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.
Well, most of the evil and injustice I see in our society doesn't come from the states.
There's one thing I will agree with whole heartedly. The states have to run a balanced budget and our federal government should also have to do that. Bill Clinton was the only president since 1980 who showed even a modicum of fiscal responsibility. The Republicans like their low tax rates too much. To me it makes less sense to cut taxes and borrow than tax and spend with a balanced budget.
Thank goodness my hero Thomas Jefferson had nothing to do with that mess. The Articles of Confederation had some serious weaknesses:
1) Under the Articles there was only a single legislature so that there was no separation of powers.
Bad thing for sure. I would say that the 17th Amendment needs to be repealed and States should appoint their own Senators as was originally done prior to the 17th. The original intent was that the House represents the people of the States and the Senate represents the interests of the individual states themselves. State legislatures and governors could recall Senators that were not acting in the interest of the individual state. They also gave a check to the House from getting out of control. We need to go back to that. The Senate was not supposed to be a "Super House".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melvin.George
2) The central government under the Articles was too weak since the majority of the power rested with the states.
The Federal government was not supposed to be as strong as it is today. It was supposed to only perform those enumerated duties and powers given to it in the US Constitution. It has FAR exceeded its authority over the past 70 years. What we are seeing now are just the culmination of the madness that is the expansion of government. Reagan tried to scale it back, but obviously was not entirely successful. Bush 1 took us right back to the "Uncle Sugar" mentality and gave the Religious Right way too much influence within the Republican party. We need Libertarians and Conservatives who really want to return to constitutionality. The job of the federal government is to secure and preserve our rights...not take them from us, steal from us and tell us what we will and will not do.
Washington blissfully ignores the 10th Amendment...acts as if it's not there. At the same time we have state governors and legislatures who do not have the guts to stand up to Washington and say "NO, NOT IN OUR STATE!" I love watching Virginia once again leading the way by challenging Washington on this! Just follow through when the time comes. All the other states need to follow their example!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melvin.George
3) Congress, under the Articles, did not have the power to tax which meant that they could never put their finances in order.
Boy, wouldn't that be nice. I tire of these guys robbing me and my family of what we dutifully earn. As Jefferson said:
"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned -- this is the sum of good government."
I know we can't repeal the 16th Amendment. So long as there is a military, the federal government must be able to raise revenue. But there are things we can do until then. The first would be to institute a flat tax, especially as proposed by Steve Forbes. It is fair, exempts the poor from income tax and allows people to keep most of the money they earn. University studies have proven that the feds will make more money via this method that they ever can from the convoluted tax code we are under now. Additionally, we can eliminate the IRS as we know it...woo hoo! It's your money folks...you earned it. It is not Nazi Pelosi's, Harry Reid's or Barak Obama's. It is also not "owed" to a bunch do-nothings holding their hands out for freebies. It is your property! Demand a flat tax!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melvin.George
4) In order to change or amend the Articles, unanimous approval of the states was required which essentially meant that changes to the Articles were impossible.
5) For any major laws to pass they had to be approved by 9 of the 13 states which proved difficult to do so that even the normal business of running a government was difficult.
True. I think the rules for ratification of the Constitution are pretty good as they are. The Constitution has it right concerning the passing of bill into law IMO. Too bad the current congress intends to ignore the Constitution to pass the National Health Cow. Hopefully the justices on the Supreme Court will put a stop to this should the despots get their way. This is a rogue Congress in violation of their oaths toward the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melvin.George
6) Under the Articles, Congress did not have the power to regulate commerce which will cause competition between states as well as diplomatic issues
Nor should they to any great extent. The states should do most of their own governance. The federal government has used the the Interstate Commerce clause for everything other than what it was intended for. If they wanted to do the right thing, they would use it to allow health insurance companies compete across state lines. That alone, would reduce health insurance premiums and costs. Washington fools. Too much regulation is part of the reason we are in the mess we are now. What has been Washington's answer to this? Add more regulation when the Dumocrats are in (and stifle business and growth) and do some nominal de-regulation when the Repubicans are in. Maddening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melvin.George
One more thing...Calvin was much more a Christian than a patriot. I don't think we ever needed a theocracy.
