# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  Consideration of a Head Tax

## CaptLouAlbano

A few of us were sitting around this weekend enjoying some really good bourbon and the subject of taxes came up.  One of my friends suggested the following:  

Instead of moving to a flat tax, sales tax or other sort of plan why not have a head tax?  There are roughly 275 million people aged 18 and older in the country.  If every person was assessed a head tax of $10,000 that would result in 2.75 trillion dollars in revenue to the Federal Government (which oddly enough was the budget just prior to Obama's first term).  The head tax would eliminate the payroll tax, FICA, Medicare tax, etc - just the one tax payable in either weekly, bi-weekly, monthly or quarterly installments as chosen by the individual.  There would be no corporate tax, no capital gains tax, no federal taxes on fuel, etc.  Just the 10 grand per person, the only truly fair tax since everyone is considered equal regardless of income.  

Now, the top 50% of people would be seeing a reduction in taxes. The bottom 50% of people would see their tax burden go up.  The bleeding hearts would cry foul over this, but he had a solution.  A non-profit third party corporation would be set up so that people that cannot afford the tax can apply for financial aid.  Those bleeding hearts who have voted for years to expand the federal government can donate money to this fund to pay for others that are so called less fortunate.

But, in reality, with the elimination of corporate taxes and the reduction of taxes for that top 50% we would see an almost immediate explosion in the economy resulting in less and less people falling into that "needy" category.  

Moving forward, Congress would be stuck with a Federal Budget equal to the adult population times $10,000 (obviously this would require some sort of balanced budget amendment), and raising the budget (and therefore the tax payment) would be political suicide.  In fact, as I pondered, those who would want to cut government spending further (and thereby reducing the head tax) would be extremely popular.

We thought about this idea for a while, and couldn't come up with many holes in this thinking, other than the typical "it's not fair that poor people have to pay more now" argument (which we believe was solved by the non-profit idea)

Thoughts?  Comments?  Suggestions?

----------


## tod evans

> Thoughts?  Comments?  Suggestions?


There's not one damn thing the federal government offers that I'd value at $100.00 let alone $10k....

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> There's not one damn thing the federal government offers that I'd value at $100.00 let alone $10k....


Agreed, but as it stands now, if you are in the top 50% of income earners your tax burden is greater than 10K.  And that doesn't even take into consideration the fact that you are paying corporate taxes that are built into the price of damn near everything you purchase.

So sure, I would love to see a Federal Budget reduced down to darn near nothing, but that isn't the reality for the present day.  Hell, just getting the budget reduced to 2008 levels would be called Draconian.

----------


## mrsat_98

> There's not one damn thing the federal government offers that I'd value at $100.00 let alone $10k....


[QUOTE]You cannot give Reputation to the same post twice.[QUOTE]

Hey mods, can you fix this $hit ?

----------


## donnay

First we have to do away with all the Big government first and take it back to a limited government as it was intended to be.  As it stands now, they would frivolously spend that money in no time.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Basically, this is the logical equivalent of "Let's steal just as much, but from different people."  So, I see it as kind of a wash.  What are you going to do with people who don't have 10K?  Or who only have 10K?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> First we have to do away with all the Big government first and take it back to a limited government as it was intended to be.  As it stands now, they would frivolously spend that money in no time.


Well at 2.75 trillion that would be right around the budget level of 2008, about a trillion less than Obama's current budget.

----------


## fisharmor

> There's not one damn thing the federal government offers that I'd value at $100.00 let alone $10k....


One of the first things I heard Ron Paul say that made me realize he's a genius was on the topic of taxes.  It was back in 2007 and he was talking to a really small group in NH.
He was talking about things the president could realistically do to effect change.

One idea, that I'm surprised nobody else has mentioned since (even RP himself), was to eliminate withholding.

Make every taxpayer in the US write out a check every single quarter.
And watch how fast things change after that.

Lou kind of hit it already....



> just the one tax payable in either weekly, bi-weekly, monthly or quarterly installments as chosen by the individual.




You don't need to mess with the code or eliminate everything.  All you need to do is implement THAT part, and the system would enter a controlled crumble.

----------


## phill4paul

> There's not one damn thing the federal government offers that I'd value at $100.00 let alone $10k....


  Or .01 until they fix the damn mess. Which is currently more than I give them. They will be fine w/ the 10k per head. Then it will slide to $10,100 etc. etc. Just like they did with the income tax.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Here's the thing, in my opinion.  Government would take that 2.75 Trillion dollars and keep all the other taxes too.  For the people, ya know.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Basically, this is the logical equivalent of "Let's steal just as much, but from different people."  So, I see it as kind of a wash.  What are you going to do with people who don't have 10K?  Or who only have 10K?



Addressed by the non-profit that bleeding hearts could contribute to that cry foul over it not being fair.  But truthfully, the reduction in taxes for the top 50% and the elimination of corporate taxes would result in massive economic growth.  Therefore, those who are on the lower end of the economic scale would see their income rise.

Are you suggesting that instead it is better to have a progressive tax with those who earn more paying more?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Addressed by the non-profit that bleeding hearts could contribute to that cry foul over it not being fair.  But truthfully, the reduction in taxes for the top 50% and the elimination of corporate taxes would result in massive economic growth.  Therefore, those who are on the lower end of the economic scale would see their income rise.
> 
> Are you suggesting that instead it is better to have a progressive tax with those who earn more paying more?


Bleeding hearts want to bleed YOUR heart and monies; not their own.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Addressed by the non-profit that bleeding hearts could contribute to that cry foul over it not being fair.


You do realize that most of the "bleeding hearts" are only like that when it comes to someone else's money, right?



> But truthfully, the reduction in taxes for the top 50% and the elimination of corporate taxes would result in massive economic growth.  Therefore, those who are on the lower end of the economic scale would see their income rise.


Hopefully so.




> Are you suggesting that instead it is better to have a progressive tax with those who earn more paying more?


I think it would be better to have no taxes  But, are you suggesting that everyone who does not have 10K should be imprisoned?  Are you saying that people who only make 10K or so a year should be left with nothing at all?  Or are you under the impression that the non-profit will actually bring anything to the table?

To answer your question in terms of relative evils, I think a flat tax where everyone pays the same percentage would be less undesirable than either a progressive tax or what you're suggesting, but I view all taxes as being fundamentally evil.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Bleeding hearts want to bleed YOUR heart and monies; not their own.


Exactly.  Although, I may be thinking in different terms than the Captain.  He may be presupposing that all the welfare programs and financial aid and such still exist, which wasn't what I was thinking.  If all of those things exist, it may be possible for someone to survive with no income, assuming the government steals all their income for taxation purposes (I see this as REALLY undesirable, and frankly, I do see stealing ALL of someone's money as being "worse" than stealing 40% or so from a wealthy person, even though I see both as being evil) but my question about people who don't even have/make 10K would still remain.  

I don't believe any of those programs should exist.  If people need help they should be helped voluntarily and not coercively.  But I see a difference between accepting that some people might starve if we don't proactively help them and proactively taking what they do have in order to be "fair."

----------


## otherone

> We thought about this idea for a while, and couldn't come up with many holes in this thinking


That would be the bourbon.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Bleeding hearts want to bleed YOUR heart and monies; not their own.


Oh I know that.  And I am sure there are other ways something like this could be structured to offset the taxes of those who "cannot pay". The essence of it all was the elimination of corporate taxes and proposing a system that is truly fair where everyone pays the exact same amount regardless of income.

----------


## otherone

> One idea, that I'm surprised nobody else has mentioned since (even RP himself), was to eliminate withholding.


I've had that thought in the past as well.  Instead of directly challenging income tax, challenge withholding...the system would shut down.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Oh I know that.  And I am sure there are other ways something like this could be structured to offset the taxes of those who "cannot pay". The essence of it all was the elimination of corporate taxes and proposing a system that is truly fair where everyone pays the exact same amount regardless of income.


I don't see how that's intrinsically more "fair" than any other system.

10,000 dollars is a drop in the bucket to Bill Gates yet it could be a poor person's entire livelihood.  While stealing 10,000 from anybody is wrong, would you really think stealing 10K from Bill Gates and stealing 10K from a poor guy who will starve without it is comparable?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I think it would be better to have no taxes  But, are you suggesting that everyone who does not have 10K should be imprisoned?  Are you saying that people who only make 10K or so a year should be left with nothing at all?  Or are you under the impression that the non-profit will actually bring anything to the table?
> 
> To answer your question in terms of relative evils, I think a flat tax where everyone pays the same percentage would be less undesirable than either a progressive tax or what you're suggesting, but I view all taxes as being fundamentally evil.


Well "no taxes" is a fantasy land given our present situation, so it's moot.

I look at it this way, Americans have voted for decades for the government we have today.  Therefore, the burden of this government should be equal to all regardless of income.  Someone who earns $10K per year is in that situation in large part because of decisions they have made over the course of their life.  While there are exceptions, poor people are poor because of their own life choices.  I have no sympathy for a 30 year old able bodied male who only makes minimum wage.  

Truth is, someone who only makes $10K per year receives tens of thousands of dollars in government benefits: housing, food stamps, medicaid, welfare payments, etc.  In this head tax scenario, those benefits would be reduced by $10K or they could apply for financial assistance from the non-profit charity.

----------


## otherone

> The essence of it all was the elimination of corporate taxes and proposing a system that is truly fair


Taxing corporations isn't fair?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I don't see how that's intrinsically more "fair" than any other system.
> 
> 10,000 dollars is a drop in the bucket to Bill Gates yet it could be a poor person's entire livelihood.  While stealing 10,000 from anybody is wrong, would you really think stealing 10K from Bill Gates and stealing 10K from a poor guy who will starve without it is comparable?


Because it is equal to all regardless of income.  For someone like myself it would save me tens of thousands of dollars every year that I can spend, invest, save and use to grow the economy.

----------


## Christian Liberty

[QUOTE=CaptLouAlbano;5484158]Well "no taxes" is a fantasy land given our present situation, so it's moot.[/QUPTE\

I understand that.



> I look at it this way, Americans have voted for decades for the government we have today.  Therefore, the burden of this government should be equal to all regardless of income.  Someone who earns $10K per year is in that situation in large part because of decisions they have made over the course of their life.  While there are exceptions, poor people are poor because of their own life choices.  I have no sympathy for a 30 year old able bodied male who only makes minimum wage.


Well, you said "18+" and there is a difference between someone who recently graduated high school and a 30 year old.  Regardless, I see your point.  But, I'm not talking about forcing someone else to pay for that person who only makes minimum wage.  Shouldn't he at least be able to keep what he actually does earn though?



> Truth is, someone who only makes $10K per year receives tens of thousands of dollars in government benefits: housing, food stamps, medicaid, welfare payments, etc.  In this head tax scenario, those benefits would be reduced by $10K or they could apply for financial assistance from the non-profit charity.


That's true as well, I guess I'm thinking in the absence of welfare whereas you're thinking with modern welfare.  THat said, what if someone only makes 9K a year? Let's say the non-profit charity doesn't exist (because progressives are shown to by hypocrites like we know they are.)  Would you support sending that person to prison?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Because it is equal to all regardless of income.  For someone like myself it would save me tens of thousands of dollars every year that I can spend, invest, save and use to grow the economy.


Yeah, I don't really see it that way.  I think the "least bad" form of tax system would take an equal percentage from each person, not the exact same dollar amount.

I'm not sure this is a point I can actually prove, though.  It would be far easier to prove that taxation is inherently evil, but I obviously know that's kind of a fantasy ATM.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Taxing corporations isn't fair?


Not at all, since all corporate taxes are merely passed onto the consumer in the form of higher prices.  But if you wanted to do so, you could do a head tax on each corporation and therefore lower the head tax burden for the individual.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I know this is debated around here, but I don't really see a "corporation" as a "person", rather, its simply a group of people who have contracted with each other.  So in the "head tax" scenario I would think each individual who is in the corporation would owe 10K but the corporation itself wouldn't owe anything anymore than a building pays a head tax

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Yeah, I don't really see it that way.  I think the "least bad" form of tax system would take an equal percentage from each person, not the exact same dollar amount.


Then you support a progressive tax system.  All of the current flat tax proposals, even Rand's.  This is from an article about Rand's tax proposal

_"Paul asserts that his flat tax would be progressive since the net percentage of one's wages paid in taxes would rise along with income.

Here's a simplified example of what that means: Say a married couple with two kids makes $100,000 in wages and is allowed to exempt $35,000 for their standard deduction and $6,500 for each dependent. Their total exemption would be $48,000.

So they would pay 17% on the remaining $52,000 of their income, or $8,840 in federal income taxes. That represents 8.84% of their gross income, which is their net effective tax rate.

If the same couple made $200,000 in wages, they would owe $25,840 in taxes for an effective tax rate of 12.92%."_

----------


## otherone

> For someone like myself it would save me tens of thousands of dollars every year

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Then you support a progressive tax system.  All of the current flat tax proposals, even Rand's.  This is from an article about Rand's tax proposal
> 
> _"Paul asserts that his flat tax would be progressive since the net percentage of one's wages paid in taxes would rise along with income.
> 
> Here's a simplified example of what that means: Say a married couple with two kids makes $100,000 in wages and is allowed to exempt $35,000 for their standard deduction and $6,500 for each dependent. Their total exemption would be $48,000.
> 
> So they would pay 17% on the remaining $52,000 of their income, or $8,840 in federal income taxes. That represents 8.84% of their gross income, which is their net effective tax rate.
> 
> If the same couple made $200,000 in wages, they would owe $25,840 in taxes for an effective tax rate of 12.92%."_


I'm fine with Rand's system, as far as it goes, but what I would consider a truly flat tax proposal would be everyone pays the same percentage of all their income, with no deductions.  That said, I don't really look at it as an issue of trying to find the "most fair" tax system so much as trying to get taxes as low as possible.  If I had a ballot option to vote to completely eliminate taxes on the top 50% I would do it.  Trade the top 50% for the bottom 50% and I'd still do it.

BTW: Its not fair to say I "support a progressive tax system."  I don't support any tax system.  This is a discussion, at least for me, about what tax system is the least bad.  But I don't actually "Support" any tax system.  And I never will.

----------


## otherone

> Not at all, since all corporate taxes are merely passed onto the consumer in the form of higher prices.


Having a choice of what to consume is infinitely fairer than your livestock tax.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

[QUOTE=FreedomFanatic;5484163]


> That's true as well, I guess I'm thinking in the absence of welfare whereas you're thinking with modern welfare.  THat said, what if someone only makes 9K a year? Let's say the non-profit charity doesn't exist (because progressives are shown to by hypocrites like we know they are.)  Would you support sending that person to prison?


Well yes, if we rolled back the budget to 2008 levels, welfare would still exist.  I'd like to eliminate all welfare programs and that would reduce the budget greatly (about 20% of the budget is some form of welfare).  Of course, if we were able to spur the economy by reducing the tax burden of corporations and individuals that have serious money then we effectively could eliminate the need for welfare and transition to a charity based system for the truly needy.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Having a choice of what to consume is infinitely fairer than your livestock tax.


We have a livestock tax now, except it is not at all fair.  In 2013 my federal tax burden was in excess of $100K, and there are those who pay nothing.  How is that fair?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> We have a livestock tax now, except it is not at all fair.  In 2013 my federal tax burden was in excess of $100K, and there are those who pay nothing.  How is that fair?


It isn't.  But we may disagree philosophically in that my primary goal is to make the government steal as little as possible, whereas you seem to be primarily concerned about "fairness."

While I absolutely want to lower your tax burden, I don't see the people who pay nothing as being an injustice.  Those are the only people who are being treated "fairly."  Our goal should be to get as many people as possible as close to being in that camp as possible.

----------


## otherone

> We have a livestock tax now, except it is not at all fair.  In 2013 my federal tax burden was in excess of $100K, and there are those who pay nothing.  How is that fair?


This is nothing more than class warfare.   I don't support taxation at the federal level PERIOD.  If a stick of gum cost $1 would you buy it?  How about $2?  Who decides what tax you pay?

----------


## phill4paul

“I want to abolish the income tax, but I don’t want to replace it with anything. "  Ron Paul

  ^^^THAT is the plan we should be working on. Not this "I got mine and I want to keep more for myself."

----------


## roho76

How about no tax and the Federal $#@! up's can $#@! off. Why don't they hold a bake sale if they need money. Go rob someone else's pockets.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> “I want to abolish the income tax, but I don’t want to replace it with anything. "  Ron Paul
> 
>   ^^^THAT is the plan we should be working on. Not this "I got mine and I want to keep more for myself."


I agree that it should be abolished and replaced with nothing.  But that is in the land of lollipops and unicorns, it simply will not happen overnight.  In order to reach that goal, there will be steps along the way and whether than is simply a reduction in rates, a flat tax, fair tax, head tax, sales tax or whatever else something will be in place prior to any goal of complete elimination.

That is why Rand is proposing a 17% flat tax (which BTW I do support as a good alternative to the present system), instead of choosing to parrot his father's mantra.

----------


## otherone

> While I absolutely want to lower your tax burden, I don't see the people who pay nothing as being an injustice.  Those are the only people who are being treated "fairly."


Holy Crap.
FF earned rep from me.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> How about no tax and the Federal $#@! up's can $#@! off. Why don't they hold a bake sale if they need money. Go rob someone else's pockets.


Agreed - but that is not reality.  If we want to talk about libertarian utopian ideas that's fine.  But the reality is that we have a massive federal budget and even the mere thought of a reduction in the rate of growth causes conniptions.

I think the problem here is too many people are stuck with the utopian ideals rather than reality.  Would I like to see the budget reduced to the bare essentials that the government is authorized to do by the Constitution?  Would I like to see a complete elimination of taxation? Of course, but I am sane enough and grounded in reality enough to know that that will not occur without a transition from our present situation.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I agree that it should be abolished and replaced with nothing.  But that is in the land of lollipops and unicorns, it simply will not happen overnight.  In order to reach that goal, there will be steps along the way and whether than is simply a reduction in rates, a flat tax, fair tax, head tax, sales tax or whatever else something will be in place prior to any goal of complete elimination.
> 
> That is why Rand is proposing a 17% flat tax (which BTW I do support as a good alternative to the present system), instead of choosing to parrot his father's mantra.


OK, I simply don't see any way that what you propose would be any more acceptable to the average person than what Ron proposed.  

I don't have an issue with incrementalism as long as we take as much as we can whenever we can.  When we see incrementalism as an end in and of itself, or decry idealism, that's when we go wrong IMO.





> Holy Crap.
> FF earned rep from me.


You'd generally like my political stuff more than theological, I think

----------


## otherone

> But truthfully, the reduction in taxes for the top 50% and the elimination of corporate taxes would result in massive economic growth.


Sucking 10k from the consumer class will destroy our economy.

----------


## donnay



----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Sucking 10k from the consumer class will destroy our economy.


When you take into account Federal Tax, FICA, Medicare, and all the hidden federal taxes, half of the country already pays more than $10K per year.

----------


## otherone

> I think the problem here is too many people are stuck with the utopian ideals rather than reality.


LOLZ.
Your plan is political suicide.  There are millions of hard-working, over-taxed, Americans who struggle to put bread on their tables, and your answer is to tax them MORE?
Good luck wit dat, my friend.

----------


## otherone

> When you take into account Federal Tax, FICA, Medicare, and all the hidden federal taxes, half of the country already pays more than $10K per year.


Break it down for me.  Family of four, 50k/year.

----------


## FindLiberty

_"We think your head tax idea is like, totally unfair!"_



*How about substituting a penis tax instead?*

----------


## phill4paul

> Agreed - but that is not reality.  If we want to talk about libertarian utopian ideas that's fine.  But the reality is that we have a massive federal budget and even the mere thought of a reduction in the rate of growth causes conniptions.
> 
> I think the problem here is too many people are stuck with the utopian ideals rather than reality.  Would I like to see the budget reduced to the bare essentials that the government is authorized to do by the Constitution?  Would I like to see a complete elimination of taxation? Of course, but I am sane enough and grounded in reality enough to know that that will not occur without a transition from our present situation.


  But you are sane enough and grounded in reality enough to believe that a 10k head tax will get any political traction. SMDH. This is why I stopped paying attention to your political "wisdom" long ago.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> _"We think your head tax idea is like, totally unfair!"_
> 
> 
> 
> *How about substituting a penis tax instead?*


lol!




> Agreed - but that is not reality.  If we want to talk about libertarian utopian ideas that's fine.  But the reality is that we have a massive federal budget and even the mere thought of a reduction in the rate of growth causes conniptions.
> 
> I think the problem here is too many people are stuck with the utopian ideals rather than reality.  Would I like to see the budget reduced to the bare essentials that the government is authorized to do by the Constitution?  Would I like to see a complete elimination of taxation? Of course, but I am sane enough and grounded in reality enough to know that that will not occur without a transition from our present situation.


I don't think your suggestion really moves us in the right direction.  Why not instead propose cutting everyone's burdens by 5% or 10% or whatever?  Your plan just redistributes the burden rather than really knocking a hole in it.

Also, 10K per person would be 20K per family, more if the family has any 18+ children living at home.

----------


## otherone

> But you are sane enough and grounded in reality enough to believe that a 10k head tax will get any political traction.


But think of the boost in tar, feather, and pitchfork sales!

----------


## otherone

> Also, 10K per person would be 20K per family, more if the family has any 18+ children living at home.


GOODBYE, stay-at-home moms.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> GOODBYE, stay-at-home moms.


Exactly.  This is another issue I have with it.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Break it down for me.  Family of four, 50k/year.


Averages of course:

Income tax: $1800; SS Tax: $6200 (1/2 "paid by employer"); Medicare: $1450 (also 1/2 from employer); All other taxes (gas, diesel, excise, etc) $1500

Total: $10950

And again, the $10K number was thrown out there because it totaled up nicely for the 2008 budget number.  $5000 would be better of course, but how is that acheived?  

Seems here to me that people are more supportive of a progressive form of taxation rather than something equal for all.  I didn't think that so called libertarians were suckered into class envy.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Averages of course:
> 
> Income tax: $1800; SS Tax: $6200 (1/2 "paid by employer"); Medicare: $1450 (also 1/2 from employer); All other taxes (gas, diesel, excise, etc) $1500
> 
> Total: $10950


With head tax: 20K

Or did you mean 10K per family?

----------


## donnay

All tax is theft. 


I would rather live in anarchy than tyranny.

----------


## oyarde

> But think of the boost in tar, feather, and pitchfork sales!


I could use a new pitchfork , but they are kind of pricey .

----------


## FindLiberty

> Break it down for me.  Family of four, 50k/year.


Don't forget to adjust for half the US workforce (that are gov or gov contractors) who only
get paid with money collected from taxes*, that they in turn are also paying taxes on, and
how they must enjoy sending that tax money back into the system to help pay themselves.

_*Some fiat inflation may actually be required, like about 9,000% to make the whole scheme work all tidy and fine._

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> All tax is theft. 
> 
> 
> I would rather live in anarchy than tyranny.


Agreed.  But we don't.  So how to we get from point A to point B?

The point of this is pretty simple.  We are stuck with the government we have until we can massively roll back the size and scope of government.  So using 2008 budget numbers and dividing that by the total number of adults it comes out to $10K per person to fund the government and allow them to do all the things that we have allowed them to do.

At present those who earn more are forced to pay more.  And even under the best flat tax proposal those who earn more will pay more.  If we truly want a system that treats everyone equally regardless of their income, then a head tax would be that system.

Ultimately, it should be a couple hundred bucks a year to pay for the things that the government is truly Constitutionally authorized to do. But until we get to that point, is there not a more equitable means of distributing the burden of the government on all citizens and not merely on those who have worked hard and became successful?

----------


## tod evans

> We have a livestock tax now, except it is not at all fair.  In 2013 my federal tax burden was in excess of $100K, and there are those who pay nothing.  How is that fair?



The very best part is that many of those who pay nothing suck the dollars you paid in right out of the system and they cause even more folks to be employed by government to monitor the sucking.....

There is no sane and logical way to change the broken system we live under...

At this point it's either keep tugging at the bandage or rip the damn thing off.......

----------


## donnay

> Agreed.  But we don't.  So how to we get from point A to point B?


We demand a limited government!  

I am tired of being forced, at the barrel of a gun, to pay for this hideous tyranny we have before us now.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> We demand a limited government!  
> 
> I am tired of being forced, at the barrel of a gun, to pay for this hideous tyranny we have before us now.


