reflected in my tax proposal because the tax rate is based upon the authorized expenditures.

Of note the authority of the federal government has been expanded by subsequent amendments to the US Constitution. For example the 14th Amendment established spending authorizations to ensure equal protection under the law. The roles and responsibilities of the federal government were never locked into the original Constitution as some seem to believe. Amendments carry the same weight, and can even supersede, the orginal provisions of the US Constitution.

 

"For example the 14th Amendment established spending authorizations to ensure equal protection under the law."

????

 

You can provide a better life for your children through education and good parenting. Endless dynastys funded through inherited wealth undermines the oft proclaimed merit system for Sucess in America.

 

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14.html

The US Constitution, in the 14th Amendment, establishes "prohibitions" that must be enforced as well as mitigated by statutory laws.

For example if the "state" fails to create statutory laws that ensure equality of economic opportunity to the residents of the state (i.e. allows discrimination in employment and advancement) then it is failing in it's Constitutional responsibility to provide "equal protection" under the law for the residents of the state. The federal government, under the US Constitution, has a responsibility to address this failure by the state to ensure equal protection under the law and it does so with federal statutes. It also has a Constitutional obligation to mitigate this failure by the state to ensure equal protection under the law for all residents of the state.

The US Consitution has many provisions that not just authorize laws but demand statutory laws and government action to ensure the provisions of the Constitution are fulfilled.

 

America doesn't have a merit system. You are free to be a great person or a really lousy one.





​

 

That assumes that opportunities are equal for all. And since class mobility in the United States has significantly declined the assumption is obviously incorrect. Children of the wealthy are much more likely to end up wealthy and children of the poor are much more likely to end up poor. Yes exceptions can be found but but the exceptions do not negate the overall data.

 

It doesn't. Tall people have many opportunities short people don't. They can still free to be lousy people.





​

 

Equality is an achievement, not a right or a government provided entitlement.
Back to fair taxation, end the Federal income tax system, and allow the Federal government only the ability to tax the States, and we could put an end to much of the Federal waste, debt, and irrational/wasteful spending.