Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We arrive today at a tax code that cost inordinate amounts of money, time, and manpower just to implement the oversight. Where is the happy medium between what the society desires and the individual needs and how much expense is it worth to try and satisfy both at the same time?
My concerns are that government simply can't provide for the needs of all the citizenries want, but in trying to do so it would collapse under the expense.
Tax complexity vs tax revenues are somewhat two separate issues. The oversight needed, which is very extensive, is generally due to the incredible complexity of the system. However, you could generate the same current revenue with much simpler processes (discussed in other threads) requiring neither the massive oversight structure nor cost.
Providing level of support to meet citizen needs, that is why we have the constant ying and yang of elections. You have frequently proposed a reduced level, and you can see if the public agrees with you through the support, or lack of support, for your candidate in a few months.
Providing level of support to meet citizen needs, that is why we have the constant ying and yang of elections. You have frequently proposed a reduced level, and you can see if the public agrees with you through the support, or lack of support, for your candidate in a few months.
Wow, is it that obvious who I am pulling for this cycle?
"There is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than the creation of a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old system and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new one."
-- Niccolo Machiavelli
I would add, that it need not be the creation of a new system, but merely a return to the one we started with.
I can already see a rising libertarian sentiment growing in America, I need not see my candidate of choice make it, I only need to watch the growing number of supporters turning out at each event. However, I don't delude myself that some great change is about to occur in this country as people are still too happy to let their master whip them as long as they are fed. It is when the belly growls in hunger that real change occurs, and then we may see a rise of a new currency, bullets.
Tax complexity vs tax revenues are somewhat two separate issues. The oversight needed, which is very extensive, is generally due to the incredible complexity of the system. However, you could generate the same current revenue with much simpler processes (discussed in other threads) requiring neither the massive oversight structure nor cost.
Providing level of support to meet citizen needs, that is why we have the constant ying and yang of elections. You have frequently proposed a reduced level, and you can see if the public agrees with you through the support, or lack of support, for your candidate in a few months.
Flat tax works for me. It works at the state and local levels also. Why do people fear a simple straight foward system with very few loopholes for anyone. Flat tax means everyone pays a fair share. Lets face it the current systen puts a huge burden on the middle class,and allows the wealthy too many ways out.
The Constitution was created to establish that the Congress and the Government generally had any powers to begin with. Powers, both specific and general, are granted by the Constitution, and limitations upon those powers, both specific and general, are imposed. This is very much a two-way street with the dominant flow being uptown...
Not true. "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." -- 10th Amendment.
"The General Welfare" is not a power, it is the purpose, levying taxes is the delegated power. Congress does not have the constitutional authority to do whatever they please. If they did, why would they even bother with a constitution?
Not true. "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." -- 10th Amendment.
This would be one of the (well-known) limitations, both general and specific, that I referred to as having been imposed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
"The General Welfare" is not a power, it is the purpose, levying taxes is the delegated power. Congress does not have the constitutional authority to do whatever they please. If they did, why would they even bother with a constitution?
Well, they needed a Constitution in order to establish the republic to begin with. That was pretty much in the forefront of people's thinking at the time. Meanwhile, Congress very much does have the right to do what it pleases within the bounds of the powers and purposes established for it by the Constitution. One of the latter is to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Common defense. General welfare. Established as co-equals. Bearing in mind that one may not construe the Constitution so as to give its words no meaning, how would you interpret the general welfare clause? Maybe you'd like to consult Mr. Hamilton's Report on Manufactures before replying, and perhaps you could read as well the opinions in US v Butler and Helvering v Davis...
Well, they needed a Constitution in order to establish the republic to begin with. That was pretty much in the forefront of people's thinking at the time. Meanwhile, Congress very much does have the right to do what it pleases within the bounds of the powers and purposes established for it by the Constitution. One of the latter is to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Common defense. General welfare. Established as co-equals. Bearing in mind that one may not construe the Constitution so as to give its words no meaning, how would you interpret the general welfare clause? Maybe you'd like to consult Mr. Hamilton's Report on Manufactures before replying, and perhaps you could read as well the opinions in US v Butler and Helvering v Davis...
I can think of no better arguement that the one Thomas Jefferson put forward on this very subject in 1791 on the issue of Banks:
Quote:
Congress are not to lay taxes ad libitum, for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts, or provide for the welfare, of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do any thing they please, to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless, it would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase— that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they pleased. It is an established rule of construction, where a phrase will hear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which will render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.
I can think of no better arguement that the one Thomas Jefferson put forward on this very subject in 1791 on the issue of Banks:
Congress may spend money in aid of the "general welfare." Constitution, Art. I, section 8; United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65; Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents. -- Justice Cardozo, Opinion, Helvering v. Davis, 1937
Congress may spend money in aid of the "general welfare." Constitution, Art. I, section 8; United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65; Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents. -- Justice Cardozo, Opinion, Helvering v. Davis, 1937
You lost this argument a long, long time ago.
Actually, I've won this argument. You lost it when FDR threatened the Supreme Court to rule in his favor, and the spineless cowards copitulated to his coercion. Fascists not withstanding, it doesn't change the very simple fact that "the general welfare" is a purpose, not a delegated power. Since it isn't a delegated power Congress has no authority to spend a single penny on socialist programs. You may continue to spew Marxist propaganda, but that will not change reality.
You may continue to spew Marxist propaganda, but that will not change reality.
All I am spewing is US history. The reality that you suppose to exist is that of a sovereign-citizen, Ted Kaczynski-type railing away against the evils of government from his cabin in the mountains of Montana. Have at it. The rest of us will carry on down here in the real real world...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
