# Proposed bill to abolish income tax



## FearlessFreep (Feb 10, 2007)

H. J. Res. 23



> Proposing an amendment the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 10, 2007)

Thank your higher power, we now have grown ups in charge of Congress. 

Representative Paul (R-TX) has been serving the proud people from the Lone Star State since 1996. 

Co-Sponsor Representative Miller (R-FL) has been serving the fine people from Florida since 2000. 

Why didn't these gentlement introduce this legislation when the Republican Party controlled both Houses of Congress? 

Never mind, that the bill is for a Constitutional Amendment, which requires super-majorities in both Houses of Congress, a Presidential signature, and then must pass in at least 74 State legislative bodies. 

Do the words 'Snowball' and 'Hell' mean anything to these guys? 

At least they only thing they are wasting is some ink and paper.


----------



## Josh (Feb 10, 2007)

excuse me if i'm misinformed, but as far as I know ... no law exsists stating you HAVE to pay federal income tax?


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 10, 2007)

Joshua said:


> excuse me if i'm misinformed, but as far as I know ... no law exsists stating you HAVE to pay federal income tax?


 
This guy thinks so, too.  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244759,00.html

He seems most recently to be asking people to send money, food, guns and body armor. 

It seems that his wife earned most of the family's money. Why doesn't that surprise me. She is busy negotiating a plea agreement with Federal officers. 

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ar...tax_charges_resists_barricades_self_in_house/


----------



## FearlessFreep (Feb 10, 2007)

_Thank your higher power, we now have grown ups in charge of Congress. _

No, just a different set of children


----------



## Josh (Feb 10, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> This guy thinks so, too.  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244759,00.html
> 
> He seems most recently to be asking people to send money, food, guns and body armor.
> 
> ...




It's not really about "thinking so too" I think it was a legit question. And it's not just that guy, many people, lawyers, and organizations have been trying to figure out exactally why we pay federal income tax. Read up on the Federal Reserve sometime. The entire tax system is shady, IMO.


----------



## Andrew Green (Feb 10, 2007)

The system may be shady, but Taxes are a part of life, and a necessary part.

Otherwise you have to eliminate the government, which means no pubic works, no military, no public education, no police, no fire dept.

Everyone always wants tax cuts and increased spending, but eventually, things have to be paid for.  Which basically translates to those taxes coming back, with interest at some point.  It might be direct, it might be indirect (currency being worth less and less) but eventually, all those things the goverment does have to get paid for by someone.


----------



## Josh (Feb 10, 2007)

I'm not saying that we shouldn't pay taxes. I just think the government should be more transparent on the laws themselves and where *exactly*  our money is going.

http://www.originalintent.org/edu/consttax.php << I found that quite informational


----------



## dragonswordkata (Feb 10, 2007)

I don't really know too much about the Income tax and it's inception, but I do agree with it in principle. There are some programs, I feel, only the gov can administer. 
We all hope that Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid will be here for us. I know I like the National Parks, BLM and Forest Service for all their many warts and would hate to have private corps in charge of public assets. Ok, i'll climb of the rant soap box lol


----------



## Josh (Feb 10, 2007)

FearlessFreep said:


> _Thank your higher power, we now have grown ups in charge of Congress. _
> 
> No, just a different set of children



I could not agree more. I think the difference between a republican and a democrat on these issues especially is small to none.


----------



## Josh (Feb 10, 2007)

dragonswordkata said:


> I don't really know too much about the Income tax and it's inception, but I do agree with it in principle.



Yeah, I was not questioning it in principle, but in practice. A lot of things sound like a good idea, and taxes are needed IMO. I just think it's very important to know exactly what/how much money the gov. is spending. Some might argue for example, that if we put more of our tax money into education rather than war, we might be a little better off. I agree with you for the most part though.

and ps.,,. stay on the rant soapbox!! haha its good to hear different points of view.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 10, 2007)

I don't have a problem with taxes, but I think we are overtaxed.  I mean, I look at it like this...

