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.
I appreciate you confirming that returning to our Constitution's original tax plan by raising federal revenue from imposts, duties, excise taxes and an apportioned direct tax, if necessary, provides sufficient taxing authority to fund . . . "the fundamental costs of running the country".
Tell me, what's the big deal? Seems to me your problem is with Sections 3 and 4 of the FSBBA:
“SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 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 by dividing its total population size by the total population of the united states and multiplying that figure by the total being raised by Congress, 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.” (See: FIRST DIRECT TAX LAID BY CONGRESS, 1798)
“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.”
What exactly is your objection with Sections 3 and 4? Is it the Fair Share formula?
.
States’ population
---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE
Total U.S. Population
.
The above formula, as intended by the States when ratifying our Constitution, is to ensure that each state’s share towards extinguishing an annual deficit is proportionately equal to its representation in Congress, i.e., representation with a proportional financial obligation! And if the tax is laid directly upon the people by Congress, then everybody taxpayer across the United States pays the exact same amount!
. What is your complaint with the rule of apportionment?
.
.
My objection? I think it's totally and utterly unworkable. Do you really think that States are going to tax their citizens to pay the Feds? No, they aren't. And, the Feds sending "officers" to collect isn't going to work, as those "officers" will be laughed at. At which point, the Federales will have to resort to violence. I'm also pretty sure that the states cannot be forced to act as tax collectors for the Feds.
A direct tax to be constitutional, must be the same amount per person. What happens to people who can't pay the required amount?
We should keep the current brackets except make everyone pay a minimum of 15% regardless of income and eliminate earned income tax credits etc.. you get zero back..
We should keep the current brackets except make everyone pay a minimum of 15% regardless of income and eliminate earned income tax credits etc.. you get zero back..
Simple and everyone pays.. period
I'll agree to that, if we also agree to raise all brackets from there, raise the ATM to 25% and make investment tax rates higher than that too. No need to let the poor be the tax burden, keep it fair for everyone.
We should keep the current brackets except make everyone pay a minimum of 15% regardless of income and eliminate earned income tax credits etc.. you get zero back..
Simple and everyone pays.. period
Are you saying that someone, say a single mother, making $30,000 a year with one child, should pay 15%? Let's take a look.
Under the current rules, our taxpayer would pay the following taxes
FICA/Medicare $2,295
Income Tax $600
EITC $1,940, or $1340 after the income tax offset
After tax/EITC income $29,045 for the year, or an average of $2,420 per month
Under your proposal, our taxpayer would pay
FICA/Medicare $2,295
Income tax $4,500
After tax income $23,205 or $1,933 per month
Do you think that reducing the net income of that single mother by just under $6,000 per year, or $500 per month would be a good idea? If so, why would it be a good idea?
Are you saying that someone, say a single mother, making $30,000 a year with one child, should pay 15%? Let's take a look.
Under the current rules, our taxpayer would pay the following taxes
FICA/Medicare $2,295
Income Tax $600
EITC $1,940, or $1340 after the income tax offset
After tax/EITC income $29,045 for the year, or an average of $2,420 per month
Under your proposal, our taxpayer would pay
FICA/Medicare $2,295
Income tax $4,500
After tax income $23,205 or $1,933 per month
Do you think that reducing the net income of that single mother by just under $6,000 per year, or $500 per month would be a good idea? If so, why would it be a good idea?
income taxation, a patently evil system of taxation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crossfire600
We should keep the current brackets except make everyone pay a minimum of 15% regardless of income and eliminate earned income tax credits etc.. you get zero back..
Simple and everyone pays.. period
We should . . . but have we not learned during the past several decades that we are living under an evil system of taxation?
When a system of taxation allows the force of government to directly tax one citizen and require that citizen to pay two dollars and then tax a neighbor directly for one dollar, that is an evil system of taxation
When a system of taxation can be used as a political weapon and used to criminally prosecute a government Administrations’ political opponents, that is an evil system of taxation
When a system of taxation has become so complex that those who can afford high priced lawyers and can also avoid paying taxes, that is an evil system of taxation
When the definition of “taxable income” can be manipulated to exclude the friends and donors of certain politicians, that is an evil system of taxation
When a system of taxation makes citizens spend, over 3.24 billion hours a year preparing and filing tax-returns, that is an evil system of taxation.
When a system of taxation costs $37 billion a year in administrative and compliance costs, that is an evil system of taxation
When a system of taxation invites billions of dollars, being spent on lobbying for privileged tax relief to those who can afford it that, is an evil system of taxation
When a system of taxation tells a minister of church what may and may not be said during a sermon, that is an evil system of taxation
When a system of taxation is so intrusive that a taxpayer must disclose some of their most personal and intimate information and spending habits, that is an evil system of taxation
One of the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx is an income tax system. It allows for an almost total control over the people, and why we would do well to return to our constitution's original tax plan, as our Founder's intended it to operate.
Are you saying that someone, say a single mother, making $30,000 a year with one child, should pay 15%? Let's take a look.
Under the current rules, our taxpayer would pay the following taxes
FICA/Medicare $2,295
Income Tax $600
EITC $1,940, or $1340 after the income tax offset
After tax/EITC income $29,045 for the year, or an average of $2,420 per month
Under your proposal, our taxpayer would pay
FICA/Medicare $2,295
Income tax $4,500
After tax income $23,205 or $1,933 per month
Do you think that reducing the net income of that single mother by just under $6,000 per year, or $500 per month would be a good idea? If so, why would it be a good idea?
why should we even have an Earned Income Tax Credit (Refund) (EITC)???
another option is what Trump had suggested (the 2017 tax reform was NOT trumps plan)
trumps plan"
3 brackets (4 if you count the zero bracket) trump said "with 3 brackets... to have the starting point OVER double the poverty rate"
he did not give numbers, but some were estimating this:
start at 40k and go to 200k for the 12%
....................................200k to 2 million for the 25%
and...............................2 million to infinity for the 30%
now personally I would go with this:
$0 to $55k...........0%
55,001 to 250k for the 12%
250k to 2 million for the 20%
2 million to infinity for the 25%
no EITC...Yes a personal exemptions (based on household size (say 5k per person)) (restore it, eliminate the std ded, eliminate the child credit because you have the personal exemptions).... yes keep (but up it to 20k))the credit for taxes paid elsewhere (Salt)... eliminate all refundable credits that con make your return Larger than what you put in
“FairTax” is a consumption tax. Consumption taxes are regressive. Anyone who isn’t wealthy is a sucker for promoting “FairTax”. The name itself is Orwellian.
“FairTax” is a consumption tax. Consumption taxes are regressive. Anyone who isn’t wealthy is a sucker for promoting “FairTax”. The name itself is Orwellian.
anyone pushing "progressive taxes is about discrimination...progressive taxes as a name is Orwellian
“FairTax” is a consumption tax. Consumption taxes are regressive. Anyone who isn’t wealthy is a sucker for promoting “FairTax”. The name itself is Orwellian.
Agreed. Excise taxes )like the OP wants us to go to) are also consumption taxes as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
anyone pushing "progressive taxes is about discrimination...progressive taxes as a name is Orwellian
discrimination is not progress
OK but why let the poor pay 23% (the percentage with the Fair Tax proposal) of spent income on sales taxes (remember the poor are far more likely to spend all their income in taxes by need, not want) while the middle class pays say 18% and the rich may pay 5% at best?
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.
income taxation, a patently evil system of taxation
