Posted on 10/29/2019 5:55:46 AM PDT by TangledUpInBlue
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) has done voters a favor by spelling out what kinds of new taxes it would take to come up with that much money. Warren justifies many of her programs by saying all it would take is “two cents” from the wealthy. That’s a reference to her 2% wealth tax on ultra-millionaires. But Medicare for All would be so expensive that if you taxed top earners at 100%—that’s right, if you took all the income of couples earning more than $408,000 per year—you’d still fall far short. And everybody getting taxed at 100% would obviously stop working.
Okay, that won’t do it. So what will? CRFB outlined a variety of options. A 42% national sales tax (known as a valued-added tax) would generate about $3 trillion in revenue. But it would destroy the consumer spending that’s the backbone of the U.S. economy. A tax of that magnitude would be like 42% inflation, wrecking consumer budgets and the many companies that depend on them, from Walmart and Amazon to your local car dealer.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
If federal taxation roughly doubled it would put the system farther from paying for all this than if taxation stays the same.Doubling rates and even extending the income tax to all those who have been exempted from it would crash the economy and reduce revenue in the not very long run, maybe in a year.
Good for you! Democrats hate you. You are not in debt up to your eyeballs, consuming crap you don’t need or afford. If by some chance Elizabeth Warren or Bernie get to be president, I could see 10’s of millions of Americans engaging in a black market barter economy. The technology allows for it. Liberals will see tax receipts drop precipitously and more and more of the state will be brought to bear.
“1) Where you live and
2) Do you have children? (or were they raised in the McMansion?)”
I am South of Tallahassee in a rural county. I have no children and I see your point. However, I was raised by children of the Depression. At Christmas I generally got one present and it was generally something I needed, not a toy. Oddly, I looked at my friends piles of toys and realized they did nothing for their happiness. My clothes were hand made. I got new hand-made, as opposed to hand-me-downs, which irritated my middle sister no end. Pretty much everything we had was purchased on sale at a significant reduction or was used when we got it. My parents owned our home, which was very basic, and hand built. (Being raised that way today would probably be called child abuse.)
As to the McMansion, I was, when I bought it, a mid-level manager in a high tech company. I bought a home under what I could afford. When the price doubled, I sold it as it was obvious to me we were in a bubble. I paid off the mortgage and paid cash for a significantly cheaper mobile home I bought at a distressed sale. I was never happier than with my five acres of woods in the country. It killed me to move out into the rural county where I am now, but the other homes are in this county where taxes and government are much cheaper and smaller. The sixty mile round trip to “work” was killing me. I will rent the old home.
A lot of people turn up their nose at “trailer trash.” I thought it might affect my job prospects, but I never entertained at home anyway and it didn’t. (I am retired now.) I have, on several occasions, tried to help friends with a path to home ownership, but the prejudice against buying a mobile home is so high that they wouldn’t do it. They end up in tract houses in cramped neighborhoods living on top of their neighbors, when for similar or less money, they could own acres of trees. And, best part, I LOVE my neighbors, who bring over deer meat and help out with big chores. Any time I rent a big piece of equipment, I dig their holes or smooth their dirt. Great arrangement. And, their kids know how to do stuff.
Value Added Tax is added TO THE PRICE OF A PRODUCT before the sales tax is calculated. It is a tax on the “value added” to a product at each phase of its production until it is sold. It is a FEDERAL tax, sales taxes are STATE/local taxes.
Yep, thanks for the information.
There are good and bad in each situation. Pros and Cons I mean. I know people that would “cringe” at the thought of living as remotely as you - trailer or not. Some people like to be walking distance to cafe’s, restaurants, shops, whatever. They don’t want to drive 20 minutes to get a gallon of milk. You PAY for that convenience. You pay for that location.
I also have friends who have 10+ acres of land. Heat their homes with firewood cut from their property. Hunt deer on their property and yes, kids that are more “hands on”. Our kids can “do stuff” as well, but the range of tasks they need to do is less.
At any rate, we are off topic :)
Liberals claim to be the most educated people, yet, they fail basic math and common sense.
A 42% sales tax won’t help save the Big Ag companies whose diabetes-inducing products are causing the massive health care cost spikes. They have to find an Obamacare-like solution - where the big political contributors’ profits are maintained and the Republican-leaning middle class pays for it.
If the Democrats taxed everything 100% there is not enough money in the country to pay for half their schemes. We do not hav a taxing problem, we have a spending problem.
Why not just have the government determine how much money each US resident is allowed to keep for themselves. Not just money but goods and real estate that can be converted to money. Why should a family of 2 need a 3 bedroom house? Why do they need 2 cars? As for investments- the gains from those must be restricted. A true equality means everybody loses.