I work hard to earn money, and lose a percent in taxes, this is of course, above the taxes ALREADY PAID ON THAT MONEY by my company.  I take the share I get home, and use it to pay my Heating Gas, which, in addition to the gas cost, I pay a regulatory tax on, oh, and the same on my electric and my cable and phone. (4 more taxes)  To get back to work, I buy fuel gas, and pay a gas tax, then I stop and get groceries and pay a sales tax.  To unwind at the end of the day I buy some beer and pay sin tax, and rent a movie from Blockbuster where I have to pay entertainment tax. On top of all _those_ taxes I gotta pay my village a tax for my car to park in the village (even in my own driveway) a tax for having my dogs (each one) an extra tax because my licence is a motorcycle licence, a tax on the licenceplate on my car, and on my bike... and, honestly, Im sure I am missing a lot of other taxes in there.  And then heaven forbid someone gifts me some money, or my company gives me a bonus... I lose almost 50% of THAT in taxes...

Its a LOT of taxes.​


----------



## dragonswordkata (Feb 10, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> I don't have a problem with taxes, but I think we are overtaxed. I mean, I look at it like this...​
> 
> I work hard to earn money, and lose a percent in taxes, this is of course, above the taxes ALREADY PAID ON THAT MONEY by my company. I take the share I get home, and use it to pay my Heating Gas, which, in addition to the gas cost, I pay a regulatory tax on, oh, and the same on my electric and my cable and phone. (4 more taxes) To get back to work, I buy fuel gas, and pay a gas tax, then I stop and get groceries and pay a sales tax. To unwind at the end of the day I buy some beer and pay sin tax, and rent a movie from Blockbuster where I have to pay entertainment tax. On top of all _those_ taxes I gotta pay my village a tax for my car to park in the village (even in my own driveway) a tax for having my dogs (each one) an extra tax because my licence is a motorcycle licence, a tax on the licenceplate on my car, and on my bike... and, honestly, Im sure I am missing a lot of other taxes in there. And then heaven forbid someone gifts me some money, or my company gives me a bonus... I lose almost 50% of THAT in taxes...​
> Its a LOT of taxes.​


Good points all! In a nut shell I believe most of those taxes you mentioned could be reduced or eliminated with a truely graduated income tax. A tax where the rich folk and corperations pay a vast percentage of the taxes and the general population pay a smaller share. I don't mean tax the rich to nothing, they should gain from thier work, but the folks that get/gain the most from society should pay the lions share.


----------



## Josh (Feb 10, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> I don't have a problem with taxes, but I think we are overtaxed.  I mean, I look at it like this...
> 
> I work hard to earn money, and lose a percent in taxes, this is of course, above the taxes ALREADY PAID ON THAT MONEY by my company.  I take the share I get home, and use it to pay my Heating Gas, which, in addition to the gas cost, I pay a regulatory tax on, oh, and the same on my electric and my cable and phone. (4 more taxes)  To get back to work, I buy fuel gas, and pay a gas tax, then I stop and get groceries and pay a sales tax.  To unwind at the end of the day I buy some beer and pay sin tax, and rent a movie from Blockbuster where I have to pay entertainment tax. On top of all _those_ taxes I gotta pay my village a tax for my car to park in the village (even in my own driveway) a tax for having my dogs (each one) an extra tax because my licence is a motorcycle licence, a tax on the licenceplate on my car, and on my bike... and, honestly, Im sure I am missing a lot of other taxes in there.  And then heaven forbid someone gifts me some money, or my company gives me a bonus... I lose almost 50% of THAT in taxes...
> 
> Its a LOT of taxes.​




Good way to sum it up. Don't forget that when you die. They tax that too. yep.


----------



## Andrew Green (Feb 10, 2007)

I would guess that that is at least partially for public acceptance.  If instead the government said they where going to eliminate all forms of taxation, except income tax which was going to increase considerably, basically consolodating it all into one, I would bet that there would be a lot more complaints about how much we get taxed, even if it worked out to being less.

The only way to really cut taxes is to cut spending.  In my mind that is "conservative."


