AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@ican711nm,

Quote:

http://www.cordair.com/apotheosis/ecards/poetry/guest/cant.htm
Can't
by Edgar A. Guest

Can't is the worst word that's written or
spoken;
Doing more harm here than slander and lies;
On it is many a strong spirit broken,
And with it many a good purpose dies.
It springs from the lips of the thoughtless each
morning
And robs us of courage we need through the
day:
It rings in our ears like a timely-sent warning
And laughs when we falter and fall by the
way.

Can't is the father of feeble endeavor,
The parent of terror and half-hearted work;
It weakens the efforts of artisans clever,
And makes of the toiler an indolent shirk.
It poisons the soul of the man with a vision,
It stifles in infancy many a plan;
It greets honest toiling with open derision
And mocks at the hopes and the dreams of a
man.

Can't is a word none should speak without
blushing;
To utter it should be a symbol of shame;
Ambition and courage it daily is crushing;
It blights a man's purpose and shortens his
aim.
Despise it with all of your hatred of error;
Refuse it the lodgment it seeks in your brain;
Arm against it as a creature of terror,
And all that you dream of you some day shall
gain.

Can't is the word that is foe to ambition,
An enemy ambushed to shatter your will;
Its prey is forever the man with a mission
And bows but to courage and patience and
skill.
Hate it, with hatred that's deep and undying,
For once it is welcomed 'twill break any
man;
Whatever the goal you are seeking, keep trying
And answer this demon by saying: "I can."

0 Replies

But how is what I propose not a flat tax? There can be a uniform threshhold at which the tax kicks in but it would apply uniformly across the board to the kid holding his first part time job at McDonalds to the billionaire. The reason I would allow some credit for home ownership, charitable contributions, and retirement plans would be to encourage these as essential to the economy and the general welfare. But otherwise there would be no itemized deductions, no tax loopholes, no shelters. Your tax return could literally be filed on a post card unless you were running a business and needed to report expenses in order to arrive at your income.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

The kid at McDonalds would end up paying no tax, Foxfyre, just as it is now. The billionaire now pays nothing on the first amount he makes below the threshold, just as your plan would do. So your proposed tax is not flat. A true flat tax would tax every dollar the same, if it was 10%, it would be 10% of the first dollar made, clear through to 10% of the last dollar, on every single dollar of income for every citizen.

Your description of uniform, applies now. The tax code is uniform for every citizen, depending upon how much you make. All you are doing is proposing a two tier system instead of the one we have now with more than 2, and you are reducing the number of exemptions or deductions, but you still have them. We almost always agree, but in this case I have to disagree, your proposed tax is not flat.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre, what you propose is a flat tax, but not an absolutely uniform flat tax.

If we're going to get Congress to institute a flat tax, it will be easier to defend an absolutely uniform flat tax as specified by the USA Constitution, than one that is not completely legal according to the Constitution. Our argument is not only that a flat tax is fairer than the current income tax. Our argument is that an absolutely uniform flat tax conforms to that which the Congress is empowered by the Constitution to legislate. An absolutely uniform income tax is both fair and legal, while a flat tax with exemptions is fair but not legal.

0 Replies

Okay guys, I see what you're saying. We're probably just arguing semantics here for the most part. I can agree that allowing any kind of deduction does alter the concept of flat tax. But frankly, those deductions are going to have to apply to a sales tax, too, but they will be much more complicated incorporated into a sales tax.

Okie, I don't see that a standard uniform threshhold as the point in which an income tax kicks in would alter the definition of flat tax. For me a flat tax is the same rate paid on income earned by anybody regardless of total income. So we are just defining it differently I think. Regardless of whether it is a sales tax or flat income tax, you will still have people dodging the system by dealing in cash or bartering.

And again, if you have a sales tax, how do you write the rules as to what applies? For a loaf of bread is the tax applied to the wheat seed? The fertilizer? Fuel for the tractor and drill? Electricity to run the irrigation system? The company/elevator that buys the harvested wheat? The broker who transfers it to the mill? The produce company who buys the flour from the mill and packages it for retail or wholesale sales? The baker? -- repeat this sequence for all the other ingredients that go into a loaf of bread -- the wholesaler? -- the market?

I can't see anything but a nightmare of rules, regulations, and gray areas or the total cost of any given product will be enormously elevated.

1 Reply

And Ican, how would those exemptions be illegal if they are not specifically prohibited in the Constitution? Or are you and I also defining the intent differently?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre, the system you are describing exists already, with state and local taxes. Businesses that buy products for resale, which includes farmers buying wheat seed, etc., are not taxed with sales tax. They have a tax exemption license, as a farmer or business, it exists already. I have run a business, wherein product that is purchased for resale is not taxable, because it is resold. This is a very common activity throughout the country, and it works. Now, a farmer buys wheat seed, it is not taxable, because it goes into the product that will be resold. A farmer buys a hammer, it is taxed, because he is the end user. I admit concern that the amount of abuse will spiral upward if a higher sales tax is added, such as 20% federal, but do not believe for a minute that billions of dollars are currently not being lost through abuse of the existing income tax system. There is no perfect system.

