Replies

How about getting rid of the Federal Income Tax and that's it! I dont see where it says in the Constitution where the Federal Government has any right to tax its population. Actually, the Fed's only constitutional source of income would be from trade tariffs but since everyone in DC is pretty much all for the free trading i dont know how that would work nowadays. My thoughts are, that if the federal govt cant support itself on less than 15% of all the working american's earnings (assuming there are no tax law changes) then it is too big and needs to diet. I say let the states levy taxes and return the fed to its constitutional roots.

I dont see where it says in the Constitution where the Federal Government has any right to tax its population.

You might try looking at what the folks who wrote the Constitutution & those that were there at the time had to say about that subject.

Federalist #34:

``A CONCURRENT JURISDICTION in the article of taxation was the only admissible substitute for an entire subordination, in respect to this branch of power, of State authority to that of the Union.'' Any separation of the objects of revenue that could have been fallen upon, would have amounted to a sacrifice of the great INTERESTS of the Union to the POWER of the individual States. The convention thought the concurrent jurisdiction preferable to that subordination; and it is evident that it has at least the merit of reconciling an indefinite constitutional power of taxation in the Federal government with an adequate and independent power in the States to provide for their own necessities.

Federalist #39:

"The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character;"

Anti-Federalist Papers #3 NEW CONSTITUTION CREATES A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT;

There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution.

Federalist #45:

"The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present [Continental] sic Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future [Constitutional] Congress will have to require them of individual citizens;

James Madison, Elliots Debates Vol 3 p128:

"If a government depends on other governments for its revenues -- if it must depend on the voluntary contributions of its members -- its [*129] existence must be precarious."

"If the general government is to depend on the voluntary contribution of the states for its support, dismemberment of the United States may be the consequence."

Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171

"A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports; but two rules are prescribed for their government, namely, uniformity and apportionment: Three kinds of taxes, to wit, duties, imposts, and excises by the first rule, and capitation, or other direct taxes, by the second rule. "

"the present Constitution was particularly intended to affect individuals, and not states, except in particular cases specified: And this is the leading distinction between the articles of Confederation and the present Constitution."

"Uniformity is an instant operation on individuals, without the intervention of assessments, or any regard to states,"

"[T]he DIRECT TAXES contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, A CAPITATION OR POLL TAX, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on LAND."

I agree with you except for the 15%. Cap the sales tax at 10%. Why should I have to give more to the government than to my church and other charities?

I dont see where it says in the Constitution where the Federal Government has any right to tax its population.

You must not understand the Constitution. There's something known as the "amendment process," which allows for changes to the Constitution. If you don't feel that the 16th amendment gives the government the power to levy taxes on the public, I suppose you don't agree with the rights protected by the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, or any of the others, either.

Mark

I dont see where it says in the Constitution where the Federal Government has any right to tax its population.

U.S. Constitution; Article 1, Section. 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The income tax and the NRST are both classified as excise taxes, which fall under this heading.