Ok but even if after the 2016 elections we had a Congress full of libertarians, there would still be a transition between where we are now and where we want to be.  Take Medicaid for example.  I want it eliminated - but if tomorrow it vanished you would have millions of people who are currently on the system have no medical insurance.  We instead need to transition those people to private insurance that they pay for themselves or to a charity based system for the truly needy.  As much as we might want to just rip the band aid off, it will not happen that way

----------


## tod evans

> As much as we might want to just rip the band aid off, it will not happen that way


If every man who had $100k of taxes levied against him refused to pay it would force the issue.

Those of us who refuse to work on the W-2 system do have leverage, question is how many have the balls to use it?

----------


## phill4paul

> If every man who had $100k of taxes levied against him refused to pay it would force the issue.
> 
> Those of us who refuse to work on the W-2 system do have leverage, question is how many have the balls to use it?


  Indeed. Why bother putting everything at stake like the founders did? Just come up with a plan that will give yourself tax relief while bringing a greater burden to those that have less. And, of course, enforce it, at gun point, through the government.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> If every man who had $100k of taxes levied against him refused to pay it would force the issue.
> 
> Those of us who refuse to work on the W-2 system do have leverage, question is how many have the balls to use it?


Few.  It is far less risky for high income earners (particularly small businesses) to do creative accounting to reduce their tax burden.  The people that really get screwed are those earning $100K+ a year from a 9 to 5 job.  They have little, if any means, to hide their income.

----------


## otherone

> *We* instead need to transition those people to private insurance that they pay for themselves or to a charity based system for the truly needy.  As much as *we* might want to just rip the band aid off, it will not happen that way


"Whenever I hear the word 'culture' *'WE'*, I reach for my revolver.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Indeed. Why bother putting everything at stake like the founders did? Just come up with a plan that will give yourself tax relief while bringing a greater burden to those that have less. And, of course, enforce it, at gun point, through the government.


Are you willing to take up arms and violently overthrow the Federal Government?  

And again, those on the lower income scale would have a means to reduce their burden via charity.  That was already addressed.  Those who truly cannot afford the tax could petition the charity to offset what they cannot afford.  As I mentioned, I don't forsee this as being a long term problem as the additional income left in the hands of the producers would be spent and invested.  

If I had, for example, that $90K back that I paid the government this year do you think I would just throw it in a shoebox?  Bury it in the yard?  No, I would spend and invest that money which in turn would result in me earning even more.

----------


## tod evans

> Few.  It is far less risky for high income earners (particularly small businesses) to do creative accounting to reduce their tax burden.  *The people that really get screwed are those earning $100K+ a year from a 9 to 5 job*.  They have little, if any means, to hide their income.


Even_ those_ folks have the option (if they're actually worth their salary) to work as contract labor...

Once the money is put back in the hands of the man who actually earns it he has discression as to how he disburses it....

----------


## otherone

> And again, those on the lower income scale would have a means to reduce their burden via charity.  That was already addressed.  Those who truly cannot afford the tax could petition the charity to offset what they cannot afford.


It would be simpler and more expedient to solve your problem by setting up a charity for the wealthy to help them with THEIR tax burden.

----------


## tod evans

> Are you willing to take up arms and violently overthrow the Federal Government?


Overthrow it or sit in the corner and watch it crumble as they grab more and more loot from the productive...


Hmmmmmmm.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> It would be simpler and more expedient to solve your problem by setting up a charity for the wealthy to help them with THEIR tax burden.


Do you not prefer charity over government welfare?

----------


## otherone

> Do you not prefer charity over government welfare?


I prefer voluntary funding of government.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I prefer voluntary funding of government.


As do I.  So how do we get from a progressive income tax (along with FICA, Medicare, and all the other federal taxes) to that point?  What is the transition between that and voluntary funding?

----------


## tod evans

> As do I.  So how do we get from a progressive income tax (along with FICA, Medicare, and all the other federal taxes) to that point?  What is the transition between that and voluntary funding?





> Are you willing to take up arms and violently overthrow the Federal Government?


Hmmmmmmmm.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Hmmmmmmmm.


I disagree with your inference and believe that talk of violent revolution would return the liberty movement to the fringe from which it once came.

----------


## donnay

> Are you willing to take up arms and violently overthrow the Federal Government?  
> 
> And again, those on the lower income scale would have a means to reduce their burden via charity.  That was already addressed.  Those who truly cannot afford the tax could petition the charity to offset what they cannot afford.  As I mentioned, I don't forsee this as being a long term problem as the additional income left in the hands of the producers would be spent and invested.  
> 
> If I had, for example, that $90K back that I paid the government this year do you think I would just throw it in a shoebox?  Bury it in the yard?  No, I would spend and invest that money which in turn would result in me earning even more.




Do you think those who have power are going to easily relinquish any of it without a fight?

----------


## otherone

> As do I.  So how do we get from a progressive income tax (along with FICA, Medicare, and all the other federal taxes) to that point?  What is the transition between that and voluntary funding?


You keep saying "we" as if you or I had any power to change the system.  Understand that the system that is in place is not to mollify the "bleeding hearts", it is in place because monied interests WANT it in place.  The usurpation of the federal government by corporate and banking interests has occurred by castrating the states and removing actual popular representation.   I choose to support candidates who support small government, and to speak about it to anyone who listens.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Do you think those who have power are going to easily relinquish any of it without a fight?



Not at all.  The fight is already taking place as Rand is fighting, along with his allies, for the heart and soul of the GOP.  His speeches, commentaries, essays, etc focus greatly on the need to reshape the direction of the party so that it is a viable entity for change.  And all the while, the neoconservative wing of the party is going after Rand with everything that they have got.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> You keep saying "we" as if you or I had any power to change the system.  Understand that the system that is in place is not to mollify the "bleeding hearts", it is in place because monied interests WANT it in place.  The usurpation of the federal government by corporate and banking interests has occurred by castrating the states and removing actual popular representation.   I choose to support candidates who support small government, and to speak about it to anyone who listens.


That is all well and good, but doesn't answer the question.  If you indeed want voluntary funding of the government, how do you propose that the country moves from a progressive tax to voluntary funding.  What is the transition between the two?  Flat tax, sales tax, head tax, a combination of those or what?

And truthfully, you and I both have the power to change the system.  Run for office, get involved at the local level to help effect change.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Are you willing to take up arms and violently overthrow the Federal Government?  
> 
> And again, those on the lower income scale would have a means to reduce their burden via charity.  That was already addressed.  Those who truly cannot afford the tax could petition the charity to offset what they cannot afford.  As I mentioned, I don't forsee this as being a long term problem as the additional income left in the hands of the producers would be spent and invested.  
> 
> If I had, for example, that $90K back that I paid the government this year do you think I would just throw it in a shoebox?  Bury it in the yard?  No, I would spend and invest that money which in turn would result in me earning even more.





> I disagree with your inference and believe that talk of violent revolution would return the liberty movement to the fringe from which it once came.


Define "revolution."

If by "revolution" you mean starting a war I am opposed to that.

If by "revolution" you mean secession with a willingness to defend such by force if the Feds attack us to try to force us back into their hegemony, I support that.

The American Revolution isn't really correctly named.  Its not like the Americans went over to Great Britain and demanded it change its government.  They just wanted to be left out of it.

----------


## phill4paul

> Are you willing to take up arms and violently overthrow the Federal Government?  
> 
> And again, those on the lower income scale would have a means to reduce their burden via charity.  That was already addressed.  Those who truly cannot afford the tax could petition the charity to offset what they cannot afford.  As I mentioned, I don't forsee this as being a long term problem as the additional income left in the hands of the producers would be spent and invested.  
> 
> If I had, for example, that $90K back that I paid the government this year do you think I would just throw it in a shoebox?  Bury it in the yard?  No, I would spend and invest that money which in turn would result in me earning even more.


  In my own way I already have Capt. This is the 3rd year I have not filed Federal nor do I intend to ever do so. I also do not plan to spend a single night in their jails or a single day in their "JustUs" court room. Take that as you will.

  As it stands the burden is on the government to prove that I owe them taxes. You would have me trade that for an already assigned dollar amount regardless of what I make and if I didn't like it I could seek charity. I don't do welfare nor charity. There's some unmitigated gall on your part to tell me I might consider doing so all because you want a lower tax burden on yourself. Nope. No thanks.

----------


## donnay

> Not at all.  The fight is already taking place as Rand is fighting, along with his allies, for the heart and soul of the GOP.  His speeches, commentaries, essays, etc focus greatly on the need to reshape the direction of the party so that it is a viable entity for change.  And all the while, the neoconservative wing of the party is going after Rand with everything that they have got.



Yes, Rand is fighting and his father is still fighting to educate the people as well.  That is the key, educating the people.  Letting them know they have the power to make change.  Not just in the voting booth but in all aspects of our society.  Knowing your rights and exercises them.  Standing your ground and have the courage to stand up to this tyranny.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Not at all.  The fight is already taking place as Rand is fighting, along with his allies, for the heart and soul of the GOP.  His speeches, commentaries, essays, etc focus greatly on the need to reshape the direction of the party so that it is a viable entity for change.  And all the while, the neoconservative wing of the party is going after Rand with everything that they have got.


I agree, but I think you need the "fringe" types that push for principle every chance they get as well as the pragmatists that move things along through compromise.  If nothing else, people like me are useful foils for people like Rand




> That is all well and good, but doesn't answer the question.  If you indeed want voluntary funding of the government, how do you propose that the country moves from a progressive tax to voluntary funding.  What is the transition between the two?  Flat tax, sales tax, head tax, a combination of those or what?
> 
> And truthfully, you and I both have the power to change the system.  Run for office, get involved at the local level to help effect change.


I don't know for sure, but I'd like to actually try to reduce Federal revenue, even if only by a tad, rather than simply redistributing who has to pay for it.

----------


## otherone

> That is all well and good, but doesn't answer the question.  If you indeed want voluntary funding of the government, how do you propose that the country moves from a progressive tax to voluntary funding.  What is the transition between the two?  Flat tax, sales tax, head tax, a combination of those or what?





> Ron Paul:    *The Case Against the Income Tax*
> 
>     Could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of its history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a workers paycheck. In the late 1800s, when Congress first attempted to impose an income tax, the notion of taxing a citizens hard work was considered radical! Public outcry ensued; more importantly, the Supreme Court ruled the income tax unconstitutional. Only with passage of the 16th Amendment did Congress gain the ability to tax the productive endeavors of its citizens.
> 
>     Yet dont we need an income tax to fund the important functions of the federal government? You may be surprised to know that the income tax accounts for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Only 10 years ago, the federal budget was roughly one-third less than it is today. Surely we could find ways to cut spending back to 1990 levels, especially when the Treasury has single year tax surpluses for the past several years. So perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all.
> 
>     The harmful effects of the income tax are obvious. First and foremost, it has enabled government to expand far beyond its proper constitutional limits, regulating virtually every aspect of our lives. It has given government a claim on our lives and work, destroying our privacy in the process. It takes billions of dollars out of the legitimate private economy, with most Americans giving more than a third of everything they make to the federal government. This economic drain destroys jobs and penalizes productive behavior. The ridiculous complexity of the tax laws makes compliance a nightmare for both individuals and businesses. All things considered, our Founders would be dismayed by the income tax mess and the tragic loss of liberty which results.
> 
>     America without an income tax would be far more prosperous and far more free, but we must be prepared to fight to regain the liberty we have lost incrementally over the past century. I recently introduced The Liberty Amendment, legislation which would repeal the 16th Amendment and effectively abolish the income tax. I truly believe that real tax reform, reform that so many frustrated Americans desperately want, requires bold legislation that challenges the Washington mind set. Congress talks about reform, but the current tax debate really involves nothing of substance. Both parties are content to continue tinkering with the edges of the tax code to please various special interests. The Liberty Amendment is an attempt to eliminate the system altogether, forcing Congress to find a simple and fair way to collect limited federal revenues. Most of all, the Liberty Amendment is an initiative aimed at reducing the size and scope of the federal government.
> ...



I'll need some bourbon if you want me to reinvent the wheel.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I don't know for sure, but I'd like to actually try to reduce Federal revenue, even if only by a tad, rather than simply redistributing who has to pay for it.



Actually the OP proposal reduced revenue by 1 trillion dollars, which only rolled things back to 2008 levels.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> As it stands the burden is on the government to prove that I owe them taxes. You would have me trade that for an already assigned dollar amount regardless of what I make and if I didn't like it I could seek charity. I don't do welfare nor charity. There's some unmitigated gall on your part to tell me I might consider doing so all because you want a lower tax burden on yourself. Nope. No thanks.


Again the "regardless of what I make" infers that you support punishing those who earn more than you do.  

So I will ask you this. I don't know what you earn a year, but for argument's sake let's say it's $50K.  Last year I earned a little over 1.2M.  Do you feel that because you  earned less money than I did, that your portion of the federal budget burden is less?  If so, then why?

----------


## gwax23

I dotn support a revenue neutral tax plan. 10k is ridiculous. Drop this head tax to maybe 100 or less and Ill support it aslong as It replaces all other federal level taxes and is not revenue neutral.

----------


## tod evans

> I disagree with your inference and believe that talk of violent revolution would return the liberty movement to the fringe from which it once came.


I've only been doing this peaceful thing for 40 years and quite frankly I have severe doubts as to its effectiveness....

(For the record I've only said "Hmmmm" I've not typed anything about a violent revolution..)

----------


## Danke

> In my own way I already have Capt. This is the 3rd year I have not filed Federal nor do I intend to ever do so. I also do not plan to spend a single night in their jails or a single day in their "JustUs" court room. Take that as you will.
> 
>   As it stands the burden is on the government to prove that I owe them taxes. You would have me trade that for an already assigned dollar amount regardless of what I make and if I didn't like it I could seek charity. I don't do welfare nor charity. There's some unmitigated gall on your part to tell me I might consider doing so all because you want a lower tax burden on yourself. Nope. No thanks.


Does anyone report W-2, 1099 or K-1 to the IRS on you?

----------


## Danke

> I'll need some bourbon if you want me to reinvent the wheel.


RP doesn't really understand the Income Tax.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I'll need some bourbon if you want me to reinvent the wheel.


All well and good, but when Ron ran in 2012 his budget plan (source: http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/...mericaPlan.pdf) did not eliminate the income tax.  His proposal was to lower the corporate tax to 15%, extend the Bush cuts, allow companies to repatriate capital without penalty and end the death tax and personal savings tax.  So while he talked about abolishing the income tax in 2001 (the year the essay you posted was published) when the rubber met the road, his actual proposal did not.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I dotn support a revenue neutral tax plan. 10k is ridiculous. Drop this head tax to maybe 100 or less and Ill support it aslong as It replaces all other federal level taxes and is not revenue neutral.


Actually it wasn't revenue neutral.  At $10K it would cut a trillion off the 2014 budget numbers.  I believe you could actually get the $10K down a lot more though.  I can't find the numbers but if you eliminated the EITC you would save more from the budget.\

Revenue neutral would be right around 14 grand per adult.

----------


## otherone

> All well and good, but when Ron ran in 2012 his budget plan (source: http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/...mericaPlan.pdf) did not eliminate the income tax.  His proposal was to lower the corporate tax to 15%, extend the Bush cuts, allow companies to repatriate capital without penalty and end the death tax and personal savings tax.  So while he talked about abolishing the income tax in 2001 (the year the essay you posted was published) when the rubber met the road, his actual proposal did not.


Weren't you the one advocating incrementalism to revolution?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Weren't you the one advocating incrementalism to revolution?


I always have.  And I supported Ron's plan.  So if you posted that plan instead of his essay on no taxes at all, it would have made better sense to the conversation.

----------


## otherone

> I always have.  And I supported Ron's plan.  So if you posted that plan instead of his essay on no taxes at all, it would have made better sense to the conversation.


Conversation?  Your "plan" speaks of fairness, with not one iota of implementation or practicality, while you judge the ideas of others as being utopian.  The US has a prison population of over 2 million.   10k a pop?   How about the mentally or developmentally disabled?   That's a BIIIIG charity you're talking about.
Here's a "fair" plan....petition your congressman to see if he can get support for your plan, or even still, you and your bourbon buddies can start your OWN party, and call it the "Let Them Eat Cake" party.    
I'll sharpen the guillotine.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Conversation?  Your "plan" speaks of fairness, with not one iota of implementation or practicality, while you judge the ideas of others as being utopian.  The US has a prison population of over 2 million.   10k a pop?   How about the mentally or developmentally disabled?   That's a BIIIIG charity you're talking about.
> Here's a "fair" plan....petition your congressman to see if he can get support for your plan, or even still, you and your bourbon buddies can start your OWN party, and call it the "Let Them Eat Cake" party.    
> I'll sharpen the guillotine.


I judge the "no taxes at all" as being utopian.  

Truth is with the 2015 budget your per capita burden is 14 grand.  How $#@!ed up is a system where more than half of the people in this country do not pay even close to that amount?  Why should I pay nearly 7 times that amount in taxes when someone who flips burgers for a living (and likely receives government benefits) pays little to nothing in taxes?

----------


## tod evans

> Why should I pay nearly 7 times that amount in taxes when someone who flips burgers for a living (and likely receives government benefits) pays little to nothing in taxes?



You shouldn't...

Now, how're ya' going to get there from here?

----------


## otherone

> Why should I pay nearly 7 times that amount in taxes when someone who flips burgers for a living (and likely receives government benefits) pays little to nothing in taxes?


No one is stopping you from flipping burgers, too.

----------


## otherone

> You shouldn't...
> 
> Now, how're ya' going to get there from here?


THANK YOU.
problem solved.

----------


## Cap

All this politcal wisdom from this guy, what a waste of bandwidth...think I will put him back on ignore.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> No one is stopping you from flipping burgers, too.


It's funny because of the outcry some here have had over paying $10K per year per adult.  As I said based on this year's budget your share is $14K.  If you aren't paying that someone else is paying it for you.

And while no one is "stopping me from flipping burgers" there are many things that are within.  Pride, desire for a better life, determination, responsibility to my family and other reasons are why I have chosen to be successful in life.

----------


## phill4paul

> Again the "regardless of what I make" infers that you support punishing those who earn more than you do.  
> 
> So I will ask you this. I don't know what you earn a year, but for argument's sake let's say it's $50K.  Last year I earned a little over 1.2M.  Do you feel that because you  earned less money than I did, that your portion of the federal budget burden is less?  If so, then why?


  I don't support punishing anyone with an income tax burden. Not even you. And you are a free man, such as myself, and may chose to lower your income tax burden to zero as I have. I make no claim to any portion of the Federal budget or in truth the Federal deficit. You are free to do likewise. Or you can whine about "fairness" and how income tax should be apportioned, not un-coincidentally to your benefit.

----------


## tod evans

$90k ...

You've singlehandedly footed the bill for one SWAT team member..

Or half of an AUSA...

Or subsidized 9 welfare families...

Or paid for 1/50th of the Obama families last vacation...

Feel better?

----------


## otherone

> If you aren't paying that someone else is paying it for you.


BULL$#@!.

No one is "paying" anything.
How asinine that the merchant whines to the pauper that the highwayman is not fair in his thievery.

----------


## phill4paul

> Does anyone report W-2, 1099 or K-1 to the IRS on you?


  No.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> BULL$#@!.
> 
> No one is "paying" anything.
> How asinine that the merchant whines to the pauper that the highwayman is not fair in his thievery.


So you think it is fair that someone like myself pays 90K in taxes, while someone pays next to nothing?  The only way that is fair is if you support a progressive tax.

Ron's budget plan did not do away with a progressive tax at all.  Other than the extension of the Bush cuts, the progressive tax still existed under his plan. And while his plan was a step in the right direction it was not even close to being a fairer plan.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> No.


Do you have a cash only business?  If so, you are rare today.  Very few businesses can operate on a cash only basis and not use the banking system.

----------


## phill4paul

> Do you have a cash only business?  If so, you are rare today.  Very few businesses can operate on a cash only basis and not use the banking system.


  I do not have a business. I have a trade. Several.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I do not have a business. I have a trade. Several.


Ok a trade.  So I am guessing you don't have a physical location you operate out of and you pay for all your supplies with cash?

----------


## Danke

> So you think it is fair that someone like myself pays 90K in taxes, while someone pays next to nothing?


Yes, if it is federal privilege income (i.e. excise tax) and the other person's income is not.  Which is what the income tax is.

----------


## phill4paul

> Ok a trade.  So I am guessing you don't have a physical location you operate out of and you pay for all your supplies with cash?


  "Cash is king" so they say. My physical location is where I am at at any given moment. I'll be going back to the yard in a couple of minutes after lunch. I'm a simple man of simple needs. I did not make $1.2M last year.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I don't see how that's intrinsically more "fair" than any other system.
> 
> 10,000 dollars is a drop in the bucket to Bill Gates yet it could be a poor person's entire livelihood.  While stealing 10,000 from anybody is wrong, would you really think stealing 10K from Bill Gates and stealing 10K from a poor guy who will starve without it is comparable?


Then, apparently, you believe it is government's job to redistribute income.  I happen to not agree.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> So you think it is fair that someone like myself pays 90K in taxes, while someone pays next to nothing?  The only way that is fair is if you support a progressive tax.
> 
> Ron's budget plan did not do away with a progressive tax at all.  Other than the extension of the Bush cuts, the progressive tax still existed under his plan. And while his plan was a step in the right direction it was not even close to being a fairer plan.


I think you are focusing on the wrong issue, actually.  Instead of worrying about where the money is going to come from that the government can steal, we should be focusing on reducing the size of government down to the level, albeit drastically, that the people are willing to support it.

----------


## otherone

> Then, apparently, you believe it is government's job to redistribute income.  I happen to not agree.


It's been doing it all along:

----------


## LibertyEagle

> It's funny because of the outcry some here have had over paying $10K per year per adult.  As I said based on this year's budget your share is $14K.  If you aren't paying that someone else is paying it for you.
> 
> And while no one is "stopping me from flipping burgers" there are many things that are within.  Pride, desire for a better life, determination, responsibility to my family and other reasons are why I have chosen to be successful in life.


Then why are you so willing to hand it over to the federal government (aka today's mafia)?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Then, apparently, you believe it is government's job to redistribute income.  I happen to not agree.


That's not what I said.  I completely agree that its not the government's job to redistribute income.  In fact, I don't even think the State should exist at all, which you've mocked me for in the past.

We were talking about the "least bad" form of tax.  Capt. Lou thinks this would be to take 10K on the dot from each and every person, regardless of whether that person earns 10K (or less) or if they earn ten million per year.  I don't think its in any way fair to the poor to take the vast majority, if not outright every dime, that they have.

But, I don't think the guy who makes ten million should be taxed to give welfare to the guy with 10K either.  I stated that I don't believe in taxation, but if its going to exist, a flat PERCENTAGE is probably the fairest form of tax.  (Tariffs, which I think you support, would be even better but for some reason were not brought up.)

----------


## LibertyEagle

> It's been doing it all along:


I know they've been doing it.  What I didn't expect was to see someone on RPFs arguing FOR it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I know they've been doing it.  What I didn't expect was to see someone on RPFs arguing FOR it.


Well, it didn't actually happen.  I think you're misreading me, considering I basically agree with every word you've posted in this thread.

I am all for reducing taxes as much as possible, from everyone.  I am not in favor of increasing taxes on the poor to nearly 100% even if that leads to a reduction of taxes on other people.  Its all bad.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> That's not what I said.  I completely agree that its not the government's job to redistribute income.  In fact, I don't even think the State should exist at all, which you've mocked me for in the past.


Only because I don't believe you have thought it through.




> We were talking about the "least bad" form of tax.  Capt. Lou thinks this would be to take 10K on the dot from each and every person, regardless of whether that person earns 10K (or less) or if they earn ten million per year.  I don't think its in any way fair to the poor to take the vast majority, if not outright every dime, that they have.


You're doing it again.  




> But, I don't think the guy who makes ten million should be taxed to give welfare to the guy with 10K either.  I stated that I don't believe in taxation, but if its going to exist,* a flat PERCENTAGE* is probably the fairest form of tax.  (Tariffs, which I think you support, would be even better but for some reason were not brought up.)


That's pretty much what Capt Lou was recommending.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I think you are focusing on the wrong issue, actually.  Instead of worrying about where the money is going to come from that the government can steal, we should be focusing on reducing the size of government down to the level, albeit drastically, that the people are willing to support it.


Agreed.  The 2.75 trillion (2008 budget) would be a $1 Trillion cut from the 2015 proposal.  If they set the budget at that 2008 level its comes out to $10K per adult.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Agreed.  The 2.75 trillion (2008 budget) would be a $1 Trillion cut from the 2015 proposal.  If they set the budget at that 2008 level its comes out to $10K per adult.


