Posted on 02/08/2003 5:56:38 PM PST by Bigun
White House Floats Idea of Dropping Income Tax Overhaul By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
WASHINGTON, Feb. 7 — President Bush, having already set off a firestorm over his proposals to cut taxes and revamp retirement accounts, suggested today that the time might be near to drop the income tax as a whole and replace it with some form of consumption tax...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I think you're focusing way too much on making taxes "visible"
Milton Friedman as quoted by Northwest Florida Daily News, 10-16-2000:
- "If we're to have an income tax, it's a good thing for everyone to pay at least a nominal amount," he said. "If non-taxpayers become a majority in society, what would restrain them from voting for ever higher taxes on others?"
Walter Williams, World Net Daily, 10-25-2000
- If you're among those who pay little or no federal income taxes, what do you care about tax cuts? Moreover, if you think tax cuts pose a threat to government handout programs, you might be openly hostile and support Al Gore's silly "risky scheme" talk. So many Americans paying little or no federal taxes makes for a natural spending constituency. It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?
the real emphasis should be on restricting government's ability to impose them.
PACIFIC INS. CO. v. SOULE, 74 U.S. 433 (1868),7 Wall. 433
- "Congress may prescribe the basis, fix the rates, and require payment as it may deem proper. Within the limits of the Constitution it is supreme in its action. No power of supervision or control is lodged in either of the other departments of the government."
Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586
"If the laws here in question involved any wrong or unnecessary harshness, it was for Congress, or the people who make congresses, to see that the evil was corrected.
The remedy does not lie with the judicial branch of the government."
Champion v. Ames(1903), 186 U.S. 321
- 'But if what Congress does is within the limits of its power, and is simply unwise or injurious, the remedy is that suggested by Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden [21 US 1, 9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. ed. 23], when [195 U.S. 27, 56] he said: 'The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections, are, in this, as in many other instances, as that, for example, of declaring war, the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often rely solely, in all representative governments."
MCCRAY v. U S, 195 U.S. 27 (1904)
- "Let us concede that if a case was presented where the abuse of the taxing power was so extreme as to be beyond the principles which we have previously stated, and where it was plain to the judicial mind that the power had been called into play, not for revenue, but solely for the purpose of destroying rights which could not be rightfully destroyed consistently with the principles of freedom and justice upon which the Constitution rests, that it would be the duty of the courts to say that such an arbitrary act was not merely an abuse of a delegated power, but was the exercise of an authority not conferred. "
That's the only proven solution for keeping government in its place.
yet government is larger and more intrusive than ever.
Article I section 8 of the Constitution enumerates many of the powers to which Government is limited and by which all programs are justified. Which of the powers do you intend to repeal and how.
If the majority of people do not perceive the economic burdens of government largess they demand, just where is this restriction of government going to come from?
We must . . . End Tax Slavery Now; Nov '97
by Jarret B. WollsteinHOW MUCH DO YOU REALLY PAY?
According to the Tax Foundation, in 1994 the average American paid 22.4% of his or her income in federal taxes, plus 11.8% in state and local taxes - 34.2% total.
But that's just the beginning! Dr. James Payne of the University of California found that in addition to direct taxes we also pay huge, hidden taxes including:
- Compliance costs - record keeping, monies spent on tax planning, computers and software purchased to fulfill IRS requirements, etc.
- Enforcement costs - IRS audits, field investigations, service center corrections, criminal investigations, litigation, and forced collections.
- Emotional, moral and cultural costs - families forced onto welfare, time and creative energy lost figuring out how to avoid taxes, etc.
For every $1 we pay in direct taxes, we spend an additional $0.65 in compliance costs. And even that figure doesn't include the cost of import duties, license fees and other government regulations. For a typical U.S. family, the real cost of taxes and regulations is at least:
Federal taxes 22.4% of income
State & local taxes 11.8%
Compliance costs 22.2%
Regulatory costs 12.7%70.1% of your income is now consumed by government
And you think a Tariff is sufficient to cause government to decrease? Just how do you intend to enact reductions of govenment lacking the support of people receiving the largesse, yet not sensibly participating in paying the bill.
Enact a broad based tax that every one pays, the change can be encouraged,
23%........... HR2525 (NRST) rate on consumption expenditure
14.91% ..... rate if Social Security and Medicare were eliminated
14% .......... rate if Nat'l Endowment for the Arts were eliminated
11.9%........ rate if Dept. of Education were eliminated
10% .......... rate if welfare were eliminated
9.8%.......... rate if foreign aid were eliminated
etc.
Hmmmmmm....... It's do able, with time and effort, once the blinders are removed from the electorate.
Tariffs and the like merely serve to perpetuate the fiction by which large government is fostered:
Milton Friedman as quoted by Northwest Florida Daily News, 10-16-2000:
- "If we're to have an income tax, it's a good thing for everyone to pay at least a nominal amount," he said. "If non-taxpayers become a majority in society, what would restrain them from voting for ever higher taxes on others?"
Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813). Scottish jurist and historian:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-George Bernard Shaw
Where is your evidence of a miracle change in human nature?
I have news for you: the people are aware that they're being heavily taxed. Quite aware, actually. And if they happen to forget, they get rudely reminded every April.
Which people are those, the majority who perceive little burden playing the role of Poor little Paul:
| Effective Individual Federal Income Tax Rate (Percent of gross income) | |||||||||||
| Income Category | 1977 | 1979 | 1981 | 1983 | 1985 | 1987 | 1989 | 1991 | 1993 | 1995 | Projected 1999 |
| Lowest Quintile | -0.6 | -0.8 | -0.2 | -0.5 | -0.2 | -1.3 | -1.9 | -2.9 | -3.4 | -5.6 | -6.8 |
| Second Quintile | 3.6 | 3.9 | 4.6 | 3.5 | 3.9 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 2.7 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 0.9 |
| Middle Quintile | 7.1 | 7.5 | 8.3 | 6.8 | 6.8 | 6.1 | 6.5 | 6.3 | 5.9 | 6.1 | 5.4 |
Or the minority that readily perceive some of the burden.
| Effective Individual Federal Income Tax Rate (Percent of gross income) | |||||||||||
| Income Category | 1977 | 1979 | 1981 | 1983 | 1985 | 1987 | 1989 | 1991 | 1993 | 1995 | Projected 1999 |
| Fourth Quintile | 9.7 | 10.4 | 11.3 | 9.5 | 9.3 | 8.7 | 8.9 | 8.7 | 8.5 | 8.7 | 8.4 |
| Highest Quintile | 15.8 | 16.3 | 17.1 | 14.5 | 14.3 | 15.1 | 15.1 | 14.8 | 15.5 | 16.2 | 16.1 |
I suggest you pay a little less attention to what polls say (which can always be manipulated up, down, and sideways) and a little more attention to what actual people say.
Anectdotal evidence is even less reliable. It usually comes from a self selected group of "friends" and aquaintences as opposed to the broad spectrum of society.
The reality is as you stated it: "government is larger and more intrusive than ever."
That is not for a majority of the electorate looking to decrease largess so taxes may come down.
Quite the contrary, that substantive majority of the voting electorate does not preceive a cost equal or exceeding the largess, and they infact do support increases in tax rates as long as they perceive the other guy being the one to pay.
Your Tariff does nothing exacerbate that simple rule of the electorate stated so long ago:
Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813). Scottish jurist and historian:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
That pandering politicians exploit in the foremost expression of encumbancy throughout the history of representative governments:
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-George Bernard Shaw
And my anecdotal evidence isn't from any small circle of friends or any other kind of small circle. It's from people I encounter through the usual course of my day, and I put much more stock in it than I do in polls, because it's their own opinion that they're volunteering. If some pollster asks them if they think the rich should pay more taxes for social programs, yes or no, they may answer yes, mistakenly thinking that the rich pay few taxes as it is, or because they agree with those programs, but don't have any strong opinions on where the money comes from. But when they're giving you their own feelings, and those feelings are remarkably consistent from person to person, then it's pretty likely you're looking at a current of opinion that needs to be dealt with.
Combine that with the fact that the extension of the income tax to the middle and lower classes did nothing to slow down the growth of government, and in fact concided with a rapid expansion thereof, and I think you can see that the "visibility" aspect is largely overrated, theoretical musings from Milton Friedman notwithstanding.
Your Tariff does nothing exacerbate that simple rule of the electorate stated so long ago
Except you have yet to show that. Nothing you've posted - and you've posted quite a bit - does anything to show that tariff policies lead to, or "exacerbate", any of this Peter/Paul business. Tariffs are self-limiting taxes, and as such they restrain the government's ability to leech off and control society. That is the deciding factor.
does anything to show that tariff policies lead to, or "exacerbate", any of this Peter/Paul business.
Who pays a tariff? Only those that can afford and are inclined to purchase a taxed import instead of same item tax free from domestic production. The tradeoff being between sources of a particular product thus such taxes becoming totally unusable to meet the legitimate functions of federal government.
Tariffs are self-limiting taxes,
Only when they are made expressly visible to the public by detailing the amount of tax applied to the specific product in its inclusion on items at retail sale.
Retail sales taxes which tax both imports and domestic products equally. are balanced in their affect on competeing commercial sectors. The tradeoff being self reliance & investment vs the payment of taxes in relation to the benefit that one derives from the society in which one particpates.
- It is fairer to tax people on what they extract from the economy, as roughly measured by their consumption, than to tax them on what they produce for the economy, as roughly measured by their income
With tariffs alone, $0 revenue is the lower limit, when domestic production is free of any tax in comparison to the equivalent import.
So please tell us what is that rate of tariff you intend to impose that will assure the payment of all necessities of government as authorised under Article I Section 8 of the Constituion:
Article I Section 8: "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;
and as such they restrain the government's ability to leech off and control society.
