The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Economics => Topic started by: CG6468 on April 06, 2012, 03:13:49 PM
-
In your opinion, what's the best income tax plan?
-
I think the best short-term plan is the one Arthur Laffer proposed... lower all the existing tax rates and remove a majority of deductions.
-
5-10% consumption tax to pay for the common defense and a very limited regulation of interstate commerce, no deductions, all social programs relegated to the states.
-
1040 DUMMIE...PAY TAXES!!!!...who, me?
Taxes should be decided by people elected by those that have to show a W-2 form of over $50,000 earned income before being allowed to vote.
-
I would like to see some sort of consumption tax because then all the drug dealers who currently pay no tax because they have no "job" would actually pay something.
-
1040 DUMMIE...PAY TAXES!!!!...who, me?
Taxes should be decided by people elected by those that have to show a W-2 form of over $50,000 earned income before being allowed to vote.
Disagree there. You sure you want the majority of the military without the ability to vote? There are good people making due of 30k not sucking off the system.
-
Disagree there. You sure you want the majority of the military without the ability to vote? There are good people making due of 30k not sucking off the system.
Well, we could get around that some how. Wear the uniform, get to vote.
-
Well, we could get around that some how. Wear the uniform, get to vote.
What about the conservative mechanic that makes 35k? No, I like my plan, along with repealing the 16th and 17th amendments.
-
How about we repeal the 16th amendment and let people keep what they've earned rather than allowing the US Government to steal it?
-
How about we repeal the 16th amendment and let people keep what they've earned rather than allowing the US Government to steal it?
And we pay the military, congress, justices, President, and vice president with what exactly? Maybe I'm missing that.
-
Unless you mean the states pay for it, which they get from us. I'm down with that.
-
And we pay the military, congress, justices, President, and vice president with what exactly? Maybe I'm missing that.
How were they paid prior to the 16th Amendment?
-
Read above
-
I think the best short-term plan is the one Arthur Laffer proposed... lower all the existing tax rates and remove a majority of deductions.
Pretty much what I went with, which is why I chose the two-tier system with $200K being the cutoff. But yeah, eliminate mortgage interest credit, state/local tax credit, and educational deductions.
About the only things you should be able to deduct are capital losses, alimony, and medical above a certain percentage of gross income on top of standard deductions for family members. After that, nope.
-
I would like to see some sort of consumption tax because then all the drug dealers who currently pay no tax because they have no "job" would actually pay something.
And illegal aliens who get cash under the table...
and those who participate in other illegal activities
-
And illegal aliens who get cash under the table...
and those who participate in other illegal activities
Maybe a huge tax on Western Union Moneygrams that are sent out of the US, too.
-
1) Close down all departments of government without a clear constitutional mandate for their existence.
2) Repeal the 16th Amendment.
3) Restore salaries of Federal elective offices to 1789 levels and freeze them there. (The office is supposed to be a CITIZEN's office; he/she goes, attends to any business that needs addressing, AND THEN GOES BACK TO HIS/HER OWN BUSINESS. It was never intended for people to make CAREERS in these offices.)
4) Classify all "lobbying" where money changes hands or quid pro quos are exchanged as Bribery, and prosecute all participants as such.
5) Restore import duties as the primary revenue generating mechanism for the Federal government.
-
Everyone pays 15%, incomes higher than 200,000 pay 25%
EVERYONE needs to pay something in taxes. Even if it's 15% of welfare.
-
1) Close down all departments of government without a clear constitutional mandate for their existence.
2) Repeal the 16th Amendment.
3) Restore salaries of Federal elective offices to 1789 levels and freeze them there. (The office is supposed to be a CITIZEN's office; he/she goes, attends to any business that needs addressing, AND THEN GOES BACK TO HIS/HER OWN BUSINESS. It was never intended for people to make CAREERS in these offices.)
4) Classify all "lobbying" where money changes hands or quid pro quos are exchanged as Bribery, and prosecute all participants as such.
5) Restore import duties as the primary revenue generating mechanism for the Federal government.
6) Make any kind of transfer payment from gov't to private citizen illegal by constitutional amendment
-
6) Make any kind of transfer payment from gov't to private citizen illegal by constitutional amendment
True dat. :II:
-
EVERYONE needs to pay something in taxes. Even if it's 15% of welfare.
Everyone does pay something. You can't live in this country and not pay taxes.
-
Everyone does pay something. You can't live in this country and not pay taxes.
Federal taxes, light brite.
-
Federal taxes, light brite.
Yes, "Federal taxes"!
Federal Excise Taxes
A variety of taxes levied by the federal government, which make up a fairly minor part of federal revenues are called excise taxes. They come in several categories:
Transporation, Communication and Energy Taxes
Gasoline, gasohol, and various other fuels like diesel, boat fuel, and aviation fuel, as well as liquefied petroleum (LPG), liquefied natural gas, kerosene, and coal are subject to excise taxes on a cents per gallon or per ton (in the case of coal) basis. Last time I checked, the tax on gasoline was 18.4 cents per gallon at the federal level (states have their own gas taxes). Gas taxes and some of the other transporation taxes are earmarked to pay for highways.
Gas taxes in the United States are far lower than those in most of the developed world. This is one of the important reasons by gasoline costs $3-$4 per gallon in Europe and Japan, while costing about $2 per gallon in the United States. In other countries gas taxes are means of implementing Energy policy, as well as a way of funding Transportation infrastructure (i.e. highways).
Heavy motor vehicles (55,000 pound of larger) pay a highway motor vehicle tax of $100 to $550 per year. Highway tires over 40 pounds are subject to another excise tax, and purchases of commercial grade trucks and trailers are subject to a federal sales tax of 12% of retail price. Expensive passenger vehicles are subject to a luxury tax which is in the process of being phased out.
There is also a gas guzzler tax of up to $7,700 per vehicle charged on vehicles with really bad mileage.
Air travel is subject to fedral ticket taxes which are now rather complicated. These taxes are also basically users fees earmarked for the Transporation Security Admininistration (TSA) in the Department of Homeland Security and for the FAA which runs the air traffic control system.
There is a tax on each passenger transported by water and a tax on imports by ship which pays largely for harbor maintenance.
There is a federal excise tax of 3% of charges for telephone services.
Alcohol, Tobacco, Gambling and Firearms Taxes
Both states and the federal government tax cigarettes on a per cigarette basis. Related taxes are imposed on other forms of tobacco and cigarette papers and tubes.
Alcohol is taxed by volume with different rates applying to beer, wine and liquor (with additional distinctions among wines by alcohol content). There is some crude proportionality to the amount of alcohol in the drink, but it is not exact.
Legal gambling operations operators must pay of licensing fee, and both lotteries and other gambling operations must pay a 0.25% of wagers excise tax on gambling.