Yes, but you know as well as I do that with the massive welfare state that exists, there is 0 way this would ever work.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> We were talking about the "least bad" form of tax.  Capt. Lou thinks this would be to take 10K on the dot from each and every person, regardless of whether that person earns 10K (or less) or if they earn ten million per year.  I don't think its in any way fair to the poor to take the vast majority, if not outright every dime, that they have.


Why is it not fair?  Person A lives is an adult living in the US, person B is also a person living in the US.  Why should person A pay more than person B?  They both receive the same government services (now we can argue about the Constitutionality of those services, but that is moot since we agree on that).  But they both receive the same things (FDA, EPA, Army, etc).  In that sense they are both equal, so why should person B pay tens of thousands of dollars in taxes and person A pay nothing?

----------


## otherone

> That's pretty much what Capt Lou was recommending.


Capt Lou wants a head tax, not a percentage.  Every adult owes the government 14k for existing.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> "Cash is king" so they say. My physical location is where I am at at any given moment. I'll be going back to the yard in a couple of minutes after lunch. I'm a simple man of simple needs. I did not make $1.2M last year.



You are a rare breed then, and I congratulate you for being able to stay off the radar.  It's not that easy though when your business requires you to have a physical location, order products from suppliers using credit cards, accept checks and cards as payment, etc.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Capt Lou wants a head tax, not a percentage.  Every adult owes the government 14k for existing.


Yes $14K per person is the per capita tax burden per adult.  Now of course Congress does run a deficit, but if that deficit magically went away it would come out to be around $11K per capita (Fed tax receipts for 2014 will be around 3 trillion, divide that by the 275 million adults and you get 11K per person).

----------


## otherone

http://www.change.org/

Why wait?
Start a petition!

----------


## phill4paul

> Why is it not fair?  Person A lives is an adult living in the US, person B is also a person living in the US.  Why should person A pay more than person B?  They both receive the same government services (now we can argue about the Constitutionality of those services, but that is moot since we agree on that).  But they both receive the same things (FDA, EPA, Army, etc).  In that sense they are both equal, so why should person B pay tens of thousands of dollars in taxes and person A pay nothing?


  Answer: Neither should pay. Why should person A spend a life in debtors prison because a $10k income tax leaves them destitute or so near to poverty that they must accept charity?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Answer: Neither should pay. Why should person A spend a life in debtors prison because a $10k income tax leaves them destitute or so near to poverty that they must accept charity?


But you are back top advocating for no tax burden for anyone.  And while that is a noble idea, we aren't even close to being there yet.  So, again why shouldn't both citizens pay equally for the government budget?  Under the present system and even under the flat tax proposal, those who earn more pay more.

----------


## phill4paul

> You are a rare breed then, and I congratulate you for being able to stay off the radar.  It's not that easy though when your business requires you to have a physical location, order products from suppliers using credit cards, accept checks and cards as payment, etc.


  It is by choice. I have owned a small business. It was like slogging through mud to take a foot forward. Much easier now. When all is said and done I am much happier now. Which, by my account, is worth far more than worldly wealth that I have to worry about defending even to the detriment of others. It is a choice we make. As Danke has pointed out.

----------


## phill4paul

> But you are back top advocating for no tax burden for anyone.  And while that is a noble idea, we aren't even close to being there yet.  So, again why shouldn't both citizens pay equally for the government budget?  Under the present system and even under the flat tax proposal, those who earn more pay more.


  I'm there. Others could be too. If they make the choice.  That said, lunch is over. I'll check back in.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

I am all for your idea, Capt. Lou!  It would be a vast, *vast* improvement over the current situation.

And you are absolutely right that the massive simplification would make budget decreases much more popular.  By directly coupling budget to taxes, in such a direct and mathematically simple way, people would be able to see and understand very easily the benefits of budget decrease and the cost of budget increase -- not just abstract, ideological benefits, but the precise and calculated benefit to next year's family finances!

----------


## mad cow

> That's not what I said.  I completely agree that its not the government's job to redistribute income.  In fact, I don't even think the State should exist at all, which you've mocked me for in the past.
> 
> We were talking about the "least bad" form of tax.  Capt. Lou thinks this would be to take 10K on the dot from each and every person, regardless of whether that person earns 10K (or less) or if they earn ten million per year.  I don't think its in any way fair to the poor to take the vast majority, if not outright every dime, that they have.
> 
> But, I don't think the guy who makes ten million should be taxed to give welfare to the guy with 10K either.  I stated that I don't believe in taxation, but if its going to exist, a flat PERCENTAGE is probably the fairest form of tax.  (Tariffs, which I think you support, would be even better but for some reason were not brought up.)


What about a flat Federal sales tax replacing _all_ present taxes on individuals and corporations?Spend more,pay more,spend less,pay less so 'progressive'.
Unavoidable for all citizens and non-citizens alike and transparent,what you are being gouged for is right there on the receipt.

The simplicity alone would make it attractive to me.I hate doing the tax paperwork every year almost as much as I hate the taxes themselves,I can't imagine the headaches Capt. Lou goes through.

Not that i'm any fan of the Va.sales tax,or any tax for that matter,I can still buy a carton of cigarettes and a 12 pack of beer in 30 seconds,no questions asked,no forms filled out.

----------


## otherone

> The simplicity alone would make it attractive to me.I hate doing the tax paperwork every year almost as much as I hate the taxes themselves,I can't imagine the headaches Capt. Lou goes through.


That is what accountants are for.  Good ones pay for themselves.  Capt must have a good one, as he only pays about 8 percent.

PS.  May I have his number, please, I pay a much higher percent than him.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> , quoting Ron Paul:
> 
> Could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of its history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker’s paycheck. In the late 1800s, when Congress first attempted to impose an income tax, the notion of taxing a citizen’s hard work was considered radical! Public outcry ensued; more importantly, the Supreme Court ruled the income tax unconstitutional. Only with passage of the 16th Amendment did Congress gain the ability to tax the productive endeavors of its citizens.


Historically quite wrong.  The nation's first income tax was enacted in 1861, and its 1864 revision was upheld by a unanimous Supreme Court in 1881.  The act covered all income over $600 per year, including wages.  The authority to impose the tax came from Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution.

The 1894 tax act Dr. Paul referred to was declared unconstitutional in 1895, but the decision applied only to a tax on investment income (rent, dividends, and interest), which the Court held was a direct tax upon the property producing the income and therefore had to be apportioned among the states by population.  No objection was seen to an unapportioned tax on wages.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> That is what accountants are for.  Good ones pay for themselves.  Capt must have a good one, as he only pays about 8 percent.
> 
> PS.  May I have his number, please, I pay a much higher percent than him.


Personal income tax and corp tax are two different things.  The corporation pays a lot in taxes.

----------


## Danke

> Personal income tax and corp tax are two different things.  The corporation pays a lot in taxes.


Again, a corporation doesn't pay any taxes, if they can't pass it along, then they are out of business.

----------


## mad cow

> That is what accountants are for.  Good ones pay for themselves.  Capt must have a good one, as he only pays about 8 percent.
> 
> PS.  May I have his number, please, I pay a much higher percent than him.


I am completely unable to do my taxes without an accountant.They send me about a 30 page single-spaced form/checklist every year and need a huge pile of other documents I must send them,including their bill for the previous year,in order to  do it.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> What about a flat Federal sales tax replacing _all_ present taxes on individuals and corporations?Spend more,pay more,spend less,pay less so 'progressive'.
> Unavoidable for all citizens and non-citizens alike and transparent,what you are being gouged for is right there on the receipt.
> 
> The simplicity alone would make it attractive to me.I hate doing the tax paperwork every year almost as much as I hate the taxes themselves,I can't imagine the headaches Capt. Lou goes through.
> 
> Not that i'm any fan of the Va.sales tax,or any tax for that matter,I can still buy a carton of cigarettes and a 12 pack of beer in 30 seconds,no questions asked,no forms filled out.


I have thought about a sales tax, and there are some positives to it.  I think some of the negatives are the enforcement and collection of it all would be massive.  We'd probably have the same size IRS in place that we do today.  I'd imagine there would be a lot of fraud as well, with merchants charging the customer tax and then keeping the cash received off the books.  It's one thing to cheat the government, but another thing to cheat your customers too.

But still, an improvement over the current system for sure.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Again, a corporation doesn't pay any taxes, if they can't pass it along, then they are out of business.


Of course, and we do.  But the forms are still completed and the check is still written.  The response was referring to the thought that I only pay 8% in taxes,

----------


## Danke

> Of course, and we do.  But the forms are still completed and the check is still written.  The response was referring to the thought that I only pay 8% in taxes,


Another reason not to incorporate in the first place.  But yes, I know the negatives, like the constant tyranny/wrath of the state for not doing so.  Similar to registering a personal conveyance with the state, thus coming under the commercial motor vehicle laws.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Another reason not to incorporate in the first place.  But yes, I know the negatives, like the constant tyranny/wrath of the state for not doing so.  Similar to registering a personal conveyance with the state, thus coming under the commercial motor vehicle laws.


It has its good points and bad points.  The best aspect of it though is that the corp earns money, then spends it and then pays taxes on what's left.  On the personal side, I earn it, pay taxes and then spend it.  So we will use the corporate card for as much as possible, e.g. every time we go out to eat it is a business meal.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> But yes, I know the negatives, like the constant tyranny/wrath of the state for not doing so.


You mean the tyranny of not holding you and your property personally liable for the debts and liabilities the corporation incurs?

CORPORATION, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.  Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_

----------


## Danke

> You mean the tyranny of not holding you and your property personally liable for the debts and liabilities the corporation incurs?
> 
> CORPORATION, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.  Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_


Yet another example of your reading comprehension failure.  I was talking about private, non incorporated businesses receiving no state privileges.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> You mean the tyranny of not holding you and your property personally liable for the debts and liabilities the corporation incurs?
> 
> CORPORATION, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.  Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_


The lawsuit protection is a good thing though, if someone acting on behalf of business screws up and we get sued, I don't want my personal wealth at risk.

----------


## Danke

> The lawsuit protection is a good thing though, if someone acting on behalf of business screws up and we get sued, I don't want my personal wealth at risk.


Bingo, a state privilege granted to your incorporated business, so pay up.

----------


## gwax23

> Actually it wasn't revenue neutral.  At $10K it would cut a trillion off the 2014 budget numbers.  I believe you could actually get the $10K down a lot more though.  I can't find the numbers but if you eliminated the EITC you would save more from the budget.\
> 
> Revenue neutral would be right around 14 grand per adult.


Your plan would be perfect if it included drastic cuts to the budget (ala ron pauls budget) so this 10K can be dropped significantly. Overall a head tax is probably the least intrusive or economically harmful tax out there (even an ancap like Rothbard agreed with this) So having it replace all federal taxes would be a huge benefit to the  economy. Obviously no taxes are the best solution but if it was between a modified version of your plan and the status quo everyone on this thread should be picking the former. Like I said earlier though its far to close to being revenue neutral for my liking.

Also getting rid of withholding will do wonders for the anti tax community in this country. Once people have to actually write out these checks they will really feel the full extent of theft going on by the federal government. That fact alone makes this plan worth it. 

Corporate taxes as mentioned earlier, are a form of double taxation because the corporation itself and its owners are taxed. All this does is expand government through more tax revenue and it leads to higher prices. Getting rid of it (like through this plan) would be a huge step towards free-er markets.

----------


## Danke

> No objection was seen to an unapportioned tax on wages.


Correct.  Except the last part.  Most people don't understand what the term "wages" means, and it is not remuneration for private sector receipts.

http://www.losthorizons.com/comment/...yOtherName.pdf

----------


## phill4paul

And, Capt., please don't get me wrong. I'm not into class warfare and I am not green with jealousy. 15-25% of what I trade comes from individuals in your tax bracket. I imagine it would be quite a bit more if there were no income tax. When one has to weigh savings versus tax liability it puts some in a conundrum. I joke when I say this but I wonder if there is a bet among the 15-25% to see if I will take a check in lieu of cash. For to a one they will try. Even on repeat jobs. I state an exchange for trade. I charge materials and 80% labor up front. The last 20% is where I either eat it or I don't. The set price is the set price. I load it on the front end and scale towards the rear to protect myself against non-payment. Which, I've found, usually comes from people in your tax bracket when I was doing things by "the system."
  As Danke pointed out it is in the last quarter I am at risk. I certainly cannot attach a lien on property. Nor can I sue. I am not paying to be a part of the system. I have only had several bad instances going this route.

----------


## acptulsa

So, government pretends to be Robin Hood and steal from the rich to give to the poor.  But in fact, they steal from everyone (but, at least in theory, disproportionally from the rich, if they don't have enough tax shelters) and give to rich corporations (Sodexo comes to mind) if they sign a contract agreeing to give some of it to the poor.

Now we have an idea to steal disproportionally from the poor to give it to rich corporations contractually obligated to give some of it to the poor.

I could almost go for it if this were to help people see how silly it was to put government in charge of charity.  I could almost go for it if I thought it would lead to higher wages for workers.  But I can't go for it, because I think it would actually lead to more dependence in the case of working people and yet more autonomy for the rich.  And more political power transferred to the wealthy as well, because who else could possibly afford to pay brib--er, I mean _make campaign contributions_?




> That would be the bourbon.


I'll be getting back to _you_ after I spread some reputation around...

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Correct.  Except the last part.  Most people don't understand what the term "wages" means, and it is not remuneration for private sector receipts.
> 
> http://www.losthorizons.com/comment/...yOtherName.pdf


Of course it is.  The ridiculous argument that the law doesn't tax private-sector earnings has been consistently rejected by every court that has had to waste its time listening to it, and many who have relied on it have not only been found liable for back taxes, penalties, and interest, but have also been fined for making such a frivolous claim.

http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/peter-hendrickson

----------


## phill4paul

> Of course it is.  The ridiculous argument that the law doesn't tax private-sector earnings has been consistently rejected by every court that has had to waste its time listening to it, and many who have relied on it have not only been found liable for back taxes, penalties, and interest, but have also been fined for making such a frivolous claim.
> 
> http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/peter-hendrickson


  The courts. Part of the Federal government. Hmmphh.

----------


## Danke

haha, yes "tax courts"  Now link us all to Supreme Court cases.

Remember the defendant never challenged the legal definition of "wages"

----------


## phill4paul

> haha, yes "tax courts"  Now link us all to Supreme Court cases.
> 
> Remember the defendant never challenged the legal definition of "wages"


  Were they ever allowed to?

----------


## Danke

> Were they ever allowed to?


No, the Constitution is not allowed to be brought up in the corporate court cases.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> haha, yes "tax courts"  Now link us all to Supreme Court cases.
> 
> Remember the defendant never challenged the legal definition of "wages"


Big deal.  No defendant has ever claimed that the law applies only to left-handed people, either, but that doesn't mean that the argument is an open issue.  Why don't you link everyone to a case where somebody won by claiming the law didn't apply to private-sector compensation?  You won't of course, but you'll probably claim that the absence of such a case is because the courts are corrupt, instead of the real reason:  the argument is ridiculous and without a shred of legal support.

You want SCOTUS cases?  There are many, but the clearest statement is perhaps this one from a case involving private-sector compensation:




> Section 22(a) of the Revenue Act [the former version of what is now IRC Section 61(a)] is broad enough to include in taxable income any economic or financial benefit conferred on the employee as compensation, whatever the form or mode by which it is effected. C.I.R. v. Smith, 324 U.S. 177 (1945).

----------


## Danke

> Big deal.  No defendant has ever claimed that the law applies only to left-handed people, either, but that doesn't mean that the argument is an open issue.  Why don't you link everyone to a case where somebody won by claiming the law didn't apply to private-sector compensation?  You won't of course, but you'll probably claim that the absence of such a case is because the courts are corrupt, instead of the real reason:  the argument is ridiculous and without a shred of legal support.
> 
> You want SCOTUS cases?  There are many, but the clearest statement is perhaps this one from a case involving private-sector compensation:


You are making me laugh.  Look up the definitions then get back to me.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Were they ever allowed to?


Yes, you can make the argument.  Many have, with a 100% loss record.  Please check out http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/peter-hendrickson for a discussion of the futility of the argument.

The claim that no one can bring up constitutional arguments is a lie.  Of course, if one makes an argument that has been consistently rejected time after time after time (such as the idiotic claim that says private-sector compensation isn't taxable), one runs the risk of getting fined.

Please note that the issue isn't whether private sector compensation (or any other compensation for that matter) should be taxed.  The snake oil peddled by Hendrickson and others tells the suckers who fall for it that the law as written doesn't apply to such compensation.  If you believe that, I have a big orange bridge in San Francisco for sale...

----------


## Danke

> Yes, you can make the argument.  Many have, with a 100% loss record.  Please check out http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/peter-hendrickson for a discussion of the futility of the argument.
> 
> The claim that no one can bring up constitutional arguments is a lie.  Of course, if one makes an argument that has been consistently rejected time after time after time (such as the idiotic claim that says private-sector compensation isn't taxable), one runs the risk of getting fined.
> 
> Please note that the issue isn't whether private sector compensation (or any other compensation for that matter) should be taxed.  The snake oil peddled by Hendrickson and others tells the suckers who fall for it that the law as written doesn't apply to such compensation.  If you believe that, I have a big orange bridge in San Francisco for sale...


So what then makes it taxable?   Can they tax a man in china too?

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Well "no taxes" is a fantasy land given our present situation, so it's moot.
> 
> I look at it this way, Americans have voted for decades for the government we have today.  Therefore, the burden of this government should be equal to all regardless of income.  Someone who earns $10K per year is in that situation in large part because of decisions they have made over the course of their life.  While there are exceptions, poor people are poor because of their own life choices.  I have no sympathy for a 30 year old able bodied male who only makes minimum wage.  
> 
> Truth is, someone who only makes $10K per year receives tens of thousands of dollars in government benefits: housing, food stamps, medicaid, welfare payments, etc.  In this head tax scenario, those benefits would be reduced by $10K or they could apply for financial assistance from the non-profit charity.


No taxes is fantasy land, but your head tax is realistic?

Seriously, don't ever criticize anyone again for allegedly being ungrounded in reality.

Furthermore, your math is off. There aren't 275 million adult Americans in the country. About 25% of the population is made up of children.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> So what then makes it taxable?   Can they tax a man in china too?


The law is what makes it taxable.

If someone in China has gross income as defined in the IRC, you bet it can be taxed.  But for nonresident aliens, the law says that gross income generally includes only income that has a certain connection with the U.S., which is why the wages of a Frenchman working in France for a French employer isn't subject to the U.S. income tax.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Your plan would be perfect if it included drastic cuts to the budget (ala ron pauls budget) so this 10K can be dropped significantly. Overall a head tax is probably the least intrusive or economically harmful tax out there (even an ancap like Rothbard agreed with this) So having it replace all federal taxes would be a huge benefit to the  economy. Obviously no taxes are the best solution but if it was between a modified version of your plan and the status quo everyone on this thread should be picking the former. Like I said earlier though its far to close to being revenue neutral for my liking.


What is interesting is the outcry heard on here from folks over $10 grand per year, which is $4 grand less than being revenue neutral.  Imagine the outcry from the public over being taxed $10K/year as a starting point. The 50% of the country that pays less than $10K in Federal Taxes would be up in arms., to which the other 50% could say, "hey we've been paying more than this for years"

I think the mere proposal of it would wake up a lot of people to just how much our Federal Government spends, and that at $14K per year (based on 2014 budget numbers) would be their fair share of it all.  We're all citizens, we all live in the same country, so why should one person pay more than another right? Let's make it fair for everyone - here's your $#@!ing bill. Maybe then we'd see people really become concerned with spending and taxes.

Don't get me wrong, I like Rand's flat tax proposal, but while it is better, it doesn't address the real problem - that half of this country are blood sucking leaches that expect the other half to pay for everything.  And that even self defined libertarians balk at having to pay an equal amount to everyone else when that number comes out to be $10K

So for argument's sake, let's slash the budget in half.  Take it back to 1994 levels and come in at 1.5 trillion. Your total tax due is $5454, regardless of income.  Are you on board yet?  I'd be interested in hearing from those that earlier balked at the $10K per person number as being insane.  What about $5454, how's that grab you?

----------


## phill4paul

> What is interesting is the outcry heard on here from folks over $10 grand per year, which is $4 grand less than being revenue neutral.  Imagine the outcry from the public over being taxed $10K/year as a starting point. The 50% of the country that pays less than $10K in Federal Taxes would be up in arms., to which the other 50% could say, "hey we've been paying more than this for years"
> 
> I think the mere proposal of it would wake up a lot of people to just how much our Federal Government spends, and that at $14K per year (based on 2014 budget numbers) would be their fair share of it all.  We're all citizens, we all live in the same country, so why should one person pay more than another right? Let's make it fair for everyone - here's your $#@!ing bill. Maybe then we'd see people really become concerned with spending and taxes.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I like Rand's flat tax proposal, but while it is better, it doesn't address the real problem - that half of this country are blood sucking leaches that expect the other half to pay for everything.  And that even self defined libertarians balk at having to pay an equal amount to everyone else when that number comes out to be $10K
> 
> So for argument's sake, let's slash the budget in half.  Take it back to 1994 levels and come in at 1.5 trillion. Your total tax due is $5454, regardless of income.  Are you on board yet?  I'd be interested in hearing from those that earlier balked at the $10K per person number as being insane.  What about $5454, how's that grab you?


  Well, if extrapolation is the end goal let's just say that every American is on the hook for $55k beginning the first of this year. Charities will make up the difference. Right? To cover unfunded future liability....hell, every single American would have to have your income.

----------


## phill4paul

> The law is what makes it taxable.


  Laws are laws created by Lairyers for those they represent. The Federal government has the best in the racket. One CANNOT argue in court against the 16th Amendment because Thee Court and the Lairyers have deemed it so. You cannot even speak of it in front of a jury without risk of "contempt." There is NO LAW which makes it taxable excepting Thee Court of the government.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Well, if extrapolation is the end goal let's just say that every American is on the hook for $55k beginning the first of this year. Charities will make up the difference. Right? To cover unfunded future liability....hell, every single American would have to have your income.


Well no, if the budget was cut by 50%, every adult would be on the hook for $5454, about half of the $10K number I put out there earlier. 

The question is this:  at what number would people be agreeable that everyone should owe the same amount of money?  How much would the budget have to be cut in order to reach that number?

And still, I think the most glaring realization here is that self professed libertarians seem to feel that a progressive tax is favorable to a head tax when it hits their own pocket books.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> No taxes is fantasy land, but your head tax is realistic?
> 
> Seriously, don't ever criticize anyone again for allegedly being ungrounded in reality.
> 
> Furthermore, your math is off. There aren't 275 million adult Americans in the country. About 25% of the population is made up of children.


The discussion is based on alternatives to the current tax system. The proposed head tax cuts the budget by 1 trillion and then spreads the tax burden equally among all adults, as opposed to making those who are productive pay more, and making those who are nonproductive off for free.

No taxes is a fantasy since it would require cutting the budget by 80% or more something that not even Ron Paul proposed.

Our mistake, the number is around 235 adults.  Which takes the per capita tax burden up even more.

----------


## gwax23

> What is interesting is the outcry heard on here from folks over $10 grand per year, which is $4 grand less than being revenue neutral.  Imagine the outcry from the public over being taxed $10K/year as a starting point. The 50% of the country that pays less than $10K in Federal Taxes would be up in arms., to which the other 50% could say, "hey we've been paying more than this for years"
> 
> I think the mere proposal of it would wake up a lot of people to just how much our Federal Government spends, and that at $14K per year (based on 2014 budget numbers) would be their fair share of it all.  We're all citizens, we all live in the same country, so why should one person pay more than another right? Let's make it fair for everyone - here's your $#@!ing bill. Maybe then we'd see people really become concerned with spending and taxes.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I like Rand's flat tax proposal, but while it is better, it doesn't address the real problem - that half of this country are blood sucking leaches that expect the other half to pay for everything.  And that even self defined libertarians balk at having to pay an equal amount to everyone else when that number comes out to be $10K
> 
> So for argument's sake, let's slash the budget in half.  Take it back to 1994 levels and come in at 1.5 trillion. Your total tax due is $5454, regardless of income.  Are you on board yet?  I'd be interested in hearing from those that earlier balked at the $10K per person number as being insane.  What about $5454, how's that grab you?