----------



## Josh (Feb 10, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> The only way to really cut taxes is to cut spending.  In my mind that is "conservative."




another good point. I think we could cut spending a lot without cutting services. We pay for a lot of gov. waste. Corporate welfare for example. Not to get off subject, but IMO, spending literally billions of dollars a day to fight a war that has been proven a failure would to me, be considered gov wasting tax dollars. I think it's interesting that we have BILLIONS for military weapons, but we cannot get current text books in the public schools without bake sales.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 11, 2007)

From Wikipedia:

*United States*

_Main article: Income tax in the United States_
  The United States imposes an income tax on individuals and corporations. This tax is levied from the happening of an event, such as the payment of a wage or the purchase of property - the appreciation on the value of property, for example, is not taxed until that property is sold. The U.S. income tax was first proposed during the War of 1812, but was defeated.[3] In July 1861, the Congress passed a 3% tax on all net income above $600 a year (about $10,000 today). Income taxes were enacted at various times until 1894, but were not imposed after 1895 until the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913.[3] Ratification has been unsuccessfully disputed by some tax protestors who have also made other arguments about the validity of the U.S. income tax _(see Tax protester arguments)_.


----------



## Amazon (Feb 11, 2007)

dragonswordkata said:


> Good points all! In a nut shell I believe most of those taxes you mentioned could be reduced or eliminated with a truely graduated income tax. A tax where the rich folk and corperations pay a vast percentage of the taxes and the general population pay a smaller share. I don't mean tax the rich to nothing, they should gain from thier work, but the folks that get/gain the most from society should pay the lions share.



They already do.  Even if the income tax were a flat percentage - say 25% - 25% of $1,000,000 is still a lot more than 25% of $50,000.  But even outside of that, there is a graduated percentage for each bracket.

Someone making over $200,000/year is often paying $.60-$.75 in taxes for every dollar, where as someone making $45,000 is paying a good deal less.

Over 50% of total governmental tax income is paid by the top 5% of wage earners.

Over 35% is paid by the top 1%


----------



## Bigshadow (Feb 11, 2007)

Joshua said:


> excuse me if i'm misinformed, but as far as I know ... no law exsists stating you HAVE to pay federal income tax?



That would be correct!  There is no law that states the citizens must pay a federal income tax.


----------



## Bigshadow (Feb 11, 2007)

You all might enjoy watching this...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 11, 2007)

Bigshadow said:


> That would be correct! There is no law that states the citizens must pay a federal income tax.


 
I suppose that's true if you don't consider United States Code 26 a law.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.html


----------



## Bigshadow (Feb 11, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I suppose that's true if you don't consider United States Code 26 a law.
> 
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.html



Show me where you have to pay taxes on your wages earned?  Title 26 is not about taxes on your wages earned.  Profits earned from other means are a different story.  I am specifically concerned about the taxes one has to pay on their earned wages.

EDIT: I found some stuff about wages.  However, I believe the biggest arguement from Income tax protestors is whether or not it is unconstitutional.  I am not in that circle of people, but I have seen video (for what it is worth) of IRS officials finding it extremely difficult to put their finger on a law that states a citizen must pay tax on their wages earned from sweat equity.


----------



## bydand (Feb 11, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I suppose that's true if you don't consider United States Code 26 a law.
> 
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.html




Oh this week has been hard for me here on MT, here I am yet again having to agree with you.  :lfao:


As much as I would like to see income tax abolished from a purely selfish standpoint, I know it will never happen.  The Gov't has to have income in order to function.  I would like to see it overhauled to something easy and simple.  Say 1% of income, flat across the board, individual and corporate. No deductions, exemptions, or breaks.  1 or 2 lines instead of volumes and volumes that the people who draft it do not even understand the whole thing.  Granted it would put a lot of tax lawyers and consultants out of work, but would nullify the excuse of not knowing what was actually due.


