Posted on 04/17/2011 6:37:04 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
There is a way to cover the social aspects of what the government provides now: Both the Jewish religion and Christianity insist on a tithe of 10%. I'm not sure, but perhaps Islam and other religions insist on the tithe as well. This is the source for the social support. Other than that, taxes should only provide for Constitutional measures.
Therefore, since what is collected is collected in violation of the Constitution as written, I have very little problem with people who find innovative ways around said violating taxes.
Fairness, be damned.
As you are replying to my post explaining what "anti-tax" means, I assume that you are saying you think the federal and state and local governments should not collect ANY taxes.
If so, how should we pay for government? Should we simply do away with government entirely? Or do you have a different idea for how to fund government?
Insanity is increasingly defined in terms of those tying to sell the Federal, State and Local budget deficits as lack of taxation.
Quite simply...the Federal, state and local legislatures are fiscally incontinent.
Insanity is increasingly defined in terms of those trying to sell the Federal, State and Local budget deficits as lack of taxation.
Quite simply...the Federal, state and local legislatures are fiscally incontinent.
In what way? At the federal level, the founding fathers provided for taxes; the constitution clearly allows for several types of taxes, including capitation and excise taxes, so long as they are applied fairly.
The 16th amendment was duly approved by constitutional means, and give the federal government the right to tax income directly.
But sales tax is a state and local government function. The federal constitution says nothing about this, only that states cannot lay a tax explicitly on imports without congressional approval. The sales tax of 45 states is designed to follow that rule, applying the same tax rate regardless of where goods are purchased.
Maybe you meant that the money is spent for unconstitutional purposes. Certainly at the federal level I agree with you, although the three duly enacted branches of government, two of which are elected by the people, which have the authority and responsibility to adhere to the constution, are all in agreement that government spending is NOT unconstitutional. This doesn't mean they are right, just that by every measure the founding fathers set up, what the government is doing now is constitutional. They only option we have no yet exercised is the "revolution" option.
But again, we are talking about state, not federal government. And the federal constitution restricts very little of what states can do, and in most cases where the federal government restricts state spending or action, in my opinion they are acting unconstitutionally.
State constitutions are mostly longer than the U.S. constitution, and often spell out a lot more functions of government than the feds. I'm in no position to know what things your state government is doing that might be unconstitutional, or what measures you and others in your state are taking to stop them.
I disagree with your conclusion that it is moral or ethical to respond to a government violating your opinion of the constitutional limits on spending by choosing to ignore legal tax payments, based on whether you can get away with it.
Further, even if "not paying your taxes" is the appropriate response, I reject the idea that some people should do that on their own because they can get away with it, while others are denied that opportunity.
Which is why I said we should lobby to cut the sales tax for everybody, not lie to people about the effects of a law because it will make it harder for some people to break the existing laws while not hurting the people who obey the laws at all.
In the end, this proposal does just that -- if you are already obeying the law, it doesn't hurt you; the only people it hurts are people who are currently breaking their state laws.
Yup. Was supposed to go towards tobacco related illnesses and costs. Of course, the idiots spent it on other things.
What a scam that was.
Yup. Just an excuse to tax. They really have no intentions of paying the States. Or if they do, as no you note it will be a very small percentage.
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.