The 5k figure is better (and the halving of the budget) but we can always go lower. Especially when people get to choose their payment system. (monthly, bi weekly, weekly end of year, begining of year etc)

----------


## phill4paul

> Well no, if the budget was cut by 50%, every adult would be on the hook for $5454, about half of the $10K number I put out there earlier. 
> 
> The question is this:  at what number would people be agreeable that everyone should owe the same amount of money?  How much would the budget have to be cut in order to reach that number?
> 
> And still, I think the most glaring realization here is that self professed libertarians seem to feel that a progressive tax is favorable to a head tax when it hits their own pocket books.


  Budget cut by 50%? Sure. Talk about unicorns and fairy tales. And you STILL are not considering UNFUNDED liabilities. The debt is a drop in that particular ocean that will enslave every person "lucky" enough to be born in America for generations to come.

  And still, I don't believe in a progressive tax. I don't believe in any income tax. Period.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> The 5k figure is better (and the halving of the budget) but we can always go lower. Especially when people get to choose their payment system. (monthly, bi weekly, weekly end of year, begining of year etc)


Nonetheless, I think there are some here that would still balk at that $5K bill they get.  Truth is, it would take a long time to see the budget cut by 50%.  Even Ron Paul's budget didn't even come close to that.  In his budget, spending in 2016 would be at 3 trillion (approx $12 grand per head).

http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/...mericaPlan.pdf

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Budget cut by 50%? Sure. Talk about unicorns and fairy tales. And you STILL are not considering UNFUNDED liabilities. The debt is a drop in that particular ocean that will enslave every person "lucky" enough to be born in America for generations to come.
> 
>   And still, I don't believe in a progressive tax. I don't believe in any income tax. Period.


Oh I know it's a fairy tale, as noted above even Paul's budget did not cut that much.  

So Ok, you don't believe in an income tax.  That's good.  What form of taxation do you support then?  Let's use Ron's numbers.  His budget would have us spending 2.8 trillion this year, just about a trillion less than what we have today with Obama's budget.  Where do you get that 2.8 Trillion from?  BTW, that's about $11K per head.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

So here's the hypothetical scenario.  Ron wins in 2012.  He puts forth his budget which eliminates 5 cabinet level departments, cuts spending, reduces the federal workforce and everything else he wanted to do.  It passes on a voice vote.  Ron gets everything he wants

That puts the 2014 budget at 2.8 Trillion.  Ron then decides that taxing income is evil and corporations should not be taxed (as he has said, he wants to eliminate the IRS and replace it with nothing).  

So he needs 2.8 trillion.  You get a bill in the mail from Ron for $11 grand, your share of the 2.8 Trillion. Are you happy or do you feel that those who earn more money than you do should pay more towards the budget?

----------


## mad cow

Somebody mentioned upthread about doing away with the withholding tax,which was put in place to help finance WW11 and never revoked(thanks,Milton).I would add having your employer paying half of your FICA.He's not really paying it,he's just paying you that much less plus the cost of the bookkeeping.

As a self-employed fisherman who has always paid 'both halves' of my FICA and who was exempt from even quarterly estimated tax payments,I just had to write out one huge check to the IRS every year.
I could then see 5 figures leaving my bank account in one day,the same account I used for my electric bill,groceries,mortgage,dinners out...gone.Evaporated,overnight.

If everyone had to pay their entire Federal tax bill with one check by a certain date or face huge penalties plus interest, their would be one hell of a lot more tax protesters in this country.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Somebody mentioned upthread about doing away with the withholding tax,which was put in place to help finance WW11 and never revoked(thanks,Milton).I would add having your employer paying half of your FICA.He's not really paying it,he's just paying you that much less plus the cost of the bookkeeping.
> 
> As a self-employed fisherman who has always paid 'both halves' of my FICA and who was exempt from even quarterly estimated tax payments,I just had to write out one huge check to the IRS every year.
> I could then see 5 figures leaving my bank account in one day,the same account I used for my electric bill,groceries,mortgage,dinners out...gone.Evaporated,overnight.
> 
> If everyone had to pay their entire Federal tax bill with one check by a certain date or face huge penalties plus interest, their would be one hell of a lot more tax protesters in this country.


Not to mention both halves of the Medicare tax.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> If everyone had to pay their entire Federal tax bill with one check by a certain date or face huge penalties plus interest, their would be one hell of a lot more tax protesters in this country.


That is precisely why they don't steal it that way.

----------


## Danke

> The law is what makes it taxable.
> 
> If someone in China has gross income as defined in the IRC, you bet it can be taxed.  But for nonresident aliens, the law says that gross income generally includes only income that has a certain connection with the U.S., which is why the wages of a Frenchman working in France for a French employer isn't subject to the U.S. income tax.


Ah the "law."

So if it  "includes only income that has a certain connection with the U.S,"  then it is taxable?

Just proved my point.

Yes folks,if you have income that is tied to a connection with U.S. (i.e. privileged receipts) you are liable for paying an income tax.

----------


## gwax23

> Somebody mentioned upthread about doing away with the withholding tax,which was put in place to help finance WW11 and never revoked(thanks,Milton).I would add having your employer paying half of your FICA.He's not really paying it,he's just paying you that much less plus the cost of the bookkeeping.
> 
> As a self-employed fisherman who has always paid 'both halves' of my FICA and who was exempt from even quarterly estimated tax payments,I just had to write out one huge check to the IRS every year.
> I could then see 5 figures leaving my bank account in one day,the same account I used for my electric bill,groceries,mortgage,dinners out...gone.Evaporated,overnight.
> 
> If everyone had to pay their entire Federal tax bill with one check by a certain date or face huge penalties plus interest, their would be one hell of a lot more tax protesters in this country.


Well said

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Well "no taxes" is a fantasy land given our present situation, so it's moot.
> 
> *I look at it this way, Americans have voted for decades for the government we have today.  Therefore, the burden of this government should be equal to all regardless of income.*  Someone who earns $10K per year is in that situation in large part because of decisions they have made over the course of their life.  While there are exceptions, poor people are poor because of their own life choices.  I have no sympathy for a 30 year old able bodied male who only makes minimum wage.  
> 
> Truth is, someone who only makes $10K per year receives tens of thousands of dollars in government benefits: housing, food stamps, medicaid, welfare payments, etc.  In this head tax scenario, those benefits would be reduced by $10K or they could apply for financial assistance from the non-profit charity.


This would be the problem with your thinking.

Personally, I'd sooner wish to see the entire curtain close than be subjected to the authoritarian whims of "thinkers."

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What is interesting is the outcry heard on here from folks over $10 grand per year, which is $4 grand less than being revenue neutral.  Imagine the outcry from the public over being taxed $10K/year as a starting point. The 50% of the country that pays less than $10K in Federal Taxes would be up in arms., to which the other 50% could say, "hey we've been paying more than this for years"
> 
> I think the mere proposal of it would wake up a lot of people to just how much our Federal Government spends, and that at $14K per year (based on 2014 budget numbers) would be their fair share of it all.  We're all citizens, we all live in the same country, so why should one person pay more than another right? Let's make it fair for everyone - here's your $#@!ing bill. Maybe then we'd see people really become concerned with spending and taxes.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I like Rand's flat tax proposal, but while it is better, it doesn't address the real problem - that half of this country are blood sucking leaches that expect the other half to pay for everything.  And that even self defined libertarians balk at having to pay an equal amount to everyone else when that number comes out to be $10K
> 
> So for argument's sake, let's slash the budget in half.  Take it back to 1994 levels and come in at 1.5 trillion. Your total tax due is $5454, regardless of income.  Are you on board yet?  I'd be interested in hearing from those that earlier balked at the $10K per person number as being insane.  What about $5454, how's that grab you?


Well, I see your point.  It would definitely wake people up.  But as an actual tax plan I think its a crummy idea.  But, you think anything that isn't a head tax is "progressive."  That's not normally how the terms are used.  Normally "progressive" means someone pays a higher PERCENTAGE than someone else, not a higher dollar amount.



> Well no, if the budget was cut by 50%, every adult would be on the hook for $5454, about half of the $10K number I put out there earlier. 
> 
> The question is this:  at what number would people be agreeable that everyone should owe the same amount of money?  How much would the budget have to be cut in order to reach that number?
> 
> And still, I think the most glaring realization here is that self professed libertarians seem to feel that a progressive tax is favorable to a head tax when it hits their own pocket books.


The budget would have to be cut by 100% for it to be acceptable.  But if it was half it would probably be better than what we have now, despite the fact that I'd end up going to jail because I have no income at present.




> Nonetheless, I think there are some here that would still balk at that $5K bill they get.  Truth is, it would take a long time to see the budget cut by 50%.  Even Ron Paul's budget didn't even come close to that.  In his budget, spending in 2016 would be at 3 trillion (approx $12 grand per head).
> 
> http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/...mericaPlan.pdf


Yes, I'd still balk at it.  The government should not steal a single dime.




> So here's the hypothetical scenario.  Ron wins in 2012.  He puts forth his budget which eliminates 5 cabinet level departments, cuts spending, reduces the federal workforce and everything else he wanted to do.  It passes on a voice vote.  Ron gets everything he wants
> 
> That puts the 2014 budget at 2.8 Trillion.  Ron then decides that taxing income is evil and corporations should not be taxed (as he has said, he wants to eliminate the IRS and replace it with nothing).  
> 
> So he needs 2.8 trillion.  You get a bill in the mail from Ron for $11 grand, your share of the 2.8 Trillion. Are you happy or do you feel that those who earn more money than you do should pay more towards the budget?


I feel that the budget should be cut more  Making us choose between being stolen from or stealing from soneone else is  wrong.




> Well said


Yup.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> The 5k figure is better (and the halving of the budget) but we can always go lower. Especially when people get to choose their payment system. (monthly, bi weekly, weekly end of year, begining of year etc)


How about I choose not to pay them dick?

What then, am I able to expect? The rats from the sewers rising, or the pigs from the sty loose? $#@! them. And all who think like them.

And to be frank, as has been alluded to, this is so far off on fairy tale lane I feel my only duty to respond is the refutation of authoritarianism.

I await the day that all those who think like that (Captain Lou) starve. By and large the reason behind the sad state of affairs and all to be offered is a $10,000 extortion plan. What an unfunny joke.

----------


## Danke

"wages"

A legal term:

http://www.losthorizons.com/comment/...yOtherName.pdf

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> But, you think anything that isn't a head tax is "progressive."  That's not normally how the terms are used.  Normally "progressive" means someone pays a higher PERCENTAGE than someone else, not a higher dollar amount.


Flat taxes are also progressive, since the higher the income the higher your effective tax rate.  In Rand's 17% Flat Tax Plan:

Say a married couple with two kids makes $100,000 in wages and is allowed to exempt $35,000 for their standard deduction and $6,500 for each dependent. Their total exemption would be $48,000. So they would pay 17% on the remaining $52,000 of their income, or $8,840 in federal income taxes. That represents 8.84% of their gross income, which is their net effective tax rate. If the same couple made $200,000 in wages, they would owe $25,840 in taxes for an effective tax rate of 12.92%.

Don't get me wrong, Rand's plan is good, but it is still progressive and Rand's folks do state that.





> I feel that the budget should be cut more Making us choose between being stolen from or stealing from someone else is wrong.


What I presented was a best case scenario, i.e. Ron Paul's Budget.  Sure, we would all like the budget to be cut even more, but even Ron didn't propose that and in fact after his first year $1 trillion cut, the budget increased every year thereafter, so more revenue would need to be raised.  So even under a Paul plan, the per capita tax would be $11K per adult (if we use the head tax)

So basically it boils down to this, libertarian or not, it seems that if people would have to pay more out of their own pockets in taxes, then they would prefer a progressive tax and shift the burden to those who earn more money than they do.  It seems that the Progressives' class envy strategy has worked even in this far more learned and level headed circle.

And yes, I get it we all want no taxes, minimal government, but in the foreseeable future that would not happen.  As I said even the Paul plan didn't come close to that.  So even if we cut today's budget by half the per capita share of the budget would be close to 8 grand.  I'm guessing there are many in here that still wouldn't want to pay that out of their own pockets and would instead prefer those who earn more than they do to carry the burden.

So, many here have called for the abolition of the income tax.  Ron introduced many bills over his career regarding this.  But even under a Paul administration the federal budget would be nearly 3 trillion.  Without an income tax there are few options:  head tax, sales taxes or excise taxes.  Low income libertarians, don't like a head tax as is apparent from this thread.  So what is the better solution?

Incidentally, excise taxes are presently around 3% of total tax revenue.  So if you wish to fund Ron Paul's budget through excise taxes solely, expect gas taxes, etc to be raised significantly.  Assuming then that excise taxes would cover all the budget they would need to be raised by a factor of 33 (3% x 33=99%).  So we would potentially be looking at a Federal Gas tax of over 11 bucks a gallon.  And again, this is the revenue for a Paul budget not an Obama budget.

As far as sales tax, I wouldn't even begin to know how to calculate that to ensure that the 2.8 trillion is raised.

----------


## tod evans

> Low income libertarians, don't like a head tax as is apparent from this thread.  So what is the better solution?


I'm neither low income or libertarian so my opinion is most likely worthless...

If government can't be funded on a simple consumption tax then it's too large.

Taxing income and or profits only encourages folks not to work or save...

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I'm neither low income or libertarian so my opinion is most likely worthless...
> 
> If government can't be funded on a simple consumption tax then it's too large.
> 
> Taxing income and or profits only encourages folks not to work or save...


Would a consumption tax be on total retail sales?  If so we are I think at 5 trillion per year in retail sales.  To raise Paul's 2.8 Trillion, wouldn't that equate to a 60% tax on retail sales then?  Or would it be calculated on GDP?  If so then I am thinking around a 20% tax to raise that revenue.

Of course a sales tax of any kind is going to hit the low income folks the hardest.

----------


## tod evans

> Would a consumption tax be on total retail sales?  If so we are I think at 5 trillion per year in retail sales.  To raise Paul's 2.8 Trillion, wouldn't that equate to a 60% tax on retail sales then?  Or would it be calculated on GDP?  If so then I am thinking around a 20% tax to raise that revenue.


The discussion of a functional and logical consumption tax as well as the government it funded would probably be best suited to another thread seeing as how it in no way dovetails with the insane idea that debt is income and the citizen should fund it by working...

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> The discussion of a functional and logical consumption tax as well as the government it funded would probably be best suited to another thread seeing as how it in no way dovetails with the insane idea that debt is income and the citizen should fund it by working...


Not that insane an idea, as it was pointed out earlier Rothbard's preferred method of taxation was a head tax.  And whether that would be $5K per year or $15k per year, it would be great for me as it would be a huge savings.  As I stated in the OP at the $10K per adult tax about half of the country would be paying less, it's the other half that would take issue with it.

We have a head "tax" in place with our HOA.  Each household pays the same amount every quarter regardless of income or property size for the services provided by the HOA.  It is a fair and equitable system.  The same can be done at the state and federal level, where people seem to have a problem is when the realize the enormity of their per capita share of the budget, particularly those that do not earn significant income.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> One CANNOT argue in court against the 16th Amendment because Thee Court and the Lairyers have deemed it so.


The 16th Amendment is beside the point.  The authority to impose an unapportioned income tax on wages and personal earnings comes from I.8.1 of the original Constitution.  Will you now claim that it wasn't ratified either?

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Ah the "law."
> 
> So if it  "includes only income that has a certain connection with the U.S,"  then it is taxable?
> 
> Just proved my point.
> 
> Yes folks,if you have income that is tied to a connection with U.S. (i.e. privileged receipts) you are liable for paying an income tax.


Guess again.  If a nonresident alien earns private-sector compensation within the United States, it's taxable.  The U.S. connection needn't involve any privilege at all.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> The 16th Amendment is beside the point.  The authority to impose an unapportioned income tax on wages and personal earnings comes from I.8.1 of the original Constitution.  Will you now claim that it wasn't ratified either?


I read I.8.1 as an apportioned tax, not unapportioned.  

"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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises *shall be uniform* throughout the United States;"

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Flat taxes are also progressive, since the higher the income the higher your effective tax rate.  In Rand's 17% Flat Tax Plan:
> 
> Say a married couple with two kids makes $100,000 in wages and is allowed to exempt $35,000 for their standard deduction and $6,500 for each dependent. Their total exemption would be $48,000. So they would pay 17% on the remaining $52,000 of their income, or $8,840 in federal income taxes. That represents 8.84% of their gross income, which is their net effective tax rate. If the same couple made $200,000 in wages, they would owe $25,840 in taxes for an effective tax rate of 12.92%.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, Rand's plan is good, but it is still progressive and Rand's folks do state that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OK, when I say "flat tax" I don't really mean Rand's plan.  A flat tax would be, everyone pay X% of their income, no matter what their income is.  So, I agree that Rand's plan, while good, is still progressive.  

That aside, I don't really see what we're talking about as "class envy."  I have no issue with the fact that you have far more resources than I do.  And I don't want you to have to pay a dime in taxes.  But I don't think it would be somehow any more just for the government to take everything I have so that you have to pay less.

Now, if you're thought is that making everyone pay 10K would make people balk at how huge their bill is, and lead in the direction of government cutbacks, than I can see that as being a good thing.  But if you're proposing this as a serious tax system, I think its woefully unfair to the less fortunate members of society.  Is the current system unfair to wealthier people?  Of course it is.  But I'm not sure its as much so as your system would be to the less fortunate.  Keep in mind, there are people who would be paying more than 100% of their income under your proposed system.  At present I go to college and don't make any income at all, so I'd lose my college savings the first year and go to jail the second year.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe "tax evaders" should be prosecuted?  If you were on a jury, someone was being accused solely of the crime of "tax evasion" and you believed he did in fact evade taxation, how would you vote?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Not that insane an idea, as it was pointed out earlier Rothbard's preferred method of taxation was a head tax.  And whether that would be $5K per year or $15k per year, it would be great for me as it would be a huge savings.  As I stated in the OP at the $10K per adult tax about half of the country would be paying less, it's the other half that would take issue with it.
> 
> We have a head "tax" in place with our HOA.  Each household pays the same amount every quarter regardless of income or property size for the services provided by the HOA.  It is a fair and equitable system.  The same can be done at the state and federal level, where people seem to have a problem is when the realize the enormity of their per capita share of the budget, particularly those that do not earn significant income.


I've read what Rothbard said about that, and his reasoning was that it would directly lead to the government being massively cut.  Not that he was actually OK with taking 10K from someone who only makes 10K.

As for the insane idea, I don't think its the "head tax" that tod is saying is ridiculous so much as the idea that the civilians legitimately owe the debt, which I agree with tod on.  Really, the only people that legitimately owe the debt is congress, the President, and the other governing officials.  Forcing the civilians to pay for it is evil.  And frankly, this is one point I think that Ron Paul is seriously wrong about.  The debt should be defaulted on.

If nothing else, though, this thread is instructive with regards to just how out of control our government is.  I'd have no qualms about imposing this on the progressives that are still OK with this crap.  I don't want it imposed on me, phil, or anyone else who doesn't want to tax anybody.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> I read I.8.1 as an apportioned tax, not unapportioned.  
> 
> "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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises *shall be uniform* throughout the United States;"


The uniformity requirement, which applies to indirect taxes, means only that the tax rates must be geographically uniform throughout the United States.  Direct taxes aren't subject to this requirement, but they must be apportioned; that is, the amount of revenue received from each State must be proportionate to the State's population.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Just out of curiosity, do you believe "tax evaders" should be prosecuted?  If you were on a jury, someone was being accused solely of the crime of "tax evasion" and you believed he did in fact evade taxation, how would you vote?


I'd vote to convict.  While I do not agree with the law, should someone break an existing law they should be punished in accordance with that law.  The same can be said for marijuana laws, while I disagree with them, if someone is guilty of possession then they should pay the penalty as prescribed by the law.  But, in both cases, I would fully support the repeal of those laws.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'd vote to convict.  While I do not agree with the law, should someone break an existing law they should be punished in accordance with that law.  The same can be said for marijuana laws, while I disagree with them, if someone is guilty of possession then they should pay the penalty as prescribed by the law.  But, in both cases, I would fully support the repeal of those laws.


Why?  Why is the law inherently sacrosanct?

(I think this gets to the core of our disagreement, I view bad laws as being illegitimate entirely, so I believe the enforcement of those laws is wrong.  That's why I'm having a hard time caring much about people who don't pay their "fair share.")

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I've read what Rothbard said about that, and his reasoning was that it would directly lead to the government being massively cut.  Not that he was actually OK with taking 10K from someone who only makes 10K.


Funny thing is that at 10K per capita, that is a substantial cut in the budget (even bigger than what Paul proposed), about 20% or so.  Even at a budget of $1 trillion, which is a nearly 75% cut in the budget the per capita share would be about 4K per person.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Funny thing is that at 10K per capita, that is a substantial cut in the budget (even bigger than what Paul proposed), about 20% or so.  Even at a budget of $1 trillion, which is a nearly 75% cut in the budget the per capita share would be about 4K per person.


Rothbard didn't want any government at all

And I think he felt that with a head tax nearly no government at all can be sustained.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Why?  Why is the law inherently sacrosanct?
> 
> (I think this gets to the core of our disagreement, I view bad laws as being illegitimate entirely, so I believe the enforcement of those laws is wrong.  That's why I'm having a hard time caring much about people who don't pay their "fair share.")


I believe in the right (for lack of a better term) of a community to pass laws in that community, and then enforce those laws, provided that they do not violate the US or their state's constitution.  I am a constitutionalist, not an anarchist.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I believe in the right (for lack of a better term) of a community to pass laws in that community, and then enforce those laws, provided that they do not violate the US or their state's constitution.  I am a constitutionalist, not an anarchist.


So you reject individual rights?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> So you reject individual rights?


Not at all. A person is free to do whatever they choose to do provided it does not harm another, nor interfere with my right to do whatever I choose.  But I also believe in divinely instituted government to protect those individual rights.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Not at all. A person is free to do whatever they choose to do provided it does not harm another, nor interfere with my right to do whatever I choose.


I agree, but this contradicts what you said in your previous post about the "right" of the community to pass laws against people who do not harm others (ie. marijuana users or tax evaders.)




> But I also believe in divinely instituted government to protect those individual rights.


Well, as is well known on here, I'm a Calvinist, and so I do indeed believe God ordained governments despite the fact that they are evil.  I would disagree, however, on the assumption that governments protect our individual rights or that they are a force for good in society.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I agree, but this contradicts what you said in your previous post about the "right" of the community to pass laws against people who do not harm others (ie. marijuana users or tax evaders.)


Tax evaders do, because they are in essence increasing the burden for all others who do pay the tax.  Keeping it simple here, if our HOA budget is proportioned at $100 per quarter, and we have someone who refuses to pay the fee then the HOA is at a loss for revenue.  So either, I (and the other homeowners) will have reduced services or we would have to make up the shortfall.  So his lack of paying his dues effects others.

Marijuana is a different issue for me, as it does not harm others in any way.  However, the law is in place and laws should be obeyed even if they are wrong.  My job is to work to change the law.  Governments pass stupid laws all the time.  But the good thing is that we have the power to change them, or if we really do not like them, the ability to move to a community that does not have the law.

Ok, I am out of here.  Gotta go earn some cash.

----------


## otherone

> I'd vote to convict.  While I do not agree with the law, should someone break an existing law they should be punished in accordance with that law.


An enemy of Jury Nullification is an enemy of Liberty.  
Three felonies a day.  When your time comes, I hope your jury has more conviction to Rights than slavish devotion to Leviathan.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Again, a corporation doesn't pay any taxes, if they can't pass it along, then they are out of business.


 This is an interesting theory, usually advanced by people of our persuasion, in order to argue against taxing corporations since they must inevitably "just pass it on" to the consumer, who is the one who winds up getting hurt.

It's clever and rhetorically effective, but upon really thinking about it in terms of economic principles, you will find that it's not actually true.  If it were true, corporations could charge whatever they wanted for their products, which is demonstrably not the case.

If the price of a product goes up, people will buy less of it, all else equal.  At certain prices people may stop buying a certain product entirely.  For instance, if candy bars were $10 a piece, people would stop buying candy bars entirely.  No candy bars would be bought.  Period.  And so no candy bars would be produced.  The whole industry would evaporate in a puff of smoke.  We can understand from this, clearly, that corporations cannot charge whatever they want for their products.