There is a federal sales tax on firearms and ammunition (10%-11% depending on the item), a transfer tax per firearm, and a fairly hefty licensing fee in order to import, manfacture or sell firearms.
These taxes are commonly known as "sin taxes". They do raise revenue, but they largely exist to discourage purchases of the type in question, or at least, to pay for the costs to government associated with these activities sometimes associated with bad conduct.
Hunting and Fishing Taxes; Vaccine Taxes
There are federal exercise taxes on fishing equipment, bows and arrows ranging from 3% to 12.4% of retail value depending on the item. These are inteded to pay for parks and conservation.
There is also a 75 cents per dose tax on certain vaccines intended to pay for certain health programs.
article (http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Federal_Excise_Taxes)
-
Great, a copy-and-paste Kossack.
-
Hidden taxes: Eight you are paying every day
Ken and Daria Dolan
Mar 11th 2008 at 7:37AM
This time of year, we are all well aware of how much we pay Uncle Sam in income taxes. And we all can clearly see the sales tax we pay when we go shopping or enjoy a nice dinner out. We're not happy about them. But at least we know that we're paying those taxes.
But most of us have no idea just how many hidden taxes we pay every day that take a serious bite out of our wallets. We pay little known-taxes on everything from travel to peanut butter (Ken's favorite), to life insurance to liquor. Often, we don't know, specifically, what federal tax we are paying on goods and services because that tax (such as excise tax on imports or 'sin' taxes on liquor), is built right into the price, and doesn't appear anywhere on the sales slip as a tax.
And boy, does it add up! We consumers pay hundreds of billions of dollars in "hidden" taxes each year. It's estimated that our federal income tax represents less than half of the taxes we pay each year. So let's expose eight hidden taxes you probably didn't even know you were paying...
1. Gasoline tax. Next time you fork over big bucks at the gas pump, remember that you are paying nearly 46 cents per gallon in federal, state and local taxes. That's nearly 15% of the cost of a gallon of gas!
2. Gas guzzler tax.
...
article (http://www.dailyfinance.com/2008/03/11/hidden-taxes-eight-you-are-paying-every-day/)
-
You know, those articles you're posting are copyrighted. I'm sure the people who put their effort into writing them would appreciate if you did not copy them wholesale to make your point. Copyright lawyers can be a pain in the ass.
We'll send you the bill.
-
When they start paying income taxes, get back with me, shortbus. NO one should be paying a higher percentage than their fellow countrymen. I'm not a Communist. Perhaps you are.
-
There should be no tax on government checks. All it does is decrease efficiency by adding a layer of bureaucracy. Just make the payment lower by the amount of tax you were going to take out of it. As for the rest of the taxes, make them proportional to voting. I don't care what metric, it will eventually balance out in a free market of voting. Every dollar of taxes paid gets you 1 vote. No taxes, no vote.
-
There should be no federal government check period, except those that come from employment with the federal government. I'll make an exception with the prebate should the Fairtax pass. However, in a perfect republic, the Fed should be funded by the states, not the people directly. Call me old-fashioned, like REALLY old-fashioned.
-
When they start paying income taxes, get back with me, shortbus.
"The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax." — Congressional Record - House, March 27, 1943 Page 2580
"This method lays the burdens on those possessing the ability to pay, and compels those who reap the largest harvests under the sunshine of our generous institutions to give more of that harvest for the common good. ...an income tax will not touch a hair upon the head of a laboring man in the United States" — Congressman T. J. Hudson Congressional Record 15 January 1894
"An income tax places burdens upon accumulated wealth, where they can be most easily borne. It is right, because it exacts tribute of accumulation and not of endeavor. ...The artisan who goes forth to labor for his daily bread must pay upon the tools he works with; the brickmason upon his trowel, the carpenter upon his chisel and plane, the wood-chopper upon his ax, the miner upon his pick, and so on through all the list of wage-earners, yet none escape taxes upon what they eat and wear." — Congressman Fithian Congressional Record 24 January 1894
"The view taken by the Congress which passed the tax law in question is plain on its face. The object was to redress in some degree the flagrant inequality by which the great mass of the people were made to furnish nearly all the revenue, and leave the very wealthy classes to furnish very little of it in comparison with their means. Of course, nothing, therefore, was to be taken from the wages of labor" — Attorney James C. Carter - Pollock v Farmers Loan & Trust 157 US 429, 517 (1895)
The federal "income tax" was legislated to lighten the burden of taxation on the working man, and place the tax upon those who are more able to pay, but there are those who argue vehemently that they want to pay that tax too. You're not one of those, are you?
-
No, I'm not one of those Communist bastards so influenced by the Communist movement that started here soon after the Bolshevik Revolution that plagues us to this day, you Marxist ****. All those founders that created this nation of greatness and prosperity? Yeah, I prefer to be one of those.
-
If a few of "those" you mentioned happened to be Republican, I could give two shits about a party as many here can tell you.
-
One more thing for our new little Marxist, McCarthy was vindicated by the Venona Papers and the "Communist Goals of 1963" entered into congressional record. More than HALF of that shit has come into play.
-
What's funny is, today marked history, in the stock world. It showed that anyone with moderate means could become a billionaire here. Honestly, I think a lot of these Occupy retarded chimps out there should be committing suicide since its their own laziness preventing them from getting a job or finding something they can do on their own to make money. ****ing illegal Mexicans come here and make good livings. These little insignificant chimps can't? If "liberal" was a race, I'd consider it an inferior race, because that's what it would be.
-
"The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax." — Congressional Record - House, March 27, 1943 Page 2580
"This method lays the burdens on those possessing the ability to pay, and compels those who reap the largest harvests under the sunshine of our generous institutions to give more of that harvest for the common good. ...an income tax will not touch a hair upon the head of a laboring man in the United States" — Congressman T. J. Hudson Congressional Record 15 January 1894
"An income tax places burdens upon accumulated wealth, where they can be most easily borne. It is right, because it exacts tribute of accumulation and not of endeavor. ...The artisan who goes forth to labor for his daily bread must pay upon the tools he works with; the brickmason upon his trowel, the carpenter upon his chisel and plane, the wood-chopper upon his ax, the miner upon his pick, and so on through all the list of wage-earners, yet none escape taxes upon what they eat and wear." — Congressman Fithian Congressional Record 24 January 1894
"The view taken by the Congress which passed the tax law in question is plain on its face. The object was to redress in some degree the flagrant inequality by which the great mass of the people were made to furnish nearly all the revenue, and leave the very wealthy classes to furnish very little of it in comparison with their means. Of course, nothing, therefore, was to be taken from the wages of labor" — Attorney James C. Carter - Pollock v Farmers Loan & Trust 157 US 429, 517 (1895)
The federal "income tax" was legislated to lighten the burden of taxation on the working man, and place the tax upon those who are more able to pay, but there are those who argue vehemently that they want to pay that tax too. You're not one of those, are you?
