Is income based taxing, unconstitutional? (enemies, regular, revolution, politicians)

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by freemkt

??? Half of all low-income renters spend at least half their income for shelter. How are they in control of their spending?

Get a roommate, or a few. Live in a cheaper apartment. There are a lot of things that can be done to reduce living expenses.

My spouse and I started out so dirt poor that our first apartment was in a horrendous and very noisy location, prone to flooding every time there were heavy rains or massive snow melt, would only heat to as warm as 59 degrees in the Chicago winters, and had an oven on which the temperature couldn't even be set - it wasn't functioning, at all. We are FAR from poor now, having planned, sacrificed, and worked our way up the income scale. If we can do it, so can anyone else.

And what do we get for all that planning, sacrifice, and working our azzes off? A MUCH HIGHER tax rate to redistribute what we've worked for to others who don't/won't plan, sacrifice, and work as hard as we did.






And that top 20% data point is HIGHLY misleading as to the effect on the top 1% because the average effective federal income tax rate of the top 20% is a little over 10%, while the average effective federal income tax rate of the top 1% is 23.5%. That's more than twice as high.

IRS Average Effective Federal Income Tax Rate Data in Table 1, here:
Latest IRS Federal Income Tax Data

[freemkt]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Get a roommate, or a few. Live in a cheaper apartment. There are a lot of things that can be done to reduce living expenses.

My spouse and I started out so dirt poor that our first apartment was in a horrendous and very noisy location, prone to flooding every time there were heavy rains or massive snow melt, would only heat to as warm as 59 degrees in the Chicago winters, and had an oven on which the temperature couldn't even be set - it wasn't functioning, at all. We are FAR from poor now, having planned, sacrificed, and worked our way up the income scale. If we can do it, so can anyone else.

And what do we get for all that planning, sacrifice, and working our azzes off? A MUCH HIGHER tax rate to redistribute what we've worked for to others who don't/won't plan, sacrifice, and work as hard as we did.






And that top 20% data point is HIGHLY misleading as to the effect on the top 1% because the average effective federal income tax rate of the top 20% is a little over 10%, while the average effective federal income tax rate of the top 1% is 23.5%. That's more than twice as high.

IRS Average Effective Federal Income Tax Rate Data in Table 1, here:
Latest IRS Federal Income Tax Data

??? Millions of low-income renters are childless single adults, many of whom receive NO government transfers. Your data for families is irrelevant to childless single adults.

Explain how I can "work my way up the income ladder". Education probably is not a realistic option for me at this point, nor would it bring me a substantial economic return.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by freemkt

??? Millions of low-income renters are childless single adults, many of whom receive NO government transfers.

You get government services and benefits for which you DRASTICALLY underpay. That's a wealth transfer from people like me to people like you. You're not pulling your own weight.

[freemkt]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

You get government services and benefits for which you DRASTICALLY underpay. That's a wealth transfer from people like me to people like you. You're not pulling your own weight.

??? Services and benefits like what? The interstate highway system which I rarely use?

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by freemkt

??? Services and benefits like what? The interstate highway system which I rarely use?

I don't use any of the means-tested social welfare programs on which the U.S. spends over $1 trillion per year. Does that mean I don't have to pay for them? No, it does not.

Pay up, freemkt. You're lucky that you're single and childless. Your share of the expenses as a single childless individual is only around $17,000 annually.

Government Spending Chart: United States 2004-2019 - Federal State Local Data

Now let me hazard a guess that you're NOT paying $17,000 per year in federal income tax.

[jimhcom]

Originally Posted by BentBow

I have seen a judge overrule a jury verdict in a murder case. It was in the punishment phase.

Their is no punishment phase in a trial. There is a sentencing phase, which has nothing to do with the verdict.
The verdict is the decisions of guilt or innocence in which a Judge is powerless to alter the decision of the jurors.