If there were a tax passed upon the candy bar manufacturers such that they needed to raise prices to $1.50 in order to stay equally profitable to how they were before the tax, will they do that and thus stay equally profitable?  No!  They can't!  If the price of candy bars rises to $1.50, the demand will plummet, and thus they will _not_ stay equally profitable.  They will have to do other things: reduce the size of the candy bar (or maybe increase it!), change the ingredients, somehow change the target market, perhaps increase the price a little bit but not enough to make up for the tax, and most importantly take a hit to profitability.  *Profitability is not a constant.*  None of these things are constants.  So when the free-market defenders say "If you increase the corporate tax 5% you really are just increasing the prices of all our products by 5%," it sounds good, I'll give them that, but it's not true.

Now, in one sense you are right, Danke, in that if the corporation cannot somehow, one way or another, deal with the tax and still remain profitable (to "pass the tax along" is just one of the ways they might attempt to do that), then in the long run they will go out of business.  They will run out of resources and cease to exist.  Losses can only be sustained for as long as the assets hold out.  But that is true for all of us as individuals, too.  You could just as accurately say: "A person doesn't pay any taxes, if he can't pass it along, then he will go out of life."  And that's true!  An individual, just like a corporation, cannot sustain infinite years of red ink.  He will, like the corporation, starve and die.  And so, like the corporation, he must attempt to deal with it somehow.  He could attempt to "pass the tax along" by simply increasing the price of his product -- demanding a raise at work equal to the percentage of tax increase.  But that is unlikely to work.  He will instead adopt a more complex strategy.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> The lawsuit protection is a good thing though, if someone acting on behalf of business screws up and we get sued, I don't want my personal wealth at risk.





> Bingo, a state privilege granted to your incorporated business, so pay up.


No, I disagree.  The ability of lawsuit predators to dishonestly extract money from the productive is a benefit the American State graciously provides them.  It is a feature of the currently insane and evil American State.  The wise should take every precaution they can to distance and protect themselves from this "feature".

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I'd vote to convict.  While I do not agree with the law, should someone break an existing law they should be punished in accordance with that law.  The same can be said for marijuana laws, while I disagree with them, if someone is guilty of possession then they should pay the penalty as prescribed by the law.  But, in both cases, I would fully support the repeal of those laws.


 Captain, I have a lot of respect for you -- are you familiar with the work of FIJA regarding the right (and, perhaps, duty!) of what's called jury nullification?  You can learn the basic overview here:

http://fija.org

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Tax evaders do, because they are in essence increasing the burden for all others who do pay the tax.  Keeping it simple here, if our HOA budget is proportioned at $100 per quarter, and we have someone who refuses to pay the fee then the HOA is at a loss for revenue.  So either, I (and the other homeowners) will have reduced services or we would have to make up the shortfall.  So his lack of paying his dues effects others.


It has an "effect", but who is the thief?  The tax evader or the tax-collector?  It seems obvious to me that it is the latter.  Through your stance you are aiding and abetting theft.  Which is also my issue with trying to "reform" the tax code to make everyone pay their "fair share", I view the entire system as thievery writ large.



> Marijuana is a different issue for me, as it does not harm others in any way.  However, the law is in place and laws should be obeyed even if they are wrong.  My job is to work to change the law.  Governments pass stupid laws all the time.  But the good thing is that we have the power to change them, or if we really do not like them, the ability to move to a community that does not have the law.
> 
> Ok, I am out of here.  Gotta go earn some cash.


You make a statement that "laws should be obeyed even if they are wrong."  Why?  Couldn't the same thing just as easily have applied to China arresting dissidents who speak against the Chinese government?  Or, for that matter, Nazi concentration camps?

I'm not saying the marijuana laws are equally bad, but it does show that the "even bad laws should be enforced" presupposition is a poor one to base a moral system on, IMO.




> Captain, I have a lot of respect for you -- are you familiar with the work of FIJA regarding the right (and, perhaps, duty!) of what's called jury nullification?  You can learn the basic overview here:
> 
> http://fija.org


Agreed.  +rep.

----------


## Weston White

I do not see how such a vast obligation could ever be foisted upon individuals. I for one would hope that such a proposal, if taken seriously, would finally have the populace rioting in the streets.  Under current illicit federal tax obligations imposed upon individuals the IRS expects to take in $2.3-trillion per year. America’s adult population is roughly 237,510,000, which means that each individual has to account for close to $10,000 per annum.

Many progressively standing economists themselves agree that the federal government could be downsized and still function within their own (bastardized) ideological social constructs; from between $400-billion to $600-billion annually—which is so much more realistic, effecting from $1,684.14 to $2,526.21 per adult.

ETA:

indirect taxes upon businesses alone could cover this adjusted price tag, netting the IRS around $900-billion in taxes per year.  Additionally, there are literally hundreds of excise and other such taxes collected yearly by the federal government (e.g., communications, fuel, vices, etc.)

----------


## Weston White

> BYou want SCOTUS cases?  There are many, but the clearest statement is perhaps this one from a case involving private-sector compensation:





> Section 22(a) of the Revenue Act [the former version of what is now IRC Section 61(a)] is broad enough to include in taxable income any economic or financial benefit conferred on the employee as compensation, whatever the form or mode by which it is effected. C.I.R. v. Smith, 324 U.S. 177 (1945).


Compensation in this sense is not wages or subsistence, but “compensation”; and hence the use of the word “compensation”, from the framing of the above case:

“_Respondent's employer gave to him, as compensation for his services, an option to purchase from the employer certain shares of stock of another corporation at a price not less than the then value of the stock. . . . The question for decision is whether the difference between the market value and the option price of the stock was compensation for personal services of the employee, taxable as income in the years when he received the stock, under § 22(a)..._”

South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U. S. 505, 522 (1988) [Footnote 13]: “_We disagree. The legislative history merely shows that the words “from whatever source derived” of the Sixteenth Amendment were not affirmatively intended to authorize Congress to tax state bond interest or to have any other effect on which incomes were subject to federal taxation, and that the sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to remove the apportionment requirement for whichever incomes were otherwise taxable. 45 Cong. Rec. 2245-2246 (1910); id. at 2539; see also Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, 240 U. S. 17-18 (1916)._”

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Compensation in this sense is not wages or subsistence, but “compensation”; and hence the use of the word “compensation”, from the framing of the above case


Compensation in this context is simply the consideration one receives for working.  No court in the history of the country has ever suggested that there's some minimum amount that, while given in exchange for someone's working, isn't "compensation" within the meaning of the tax statutes.

This isn't rocket science.  The Constitution specifies only one thing that Congress can't tax -- exports.  In addition, Supreme Court decisions suggest that Congress can't impose certain kinds of taxes on the States themselves and can't tax the exercise of First Amendment rights.  But to claim that there's something else that the law as written places off limits (such as the pay one receives for working, whether private-sector or not) is simply wrong.

----------


## Danke

> This is an interesting theory, usually advanced by people of our persuasion, in order to argue against taxing corporations since they must inevitably "just pass it on" to the consumer, who is the one who winds up getting hurt.
> 
> It's clever and rhetorically effective, but upon really thinking about it in terms of economic principles, you will find that it's not actually true.  If it were true, corporations could charge whatever they wanted for their products, which is demonstrably not the case.
> 
> If the price of a product goes up, people will buy less of it, all else equal.  At certain prices people may stop buying a certain product entirely.  For instance, if candy bars were $10 a piece, people would stop buying candy bars entirely.  No candy bars would be bought.  Period.  And so no candy bars would be produced.  The whole industry would evaporate in a puff of smoke.  We can understand from this, clearly, that corporations cannot charge whatever they want for their products.
> 
> If there were a tax passed upon the candy bar manufacturers such that they needed to raise prices to $1.50 in order to stay equally profitable to how they were before the tax, will they do that and thus stay equally profitable?  No!  They can't!  If the price of candy bars rises to $1.50, the demand will plummet, and thus they will _not_ stay equally profitable.  They will have to do other things: reduce the size of the candy bar (or maybe increase it!), change the ingredients, somehow change the target market, perhaps increase the price a little bit but not enough to make up for the tax, and most importantly take a hit to profitability.  *Profitability is not a constant.*  None of these things are constants.  So when the free-market defenders say "If you increase the corporate tax 5% you really are just increasing the prices of all our products by 5%," it sounds good, I'll give them that, but it's not true.
> 
> Now, in one sense you are right, Danke, in that if the corporation cannot somehow, one way or another, deal with the tax and still remain profitable (to "pass the tax along" is just one of the ways they might attempt to do that), then in the long run they will go out of business.  They will run out of resources and cease to exist.  Losses can only be sustained for as long as the assets hold out.  But that is true for all of us as individuals, too.  You could just as accurately say: "A person doesn't pay any taxes, if he can't pass it along, then he will go out of life."  And that's true!  An individual, just like a corporation, cannot sustain infinite years of red ink.  He will, like the corporation, starve and die.  And so, like the corporation, he must attempt to deal with it somehow.  He could attempt to "pass the tax along" by simply increasing the price of his product -- demanding a raise at work equal to the percentage of tax increase.  But that is unlikely to work.  He will instead adopt a more complex strategy.


It is not a "theory."

Stakeholders, employees and consumers pay the tax.  One way or the other.

----------


## Danke

> Guess again.  If a nonrnesident alie earns private-sector compensation within the United States, it's taxable.  The U.S. connection needn't involve any privilege at all.


False.  Do you even know what a "nonresident alien" is?

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> I've read what Rothbard said about that, and his reasoning was that it would directly lead to the government being massively cut.  Not that he was actually OK with taking 10K from someone who only makes 10K.
> 
> As for the insane idea, I don't think its the "head tax" that tod is saying is ridiculous so much as the idea that the civilians legitimately owe the debt, which I agree with tod on.  Really, the only people that legitimately owe the debt is congress, the President, and the other governing officials.  Forcing the civilians to pay for it is evil.  And frankly, this is one point I think that Ron Paul is seriously wrong about.  The debt should be defaulted on.
> 
> If nothing else, though, this thread is instructive with regards to just how out of control our government is.  I'd have no qualms about imposing this on the progressives that are still OK with this crap.  I don't want it imposed on me, phil, or anyone else who doesn't want to tax anybody.


Ron Paul wrote an op-ed in support of default:

http://www.bloombergview.com/article...later-ron-paul

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> It is not a "theory."


 Oh, its not?  Well, I stand corrected!




> Stakeholders, employees and consumers pay the tax.  One way or the other.


 What is a corporation if not its stakeholders?

Thus, as I said: yes, corporations pay taxes, just as individuals pay taxes.  The corporation may or may not _try_ to "pass on" their taxes to their customers, just as the individual may or may not _try_ to pass on his taxes to his dry cleaner.  But the taxes are paid by the person or entity which was taxed.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> False.  Do you even know what a "nonresident alien" is?


As defined by IRC Section 7701(b)(1)(B), a nonresident alien is someone who is neither a citizen of the United States nor a resident of the United States (within the meaning of 7701(b)(1)(A)).  You might want to look it up.

You're hopelessly wrong if you think private-sector compensation received by a nonresident alien for services performed in the United States isn't taxable.  You should read IRC Section 871(a)(1)(A), which imposes a 30% tax on such income.

----------


## Danke

> Oh, its not?  Well, I stand corrected!
> 
>  What is a corporation if not its stakeholders?
> 
> Thus, as I said: yes, corporations pay taxes, just as individuals pay taxes.  The corporation may or may not _try_ to "pass on" their taxes to their customers, just as the individual may or may not _try_ to pass on his taxes to his dry cleaner.  But the taxes are paid by the person or entity which was taxed.


I have said that numerous times WRT corporations.  It is money they could pay employees more, give stakeholders more or reduce cost to the consumer. 

But an individual does pay the taxes.  Not passed to others.  Unless you look at the big picture and say it cost society overall, which I would agree.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I have said that numerous times WRT corporations.


 You have said _what_?




> But an individual does pay the taxes.  Not passed to others.  Unless you look at the big picture and say it cost society overall, which I would agree.


*Corporations do pay taxes.*  That is my assertion.

----------


## Danke

> As defined by IRC Section 7701(b)(1)(B), a nonresident alien is someone who is neither a citizen of the United States nor a resident of the United States (within the meaning of 7701(b)(1)(A)).  You might want to look it up.
> 
> You're hopelessly wrong if you think private-sector compensation received by a nonresident alien for services performed in the United States isn't taxable.  You should read IRC Section 871(a)(1)(A), which imposes a 30% tax on such income.


Citizens of the numerous states are non resident aliens WRT to the United States.

----------


## Danke

> You have said _what_?
> 
> 
> *Corporations do pay taxes.*  That is my assertion.


Does a car pay taxes?  A house?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Does a car pay taxes?  A house?


I see what you are getting at, but it's a bad analogy since cars and houses don't have bank accounts in their name.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Ron Paul wrote an op-ed in support of default:
> 
> http://www.bloombergview.com/article...later-ron-paul


Cool.  I thought Ron supported paying the debt.  Whether he was just being politically pragmatic, or he changed his mind, or whatever, I'm glad to know that Ron agrees with me on this.



> *Corporations do pay taxes.*  That is my assertion.


No, they don't.  Corporate personhood is a convenient legal fiction.  A group of stockholders compile their assets together and end up having to pay taxes on those pooled assets, but its really a group of people who are paying those taxes, not a single organization ("corporation.")

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Citizens of the numerous states are non resident aliens WRT to the United States.


They aren't, but even if they were Section 871 would tax their compensation.

----------


## Danke

> They aren't, but even if they were Section 871 would tax their compensation.


Yes they are.  And of course they are taxable if they have income derived from activities in the United States.

----------


## Danke

(9) United States
The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.
(10) State
The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

http://www.losthorizons.com/appendix.htm#Includes

----------


## Danke

From Black's Law Dictionary, fourth edition, here is the definition for the word "include":

    include. To confine within, hold as in an inclosure, take in , attain, shut up, contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrace, involve. Including may, according to context, express an enlargement and have the meaning of and or in addition to, or merely specify a particular thing already included within general words theretofore used.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

The Black's definition doesn't apply to the Internal Revenue Code, as you well know, because the Code has its own definition of the term:

Section 7701(c):  Includes and including  
The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

The code's definition of "includes" is therefore expansive, not restrictive.  So when 7701(a)(10) says that the term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, it doesn't exclude the 50 States from the definition of "State".

As you are also well aware, the argument that "includes" is restrictive when used in the IRC has a 100% loss record in court.  See http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#includes

----------


## Henry Rogue

Seeing the headline, my first thought was the two headed girl, but I see that was already posted. From an ethical point of view, a head tax is a tax on life, in this example it is a tax on living past the age of eighteen. It is still a progressive tax since it excludes those who are not yet eighteen. What happens to the body that refuses to pay the head tax, does the state confiscate the head? 

From a utility perspective, I can see how it would engineer some of the same results as a flat tax, but I don't see that it would engineer any positive results beyond a flat tax. I try to look for unintended consequences when such things are proposed. A couple of quick thoughts, it would be a great boon for the inflationist as it would be advantageous for most to devalue the dollar. Whether people like to admit it or not social engineering usually has an affect on crime incentives, I think it would be difficult for the Elderly to pay such a tax, it would be tragic to see heirs shortening the Elderly lives in order to preserve what is left of an inheritance. Addendum: I think a head tax would adversely affect  economic mobility. It would make it more difficult to start a business if you only have ten thousand in capital and the government confiscate all of your start up capital. I'm sure established business will appreciate the protection against competition that a head tax would provide.

I think an "alcohol induced dumb idea tax" might be far better than a head tax.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Does a car pay taxes?  A house?


No, these objects do not pay taxes, because they do not act, because they have no volition.

OK, so my new understanding is that you are making the following point: corporations do not pay taxes, because a corporation, like a car, is not a person, and only people can do things.

This is a much less interesting point to me than the one I had originally and erroneously thought you were making (based on the words which you wrote).  It's pretty much a useless and boring point, but I have no disagreement with it.  Of course, by the exact same logic, you will agree with me that *families do not pay taxes.*  A family is not a person, just as a corporation, a car, and a house are all likewise not a person.  Only persons can act.

The point that I originally thought you were making was one made commonly in articles by free market supporters, such as this editorial: http://blogcritics.org/corporations-...xes-all-taxes/ . Specifically:

As such, when a corporation determines what it is going to charge for its goods or services it includes all the various taxes in its calculation.  This means that *corporations pass along to their customers the cost of the taxes they remit.* The corporation actually functions as a collection agent for the governmental agencies to which it reports. 

What does this mean to us?  When our elected governmental leaders talk about raising taxes on the rich and on the evil and greedy corporations, they are actually talking about raising taxes on every individual citizen under their authority.  Individuals pay the full amount of taxes charged by the government.  They pay them directly through their own personal income tax returns, through their property taxes, through the sales tax on the items they purchase, and *through the embedded taxes that increase the cost of the items they purchase.  No corporation or business pays taxes.*  Those that claim they do are misinformed or are lying intentionally. 

So when you hear politicians talking about raising taxes or closing loopholes you now know that you will pay for this.
This was what I disagree with.  It is as if profit is a constant and that if taxes are raised on a corporation, the money will come not from decreased profits for the corporation as the leftists assume and want ("stick it to the man -- the rich, greedy corporations!") but will come from raised prices for consumers.  Thus it's impossible, so the story goes, to actually pick the pocket of the corporations -- the money will always just be coming out of the wallets of the poor little guys, the customers.

But, it turns out, the leftists are right and the free-market defenders are wrong.  Increased corporate taxes will almost certainly work to decrease the profit margin of the corporations.  Just as increased family taxes will almost certainly work to hurt the balance sheets and decrease the standard of living of families.  One cannot just "pass on the taxes" to other people.  It does not work that way.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I think it would be difficult for the Elderly to pay such a tax, it would be tragic to see heirs shortening the Elderly lives in order to preserve what is left of an inheritance.


 Actually, the Elderly are the *Richest Demographic by Far* (TM).  It's not a close call.  They are wealthier than anyone else in these good old US of A.  They are the fat cats.  They are the top dogs.  So while the Elderly do appreciate your concern most heartily (the better to fleece you with, my dear), it is misplaced.

----------


## Weston White

> Compensation in this context is simply the consideration one receives for working.  No court in the history of the country has ever suggested that there's some minimum amount that, while given in exchange for someone's working, isn't "compensation" within the meaning of the tax statutes.
> 
> This isn't rocket science.  The Constitution specifies only one thing that Congress can't tax -- exports.  In addition, Supreme Court decisions suggest that Congress can't impose certain kinds of taxes on the States themselves and can't tax the exercise of First Amendment rights.  But to claim that there's something else that the law as written places off limits (such as the pay one receives for working, whether private-sector or not) is simply wrong.


Wrong.  Ignore and deceive, does that (weak) strategy actually work in a court of law?  Well, I suppose that would explain, at least tad-bit, why America has been permitted to devolve into a grossing state of psychosis and lunacy.

However, that is not correct, in this case, as per its framing (i.e., the precise issue(s) being argued before it), was only if a gain or profit had been realized and thereby taxable under gross income (i.e., the question of the amount is separate from the question of what constitutes compensation), quoting once again:




> _The question for decision is whether the difference between the market value and the option price of the stock was compensation for personal services of the employee, taxable as income in the years when he received the stock, under § 22(a)..._


Ergo, at its core, there is (commonly) no such existing correlation of gains or profits, as income, in the act of earning competency; regardless as to the Sixteenth Amendment, the federal government may not indirectly tax any aspect within the course of common livelihoodswhich is why the subject of the individual income tax is _constitutional income_ and not all income in general.

Try and keep up Sonny.  Nobody is stating the federal government may not tax working, only that in doing so, both apportionment and exigency are required.

But you are right, this is not rocket science, which begs the question, why it is that you think others are either so gullible or unintelligent that they, perhaps after a bit of logical contemplation or reasoning, would not themselves penetrate though your sordid guilefulness?

----------


## Weston White

Regarding the above post concerning corporate income taxes, I just wanted to note that every year dozens upon dozens of ranking businesses get out of paying millions to billions of income taxes, while the IRS gleefully turns its head to instead spend its resources on hunting down, with great vigor, the “little people”.

Tax Dodgers - 10 Companies and Their Tax Loopholes - 2013

*What The Top U.S. Companies Pay In Taxes*



> As you work on your taxes this month, here’s something to raise your hackles: Some of the world’s biggest, most profitable corporations enjoy a far lower tax rate than you do–that is, if they pay taxes at all.
> 
> The most egregious example is General Electric . Last year the conglomerate generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.
> 
> Avoiding taxes is nothing new for General Electric. In 2008 its effective tax rate was 5.3%; in 2007 it was 15%. The marginal U.S. corporate rate is 35%.
> 
> In Pictures: What The 25 Top U.S. Companies Pay In Taxes
> 
> How did this happen? It’s complicated. GE’s tax return is the largest the IRS deals with each year–some 24,000 pages if printed out. Its annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission weighs in at more than 700 pages.
> ...


http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-...ate-taxes.html

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Ergo, at its core, there is (commonly) no such existing correlation of gains or profits, as income, in the act of earning competency (sic); regardless as to(sic) the Sixteenth Amendment, the federal government may not indirectly tax any aspect within the course of common livelihoods—which is why the subject of the individual income tax is _constitutional income_ and not all income in general.


Mr. White, one can only hope that some day you will be able to write a cogent sentence in the English language.  There is absolutely nothing in the text of the 16th Amendment or of any other provision of the Constitution that exempts any portion of the pay one receives for working from the definition of income.  No court in the history of the country has done so.  Perhaps such things exist in the fantasyland inhabited by crackpot tax protesters, but in the real world such arguments are frivolous.




> Nobody is stating the federal government may not tax working, only that in doing so, both apportionment and exigency are required.


Except the Constitution says otherwise.  In language that is so clear that only someone who is functionally illiterate could not comprehend, the 16th Amendment says that Congress doesn't have to apportion an income tax.  And good luck finding any exigency standard in the Constitution.




> But you are right, this is not rocket science, which begs the question, why it is that you think others are either so gullible or unintelligent that they, perhaps after a bit of logical contemplation or reasoning, would not themselves penetrate though your sordid guilefulness?


Mr. White, it is followers of crackpot theories such as yours who are gullible -- they swallow the anti-tax koolaid and end up having to pay back taxes, penalties, and interest as a result (some, like Peter Hendrickson and Irwin Schiff, even go to jail).  You should ask yourself why you believe everyone else, including 99.99999% of all of the lawyers, judges, CPA's, and tax law professors, are too ignorant to grasp the intellectual brilliancy of your ideas.

----------


## Danke

> The Black's definition doesn't apply to the Internal Revenue Code, as you well know, because the Code has its own definition of the term:
> 
> Section 7701(c):  Includes and including  
> The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things *otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.*
> 
> The code's definition of "includes" is therefore expansive, not restrictive.  So when 7701(a)(10) says that the term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, it doesn't exclude the 50 States from the definition of "State".
> 
> As you are also well aware, the argument that "includes" is restrictive when used in the IRC has a 100% loss record in court.  See http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#includes


Exactly.   

In depth discussion on "includes" in the tax code:

http://losthorizons.com/Documents/Includes.pdf

----------


## Henry Rogue

> Actually, the Elderly are the *Richest Demographic by Far* (TM).  It's not a close call.  They are wealthier than anyone else in these good old US of A.  They are the fat cats.  They are the top dogs.  So while the Elderly do appreciate your concern most heartily (the better to fleece you with, my dear), it is misplaced.


(Addendum: Ok, after reviewing my early post I did make a generalization about the ability of the Elderly to afford ten thousand a year. So it's hypocritical on my part to hold you to a higher standard than myself. My apologies. So if that was your only point, disregard the rest of this post.)
Wow, I didn't expect an argument of such a generalization from you of all people, Helmuth. Assuming that you are defending this particular tax scheme. Firstly, I did not claim or allude that most Elderly are poor and destitute.  I hypothesized a crime synario. Perhaps a reach on my part.

Secondly this is a progressive tax, if one defines a progressive tax as favoring certain groups over others and I do define it that way. Why exclude heads under eighteen from being taxed? Shouldn't they pay tribute for their existence as well? I can only deduce that the reason is, heads under eighteen don't typically generate at least ten thousand a year (Justin Bieber the exception). Because they don't, this would put an extra burden on parents to cover the child's tax. You may wonder, what unintended consequences would result?  I suspect such a burden would result in an increase in abortions and more abandonment or perhaps the parent will find it necessary to put the child to work. It looks to me that, Head tax guy is focuing on potential income earners. I have to think that would exclude many Retirees. 