Oh hell no...what a way to destroy freedom...as does a socialist central government. Soft tyranny is still tyranny. Soft tyranny can quickly turn into hard tyranny.
Last edited by Fullback32; 03-17-2010 at 02:15 PM..
Bad thing for sure. I would say that the 17th Amendment needs to be repealed and States should appoint their own Senators as was originally done prior to the 17th. The original intent was that the House represents the people of the States and the Senate represents the interests of the individual states themselves. State legislatures and governors could recall Senators that were not acting in the interest of the individual state. They also gave a check to the House from getting out of control. We need to go back to that. The Senate was not supposed to be a "Super House".
The Federal government was not supposed to be as strong as it is today. It was supposed to only perform those enumerated duties and powers given to it in the US Constitution. It has FAR exceeded its authority over the past 70 years. What we are seeing now are just the culmination of the madness that is the expansion of government. Reagan tried to scale it back, but obviously was not entirely successful. Bush 1 took us right back to the "Uncle Sugar" mentality and gave the Religious Right way too much influence within the Republican party. We need Libertarians and Conservatives who really want to return to constitutionality. The job of the federal government is to secure and preserve our rights...not take them from us, steal from us and tell us what we will and will not do.
Washington blissfully ignores the 10th Amendment...acts as if it's not there. At the same time we have state governors and legislatures who do not have the guts to stand up to Washington and say "NO, NOT IN OUR STATE!" I love watching Virginia once again leading the way by challenging Washington on this! Just follow through when the time comes. All the other states need to follow their example!
Boy, wouldn't that be nice. I tire of these guys robbing me and my family of what we dutifully earn. As Jefferson said:
"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned -- this is the sum of good government."
I know we can't repeal the 16th Amendment. So long as there is a military, the federal government must be able to raise revenue. But there are things we can do until then. The first would be to institute a flat tax, especially as proposed by Steve Forbes. It is fair, exempts the poor from income tax and allows people to keep most of the money they earn. University studies have proven that the feds will make more money via this method that they ever can from the convoluted tax code we are under now. Additionally, we can eliminate the IRS as we know it...woo hoo! It's your money folks...you earned it. It is not Nazi Pelosi's, Harry Reid's or Barak Obama's. It is also not "owed" to a bunch do-nothings holding their hands out for freebies. It is your property! Demand a flat tax!
True. I think the rules for ratification of the Constitution are pretty good as they are. The Constitution has it right concerning the passing of bill into law IMO. Too bad the current congress intends to ignore the Constitution to pass the National Health Cow. Hopefully the justices on the Supreme Court will put a stop to this should the despots get their way. This is a rogue Congress in violation of their oaths toward the Constitution.
Nor should they to any great extent. The states should do most of their own governance. The federal government has used the the Interstate Commerce clause for everything other than what it was intended for. If they wanted to do the right thing, they would use it to allow health insurance companies compete across state lines. That alone, would reduce health insurance premiums and costs. Washington fools. Too much regulation is part of the reason we are in the mess we are now. What has been Washington's answer to this? Add more regulation when the Dumocrats are in (and stifle business and growth) and do some nominal de-regulation when the Repubicans are in. Maddening.
Oh hell no...what a way to destroy freedom...as does a socialist central government. Soft tyranny is still tyranny. Soft tyranny can quickly turn into hard tyranny.
You and I agree about a lot more than we disagree. I will pose this question to you. If the federal government had not been able to tax our citizens how in the world could we have ever paid for the massive expenses when we entered the second world war? Without the ability to pay existing corporations to retool from manufacturing cars to manufacture tanks and AAA guns what would we have done...gone bankrupt?
