AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@ican711nm,

In this Constitutional Amendment they wrote:

Amendment XVI (1913)
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 of enumeration.

0 Replies

Glad you found the site, Ican. Hope Okie shows up. I haven't seen him since the big move this morning.

I'm not sure that conservatives are in much agreement on the income tax thing. Some want to abolish it altogether and go to a value added or national sales tax--I instinctively oppose that. I think I like the idea of a uniform flat tax with little opportunity to sidestep payingit a lot better, but its hard to sell because of the class envy phenomena.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

A "uniform impost" (i.e., tax) and a "flat tax" may be the same thing. According to the Constitution, the tax on each and every dollar of income must be the same (i.e., uniform) regardless of whose dollars are being taxed, how many are received, when they are received, and how or for what they are spent or invested.

It's claimed by many that the word "uniform" in Article I. Section 8.,1st paragraph of the Constitution means the same tax law--whatever it is, however it discriminates--must apply the same to each and every state, but not to each and every dollar of income. If that were true, then why before the adoption of the 16th Amendment were all the states taxed the same per person regardless of the wealth of the population of each state? And how/why do they think the 16th Amendment specified a change in the meaning of the word "uniform" in the Constitution to now permit discriminatory rather than same taxing of each dollar of income?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Glad you found the site, Ican. Hope Okie shows up. I haven't seen him since the big move this morning.

I'm not sure that conservatives are in much agreement on the income tax thing. Some want to abolish it altogether and go to a value added or national sales tax--I instinctively oppose that. I think I like the idea of a uniform flat tax with little opportunity to sidestep payingit a lot better, but its hard to sell because of the class envy phenomena.

I think I am in favor of the national sales tax, for some very important reasons, one of the biggest being that all goods would be taxed the same, regardless of origin, so perhaps we can make our U.S. businesses more competitive with foreign businesses and manufactured goods coming into this country. All corporate, business, and personal income tax would be eliminated. Unless I am missing something here, this alone could unleash a tremendous economic boost to American businesses to compete globally and domestically, and put alot more money into peoples pockets.

Secondly, we get rid of the IRS as we know it, which would be a happy day, plus ruin the livelihoods of tax lawyers, and that would be another happy day to get rid of the leaches that really don't produce anything but are a burden to the economy.

Third, we can gather taxes from people that before went scot free, such as the drug dealers and tax evaders, people being paid in cash, etc., which is huge. The sales tax could create an underground economy, but I don't think it could be as big of a problem as we have now. We already collect sales tax for the states, counties, and cities, so I don't see a problem in implementing the tax, and I don't see how much purchase of new goods could go untaxed and unnoticed.

There are other pros and cons, but I think I have touched on the most important.

I am also in favor of making the sales tax progressive in one respect, do not charge tax on shelter up to a certain threshold and groceries.

Some proponents advocate a cash back basis to low income earners, and this may be necessary, perhaps in conjunction with the social security deductions program. We will still need a payroll bureaucracy to implement social security and medicare funding and possibly any cash back program to low earners, but the bureaucracy would be much much smaller than the current IRS, and perhaps a much reformed version.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

I am also in favor of making the sales tax progressive in one respect, do not charge tax on shelter up to a certain threshold and groceries.

Okie, in my opinion there lies the flaw in a progressive national sales tax or a sales tax with exemptions. Congress will be tempted--naaah--caused to exempt or vary the sales tax rate based on how big a population of voters they can buy by varying the sales tax rate according to what is bought when.

However, if the sales tax were not progressive--that is, were uniform over the dollar value of all goods purchased, and consequently obeyed the Constitution thereby--I probably would find it acceptable.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican, in theory I agree with you, but practically I think it is hopeless to ever enact a flat tax. I don't like compromise, but sometimes it is necessary, and also I don't give my favored route, the sales tax, hardly much chance at all, and the only chance it would ever have of gaining support in Congress would be the progressive provisions.

