Taxation Constitutional Amendment

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

It is voluntary in the sense you voluntarily engage in the activity that creates a tax liability.

You voluntary engage in breathing. Right? It is just as voluntary as you providing your livelihood.

Neither of these ought to be taxed!

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

I'm concerned that voluntary contributions will be abused over time. According to the IRS and testimony before Congress, our current tax system is a voluntary one. We "voluntarily" choose to sign our tax returns, which is a voluntary suspension of our 5th amendment rights. Of course, failure to file has also been turned into a criminal offense, so the concept of "voluntary" has definitely been muddied. With such bad precedent, similar language in a new amendment will be almost meaningless from the start. I'm not sure it is necessary to explicitly state that government may ask for donations. I think that if people want to give to government, they will, but I don't know that it needs to be enshrined in the Constitution.

Good point. The reason I am stating voluntary contributions is to limit the government.
The amendment states: “The only sources of revenue allowed to government are these: public property user fees, and voluntary contributions.” This prevents the government from inventing a revenue source outside of the two.

As for the meaning of the word “voluntary,” under the Nullification Amendment (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=252475) the only important interpretation will be the people’s interpretation.

I also think that there is a place for a direct tax on services delivered by the government.

I would disagree. As you have no moral right to force your neighbor to pay for those services, you cannot delegate such authority to your government; because the only authority the government has is what you, as individual, delegated to it, and you cannot delegate an authority you do not have.

I'm not sure if that's included in the idea of public property user fees as you have it stated now.

User fee means you can avoid paying it by avoiding using it.

I think there are some legitimate services that government can provide,

Agreed. But you cannot be rightfully FORCED to use those services, neither to pay for them if you do not use them.

although I don't think I'm too excited about either the Post Office or the Patent Office as being ones that should be expressly authorized.

I agree with you completely on this one!

I think that individual states should have the flexibility to set up government services and set a direct tax on them.

Yes, the states should have the flexibility to set up government services. But NO they have no moral right to FORCE people to use them, nor to pay for those services if they choose not to use them.

If the people reject the tax, they are de-funding the service as well and it can either be abolished or sold to private enterprise.

You cannot simply reject the tax, because tax is FORCE. The only way you reject it is by defeating the force. That’s why I say there should be no tax at all; only public property user fees and voluntary contributions.

(I’ll answer the rest later. Thanks.)

 

[Danke]

You voluntary engage in breathing. Right? It is just as voluntary as you providing your livelihood.

Neither of these ought to be taxed!

 

[Liberty Ghost]

You misunderstand me. I don't disagree with respect to what you are saying. What I mean by a direct tax on government services is that if the government provides a service it can directly tax those who use it, in other words a user fee, but I'm trying to draw the distinction that it is not limited to a fee on government property like parks, but could be applied from a government provided service.

As to what is a legitimate government service, it gets murkier. I don't have an objection to a Postal Service on Constitutional grounds, just that I think that it might be more efficiently run by private enterprise.

The same with the Patent Office. There are aspects of the Patent Office that I think government may be the right place for. The filing and storage of the actual patents might best be left to government as a "neutral player" similar to the recording of a title for Real Estate, but with the research handled by private enterprise. Until a better private model emerges, I think it is probably okay to be handled by government. The various private standards bodies provide hope for a workable system, although even there, the tendency is for the standards bodies to act in a cartel-like fashion to limit competition.

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

O I see. Well a government court is public property. If you use it, you pay for it. And offending party should pay most of it.

As for defense, that's a service. The government itself is a public property, and if you use its services you should pay for it a user fee. But as we both agree, no one can be forced to use government service, neither to pay for the service they don't use. (Unless, of course you are the offender, then you pay for most of court expenses as a punishment).

As for patents, I believe they cause great harm to society, slowing down its progress. Besides, under Benson Principle, (see the top of the thread) patents and copyrights are unenforceable, as such enforcement would violate fundamental rights of individual.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Foundation of Liberty you are trying to skirt some mythical quasi-public/private endeavor, which fails fundamentally. You can call it a fee all you want, but if it is public property, who gets to make the rules? Are people elected? Who pays for the elections? Do those elected get paid? What sorts of other powers are delegated? You are trying to fuse voluntaryism with Statism and that is big time fail. You can't have both. There are only two forms of governance -- wholly private and voluntary (Voluntaryism -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism) or through taxation (e.g. Statism -- theft). One violates anothers liberties, one doesn't.

You are so close, so very close! Head on over to mises.org to get some better ammunition

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Foundation of Liberty you are trying to skirt some mythical quasi-public/private endeavor, which fails fundamentally. You can call it a fee all you want, but if it is public property, who gets to make the rules? Are people elected? Who pays for the elections? Do those elected get paid? What sorts of other powers are delegated? You are trying to fuse voluntaryism with Statism and that is big time fail. You can't have both. There are only two forms of governance -- wholly private and voluntary (Voluntaryism -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism) or through taxation (e.g. Statism -- theft). One violates anothers liberties, one doesn't.

You are so close, so very close! Head on over to mises.org to get some better ammunition

Does not public property exist? I simply acknowledge the existence of things, like public roads, that everyone has equal claim on.