Who are you, what are you talking about, and why haven't you introduced yourself ?
-
Who are you, what are you talking about, and why haven't you introduced yourself ?
What do you mean "Who are you"? I'm indago, and I'm responding to some of the posts I found here.
-
you Marxist ****
How do you arrive at that conclusion?
-
How do you arrive at that conclusion?
It's how I view anyone pimping a progressive tax structure. You probably agree with the Dems planned EX-Patriot act as well, don't you? I understand if you're not able to see that you've been indoctrinated into Marxist thinking, I really do. That's the intent of conditioning. It works well on those in society that hold security above liberty and freedom, namely women and liberal men. Now, when I say liberal, I'm referring to neo-liberalism, not classical liberalism which I identify myself as.
-
What do you mean "Who are you"? I'm indago, and I'm responding to some of the posts I found here.
Until you formally introduce yourself to the forum, no one has any idea who "indago" is. All we can go by is tripe you post like "you're not one of those, are you"?
You should introduce yourself.
-
It's how I view anyone pimping a progressive tax structure.
So, point out just where it is that I am "pimping a progressive tax structure."
-
Until you formally introduce yourself to the forum, no one has any idea who "indago" is. All we can go by is tripe you post like "you're not one of those, are you"?
That may be "tripe" to you, but the query was not directed to you.
You should introduce yourself.
I already have, in a few threads.
-
So, point out just where it is that I am "pimping a progressive tax structure."
Check out post #30, Corky.
-
Everyone does pay something. You can't live in this country and not pay taxes.
And yet 49.5 percent of Americans have no net tax burden, or a negative one.
Thanks for enlightening us, noob. Come back when you can't stay so long.
-
The federal "income tax" was legislated to lighten the burden of taxation on the working man, and place the tax upon those who are more able to pay, but there are those who argue vehemently that they want to pay that tax too. You're not one of those, are you?
Great, using 120 year old quote before the income tax was even enacted to prove your point.
And exactly how's that "lighten the burden of taxation on the working man" bullshit going? From my perspective, it ****ing SUCKS.
-
Great, using 120 year old quote before the income tax was even enacted to prove your point.
And exactly how's that "lighten the burden of taxation on the working man" bullshit going? From my perspective, it ****ing SUCKS.
I think he's gone NHSparky, but not missed.
-
Check out post #30, Corky.
You had ejaculated: "When they start paying income taxes, get back with me, shortbus."
I, then, recalling our historical documents, explained why the "income tax" was enabled, and added: "The federal "income tax" was legislated to lighten the burden of taxation on the working man, and place the tax upon those who are more able to pay, but there are those who argue vehemently that they want to pay that tax too. You're not one of those, are you?"
So, let me explain what I see here: Although the populace is burdened with the many excise taxes on goods and services, and the "income tax" was enabled to lighten the burden of taxation on working folks, you want them to pay this added tax. And YOU call ME a "Marxist ****". Explaining the enabling of the tax was certainly not "pimping a progressive tax structure."
NHSparky writes: "Great, using 120 year old quote before the income tax was even enacted to prove your point."
Yes! In order to see what the "income tax" is, and why it was enabled, historical documents have to be examined.
It must be DUMSHIT week here on this message board.
-
The income tax, despite any claim that it would reduce the tax burden on the middle class, didn't.
-
The income tax, despite any claim that it would reduce the tax burden on the middle class, didn't.
So, whose fault is that? I have already noted: "there are those who argue vehemently that they want to pay that tax too." The toady class just can't help themselves; it is their nature.
Government was never granted the power to lay a direct upon the inhabitants of the States.
-
So, whose fault is that? I have already noted: "there are those who argue vehemently that they want to pay that tax too." The toady class just can't help themselves; it is their nature.
Government was never granted the power to lay a direct upon the inhabitants of the States.
It is mostly the fault of lib/dem/socialists, and somewhat the fault of weak spined GOPers. Who do you mean by the "toady" class. Not many people "want" to pay taxes, but at some level it's a necessary evil.
-
So, whose fault is that? I have already noted: "there are those who argue vehemently that they want to pay that tax too." The toady class just can't help themselves; it is their nature.
Government was never granted the power to lay a direct upon the inhabitants of the States.
And there's a pretty good ****ing reason why it wasn't, and why the 16th Amendment is probably the beginning of the downfall of freedom in this country.
Pray tell, who was President then? Thanks very much, have a nice day.
-
It must be DUMSHIT week here on this message board.
It's "dumbshit," and yes, I suppose it is since you showed up.
-
Finally, a bit of information for you. Tell me again how that "lessening the burden on the working man" bullshit is working out again?
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/151.html
-
You had ejaculated: "When they start paying income taxes, get back with me, shortbus."
I, then, recalling our historical documents, explained why the "income tax" was enabled, and added: "The federal "income tax" was legislated to lighten the burden of taxation on the working man, and place the tax upon those who are more able to pay, but there are those who argue vehemently that they want to pay that tax too. You're not one of those, are you?"
So, let me explain what I see here: Although the populace is burdened with the many excise taxes on goods and services, and the "income tax" was enabled to lighten the burden of taxation on working folks, you want them to pay this added tax. And YOU call ME a "Marxist ****". Explaining the enabling of the tax was certainly not "pimping a progressive tax structure."
NHSparky writes: "Great, using 120 year old quote before the income tax was even enacted to prove your point."
Yes! In order to see what the "income tax" is, and why it was enabled, historical documents have to be examined.
It must be DUMSHIT week here on this message board.
Wow. You really ARE an asshole! Congratulations. It's not easy being a noob and yet coming in to shit on the carpet. Tell me, do you scrape your ass on the carpet after you do that? And turn around and sniff the skid mark?
-
And there's a pretty good ****ing reason why it wasn't, and why the 16th Amendment is probably the beginning of the downfall of freedom in this country.
Point out how.
-
Point out how.
Point out how the implementation of the income tax was even necessary.
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.
Show me a government that leads to expanded freedom. Now I'm not going to say we should have NO government--quite the contrary. But when government tries to expand and provide for people what they can and should do for themselves far beyond what the FF had intended, then it becomes tyrannical in nature. Funding that expanded government is the purpose of the direct tax, both in the (false) names of "fairness" and the "price we pay for civilization." So how the hell did we ever manage to survive without a direct tax, pray tell?
The size of government is tied to the wealth of the people, not the other way around.
-
I, then, recalling our historical documents, explained why the "income tax" was enabled, and added: "The federal "income tax" was legislated to lighten the burden of taxation on the working man, and place the tax upon those who are more able to pay, but there are those who argue vehemently that they want to pay that tax too. You're not one of those, are you?"
Straight out of the Communist Manifesto.
-
I detect the stench of a troll.
-
Straight out of the Communist Manifesto.
Indeed.
-
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.
Point out just where it is in the Constitution that government was granted this power.