----------



## bydand (Feb 11, 2007)

Bigshadow said:


> Show me where you have to pay taxes on your wages earned?  Title 26 is not about taxes on your wages earned.  Profits earned from other means are a different story.  I am specifically concerned about the taxes one has to pay on their earned wages.
> 
> EDIT: I found some stuff about wages.  However, I believe the biggest arguement from Income tax protestors is whether or not it is unconstitutional.  I am not in that circle of people, but I have seen video (for what it is worth) of IRS officials finding it extremely difficult to put their finger on a law that states a citizen must pay tax on their wages earned from sweat equity.



This should do it


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 11, 2007)

I like to think of the words 'tax' and 'service' as synonomous.

_As much as I would like to see income service abolished from a purely selfish standpoint, I know it will never happen._

This chart is an interesting one. I believe it deals only with income taxes. So, we could ask, which of these sections of the pie chart should be reduced in proportion to the reduction in the income taxes we pay?

http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

I know where I would reduce expenditures.

P.S. I am sure other charts are out there, that display the same information from sources other than the 'War Protestors'. So, if don't like the chart I've chosen, show me a different one.


----------



## Josh (Feb 11, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I like to think of the words 'tax' and 'service' as synonomous.
> 
> _As much as I would like to see income service abolished from a purely selfish standpoint, I know it will never happen._
> 
> This chart is an interesting one. I believe it deals only with income taxes. So, we could ask, which of these sections of the pie chart should be reduced in proportion to the reduction in the income taxes we pay?




Interesting point. If we were to assume tax = service,( which I'm having a hard time with in general with all of the useless government spending going on)

then IMO, one thing to cut would be the military budget. 
We don't need to start wars with countries that barely have the internet.
How about we get some decent public schools? Health care for every American in the "best country in the world"?
In my mind we should be using our tax dollars for the better GOOD of the citizens. We throw so much money into war instead of education. I believe that is why we are failing in so many areas as a country. We are not number 1 in ANYTHING anymore except MAYBE bombing the hell out of countries. This is all just IMO.. I don't mean to come off as a jerk.

Just my 2 cents


----------



## Bigshadow (Feb 11, 2007)

bydand said:


> This should do it



Gotta hand it to you, a picture?  :rofl:  According to that, it is rather open ended.  However, I think there were supreme court rulings regarding what is considered taxable.   I believe it is for this reason the IRS chooses to litigate at the state and local level or places where the courts have a history of going opposite to the supreme court rulings. 

I am still on the fence with this.  Because sources of income is not necessarily what it seems on the surface.  Traditionally taxes are placed on profits derived from commerce and trade to fund the government, not the sweat of the brow.  As far as state and local, they tax in their own ways.  Income tax with regards to wages earned by an employee is definitely open to dispute.

I guess I am going to have to go on an information scavenger hunt.    But not today, I will see what I can dig up this week.

Regardless, I will be paying mine.  I certainly don't want them kicking my door in in the middle of the night to do a search and seizure.  That could get nasty fast.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 11, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I like to think of the words 'tax' and 'service' as synonomous.



You shouldn't.  Tax monies wend their way through a labyrinthine, complex and corrupt beauracracy before they become any service in any form.  



michaeledward said:


> This chart is an interesting one. I believe it deals only with income taxes.



The authors of that chart engage in a common shell game when discussing the governmental budget.  Although, they do have the honesty to post the real budget below, for which I give them credit.  There is no real justification for not counting Social Security and Medicare in the original chart.  I do agree that the military budget is bloated, but skewing the numbers to make your side look better is dishonest.



Joshua said:


> ...one thing to cut would be the military budget....How about we get some decent public schools? Health care for every American in the "best country in the world"? In my mind we should be using our tax dollars for the better GOOD of the citizens. We throw so much money into war instead of education.



I do agree that many areas of our budget, including the military budget as well as our propensity for starting wars, need to be severely trimmed.  However, the attitude that all we need to do is spend a little...more...money on each and every problem is what got us a behemoth government in the first place.  Everyone has a convincing problem with a convincing pitch for cash, and once the program is in place, there is extreme inertia to ever modify or get rid of it, even if it isn't working.  Anyone who tries is trying to "hurt children and old people", even if the evidence indicates that the program is useless.  Thus, nothing ever really gets cut, and the government continues its continuous bloating.