An unsupportable conjecture, as history has shown otherwise with government induced rampant inflation available to more than offset any decline in revenues to support demand for largess.
As far as leech off society, you are admitting there can be no revenue generated with tariffs alone, lacking a similar burden laid on domestic commerce?
And control of society? Absolutely not! Certainly that which is taxed, e.g. the import industry, is certainly suppressed by a tariff when there is no equal burden upon a domestic product. The degree of suppression is directly related to the rate of the tariff in comparison to untaxed domestic production. To say tariffs are not a control on society is to deny reality.
That is the deciding factor.
Only for someone wedded to utopian dreams divorced from reality. Only to the person looking for a way to avoid responsibility for the burdens of government by transfering the costs of government to some other mythical guy behind the tree.
To remove taxation of the individual, is to remove the goad which assures accountability of government to the electorate. Federal tax rates are high because a majority of the electorate do not share proportionately in the burden their demand for largesse imposes on the minority of citizens.
The siren call for representation without taxation is the formula that got us where we are at today. The ability to hide or disguise taxation from the view of large sectors of the electorate allows the Congress to get away with the creation of the evergrowing monster that it fosters.
Liberty and freedom have a price, responsibility. If that price is avoided there are no brakes on the growth of government, the ultimate result is the end of freedom through creeping socialism.
I can't give you a number, but we spoke before about a scientifically ascertainable maximum-revenue tariff. In fact, the rates should vary depending on the item and depending on the country of origin, so as to assure maximum revenue from each combination. Is it safe to assume that it would provide roughly one tenth of what current revenues are?
Is it safe to assume that it would provide roughly one tenth of what current revenues are?
Ohhhh! so we are supposed to pay the debt, defend the nation, run the federal courts, the immigration service, treasury, enforce the copyright & patent, enforce the foreign trade laws, administer interstate trade, ... all the authorized functions of federal government on one tenth of current revenues.
Do I have that correct?
Such being the case I can state unequivocally no to that presumption. And invite you to provide support in the way of "a scientifically ascertainable maximum-revenue tariff" as determined by a valid peer reviewed study to support your assertion.
In fact, the rates should vary depending on the item and depending on the country of origin, so as to assure maximum revenue from each combination.
The clear invitation of social and economic engineering that you say you do not want.
How do you figure on restraining the impulses of Congress and constituencies to demand their own little piece of the action when those who determine the rates are the same as those who have the most to gain by cheating the measure?
Tax that German weinersnitzel over there double, we don't like their stand on Iraq, and while were at it taxes on French wines and cheeses should be double that of those from Italy. Gotta look after our friends after all, besides grandma needs her parmesian for family speghetti night, and povelone for here pizza. That is a necessity you know.
The current level of federal taxation is around 24% of gross consumption expenditure.
15% ..... rate if Social Security and Medicare were eliminated
14% .......... rate if Nat'l Endowment for the Arts were eliminated
11.9%........ rate if Dept. of Education were eliminated
10% .......... rate if welfare were eliminated
9.8%.......... rate if foreign aid were eliminated
etc.
Seems we are abit short somehow, 9.8% of gross consumption expenditure is what you would need aquire from tariffs. That works out to be about an 88% tariff without any compensation for loss of trade volume induce by such an extreme rate.
History has shown that foreign trade was not sustainable at the 40% tariffs of 1875-1930.
Just how do you intend to remove all the above and more and even begin to fund anything near even the most modest pretense of a functional nation on your tariff?
It is clear a "scientifically ascertainable maximum-revenue tariff" must be subsantially less than 20% to maintain any hope of sustaining a volume of import trade from which to extract revenues at all.
Just how do you intend to go about achieving your miracle of legislative and economic magic repealing the laws of supply and demand?
Congress deliberately binds itself to the Budget Enforcement Act, which forces all proposed tax laws to be shown to be able to provide the same level of revenues less current appropriations as the tax law it replaces.
What is going to be the incentive to remove all the above programs and more to limit the government to the revenue that you maintain is sufficient from tariffs? You cannot enact a change in tax revenues without first providing for the elimination of programs the current revenue stream maintains.
Please show us the legislative language with support in Congress to achieve your miraculous ends.
The NRST meets all the necessary requirements for enactment, and provides the means to encourage the electorate to push Congress into reducing government.
H.R.25
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 01/7/2003)
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
Refer: http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org
I don't see where your tariff replacement for federal taxes serves even your own stated goal of 10% of the current level of government, much less government mandated and authorised by even the most strict reading of Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.
What you look for is anarchy and the dissolution of the nation, not the Republic guaranteed under the Constitution.
Not interested.
I would like to see an end to income tax, but I see a huge increase in these deductions along with a national sales tax.
National Sales Tax would do away with all payroll taxes including FICA, as well as individual and corporate income taxes.
One single flat rate on all new goods and services, no exemptions, no exceptions, no deductions, collected at the retail cash register.
As a concequence, for them to make a change they must affect every voter, not just isolating the bad news to one voting minority or another.
H.R.25
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 01/7/2003)
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
Refer: http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org
Doesn't the Federal Government dip into these pools of money for what ever pet project they are trying to fund?
What pools? All the federal taxes you mention go into general revenues, to be used where every they want to put it:
HELVERING v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 619 (1937)
- Title VIII(Social Security Act), as we have said, lays two different types of tax, an 'income tax on employees,' and 'an excise tax on employers.' The income tax on employees is measured by wages paid during the calendar year. Section 801 [26 USC 3101]. The excise tax on the employer [26 USC 3111] is to be paid 'with respect to having individuals in his employ,' and, like the tax on employees, is measured by wages.
- . The proceeds of both taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal revenue taxes generally, and are not ear-marked in any way. Section 807(a)[26 USC 3501]. There are penalties for nonpayment. Section 807(c), [26 USC 7203].
Title 26 US Code Subtitle C Sec. 3101. Rate of tax
- (a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance
In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section (a)) received by him with respect to employment (as defined in section (b)) - --------------------------------------------------------------------- In cases of wages received during: The rate shall be: ---------------------------------------------------------------------
1984, 1985, 1986, or 1987 5.7 percent
1988 or 1989 6.06 percent
1990 or thereafter 6.2 percent.
-------------------------------
- (b) Hospital insurance
In addition to the tax imposed by the preceding subsection, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section (a)) received by him with respect to employment (as defined in section (b)) -
- (1) with respect to wages received during the calendar years
1974 through 1977, the rate shall be 0.90 percent;- (2) with respect to wages received during the calendar year
1978, the rate shall be 1.00 percent;- (3) with respect to wages received during the calendar years
1979 and 1980, the rate shall be 1.05 percent;- (4) with respect to wages received during the calendar years
1981 through 1984, the rate shall be 1.30 percent;- (5) with respect to wages received during the calendar year
1985, the rate shall be 1.35 percent; and- (6) with respect to wages received after December 31, 1985, the
rate shall be 1.45 percent.Title 26 US Code Subtitle C Sec. 3501. Collection and payment of taxes
- (a) General rule
The taxes imposed by this subtitle shall be collected by the Secretary and shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States as internal-revenue collections.
Nothing has changed todate inspite of all the political rhertoric about "lock boxes" and "Trust Funds" for SS/Medicare funds, the tax that is supposed to be levied for SS/Medicare is indistinguishable in operation from what we normally refer to as the Income Tax, and is paid into general revenues in just the same manner.
THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND FRAUD
CRS Report for Congress (98-422 EPW)
Social Security: and the Federal Budget:"Its taxes like all other federal funds flow into the U.S. Treasury and its benefit payments flow out of the U.S. Treasury. The Treasury Department issues federal securities to the Social Security trust funds to reflect receipt of these taxes, and redeems securities from the trust funds to reflect Social Security expenditures, but the money itself flows to and from the Treasury."
"Taking the Social Security trust funds "off budget" has not changed how Social Security funds are handled. They are treated the same way today as they were in 1937 when Social Security taxes were first levied -- the tax receipts flow into the U.S. Treasury and benefit payments flow out of the U.S. Treasury. The Treasury Department issues federal securities to the Social Security trust funds to reflect the receipt of these taxes, and redeems securities from the trust funds to reflect Social Security expenditures, but the money itself flows to and from the Treasury. "
"While the trust funds have an important role in monitoring the finances of the program and maintaining its fiscal discipline, they are basically accounting devices. The federal securities they hold are not assets for the government. When an individual buys a government bond, he or she has established a claim against the government. When the government issues a bond to one of its own accounts, it hasn't purchased anything or established a claim against some other entity or person. It is simply creating a form of IOU from one of its accounts to another. It certainly establishes legal claims against the government for the Social Security system (i.e., it is a legal form of indebtedness of the government and does count as part of the federal debt; see Table 3 on the next page), but the system is part of the government. Those claims are not resources the government has at its disposal to pay for future Social Security claims. Simply put, the trust funds do not reflect an independent store of money for the program or the government, and taking Social Security "off budget" did not change this. "
What Social Security Trust Fund
"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Fleming v. Nestor (1960), 363 US 603; that there is no Constitutional right to Social Security benefits. Social Security benefits can legally be cut or eliminated at any time, and beneficiaries have no recourse. The Court held that, "To engraft upon the Social Security System a concept of 'accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustments to ever changing conditions which it demands."
Or less. In 1910, according to this chart, total federal revenues were at $676 million, compared to $2 trillion today. Inflation since that time has devalued the currency about 25-fold, which would bring us up to about 17.5 billion, or less than one percent of current revenues. This, by the way, was the time of the T. Roosevelt's Great White Fleet and of the digging of the Panama Canal. Yes, certain things, such as the military, may require greater expenses because of technology, but on the other hand, technology enables us to do things more cheaply as well.
If the numbers don't add up, they don't add up, which only means we'd have to supplement the tariffs with additional internal taxes of some sort. But so far the "anarchy" charge seems a little overwrought.
In 1910, according to this chart, total federal revenues were at $676 million, compared to $2 trillion today.
It Ain't 1910 my friend. A bit of inflation under the dam as well as the difference between a pacifist isolationist government of Wilson in an agrarian society vs the political realities of a modern high tech civilization.
So lets at least look at the funding those functions clearly authorized under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, in current dollars instead of your distorted assertion:
http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2001/guide02.html#Spending
- $285 Billion --- Defense
- $ 49 Billion ---- Veterens Services
- $ 31 Billion ---- Administration of Justice
- $ 16 Billion ---- General Government
- $199 Billion ---- Interest on the Debt
=========================
$580 Billion ---- Total
2001 Imports goods & services = $1,183.0 billions
If the numbers don't add up, they don't add up,
They don't add up, as you will never finance a Constitutionally authorised budget with a
100* (580/1,183) = 49% tariff.
Even 20% would not bring in 1/3 of what is necessary due to loss of import sales in favor of untaxed domestic goods and services.
which only means we'd have to supplement the tariffs with additional internal taxes of some sort.
Institute an across the board, Flat rate, single stage National Retail Sales Tax, which taxes imports and domestic products with the same rate avoiding the problem of sales imbalances and the tax complexities that invite political manipulation of a multi-tiered taxrate system that you suggest.
Replacing present tax law, the retail sales tax rate would be 23% on domestic goods and services with equivalent of a 23% tariff paid and receipted as a sales tax at the retail register. No hidden tax, no economic imbalance, no exceptions, exemptions everyone participates.
Such a tax acts in a natural manner to encourage the elimination of excess government functions through visibility of burden among all constituencies of the electorate.
The total federal government budget would move from $2,000 billions towards $580 billions. The across the board federal tax rate on new goods and services would decline from 23% down to less than 6.7%.
As tax rate on sales decreases the economic burden on retail items, the sales volumes and growth in the economy would be tremendous allowing even further reductions in tax rates below that 6.7% theoretic level.
That is what I perceive as the ultimate achievements possible under a National Retail Sales Tax structured in the manner of the revenue bill H.R.25. And the 23% projection on current revenue, can be backed up with peer reviewed economic studies. Simple common sense applied to the principal of TANSTAFFEL,( no free lunch, everyone participates in paying there way in proportion to the benefit the extract from their consumption.) encourages the natural change in attitudes required of the electorate as regards the burden of government largess in their lives.
- It is fairer to tax people on what they extract from the economy, as roughly measured by their consumption, than to tax them on what they produce for the economy, as roughly measured by their income
If the numbers don't add up, they don't add up, which only means we'd have to supplement the tariffs with additional internal taxes of some sort.
Interesting to see even you starting to recognize the necessity of a broader tax base.
But so far the "anarchy" charge seems a little overwrought.
You were advocating a Tariff alone, such would be fully consistent with collapse of the Republic as no revenues would be had where an alternative untaxed domestic source exists.
Inflation since that time has devalued the currency about 25-fold, which would bring us up to about 17.5 billion
Well write up your bill to eliminate everything but Congress Critter's underwear and a 4 Aircraft Carrier Navy. Eliminate the army, airforce, marines, anyone to man the carriers, no aircraft allowed, nor ammunition or support fleet.
Then figure how you intend to retain the viability of the Republic in a world bent on the destruction of all liberty, property and allowing only the grant of as much life necessary to the needs of your master.
The $17 billion figure only represented what adjusted spending was in 1910, or as I said, less than one percent of current revenues. If we could shoot for 3 percent we could afford considerably more. And the fact that all those things you listed in Post 609 draw as much spending as they do doesn't mean they have to draw that much spending. We certainly were able to "administer justice" for a lot less than that before. But of course, when "justice" is defined as slavish compliance with every single whim that some regulator decides to impose on us on any particular day of the week, I can see how that job could get a bit more complicated. (speaking of anarchy)
Then figure how you intend to retain the viability of the Republic in a world bent on the destruction of all liberty
If you're referring to the current War on Terror, I believe I've stated a few times that we would of course need additional sources of revenue in time of war. So we should do whatever it takes to fight the war and win, and then go back to responsible peacetime policies (troops home from Germany, Korea, Bosnia, whereever else, etc).
You are absolutely correct. If Bush managed to this, he would cement his place in American history. It will take a level of political acumen and political toughness that I am not sure I have seen yet from his Administration domestically.
If you're referring to the current War on Terror,
Not particularly, todays world is one of extreme technological advance in methods of warfare and weapons capable of spanning the oceans that we once could rely on to place a buffer between us and the designs of the imperialist, terrorist, and otherwise nasty ruler with little to keep him entertained other than another adrenalyn kick.
So we should do whatever it takes to fight the war and win, and then go back to responsible peacetime policies
The world of 1910 is long gone, and oceans no longer provide a buffer again military intrusions.
The only peacetime policy that will maintain the liberties and viability of this nation is that of strength, not one of isolation or live-and-let live. Neither is possible in a world of weapons that span the globe.
And the fact that all those things you listed in Post 609 draw as much spending as they do doesn't mean they have to draw that much spending.
A truism, however that is dependant upon the desires of the electorate as a whole to change or even to achieve.
We certainly were able to "administer justice" for a lot less than that before.
In a predominantly rural and agrarian society known for much lower incidence of crime. With the expension of megalopolis, we have an entirely different chemistry going. Ever see the overpopulaton studies of rats in cages. Looks alot like what we see develop in inner cities, and I suspect for much the same reasons.
But of course, when "justice" is defined as slavish compliance with every single whim that some regulator decides to impose on us on any particular day of the week,
Doesn't answer the problems that arise from overcrowded urban life of today as opposed to 1910.
The same answer always exists, you don't like the laws in place, until you reach the majority electorate and they move to replace the representation that enacts laws enabling such excess regulation. Your will see no change:
"all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed."
You have a choice, re-educate the electorate, or throw it all out and hope you can start over again(rarely a sure bet on the later)
I can see how that job could get a bit more complicated. (speaking of anarchy)
And more costly, hence the budget item for administration of justice. Doesn't help to have every yahoo out their filing suits out of self indulgence either.
However, none of the above is answered by instituting a tariff. A tariff is nothing more than a tax, and can do nothing at all towards addressing the ills of society or government, nor encourage necessary change in attitude of the electorate in the direction of change.
If someone tries to mess with us, we should hit back hard and make him pay a steep price. Do that enough times and they'll get the message and stop attacking us.
With the expension of megalopolis, we have an entirely different chemistry going. Ever see the overpopulaton studies of rats in cages. Looks alot like what we see develop in inner cities, and I suspect for much the same reasons.
Such criminal-justice problems as you described are the proper concern of state governments, not the federal government.
However, none of the above is answered by instituting a tariff. A tariff is nothing more than a tax, and can do nothing at all towards addressing the ills of society or government, nor encourage necessary change in attitude of the electorate in the direction of change.
Nothing at all? I'm certainly not touting it as any kind of panacea, but I think it would foster some improvement. If government is restricted in its source of funding, yes it may go the inflationary route (nothing comes without risk), but I'd consider it more likely that it would be forced to cut back on irresponsible spending. The lack of free goodies from the government, combined with the extra disposable income resulting from not being taxed into oblivion, should encourage further self-reliance on the part of the people. How far this would go is impossible to determine, but I don't think it would be imperceptible.
Why then did Bush allocate half a billion dollars to the IRS to update their computers?
Something is not right here. I think this is just a ploy to placate the Constitutionalists.
Everyone knows that as the laws are written, the income tax is a beautiful thing. No one is liable for the income tax.
Nothing at all? I'm certainly not touting it as any kind of panacea, but I think it would foster some improvement. If government is restricted in its source of funding, yes it may go the inflationary route (nothing comes without risk), but I'd consider it more likely that it would be forced to cut back on irresponsible spending.
Just where is this magical majority of the electorate going come from for reducing government when only a small minority of citizens, if any, end up paying an import tax when domestic goods have the pricing advantage of no tax?
Currently a mere 50% of the voting public pays little or no income tax and that seems to be more than enough to allow sufficient apathy about size of government to assure perpetual growth with hidden taxes all over the place.
We have a $6 Trillion debt, underwriting $6 Trillion worth of monetary inflation and you figure is government is going to "forced to cut back"? History doesn't support your optimism.
You have not provided any mechanizm by which you figure to limit government to your tariff. Just how is this going to come about? If government is not in the mood for trimming taxes back in a small percentage now, you figure that Congress is just going to somehow enact a measly $17 billion tariff to feed its constituents appetites?
You are living in fantasy.
The lack of free goodies from the government, combined with the extra disposable income resulting from not being taxed into oblivion, should encourage further self-reliance on the part of the people.
What lack of free goodies? your tariff has just assured the appearence of a gravy train for the entire nation.
How far this would go is impossible to determine, but I don't think it would be imperceptible.
It will not even get off the ground, there is no Congress that is going to ever support it, there is no leverage whatsoever to bring it about.
You have your head stuck in a living in a fantasy that simply will not happen. I suggest you get your head back down into the real world.
Everyone knows that as the laws are written, the income tax is a beautiful thing. No one is liable for the income tax.
I suggest you try to convince the courts of that:
Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 429-30 (1955).
- "Congress applied no limitations as to the source of taxable receipts, nor restrictive labels as to their nature."
United States v. Melton, No. 94-5535 (4th Cir. 1996)
ARGUED: Lowell Harrison Becraft, Jr.[one of Schulz & Co. legal beagles], Huntsville, Alabama, for Appellants.The jury heard not only the United States's evidence against the Meltons, but also the brothers' defense that they believed they were not "persons liable" for federal income tax. The jury rejected the excuse, however, and convicted them on nearly all counts.
- [Subtitle A] "Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a federal tax on the taxable income of every individual.
26 U.S.C. s 1."
- [Subtitle A] "Section 63 defines "taxable income" as gross income minus allowable deductions."
26 U.S.C. s 63.
- [Subtitle A] Section 61 states that "gross income means all income from whatever source derived," including compensation for services.
26 U.S.C. s 61.
- [Subtitle F] Sections 6001 and 6011 provide that a person must keep records and file a tax return for any tax for which he is liable.
26 U.S.C. ss 6001
26 U.S.C. ss 6011.
- Finally, section 6012 provides that every individual having gross income that equals or exceeds the exemption amount in a taxable year shall file an income tax return.
26 U.S.C. s 6012.The duty to pay federal income taxes therefore is "manifest on the face of the statutes, without any resort to IRS rules, forms or regulations." United States v. Bowers, 920 F.2d 220, 222 (4th Cir.1990). The rarely recognized proposition that, "where the law is vague or highly debatable, a defendant--actually or imputedly--lacks the requisite intent to violate it," Mallas, 762 F.2d at 363 (quoting United States v. Critzer, 498 F.2d 1160, 1162 (4th Cir.1974)), simply does not apply here.
Each Melton brother had gross income in excess of the amount requiring the filing of a return in each of the years at issue. Therefore, each was a "person liable."
26 USC 7805(a) Rules and regulations
(a) Authorization - … the Secretary [of the Treasury] shall prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of this title [Title 26]…" [26 USC § 7805]
Thus under amplifying Treasury regulations for 26 USC 1, 26 CFR 1.1-1(a),(b)
Sec. 1.1-1 Income tax on individuals.
(a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b), on the income of a nonresident alien individual.(b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax. In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.
The code word here is income taxes imposed by the code.
If you read the code, which I have the IRS codebook, 2002 version, there is no liability except for those involved in the production of alchohol, tobacco or firearms.
The us supreme court has ruled several times that Congress cannot define income. The Congress cannot pass a law in one instance saying income is this and a year later change that definition.
You have been fooled by the color of law. If you study more into this subject, you will see that the income tax laws are constitutional, because they do not make anyone except those that I have mentioned, liable.
NIce try.
Do yourself a favor and go to an H&R Block or Hewlett Jackson office and ask them to show you the law that says you are liable for an income tax.
They cannot and will ask you to leave. I've done this many times and have educated many a Block head at H&R and other tax offices.
I've studied this for many years and have not paid income tax for almost 15 years now.
I follow the law as it is written and pay all the taxes I'm liable for.
If you want to continue to pay over 55% of your money you make because you believe there is a law, even though there isn't, then go right ahead.
You stated..."
I didn't state it, the CFR states it.
there is no liability except for those involved in the production of alchohol, tobacco or firearms.
The courts disagree with you, guess what they decide not you.
The us supreme court has ruled several times that Congress cannot define income.
Irrelavent, the courts have found the meaning for income from common meaning of language at the time of the enactment of the first income tax law since it is a constitutional term.
"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson: letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p 322"Unless an intention to the contary is indicated, words used in a constitution will generally be interpreted in there natural or popular, as distinguished from a technical meaning."
16 Corpus Juris Secundom "Constitution" Sec. 24; (Cites ommited)Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380,404-405 (1991)
"It is a statute. I thought we had adopted a regular method for interpreting the meaning of language in a statute: first, find the ordinary meaning of the language in its textual context; and second, using established canons of construction, ask whether there is any clear indication that some permissible meaning other than the ordinary one applies. If not - and especially if a good reason for the ordinary meaning appears plain - we apply that ordinary meaning.
Isn't it nice they have done that for you so you don't have to worry yourself over Congress' incapacity?
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
INCOME. The gain which proceeds from property, labor, or business; it is applied particularly to individuals; the income of the government is usually called revenue.
Stratton's Independence, LTD. v. Howbert(1913), 231 U.S. 399:
- "'[I]ncome' may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, and here we have combined operations of capital and labor. As to the alleged inequality of operation between mining corporations and others, it is of course true that the revenues derived from the working of mines result to some extent in the exhaustion of the capital. But the same is true of the earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital, yet such earnings are commonly dealt with in legislation as income."
Eisner v. Macomber(1920), 252 U.S. 189,207
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=252&invol=189#207
- "After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L. D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), ... , 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case, , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 (62 L. Ed. 1054)."
