FlatTax? - Page 6

sgtdmski · 04-02-2006, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by intangible child

----------------------
I prefer Karl Rove's quote!

As people do better, they start voting like Republicans - unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing” ---Karl Rove

Notice he didn't say Democrat, he said Democratic, lets get rid of the one party system!
Of, characterized by, or advocating democracy: democratic government; a democratic union.

Read the sentence again!!! Proper dictation would not allow for the word Democrats to be used. The correct term in this sentence is democratic used to represent the democratic party.

dem·o·crat·ic ( P ) adj.
Of, characterized by, or advocating democracy: democratic government; a democratic union.
Of or for the people in general; popular: a democratic movement; democratic art forms.
Believing in or practicing social equality: “a proper democratic scorn for bloated dukes and lords” (George du Maurier).
Democratic Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Democratic Party.

If you want to get rid of the two-party system, the answer is simple, find a party which will have a platform that encompasses a wide range of ideas. Unfortunately the current third parties are far too narrow to gain mass appeal on a national level. After you find that party, then you must work on changing the Constitution. We have a representative form of government, not a parliamentarian. Every voter casts his vote for an individual and not for a party.

dmk

indago · 04-03-2006, 05:54 AM

sgtdmski wrote:

Quote:

The flat tax is a progressive tax. It is equal and fair.

Regardless your opinion of whether it is "equal and fair", it still must meet the criteria of the particular category, and you haven't told us yet what category you think it fits into.

sgtdmski · 04-04-2006, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by indago

sgtdmski wrote:

Regardless your opinion of whether it is "equal and fair", it still must meet the criteria of the particular category, and you haven't told us yet what category you think it fits into.

I am not exactly sure what you are looking for???

The flat tax would be used in lieu of the current income tax system. It would become the new income tax. The tax would be applied to what a person makes from working.

Other than that, the tax is fair and equal. Those who make more would pay more in actual dollars rather than percentage, and it is equal because everybody would pay the same percentage.

dmk

indago · 04-04-2006, 10:36 AM

sgtdmski wrote

Quote:

I am not exactly sure what you are looking for??? The flat tax would be used in lieu of the current income tax system. It would become the new income tax. The tax would be applied to what a person makes from working.

It has been declared, by the Supreme Court of the United States, that the federal "income tax" is in the category of excise tax.

When the Constitutional tax structure was being constructed, during the Convention of 1787, there were two distinct categories of taxation developed: the direct taxes, and the indirect taxes, as described by the Supreme Court of the United States. The direct taxes, as were known at the time, were taxes upon the people, and their property. The indirect taxes were the excise taxes. Mr. Justice William R. Day, delivering the opinion of the United States Supreme Court, explained what an excise tax is: "Excises are "taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges." "...the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of privileges..." In the Congressional Record, it is noted, concerning direct taxes: "...the power granted to the federal Government to impose a direct tax was granted upon condition that the Government should estimate the amount of revenue it might require from that source and apportion the sum among the States on the basis of population as shown by the preceding census. This plan was intended to give the States the right to contribute their pro rata share from their own revenues without complicating their local systems of taxation. This was regarded as a matter of much importance to the States." During the construction of the direct tax system during the Convention, it was proposed that if the States did not ante up their share of the taxes, then the federal government would come into the State and collect the tax directly from the inhabitants of the State. This proposal failed. During the construction of the Bill of Rights, the same proposal was introduced in the House of Representatives: it failed again. When the House of Representatives sent their assemblage of the Bill of Rights to the Senate, the Senate also made the proposal, and it failed again. The Congress of the United States was never granted the power to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States. So, a "flat tax" could not "be applied to what a person makes from working", constitutionally.

RidinHighSpeeds · 04-04-2006, 11:46 AM

Tax me on my income when I am alive, tax me on estate when I am dead (even when my estate grew with my taxed income)

Double taxed!

Makes a whole lot of sense huh??

sgtdmski · 04-05-2006, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by indago

sgtdmski wrote

It has been declared, by the Supreme Court of the United States, that the federal "income tax" is in the category of excise tax.

When the Constitutional tax structure was being constructed, during the Convention of 1787, there were two distinct categories of taxation developed: the direct taxes, and the indirect taxes, as described by the Supreme Court of the United States. The direct taxes, as were known at the time, were taxes upon the people, and their property. The indirect taxes were the excise taxes. Mr. Justice William R. Day, delivering the opinion of the United States Supreme Court, explained what an excise tax is: "Excises are "taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges." "...the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of privileges..." In the Congressional Record, it is noted, concerning direct taxes: "...the power granted to the federal Government to impose a direct tax was granted upon condition that the Government should estimate the amount of revenue it might require from that source and apportion the sum among the States on the basis of population as shown by the preceding census. This plan was intended to give the States the right to contribute their pro rata share from their own revenues without complicating their local systems of taxation. This was regarded as a matter of much importance to the States." During the construction of the direct tax system during the Convention, it was proposed that if the States did not ante up their share of the taxes, then the federal government would come into the State and collect the tax directly from the inhabitants of the State. This proposal failed. During the construction of the Bill of Rights, the same proposal was introduced in the House of Representatives: it failed again. When the House of Representatives sent their assemblage of the Bill of Rights to the Senate, the Senate also made the proposal, and it failed again. The Congress of the United States was never granted the power to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States. So, a "flat tax" could not "be applied to what a person makes from working", constitutionally.

