What's the BEST Income Tax Plan?

[indago]

The scope of government, and by extension, its influence over our lives, was dramatically increased when it tapped into our pockets directly to fund its expansion.

In the Journals of James Madison, who made a record of the arguments during the Constitutional Convention, it is shown that during the construction of the sections dealing with the direct taxation in the Constitution of the United States, it was proposed that if a State failed to pay their proportionate share of the tax laid upon it by the Congress, the government could go into the State and collect the tax directly from the inhabitants of the State.  This was soundly rejected.  It was also noted in the Annals of Congress, during the construction of the Bill of Rights, that an amendment be proposed concerning the same — that direct taxes, if not paid by the State, would then be collected directly from the inhabitants of the State — proposed by both the House and the Senate, and was defeated in each.

Government was never granted the power to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States. Also, government was never granted the power to take an excise tax out of the category of indirect taxes, and put it into the category of a direct tax, and then lay it upon the inhabitants of the States.

[UncommonSense]

That's BULLSHIT, and everybody knows it — well, everybody except you...

POST 1

POST 2

POST 3

Ok, point taken....I mispoke...What I meant to say was....

Actually, 49.5% of Americans pay no federal income tax, that is, federal taxes paid from their income taken directly from their employer.

Agreed, or would you dispute this?

[txradioguy]

In the Journals of James Madison, who made a record of the arguments during the Constitutional Convention, it is shown that during the construction of the sections dealing with the direct taxation in the Constitution of the United States, it was proposed that if a State failed to pay their proportionate share of the tax laid upon it by the Congress, the government could go into the State and collect the tax directly from the inhabitants of the State.  This was soundly rejected.  It was also noted in the Annals of Congress, during the construction of the Bill of Rights, that an amendment be proposed concerning the same — that direct taxes, if not paid by the State, would then be collected directly from the inhabitants of the State — proposed by both the House and the Senate, and was defeated in each.

Government was never granted the power to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States. Also, government was never granted the power to take an excise tax out of the category of indirect taxes, and put it into the category of a direct tax, and then lay it upon the inhabitants of the States.

What the hell is it with you trolls that you can't debate anything without going back to the 19th Century to try and prove your point?

FFS is's 2012...at least try to base your arguments in the laste 20th century.

 

[txradioguy]

The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes



The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes. (Up from 2003: 33.71%)

The top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes (Up from 2002: 53.80%).

The top 10% pay 65.84% (Up from 2002: 65.73%).

The top 25% pay 83.88% (Down from 2002: 83.90%).

The top 50% pay 96.54% (Up from 2002: 96.50%).

The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.46% of all income taxes (Down from 2002: 3.50%).

The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 16.77% of all income (2002: 16.12%). The top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income (2002: 30.55%). The top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income (2002: 41.77%); the top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income (2002: 64.37%) , and the top 50% earns 86.01% (2002: 85.77%) of all the income.

The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04in06tr.xls

[indago]

So basically you're saying the SCOTUS isn't capable of making stupid decisions?

That was an opinion in which there was no dissent.

Then you believe, in opposition to the Supreme Court, that government should lay directly upon the inhabitants of the States "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."

[txradioguy]

That was an opinion in which there was no dissent.

Then you believe, in opposition to the Supreme Court, that government should lay directly upon the inhabitants of the States "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."

No...troll...you're putting words into his mouth that he never said.

And BTW...I thought all you Libtards had no faith in what the SCOTUS decides now that your Hero has declared them 9 unelected judges in black robes?

[txradioguy]

Holy ****in shit....ONE attorney disagrees with me in a nation of 310 million. Somebody call out the ****in National Guard.

You DO realizes even lawyers can be idiots too, right?

What is it with this sudden influx of faux Constitutional "Scholars" who seem to know crap about the Constitution?

[txradioguy]

Also, the sixteenth amendment federal income tax that you had mentioned is, as we all know — well almost all of us — in the indirect tax category, an excise tax:

No it's not.  You're an idiot:

The personal income tax is not an excise tax. 

 

Lately, there is a lot of information, including that from a few attorneys, arguing that the personal income tax is an excise tax.  This is not correct, nor is this a legitimate argument, and this short paper is provided to explain why the personal income tax is not properly recognized as an excise, but as a tariff.

 

First, both tariffs (imposts) and excises are indirect taxes under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which states:

 

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

 

Blacks law dictionary tells us that a tariff is a tax, or schedule of rates for a tax, imposed on foreign goods being imported into the country, or imposed on foreign activity occurring within the United States (America, – including the fifty states). 

 

The Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 3-5, gives the federal government absolute jurisdiction over all foreign matters, affairs, and agreements with foreign nations, and over foreign persons in the U.S.   This is done so that the fifty states may present one consistent face to the world to deal with in trading with the United States, rather than having to keep track of fifty different agreements, depending upon which state they were doing business in.  This jurisdiction over foreign affairs gives the federal government the power to tax both imports into, and the foreign activity of foreign nations and persons in, the United States.

 

An excise tax, on the other hand, as stated by the Supreme Court in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 31 S.Ct. 342, 349 (1911), are:

 

"Excises are taxes laid upon:

(1.)                 the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country,

(2.)                 upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and

(3.)                 upon corporate privileges;”

 

In further identifying and describing the nature of an excise tax, the court held:

 

“.. the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of the privilege and if business is not done in the manner described no tax is payable ... it is the privilege which is the subject of the tax and not the mere buying, selling or handling of goods.”
Flint, supra, at 151 -152

 

So we see that excise taxes are taxes on taxable activities involving commodities, the possession of a license (like ATF licenses), and corporate privileges.   Excise taxes are not taxes on general occupations (or on the work of citizens conducted by constitutional right), rather than on work conducted under a federal license or corporate banner, or involving commodities.   

 

Some of the confusion on this issue of  “Is it an excise or a tariff ?” comes from the Supreme Court itself.  This is because the Court appears in the Stanton decision in 1913, where the court is testing the legitimacy of taxing the income of a mining corporation derived from its mining activities, to uphold the CORPORATE part of the income tax provisions of the tested legislation as an indirect excise.  Also, in the Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236 (1916), the court stated,

 

"Moreover in addition the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but on the contrary recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it."  Brushaber, supra, at 16-17.

http://www.tax-freedom.com/NotAnExcise.htm

[docstew]

That was an opinion in which there was no dissent.

Then you believe, in opposition to the Supreme Court, that government should lay directly upon the inhabitants of the States "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."

You go on and on about the income tax being an "indirect excise tax" and quote decisions from the 1800's to support your theory. I would argue that whatever terminology you use, MOST Americans view it as a DIRECT tax on their income, since they write the check to Uncle Sam. They don't care about direct or indirect (i.e. with or without apportionment), they just want their free stuff (i.e. DUmmies like you) or for the amount owed to be smaller, even if they have to take a pay cut to do so.

Your exercise in semantics is tiresome at best. Be gone.

[NHSparky]

Admit it Sarge...watching our noob trolls, well, TROLL, is kinda like watching a retard slap fight--funny, but sad at the same time.

[txradioguy]

Admit it Sarge...watching our noob trolls, well, TROLL, is kinda like watching a retard slap fight--funny, but sad at the same time.

More like staring at a car crash...you know you shouldn't look but you just can't help yourself.

[obumazombie]

The progressive nature of the income tax, state, and federal makes it redistributionist, by definition. I don't like any scheme that takes from one group at the threat of a pointed gun, to give to another group that hasn't earned it.

[UncommonSense]

The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes



The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes. (Up from 2003: 33.71%)

The top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes (Up from 2002: 53.80%).

The top 10% pay 65.84% (Up from 2002: 65.73%).

The top 25% pay 83.88% (Down from 2002: 83.90%).