The US probably wouldn't have gone to WWII, or it if did, it would have been much more defensively.
I know WWII is the "good war" that everyone uses as justification for centralized government control, but there is a whole mess of bad that came out of it, much of which we are still dealing with today.
The US probably wouldn't have gone to WWII, or it if did, it would have been much more defensively.
I know WWII is the "good war" that everyone uses as justification for centralized government control, but there is a whole mess of bad that came out of it, much of which we are still dealing with today.
Probably true but the biggest blunder in American history was when Bush took over a balanced budget with surpluses projected all the way to the outyears, used reconciliation to pass massive unfunded tax cuts then proceeded to double the national debt. They even had to modify the debt clock in Times Square NYC to accomodate another digit. Obviously those who designed the clock never expected the debt to reach $10 trillion.
You and I agree about a lot more than we disagree. I will pose this question to you. If the federal government had not been able to tax our citizens how in the world could we have ever paid for the massive expenses when we entered the second world war? Without the ability to pay existing corporations to retool from manufacturing cars to manufacture tanks and AAA guns what would we have done...gone bankrupt?
Oh I know that the government has to be able to obtain revenue. I am not suggesting the repealing of the 16th Amendment as it is impractical (though that would be great). We have a military to pay for and the other enumerated duties and powers of the federal government.
What I want to see is the flat tax. This way everyone pays the same percentage...no loopholes...no shelters....no deductions. Simple and easy. University studies have shown that the federal government would generate more revenue than they ever could with the twisted beast we have in the present tax code. Imagine the savings from the federal budget there would be if the IRS was a mere shell of itself? The most recent complete IRS budget, up 6% from last year, is $11.4 Billion. This was spent to collect over $3 trillion! With a flat tax, the IRS budget could be SLASHED to a budget in the millions rather than billions. We have a lot better things to do with 11 billion than pay a bunch of thugs to strong arm money from the American people. Why , they could even pay for this monstrous debt started by "W" and exploded by Chairman Maobama that has mortgaged our children and grandchildrens' futures!
Last edited by Fullback32; 03-17-2010 at 09:41 PM..
Oh I know that the government has to be able to obtain revenue. I am not suggesting the repealing of the 16th Amendment as it is impractical (though that would be great). We have a military to pay for and the other enumerated duties and powers of the federal government.
What I want to see is the flat tax. This way everyone pays the same percentage...no loopholes...no shelters....no deductions. Simple and easy. University studies have shown that the federal government would generate more revenue than they ever could with the twisted beast we have in the present tax code. Imagine the savings from the federal budget there would be if the IRS was a mere shell of itself? The most recent complete IRS budget, up 6% from last year, is $11.4 Billion. This was spent to collect over $3 trillion! With a flat tax, the IRS budget could be SLASHED to a budget in the millions rather than billions. We have a lot better things to do with 11 billion than pay a bunch of thugs to strong arm money from the American people. Why , they could even pay for this monstrous debt started by "W" and exploded by Chairman Maobama that has mortgaged our children and grandchildrens' futures!
Flat Tax...the rich man's dream. Let Joe Sixpack pay the taxes. In our state of Tennessee we have a 9.5% sales tax and every time a progressive state income tax is proposed the legislature begins to bad mouth it and shuts it down.
Someone who is earning $35,000 per annum ends up paying the highest percentage of taxes when payroll taxes, state taxes and local are all pieced together. Look at things like add ons for telephone, cable, gasoline tax, etc. A person earning $250,000 a year swats at the annoying pittances, hires an accountant and tax expert so that the indivudal ends up paying a much lower tax rate percentage wise than the little guy.
I had a friend who moved to the MS Gulf coast about forty years ago, went into the metal building construction business and became a millionaire. He told me once that if he ever had to pay more than 20% of his net in any kind of tax he would fire his accountant and hire another one. Anybody who believes rich people pay higher RATES of taxes is either lying or they're very naive. In other words paying taxes is a much bigger deal for those who have little than for those who have much.
