Posted on 01/10/2023 11:09:28 AM PST by Carriage Hill
Would a national consumption tax even be legal under the U.S. Constitution?
There’s libraries full of debates on the best way to tax.
Income tax, Property tax, excise taxes, use taxes, value added taxes, flat taxes...all have pros/cons.
What we do know is that any “progressive” tax is flat out unfair and penalizes success. The fact that some people use the system to become hyper rich is an indictment of the system, not them. They just be playing the game by the rules. Cars aren’t bought on a sliding scale of income and neither should government “services”. A flat tax would make far more sense. A national sales tax is one better because it DOESN’T tax income not spent, thereby allowing wealth creation and growth.
ALL of these ideas beggar the original problem: the Federal government has NO BUSINESS reaching into the States and taxing individuals. It took an Amendment to make that possible.
If the States United want to fund a federal government then they should all get a dues bill every year that they have to pay to be in the club. The State legislatures can then be free to figure out how they want to make that money, and the populace will be free to evict their representatives if they don’t like the way they do it.
The problem with the original Confederation of States (under the Articles of Confederation) was that the States would not pay their dues, which was rather churlish. There have been many mechanisms to cure this proposed; don’t know which one is right. May think about it more now that there might actually be a chance of doing something about it. The current Constitution tried to settle the matter with customs and tariffs, but that didn’t work out so well and ended in two little dust ups: the War Between the States and the 16th Amendment. Both were abominations.
But one thing is obvious to anyone with a sense of history: the Federal Income tax and its attendant collection state is an affront to the original claims of the Revolution. It is nothing more then the resurrection of the Feud, which is all Marxism ever was: a way to enslave the peons again for the benefit of the Nobility. The new Nobility? The bureaucrats and the politicians of course. We can get by on about 10% of the numbers we currently have.
The rest will have to get real jobs and actually support themselves.
We need an across the board import tariff.
The bulk of taxes SHOULD be paid for by the consumers of IMPORTED goods. Ask any founding father..
Complete horse sh!t. The USA became a world class economic power and industrial power house behind really steep import tariffs.....
“Vote on abolishing IRS was part of deal between Speaker McCarthy and House Freedom Caucus. Never going to happen, as Lunch Bucket Joey Bidet&Co will veto it.”
True, but I would love to hear what the rats and CNN have to say about it.
The question is what percentile fraction of the budget should come from that.
If it’s too high, the FedGov will do all it can to sabotage domestic industry and bring in more foreign goods so they can collect the duties.
If too low, it’s irrelevant and of course will do nothing to protect domestic industry.
But you won’t get any argument from me that a protective import tax is beneficial. It’s just one element of a better taxation system then the current Marxist abomination. The question is, what’s the level?
I see where congress has the power to tax income, but I don't see where it is mandatory for them to do so.
I don't see where they have the power to tax consumption.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Boston-Tea-Party
Well, some import tariffs weren’t so popular.
Depends on whose ox is being gored.
If you exempt food, clothing, and energy, it’s not regressive.
Ideally, the country’s finances should be run just like any financially successful household runs their finances - by not overspending beyond their means.
If that had happened, and the US actually still had a nest egg, instead spending twice as much money each year than it brings in, then the minor fluctuations in tariff revenue you are referring to could be absorbed.
Instead, they have purposefully pushed us to the point of near financial collapse, to the point where there are not many options on how to handle the situation, other than printing more unsupported fiat money, which as we’re seeing will always result in runaway inflation and economic suffering of the populace.
The Revolutionary war was not about tea. Just like the US Civil War was not about an unfinished silly brick and mud fort in the Cooper River.
Good points.
“It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”
The rest of the US budget can and should be covered by import tariffs and maybe a small NRST.
eliminate the national income tax
I think you’d need a Constitutional Amendment for that.
—————
No, just because the 16th Amendment allowed for an income tax it does not require Congress enact such a tax. Congress could deauthorize collection of an income tax but the next Congress could put it back.
While a wonderful thought this will not happen.
It is a start. I will give them that much. But like my other comment stated, we had the majority and were promised the removal of Obamacare. Well. Here we are.
I would like to see this vote take place. It’s precedent.
Would this be the first time in U.S. history that an administrative agency has ever even been voted on for abolition?
A long standing agency, not one that was intended for a short term, such as some wartime agency.
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.