Therefore, if such things exist, they should be governed by the voice of the people, as long as everyone is treated equally, and the natural, unalienable rights of the individual are honored.

 

[DamianTV]

Kind of fail, needs a rethink.

I still think our founding fathers had it right with the idea of Direct Apportionment, IE Indirect Unapportioned Tax is ok (sales tax, not Income, that is Direct Unapportioned and totally unconstitutional) but thats not really the point here. Youre right, they are tax and spend fucking crazy. But lets get back on topic.

Public Property. That means, the property is belonging to the public, not the government, and we should be paid by the government for use of our property. We seem to commonly misinterpret Public Property as being owned by the Government, and from the perspective that we are the same group, sure, but if we view ourselves as separate entities, us, and them, the people, and the government, separate, then we can conclude that the ownership of the Public is owned by ALL people, not an entity, like a corporation, business or government. They take, we give, they take more, we run out for paying for things which are already rightfully ours.

Of course, at the same time, I think I'd be all for an Amendment that said the next politician that tries to vote themselves a raise needs to get castrated with a rusty aircraft intake manifold.

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

I think that a provision that limits the threshold of a user fee to some arbitrary percentage is unworkable and probably unnecessary. If 11% of cases in a period are decided for the defendant, does this nullify the tax? What is the period - in the first year after passage, over a 5 year lifespan, or 10 years? If later the percentage rises, does that mean that earlier cases should be reexamined? Without guidance here, I think you are forcing the courts to legislate. I think it would need some careful thought.

The jury check on the amount of the fee is an important one.
People that are subject to the fee are the total number of people who are using the public property in question. If at any time 10% of that number for any given period are acquitted of the user fee by the jury of their peers, the fee must be decreased. The details of implementation are up to the courts.

If there were no provision, except the provision that the burden to convince a jury is borne by the taxpayer, an excessive rate of taxpayer aquittal will effectively gut the tax anyway, so there would be no need to have a provision that re-states the obvious.

To “gut the tax” almost 100% of the people need to be acquitted. That is a lot of hassle. It is much faster to acquit 10%.

If a sufficient number of cases were decided which excepted taxpayers from the tax, it should rise to Congress or the Legislature to repeal or modify the tax and bring it in line with the ability of citizens to pay, regardless of whether the threshold is 5% or 25%.

What is “sufficient number of cases?” I say it’s 10%.

In connection with taxation, the question arises; Can the state force an individual to accept services which he is not interested in. If so, can the state tax him to pay for that service?

I say emphatically No, and No!

The Collectivist would say that the state operates in the interest of the "greater good" and that the state has a compelling interest in being able to force both the acceptance of services and payment for the same, whether wanted or not.

I agree with you that the collectivist are wrong, because collective is NOTHING but a collection of individuals; therefore the only thing that is good for the collective is the wellbeing of the individual.

If you violate the rights of and destroy the individual you are destroying the collective, only one person at a time.

Even if, by custom, we have come to see certain jobs as necessary for a community, such as law enforcement or a fire department, those services should only be available to those who subscribe. Those who choose not to subscribe may pay a higher rate for the same service if purchased on a needs only basis (after the robbery or after the fire has started).

Brilliant.

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

I think I finally got it right. Changed the last paragraph of the amendment. (Please see at the top of the thread).

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

OK, I added a poll at the top of this thread. Please vote!

Thanks.

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Ron Paul on the Colbert Report - April 25, 2011 - Talks about Sound Money!

[video]http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/382617/april-25-2011/ron-paul[/video]

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

The Philosophy of Liberty and Bastiat's concept of Legal Plunder

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Added a line:

"Public property is defined as property to which all citizens have equal claim of ownership."

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Ron Paul: Constitutional Amendment Needed to Limit Taxes and Spending

http://www.dailypaul.com/171327/ron-paul-constitutional-amendment-needed-to-limit-taxes-and-spending

Yea, baby! I have just that!

Taxation Constitutional Amendment
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?252192-Taxation-Constitutional-Amendment

 

[Microsecessionist]

Here's the reduced taxation amendment I favor:
Sec. 1: The 16th Amendment to this Constitution is hereby repealed
Sec. 2: The Federal government's taxation powers shall be limited exclusively to collecting gold from the states based upon their population and to collecting tariffs, but no tariffs shall be used to subsidizize nor to protect any branch of industry.

 

[Kalashnikov Josh]

Repeal the 16th Amendment,the "progressive income tax".

Replace it with a one-time flat tax of 3-5%.

EVERYTHING about the so-called "progressive" era was enacted by socialists who liked the ideas of population control and Eugenics.

EVERYTHING "progressive" must go.

 

[DamianTV]

How about we replace Income Tax with NOTHING and quit spending peoples money that doesnt even exist?

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

How about we replace Income Tax with NOTHING and quit spending peoples money that doesnt even exist?

Thank you Damian! Exactly right! That's what my amendment does!

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

An Open Message to the 99% (Occupy Wall Street)




All taxation is immoral. Plus:
Fiat, i.e. legalized counterfeiting, i.e. creating "money" (purchasing power) out of thin air IS the problem. It can only exist under a government forced monopoly, and dies under Free Competition in Currencies, which is demanded by true Freedom, Liberty, and the Benson Principle.