The guy I mentioned spends his free time gambling in the dozen or so casinos in Biloxi and Gulfport. His favorite slots are the $10 and $25 dollar machines. Think of that...doesn't believe he should have to pay more than 20% of his net in tax but keeps pressing the "Spin" button at $10 or $25 a turn. This "American Nation" has turned into a very assuming lot.
The only way a flat tax would ever be fair is if all other "incidental" taxes are eliminated and the rate for the flat tax was calculated to cover EVERYTHING. It ain't gonna happen because then the little guy would be treated the same way as the fat cats.
Last edited by Melvin.George; 03-18-2010 at 03:05 AM..
Flat Tax...the rich man's dream. Let Joe Sixpack pay the taxes. In our state of Tennessee we have a 9.5% sales tax and every time a progressive state income tax is proposed the legislature begins to bad mouth it and shuts it down.
Good for Tennesee! Keep fighting it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melvin.George
Someone who is earning $35,000 per annum ends up paying the highest percentage of taxes when payroll taxes, state taxes and local are all pieced together. Look at things like add ons for telephone, cable, gasoline tax, etc. A person earning $250,000 a year swats at the annoying pittances, hires an accountant and tax expert so that the indivudal ends up paying a much lower tax rate percentage wise than the little guy.
And this is precisely what the flat tax eliminates.. rich guys who hire accountants and tax attorneys to get them out of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melvin.George
I had a friend who moved to the MS Gulf coast about forty years ago, went into the metal building construction business and became a millionaire. He told me once that if he ever had to pay more than 20% of his net in any kind of tax he would fire his accountant and hire another one. Anybody who believes rich people pay higher RATES of taxes is either lying or they're very naive. In other words paying taxes is a much bigger deal for those who have little than for those who have much.
The guy I mentioned spends his free time gambling in the dozen or so casinos in Biloxi and Gulfport. His favorite slots are the $10 and $25 dollar machines. Think of that...doesn't believe he should have to pay more than 20% of his net in tax but keeps pressing the "Spin" button at $10 or $25 a turn. This "American Nation" has turned into a very assuming lot.
So? Isn't that his perogative to spend his own money the way he deems fit? I do not see how it's any of my, your or anyone else's business as to what others do with their own property. I do not and never will understand the mentality that wishes to punish success and excellence.
What is wrong with people keeping what they earn? They earned it. Why should their hard work be penalized because of class envy? Instead of saying we are going to penalize achievement to "make it fair", how about people raise their own situation and reap the benefit? Look, I am by no means rich...not even close, but I have certainly don't feel that people who have achieved should be punished for it. The money we earn is OUR property and no one has a right to it other than ourselves.
Despite all the tricks and loopholes, the rich do pay the vast proportion of the taxes. By the IRS's own figures, the wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level ($50,233) — earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. People who don't believe that just don't like facts.
The plan given by Steve Forbes had an exemption level where people below a certain income did not pay at all. Dick Armey's plan calls for this exemption to be $36,800.
Hear are the current tax brackets (married couples filing jointly):
Now, the only tax bracket that would get a "hit" would be the current 15% tax bracket. Yes, a[SIZE=2]pproximately 75% of the tax filing population are in the 15% tax bracket. However, a vast number of those in the 15% tax bracket would no longer pay taxes. The people making 16,700 - 36,800 no longer pay taxes at all. This means that 54% of those currently in the 15% tax bracket are off the hook. That's an awful lot of people. Yeah, the rate would be 17% across the board and would raise the marginal rate by 2% on the remaining 46% of the current 15% bracket. Because of increased an guaranteed revenue due to the elimination of deductions, credits and loopholes, many federal excise taxes could (and should) be eliminated.
