Posted on 11/05/2005 4:42:13 PM PST by ancient_geezer
Tax Changes on the Horizon
Buzz Timothy, BellaOnline's Accounting Editor
The President's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform finished its ten month investigation and research and has submitted its two best proposals to the US Treasury Department. The Treasury Department has said it will make its own tax reform proposals by the end of this year. Congress is scheduled to begin the tax reform debate next year.
But, what does tax reform really mean? Well, the tax reforms that have been put forth so far are at best disappointing, at worst they are nothing more than tweaks to an outdated, enormously confusing and cumbersome income tax system. The basis of both of the Panel's proposals is to reduce or eliminate deductions, thereby seemingly to simplify a cumbersome tax code.
However, if you look a bit deeper and really read the proposals, one finds that the panel has missed a great opportunity to come up with a tax system we could all live with. A tax system that is fair accross the board and fixes the one fundamental flaw in our current tax system, that is changing it from an income based to a use based system. Although one of the proposals is being touted as a Use or Consumption Based Tax, it is really not, it is truly an income based system being disguised.
The Tax Reform Panelists should have taken a blank piece of paper and devised a completely new, equitable and simple tax system. Instead they chose the politically easy choice of starting with the existing system and trying to change it, rather than fix it, when in fact, looking at their proposals, they have done niether they have only tweaked it.
What we need is a flat tax that is based on use. We already have this in place when in comes to gasoline, alcohol and cigarettes, why is it so difficult to think that this couldn't be expanded to all "used or consumed" items and completely do away with the income based system. As long as we live with an income based system individuals and businesses will always try to find ways to limit their incomes to hide from the overzealous tax code. However, if you change the focus of our tax system to a use based system then, "if you use it you pay". It really is that simple, and shouldn't that be our ultimate goal.
Surely you jest. Why should ANYONE - smart or dumb - be required to jump through such hoops due to governmental whim in raising money to fund their activities?
Ron Paul is an idiot. He won't even support defending the Nation.
Of course income taxes are NOT unconstitutional. Except to those who don't actually know what is IN the constitution.
It is a falsehood that the 2d amendment was designed to make revolution legal. That was the last thing on the Founders minds. They believed there was no reason for revolution from a representative government.
The second amendment was necessary to protect settlements from Indian attacks on the frontier and to provide a source of firepower when militias had to be called into service by the states or federal governments. It explicitly says why it exists but what is not said, "every able bodied man is part of the militia," made for confusion.
Illinois puts that phrase in its constitution and thereby clarifies the intent. Not that the state nowdays has much respect for the second.
This idea that the 2d is designed to allow the common people to revolt could not be further from the truth. That truth is that the Founders feared and despised democracy and too much involvement by the mob. They believed allowing election to the House by popular vote (but still a tiny minority of the population) was all the democracy we needed.
"Ron Paul is an idiot. He won't even support defending the nation."
What Ron Paul objects to, as should all who believe in the application of the Constitution as it is written, is the fact that Congress must vote to declare war. That has not happened since World War II. Ron Paul does support defending the Constitution against those who think it is malleable, twisting it to suit their purposes.
Presidents have sent our military on approximately 130 excursions/missions/actions without the approval of Congress. All illegal.
"Of course income taxes are NOT unconstitutional. Except to those who don't actually know what is IN the constitution."
justshutupandtakeit, the only means by which the federal government could apply a tax was through interstate trade. A tax of 10% was to be levied to build and maintain a military for common defense.
All other powers to tax were relegated to the states, which at the time were more akin to individual countries, each governing its own.
Presidents invariably get Congressional approval for these actions. There is no Official Form for a declaration of War. Nor are all such actions suitable for such a declaration. Not all use of the military forces constitutes a "war" and there is no restriction on such uses within the Constitution.
I heard this loon opposing the war in Iraq and he did not base that opposition on not having a declaration of war. Congress clearly provided all the authority the President needed to do what he did. But Paul prefers to stick his head in the sand.
That is not what is in the U.S. Constitution. Interstate trade was NEVER intended to be taxed. Nor was taxation restricted to funding national defense nor set at 10%. I have no idea where you got these looney tune ideas but certainly NOT from the Constitution. Article I, Section 8 clearly lists Congress's power to lay and collect "Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises...." and says that they may be used to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare. This is much more than just defence.
Adopting the Constitution took away much of the already limited sovereignty the states possessed (they never had real sovereignty.) And that was the intent of the convention. States have no sovereignty beyond that appropriate to actions affecting ONLY their own citizens. In fact, the Constitution lists a number of powers explicitly taken away from the states.
Contrary to the popular view around FR federal power was greatly EXPANDED by the constitution not limited and state power was significantly reduced. Advocates of that view need to carefully examine the campaign to call the Convention and the arguments against the Articles.
WRONG... You are probably wrong about other things as well..
----------------------------------------------------------
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
"Every generation needs a new revolution."- Thomas Jefferson..
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."-- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of the John Marshall Court
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." -- George Washington, in a speech of January 7, 1790
Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788
You know why there's a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one.-- Rush Limbaugh, in a moment of unaccustomed profundity 17 Aug 1993
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.-- John F. Kennedy
My notes on Constitutional power to tax are mixed with notes from another project. I apologize.
I will admit, for purposes of correction and acceptance of rebuke (lol):
"No tax or duty shall be laid on articles from any state."
I am curious, though, we a guaranteed the right to the fruits of our labor. Is the XVI Amendment a violation of that right?
I will further research your last paragraph. I know a stark division among the Founding Fathers was the argument for stronger rights for individual states or a more centralized government.
So, I will shut up and take it. Am I forgiven?
Article I, Section 8:
"The Congress shall have the power to...declare war..."
Odd, I do not see the word "make", which is what a preemptive strike is in action and nature.
Here is my concern. Since we have deemed it necessary to preemptively strike those we feel are a threat to us, should we be surprised when a nation preemptively strikes us because it feels that the United States is a threat to its sovereignty and safety? They would have precedent, thanks to the United States, to support their action.
What are some of your disagreements with Paul when it comes to domestic issues?
And that is nuttier than anything I've ever heard Ron Paul say.
I know my banjo is in tune whenever I hear you squeal like a stuck pig.
It is difficult to determine how much of the fruits of our labor is the result of living in a country with a stable government controlled by the rule of law. That makes our lives much more productive and means we do not have to spend much on protection of our property plus it means contracts are upheld and unjust seizures of property are limited.
Taxes are an unpleasant but necessary cost of living in a society. They are unavoidable. Now the Founders did not address income taxes since there was no way of easily determining individual incomes hence they relied upon a proxy like property taxes or capitation tax or import taxes.
I see nothing inherently wrong with income taxes. There may be better methods but none raise the huge sums necessary for modern warfare. It was during times of war that income taxes were first imposed, during the Napoleonic Wars in England and during our Civil War by Lincoln. Certainly they are unpleasant and intrusive but most other kinds are too.
It is also worth noting that the Founders believed that taxes should mainly fall upon the richer citizens hence taxes on imports, carriages, and other luxuries were considered appropriate.
My name is ironic I don't really want you to shut up and you are in need of no forgiveness from me. Now I can't speak for your wife. :^)
BTW your quote left out "exported" from any state. Since US exports of agricultural products was the mainstay of its international trade they did not want to cripple the economies of the states doing the exporting.
Can I help it if you are unfamiliar with the thought of the Founders?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.