The top 50% pay 96.54% (Up from 2002: 96.50%).

The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.46% of all income taxes (Down from 2002: 3.50%).

The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 16.77% of all income (2002: 16.12%). The top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income (2002: 30.55%). The top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income (2002: 41.77%); the top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income (2002: 64.37%) , and the top 50% earns 86.01% (2002: 85.77%) of all the income.

The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04in06tr.xls

I'm curious, do you think that any of the facts that you've given above are unfair?

[obumazombie]

^If that's not a troll post, I don't know what is.

[NHSparky]

I'm curious, do you think that any of the facts that you've given above are unfair?

The facts themselves are not unfair in and of themselves.  The fact that people who can and should pay SOMETHING are in fact not while others shoulder the burden for them?  THAT'S unfair.

[Eupher]

^If that's not a troll post, I don't know what is.

No it ain't. It's a fair question and deserves a fair answer.

To wit:

Yes. I do think they're unfair. They're unfair because HALF OF ALL TAXPAYERS pay 3.46% of all income taxes.

While I'm not completely on board with a flat tax, and I'm definitely not on board with the graduated tax like we've got now, it is inconceivable to me how such a huge percentage of people in this country can get away with paying little or nothing -- and a fairly significant percentage of THOSE have a net GAIN.

In other words, they get paid by the government for existing.

That's bullshit.

Whatever happened to the phrase 'There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.'?

I remember my Dad talking about his refusal for taking a handout, preferring to go without rather than submit to the ultimate humiliation of not being able to provide for himself.

Far, far too many of our neighbors have NO PROBLEM with sticking out their hands and collecting, simply because they can.

[obumazombie]

^As much as I hate being wrong, in this case maybe I am.

[UncommonSense]

^If that's not a troll post, I don't know what is.

How the hell is that a "troll" post?  I asked a question in good faith.  Why do you insist on inciting people?  Tx is a big boy.  If he thought my post was a troll, let him say it or ask for clarification.

You were probably the kid who stood off to the side in school pissing two people off at each other so you could be entertained watching them fight.

You have something to add in regards to the topic, man up and just say it.

Didn't see your retraction.....Thanks.

[obumazombie]

Eupher ?

[docstew]

I'm curious, do you think that any of the facts that you've given above are unfair?

Fair?

Here's what's fair. When I go to a restaurant with friends, we each pay for what we order, unless I specifically state it's my treat. The way things are running now, the restaurant is giving the check entirely to the half of the table that only gets a glass of water. Then the other half of the table (the half that got surf and turf) demands that their meals be paid for, but that they don't have the money for it.

[Eupher]

Eupher ?

Let it go, or take it to the Fight Club.

[UncommonSense]

No it ain't. It's a fair question and deserves a fair answer.

To wit:

Yes. I do think they're unfair. They're unfair because HALF OF ALL TAXPAYERS pay 3.46% of all income taxes.

While I'm not completely on board with a flat tax, and I'm definitely not on board with the graduated tax like we've got now, it is inconceivable to me how such a huge percentage of people in this country can get away with paying little or nothing -- and a fairly significant percentage of THOSE have a net GAIN.

In other words, they get paid by the government for existing.

That's bullshit.

Whatever happened to the phrase 'There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.'?

I remember my Dad talking about his refusal for taking a handout, preferring to go without rather than submit to the ultimate humiliation of not being able to provide for himself.

Far, far too many of our neighbors have NO PROBLEM with sticking out their hands and collecting, simply because they can.

The bottom 50% pay 3.46% of all taxes (your number not mine, but lets run with it).  How is that unfair, when the bottom 50% make 2.5% of all the income and control only 2.5% of all wealth?  The top 50% earn 96% of all income and own 98% of all wealth.
Seems the numbers are in proportion to me.  If you make 96% of all the wealth, why shouldn't you pay about the same in taxes?