I am not serious but I bet some of our betters think like this.
That was sarcasm. I should have been clearer.
"The Democratic plan for a 42% national sales tax"
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Whatever Elizabeth Warren learned about the federal government’s powers in law school, it evidently wasn't constitutional limits on those powers as the Founding States had intended for those limits to be understood.
From related threads…
Patriots, beware of the twisted, unconstitutionally wide interpretation of Congress’s limited Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3) by FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring justices in Wickard v. Filburn (Wickard). In deciding Wickard, FDR’s puppet justices wrongly ignored that a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified limits on Congress's powers, including strict limits on Congress's power to appropriate taxes.
More specifically, 19th century patriot justices had clarified the already clear meaning of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause (1.8.3), that the states have never expressly constitutionally given Congress the specific power to regulate INTRAstate commerce.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; "
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added]." -Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
In fact, the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had likewise reflected that the Founding States had left the care of the people to the states, not the federal government.
”... the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution, is in the States, and not in the Federal Government [emphases added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866. (See about middle of 3rd column.)
Justice Brandeis had put it this way about state powers to serve the people.
"It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose [emphasis added], serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” —Justice Brandeis, Laboratories of democracy.
(Note that constitutional limits on states as “laboratories of democracy,” as Brandeis had put it, is that states cannot establish privileged / protected classes or abridge constitutionally enumerated rights, and must maintain a constitutionally guaranteed republican form of government.)
So it follows that Congress is not allowed to tax in the name of state power issues, the Founding States intending for most "government" domestic policy to be defined and administered by individual states, not the feds.
But who cares what I say about Congress’s limited power to tax? Here’s what the Gibbons justices also said about Congress’s limited power to appropriate taxes with respect to the Commerce Clause.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Getting back to the FDR era Supreme Court’s politically motivated decision in Wickard, why is the federal government now dictating domestic policy for things that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to address?
The bottom line is that most federal domestic policy is based on stolen state powers and state revenues imo, state revenues stolen by means of unconstitutional federal taxes according to the Gibbons excerpt above.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
In fact, patriots can bet that if a given federal domestic spending program is not reasonably related to the US Mail Service (1.8.7) then that program is unconstitutional, and win their bet probably most of the time.
So how did citizens wind up with an unconstitutionally big federal government on their backs?
Regarding unconstitutional federal domestic spending, using inappropriate words like “concept” and “implicit,” the excerpt below from Wickard shows what was left of the defense of 10th Amendment (10A)-protected state sovereignty by the last of state sovereignty-respecting majority justices in United States v. Butler, FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices later blatantly ignoring the reasonable Butler interpretation of 10A when they scandalously decided Wickard in Congress’s favor imo.
"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept [???] of sovereignty thought to be implicit [??? emphases added] in the status of statehood." —Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
The remedy for the unconstitutionally big federal government on our backs…
Patriots must elect a new patriot Congress in the 2020 elections that will not only promise to fully support PDJT's vision for MAGA, now KAG, but also consider this.
New patriot lawmakers also need to promise to support PDJT in putting a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes, taxes that Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.
Once unconstitutional taxes are stopped, each state will ultimately find new revenues to establish the kind of social spending programs that the state’s legal majority voting citizens want.
And to make such changes permanent, patriots need to further support PDJT in leading the states to repeal the 16th and ill-conceived 17th Amendments.
Remember in November 2020!
MAGA! Now KAG! (Make America Great!)
"The “Holy Grail” of organized crime is to control government power to tax." —me
"The 16th Amendment effectively repealed the involuntary servitude aspect of the 13th Amendment imo, evidenced by unconstitutional federal taxes." —me
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"13th Amendment, Section 1:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude [emphasis added], except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
"16th Amendment:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
"The constitutionally undefined political parties are basically rival, corrupt voter unions, “union dues” paid by means of unconstitutional federal taxes.” —me
"The smart crooks long ago figured out that getting themselves elected to federal office to make unconstitutional tax laws to fill their pockets is a much easier way to make a living than robbing banks." —me
"Federal career lawmakers probably laugh all the way to the bank to deposit bribes for putting loopholes for the rich and corporations in tax appropriations laws, Congress actually not having the express constitutional authority to make most appropriations laws where domestic policy is concerned. Such laws are based on stolen state powers and uniquely associated stolen state revenues." —me
You are fine. I was just seeking to make a point, also.
This needs to be publicized strongly, let people think about it before the election.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.