 I'm sorry to report that I know Elderly people who aren't rolling in the dough like Scrooge McDuck. I'm afraid many are on fixed incomes and although social engineers have greatly reduced the past phenomenon of Off spring helping their parents in the golden years, l suspect it still occurs. So what then? Does the Son or Daughter pay the tribute incurred by their Parents' existence, there by increasing their own burden of tax? I guess the adult children can abandon their Parents as so many others do today. Since it is a progressive tax anyway, why not exclude Heads past a certain age? Or include all and deal with the consequences. 

Personally if I must be forced to pay tribute,  I prefer a flat income tax. It eliminates our current ridiculous tax code. It doesn't discriminate between income earners, although it does discriminate between income and non income earners, but so does the proposed head tax. And a flat income tax doesn't guarantee that I will have to work till I'm dead.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> In depth discussion on "includes" in the tax code:
> 
> http://losthorizons.com/Documents/Includes.pdf


Neither you nor Mr. Hendrickson understand how the word is used in the IRC, which is why his argument consistently loses.  Let's see how one court characterized the argument that "includes" as used in the IRC is restrictive:




> The other jury instructions proffered by the defendant are equally *inane*. Thus we hold that the district court did not err in refusing the other instruction offered by Latham implying that 26 U.S.C. § 7343 defining "person" does not include natural persons. n2 Similarly, Latham's instruction which indicated that under 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) the category of "employee" does not include privately employed wage earners is *a preposterous reading of the statute*. It is obvious that within the context of both statutes the word "includes" is a term of enlargement not of limitation, and the reference to certain entities or categories is not intended to exclude all others.
> 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> n2 "The statute's provision was not intended to exclude [individuals] or to limit the ordinary meaning of the term 'person' so as to exclude individuals or 'natural persons' . . . from their responsibility to comply with the tax laws." United States v. Rice, 659 F.2d 524, 528 (5th Cir. 1981).
> 
> U. S. v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747 (7th Cir. 1985)


"Inane" and "preposterous" are pretty accurate descriptions for Hendrickson's argument.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Wow, I didn't expect an argument of such a generalization from you of all people, Helmuth. Assuming that you are defending this particular tax scheme. Firstly, I did not claim or allude that most Elderly are poor and destitute.  I hypothesized a crime synario. Perhaps a reach on my part.


 No, not a reach, it's just fine.  I was just pointing out that the elderly are the wealthiest demographic in the US.

I am indeed defending Capt. Lou's head tax proposal.  Any tax will have problems.  Most notably: that it will involve taking other people's stuff without their permission.  Obviously I am not in favor of taking other people's stuff without permission, but I do believe a $10,000 head tax would be a tremendous improvement over the status quo.

As I say, your scenario was not a reach.  It no doubt would happen that many below-average-wealth elderly would be hit hard by such a head tax.  My thought is just: why single out the elderly in particular?  Many below-average-wealth 40-year-old fathers will be hit hard, too.  Many 20-year-old fry clerks will be hit hard.  Of all the groups to single out, the elderly are the most affluent and the ones who will have the fewest problems dealing with the head tax.  It is a generalization, yes, but that's why they're called "generalizations": they're generally true.




> Secondly this is a progressive tax, if one defines a progressive tax as favoring certain groups over others and I do define it that way. Why exclude heads under eighteen from being taxed? Shouldn't they pay tribute for their existence as well? I can only deduce that the reason is, heads under eighteen don't typically generate at least ten thousand a year (Justin Bieber the exception). Because they don't, this would put an extra burden on parents to cover the child's tax. You may wonder, what unintended consequences would result?  I suspect such a burden would result in an increase in abortions and more abandonment or perhaps the parent will find it necessary to put the child to work.


 I think that is true.




> It looks to me that, Head tax guy is focusing on potential income earners. I have to think that would exclude many Retirees. 
> 
>  I'm sorry to report that I know Elderly people who aren't rolling in the dough like Scrooge McDuck. I'm afraid many are on fixed incomes and although social engineers have greatly reduced the past phenomenon of Off spring helping their parents in the golden years, l suspect it still occurs. So what then? Does the Son or Daughter pay the tribute incurred by their Parents' existence, there by increasing their own burden of tax? I guess the adult children can abandon their Parents as so many others do today. Since it is a progressive tax anyway, why not exclude Heads past a certain age? Or include all and deal with the consequences.


 Ongoing annual income is not so important as _wealth_.  Net worth.  Many, many elderly have little to no income, true.  But they are the wealthiest demographic because they have had an entire lifetime to save up wealth.  They have assets.  They own houses outright.  They have hundreds of thousands of dollars in investments and pensions.  They are, in short, rich.  And that's a great thing!  That means that:

a) They will have no problem meeting the $10,000 head tax.
b) An annual $10,000 payment may even be a tax decrease for them.

Both of these statements are again generalizations, of course, but sound ones.  Immediate-term, who would benefit most from a head tax?  The rich.  Why?  Because they are currently paying more, in many cases far more, than $10,000 per year.  Who is hurt the most, immediate-term?  The poor.  Why?  Because many of them are currently paying less than $10,000 per year.  Since the old are disproportionately in the "rich" category, they will benefit disproportionally.  Since the young are disproportionately in the "poor" category, they will see their tax situation worsen disproportionately.  This is just simple statistics.




> Personally if I must be forced to pay tribute,  I prefer a flat income tax. It eliminates our current ridiculous tax code. It doesn't discriminate between income earners, although it does discriminate between income and non income earners, but so does the proposed head tax. And a flat income tax doesn't guarantee that I will have to work till I'm dead.


 But it disincentives increased productivity by punishing you more the more you make.  It does discriminate between income earners: the earners who earn more must pay more.

I do see and understand some of the downsides to Capt. Lou's head tax proposal, but I see the upsides as far outweighing them.

----------


## Danke

> Neither you nor Mr. Hendrickson understand how the word is used in the IRC, which is why his argument consistently loses.  Let's see how one court characterized the argument that "includes" as used in the IRC is restrictive:
> 
> 
> 
> "Inane" and "preposterous" are pretty accurate descriptions for Hendrickson's argument.


That doesn't address points I brought up.   Look up wage, it is defined in the code.  And where is the discussion about "persons?"

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Seeing the headline, my first thought was the two headed girl, but I see that was already posted. From an ethical point of view, a head tax is a tax on life, in this example it is a tax on living past the age of eighteen. It is still a progressive tax since it excludes those who are not yet eighteen. What happens to the body that refuses to pay the head tax, does the state confiscate the head? 
> 
> From a utility perspective, I can see how it would engineer some of the same results as a flat tax, but I don't see that it would engineer any positive results beyond a flat tax. I try to look for unintended consequences when such things are proposed. A couple of quick thoughts, it would be a great boon for the inflationist as it would be advantageous for most to devalue the dollar. Whether people like to admit it or not social engineering usually has an affect on crime incentives, I think it would be difficult for the Elderly to pay such a tax, it would be tragic to see heirs shortening the Elderly lives in order to preserve what is left of an inheritance. Addendum: I think a head tax would adversely affect  economic mobility. It would make it more difficult to start a business if you only have ten thousand in capital and the government confiscate all of your start up capital. I'm sure established business will appreciate the protection against competition that a head tax would provide.
> 
> I think an "alcohol induced dumb idea tax" might be far better than a head tax.


A few points.

1) Many localities already have a head tax.  Now granted it is not in the amount that would be needed to fund the federal gov't, but it is equal to their total budget divided by the number of residents or households.  

2) I proposed 18 and older, because those are the ones old enough to vote.  If you want to include children you can and then amount would come out to be $12K per person using the 2014 budget numbers.

3) As far as affordability, more than half of the country is already paying in excess of the initially stated $10K per person.  For example, this year we paid over 90K in taxes when you take into account income tax, fica and medicare tax -- not to mention all the excise taxes paid which are too complex to calculate.  A head tax would eliminate all other forms of taxation.

4) If all someone had was $10K to start a business and no other sources of income, they are in pretty $#@! shape.  But then again, as was mentioned originally a charity could be set up to assist those who were unable to afford the tax.  As was theoriized this would be a temporary need as when capital is released into the economy from the people who are productive and know how to create jobs the economy would boom.

Think of it this way.  You have $50K in your hand, you want to see it multiply.  Are you going to give that money to A) a high school dropout who is on his 5th burger flipping job cause he can't hold one down  or  B) an entrepreneur who has a proven track record of success.  Obviously the answer is B.  At present with an income tax system, the government takes money out of the pockets of the people who know best how to make it grow.  Then to make matters worse, they give money to the poorest of people (who is large part are poor because of their own failures in life).  It's ass backwards.  Let the rich keep their money and we will all have more money.

And again, I think it is telling how many folks here have balked over a $10K per person tax.  The truth is a married couple making $100K per year (which really equates to simply two decent paying jobs) is already paying far more than that when you take into account their income tax, fica, medicare tax and excise taxes.

----------


## Danke

> A few points.
> 
> 1) Many localities already have a head tax.  .


They do?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> They do?


A lot of townships do and even some school districts do.  Usually its referred to as a per capita tax.

Example: http://www.unitytownship.org/PerCapitaTax.htm

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

Just did a little math.  A single person earning 40K per year, who does not put anything into an IRA and has no kids pays just a little over $10K per year in income, Fica and medicare taxes.  And that doesn't take into account excise taxes he/she might pay.

----------


## Danke

> A lot of townships do and even some school districts do.  Usually its referred to as a per capita tax.
> 
> Example: http://www.unitytownship.org/PerCapitaTax.htm


I never of this, I guess the key is not being  "residence." ( a legal term).

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> That doesn't address points I brought up.


Of course it does.  Hendrickson's argument is based on a ridiculous misreading of the definition of "employee" in IRC § 3401(c) and a futile attempt to show that only government employees and corporate officers are "employees" under that section.  That aside, what he fails to address is that this definition applies only for withholding purposes and has nothing at all to do with whether pay received for private-sector work is included in gross income under Section 61.  If you look at the definition of gross income under that section, there is nothing to suggest that private-sector pay isn't included.  

As far as the argument about the definition of "person" is concerned, Hendrickson made the same idiotic argument in his own case that Latham did, with the same result.  See https://www.courtlistener.com/mied/8...v-hendrickson/

----------


## Danke

> Of course it does.  Hendrickson's argument is based on a ridiculous misreading of the definition of "employee" in IRC § 3401(c) and a futile attempt to show that only government employees and corporate officers are "employees" under that section.  That aside, what he fails to address is that this definition applies only for withholding purposes and has nothing at all to do with whether pay received for private-sector work is included in gross income under Section 61.  If you look at the definition of gross income under that section, there is nothing to suggest that private-sector pay isn't included.  
> 
> As far as the argument about the definition of "person" is concerned, Hendrickson made the same idiotic argument in his own case that Latham did, with the same result.  See https://www.courtlistener.com/mied/8...v-hendrickson/


He was bringing up that he wasn't the "person" as defined in the code.  "law decided under it exclude [him] from the class of `persons' subject to the duty imposed by that statute."




> The term "person," as used in § 7206, is defined as follows:
> 
>     The term "person" as used in this chapter *includes* (key term discussed earlier) an officer or employee of a corporation (federal corporation), or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.

----------


## Danke

Section 61:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/61

"Section 61 further attempts to define a tax subject that was not a tax subject at the time the Constitution was written.  The tax subject in Subchapter B is:  “taxable income.”  Recall above that the Founders contemplated direct taxes (on people or property) or indirect excise taxes (on people or things doing specific activities).   Subchapters A and B combine to identify and define the tax subject not as people or property, but as the unanswered question from Subchapter A:  “taxable income.”  Conspicuously absent from all of Subchapter B is the identification of any specific individual human being who has “taxable income” and is therefore obligated to pay the tax. "

http://www.losthorizons.com/Newslett...TheRedPill.htm

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I never of this, I guess the key is not being  "residence." ( a legal term).


I don't have a problem with local taxes, as long as they are reasonable.  We at one time considered living in an area that had virtually no taxation, but it was so remote that the expenses we would incur living a normal life far outweighed any taxes we would pay to live in a more populated area.  

Not sure how one can exist and thrive not being a "resident".

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> That would be the bourbon.


Thread winner.




> So you think it is fair that someone like myself pays 90K in taxes, while someone pays next to nothing?  The only way that is fair is if you support a progressive tax.


No, you are redefining terms on the fly, for prejudicial effect. A head tax such as you have proposed would be considered to be a *regressive* tax. A flat percentage for all income would be considered neutral. An increasing percentage would be called progressive. 




> Capt Lou wants a head tax, not a percentage.  Every adult owes the government 14k for existing.


That comes the closest to identifying the essential problem. A head tax is not only regressive, but it also makes every person property of the government. Pay to free yourself (annually), or if you fail to pay, you revert to your default status of *slave*. You are now property.

----------


## Henry Rogue

> No, not a reach, it's just fine.  I was just pointing out that the elderly are the wealthiest demographic in the US.
> 
> I am indeed defending Capt. Lou's head tax proposal.  Any tax will have problems.  Most notably: that it will involve taking other people's stuff without their permission.  Obviously I am not in favor of taking other people's stuff without permission, but I do believe a $10,000 head tax would be a tremendous improvement over the status quo.
> 
> As I say, your scenario was not a reach.  It no doubt would happen that many below-average-wealth elderly would be hit hard by such a head tax.  My thought is just: why single out the elderly in particular?  Many below-average-wealth 40-year-old fathers will be hit hard, too.  Many 20-year-old fry clerks will be hit hard.  Of all the groups to single out, the elderly are the most affluent and the ones who will have the fewest problems dealing with the head tax.  It is a generalization, yes, but that's why they're called "generalizations": they're generally true.
> 
>  I think that is true.
> 
>  Ongoing annual income is not so important as _wealth_.  Net worth.  Many, many elderly have little to no income, true.  But they are the wealthiest demographic because they have had an entire lifetime to save up wealth.  They have assets.  They own houses outright.  They have hundreds of thousands of dollars in investments and pensions.  They are, in short, rich.  And that's a great thing!  That means that:
> ...


I have no further argument at this point, other than to reiterate what I have already posted and that would be pointless.




> Both of these statements are again generalizations, of course, but sound ones.  Immediate-term, who would benefit most from a head tax?  The rich.  Why?  Because they are currently paying more, in many cases far more, than $10,000 per year.  Who is hurt the most, immediate-term?  The poor.  Why?  Because many of them are currently paying less than $10,000 per year.  Since the old are disproportionately in the "rich" category, they will benefit disproportionally.  Since the young are disproportionately in the "poor" category, they will see their tax situation worsen disproportionately.  This is just simple statistics.


Yes, you are correct it would hurt the poor the most. That is a better demographic to focus on rather than an age demographic. Which could be argued on ethical grounds, but I would rather avoid that. Instead I'll attempt to focus on something I brought up in my first post in this thread.  To this I will elaborate below  the next quote segment.




> *But it disincentives increased productivity by punishing you more the more you make.  It does discriminate between income earners: the earners who earn more must pay more.*
> 
> I do see and understand some of the downsides to Capt. Lou's head tax proposal, but I see the upsides as far outweighing them.


Does the flat tax discriminate between income earners? Yes and no. If one looks at it from the perspective of amount paid, then yes, it does discriminate, if one looks at it from the perspective of the percentage paid, then no, it does not discriminate. However this is an  ethical point which is subjective, therefor, an argument that can be neither won or lost and I see no point in arguing which ethical point of view is correct. Does a flat tax disincentives income mobility? Honestly, I don't see it. The percentage stays the same regardless of income, yes the more you make the more you pay in tribute, but you still earn more and that is clearly an incentive to move up.

 Granted, Head tax offers more incentive because the the higher you are in income the less percent of income you pay. In fact it makes you down right desperate to make more and desperate times call for desperate measures. Incentives for fraud, theft, robbery, and murder. Why? because head tax does nothing to address barriers to entry (In fact head tax is a barrier to entry.) and this is a serious problem regardless of incentive. I brought up this point in my first post, starting a business becomes far more difficult if you can't save in any capital. Bank loans and private investors are options, but there is no guaranty. Even if a business requires little or no capital, if you can't earn enough to cover your living cost and make the ten thousand tribute payment, you're screwed. That leaves three choices work for a large corporation, work for a well established business or a life of crime. You think somebody is going to clean toilets for twenty thousand a year and pay ten thousand in tribute? You think people bellyache about minimum wage now, just wait for implementation of head tax. It makes me think of the push to get everyone to go to college. It's stupid. Not everyone is cut out to be a corporate climber or a doctor or an engineer or god forbid a lawyer. Somebody has got to do the dirty work or we're going to have big problems with division of labor. So playing the social engineer, you have to ask yourself, do you really want everyone scrambling for the big payday? Do you really want everyone screaming to get into college? Speaking of which, what will be the market clearing price of tuition under head tax? And what about college, how does one pay his tribute when he is in college? I foresee socialized college and tax exemptions for the student over eighteen. Crank up the printer. 

What really pisses me off about head tax, is it cajoles me to write progressive socialist phrases that I despise like "It makes the rich, richer and the poor, poorer", but i think it may actually do just that. I guess "fight fire with fire" as they say. Fight progressive socialism with progressive socialism. Here is a progressive socialist phrase I hate so much I've been planning to make a special thread to disprove it, but here I'm going to use it to make an argument. Perhaps "free rider problem" isn't the perfect phrase to use, maybe I'll call it the "cheap rider problem". Let me explain, corporation and large businesses uses public infrastructure and so does the house cleaner, The house cleaner "A" puts on four hundred miles a week and business owner "B" has a fleet of trucks that put ten thousand miles on in a week. "A" pays ten thousand and "B" pays ten thousand, who has the cheapest ride? 

I'm stopping here before i get so irritated i delete my whole post.

----------


## Henry Rogue

> A few points.
> 
> 1) Many localities already have a head tax.  Now granted it is not in the amount that would be needed to fund the federal gov't, but it is equal to their total budget divided by the number of residents or households.


  I never heard of that. I did click your link in your response to Danke.




> 2) I proposed 18 and older, because those are the ones old enough to vote.  If you want to include children you can and then amount would come out to be $12K per person using the 2014 budget numbers.


 You will have to explain to me how head taxing a portion of the population equates to ten thousand a head and head taxing all of the population equates to twelve thousand a head. If it is because you are using different budget years, I have to wonder why the subterfuge? No I don't want to include children, I don't want to include anyone. I was illustrating that this is a progressive tax. 




> 3) As far as affordability, more than half of the country is already paying in excess of the initially stated $10K per person.  For example, this year we paid over 90K in taxes when you take into account income tax, fica and medicare tax -- not to mention all the excise taxes paid which are too complex to calculate.


 Congratulations.




> A head tax would eliminate all other forms of taxation.[/B]


Yeah, that's what everyone, that comes here peddling a tax, says.




> 4) If all someone had was $10K to start a business and no other sources of income, they are in pretty $#@! shape.


 Not all businesses are multinational corporations. Businesses come in all shapes and sizes. Too many variations to centrally engineer. The point I was trying to make is that, head tax is a barrier to entry. Therefor a protection against new competition.




> But then again, as was mentioned originally a charity could be set up to assist those who were unable to afford the tax.  As was theoriized this would be a temporary need as when capital is released into the economy from the people who are productive and know how to create jobs the economy would boom.


 A socialist charity, I'll file that along with obamacare.




> Think of it this way.  You have $50K in your hand, you want to see it multiply.  Are you going to give that money to A) a high school dropout who is on his 5th burger flipping job cause he can't hold one down  or  B) an entrepreneur who has a proven track record of success.  Obviously the answer is B.  At present with an income tax system, the government takes money out of the pockets of the people who know best how to make it grow.  Then to make matters worse, they give money to the poorest of people (who is large part are poor because of their own failures in life).  It's ass backwards.  Let the rich keep their money and we will all have more money.


Punishing people for earning an income and saving wealth is wrong and counterproductive. Same thing applies to giving handouts to the poor and rich. I wouldn't give Fifty thousand to the burger flipper. I wouldn't give Fifty thousand to the entrepreneur without a contract stipulating that they pay me back plus interest. If the high school dropout is so inept that he can't keep a job flipping burgers, I'm not sure head tax is going to work some miracle magic in keeping him employed. He still has to compete with far better workers with the same incentives. I guess prices could eventually adjust to reflect no negative affect on lower incomes if the currency supply is inflated enough, but then ten thousand wouldn't be enough to feed the beast.  




> And again, I think it is telling how many folks here have balked over a $10K per person tax.  The truth is a married couple making $100K per year (which really equates to simply two decent paying jobs) is already paying far more than that when you take into account their income tax, fica, medicare tax and excise taxes.


 For a couple under head tax that would be twenty thousand, I had to make this obvious statement because you are comparing a single tax under head tax to a dual income under current conditions, more subterfuge.  Yeah, it's telling, people around here hate taxes and many don't make One hundred thousand.

----------


## Weston White

> Mr. White, one can only hope that some day you will be able to write a cogent sentence in the English language.  There is absolutely nothing in the text of the 16th Amendment or of any other provision of the Constitution that exempts any portion of the pay one receives for working from the definition of income.  No court in the history of the country has done so.  Perhaps such things exist in the fantasyland inhabited by crackpot tax protesters, but in the real world such arguments are frivolous.
> 
> Except the Constitution says otherwise.  In language that is so clear that only someone who is functionally illiterate could not comprehend, the 16th Amendment says that Congress doesn't have to apportion an income tax.  And good luck finding any exigency standard in the Constitution.
> 
> Mr. White, it is followers of crackpot theories such as yours who are gullible -- they swallow the anti-tax koolaid and end up having to pay back taxes, penalties, and interest as a result (some, like Peter Hendrickson and Irwin Schiff, even go to jail).  You should ask yourself why you believe everyone else, including 99.99999% of all of the lawyers, judges, CPA's, and tax law professors, are too ignorant to grasp the intellectual brilliancy of your ideas.


Sonny, I actually enjoyed this most recent non-response of yours; so very much that I might actually frame it on my office wall (well at least for week, perhaps two).

However, as they say, when one cannot attack the argument, retort by ad hominem.  (And it seems to be the case that Sonny has been doing that a lot as of late.)

As to the remainder of your absurdness that has been previously addressed, so there is really no need to bother reemphasizing your vast level wrongness (i.e., No capitation, or other direct; our Forefathers clarified many times over the proper usage of direct taxation; etc.)  Consequently, it seems that you are not actually paying attention to much of anything, because I am not anti-tax. I shall leave it to those who have been to determine what I am.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> You will have to explain to me how head taxing a portion of the population equates to ten thousand a head and head taxing all of the population equates to twelve thousand a head. If it is because you are using different budget years, I have to wonder why the subterfuge? No I don't want to include children, I don't want to include anyone. I was illustrating that this is a progressive tax.


That was different budget years.  The original $10K number was based on cutting the budget to 2008 levels.





> Not all businesses are multinational corporations. Businesses come in all shapes and sizes. Too many variations to centrally engineer. The point I was trying to make is that, head tax is a barrier to entry. Therefor a protection against new competition.


Your assumption was that someone has $10K to start a business and nothing else at all.  If someone's entire net worth was $10K and had no other sources of income, they are in pretty $#@! shape.  We have started businesses, and when we started our first we had money saved to start the business, but also had two incomes at the same time.  If all we had was $10K and were unemployed, starting a business would be the last thing we would do.





> A socialist charity, I'll file that along with obamacare.


Private charity is always preferable over government welfare.  





> Punishing people for earning an income and saving wealth is wrong and counterproductive. Same thing applies to giving handouts to the poor and rich. I wouldn't give Fifty thousand to the burger flipper. I wouldn't give Fifty thousand to the entrepreneur without a contract stipulating that they pay me back plus interest. If the high school dropout is so inept that he can't keep a job flipping burgers, I'm not sure head tax is going to work some miracle magic in keeping him employed. He still has to compete with far better workers with the same incentives. I guess prices could eventually adjust to reflect no negative affect on lower incomes if the currency supply is inflated enough, but then ten thousand wouldn't be enough to feed the beast.


I think you missed my point.  In order to spur the economy, the country needs to put more money in the hands of the wealth producers, because in large part, these are the people who know how to utilize money.  The present system, and really any other tax system that is proposed out there, takes more money from the wealthy than the poor.  The tax system discriminates against the productive and rewards the unproductive. I contend that everyone, regardless of their income, should pay an equal, flat amount.  




> For a couple under head tax that would be twenty thousand, I had to make this obvious statement because you are comparing a single tax under head tax to a dual income under current conditions, more subterfuge.  Yeah, it's telling, people around here hate taxes and many don't make One hundred thousand.


