Proposed bill to abolish income tax

[Don Roley]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please, return to the original topic.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Moderator-

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

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]

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]

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]

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.