The disparity occurs when we get to the top 1% who control 42% of all the wealth (and pay 36% of all taxes) and whose income figures are distorted by the fact that most of their "income" is earned largely in the form of capital gains and dividends, which technically isn't income.....But I'll stop there (for now) with the figures.

Now for the record, I don't support "free lunch" as you call it.  Without arguing if there should or shouldn't be welfare, and making this point since there is, I'd have no problem making welfare beneficiaries report to "work" to sort "widgets" 8hrs a day.

The point would be make them "work" for their assistance.  If people had to work to earn their assistance, they'ed be a lot more likely to come to the realization that if their going to have to work for their money, they might as well do it somewhere they want to work.  For those that report each day on time, can follow direction, and sort tons of widgets there would be lots of employers willing to hire those people straight from that program.

I see assistance as a problem of incentives.  I've highly condensed my thoughts on welfare, and I admit it's not a one size fits all solution, but the point is that it would provide incentive people to look for work on their own or stick the program out and do a good job so employers looking to hire people can hire those that have demonstrated they can show up for work, be on time, and take direction.

In regards to "net gains".  I don't have any figures here in front of me, maybe someone could school me.  How much money did the bottom 30% (the percentage that received money back) of taxpayers receive total?  As far as the income of this group, even with their tax returns they probably control less then 1% of all income in the US.

My guess, and it's just a guess, is that this number, whatever it is, is fairly insignificant when compared to other numbers in our government.  Now that doesn't mean I don't take your point.  The fact that the number may be insignificant, dosen't mean in principle your points not valid, I just want to make the distinction that poor people getting money back from the government is not the reason our economy is in the shitter.

The nations largest company, GE didn't pay any taxes in 2010.

For those unaccustomed to the loopholes and shelters of the corporate tax code, GE's success at avoiding taxes is nothing short of extraordinary. The company, led by Immelt, earned $14.2 billion in profits in 2010, but it paid not a penny in taxes because the bulk of those profits, some $9 billion, were offshore. In fact, GE got a $3.2 billion tax benefit.

Now I'm not arguing the right or wrong here, there are variables that I'm sure I'm not aware of and for the record, I don't support taxes on companies, but that's another thread....

The point is the corporate tax rate in the US is what, 35%?....  How does the bottom 30-50% get so much hate and money is being doled out to corporations whose CEO salaries are so high.  In the same year ,2010, GE paid no taxes and revived a 3.2B tax benefit GE's CEO made 15.2 million.  That's 1.5 million $10 an hour jobs. or 150 $100,000 jobs.

Now before I get attacked for being anti-capitalist....I think people deserve compensation for a job well done.  Cure cancer..Your worth $15m, invent sustainable nuclear fusion, your worth $15m dollars, but I don't believe for a second that most companies CEO's are worth 10's of millions.  I think to often companies have come to serve a very elite few at the very top. 

I'm going to stop their before the point of this discussion is lost.....Hopefully anyone addressing this, will address the whole thing.

[txradioguy]

I'm curious, do you think that any of the facts that you've given above are unfair?

HELL YES!

The fact that there is close to 50% of this country that doesn't pay taxes is highly unfair.

The fact that your fellow Liberals say that those that don't pay taxes need a tax cut and that those already paying confiscatory rates aren't paying their "fair share" is completely unfair.

[obumazombie]

Why do you libs insist on conflating income with wealth ? Remember, it's an INCOME tax, not a wealth tax.

[UncommonSense]

Fair?

Here's what's fair. When I go to a restaurant with friends, we each pay for what we order, unless I specifically state it's my treat. The way things are running now, the restaurant is giving the check entirely to the half of the table that only gets a glass of water. Then the other half of the table (the half that got surf and turf) demands that their meals be paid for, but that they don't have the money for it.

This is a total distortion of reality....

The side that gets the water gets a few dollars back, now they can buy some bread.

The surf and turf side pays a lot and gets a lot.