This year a married couple earning a total of $100K with two kids pays: 9938 in income tax, and 15300 in FICA/Medicare Tax totaling $25238.  Then on top of that they also pay excise taxes.  $100K is not as much money as it used to be.  A nurse and a plumber would combine to make that much, or pretty damn close to it.  Heck, an assistant manager at Home Depot makes close to $60K.

The problem with the present tax system and even the flat & fair taxes is that it taxes income.  Someone upthread said that under a head tax we all becomes slaves of the gov't, but are we not already?  Every paycheck one receives is taxed by the government from dollar one. 

Now, a flat tax is a better system then the one we have.  Progressive rates are destroying the economy.  But even a flat tax is progressive since the effective tax rate increases as income goes up.  Using some simple math here for illustration.

Couple A has two children, they earn $50K, they get a $10K exemption and then pay a 15% flat tax.  Their total tax due is $6000 or 12% of their income.

Couple B also has two children, they earn $75K and get the same $10K exemption and pay a 15% flat tax.  Their total tax due is $9750 or 13% of their income.

And even Rand's flat tax proposal does not get rid of FICA and Medicare taxes which total 15.3% of income.

I want taxes as low as possible, but I also want taxes to be fair and equal for all, regardless of one's income.  It should make no difference if someone makes minimum wage or $1 million per year.  The taxing of income is what has led us to the socialist state that we are presently living in.  Removing that ability from the government would force them to cut spending and have a balanced budget.  It would also be a wake up call to the unproductive in the country at how much of a mess we are in.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> “No capitation, or other direct…”; our Forefathers clarified many times over the proper usage of direct taxation; etc.)


The income tax isn't a direct tax, except possibly a tax on investment income, and that would be the case only if you believe the Pollock decision still has validity.  In any event the 16th Amendment makes it clear that an income tax doesn't have to be apportioned, regardless of whether a particular type of income tax is considered a direct tax.  So your bringing up the Direct Tax Clause serves no purpose.

Face it, you have no legal support whatsoever for your position.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> He was bringing up that he wasn't the "person" as defined in the code.  "law decided under it exclude [him] from the class of `persons' subject to the duty imposed by that statute."


Yes, and the court rejected his misinterpretation of "includes", just as Latham's court rejected his.




> Section 61 further attempts to define a tax subject that was not a tax subject at the time the Constitution was written. The tax subject in Subchapter B is: taxable income. Recall above that the Founders contemplated direct taxes (on people or property) or indirect excise taxes (on people or things doing specific activities). Subchapters A and B combine to identify and define the tax subject not as people or property, but as the unanswered question from Subchapter A: taxable income. Conspicuously absent from all of Subchapter B is the identification of any specific individual human being who has taxable income and is therefore obligated to pay the tax.


That's because the persons whose taxable income is subject to tax are identified in Section 1, located in Subchapter A, and the obligation to pay the tax is found in Section 6151.  If you're looking for an activity or an event that provides the theoretical basis for the imposition of an indirect tax in this context, it's not hard to find: it's the receipt of income.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> The income tax isn't a direct tax, except possibly a tax on investment income, and that would be the case only if you believe the Pollock decision still has validity.  In any event the 16th Amendment makes it clear that an income tax doesn't have to be apportioned, regardless of whether a particular type of income tax is considered a direct tax.  So your bringing up the Direct Tax Clause serves no purpose.
> 
> Face it, you have no legal support whatsoever for your position.


"Legal support"?

Is that supposed to equate merit?

A lot of people had no legal support. As the majority did with them what they pleased.

I would imagine that that is not your point though it should always be pointed out: Simply because one does not have legal support does not mean that they are not being unlawfully and immorally transgressed against.

With regards to the Courts, their opinion is rather irrelevant. They do what they want and often times come to bad decisions.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> "Legal support"?
> 
> Is that supposed to equate merit?


No, it's supposed to predict what a court or the IRS is going to do.  It's very pragmatic.




> I would imagine that that is not your point though it should always be pointed out: Simply because one does not have legal support does not mean that they are not being unlawfully and immorally transgressed against.
> 
> With regards to the Courts, their opinion is rather irrelevant. They do what they want and often times come to bad decisions.


You're right -- it isn't my point, and yes, courts sometimes make bad decisions.  My point, however, is to dispel the nonsense promoted by scammers who claim that the law as written doesn't tax most people's income.

----------


## Weston White

> The income tax isn't a direct tax, except possibly a tax on investment income, and that would be the case only if you believe the Pollock decision still has validity.  In any event the 16th Amendment makes it clear that an income tax doesn't have to be apportioned, regardless of whether a particular type of income tax is considered a direct tax.  So your bringing up the Direct Tax Clause serves no purpose.
> 
> Face it, you have no legal support whatsoever for your position.


Sure, I do, which is exactly why you can never actually counter it.  So instead you resort to either pointing out the obvious, through a partial truth that you then muddle with a dash or two of misdirection, or you will otherwise turn into a very angry grammer-Nazi who is jonesing for his daily amphetamines (regardless you play either part equally as poor).

And no, in asserting that one's paycheck (including no other perks or benefits, etc.) from laboring is legally 'taxable income', you are in-fact meaning that your financial capital is itself taxable; thereby you are deceptively converting what is intended to be an indirect tax into a direct tax.  Thus, as a consequence, you also render such a method of imposing taxes absolutely unconstitutional, as it is operating without apportionment and exigency.  A tax upon an individual, their capital, their competency, or their personalty falls under the class of personal taxes, which itself falls under the head of 'other direct taxes' being so analogous to a capitation tax.  'Gross income' within the legal breadth of the federal income tax requires a financial corollary to exist first from transferable capital for which to derive something positively greater.  And hence the reference within the income taxes legislative history to _constitutional income_ and not general income; and further explaining the verboseness of its original Sections II and 22.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> And no, in asserting that one's paycheck (including no other perks or benefits, etc.) from laboring is legally 'taxable income', you are in-fact meaning that your financial capital is itself taxable; thereby you are deceptively converting what is intended to be an indirect tax into a direct tax.  Thus, as a consequence, you also render such a method of imposing taxes absolutely unconstitutional, as it is operating without apportionment and exigency.  A tax upon an individual, their capital, their competency, or their personalty falls under the class of personal taxes, which itself falls under the head of 'other direct taxes' being so analogous to a capitation tax.  'Gross income' within the legal breadth of the federal income tax requires a financial corollary to exist first from transferable capital for which to derive something positively greater.  And hence the reference within the income taxes legislative history to _constitutional income_ and not general income; and further explaining the verboseness of its original Sections II and 22.


It's not surprising that you cite nothing in the Constitution or caselaw to support your claims.  The plain fact is that the law is contrary to your position.

As recent as the decision upholding the Obamacare individual mandate, National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sibelius, the Supreme Court reconfirmed that the only direct taxes under the Constitution are capitations and taxes upon the mere ownership of property.  Over 130 years ago in the Springer case the Court rejected the claim that the income tax is a capitation, and it's patently obvious that it's not a tax on the ownership of property.  Instead, it's a tax on the receipt of income.

Moreover, the 16th Amendment says that an income tax doesn't have to be apportioned, so it's irrelevant whether you characterize it as a capitation or some other kind of direct tax.  This is the point you cannot get around.  Your only recourse would be to argue that a tax on compensation for work (or some minimum amount thereof) really isn't an income tax, and this, in turn, would have to be based on the assumption that pay-for-work doesn't constitute income.  Unfortunately, this kind of argument has been rejected so many times that one risks a fine for even raising it.  It has never won.  It has always been rejected as a frivolous argument.  Not only is there no legal support for such a claim, every bit of authority in the universe of American jurisprudence holds to the contrary.

All you can argue is that all of the courts and 99.9999% of the CPA's, attorneys, and law profs got it wrong.  But you can't argue that your view is the law, because it isn't.

----------


## Weston White

> It's not surprising that you cite nothing in the Constitution or caselaw to support your claims.  The plain fact is that the law is contrary to your position.
> 
> As recent as the decision upholding the Obamacare individual mandate, National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sibelius, the Supreme Court reconfirmed that the only direct taxes under the Constitution are capitations and taxes upon the mere ownership of property.  Over 130 years ago in the Springer case the Court rejected the claim that the income tax is a capitation, and it's patently obvious that it's not a tax on the ownership of property.  Instead, it's a tax on the receipt of income.
> 
> Moreover, the 16th Amendment says that an income tax doesn't have to be apportioned, so it's irrelevant whether you characterize it as a capitation or some other kind of direct tax.  This is the point you cannot get around.  Your only recourse would be to argue that a tax on compensation for work (or some minimum amount thereof) really isn't an income tax, and this, in turn, would have to be based on the assumption that pay-for-work doesn't constitute income.  Unfortunately, this kind of argument has been rejected so many times that one risks a fine for even raising it.  It has never won.  It has always been rejected as a frivolous argument.  Not only is there no legal support for such a claim, every bit of authority in the universe of American jurisprudence holds to the contrary.
> 
> All you can argue is that all of the courts and 99.9999% of the CPA's, attorneys, and law profs got it wrong.  But you can't argue that your view is the law, because it isn't.


laff, I have quoted plenty, I have argued plenty, and you know it.  Although, if you are in need of a refresher, by all means feel free to click the link in my signature.  In the mean time, in addressing the Sixteenth Amendment aspect, merely earning a livelihood does not in itself meet the amendment's requirements for application of it; so as you say, it is, for the most part, irrelevant.  Surely, a paycheck is income, however it is not Sixteenth Amendment (i.e., constitutional) _incomes_, for it has yet to derive any financial excess from that specific source.

It is really interesting, the way that you keep foisting in pseudo-arguments that nobody ever actually brings up and then go into great detail to counter those arguments in a manner that is intended to appear as if you are actually arguing against the original arguments that you had managed all the while to circumvent.  Still however, you are as transparent as a crystal ball and just as backwards too.


ETA:




> Instead, it's a tax on the receipt of income.


BTW, see you cannot even get this little bit correct.  It is not a tax upon the receipt of income; it is a tax "on incomes, from whatever source derived" and with consideration to both the Legislature's constitutionally stipulated powers of taxation and intended purpose of drafting the original revenue act.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> in addressing the Sixteenth Amendment aspect, merely earning a livelihood does not in itself meet the amendment's requirements for application of it; so as you say, it is, for the most part, irrelevant.


There is no requirement in the Amendment, Mr. White.  The text is quite clear:




> The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.


Nothing in there about a requirement.  Nothing about some kinds of income being included and others excluded (there is no such thing as "Sixteent Amendment income" that is taxable and non-Sixteenth Amendment income that isn't).*  Nothing about exigency.  Nothing about any other invented rationalization of yours.  If it's income, Congress can tax it without apportionment, period.


*"It is clear on the face of this text [the 16th Amendment] that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense, -an authority already possessed and never questioned, - or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve *all* income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived."  Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1916) (emphasis added)

----------


## Weston White

> There is no requirement in the Amendment, Mr. White.


Sigh, again the requirement is found in the U.S. Constitution, A.1,S.9,C.4. Perhaps you should attempt a bit of deduction on your own behalf in the future, yes?




> Nothing in there about a requirement.  Nothing about some kinds of income being included and others excluded (there is no such thing as "Sixteent Amendment income" that is taxable and non-Sixteenth Amendment income that isn't).*  Nothing about exigency.  Nothing about any other invented rationalization of yours.  If it's income, Congress can tax it without apportionment, period.


As to the above points they are discovered, in the Federalist Papers, the writings of our Nation's drafters, the legislative histories of the coinciding Revenue Acts, and various USSC case law.

Ergo, under the Sixteenth Amendment, income may only be taxed without apportionment, when there is a qualifying source involved.




> "It is clear on the face of this text [the 16th Amendment] that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense, an authority already possessed and never questioned, or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment *from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived*." Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1916)


You  are playing ignorant by ignoring the closing of the sentence.  And its context is not addressing "income" as you would like to believe it to, but 'income taxes'.

----------


## vickersvimy

This is, overall, a bad idea because it would tax the poor. It would be a regressive tax and drive (even more) people to poverty.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Ergo, under the Sixteenth Amendment, income may only be taxed without apportionment, when there is a qualifying source involved.
> 
> "It is clear on the face of this text [the 16th Amendment] that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense, an authority already possessed and never questioned, or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived." Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1916)


Amazing.  You really don't understand that the material you underlined flatly contradicts your claim about a "qualifying source". Truly amazing.

If, as Brushaber says, the purpose of the 16th Amendment was to "relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived", then it's irrelevant what the source is.  In other words, after the 16th it is improper to consider the source to decide whether a tax on the income has to be apportioned.  

What have the courts said about this "source" argument?




> the command of the [16th] Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class.  Brushaber, 240 U.S. at 18-19.
> 
> According to Buras, income must be derived from some source. ... [T]he Sixteenth Amendment is broad enough to grant Congress the power to collect an income tax regardless of the source of the taxpayer’ income.  United States v. Buras, 633 F.2d 1356, 1361 (9th Cir. 1980).
> 
> [Condo] asserts that the sixteenth amendment only allows taxing income from ‘sources’ (entities and monopolies created by law), not persons. The sixteenth amendment authorization, however, is for a tax on income from whatever source derived.  United States v. Condo, 741 F2d 238, 239 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1164 (1985).
> 
> [A]ppellant suggests that before an ‘item’ of income may be considered, the particular ‘source’ of the ‘item’ must be identified. ... He is wrong. By the terms of both the Sixteenth Amendment and section 61(a), ‘source’ is not to be a limitation on taxable income. Rather, income is to be taxed regardless of its source.  Angstadt v. Internal Revenue Service, 84 AFTR2d 99-5455, 1999 WL 820866, at 2 (U.S.D.C. E.D.Pa. 1999).

----------


## Weston White

> Amazing.  You really don't understand that the material you underlined flatly contradicts your claim about a "qualifying source". Truly amazing.


No, sadly it is you that fails to grasp in relational comprehension; which is incredibly odd, because certainly this is by no means “rocket science”.

What it is that the underlying serves to accomplish is to prevent what had occurred in the Pollock case from again taking place—that is it, and that is all, period. Nice and simple, short and sweet, wrapped up with a pretty, shiny bow.

Simply to prohibit one from again arguing that one’s bona fide ‘gross income’ is actually not taxable because it had resulted from one source or another, be it having derived through employment, gift, property, chance, and the like.  But, a ‘ deriving source’ is a required element in determining the income tax equation, without it, the equation is invalid and inapplicable, it simply does not apply.  Ultimately, it is, for example, the distinction between receiving a gift and later realizing gains from that very gift.

Ergo, when one labors for a basic paycheck (i.e., lacking any additional perks or benefits, etc.), it is that paycheck which establishes the source, and until a financial growth is realized through the prudent application of it, there is not any ‘gross income’ yet to be realized.

Your issue and error was long ago addressed within (amongst many others) the Eisner case.  The income tax is not to be imposed on all incomes, but upon incomes from whatever source derived.

The issue being relative to ‘incomes’ pertains not so much to the source itself as much as to what it has derived. Perhaps, more simply stated, ‘gross income’ is the source’s emanation; it is that emanation which unless statutorily exempted is legally taxable under the federal income tax.

There are existing correlations from which to proffer a better understanding:

The federal income tax is imposed not upon property but its rents; not upon principal, but its gain; not upon sales or stock, but its profit; not upon capital or wages, but its growth. The income tax is in essence not upon the source, but the consequential increase acquired from applying a given source in a financially beneficial way.

Unlike direct taxes, income taxes operate exactly like most all other indirect taxes, being that the respective tax is not intended to negate its source only its excess.  Hence, if excess has not been achieved then there is no income tax to be collected.  In the case of the income tax, it is intended to negate the increase of wealth, but not wealth itself; and in the case of the common laborer, not their right to seek out livelihood or competency, but what they managed to seek beyond that mere subsistence.

Further recalling that Black on Taxation substantiates the majority view of the THM and not that of progressive tax “professionals”, and the context of the CRS’ Annotated Constitution on the Sixteenth Amendment does not correspond to the majority of notions you are here to peddle.

Neither is your point-of-view favored by Baron De Montesquieu in his “Spirit of the Laws”, XIII, 1750 (1748)—which was copied into Thomas Jefferson’s Commonplace Book:




> “A capitation is more natural to slavery; a duty on merchandise is more natural to liberty, by reason it has not so direct a relation to the person.”


*  And you can resort to your normal practice of bringing up gift or estate taxes as a misdirected attempt to divert the conversation back into your favor, but as it has already been shown time and time again, those methods of taxation have absolutely no bearing on this method of taxation; there simply is no correlation between these two individual tax classes and is an act of last-ditch desperation on your part.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> This is, overall, a bad idea because it would tax the poor. It would be a regressive tax and drive (even more) people to poverty.


I say $#@! the poor.  It's about time they participated in the economy rather than leeching off everyone else.  Why should those who work hard, save, invest and prosper be forced to carry the load and worse yet give money to those who have failed to prosper?

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Ergo, when one labors for a basic paycheck (i.e., lacking any additional perks or benefits, etc.), it is that paycheck which establishes the source, and until a financial growth is realized through the prudent application of it, there is not any ‘gross income’ yet to be realized.



Nonsense.  The source is the worker's job.  The paycheck is the income he gets from his job.

You've already admitted that the paycheck is income.  Section 61 says that all  income is included in gross income unless it's excluded.  Is there an exclusion for a paycheck?  No.  Ergo, the paycheck is included in gross income.

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> I say $#@! the poor.  It's about time they participated in the economy rather than leeching off everyone else.  Why should those who work hard, save, invest and prosper be forced to carry the load and worse yet give money to those who have failed to prosper?


And you're the one that lashes out at libertarians/anarchists for turning off potential Republican/conservative converts.  Right.

You keep saying that the "productive" should not have to carry the load so your solution is to punish everyone?  How about we nix your tax plan and just force everyone from your generation (baby boomer) to pay their fair share since all my generation is doing is funding your benefits without ever getting anything back in return.  Sound fair?  

And I saw your comment earlier in this thread about how people should be punished for disobeying laws that create victimless crimes, so I think I speak for a lot of people when I say *$#@! you.*

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> You keep saying that the "productive" should not have to carry the load so your solution is to punish everyone?  How about we nix your tax plan and just force everyone from your generation (baby boomer) to pay their fair share since all my generation is doing is funding your benefits without ever getting anything back in return.  Sound fair?


Yes, that sounds very fair. If there shall be taxation, it should not discriminate. Everyone, regardless of age or income, should be treated equally and pay the same amount.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Yes, that sounds very fair. If there shall be taxation, it should not discriminate. Everyone, regardless of age or income, should be treated equally and pay the same amount.


To pay for the millions of dollars in medical bills you'll undoubtedly acquire.

Sounds so fair I couldn't imagine it any other way.

"But I paid into it", I'll be told. Well whose fault is that, for running with the socialist bait, hook, line and sinker? Your generation burdens society more than all of the poor in this country combined. I find it a little ironic that you'd mention the poor being burdensome on society considering your guns and butter generation and the awaiting collapse we are faced with by and large as the result.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> To pay for the millions of dollars in medical bills you'll undoubtedly acquire.
> 
> Sounds so fair I couldn't imagine it any other way.
> 
> "But I paid into it", I'll be told. Well whose fault is that, for running with the socialist bait, hook, line and sinker? Your generation burdens society more than all of the poor in this country combined. I find it a little ironic that you'd mention the poor being burdensome on society considering your guns and butter generation and the awaiting collapse we are faced with by and large as the result.


I support the dissolution of Medicare.  It's a $#@!ty system and should be replaced by private health insurance.  For those that cannot afford private insurance, then their families and/or charity hospitals can take care of them.

And I agree with you, there are many within the boomer generation that leech off society as well.  If they are poor, I say $#@! them as well for not saving and investing throughout their lives to put themselves in a position where they can live out their retirement years in comfort without being a burden to the taxpayers.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

So let's do this.  Cut the budget by 75% and we got just around a trillion per year.  How would you fund the federal gov't?

If we do a head tax it would come out to right around $4000 per adult.

Other options: real estate tax, land tax, sales tax, excise tax, income tax.

Thoughts?  Solutions?

I can also pose the question this way.  If we could guarantee a return to a truly limited, Constitutional government with a budget capped at $1 trillion per year for the next 10 years, would you be willing to pony up to the bar and fork over $4 grand per year? I know I would.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> So let's do this.  Cut the budget by 75% and we got just around a trillion per year.  How would you fund the federal gov't?
> 
> If we do a head tax it would come out to right around $4000 per adult.
> 
> Other options: real estate tax, land tax, sales tax, excise tax, income tax.
> 
> Thoughts?  Solutions?
> 
> I can also pose the question this way.  If we could guarantee a return to a truly limited, Constitutional government with a budget capped at $1 trillion per year for the next 10 years, would you be willing to pony up to the bar and fork over $4 grand per year? I know I would.


My thoughts on the matter are this: don't steal.

Lift the protectionist policies, the regulations, disband the agencies, the police, close down the bases around the world, fire the bureaucrats, tell the corporate welfare receivers to find real goddamn jobs, indict the war criminals, indict the fraud committing usurers, indict the bribe accepting politicians, dispel virtually the entirety of Congress, tell them the same: "Get real goddamn jobs", repeal the legal tender laws, ship the war criminals convicted abroad as a token of good will, apologize for the empire, and again, quit stealing from people: the IRS needs exiled, ostracized or otherwise tarred, End the Fed. End the welfare state. Open the borders. Establish a market of labor with people transacting with what they wish. Repeal the NFA.

All taxes ought be abolished. If it is worthwhile people will pay voluntarily. If they don't, meh. Live righteously. If a person does not wish to subscribe to a given model of governance, they ought be left in peace. Lotteries, fundraisers, or other ideas more creative than I can imagine, could come up with the money needed for a basic structure.

A trillion dollars a year? I cannot picture a trillion dollars. Enough to build a skyscraper of 100's, no doubt, and as such, $#@! no. Too much money, and the "good" ideas would surely follow. Aside from it does nothing to end the corruption in DC (people would continue to line up for the handouts).

I feel like I left something out.

As to whether I'd pay four grand a year for a government you proposed, I suppose begrudgingly I would. After all, I don't want agents ambushing me in the night, or the mob of fools coming to take my land.

I'm sure my thoughts will be ruled out as impossible, or absurd. The thing is, your's are too. Scaling this government back to one trillion a year will not happen. Too many people are invested in it and too many people have no faith in voluntary transaction with regards to the greatest amount of wealth possible to be produced, being produced. I suppose it's all just debating for the sake of debating. They'll run this ship into the ground regardless.

How is it lawful that I be burdened with a debt I never signed, agreed to, or partook in the loot of? Is that legitimate? Would any court worth its weight in piss rule that a debt contracted by another party, absent your agreement or even knowledge of the debt, would be binding? This is the crux of the matter. They. don't. care. And as such, the collectivists, fascists, authoritarians, and progressive "humanitarians" will all come from the wood work with their own propagandists to corral the sheep into doing this or that. Your property isn't yours and even under your system, it still wouldn't be. It is an immoral castle built on sand and is predestined to fail. While it would be an improvement and I'd have more of my earnings to save, I find myself still unsatisfied.

I probably should just be quiet, work and say, "Yessuh," to the squadrons of polices, to wit, the robbers and thieves. I find myself compelled not to (probably the liquor and a lack of knowing "what's good for me"). I think it very well could be the case that this country is damned. If the Ten Commandments are worth lip service to the words, I don't understand how a flood has not risen. Certainly not through any grand merit of humanity. 

But I digress. I simply wish, naively that people realize the errors in their ways.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

Here's a decent essay on what a limited government would cost. The author comes in a little above $1 trillion

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreyd...-would-be-low/

FYI. Ron Paul's proposed budget would have us at around three times this amount.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Here's a decent essay on what a limited government would cost. The author comes in a little above $1 trillion
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreyd...-would-be-low/
> 
> FYI. Ron Paul's proposed budget would have us at around three times this amount.


Ron Paul couldn't tell that the sheep that their bloated military budget was a waste (thus he increased the budget, knowing full damn well the state of affairs with regards to the DOD). He also had to placate the people and those receiving these subsidies.

And as well, he wanted to slowly transition into a form of limited governance. That's all well and good, but that is unrealistic (as unrealistic as my statements regarding what should happen and their chances of actually being done). He wanted to steer the ship away from shore while continuing the educational process. Him cutting a trillion dollars was offensive to many a pundit. Ron Paul has spoken much more freely on the topic and I have no doubts he would agree with a large majority of what I said. He wouldn't phrase it as I do, and would be more nuanced but nonetheless, I am certain he'd agree.

I'll read the article, though, and probably agree with it. Much as I agree with you, aside from parts of your rhetoric and not going far enough. I also don't think you necessarily come from a point of consistency but rather a point of pragmatism. Perhaps I am wrong in that regard though.

----------


## Weston White

> Nonsense.  The source is the worker's job.  The paycheck is the income he gets from his job.


Yea, but see, it is not. The job does not belong to the worker, they do not own it, they don’t get to carry it around with them from place to place, or have the option of giving it away,  or keep and store it someplace, or sell it to somebody, or have any physical control over it.  It is wholly under the authority and determination of their employer and supervisor or manager.

An employee’s job and their labor, as a ‘source’, is not viable for existence outside of the individual worker.

The income tax is in essence a method of assessing taxes upon the increase of market worthy (i.e., salable) principal or capital (i.e., corpus), while during which is physically capable of remaining within one’s possession or control.

Ratification of both the Sixteenth Amendment and its IRC had been drafted on the premise of it being a tax only upon wealth; its being a tax upon survival and competence (e.g., day-labor) was never, not ever, not even a single instance all throughout its legislative history (or PR campaigning), mentioned.

The 1913 Revenue Act is simply an expanded iteration of its 1894 rendition; merely increasing its subject-matter scope within its already established context; which provided the precise definition of the term ‘net income’ (now ‘gross income’), the USSC has time and time again upheld that original intent.

It is incorrect to assert that one’s employment is a source, for it meets none of the requirements of qualifying as a source; meaning that it is not under the ownership or control of the employee, it is not transferable (at least on the part of the employee), the employment itself (aside from the employer-employee contract) has neither any marketable value or worth nor is it a tangible object.

Further, labor is imparted by employees, and yet it is not something capable of being manifested unto another, its action is nontransferable, and cannot be duplicated or reproduced—once performed it has been expended and can never be reacquired by anybody else.  Ergo, only Michael Jordan could bring to the table what Michael Jordan brought to the table; there will never be another laborer of hoops with his capabilities again.

Working in exchange for a paycheck is not in any way similar to say, an individual who is receiving monthly checks on their rental properties, as that person is actually getting something additional to their physical property, such is not the case for the average employee.  Being that the employee is only coming out even as a result of their individual efforts, having permanently expended a part of themselves and sacrificing an allotment of their life-energy to another in order to perform a specific act or to perform for a stated period of time as a means of obtaining their own competence.

As for another comparative example, slave-owners (their slaves being representative of laborers under servitude) could only ever be directly taxed (even though slaves in exchange received room and board, and other such humane necessities), while the result of their slave’s laboring was otherwise indirectly taxable.

(Apropos, it is highly interesting—perhaps ironic is the better word—that the call for a national income tax did not arise until the Civil War, while being lauded as a means to fund a war to abolish slavery.  Having effectively exchanged a selectively physical form of slavery for a communal form of financial slavery. Regardless, either form is just as iniquitous as the other.)

Even if you really, really hold a desire to designate an employee’s paycheck as a means of ‘gross income’ from their job—as a source—it is still under contract law an agreed upon quid pro quo exchange, for which there has yet to be anything received that is beyond what that paycheck is representative of. As the adage goes: “An honest day’s wage for an honest day’s work.” A likely paraphrasing attributed to:

1 Thessalonians 4:11 GNV:



> “That ye may behave yourselves honestly toward them that are without, and that nothing be lacking unto you.”


Proverbs 28:19-20 GNV:



> “He that tilleth his land, shall be satisfied with bread, but he that followeth the idle, shall be filled with poverty. A faithful man shall abound in blessings, and he that maketh haste to be rich, shall not be innocent.”


One’s employments cannot be appropriately construed as their source (i.e., principal or capital), only the medium of payments they have received in their performing of it. (See: United States v. Phellis, 257 U.S. 156 (1921), Taft v. Bowers, 278 U.S. 470, 481 (1929), Steward Mach. Co. v. Collector, 301 U.S. 548, 581 (1937), South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505, 522 [Footnote 13] (1988), et al.)

It is unavoidable to realize that such a method of taxation correctly falls under the legally binding definition of capitations and personal taxes; both are historically realized and known to properly be direct methods of taxation. Further noting, there are dozens of USSC cases holding that Congress cannot craft legislation, through trickery, pretext, or creativeness, as a means of circumventing its own constitutional constraint.  So much had been thoughtfully clarified by Pollock:



> “If it be true that, by varying the form, the substance may be changed, it is not easy to see that anything would remain of the limitations of the Constitution, or of the rule of taxation and representation, so carefully recognized and guarded in favor of the citizens of each State.  But constitutional provisions cannot be thus evaded.  It is the substance, and not the form, which controls, as has indeed been established by repeated decisions of this court.  . . .  Nothing can be clearer than that what the Constitution intended to guard against was the exercise by the general government of the power of directly taxing persons and property within any State through a majority made up from the other States.  …”


And additionally, in Postal Telegraph Co. v. Adams, 155 U. S. 688, 155 U. S. 698 (1895):



> “The substance, and not the shadow, determines the validity of the exercise of the power.”


Also see: Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 581-582 (1895) and Macallan Co. v. Massachusetts, 279 U.S. 620, 626-627 (1929); including many other USSC cases addressing this very issue.

Even more so, the empirical views of major philosophers and economists are wholly supportive to the well-founded theory that labor is a right of private property that is commonly exchanged at a loss to the laborers to bring about mere substance to themselves and determinable wealth to their employer.  There are literally dozens upon dozens of varying sources (including the USSC) available that substantiate this imperative point.

Aside from Eisner as cite above, the thru-and-thru breakdown of the Sixteenth Amendment had been earlier addressed in Lynch v. Turrish, 247 U.S. 221, 227-228 (1918).

And still again, 26 USC § 83(a) outlines the very mechanics involved in determining the excess from the source-capital; thereby, removing all existing doubt, all remaining confusion.




> You've already admitted that the paycheck is income.  Section 61 says that all  income is included in gross income unless it's excluded.  Is there an exclusion for a paycheck?  No.  Ergo, the paycheck is included in gross income.


Common law has made it very clear that income is not denotative of ‘gross income’ and that “from whatever source derived” is to be taken objectively, within the breadth of the IRC.

Me thinks that you need to go back for a refresher course in income taxation 101.  That is actually not at all what that statutes states, but what it does state is “gross income means all income from whatever source derived”.  Notice that it does not state any source is included in gross income, as income in and of itself, but only income that has been derived from a source (exempted income notwithstanding).

----------


## Cabal

> How would you fund the federal gov't?


I wouldn't.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> My thoughts on the matter are this: don't steal.


 But less stealing is better than more stealing.  Do you see no difference between a 1 trillion per year federal government and a 3 trillion per year one?

I see a monumental difference.  Capt. Lou's proposal would, *exactly as he said*, usher in an era of such *prosperity and growth as we have never seen in our lifetimes.*

That sounds like it qualifies as a good idea to me.  Are your standards higher?

----------


## ProIndividual

Are we taxing people for having heads now? Or are we taxing them when they get or give head? I'm confused. I'm against extortion for having a head, and I'm certainly against the "tax it, you get less of it" effects if we entertain the other possibility.

Or did you mean "head" tax? Like tax potheads, crackheads, etc.? Tax the Heads!

I'm against that too.

I can't think of a good reason why one should extort someone AND it be considered legal. That's all taxation is...legalized extortion. You no pay, ye ends up in the dungeon.

Voluntary payment methods include lottery, and user fees. But it isn't truly voluntary until there are no threats being used to make consumers buy their product...and they use threats in two ways to achieve this. The direct threat says "pay me the tax, or you'll go to a rape cage after we take your property". The indirect threat is telling potential competitors with the state in certain markets that "if you compete, or do so without approval, you will have your property seized and maybe go to a rape cage", which limits consumer choices and keeps prices artificially high (which causes wealth to aggregate in fewer hands than would ordinarily occur in an otherwise undisturbed market). Both direct and indirect, threats (tax, government grant of monopoly or cartel, tariffs, licenses, cost of regulation compliance, etc.) distort the true consumer preference, making it unable to be expressed.

Why should we legalize using threats of violence against consumers so some minority group can reap higher market share, income, and wealth than they would have earned in a pure free market - all wealth, income, and market share that would have fallen to their smaller competitors, who would have better served consumer preference as it existed (without distortion from threats), and therefore would have increased quality of those goods and services, or lowered price, or both?

I mean, I realize it's already currently legal...I'm just wondering why, when you ponder hypothetical and future alternatives, that you don't go that far. Why draw the line at fairness, justice, liberty, and free markets at some arbitrary place where one penny more is too much state, and one penny less is not enough state? Why start with the fundamental assumption that free markets can't provide any service the market (people) demand, and therefore certain markets or all markets have to be _state socialized_ (collective, or public, coerced ownership over the means of production; holds monopoly, monopsony, or grants cartel)? Capitalism in the context of a state (minimalist state socialism - the least number of markets coercively socialized) is just a degree of difference from state communism (maximalist state socialism - every market, or nearly every market, is coercively socialized) on the scale of various forms of state socialism. They make up the polar opposites on the same scale, with various other forms of "third way" economic and social systems in between. But that means they are only different by a matter of degree, not principle. Both are state socialism. 

Why start with assumption the market can't work for all market demands, that its failings are worse on net than the failings of the state, and that we need to abandon the idea making threats against the innocent is generally "wrong", and to prevent it "we require a minority group to have the legal right to use threats against the innocent so others won't use threats against the innocent. It's like preventative catharsis...or whatever."

I'm just saying...if we're going to do hypotheticals, let's drop all the assumptions and really let our hair down, have a few cocktails, and sleep with a stranger. YOLO.

----------


## febo

The solution to the tax conundrum is awesomley simple - Henry George's single tax.

"George showed that a tax can be progressive and pro-incentive at the same time. Think of it! An army of neo-classicalists preach dourly we must sacrifice equity and social justice on the altar of "efficiency." They need that thought to stifle the demand for social justice that runs like a thread through The Bible, The Koran, and other great religious works. George cut that Gordian knot, and so he had to be put down." - Mason Gaffney

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> So let's do this.  Cut the budget by 75% and we got just around a trillion per year.  How would you fund the federal gov't?
> 
> If we do a head tax it would come out to right around $4000 per adult.
> 
> Other options: real estate tax, land tax, sales tax, excise tax, income tax.
> 
> Thoughts?  Solutions?
> 
> I can also pose the question this way.  If we could guarantee a return to a truly limited, Constitutional government with a budget capped at $1 trillion per year for the next 10 years, would you be willing to pony up to the bar and fork over $4 grand per year? I know I would.


According to this:

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/numbers

Federal income tax - personal and corporate - collected $1.7 trillion, with $1.3 trillion coming from other sources. If government spending were reduced to $1 trillion, you could completely eliminate all taxes other than social insurance taxes, which clocked in at $1.02 trillion.

That would be my plan.

From there, start eliminating those taxes, too.

----------


## Weston White

> So let's do this.  Cut the budget by 75% and we got just around a trillion per year.  How would you fund the federal gov't?
> 
> If we do a head tax it would come out to right around $4000 per adult.
> 
> Other options: real estate tax, land tax, sales tax, excise tax, income tax.
> 
> Thoughts?  Solutions?
> 
> I can also pose the question this way.  If we could guarantee a return to a truly limited, Constitutional government with a budget capped at $1 trillion per year for the next 10 years, would you be willing to pony up to the bar and fork over $4 grand per year? I know I would.


I really do not think even this is needed.  If the federal income tax were simply applied as it is supposed to be, along with the government reducing it budget to something that is actually reasonable (e.g., if economists state it could continue functioning on between from $400 to 600 billion per year, splitting the difference and adding that to the threshold), say roughly $800-billion per annum, along with the following tax related amendments (amongst others):

End the practice of withholding at the source, but only on employee wages;Cease the presumptive taxing on employee remuneration;Slightly reduce capital gain taxes (e.g., from between 8-12%);Slightly reduce the tax rates on all businesses, corporations, and the self-employed (e.g., stepped from 10% to 25%), while also ceasing their exemptions, deductions, write-offs, etc., (i.e., essentially leaving only cleaned progressive tax-rates) and;Openly making participation in all related federal entitlement benefits voluntary and revamp the withholding process for such programs, also including mandates for the earmarking of all related funds, while providing for related interest gains to aid in keeping respective tax rates down.
The federal government would have more resources to actively keep on top of businesses that are skirting their tax obligations.  Business related income taxes would result in around $900-billion per year; and individual income taxes, including other related taxes, transfer taxes, etc., would bank in the $200-billion ballpark.  The free-markets could devise competing forms of work-related retirement, savings, and health coverage.  Perhaps after a period of time governmental social justice programs could then be phased out completely, gently tapering off along with the last of surviving participants, for example.

Any way you cut it the federal government would remain more than capable of functioning from year-to-year, even during moderately bad economical times.

----------


## otherone

Have the federal government funded by it's constituent states.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Have the federal government funded by it's constituent states.


That was tried from 1781 to 1787 under the Articles of Confederation.  It didn't work.

----------


## febo

Tax unearned wealth. Don't tax people for existing or for working and creating.

----------


## otherone

> That was tried from 1781 to 1787 under the Articles of Confederation.  It didn't work.


I'm aware of that.  It CAN work, and WOULD limit the spending of the federated government....and is much better than what we have now.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> That was tried from 1781 to 1787 under the Articles of Confederation.  It didn't work.


 In my opinion: it did.

----------


## Danke

> In my opinion: it did.


An important reason they formed a Union.  So states had to pay a direct tax.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

How about this modification:

Flat percentage tax rate up to a ceiling of $10,000.  Poll tax of $20,000 minus whatever the individual has already paid for the past two years (since federal elections are generally only once every two years).

Thus, the wealthy, who are already paying a full $10,000 per year, can vote for free.  Someone from the lower middle class who pays, say, only $5,000 per year, must pony up an additional $5,000 per year (actually $10,000 per two-years) if he wants to vote.  If he doesn't?  No problem!  He just doesn't get to vote.

In this way those with the maximum inclination to lower taxes (the ones paying the most) are encouraged to vote, and everyone else is dis-incentivized from voting.  We get a bit higher quality of a voter.  Instead of mob-rule, we will have tax-payer rule.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> An important reason they formed a Union.  So states had to pay a direct tax.


 The Confederacy was a union.  It was working fine.  It was working dandy.  It was working just how one would want a federal government to work.

----------


## Danke

> The Confederacy was a union.  It was working fine.  It was working dandy.  It was working just how one would want a federal government to work.


Well, maybe Union was the wrong word,  but I have read from many sources in the past that States were not paying, so it's an important reason they formed a mechanism via the Constitution to accomplish that.

----------


## otherone

> In this way those with the maximum inclination to lower taxes (the ones paying the most) are encouraged to vote, and everyone else is dis-incentivized from voting.  We get a bit higher quality of a voter.


We already have a plutocracy.  Voting is pointless.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> How about this modification:
> 
> Flat percentage tax rate up to a ceiling of $10,000.  Poll tax of $20,000 minus whatever the individual has already paid for the past two years (since federal elections are generally only once every two years).
> 
> Thus, the wealthy, who are already paying a full $10,000 per year, can vote for free.  Someone from the lower middle class who pays, say, only $5,000 per year, must pony up an additional $5,000 per year (actually $10,000 per two-years) if he wants to vote.  If he doesn't?  No problem!  He just doesn't get to vote.
> 
> In this way those with the maximum inclination to lower taxes (the ones paying the most) are encouraged to vote, and everyone else is dis-incentivized from voting.  We get a bit higher quality of a voter.  Instead of mob-rule, we will have tax-payer rule.


Why not just go with what I proposed? No new taxes, no new bureaucracy, and once that's implemented, start tearing that down as well.

----------


## osan

> A few of us were sitting around this weekend enjoying some really good bourbon and the subject of taxes came up.  One of my friends suggested the following:  
> 
> Instead of moving to a flat tax, sales tax or other sort of plan why not have a head tax?  There are roughly 275 million people aged 18 and older in the country.  If every person was assessed a head tax of $10,000 that would result in 2.75 trillion dollars in revenue to the Federal Government (which oddly enough was the budget just prior to Obama's first term).  The head tax would eliminate the payroll tax, FICA, Medicare tax, etc - just the one tax payable in either weekly, bi-weekly, monthly or quarterly installments as chosen by the individual.  There would be no corporate tax, no capital gains tax, no federal taxes on fuel, etc.  Just the 10 grand per person, the only truly fair tax since everyone is considered equal regardless of income.  
> 
> Now, the top 50% of people would be seeing a reduction in taxes. The bottom 50% of people would see their tax burden go up.  The bleeding hearts would cry foul over this, but he had a solution.  A non-profit third party corporation would be set up so that people that cannot afford the tax can apply for financial aid.  Those bleeding hearts who have voted for years to expand the federal government can donate money to this fund to pay for others that are so called less fortunate.
> 
> But, in reality, with the elimination of corporate taxes and the reduction of taxes for that top 50% we would see an almost immediate explosion in the economy resulting in less and less people falling into that "needy" category.  
> 
> Moving forward, Congress would be stuck with a Federal Budget equal to the adult population times $10,000 (obviously this would require some sort of balanced budget amendment), and raising the budget (and therefore the tax payment) would be political suicide.  In fact, as I pondered, those who would want to cut government spending further (and thereby reducing the head tax) would be extremely popular.
> ...



Since taxation is theft, your conversation was analogous to speculations on which hole and in what position it is best to be raped on threat of death.  IOW, the tacit presumptions that would prompt you to have such a debate are wholly, hopelessly, and hideously flawed.

----------


## osan

> Voting is pointless.


It actually may be significantly worse than that.  To vote is to exercise a privilege, vis-à-vis a right.  Given that privileges are granted, exercise directly and unequivocally implies your acknowledgement of the grantor's authority over you.  IOW, you acknowledge that you do not own yourself, that the system in which you exercise the privilege is legitimate and you accept its authority over you.

No thanks.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> But less stealing is better than more stealing.  Do you see no difference between a 1 trillion per year federal government and a 3 trillion per year one?
> 
> I see a monumental difference.  Capt. Lou's proposal would, *exactly as he said*, usher in an era of such *prosperity and growth as we have never seen in our lifetimes.*
> 
> That sounds like it qualifies as a good idea to me.  Are your standards higher?


I would begrudgingly pay.

And I would be annoyed by it.

Is it better than what we have? Yes. Is it feasible? Not really. And if we are to talk of "_utopian, unicorn-land fantasies_" (of which I've been belittled often on), I prefer my model. Of course, my model will never happen either.

And not that you or anyone else in particular disagrees, but stealing is stealing is stealing. All of the qualifiers or supposed good things to be done with my extortion dues don't lift the basic fact that it is immoral. _Thou shalt not steal_... except when you think your reasons are good. Their thought process is absurd.

----------


## Danke



----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Why not just go with what I proposed? No new taxes, no new bureaucracy, and once that's implemented, start tearing that down as well.


Your proposal -- completely eliminate all taxes other than social insurance taxes -- is terrific, too!

I was just trying to stick closer to Capt. Lou's idea.  The idea doesn't really need any modification; it is a good idea as-is.  However, since virtually everyone who has chimed in on this thread has seemed to be very much opposed to it, I figured I'd tweak it a bit to resolve their objections and see if anyone would come around to agreeing "OK, yes, that would be great, actually."

Capt. Lou's idea would cause very, very good economic results.  I think that qualifies it as a *Good Idea*(TM).  I think it's preposterous that more of us RPFers have not acknowledged it as a good idea.  To read this thread, you'd think it was a _bad_ idea!

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> It isn't.  But we may disagree philosophically in that my primary goal is to make the government steal as little as possible, whereas you seem to be primarily concerned about "fairness."


With everyone having to pay the same amount, nearly everyone's goal would be to make the government steal as little as possible!

Right now, since a huge chunk of the population either, pays nothing or minimal tax, they have little incentive to make the government steal less & that's precisely why the government has gotten as big as it is.




> This is nothing more than class warfare.   I don't support taxation at the federal level PERIOD.


A head-tax is the antithesis of class-warfare since everybody, all classes, have to pay the same amount.

I don't support taxation PERIOD but if there's going to be taxation then it might as well be equal for all. Then almost everybody will have an incentive to try to reduce the size of the government & its spending.




> I am all for your idea, Capt. Lou!  It would be a vast, *vast* improvement over the current situation.
> 
> And you are absolutely right that the massive simplification would make budget decreases much more popular.  By directly coupling budget to taxes, in such a direct and mathematically simple way, people would be able to see and understand very easily the benefits of budget decrease and the cost of budget increase -- not just abstract, ideological benefits, but the precise and calculated benefit to next year's family finances!


+1

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> This is an interesting theory, usually advanced by people of our persuasion, in order to argue against taxing corporations since they must inevitably "just pass it on" to the consumer, who is the one who winds up getting hurt.
> 
> It's clever and rhetorically effective, but upon really thinking about it in terms of economic principles, you will find that it's not actually true.  If it were true, corporations could charge whatever they wanted for their products, which is demonstrably not the case.
> 
> If the price of a product goes up, people will buy less of it, all else equal.  At certain prices people may stop buying a certain product entirely.  For instance, if candy bars were $10 a piece, people would stop buying candy bars entirely.  No candy bars would be bought.  Period.  And so no candy bars would be produced.  The whole industry would evaporate in a puff of smoke.  We can understand from this, clearly, that corporations cannot charge whatever they want for their products.
> 
> If there were a tax passed upon the candy bar manufacturers such that they needed to raise prices to $1.50 in order to stay equally profitable to how they were before the tax, will they do that and thus stay equally profitable?  No!  They can't!  If the price of candy bars rises to $1.50, the demand will plummet, and thus they will _not_ stay equally profitable.  They will have to do other things: reduce the size of the candy bar (or maybe increase it!), change the ingredients, somehow change the target market, perhaps increase the price a little bit but not enough to make up for the tax, and most importantly take a hit to profitability.  *Profitability is not a constant.*  None of these things are constants.  So when the free-market defenders say "If you increase the corporate tax 5% you really are just increasing the prices of all our products by 5%," it sounds good, I'll give them that, but it's not true.
> 
> Now, in one sense you are right, Danke, in that if the corporation cannot somehow, one way or another, deal with the tax and still remain profitable (to "pass the tax along" is just one of the ways they might attempt to do that), then in the long run they will go out of business.  They will run out of resources and cease to exist.  Losses can only be sustained for as long as the assets hold out.  But that is true for all of us as individuals, too.  You could just as accurately say: "A person doesn't pay any taxes, if he can't pass it along, then he will go out of life."  And that's true!  An individual, just like a corporation, cannot sustain infinite years of red ink.  He will, like the corporation, starve and die.  And so, like the corporation, he must attempt to deal with it somehow.  He could attempt to "pass the tax along" by simply increasing the price of his product -- demanding a raise at work equal to the percentage of tax increase.  But that is unlikely to work.  He will instead adopt a more complex strategy.


_Usually_, the product won't just go out of the market but rather, as you have mentioned, either its quantity &/or quality could be reduced - which means consumers are getting less stuff &/or lower quality stuff for the same price - aka they are paying more than they would have if the taxes hadn't been raised - aka prices have increased!
If the rise in tax/price of a product is extra-ordinarily steep, it could end its "legal market" but a black-market will likely take root, where the price would be lower than what it would have been on the "legal market" but still higher than what it would have been if the taxes weren't raised.
And yes, even people can pass along their increased cost/taxes if many offerring the same product see a rise simultaneously. For example, if a law is passed that all guards must pay twice the tax (twice of whatever everyone would "normally" have to pay) then you are likely to see a rise in the general price-level of guards.

So, us, the free-marketer types are right when we say that increasing taxes on businesses equals to increasing prices on consumers. Of course, it mayn't always be so simple as _"5% rise in price for 5% increase in tax"_ since as you have already noted, it all depends on the resultant ever-changing supply-demand dynamics.

Talking about prices can be a bit confusing & obfuscating sometimes; what we simply need to think about is the living standards of people, & the rule of thumb that anything that decreases the supply of total goods & services in the economy is going to have a negative impact on the living standards of people & therefore, an increase in taxes on businesses is rightly condemned by the free-marketer types.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Bumping a good idea, from a good man!  RIP, CaptLou.  Maybe you'll be unbanned someday.

----------