One thing would be nice, if somebody buys something in Walmart, and if it isn't food, it would be taxed, no matter who it was, and therefore all people would be equally aware of how much percentage the feds were taking from them every time they bought a taxable item. Even if we instituted a cash back program along with social security for low income wage earners, those people would still be aware of the tax bite when they bought a taxable item, and yes, I think that would be good.

0 Replies

For me, a national sales tax raises all kinds of red flags. Okay you exempt essentials such as food and medicine, but what is an essential? Is the wine for dinner food? How about the cooking Sherry? How about the calf you buy to fatten up before he lands in the freezer? What is medicine? Any product bought in the pharmacy even if it doesn't fallen under jurisdiction of the FDA? I can just see the massive book of definitions and regulations building up even as Congress manuevers to favor this constiuent or that constiuent by including this or that as 'essentials' or excluding this or that to punish some industry to raise revenues.

Also there is that pesky incremental creep that seems to occur with all sales taxes. That quarter cent seems insignificant to the individual, but raises a nice sum for the government. But add enough of these on at intervals and the next thing you know you're paying a lot more for that new car or refrigerator.

Also a sales tax, especially one big enough to really feel which would be necessary to run the federal government, would likely encourage more bartering and cash deals to avoid the tax or folks go out of country to buy their toys which could decimate what local industries we have left. And that only triggers more regulators, watch dogs, regulations, and complicated interpretations of the law.

I still favor a flat income tax. Nobody would pay on the first X dollars earned which would take care of the truly poor--there might be very limited deductions for say mortgage interest, charitable contributions, retirement investments to encourage home ownership, benevolence, and savings--and then everybody pays the same percentage on whatever is left.

(I do like the idea of getting rid of the IRS, but I think it would likely be just as necessary to watchdog a sales tax.)

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican wrote:

If that were true, then why before the adoption of the 16th Amendment were all the states taxed the same per person regardless of the wealth of the population of each state? And how/why do they think the 16th Amendment specified a change in the meaning of the word "uniform" in the Constitution to now permit discriminatory rather than same taxing of each dollar of income?

Why do you think states were taxed the same per person before the 16th amendment? How were duties and imposts collected do you think? They were not collected on a per person basis nor were the collected from the states on a per person basis.

"uniform throughout the United States" does not mean "uniform per dollar earned" nor does it mean "uniform per person." Simple English here. You have to look at the all the words in the sentence. Your attempt to pull uniform out of context makes as much sense as if you are claiming that the taxes aren't uniform because there is no patch on the sleeve so they aren't a uniform.

Alcohol taxes are based on the type of beverage and not the quantity of alcohol in that beverage. 3.2 beer has the same tax per gallon as 6.4 beer but hard liquor is different per gallon from beer. Cigarettes are taxed per piece not the amount of tobacco in each one and cigars are taxed different from cigarettes. Uniform throughout the United States has a meaning that has been determined by the Supreme Court. You know.. the Supreme Court that is the final say on the law, you know, the law that is the US Constitution. You don't get to ignore parts of the constitution if you are attempting to interpret it ican.

1 Reply

Ican can correct me if I'm misunderstanding here, but I think his definition of 'uniform' means applied equitably across the board to everybody regardless of income, social standing, status, political party etc. etc. etc. In other words, if you pay 18 cents a gallon federal tax on gasoline, EVERYBODY who buys a gallon of gasoline pays 18 cents. An income tax that was truly uniform would apply the same percentage to a dollar of income without respect to the person who earned it.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

You could call it "uniform" but that isn't the meaning of the constitution's use of "uniform" The constitution means residents of one state can't have a different federal tax structure from another state. The Supreme Court has said that is the meaning. Any argument that "uniform" means something else in the constitution is an argument from ignorance.

1 Reply

@parados,

And how is that any different from what I just said?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

. An income tax that was truly uniform would apply the same percentage to a dollar of income without respect to the person who earned it.

You appear to be describing a flat tax like ican is. The same rate does NOT apply to each dollar of income. It can vary based on which dollar of income it is.

Uniform under the constitution means the govt can have a 5% tax rate for one dollar amount and a 75% rate for another dollar amount as long as all states have the same rates.

The federal income tax as it exists today is "uniform" under the constitutional definition.

0 Replies

@parados,

It is a fact that prior to the 16th Amendment, each state treasury was required periodically to pay to the federal government an impost (i.e., tax) = (the congressionally legislated amount per person) x (the number of persons living in the state). The congressionally legislated amount per person did not vary with the total wealth or income of the state, nor did it vary with the total wealth or income of the people living in the state, nor did it vary with anything else.

Then in 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was adopted.

Quote:

Amendment XVI (1913)
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 of enumeration.

There is nothing in that 16th Amendment that states or even implies that the meaning of the word "uniform" as used here,

Quote:

Article I.Section 8., 1st paragraph
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

was changed by the 16th Amendment to mean anything other than per dollar taxed instead of per person taxed.

Yes, federal courts have decided that "uniform" means the same federal tax rules for each state, and not the same federal tax rules for each person or for each dollar of income obtained by each person. Such a ruling constitutes the federal courts legislating the meaning of the word "uniform" as used in the Constitution and not interpreting the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.

The federal courts are not delegated by the Constitution the power to legislate the meaning of the Constitution to mean what they think it ought to mean. The federal courts are delegated by the Constitution the power to interpret the meaning of Constitution from what is actually written in the Constitution.

Quote:

Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

The only legal ways the Constitution may be changed are specified in the Constitution as follows.

Quote:

Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

For me, a national sales tax raises all kinds of red flags. Okay you exempt essentials such as food and medicine, but what is an essential? Is the wine for dinner food? How about the cooking Sherry? How about the calf you buy to fatten up before he lands in the freezer? What is medicine? Any product bought in the pharmacy even if it doesn't fallen under jurisdiction of the FDA? I can just see the massive book of definitions and regulations building up even as Congress manuevers to favor this constiuent or that constiuent by including this or that as 'essentials' or excluding this or that to punish some industry to raise revenues.

Some states do not tax groceries now, take Colorado, it works nicely. In the age of bar codes and barcode reading, it is not that difficult. Only groceries qualify, eating out does not, I don't know about wine. The calf you buy to fatten probably does not qualify because it is not prepared yet for the end use, sold as food, it is sold as livestock. Cooking sherry, probably a food product, if purchased in the grocery store. It works now quite smoothly, and yes there are a few gray areas, but not nearly the nightmare of the IRS. Medicine could be prescription only, all others taxed. I too share your concern for incremental complications, but as I said, this already works nicely in some states, and the infrastructure for collecting sales tax is already in place.

Quote:

Also there is that pesky incremental creep that seems to occur with all sales taxes. That quarter cent seems insignificant to the individual, but raises a nice sum for the government. But add enough of these on at intervals and the next thing you know you're paying a lot more for that new car or refrigerator.

True, but the incremental creep will be seen and known by every single person living in this country, whether they are rich or poor, so we have a much more visible tax, open to criticism by all people to complain about. As it is now, the rich pay most of the income tax, so that a large portion of people think they should receive more services at the expense of others, and they don't know how much the rich are paying in tax, which is huge.

Quote:

Also a sales tax, especially one big enough to really feel which would be necessary to run the federal government, would likely encourage more bartering and cash deals to avoid the tax or folks go out of country to buy their toys which could decimate what local industries we have left. And that only triggers more regulators, watch dogs, regulations, and complicated interpretations of the law.

Anything brought into this country should be subject to sales tax, if shipped in. Also, yes I share the underground economy fear, but I doubt it would exceed the monstrous underground economy we have now that escapes taxation, such as paying wages in cash, drug dealers, companies offshore, sheltered income, illegals, etc. Most products simply could not be bartered, and if any bartering operation got to be too large, it would be very difficult to hide and go uncontrolled.

Quote:

I still favor a flat income tax. Nobody would pay on the first X dollars earned which would take care of the truly poor--there might be very limited deductions for say mortgage interest, charitable contributions, retirement investments to encourage home ownership, benevolence, and savings--and then everybody pays the same percentage on whatever is left.

What you are describing is not a flat tax, Foxfyre, what you are describing is a graduated tax with one rate over a minimum, 0% up to a threshold, and another percent above that, and again you begin to exempt interest, charity, etc., which goes down the same road we are on, only we are further down the road than what you are describing.

Quote:

(I do like the idea of getting rid of the IRS, but I think it would likely be just as necessary to watchdog a sales tax.)

I think we need to scrap the IRS for good, and yes, any tax, such as sales tax is a headache, but I think it would require less bureacracy than now. I admit I am not sure about some of the ramifications and the actual final result, but we should have a more serious national debate, bringing in all the experts on all of these things to seriously look at it as a serious possibility. We need new innovation, change, and the tax system is one huge area of need for total revamping in a way to stimulate our U. S. businesses in a very big way, to bring back more manufacturing, etc.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Uniform NEVER meant what you claim it did. It never meant that it was uniform per person.

The term "uniform" was described and your argument was thrown out before 1913. It was thrown out on 2 points.
First progressive taxation was found to be "uniform" under state law and constitutions that used the terms "equal and uniform" in 1898.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=170&invol=283

Secondly, your definition of "uniform" in the constitution was rejected by the courts in 1900
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=178&page=41

Quote:

Considering the text, it is apparent that if the word 'uniform' means 'equal and uniform' in the sense now asserted by the opponents of the tax, the words 'throughout the United States,' are deprived of all real significance, and sustaining the contention must hence lead to a disregard of the elementary canon of construction which requires that effect be given to each word of the Constitution.

If you read KNOWLTON v. MOORE, it blows apart your argument about taxes paid by states directly being applied to the 'uniform' argument.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=uniform&x=29&y=8
Main Entry: 1uni·form
...
Function: adjective
...
1 : marked by lack of variation, diversity, change in form, manner, worth, or degree : showing a single form, degree, or character in all occurrences or manifestations
...
2 : marked by complete conformity to a rule or pattern or by similarity in salient detail or practice : CONSONANT, ALIKE
...
3 : marked by unvaried and changeless appearance (as of surface, color, or pattern)
...
4 : consistent in conduct, character, or effect : lacking in variation, deviation, or unequal or dissimilar operation <the constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish a uniform rule of naturalization -- R.B.Taney>
synonym see LIKE, STEADY

UNIFORM rules of taxation apply among American citizens, and among their dollars of income , as well as among America's states. .

1 Reply

So okie..
If you scrap the IRS, who collects the taxes?

The IRS is a part of Treasury. Eliminating the IRS doesn't eliminate the need to collect taxes and investigate those that are avoiding taxes. You aren't eliminating anything because the Treasury will still be charged with what they presently have the IRS do.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

That's nice ican. Now replace the word uniform in the sentence with any of the definitions.

lack of variation throughout the United States
lack of change in form throughout the United States
Consistent throughout the United States.

You can not show the words "dollar income" or "per person" in the definition or in the sentence of the Constitution. Since the definition doesn't include them and the sentence doesn't include them they are NOT there.

1 Reply

@parados,

You are correct, and that is why I say most of the time, get rid of the IRS as we know it. We may call it something different, and the bureaucracy will do its job somewhat differently and hopefully be much much smaller. There should be alot less rules to follow and the collection system should be alot easier, to collect from alot fewer retailers rather than hundreds of millions of Americans. After all, the states, counties, and cities use sales taxes very easily now, the infrastructure is already in place.

To simplify it even more, we could consider no exemptions of sales tax on any product, but provide a larger cash back program to low wage earners, as part of the social security system. I am not sure which way I would go, much more study would be required, but I think exempting two essentials, shelter up to a threshold, and groceries, makes sense. As Foxfyre mentioned, prescription medicine perhaps.

1 Reply

@okie,

But retailers and others that collect sales tax also cheat on their taxes.

A story just this week on the uptick in criminal charges for businesses in MN that are cheating on taxes. It isn't as "easy" as you think it is.

Without an agency that has the budget to check compliance, compliance will be down. When we increase the IRS budget for enforcing compliance, compliance goes up.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know