-
Point out just where it is in the Constitution that government was granted this power.
I see reading comprehension is not your strong suit. I cited specifically the 16th Amendment, but if you want to go further back, you need look no further than Article I, Section 8. Specifically the first line of it which states, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,"
Now go fetch your ****in shine box.
-
I see reading comprehension is not your strong suit. I cited specifically the 16th Amendment, but if you want to go further back, you need look no further than Article I, Section 8. Specifically the first line of it which states, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,"
Now go fetch your ****in shine box.
I see you conveniently left out the section in the Constitution that directly addresses the direct taxes:
'... direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers ...' (from section 2 of Article I)
'... No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration ...' (from section 9 of Article I)
The direct taxes are laid upon the States to pay, not the inhabitants of the States.
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:
Chief Justice Edward D. White, delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, and quoting from a previous case, stated: "In the matter of taxation, the Constitution recognizes the two great classes of direct and indirect taxes, and lays down two rules by which their imposition must be governed, namely: The rule of apportionment as to direct taxes, and the rule of uniformity as to duties, imposts and excises." Mr. Justice William R. Day, delivering the opinion of the United States Supreme Court, explained what an excise tax is: "Excises are "taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges." Cooley, Const. Lim. 7th ed. 680 ...the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of privileges,..."
The Supreme Court has declared that "the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation". The tax must be in either one category or the other. It can't be both.
-
And yet it taxes income directly. Gee, and some people wonder why it should have been declared unconstitutional.
And Article I, Section 2 deals with equal apportionment of monies from the states to the federal government, much like the feds sending the states a bill for their budget, which is pretty much what they did back in the day, and the clause you cite (incompletely) is also what sets up the Census to ensure that apportionment for levy of taxes and representation in Congress was ensured to be fair.
Keep in mind that 200 years ago, the primary tax burden of the citizen/landowner/business owner was to the STATE, not the feds. The state would then in turn send their apportioned amount to cover the federal burden less levies and other tariffs, etc., covered by Congress under Article I, Section 8.
That being said, a DIRECT tax under the original Constitution was not only impossible, but ILLEGAL until the passage of the 16th Amendment. The burden then shifted from the states to the individual; i.e., a direct tax. Again, how is that "helping" the working man, as you claim?
Now go fetch your ****ing shine box.
-
That being said, a DIRECT tax under the original Constitution was not only impossible, but ILLEGAL until the passage of the 16th Amendment.
Unfortunately for you, John Taylor, an attorney from Virginia, disagrees with you. The Constitution's mandate for "a proportion between taxation, and representation" was framed in terms of states, not of individuals. Mr. Taylor argued that the Constitution "is not providing for an equality of taxation among individuals, in proportion to their revenue, but for an equality of taxation between states in proportion to numbers." "The sum of money necessary to be raised, and not the abstract notion of a tax is the thing to be apportioned." The object of the direct taxation clause in the Constitution had been "to secure an equal contribution between the states in proportion to numbers; a thing not only possible, but attainable with precision."
It was noted, by Congressman Crumpacker, in the Congressional Record: "...the power granted to the federal Government to impose a direct tax was granted upon condition that the Government should estimate the amount of revenue it might require from that source and apportion the sum among the States on the basis of population as shown by the preceding census. This plan was intended to give the States the right to contribute their pro rata share from their own revenues without complicating their local systems of taxation. This was regarded as a matter of much importance to the States. A direct tax imposed upon the same property by two different governments might involve embarrassment and unnecessary expense in enforcement. It was believed that the General Government would secure adequate revenues for ordinary purposes from customs and excise taxes, and would only have occasion to levy direct taxes in great national exigencies. With the power to levy and collect direct taxes vested in the Federal Government it was thought that the States would increase their local levies and pay their respective shares, and to enable them to do so the per capita basis of apportionment was fixed." — Congressional Record - House of Representatives 18 March 1912 pg 3574
-
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?
-
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?
It's not the lawyer that's the idiot here!
-
It's not the lawyer that's the idiot here!
:rotf: Don't tell me -- let me guess.
It's the guy presenting the lawyer's stuff, right?
-
Looks like someone still can't find the introduction board.
-
That being said, a DIRECT tax under the original Constitution was not only impossible, but ILLEGAL until the passage of the 16th Amendment. The burden then shifted from the states to the individual; i.e., a direct tax.
You are making the same argument that the Solicitor General for the government made that was totally demolished by the Supreme Court.
The Solicitor General for the government, in an amicus curiae brief, had made the argument: "The Sixteenth Amendment removed the restriction of apportionment as to such income taxes as before were subject thereto."
From the opinion:We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it
Also:the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation
Also:Indeed, from another point of view, the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended, and on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation.
240 US 1
In another case, on the same day, the Supreme Court declared, in their opinion:by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived
-
And yet it taxes income directly. Gee, and some people wonder why it should have been declared unconstitutional.
And Article I, Section 2 deals with equal apportionment of monies from the states to the federal government, much like the feds sending the states a bill for their budget, which is pretty much what they did back in the day, and the clause you cite (incompletely) is also what sets up the Census to ensure that apportionment for levy of taxes and representation in Congress was ensured to be fair.
Keep in mind that 200 years ago, the primary tax burden of the citizen/landowner/business owner was to the STATE, not the feds. The state would then in turn send their apportioned amount to cover the federal burden less levies and other tariffs, etc., covered by Congress under Article I, Section 8.
That being said, a DIRECT tax under the original Constitution was not only impossible, but ILLEGAL until the passage of the 16th Amendment. The burden then shifted from the states to the individual; i.e., a direct tax. Again, how is that "helping" the working man, as you claim?
Now go fetch your ****ing shine box.
I hope this doesn't derail an interesting confrontation, but "shine box" is that a reference to "Goodfellas" ? I loved that movie.
-
There should be no tax on government checks. All it does is decrease efficiency by adding a layer of bureaucracy. Just make the payment lower by the amount of tax you were going to take out of it.
Now that is one of the best suggestions I've ever read.
-
And yet 49.5 percent of Americans have no net tax burden, or a negative one.
Thanks for enlightening us, noob. Come back when you can't stay so long.
Actually, 49.5% of Americans pay no federal tax. And just to set the records straight about 30% of those receive money from the government.
Most of the same 49.5% still pay state, local and sales taxes. Regardless of what you think about the tax structure, let's not propagate falsehoods i.e. that the bottom 50% pay no tax.
To comment on this state of affairs.....
The bottom 49.5% makes 2.5% (As of 2010, down from 4% in 2000) of all the income in America.
The heirs to the Walton family fortune control more wealth then the bottom 30% of America and the Forbes 400 control more wealth then the bottom 50% (some numbers have this as high as the bottom 60%), somewhere around 1.5 trillion. linky (http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2009/200913/200913pap.pdf)
My question is, do you think taxing the bottom 50% will solve any problems?