[Linda_d]

Originally Posted by BentBow

Sure there is an amendment allowing congress to tax the people. OUCH!

But is it also true, the government has to treat us all equally?

If one gets a dollar, we all get a dollar. If one pays $10, we all pay equally $10.

If someone gets a tax break, we all get a tax break.

Income based taxing, is being used to punish the very people that allow it.


You have 47% of people receiving benefits, but pay zero in income based taxes.


If it is equal for all, why are some forced to pay and other don't pay a dime?



We talk about equality and there is nothing that resembles equality in the laws and taxes our federal, state and local governments make. They want us to be equal. but make it clearly shown, that they keep us unequal.

Yes it is constitutional, and it's been constitutional for more than a century. Courts have repeatedly ruled it as constitutional.

If you don't like that reality, I suggest you move somewhere where there's no income tax so that you'll be happier. Just stop beating the same long-dead horse over and over again!!!

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by ErikBEggs

Not only is sales tax extremely regressive, it is an incentive not to spend. Our economy is mostly consumer-based. That would spell disaster.

Wow, what a great Left-Wing knee-jerk response based entirely on emotion rather than any set of facts.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Exactly!

One is in control of one's spending. Want a luxury item? Pay a luxury tax. Content with the bare necessities? Good for you. You don't have to pay the taxes levied on discretionary luxury items.

Simple. Plain as day.

In terms of your Economy with respect to the Laws of Economics, a federal sales tax, and an additional select federal value added tax would be the best thing ever. There's nothing regressive about Wealth, and a federal sales tax would increase Wealth, while decreasing this alleged "Income Inequality" the Left-Wing continuously whines about.

The reason the Left-Wing hates logic and continuously lies about federal sales tax/select VAT is that coerces efficiency....everywhere...including government.

For the Laws of Physics, when you have friction, it creates a drag, which is inefficient and bleeds energy, until the energy is gone with the ultimate result being failure. The Laws of Economics are no different. Friction -- usually caused by government or oligarchies or monopolists -- creates a drag leading to gross inefficiency causing you to bleed money until it's all gone.

Traditionally and historically, legal services are never subject to sales tax or VAT and it should remain that way.

Traditionally and historically, healthcare services were not subject to sales tax or VAT either, however in this Modern Era, that is wrong thinking, since healthcare has evolved into elective healthcare and non-elective healthcare. Part of the Left-Wing propaganda and disinformation is the inclusion of elective medicine with non-elective medicine, which is not how other States report healthcare statistics. Euro-States do not cover a lot of elective procedures, and those costs are not included in healthcare stats, so, sure, it appears they spend less, when healthcare stats for the US are skewed by including elective medicine.

So, non-elective medicine like open-heart surgery is tax-exempt, but botox and silicon butt implants are not only subjected to sales tax, but also an appropriate Value Added Tax.

And you do the same for elective pharmaceuticals, and elective medical devices.

Elective healthcare inflates the total cost of healthcare, in addition to inflating the cost of non-elective healthcare. In other words, you pay more for open-heart surgery, precisely because you're doing tummy-tucks.

It's an issue of opportunity costs and efficient resource use. An operating room and its staff can either do a tummy-tuck, or coronary by-pass, but they cannot do both at the same time --- and that is what inflates costs.

Food has historically and traditionally been tax-exempt, excepting prepared food. So nothing changes here. People on Welfare should not be dining out 24/7 anyway. You could levy a Value Added Tax on fast-food...or not....I certainly would.

Housing has also been historically and traditionally exempt, but there are some changes to be made here. Surely rents can remain exempt from sales taxes. For homes, I would exempt up to a certain number of square feet, say 1,200 sq ft.....anything after that is subject to sales tax, and you could even levy a Value Added Tax for sq ft in excess of, say, 2,000 sq ft.

Property is exempted because it's Capital, and should be taxed at 9.4%-9.9%.

Which is best, a Capital Gains tax rate of 9.8% and $1.1 TRILLION in Capital Gains Revenues, or a Capital Gains tax of 25% and $650 Billion in Revenues?

I would hope that would be a no-brainer, even for the Left-Wing.

What would happen with a federal sales tax and a federal value added tax?

You create wealth.

I pay taxes on the $2,000 in income that I save, and then I'm taxed on the interest gained, or the interest from Certificates of Deposit.

But if there is only a Sales Tax, then I only pay taxes on the interest I gain. I win -- I come out ahead. That's important for people who save money, because it rewards them, instead of punishing them.

One of the amusing things is the people who scream phony outrage over the 1% and the bankers. These same people will put a $1,500 Plasma TV on their credit card, pay $1,500 for the TV, and then voluntarily give the 1% and bankers $1,728 in interest.

Hatred? No, if you're willing to voluntarily give $1,000s and $1,000s to the 1% and bankers, then that's love, sensuality and devotion, plus total respect and complete adoration.

So, a little social-engineering here....you force people to start setting budgets and planning on saving money to pay cash, or pay half in cash and put the balance on their credit cards, which leaves them with more of their wealth, and less to the 1% and bankers.

That would also drive down credit card interest rates.

More importantly, you force business and government to become incredibly efficient at what they do.

Government regulations create Cost-Inflation, which drives up the prices of goods and services, and subsequently drives up the amount of sales taxes to be paid, which reduces sales tax revenues.

So, government ought to be looking at eliminating or replacing negative regulations with neutral or positive regulations that do not create Cost-Inflation, which reduces the price of goods and services and increases the tax revenues for government.

There's a lot of good things about it, and everyone benefits.

Originally Posted by jimhcom

The Supreme Court is just another branch of the Federal Government. So what you have is the Federal Government ruling on whether or not the usurpation of power by the Federal Government is Constitutional.

No conflict of interest there.

That's where the 17th Amendment comes into play.

It is the States who choose the Senators, not the people; and it is the Senate that confirms appointments to the Supreme Court; so the States are more likely to choose Senators who will represent the interests of the State.

That also works for Treaties, which are ratified by the Senate.

No one can support the 17th Amendment, while simultaneously crying over NAFTA.

Originally Posted by freemkt

??? Half of all low-income renters spend at least half their income for shelter. How are they in control of their spending?

Share living accommodations.

If you have to share a Quonset Hut with 39 other people, then that's a damn shame and it sucks to be you, but that is what you need to be doing.

If you don't like it, you do have several options available from quickest and least expensive to most time-consuming and expensive:

1] relocate to another part of the united States where the Cost-of-Living is cheaper; or

2] relocate to a State in Europe, Africa, South America or Asia where you can get paid a wage that will allow you to own your own home. For example, you could move to Romania and get a job paying $2.20/hour.....which is more money that $7.25/hour....if you can't wrap your brain around that then #3 is probably out of the question and impossible;

3] get additional education or training or intern so that you can get a better paying job.

Life is so simple....

Mircea

[jimhcom]

Originally Posted by Mircea

That's where the 17th Amendment comes into play.

It is the States who choose the Senators, not the people; and it is the Senate that confirms appointments to the Supreme Court; so the States are more likely to choose Senators who will represent the interests of the State.

That also works for Treaties, which are ratified by the Senate.

No one can support the 17th Amendment, while simultaneously crying over NAFTA.





Mircea

The problem is that due to the 17th amendment, the States no longer choose Senators. The Senate is now like the Presidency; an office which is purchased by the banking / industrial cartel as it has been since the purchase of the Presidency of 1896 for William McKinley.

Anyone who supports either the 17th amendment or NAFTA is either a member of the elite who exploit this country, or completely ignorant of the ramifications of them on the freedom and prosperity of our country.

[Liberal01]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

So basically he wants seniors, students, and military to start paying taxes.

Let's not forget those freeloading infants and kids in pre-K.....