Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-04-2013, 10:48 PM
 
Location: Someplace Wonderful
5,177 posts, read 4,760,132 times
Reputation: 2587

Advertisements

This is not original to me. Someone I ran across on a different blogsite altogether has been promoting this version of a balanced budget amendment for a while now. I have found myself more and more fascinated with the idea, for a lot of reasons. I believe is is original to him. I'm looking for thoughts, opinions, etc.

SOURCE

The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment
Here is what I believe our founders would support.

The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment

“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money


NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! And, they would end Congress’ ability to financially punish successful businesses and hard working wage earners while allowing the unproductive to escape contributing an equal share in supporting government. The words would also end Congress’ current love affair with class warfare, which they now use to divide the people while picking the people’s pockets.

"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."


NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the apportioned tax to be laid.

"SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 2 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised as agreeable to the Census fixed in the Constitution, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."



NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish a deficit would be:

States’ population

---------------------------- X ANNUAL DEFICIT = STATE’S SHARE

Total U.S. Population


This formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to insure that those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution, i.e., representation with proportional financial obligation!


"SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."


NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.

"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect one year after the required number of States have approved it.



JWK


“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil.” 3 Elliot’s, 243 “Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax.” 3 Elliot’s, 244___ Mr. George Nicholas during the ratification debates of our Constitution
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-05-2013, 01:32 AM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,335,072 times
Reputation: 6541
No thanks. I will pass.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2013, 01:47 AM
 
Location: Someplace Wonderful
5,177 posts, read 4,760,132 times
Reputation: 2587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
No thanks. I will pass.
Why?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2013, 01:48 AM
 
1,806 posts, read 1,729,411 times
Reputation: 988
Given that you can't explain it in a paragraph, I'm thinking it's not that great of an idea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2013, 03:29 AM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,335,072 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckmann View Post
Why?
Because this is not a serious proposal to balance the budget. This is nothing more than a silly attempt to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.

If you were serious about balancing the budget, and not merely using it as a lame excuse to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, then it need only say:

Article--
Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total estimated receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.

Section 2. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law. Any such waiver must identify and be limited to the specific excess or increase for that fiscal year made necessary by the identified military conflict.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2013, 03:52 AM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,266,988 times
Reputation: 7990
waste of time. You're not going to get a repeal of the income tax when you've got about 50% Dems in Congress, not to mention a significant chunk of RINOs. You need a 2/3rds majority to amend (for starters).

You might as well ask the Arabs to turn in all their Qurans, the NRA to turn in its guns, and the kids to give up all their Halloween candy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2013, 07:00 AM
 
Location: Fredericktown,Ohio
7,168 posts, read 5,340,278 times
Reputation: 2922
The idea could have been workable 40 years ago when the national debt and deficits were way smaller but with the massive debt we have now it would be too much burden for the states. The plan also takes the responsibility away from the so called leaders in DC and gives them a scape goat, the states. How would it work when our so called leaders are spending like drunken sailors? then burdening the states with their out of control spending and lack of leadership looks like a plan for disaster. Instead of the federal gvt over taxing it would be up to the states, taxing imports and excise would not bring enough revenue. and if raised would put a double whammy on the people. Due to Walmart and others raising prices to cover the taxes we would see a huge drop in retail sales.

I think we are too far gone to fix any of the major problems.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2013, 07:02 AM
 
3,343 posts, read 1,403,616 times
Reputation: 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by remoddahouse View Post
Given that you can't explain it in a paragraph, I'm thinking it's not that great of an idea.

It's part of our founding fathers idea. See Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire:

Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manneras the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any States hall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from…….



JWK
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2013, 07:07 AM
 
3,343 posts, read 1,403,616 times
Reputation: 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
Because this is not a serious proposal to balance the budget. This is nothing more than a silly attempt to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.

If you were serious about balancing the budget, and not merely using it as a lame excuse to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, then it need only say:

Article--
Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total estimated receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.

Section 2. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law. Any such waiver must identify and be limited to the specific excess or increase for that fiscal year made necessary by the identified military conflict.


I see you promote a balanced budget amendment which would make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual budget. That seems like the phony balanced budget amendment our Washington Establishment has been promoting.

JWK
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2013, 07:11 AM
 
3,343 posts, read 1,403,616 times
Reputation: 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
waste of time. You're not going to get a repeal of the income tax when you've got about 50% Dems in Congress, not to mention a significant chunk of RINOs. You need a 2/3rds majority to amend (for starters).

You might as well ask the Arabs to turn in all their Qurans, the NRA to turn in its guns, and the kids to give up all their Halloween candy.
Are you saying the progressives of the early 1900s who got the 16th Amendment adopted were more clever than today's true patriots?


JWK
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top