I'm no hardcore libertarian, but I do think they have at least the right idea in general.  Get the government out of our lives where it has no business (i.e. personal decisions about what substances to ingest or whom to have sex with) and restrict the government to their constitutionally defined duties.  The attitude that the government is supposed to be our mother, nanny and nursemaid all rolled into one is one that has given us our massive, corrupt, and belligerent government.

John


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 11, 2007)

Joshua said:


> Interesting point. If we were to assume tax = service,( which I'm having a hard time with in general with all of the useless government spending going on)
> 
> then IMO, one thing to cut would be the military budget.
> We don't need to start wars with countries that barely have the internet.
> ...


 
Very little of your Federal Income Tax is used in any way toward the school systems in this country. Schools are paid for with property taxes. When you pay your homeowners tax, or your rent, you are contributing the funds used for education.

When nationwide health care was suggested, by a Democratic administration, it was fought back by the Republican Congress.

Approximately half of your federal income taxes are used to staff and equip the military. So your those taxes are being used to make us the best in the world, eh?


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 11, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> You shouldn't. Tax monies wend their way through a labyrinthine, complex and corrupt beauracracy before they become any service in any form.
> 
> The authors of that chart engage in a common shell game when discussing the governmental budget. Although, they do have the honesty to post the real budget below, for which I give them credit. There is no real justification for not counting Social Security and Medicare in the original chart. I do agree that the military budget is bloated, but skewing the numbers to make your side look better is dishonest.


 
Actually, if you read the information presented, you will see that it is exactly opposite of what you are stating. Social Security and Medicare are *not* part of your Federal Income Tax. The exist outside the income tax structure.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 11, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Actually, if you read the information presented, you will see that it is exactly opposite of what you are stating. Social Security and Medicare are *not* part of your Federal Income Tax. The exist outside the income tax structure.



Yes, I know that is what they say, but it is incorrect.  All tax monies are pooled into a general fund, and then disbursed as a common pool to the various items on the budget, be it the military or health and human services.  It isn't set up so that say "Income Tax" goes to the military, while "Cigarette Tax" goes to Medicare.  They try to get around this by claiming that Social Security is a trust fund, which is true (although they don't explain it for Medicare), although the money for it still comes from the general fund.  EDIT: This is why Al Gore campaigned on the "lockbox".  If one existed already, he wouldn't have bothered.


----------



## Amazon (Feb 11, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> When nationwide health care was suggested, by a Democratic administration, it was fought back by the Republican Congress.



Granted it may not have beent the only reason, but I believe that debate was that many hold the view (and have some valid points) that a nationwide healthcare plan would significantly decrease the standard of care.


----------



## Amazon (Feb 11, 2007)

Amazon said:


> Granted it may not have beent the only reason, but I believe that debate was that many hold the view (and have some valid points) that a nationwide healthcare plan would significantly decrease the standard of care.



Might I also ask that whenever government spending is cut in one place the assumption is that it must be spent on something else.  What's wrong with giving it back to those that earned it and letting them use it to fuel the economy and create jobs - which would create more money for everyone?

(Yes folks - the amount of money out there is a flexible thing.  Economics shows that the case is not that there is only a static amount of money out there and that if your neighbor has more it means there is less for you.  It's not mashed potatoes at the dinner table - it's a complex system that evolves.)


----------



## Bigshadow (Feb 11, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Actually, if you read the information presented, you will see that it is exactly opposite of what you are stating. Social Security and Medicare are *not* part of your Federal Income Tax. The exist outside the income tax structure.



