| |
|
|
- Please refer to the Forum Rules Amended section for additional rules and modifications.
- This is a moderated forum, all posts will be checked for bad language and composition.
- Before you post in the information section, make sure the information you add is fully accurate.
- All posts within the local and national policy sections must be factually correct and substantively debatable.
- Feel free to be provocative or even politically incorrect, within the rules set.
- No threats, sexual or racist remarks of any nature will be tolerated. Any posts that violate these common sense rules will be removed. Your account may also be suspended after so many violations.
- Creating multiple accounts and pretending to be someone else will result in instant termination of all accounts. We check up on all accounts / IP addresses frequently. You must register and login in order to post within the forums. Your information will not be given out or sold for mailing lists.
|
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:135
Senior User
Online Status:
 |
| 05/26/2007 12:36 PM |
|
I also wonder what it will take for more Americans to wake up. But more and more are. I hope that enough do before it is too late. I find it kind of interesting that the states are starting to rebel against things like the National ID and the NAFTA super highway. Unfortunately most of their power was stripped in the 16th and 17th amendments.
I am very curious about what mulhollandj meant in this post (found in the thread here). Particularly, who had power stripped away from them by the 16th and 17th amendments, and how was that power stripped away?
The inclusion of the 16th amendment is particularly puzzling. How does removing the requirement that income taxes be apportioned take away anyone's power? If there was no income tax, then people would be taxed some other way (probably indirectly, but possibly directly). The amendment had no effect whatsoever on the power of the states to tax.
I'd also like to hear why allowing people to directly elect senators has stripped power from them, but I suspect that any meaningful argument that the amendment took power away from the people is likely to be so technical as to require a degree in math, statistics, or economics to understand it.
|
|
|
|
|
mulhollandj
Posts:230
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/26/2007 2:06 PM |
|
I apologize for not putting in a better explanation as there was not room and it wasn't the focus of this post. I will elaborate here though.
First we need to look at the history of this country. The states were set up as separate colonies with very different ideas. They were somewhat united during the Revolution but were almost like separate countries. They then became loosely banded together through the Articles of Confederation which gave a very weak central government. But then big troubles began. The economy wasn't doing very well as there was no central authority to regulate the trade between the states. If there was a river which separated two states the cargo hauled through it would be taxed by both sides. There was also great rivalry between the states with some wanting to return to British rule or to another foreign government.
James Madison called together a convention in which he was to present the Constitution which he had created. The problem was that these states didn't want to bow down to a central authority but if they didn't the union would fall apart. Through the miracle of the convention the Constitution was created and a central authority, though very limited in power, was created. The 9th and 10th amendment were added to make sure that the states and the individuals had most of the rights.
Now, this has greatly changed. The effort for some time has been to limit the states power. A perfect example of this is where to do most of our tax dollars go. It is to the federal government. That is why I mentioned the 16th amendment. It used to be most of the federal money came from the states as tax which allowed the states to have more power and responsibility. But now the federal government taxes the citizens directly and therefore controls most of the policy and is able to better manipulate people to certain behaviors. We all want to pay less taxes.
Also the number of things which are considered federal crimes are drastically increasing. There was an effort many years ago to federalize all police. The JBS successfully beat this one though.
I think that the 17th amendment is the more obvious one. It took the power from the state legislatures to elect the senators. The senators made sure that the states didn't have to raise taxes to pay for what the house was doing. What has happened since? We have put our country in a financial mess even though we tax a super high rates compared to the history of our nation. Just look at how the fed manipulates the states. If you don't do X we won't give you money for your interstate.
There has been an effort to centralize power in DC for many years now. I believe the founders tried to spread the power as much as possible but it is somehow all congregating back to DC despite what the Constitution says.
For an interesting exercise, how did the Civil War hurt state rights? |
|
|
|
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:135
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/26/2007 2:36 PM |
|
Posted By mulhollandj on 05/26/2007 2:06 PM
Now, this has greatly changed. The effort for some time has been to limit the states power. A perfect example of this is where to do most of our tax dollars go. It is to the federal government. That is why I mentioned the 16th amendment. It used to be most of the federal money came from the states as tax which allowed the states to have more power and responsibility. But now the federal government taxes the citizens directly and therefore controls most of the policy and is able to better manipulate people to certain behaviors. We all want to pay less taxes.
I understand the concern with how tax dollars are spent, and I know quite well that the bulk of the income tax I pay goes to the Federal Government. The issue here is that the collection of taxes and the spending of tax dollars are two separate issues. If there were no income tax, then the revenue would be collected from some other source such as tariffs. That would be squarely within the constitutional rights of the government as they were originally laid out. As it is, the 16th Amendment didn't even give Congress any new power to tax. It simply clarified that income could be taxed without apportionment. I still fail to see how this in any way infringes on the states which all had the right both prior to and after the 16th Amendment to choose whether or not to levy taxes on the incomes of their residents.