Constituitionally the Congress does have the right to lay a tax on income. You seem to have forgotten the Sixteenth Amendment ratified in 1913.

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

So obviously the flat tax can be applied to what a person makes working, thanks to the clause from whatever source derived.

dmk

indago · 04-05-2006, 09:57 AM

sgtdmski wrote

Quote:

Constituitionally the Congress does have the right to lay a tax on income. You seem to have forgotten the Sixteenth Amendment ratified in 1913.

This has already been addressed by the Supreme Court in 1916. The Solicitor General for the government, in an amicus curiae brief, in the case of Brushaber v Union Pacific RR, had made the argument: "The Sixteenth Amendment removed the restriction of apportionment as to such income taxes as before were subject thereto."

Chief Justice White, noting this "confusion", declared this to be an "erroneous assumption" on the part of the government, and "wholly without foundation". He declared that "it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation"; and that the amendment simply prohibited the income tax from being taken from the category of indirect taxation, and being placed into the category of a direct tax.

I have already pointed out:

Quote:

It is recorded, in the Congressional Record: "The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax."

The Chief Justice explained that the Congress of the United States had no intention of destroying the two great classes of taxation by the wording of the Sixteenth Amendment, but placed an income tax into the category of taxation in which it inherently belonged; the indirect class, or excise. He explained that because the tax is not apportioned, nor subject to the census or enumeration, it is an excise tax, a tax upon the exercise of privileges, such taxes not being subject to the condition of apportionment to the States. Government was never granted the power to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States.

NoMoreDems-Reps · 04-10-2006, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

I am not exactly sure what you are looking for???

The flat tax would be used in lieu of the current income tax system. It would become the new income tax. The tax would be applied to what a person makes from working.

Other than that, the tax is fair and equal. Those who make more would pay more in actual dollars rather than percentage, and it is equal because everybody would pay the same percentage.

dmk

I think your using a linear scale on an Exponential problem.

Yes it does seem fair if everyone pays a set PERCENT for taxes.

But it doesn't take in to account things like tax loop holes, 401K's
investments and other privileges of the rich. It also does not take in
to consideration the exploitation of the poor by big business/the rich.

I don't think it's as simple as going to a flat tax. Maybe a "Flatter Tax"
that dorps low @ ~ $20K/yr and goes high @ ~ $90K/yr
.................................../
...._________-----------/
../$20K $90K
/

sgtdmski · 04-10-2006, 09:09 PM

The beauty of a flat tax, and one of the reason that so many people oppose it, is the fact that there would be not tax write-offs. Everyone would pay 10% after a certain amount. There no longer would be write-offs for 401s, charitable contributions, interest on student of home loans, etc. 10% period.

If you consider the fact that big business hires many people, and the fact that the rich invest in business that in return provides more people with jobs as exploitation, then no matter what happens, big business and the rich will never be cut a break.

The flat tax would in the long run ensure that everyone was paying their fair share of the burden, and would treat everyone the same. No longer would people be able to use loop holes to get out of paying their fair share. And as I have demonstrated, would actually increase the revenue brought in by the IRS while at the same time removing a tax burden from even more people. THe rich would pay more, the poor would pay less, and the government would in the end receive more money in which it would more than likely find a way to redistribute.

The flat tax is a liberals dream because it would give the Congress even more money to waste, a conservatives dream because in the end it actually cuts taxes.

dmk

RidinHighSpeeds · 04-11-2006, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

The flat tax is a liberals dream because it would give the Congress even more money to waste, a conservatives dream because in the end it actually cuts taxes.

dmk

That's right!

View Poll Results: Flat Tax
For it!	10	43.48%
Against it!	6	26.09%
Some other option for change	6	26.09%
Do not change our system	1	4.35%
Voters: 23. You may not vote on this poll

04-04-2006, 11:46 AM		#55 (permalink)
	RidinHighSpeeds Website Owner Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Taxachusetts Gender: Posts: 5,504 Country: Thanks: 12 Thanked 70 Times in 62 Posts	Tax me on my income when I am alive, tax me on estate when I am dead (even when my estate grew with my taxed income) Double taxed! Makes a whole lot of sense huh?? Networked Web Sites Jon-Kingsbury.com DefendingTheTruth UML Forums

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode