Taxation is the principal means of implementing and maintaining public policy.
Taxation, predominately corportate and indivdual income taxes, may be used for such, it is not the prime function of taxation as regards the intent of the Constitution.
Beardsly Ruml is not the expounder of the Constitution, he is merely another minion expressing an opinion of socialist intrusion into this nation's politics.
In practical fact, we dont have a constitutional republic,
We have a constitutional Republic regardless of the distortions of the socialist environment in which it now operates.
we have an American utopia in compliance to public policy.
Meaningless jargon. We have a two party system(dominent Factions) competing for political power by coercing votes through demogoguery and legislative chicanery.
Thats really where the TPs go wrong isnt it? They fix on the unconstitutionality of federal taxation
Nope, for they are looking to join the majority in being able to ignore the real costs of government, and get on the same gravytrain, of apparent or no taxation of themselves. The net and ultimate result of which will be accelerated growth of government through the perception of freebees buying votes. It's called:
Representation without Taxation
And the TPr's success in achieving there personal tax free goal, will be the total death knell of the Republic, for without the goad of taxation there can be no demand for fiscal accountability of the government to the electorate.
Walter Williams, World Net Daily, 10-25-2000
According to the most recent U.S. Treasury Department figures, in 1997 the top 1 percent of income-earners (those with income of $250,000 and higher) paid 33 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 5 percent of income-earners ($108,000 and over) paid 52 percent, and the top 50 percent ($36,000 and over) paid 96 percent of income taxes. Guess what the bottom 50 percent of income earners paid?
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?
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-George Bernard Shaw
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.
Beardsley may not be an expounder on the Constitution (who is really), but he certainly is not just another minion. He was chairman of the NY FED and architect of the withholding we all suffer from our paychecks today. Hardly your everyday dude. You are good to debate all this stuff, with the likes of me and Buckaroo. There are way more than just two of us that suspect something is wrong out there. We are told over and over that this is a constitutional republic, but it doesnt feel like it, especially on taxes. So I am a TP, but not a resistor. Just got my Klipingers 'Tax Cut' software, but like you I'm not filing till the last minute. Heck with em.
You maintain that the constitution is relevant to tax policy, and it is merely the clamoring for freebies. or representation without taxation thats wrong. A uniform sales tax would be better you say. At least the freeloaders would have less incentive to demand goodies from the most inefficient of sources, the government.
Beardsley paints a very different picture,and it seems more like our present reality. He says:
"All federal taxes must meet the test of public policy and practical effect. The public purpose which is served should never be obscured in a tax program under the mask of raising revenue."He goes on at some length telling how this contituency or that is controlled by taxation, and all of it is for implementation of public policy. The problem of raising revenue was solved he say by making the dollar nonconvertable. We can just print the money we need now he says.
Ruml is reporting on the world we live in. He is not proposing some wild socialistic scheme. How does the "Fairtax" implement public policy? How does it stabilize the fiat dollar, how does it limit individual wealth accumulation, how does it subsidize favored industries, and how does it visibly place a price tag on certain national benefits? That was public policy in 1946. Its not far different from public policy now I suspect.