Do you think the revenue generated by an increased tax on the bottom 50% (up to, say....what you and I pay) would effect the deficit in any meaningful way?
Or is this issue about treating everyone fairly?
I'm curious what people believe the goal of the tax system should be? I hear a ton of bits and bites about whats happening and all the unfairness and inequity, on both sides. But few have stated what the goal of taxes should be.
-
You are making the same argument that the Solicitor General for the government made that was totally demolished by the Supreme Court.
So basically you're saying the SCOTUS isn't capable of making stupid decisions?
I'll throw a few your way, starting with the one you cited, and raising you:
Kelo versus New London
Dred Scott decision
Plessy versus Ferguson
Schenck versus United States
Korematsu versus United States
And while you're at it, you can throw in Roe versus Wade, considering that the SCOTUS should never have heard the case in the first place.
Now go fetch your ****ing shine box.
-
Now that is one of the best suggestions I've ever read.
And yet it's your hero Billy Jeff that started it. Suck it.
-
The bottom 49.5% makes 2.5% (As of 2010, down from 4% in 2000) of all the income in America.
Um, bullshit.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
They get their data from the IRS.
In 2009 they earned 14 percent of the income, and paid barely than 2 percent of the taxes, with an effective tax rate of 1.85 percent.
By comparison, the top 10 percent (of which I am a member, but only just) earned 43.2 percent of the income, and paid 70.5 percent of the taxes with an effective tax rate of 18.05 percent--and I pay more than that. Shine box. You. Fetch.
-
Actually, 49.5% of Americans pay no federal tax.
That's BULLSHIT, and everybody knows it — well, everybody except you...
POST 1 (http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,71445.0/msg,871595.html)
POST 2 (http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,71445.0/msg,871602.html)
POST 3 (http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,71445.0/msg,871604.html)
-
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.
-
That's BULLSHIT, and everybody knows it — well, everybody except you...
POST 1 (http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,71445.0/msg,871595.html)
POST 2 (http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,71445.0/msg,871602.html)
POST 3 (http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,71445.0/msg,871604.html)
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?
-
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.
:thatsright:
-
The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes
(http://www.rushimg.com/cimages//media/images/cy2003/882326-1-eng-GB/cy2003.gif)
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
-
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."
-
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?
-
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?
-
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;â€
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;â€
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.â€
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
-
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.
-
Admit it Sarge...watching our noob trolls, well, TROLL, is kinda like watching a retard slap fight--funny, but sad at the same time.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes
(http://www.rushimg.com/cimages//media/images/cy2003/882326-1-eng-GB/cy2003.gif)
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?
-
^If that's not a troll post, I don't know what is.
-
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.
-
^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.
-
^As much as I hate being wrong, in this case maybe I am.
-
^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.
-
Eupher ?
-
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 ?
Let it go, or take it to the Fight Club.
-
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. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/general-electric-paid-federal-taxes-2010/story?id=13224558#.T7vJ9kXY8k0)
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.
-
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.
-
Why do you libs insist on conflating income with wealth ? Remember, it's an INCOME tax, not a wealth tax.
-
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.
-
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. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/general-electric-paid-federal-taxes-2010/story?id=13224558#.T7vJ9kXY8k0)
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.
Pure leftist class warfare right there. Cut and paste from the DNC website.
I linked to what I stated in my post...directly from the IRS.
I want to see where you get your stats for this little gem:
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.
Link to your source.
-
^Irrelevant to income tax discussion. Wealth is not income.
-
This is a total distortion of reality....
No it's not.
The side that gets the water gets a few dollars back, now they can buy some bread.
If they want more then what they have...work harder.
The surf and turf side pays a lot and gets a lot.
Because they work to be able to achieve that level.
You want people to get something for nothing....which is typical of todays Liberal mindset...punish people who actually get off their ass and DO something with their lives and reward the people too lazy to get off their couch and even get a job at Burger King.
-
^Irrelevant to income tax discussion. Wealth is not income.
Agreed. You and I know that...but Liberal class warfare drones can never tell the difference.
-
UncommonIdiot, get the **** off my thread. Go start your own drivel.
-
Why do you libs insist on conflating income with wealth ? Remember, it's an INCOME tax, not a wealth tax.
I get your point, but wealth isn't this nebulous concept. Wealth is used to make wealth and the people at the top pay other people to make money with their money. That's not "hard work" that's the advantage of having and leveraging money.
When you have a billion dollars you can borrow 5 billion more. Make an investment, earn 10%, pay back the loan and interest and have 1.48b dollars.
If you have a billion dollars in unrealized assets and you want to purchase something for say 1/2 billion dollars, do you trade in your assets and pay the 15% capital gains tax? Nope you take a loan at 2% using your assets as collateral and borrow the money. You get your 1/2 billion and avoid having to pay tax on it paying an insanely low interest rate.
There is a working class and an investor class. The latter doesn't necessarily "work hard" (though many worked hard to get there) the way a mechanic, or construction worker works. Those at the higher end of the investor class can use money to create their own breaks, including influencing local, state and federal governments.
At the tip top we have people like Facebook's Co-Founder that can avoid paying taxes simply by expatriating. This is an elite that has no loyalty to a country, just to the dollar that give him the freedom to do what he wants.
-
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.
Oh, so the check came to $95, the guy paying forks over a Benjamin and he's coming out ahead cuz he got $5 back?
You're a retard with reading comprehension problems. I suggest you re-read my post. Here it is so you don't have to hunt for it:
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.
[/b]
In case you missed it, I stated that the people who don't get anything but basic services are paying for the whole thing, because the othersgroups demands they do so. Now would you like to answer again whether that is fair?
-
I get your point, but wealth isn't this nebulous concept. Wealth is used to make wealth and the people at the top pay other people to make money with their money. That's not "hard work" that's the advantage of having and leveraging money.
How exactly do you think people got and amassed their wealth? See this is whats wrong with the Liberal mindset...you and your ilk believe that there is a fixed unchanging pile of cash and that the greedy evil capitalists hoard as much as they can and toss out crumbs to the rest of us.
You're never able to comprehend that the more people making money...keeping more of what they make...EXPANDS the pool of cash out there for EVERYONE!
Ever hear the term "a rising tide lifts all boats"?
When you have a billion dollars you can borrow 5 billion more. Make an investment, earn 10%, pay back the loan and interest and have 1.48b dollars.
What's wrong with that? Anyone who's made that kind of fortune should be able to borrow that much. Why should they be punished for success?
If you have a billion dollars in unrealized assets and you want to purchase something for say 1/2 billion dollars, do you trade in your assets and pay the 15% capital gains tax? Nope you take a loan at 2% using your assets as collateral and borrow the money. You get your 1/2 billion and avoid having to pay tax on it paying an insanely low interest rate.
Still not seeing a problem with this.