I think that would be correct...  When those talk about abolishing the income tax or challenge it's legitimacy, they are referring to the Federal Income Tax portion of the wage deductions, not the Social Security or Medicare deductions.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 11, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> Yes, I know that is what they say, but it is incorrect. All tax monies are pooled into a general fund, and then disbursed as a common pool to the various items on the budget, be it the military or health and human services. It isn't set up so that say "Income Tax" goes to the military, while "Cigarette Tax" goes to Medicare. They try to get around this by claiming that Social Security is a trust fund, which is true (although they don't explain it for Medicare), although the money for it still comes from the general fund. EDIT: This is why Al Gore campaigned on the "lockbox". If one existed already, he wouldn't have bothered.


 
Incidently, George W. Bush also campaigned on not touching the funds from Social Security or Medicare ... ... then later told a great big lie about 'hitting a trifecta' when he renigged.

But, the social security and medicare withholding funds are NOT part of the General Fund. It was during the Vietnam war years that the accounting gimmick was implemented. The government has been borrowing against FICA contributions for years. Prior to the late sixties, FICA money was dealt with as an independent stream of funds.

When the Congress takes money from the Social Security surpluses in order to give the appearance of smaller deficit spending, they back that borrowing with Federal Treasury Notes. So, theoretically, it is the safest investment on the planet for we participants. Those treasury notes are backed by the Full Faith and Credit of the United States Government.

This allows us to borrow less money from China ... which probably is a good thing.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 11, 2007)

Amazon said:


> Might I also ask that whenever government spending is cut in one place the assumption is that it must be spent on something else.  What's wrong with giving it back to those that earned it and letting them use it to fuel the economy and create jobs - which would create more money for everyone?



Works for me. :cheers: 

But the thing is, everyone who votes would love to pay less taxes. But few people are willing to go without the benifits they can get from the government. So while people are quite willing to pay for reduction on taxes _they themselves pay,_ they find various excuses why others should continue to pay taxes and pay more than they do. It is simple greed and envy. People want things like good schools without having to pay for it themselves (greed) and usually find some excuse to demonize the next highest tax bracket (envy) and argue that they should pay for it.

Giving back the money to the people would mean that there would be less goodies for the politicians to give them if it was given to everyone. And people want to pay less while getting all they can.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 11, 2007)

Again with schools ....

Schools are paid for, by about 93%, from local property taxes and perhaps, state level taxes. The Federal government contributes very little to schools, outside of unfunded mandates. When discussing the Internal Revenue Service, and Income Taxes, schools should really be an 'off the table' topic. They are almost irrelevant to the discussion.

It may be true that voters and citizens want the services of government, but if we are going to name them, lets at least attempt to be accurate about who pays for what, where. 

Agriculture subsidies, National Parks, FAA,, TSA, Levees and dams, Energy, NASA, Homeland Security, Health & Human Services, Labor Department, (yes, the Education Department too), military ..... these are some of the Federal Government / Income Tax driven areas in which we expect a measure of quality.


----------



## Josh (Feb 12, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Again with schools ....
> 
> Schools are paid for, by about 93%, from local property taxes and perhaps, state level taxes. The Federal government contributes very little to schools, outside of unfunded mandates. When discussing the Internal Revenue Service, and Income Taxes, schools should really be an 'off the table' topic. They are almost irrelevant to the discussion.
> 
> ...



I can't speak for everyone, but my point earlier has ALL to do with government accountability. I think it's all tied in. Even if you want to take education "off the table" lets look at some of these... Levees and dams (we're doing a heck'of a job there.) Energy (I won't even start in here because I could write a book on the gov waste here) Homeland Security is more or less a joke. every few months you hear of a little kid who got through the airport with a handgun or something insane like that. and yep Military (I've already stated how I feel about that.) 

My point would be that taxes don't always mean  direct services to the American people in general, and that is wrong. (IMO)
Every time I hear about a little kid getting through security at an airport with a gun or How much money we are spending in Iraq, I want to throw something at my TV. This is because right before that, they were talking about spending BILLIONS of dollars to invest into new NASA tech. 
While I open my newspaper and I read about Jobs being shipped overseas and the homelessness rate rising is cities like Detroit.
I believe it should bother everyone that we are spending more money to defend Iraq than to rebuild New Orleans, 

IMO to all of the above.

again,

 just my 2 cents.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 12, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Again with schools ....