Lucas v. Earl(1930), 281 U.S. 111:
- "The Revenue Act of 1918 approved February 24, 1919, c. 18, 210, 211, 212(a), 213(a), 40 Stat. 1057, 1062, 1064, 1065, imposes a tax upon the net income of every individual including 'income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service ... of whatever kind and in whatever form paid,' 213(a). The provisions of the Revenue Act of 1921, c. 136, 42 Stat. 227, 233, 237, 238, in sections bearing the same numbers are similar to those of the above."
- "There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them "
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
WAGES, contract. A compensation given to a hired person for his or her services.
The Congress cannot pass a law in one instance saying income is this and a year later change that definition.
Where has Congress passed a law defining the word "income"? That has already been done prior to the first income tax and is still used.
FindLaw: U S v. GOLDENBERG, 168 U.S. 95,103 (1897)
"The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language that he has used. He is presumed to know the meaning of words and the rules of grammar.
You have been fooled by the color of law.
'm sure it sounds good the these folks too:
United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991)
Argued that there is no law imposing a tax on income, that state citizens are exempt from income tax.KANNE, Circuit Judge.
- Like moths to a flame, some people find themselves irresistibly drawn to the tax protestor movement's illusory claim that there is no legal requirement to pay federal income tax. And, like the moths, these people sometimes get burned. Lorin G. Sloan believed these claims and because he acted upon them now faces four months in a federal prison; there can be little doubt that he has been burned.
- The real tragedy of this case is the unconscionable waste of Mr. Sloan's time, resources, and emotion in continuing to pursue these wholly defective and unsuccessful arguments about the validity of the income tax laws of the United States. Despite our rejection of Mr. Sloan's legal analysis of the tax laws, we are not unmindful of the sincerity of his beliefs. On the other hand, we are less sure of the sincerity of the professional tax protestors who promote their views in literature and meetings to persons like Mr. Sloan, yet are unlikely ever to face the type of penalties incurred by him. It may be that our decision will not alter Mr. Sloan's views regarding the tax laws of this country, for he has stated that if we affirm his conviction without applying the law as he understands it, our decision will be "a sham to which I WILL NOT SUBMIT." It may also be that serving his sentence in prison will not alter Mr. Sloan's view. We hope this pessimistic assessment is incorrect.
- We AFFIRM the conviction of Lorin G. Sloan on all counts.
Patriot Beware!
by Thomas R. Eddlem
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no04/vo13no04_patriot.htm
I follow the law as it is written and pay all the taxes I'm liable for.
That's good then you won't have to worry about the Courts the following out to you. It is the Courts you get to convince when you have a little disagreement with the IRS, not I:
| United States v. Melton, No. 94-5535 (4th Cir. 1996) ARGUED: Lowell Harrison Becraft, Jr.[one of Schulz & Co. legal beagles], Huntsville, Alabama, for Appellants.
|
If you want to continue to pay over 55% of your money you make because you believe there is a law, even though there isn't, then go right ahead.
What makes you think you aren't paying it regardless? Just because you don't fill out their VAT accounting paperwork, doesn't mean they don't get it from you anyway. You just miss out on the benefit of protection from the courts.
The Individual Income Tax return(1040) that captures everyone's attention each April, is merely a partial VAT accounting sheet the government cons individuals, held at ransom, into filling out. Its misdirection puts blinders on the eyes of the electorate, and totally distorts their perceptions as to the real impact of taxation in their lives.
Every man woman and child in the nation, pays federal taxes through that VAT.
DO YOU PAY YOUR INCOME TAX
AT THE SUPERMARKET?
by D. Sherman Cox J.D. L.L.M. Taxation
The full impact of the federal tax system(taxes in gross wage/salaries & other compensation + business income/payroll taxes) added onto the base(taxfree) price of retail consumption goods and services is 36% for federal taxes alone.
All wages and the taxes on them are paid for out of sales receipts to business,(i.e. consumption expenditure).
Federal tax revenues collected as % of current family expenditure = fed/(1-state-fed-savings) =
23.5/(1-.235-0.102-0.012) = 36.09%
If we add in the cost of federal tax compliance, planning, litigation & enforcement, the percentage that truely represents the burden on the family due to the Federal income/payroll tax system, product prices are increased by more than 55% over taxfree prices.
Where Have All the Dollars Gone?
How the government robs Peter to pay him back.
By economist James L. Payne, Reason Magazine February '94When the overhead costs are added together, (24 percent compliance costs, 33 percent disincentive costs, and 8 percent other costs), they total 65 percent of tax revenue.
Current total Federal tax revenues are about $1900billion, more than $1,000 billion additional dollars are added on onto consumption prices due to the business costs of complying with the federal income/payroll tax laws.
The percent total current federal burden (taxes + compliance costs) of consumption dollars = 36*(1900+1000)/1900 = 54.95% economic burden added on to base retail(i.e. taxfree) prices.
Too bad that citizens don't get a receipt detailing those "hidden sales taxes" buried in their consumption purchases. If they ever did, some of those 70% of the public clamoring for more from government, thinking someone else foots the bill, might be tempted to change their mind.
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.