There is a working class and an investor class. The latter doesn't necessarily "work hard" (though many worked hard to get there) the way a mechanic, or construction worker works. Those at the higher end of the investor class can use money to create their own breaks, including influencing local, state and federal governments.
Again with the class warfare strait out of the Book of Marx.
EVERYONE in this country has every opportunity to be as successful or as inconsequential in this country as they choose.
At the tip top we have people like Facebook's Co-Founder that can avoid paying taxes simply by expatriating. This is an elite that has no loyalty to a country, just to the dollar that give him the freedom to do what he wants.
Quick question...what country has the highest corporate tax rate in the world...and what is it?
-
Wealth is used to make wealth
Hence the expression, "making money." You think the system that created that would be better off destroyed. Capitalism has created more upward mobility than any other economic system in history. Can you dispute that fact? I'm guessing you can't.
Or, you can be like me and most of the people I know who got to their station in life through (gasp! the horror!) hard work. Yeah, you heard me. Equal opportunity only matters when you actually USE that opportunity to improve your lot. But silly liberals like you seem to forget that equal opportunity does NOT, has never, will ever, guarantee equal RESULTS. Some people work and don't get as lucky or rich. Such is life. I've busted my ass and done well, although I'll never be a millionaire short of winning the Powerball. Shit happens.
So, your choice becomes this--do you bemoan your station in life and whine about how "unfair" it is and expect someone to support you, or do you get off your ass, dust yourself off, and try again?
If you fall into the latter category, good for you. If you fall into the former, tough shit.
-
Oh, so the check came to $95, the guy paying forks over a Benjamin and he's coming out ahead cuz he got $5 back?
I'll go even further, Doc. The check is coming to $95, plus tax, plus tip, call it $125, and they expect the "rich" half at the table to kick in $150 so the other three get to eat and get a few bucks back on top of it.
This is called the laughingly-labeled "Earned Income Credit", of which exactly ZERO words apply. It's not earned, it's not for those with income, and it's not a credit, it's a gimme.
-
Well, Uncommon?
You asked me the question, but I think these gents have done very nicely with the response.
I can offer only this:
If you want to reduce ANYTHING in life (certain exceptions notwithstanding) -- tax it.
So you want more jobs? Go ahead and tax those who create jobs and see how many of those jobs you'll get.
You want more income? Create your own opportunity, take your own risks, and reap the benefits -- or the failures.
This is a country of OPPORTUNITY for risks and failures alike. You don't risk, you don't gain -- or gain little.
There's a reason that entrepreneurs generally are big-bucks guys 'n gals.
-
I don't think this was addressed earlier in the thread, and it wasn't part of the choices, but the matter of FICA should be addressed--it's a big enough tax, and to an important enough purpose.
I'd exempt the first $30,000 earned by anyone from FICA, both employee and employer contribution--BUT, I'd remove the absurd cap at $100,000. This is not a soak the rich thing--it's simply that I can see no reason to exempt income of any kind at the higher levels, OR, at this point, if we want social security to remain solvent, non-earned income, ie, dividends, interest, and capital gains. I'd apply FICA to those as well, although I'd also drastically reduce the baseline capital gains tax--I'd eliminate the distinction between short-term and long-term capital gains, retain the 5% limit on capital gains of all kinds for low-income earners, but reduce cap gains to 8% for everyone else.
-
I don't think this was addressed earlier in the thread, and it wasn't part of the choices, but the matter of FICA should be addressed--it's a big enough tax, and to an important enough purpose.
I'd exempt the first $30,000 earned by anyone from FICA, both employee and employer contribution--BUT, I'd remove the absurd cap at $100,000. This is not a soak the rich thing--it's simply that I can see no reason to exempt income of any kind at the higher levels, OR, at this point, if we want social security to remain solvent, non-earned income, ie, dividends, interest, and capital gains. I'd apply FICA to those as well, although I'd also drastically reduce the baseline capital gains tax--I'd eliminate the distinction between short-term and long-term capital gains, retain the 5% limit on capital gains of all kinds for low-income earners, but reduce cap gains to 8% for everyone else.
Why soak the rich on a system where they'll likely never see a dime, particularly if SS becomes "means-tested?" And no, I don't think it'll be around in its current form in 20-25 years when I retire.
-
Your going to have to give me a little while to get to all of this, but I will respond. You're all giving me quite a bit of homework.
-
Why soak the rich on a system where they'll likely never see a dime, particularly if SS becomes "means-tested?" And no, I don't think it'll be around in its current form in 20-25 years when I retire.
Well, we don't necessarily see personal benefit for all sorts of things our tax money goes to. But as I said, I wouldn't call it soaking the rich at all, although I did include my thinking on the matter because I did expect something of that reaction. I do NOT think the rich and very rich underpay! That's lib-stuff and I want no part of it. But as long as we're going to have taxation, why should great, giant chunks of money be exempt from FICA? Especially if we do want to keep SS solvent? And it isn't as if the wealthiest Americans would even notice it, really--and it sure wouldn't impact their personal retirements, nor should it.
But earned income over $100,000 is exempt from FICA. I can see no reason earned income above a certain level should be exempt from a particular tax. Frankly, I can see no reason unearned income should be exempt.
I am unquestionably in favor of deeper, across-the-board income tax cuts, far deeper than the Bush tax cuts--I'm thinking 3 brackets,: 8%, 14%, and 20%.
And the hideous death tax must be eliminated. That's just plain revolting, and wrong. And it's double taxation. no matter what word games tax-and-spenders/Obama-type communists (I won't even bother calling him a socialist--he's a communist) want to play.
-
Also, I did want to slash the base capital gains tax significantly--nearly in half.
-
I agree it's the time to bring up FICA.
A system that was never intended to provide the entitlements it does today.
-
The reason for the 100k exemption on the front end, is benefits on the back end will be proportionally restricted.
-
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.
Not a theory: facts, taken from our historical records.
-
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.
(http://i38.tinypic.com/232ohc.jpg)
-
(http://i38.tinypic.com/232ohc.jpg)
Cute picture. :whatever:
Now care to show where what I posted is wrong?
-
Cute picture. Now care to show where what I posted is wrong?
I already have:
POST 1 (http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,71445.0/msg,871722.html)
POST 2 (http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,71445.0/msg,873142.html)
-
I already have:
POST 1 (http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,71445.0/msg,871722.html)
POST 2 (http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,71445.0/msg,873142.html)
And I replied with black letter law cases that showd your 19th century references to be invalid.
It's not nor has the Income tax ever been an excise tax.
It was very clearly defined for you.
-
Since you seem to be a bit of a slow blinker on this issue let me repost the facts...
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;â€
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;â€
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.â€
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
-
Since you seem to be a bit of a slow blinker on this issue let me repost the facts...
The personal income tax is not an excise tax.
