Why We Should Conduct Taxation The Way The Founding Fathers Intended

Remember_Salamis | 12/10/2003 | Remember_Salamis

[Remember_Salamis]

The constitution was written with the state having the powers of taxation, not the federal level. Our Founding Fathers foresaw the excesses of federal spending; they knew that local populations knew best what to do with their tax dollars. In fact, the only reason that federal taxation was implemented (it wasn't at first; only the state had the power to collect taxes) was for purposes of defense.

What we should do is continue to incrementally cut income tax levels while simultaneously drastically cutting spending to all state-level programs. Why, you ask?

What this would do is force local (state) governments to raise local (state) taxes to pay for the programs they want. But now you're asking me why should we do this if peole continue to pay the same taxes.

What that would do is SHIFT the tax base down to the local level, where people have the MOST control over what their government says and does. For example, if a state were made to pay for somthing such as farming subsidies, it would be up to the residents of that State to decide whether of not they wanted to prop up their own businesses, or let capitalism work.

This SHIFT in the tax base down to the local level would be a HUGE control on spending. Once everything other than Defense, infrastructure, and SOME entitlements were the only items left in the federal budget, national inxomce taexes would be extremely low. States could then enforce Salex taxes on goods, or not and cut social programs. Ther point is, it'd be up to the local people to decide whether or not they wanted to support welfare, overinflated public education, or environmental protection. Also, this would cut the pork out of the federal budget, and people would notice such pork at the state level.

Taxation at the state level is what was envisioned in the constitution, not a federal government far, far away.

[Naspino]

What would we do without federal funding of education. The states are too stoopid to do it on their own. /sarcasm

[pgyanke]

Along the same lines, the Constitution expressly prohibited the national government from looking at us as individuals. It could deal with the states only. Initial national taxation was a tax on the states for maintenance of the central government. Welfare, medicare, et al were never intended, let alone envisioned as a possibility. In essence, our original structure made the federal bureaucracy WEAKER than the states. It's power was given by the states and the people so how could it become stronger than those who gave?

This was overcome by the 16th Amendment which gave the national government the power to tax individuals. It set the precedence that has allowed the feds to gain increasing control over individual actions. Things just haven't been the same since...

[af_vet_rr]

It would mean we wouldn't be paying for idiotic monuments and programs in other states that do no directly benefit us. I love this idea, because we don't have much control at the federal level (let's face it, people would have to throw out a lot of Senators and Reps to make them realize we are tired of it, and most people are not willing to vote against their party to make a point).

[Principled]

http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/index.html

eliminate all taxes on income. eliminate withholding.

HR 25 / SB 1493

[ninenot]

You have advocated for the Principle of Subsidiarity, long a hallmark of good governance.

Best wishes. There is no politician alive who will endorse this principle--and even fewer Gummint Bureaucrats who will.

[Remember_Salamis]

Then help me spread the word. I heven't heard a single organization advocate this. I kind of just thought it up after i read a USA Today Article criticizing the Bush Tax Cuts because it was forcing states to raise taxes. The Article made the argument that people are paying the same amount of taxes. Please help me get this out.

[exmarine]

The constitution was written with the state having the powers of taxation, not the federal level.

Our founders had a Christian worldview which engendered SELF GOVERNMENT and LIBERTY. The CONTROLLING worldview today is not Christian - it's secular - and there is only slavery and oppression in secular humanism. That has been proven time and time again throughout history.

So, don't EVER count on things to change for the better. The government thinks it is now your master and controller, and that it, not God, dictates what your rights are.

And this will never change as long as America continues to progress toward amoral godless democracy (read - dictatorship).

[Remember_Salamis]

repealing the income tax altogether would severely discourage poople from buying homes since there would no longer be a tax shelter from it. Property values would plummet and nobody would want to own land except for those that are already rich. The concepts of land ownership and property rights are fundamental concepts of our nation.

[Remember_Salamis]

I agree. Incease states' rights, and enact legislation to reel in radical judges who are lagislating from the bench. Is there any pending legislation for judicial reform???.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Wholeheartedly agree! However, we do need some taxes going to the federal government, to support the military, and a few other things which are inherently non-local. However, the federal government should be collecting these taxes from the state governments, with each state's tax bill based on its population and hence its representation in Congress. Then the states can each determine how to spread the tax burden and how to collect the tazes.

[Grit]

repealing the income tax altogether would severely discourage poople from buying homes since there would no longer be a tax shelter from it.

That does not follow, IMHO. I don't own a home b/c I want a tax deduction. I agree with the main point of your post, but keeping income tax as an incentive to home buying is preposterous. :)

[KarlInOhio]

This is the opposite of what St. FDR and the progressives wanted. This way would promote competition between the states. If one state wanted to be socialist while another wanted to be free, all the producers would move from the socialist to the free state while the parasites would move in the other direction. The socialist state would quickly collapse (or have to set up walls, barbed wire and machine guns like East Germany). States would be forced to lower taxes and benefits to convince the producers to stay. More freedom would result which is anathema to the statists.

Remember, the Potomac River is similar to the Jordan River. Tax money baptized with it becomes holy and more valuable than taxes collected locally.

[jmc813]

Well said.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Huh? Land/homes are an inherently valuable commodity, and increasingly scarce due to steady population growth. Eliminating the tax shelter is not going to have any significant effect on the number of people who buy homes and land, nor the prices they pay for them. What it WILL have a significant effect on is the level of mortgage debt people maintain on their homes. The current tax system artificially eliminates any incentive to pay off a mortgage EVER, since paying it off eliminates the tax shelter.

[exmarine]

I agree. Incease states' rights, and enact legislation to reel in radical judges who are lagislating from the bench. Is there any pending legislation for judicial reform???.

No, republicans are DO NOTHINGS when it comes to the Constitution - all of those bums should be thrown out for violating their oaths of office, by not only expanding anti-constitutional federal power, but sitting on their hands while the bad judges take away religious freedoms. I am beginning to despise the republi-can'ts as much as I despise the demoRATS. You want to know what a waste of a vote is? Voting for anyone who doesn't understand or care about the U.S. Constitution, which would include almost everyone in the republican party.

[Remember_Salamis]

You are absolutely wrong! MANY pople who are on the fence between rentaing a home and buying one. What makes them buy a home is the tax shelter. AND PRICES WOULD DROP; IT IS THE BASIC LAW OF ECONOMICS, WHICH IS SUPPLY AND DEMAND. THERE WOULD BE A GLUT OF HOMES ON THE MARKET BECAUSE LESS PEOPLE WOULD BE LOOKING TO BUY, FORCING PRICES TO PLUMMET.

Morgatges aren't necessarily a bad thing either. the interest made on mortgages are used to make even more loans, such as loans to upstart businesses and such. It is the essence of capitalism.

[Remember_Salamis]

The survival of the fittest... State!

[JohnGalt]

Just for starters the Constitution Party advocates a similar logic in terms of taxation, but there are dozens others.

You need to turn off your TV and put down the establishment media organs and get out a little more. ;)

[pgyanke]

Your understanding of the property markets is faulty. People don't buy homes for tax shelters. They FINANCE homes for tax shelters. In many respects, the income tax laws encourage unhealthy debt levels and an overly leveraged society.

Your overall logic in your original post is consistent with our founding principles. By imposing an income tax, the government controls individual behavior through shelters, deductions and credits. This is decidedly unamerican.