Because the principle is the same whether we are talking about state, local or federal levels. Of for that matter, just shopping around. People want more than they themselves are willing to pay for.

And that is why any doing away with the income tax is doomed.

The income tax hits the rich at a greater percentage than the majority of voters. A man much wiser than I once said, "If you rob from Peter to pay Paul....you will always get Pauls's vote."

I could have mentioned all the pork barrel projects like the types that keep Robert Byrd in office despite his past as a venomous bigot and member of the KKK. That type of thing would keep most folks from being elected dog catcher. But the idea that he is using tax money to fund a whole lot of things in his state keeps getting him elected as the democratic senator of Virginia time and time again.

Politicians play a game of convincing folks that they will fight to make sure that *they* (whatever group they are talking to) will pay less in taxes than others, but at the same time get a lot back from government. Some folks are very, very good at it. Tossing out income tax and replacing it with something that can't be manipulated as much (such as a federal sales tax) would limit the politicians ability to run that scam. So there is no way they are going to go forward with the idea if they can.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 12, 2007)

Certain principles can be applied to all taxes. However, the bill proposed by Representatives Paul and Miller are directed only at the Federal Level. 

NASA's budget is, if I recall, 17 Billion dollars annually. And some of that is allocated for the Department of Defense. While that sounds like a lot of money, when you consider the President just submitted his 2008 Budget, for 3 Trillion dollars, it truly is a small amount; about one half of one percent.

And for so called 'Pork' spending, we've had the discussion of 'earmark explosion' under the K Street Project years before. So, while you single out Senator Byrd from *West* Virginia, and some baggage of his, you neglect to mention the other 534 members of congression who participate in the same behavior, and have the baggage of their own.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 12, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Certain principles can be applied to all taxes. However, the bill proposed by Representatives Paul and Miller are directed only at the Federal Level.



Of course. In their position that is the only place they can enact legislation. The priniples remain the same. Since income taxes allow for people to think that people of another tax bracket will end up paying more than they, the support for this bill will be very low.



michaeledward said:


> NASA's budget is, if I recall, 17 Billion dollars annually. And some of that is allocated for the Department of Defense. While that sounds like a lot of money, when you consider the President just submitted his 2008 Budget, for 3 Trillion dollars, it truly is a small amount; about one half of one percent.



What is the saying, a billion here, a billion there... pretty soon it adds up.



michaeledward said:


> And for so called 'Pork' spending, we've had the discussion of 'earmark explosion' under the K Street Project years before. So, while you single out Senator Byrd from *West* Virginia, and some baggage of his, you neglect to mention the other 534 members of congression who participate in the same behavior, and have the baggage of their own.



I have limited time to write about the other members. Byrd is known as the king of pork and seemed eaisest to give as an example. But of course, he is far from the only one- just the one best known as the king of pork. Politicians manage to survive and become electable because of pork spending. That type of spending, and the ability for people to think that others more wealthy than they will pay the bulk, is possible due to the income tax. If it were another form like a federal sales tax, people would be much more eager to cut the tax and keep the money. So it is in the seasoned politicians best interest to see that income tax is never done away with.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 12, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> What is the saying, a billion here, a billion there... pretty soon it adds up.


 
Yes it does. But context remains important. 

NASA's budget for the year, is the same as 2 months of the war in Iraq. And about half of that NASA budget is for the military. And that 2 months of warfare in Iraq is just a portion of the military budget. 

I mentioned NASA because of the EMPHASIS added by Joshua.



			
				Joshua said:
			
		

> How much money we are spending in Iraq, I want to throw something at my TV. This is because right before that, they were talking about spending BILLIONS of dollars to invest into new NASA tech.


 
The dead fish on the table that is being ignored (or mostly ignored) is the Department of Defense. 

Context remains important ..... http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=537066&postcount=1


----------



## Grenadier (Feb 13, 2007)

_ATTENTION ALL USERS:_

  Please, return to the original topic.