I'm not denying that the toady class has morphed the federal income tax into what it is today. "The toady class just can't help themselves; it is their nature." They are a new breed: Gay Masochist! Just LUV takin' it in the ass!
BOHICA
No lube...
and no reacharound
-
I'm not denying that the toady class has morphed the federal income tax into what it is today. "The toady class just can't help themselves; it is their nature." They are a new breed: Gay Masochist! Just LUV takin' it in the ass!
BOHICA
No lube...
and no reacharound
Pay attention folks...this is what passes for "debate" over in Liberal looney land.
Liberal cuts and pastes a bunch of crap he's gleaned from Liberal websites...you refute their propaganda with facts and black letter law and link to your sources
Liberal replies with wht I've quoted above.
-
While I work on a longer reply to all of the questions I've been asked....Let me adress "supply side" economics.
You may recall this as the "trickle down" theory, later rebranded as the "rising tide lifts all boats" ideal puppeted here. This argument makes sense so long as two things are true:
The economy is being held back by a shortage of capital available for investment, and that high earners are being held back from investing because they do not have the money to do so.
Given that we are currently in a situation in which corporations are sitting on record amounts of uninvested capital and within the last year we've seen some of the most profitable quarters in all of American history, it's a little hard to see how those descriptions apply.
The demand-side approach to tax cuts favors cuts for low and middle earners, in the hope that they will spend the extra money and thus stimulate the economy; this is essentially using tax cuts as a form of Keynesian stimulus. That argument makes sense so long as two things are true:
The economy is being held back by a lack of demand, and that there are lots of people who would buy more things if they had the money to do so. In the current economic climate, that seems like a fairly plausible pair of assumptions.
Actually, there are no clear affirmative conclusions to be drawn here except that we have overwhelming reasons to reject the claims being made by supply-side tax cut enthusiasts. The data certainly do not show that tax cuts never stimulate economic growth, nor even that they never stimulate economic growth enough to pay for themselves.
As I've pointed out, there are times when supply side economics makes sense and those that benefit from supply side have better resources and have used those resources to make one side of the argument. In all fairness those that oppose supply side rarely point out that there is ever an argument for supply side theory and both sides go on to represent their ideas as the only possible solution.
-
While I work on a longer reply to all of the questions I've been asked....Let me adress "supply side" economics.
You may recall this as the "trickle down" theory, later rebranded as the "rising tide lifts all boats" ideal puppeted here. This argument makes sense so long as two things are true:
The economy is being held back by a shortage of capital available for investment, and that high earners are being held back from investing because they do not have the money to do so.
Given that we are currently in a situation in which corporations are sitting on record amounts of uninvested capital and within the last year we've seen some of the most profitable quarters in all of American history, it's a little hard to see how those descriptions apply.
Since we're philosophizing rather than getting into nuts and bolts and black-letter law and BOHICA without lube, let me first state I'm no economist and don't profess to be well versed in the art/science.
It's been well postulated, however, that the fundamental REASON that corporations are sitting on all that capital, they're flush with cash, is very simple...
...they're waiting.
What are they waiting for? I never thought you'd ask. They're waiting for more CERTAINTY in economic forecasting; they're looking for a more disciplined approach to monetary policy (printing all that money over and over and over again does not do well for things like AAA bond ratings), and they're certainly looking to get rid of Barry so that monetary policy, in particular, can be addressed to provide that level of certainty they need.
The demand-side approach to tax cuts favors cuts for low and middle earners, in the hope that they will spend the extra money and thus stimulate the economy; this is essentially using tax cuts as a form of Keynesian stimulus. That argument makes sense so long as two things are true:
Tax cuts, in the form we've seen, are veritable band-aids. They provide a sense of comfort and relief, when, in fact, that wound is festering with infection. They're political toys - and have not much more effect on the economy than that.
Actually, there are no clear affirmative conclusions to be drawn here except that we have overwhelming reasons to reject the claims being made by supply-side tax cut enthusiasts. The data certainly do not show that tax cuts never stimulate economic growth, nor even that they never stimulate economic growth enough to pay for themselves.
I will revert to the original argument -- if you want to get less of something (economic growth), tax it. You can argue all you want about supply-side economic theory, but there's one very curious thing about it.
It works, or at least it worked in the 1980s. Are we that far removed from things not to revert back to that model, rather than the extremely archaic Keynesian model of the 1930s?
-
You may recall this as the "trickle down" theory, later rebranded as the "rising tide lifts all boats" ideal puppeted here.
It's also referred to as Reaganomics...responsible for the longest period of peacetime economic growth this nation has ever seen.
The economy is being held back by a shortage of capital available for investment, and that high earners are being held back from investing because they do not have the money to do so.
No they are sitting on piles of cash to shore themselves up in case Obama is successful in rasing the capital gains tax as he has said he wants to do from where it is now to 20%...the end of the Bush tax cuts and the possibility of full implementation of Obamacare. All of which will cut severly into the profit margin of businesses large and small.
In short...there is no incentive to spend that money given what they are facing with this administration.
Given that we are currently in a situation in which corporations are sitting on record amounts of uninvested capital and within the last year we've seen some of the most profitable quarters in all of American history, it's a little hard to see how those descriptions apply.
Link please.
The demand-side approach to tax cuts favors cuts for low and middle earners, in the hope that they will spend the extra money and thus stimulate the economy; this is essentially using tax cuts as a form of Keynesian stimulus. That argument makes sense so long as two things are true:
People have to see a reason...an incentive to spend. There is no incentive right now.
The economy is being held back by a lack of demand, and that there are lots of people who would buy more things if they had the money to do so. In the current economic climate, that seems like a fairly plausible pair of assumptions.
And why don't they have the money to spend more? High tax rates on those that do work and the same fear of having to pay for Obamacare and the expirtion of the Bush era tax cuts.
Americans aren't by and large aren't as stupid as Liberals and this Administration...they know that they have to save for a rainy day...to hold on to money for times of inflation higher gas prices and looming personal tax increases.
Joe Lunchbox doesn't have a money printing machine out back like the President that can jsut print more dollars when he's blown through his current pile.
Actually, there are no clear affirmative conclusions to be drawn here except that we have overwhelming reasons to reject the claims being made by supply-side tax cut enthusiasts. The data certainly do not show that tax cuts never stimulate economic growth, nor even that they never stimulate economic growth enough to pay for themselves.
Oh really?
By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.