The other alternative, of course, is the consumption tax (aka Fair Tax). I do not have a problem with this in theory. HR25 (currently before House Ways and Means) and S296 (currently in the Senate Finance committee) both call for the elimination of Federal Income Tax and the IRS and the institution of a National Sales Tax. Sounds good. They let me keep all my money I earn and tax as I spend. I'll have more money to spend and cannot evade or hide my money. Sounds good. The thing I get concerned about this is that I can see Washington then later reinstituting Federal Income Tax in addition to the Federal Sales Tax. I am closely watching both the House and Senate versions of this, especially for any sign of amendments that would impose the consumption tax on top of the income tax.
Either way, the current tax code must be eliminated and replaced with something that is fair and does not punish excellence and achievement.
Last edited by Fullback32; 03-18-2010 at 11:42 AM..
And this is precisely what the flat tax eliminates.. rich guys who hire accountants and tax attorneys to get them out of it.
So? Isn't that his perogative to spend his own money the way he deems fit? I do not see how it's any of my, your or anyone else's business as to what others do with their own property. I do not and never will understand the mentality that wishes to punish success and excellence.
What is wrong with people keeping what they earn? They earned it. Why should their hard work be penalized because of class envy? Instead of saying we are going to penalize achievement to "make it fair", how about people raise their own situation and reap the benefit? Look, I am by no means rich...not even close, but I have certainly don't feel that people who have achieved should be punished for it. The money we earn is OUR property and no one has a right to it other than ourselves.
Despite all the tricks and loopholes, the rich do pay the vast proportion of the taxes. By the IRS's own figures, the wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level ($50,233) — earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. People who don't believe that just don't like facts.
The plan given by Steve Forbes had an exemption level where people below a certain income did not pay at all. Dick Armey's plan calls for this exemption to be $36,800.
Hear are the current tax brackets (married couples filing jointly):
Now, the only tax bracket that would get a "hit" would be the current 15% tax bracket. Yes, a[SIZE=2]pproximately 75% of the tax filing population are in the 15% tax bracket. However, a vast number of those in the 15% tax bracket would no longer pay taxes. The people making 16,700 - 36,800 no longer pay taxes at all. This means that 54% of those currently in the 15% tax bracket are off the hook. That's an awful lot of people. Yeah, the rate would be 17% across the board and would raise the marginal rate by 2% on the remaining 46% of the current 15% bracket. Because of increased an guaranteed revenue due to the elimination of deductions, credits and loopholes, many federal excise taxes could (and should) be eliminated.
The other alternative, of course, is the consumption tax (aka Fair Tax). I do not have a problem with this in theory. HR25 (currently before House Ways and Means) and S296 (currently in the Senate Finance committee) both call for the elimination of Federal Income Tax and the IRS and the institution of a National Sales Tax. Sounds good. They let me keep all my money I earn and tax as I spend. I'll have more money to spend and cannot evade or hide my money. Sounds good. The thing I get concerned about this is that I can see Washington then later reinstituting Federal Income Tax in addition to the Federal Sales Tax. I am closely watching both the House and Senate versions of this, especially for any sign of amendments that would impose the consumption tax on top of the income tax.
Either way, the current tax code must be eliminated and replaced with something that is fair and does not punish excellence and achievement.
I'm pretty sure all the rich guys really loved it when George W. Bush took over a balanced budget with surpluses projected all the way to the outyears, immediately used reconciliation to jam through tax cuts with half going to the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers then began to borrow from foreign banks to fund it. Republicans accomodate corporations and the wealthy and go in debt for every bit of it. Why wouldn't the rich like it? They know their kids will be going to ivy league schools while everybody else is stuck with the debt which was doubled under Bush and the Republican majority in the congress.
Your flat tax if ever written into law will be the biggest screwing those middle class and below have ever taken and brother...they've taken some good ones. Anything Steve Forbes and Bill Bennett is for should be a red flag for the poorest Americans.
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.