  -Ronald Shin
  -MT Moderator-


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 15, 2007)

One problem I have with our tax system is that it is a graduated tax, ie. the higher the income, the more money paid.  This system is totally Un-American.  All people are to be treated equal, right.  In what way is this equal?  In what system would the top 5% of the population paying over 55% of the taxes be fair.

In fact, the graduated, or progressive, system was widely touted by Karl Marx in "The Communist Manifesto", Section 2: Proletariats and Communists.  

Now one could say that they reap the benefits of the U.S. way of life.  But the problem is that they paid for it.  Most CEOs don't work a 9-5 job.  They spend hours upon hours away at work, away from families and other enjoyment to make that money.  And, consequently, to provide jobs so that others can make a living.  How is it fair, then, to take more of their income.  

The second, and more important, problem I have with way our tax system has become is the use for which the money is spent.  

U.S. Constitution, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;...

This pretty much says what Congress can spend our money on, and it ain't for 90% of the things they spend it on (which we, as an "ignorant" society allow to continue).  Even the Framers of the constitution did not mean welfare in the sence we understand it now:

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but 
an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792 
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798 

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794 

And finally, and most importantly:

The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitiution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.

Where does N.A.S.A. fit into this?  Or welfare, both corporate and individual?  Or the Department of Housing and Urban Developement?  Or, as we look at that last statement by Madison, to helping Hurricane Katrina victims?

The answer is nowhere, and Congress has overstepped it's authority.


----------



## Andrew Green (Feb 15, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> One problem I have with our tax system is that it is a graduated tax, ie. the higher the income, the more money paid.  This system is totally Un-American.  All people are to be treated equal, right.  In what way is this equal?  In what system would the top 5% of the population paying over 55% of the taxes be fair.



You do realise that is everyone paid equal taxes, you'd have to come up with at least $100,000 in federal taxes a year don't you?

"All people are to be treated equal, right."

What?  Since when?

sounds like some crazy communist idea, everyone being equals...

Capitalism is definately not about being equal, in fact I think a case could be made that without things being unequal capitalism would not work.



> In fact, the graduated, or progressive, system was widely touted by Karl Marx in "The Communist Manifesto", Section 2: Proletariats and Communists.



So... for or against Marxist theories then?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 16, 2007)

> You do realise that is everyone paid equal taxes, you'd have to come up with at least $100,000 in federal taxes a year don't you?


 
Actually, there are many proposed ideas out there right not that would make up for our graduated tax system, at least in theory.  The Flat Tax, the National Sales Tax, etc.  I don't claim to be an expert on tax law, but some of the information I have read, written by very knowledgeable economists (Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams) sounds pretty good.



> "All people are to be treated equal, right."
> 
> What? Since when?
> 
> sounds like some crazy communist idea, everyone being equals...


 
My mistake.  I meant to say "created" equal.



> Capitalism is definately not about being equal, in fact I think a case could be made that without things being unequal capitalism would not work.


 
I would be interested in hearing your case for this.  And are you refering to just modern day capitalsim?



> So... for or against Marxist theories then?


 
I absolutely abhor Marxist theory.  Makes no sence.


----------



## Don Roley (Mar 6, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> You do realise that is everyone paid equal taxes, you'd have to come up with at least $100,000 in federal taxes a year don't you?



Actually, I just read in a book published in 2004 that the average payment per household would be about $20,000.

But that is the problem, is it not? Everyone is all for fair play and equal treatment by the government _as long as they benefit._

When they don't get more out of the system when it is fair to all, they will instead withdraw all support for change. They don't want to make things fair, and get rid of things like agricultural subsidies because they will lose the benefits. They are quite content to let a minority get shafted and make excuses as to why that should be, even finding ways to hate that minority, and continue to reap the windfall that _not_ treating everyone equal in the eyes of the law.

Oh, and they will complain when certain minorities get preferential treatment due to their greater wealth and use it to justify taking from them. But to actually make things fair in the eyes of the government with neither side getting any better or worse treatment- only if it good for them than the present system.


----------