But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/3/bush-tax-cuts-boosted-federal-revenue/
During the Reagan administration, the American economy went from a GDP growth of -0.3% in 1980 to 4.1% in 1988 (in constant 2005 dollars),[22] which reduced the unemployment rate by 1.6%, from 7.1% in 1980 to 5.5% in 1988, but with peaks of around 10.8% in 1983. [21][23] A net job increase of about 21 million also occurred through mid-1990. Reagan’s administration is the only one not to have raised the minimum wage.[24] The inflation rate, 13.5% in 1980, fell to 4.1% in 1988,
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7c/CBO_Revenues_Outlays_Percentage_GDP.svg/500px-CBO_Revenues_Outlays_Percentage_GDP.svg.png)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics
The Reagan tax cuts
Thanks to "bracket creep," the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates
And just to be bi-partisian about the whole thing:
The Kennedy tax cuts
President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates
As I've pointed out, there are times when supply side economics makes sense and those that benefit from supply side have better resources and have used those resources to make one side of the argument. In all fairness those that oppose supply side rarely point out that there is ever an argument for supply side theory and both sides go on to represent their ideas as the only possible solution.
And yet I just demolished your Paul Krugman cut and past job in one post.
Try harder next time ok.
-
UncommonSense, this is a POLL. Do you understand POLL? This is not a discussion on anything else. Get the **** off my thread and start your bullshit on YOUR new thread.
GAWD, some people are really stupid!
-
UncommonSense, this is a POLL. Do you understand POLL? This is not a discussion on anything else. Get the **** off my thread and start your bullshit on YOUR new thread.
GAWD, some people are really stupid!
Flat tax. Everyone pays 15% across the board. No loopholes and no deductions for morgatge payments... second homes etc.
-
The reason for the 100k exemption on the front end, is benefits on the back end will be proportionally restricted.
I'm not sure I follow you. Isn't the simple result that there is less taken in? And that we need more to fund the system? So why shouldn't all income be subject to FICA? (Although would recommend exempting the first $30k.) Benefits themselves would be capped, of course.
There is no question that those earning much more than $100k (however earned) would not see a proportional return in retirement. I'm ok with this.
-
I'm not sure I follow you. Isn't the simple result that there is less taken in? And that we need more to fund the system? So why shouldn't all income be subject to FICA? (Although would recommend exempting the first $30k.) Benefits themselves would be capped, of course.
There is no question that those earning much more than $100k (however earned) would not see a proportional return in retirement. I'm ok with this.
FICA, when originally written was not meant to be a transfer payment program. It was meant to be a program where you get out what you put in. When pols come along and say we need more to fund the system, what they mean, effectively is that it has become a transfer payment program.
-
19 votes, lot of trash talking. But what can I expect from a troll?
-
FICA, when originally written was not meant to be a transfer payment program. It was meant to be a program where you get out what you put in. When pols come along and say we need more to fund the system, what they mean, effectively is that it has become a transfer payment program.
I acknowledge that...it has always been a transfer payment system. So all I'm suggesting with this is upping the transfer. Do we want to save SS or not?
All taxation is, for the most part, a wealth transfer system.
-
I acknowledge that...it has always been a transfer payment system. So all I'm suggesting with this is upping the transfer. Do we want to save SS or not?
All taxation is, for the most part, a wealth transfer system.
I'm not sure I agree with that. The military and the funds to raise and support it are not directly wealth transfer. Libraries, Roads, Government buildings, some wealth transfer does take place, but not primarily taking money from one person for the sole purpose of giving it to another who hasn't earned it.
-
UncommonSense, this is a POLL. Do you understand POLL? This is not a discussion on anything else. Get the **** off my thread and start your bullshit on YOUR new thread.
GAWD, some people are really stupid!
Does that include the people that replied? :-)
-
I'm not sure I agree with that. The military and the funds to raise and support it are not directly wealth transfer. Libraries, Roads, Government buildings, some wealth transfer does take place, but not primarily taking money from one person for the sole purpose of giving it to another who hasn't earned it.
But often we see states seeing a net transfer to other states. Ok, interstate highways might be an exception, and we all benefit from some government-run agencies and duties that our taxes support--eg, the military--but there are a plethora of government agencies, including their buildings, which we will never enter and no work will be done within that helps any of us in any way, although they may help other people. And, as we know, much of what the feds and states do actually harms us.
So I cannot agree that income over $100k should be exempted from FICA---and I mean we have a diagreement in principle. We may have to agree to disagree on this. My main thoughts here were 1) how best to keep SS solvent, and 2) how to goose the economy at lower-income levels by exempting some of the first moneye arned. 30k may have been too large a number--say 15k.
-
Social security is a double ponzi scheme. I don't see the good in keeping it solvent under it's present structure.
-
UncommonSense, this is a POLL. Do you understand POLL? This is not a discussion on anything else. Get the **** off my thread and start your bullshit on YOUR new thread.
GAWD, some people are really stupid!
And I hit the OTHER button on your poll and gave my reasons why. And I have already noted:
"It must be DUMSHIT week here on this message board."
-
you refute their propaganda with facts and black letter law and link to your sources
Yes, and I'm still laughing over that one...(http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/dirtbox/pics/muttley.gif)
-
And I hit the OTHER button on your poll and gave my reasons why. And I have already noted:
"It must be DUMSHIT week here on this message board."
Yes, you are the smartest lib that has ever lived, besides owebuma, the object of your worship.
-
Yes, you are the smartest lib that has ever lived, besides owebuma, the object of your worship.
How do you arrive at that conclusion?
-
How do you arrive at that conclusion?
I quoted you.
-
Flat tax. Everyone pays 15% across the board. No loopholes and no deductions for mortgage payments... second homes etc.
I am single, retired with no mortgage: my income comes from a pension, SS and other income. If I had paid a flat 15% on my gross income, I would owe the IRS an additional $2,771. Screw that.
I think you need to do the math on your own taxes cause I surely do not want to send the grubby bastards any more of mine.
-
Yes, and I'm still laughing over that one...(http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/dirtbox/pics/muttley.gif)
(https://whyweprotest.net/asset-proxy/72e28a2f5a94ca7ed42541a393b005adc360d5b1/687474703a2f2f66696c65732e73686172656e61746f722e636f6d2f495f6b6e6f775f776861745f796f755f6172655f596f7572655f615f6661696c5f74726f6c6c5f52455f4d795f4e65775f4176617461722d73353930783737352d3130363338342e6a7067/http://files.sharenator.com/I_know_what_you_are_Youre_a_fail_troll_RE_My_New_Avatar-s590x775-106384.jpg)
-
I quoted you.
owebuma, the object of your worship.
How did you arrive at that conclusion?
-
How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Cause your talking points are spoon fed to you from his campaign and the DNC?
-
I have requested that due to trolling and its associated insults, that this thread be locked.
-
How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Elementary my dear indago. You called everyone on the message board "dumbshit". It is almost certain you did not include yourself in the accusation. Hence you declared yourself intellectually superior to everyone on the board. The only people who declare themselves to be intellectually superior, even though they almost never are, are libs. Hence you are almost certainly a lib. All libs worship owebuma. Hence owebuma is the object of your worship. Even someone you consider to be intellectually inferior can sniff you right out, my dear indago.
-
Please ignore this twit and let him die in his own shit.