The Civil War question is an interesting one worthy of more response than I am ready to give at the moment. Later...
|
|
|
|
|
mulhollandj
Posts:230
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/26/2007 4:31 PM |
|
Most judicial decisions now are based upon previous judicial decision. Just as the Law of Moses was corrupted in the time of Christ our law has become corrupted. One bad decision gives rise to many more. Now, where am I going with this? This has happened to the federal government so they now meddle in all sorts of things. Instead of following the 10th amendment they have ignored it to create programs to do everything from regulating education, to handouts for the poor and rich, to controlling agriculture. None of these powers are given them by the Constitution. These powers and programs continue to grow and expand. This is done at the expense of the state and the individual.
I find it a good indication of who controls my life the most by who spends most of my money. |
|
|
|
|
Debator
Posts:47
Advanced User
Online Status:
|
| 05/27/2007 7:10 AM |
|
I think the point that FieryDarts is trying to make is that whether it's the Federal government or the State government, you will be taxed either way - and probably for the same amount. If you are not taxed directly (under the 16th Amendment), then you will have to pay for Federal programs some other way, like paying more for goods manufactured outside the US because the Federal government is using tariffs as a source of revenue. It is fortunate that this is the case, as otherwise our economy would grind to a near halt. High tariffs (protectionism) is bad national policy in a global marketplace.
To me, it seems that a direct tax actually gives me more power, especially when coupled with the 17th Amendment. When Congress decides to pass a tax that affects me, I can show my disapproval of that tax by voting against the incumbents in the coming election. If I have to vote for state legislators who then choose my senators, then I have to go through one more step before I get to the actual election of my Senators. If Congress were collecting taxes through tariffs or through taxes on corporate income, I would have even less power, as I would have to choose not to buy those products to keep my taxes down. Choosing not to buy certain things is often impossible (think: gas).
The 17th Amendment was an important step towards giving people power. While the Senate was originally set up to be a sort of elitist check on the more populist House, it didn't turn out that way. Experience has shown that state legislatures are full of crazy, crazy people. Not only that, but they are more susceptible to lobbying and special interests. It is rare that I do so, but in this case, I trust people a lot more than I trust the legislature. |
|
|
|
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:135
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/27/2007 2:43 PM |
|
Posted By mulhollandj on 05/26/2007 4:31 PM
I find it a good indication of who controls my life the most by who spends most of my money.
Last year (having acquired a house and a child), I paid 7.21% of my gross income to the Federal government as income taxes, 7.92% to Social Security and Medicare, 4.32% to state income taxes and 0.94% to property taxes. That makes 20.38% of my total income. The remainder of my income was available to me (at least as far as the government was concerned).
I (or some other personal acquaintance of mine) chose to use the remaining 79.62% of my gross income to pay for a house, charitable donations, food, clothing, medical expenses, gasoline, and all of the miscellaneous things that make life worth living. It appears from this that I control my own life, although much of it is obligated to support my family.
|
|
|
|
|
mulhollandj
Posts:230
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/28/2007 11:45 AM |
|
A couple of points, that is not all you paid. You failed to mention sales tax, car registration, taxes on utilities, phones, etc. The government has a very diversified manner of collecting your money. Then you also need to consider indirect taxes. How much does your employer pay in taxes? Would that be part of your wage otherwise? What about other taxes which raise the price of goods? You also need to realize that our country is going further into debt so they now also spending future money you will earn.
What about a single person with no kids making 120K? Why should they pay more? Do they use more government services? |
|
|
|
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:135
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/28/2007 8:01 PM |
|
You are right. The taxes I listed were the ones that are reported (in one way or another) with my tax return. Sales tax would probably be less than 3% of the 80% net income (a lot of my personal expenses such as loan payments, charitable contributions, and health care costs, are not subject to sales tax). Car registration is less than one tenth of a percent of my income, and I probably spent less than 3% on gasoline taxes. Utilities taxes were probably less than 3% as well. As for other taxes paid on my behalf (such as payroll taxes paid by my employer for me), they were not taken from my gross income, and therefore cannot be considered as part of it. If you want to work from a gross employment cost, then you could add those in, but it would reduce the percentages for all of the other taxes.
In short, you're not going to get this figure over 50% for me, and I'd bet that you pay even less in taxes. Even if the total tax burden rose above 50%, the tax dollars are going to city, county, state, and federal governments, so the share remaining to me would still likely be bigger than the largest of those shares. (Each level of government is a separate entity and operates almost entirely independently of the others, especially when it comes to spending their money. Even if the total amount of money that ended up in the government's hands was more than half of your gross, you would still have more of your money to spend than any one level of government.)
Your question about the wealthy bachelor is an interesting one, to which I have three questions in response.
First, how does one calculate the amount of national defense, police protection, environmental protection, food and drug safety regulation, decennial enumeration (census), and general overhead (e.g. the running of Congress and the courts) that a person uses and should be charged for?
Second, do you want to pay taxes equal to the amount that you (and your family) utilize government programs, or (if you wish) to the degree that you use programs that (in your opinion, bearing in mind that you would have to accept the level to which those programs are implemented) the government should be providing, and what do you do about people who do not make enough money to pay for the services that they use?
Third, have taxes ever, anywhere, been levied based on the amount that people use the various programs that the tax dollars fund? |
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|