In regard to the flat tax, I have to say I do not agree with ican. If we could roll back history, perhaps it would work, but we can't. Nobody is going to accept a flat tax now. And face it, we do social engineering with the income tax, we encourage behaviors, both social and economic, with tax policy, by granting incentives or penalties to various behaviors. And we assign a greater tax burden to those people that are more able to pay it, and given the minimum wage nowadays, it would be tough to make it on minimum wage without the nice tax breaks and rebates.

I frankly think we do too much social and economic tweaking of society with tax policy, we should instead allow the market place dictate the way things go, and that is one reason I want to look at going to the sales tax system, to get away from the feds confiscating profits. And the sales tax I envision is not flat, but I am not married to the flat idea, nor do I think the constitutionality of ican's argument is valid. I normally agree with ican 90% of the time, so it pains me to disagree, but in this case I have to. I would also provide rebates or cash back to low income earners, but most importantly those same people would still pay sales tax on taxable items, which I think is important. I think it is politically healthy for every citizen to be aware of the taxes being paid, and that does not exist today.

0 Replies

Ican is pretty good at enduring our pain when we disagree. Smile

(You both are good guys.)

I'll be back when I have time (and sufficient brain organization) to formulate a coherent reply.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

If one believes that UNIFORM means the samething now as it meant before the adoption of the 16th Amendment, then examine the meaning before and after.

Before the adoption of 16th Amendment and after the adoption of the 13th Amendment, the Constitution's UNIFORM THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES meant the same tax per free person. There were no deductions, exemptions, refunds, or quantity progressions on the tax rate per free person.

After adoption of the 16th Amendment and after the adoption of the 13th Amendment, UNIFORM THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES meant the same tax per free person's dollar of income. There were no deductions, exemptions, refunds, or quantity progressions on the tax rate per free person's dollar of income.

Many disagree with me. I could handle that a lot better if those who disagree with me would provide me a reference to the specific parts of the Constitution that support their disagreement.

What I have been frequently supplied are federal court decisions that disagree with me. But in none of those court decisions is there expressed the claim that the 16th or any other amendment changed the meaning of UNIFORM THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES. Consequently, either such an amendment must be adopted to support those court decisions, or those court decisions must be reversed in future. Supreme Court decision reversals have previously occurred when judges were appointed to replace deceased judges. Let's do what we can to make sure any deceased judges are replaced by judges who interpret the meaning of the Constitution rather than legislate it.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

Foxfyre asked me: "how would those exemptions be illegal if they are not specifically prohibited in the Constitution?"

The Constitution consists of an explicit delegation of powers to the federal government. If a power is not explicitly delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, then the federal government does not have that power.

I didn't just make that up. The 10th Amendment states that explicitly.

Quote:

Amendment X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Therefore, since the power to grant "those exemptions" is not delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, the federal government does not have the power to grant "those exemptions."

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican, this pains me to disagree, but I think I believe the intent of the constitution when it said "uniform throughout the United States" probably means primarily that that the tax was to be uniformly applied to citizens living in every state, that there should be no variation from state to state. As to whether it meant or should mean that every dollar had to be taxed equally, from the first dollar to the last dollar that each person made, I doubt it. Beyond saying that, I honestly do not know much about any of the court cases, I am not a lawyer by the way, and proud of it, but anyway I cannot pretend to know all the ins and outs of how the interpretation of the amendment has changed or evolved since its inception. If I simply read the amendment, I cannot draw the same conclusion that you have drawn, so to me it isn't clear, and without knowing the details of every court case, I can't do much more than read what it says, thats all. Suffice it to say, I think a true flat tax has no more than a snowballs chance in you know where, ican.

I enjoyed the poem about "can't," but in some cases, it may apply. Such as this one: The Democrats "can't" increase more oil supplies by robbing the oil companies of profits or stopping drilling.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

The USSC is not dictatorial. The people can amend the constitution at any time if they disagree with the USSC's decisions. (The USSC would be hard pressed to declare amendments to be unconstitutional.) Until the constitution is amended it is the USSC that has the final say on the law.

Anyone that takes an oath to uphold the constitution must also uphold the rulings of the USSC as the final say.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Your logic is so flawed it is impossible to follow.

Article 1 S2 does not use the word "uniform."

Income taxes are not "direct" taxes so you can't use that for your argument.

1 Reply

If the state of conservatism is that it ignores the USSC then it will have no place beyond 2008 other than a fringe element. You can't support the constitution unless you accept the decisions of the USSC as the present interpretation that is accepted.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

If the state of conservatism is that it ignores the USSC then it will have no place beyond 2008 other than a fringe element. You can't support the constitution unless you accept the decisions of the USSC as the present interpretation that is accepted.

Nobody is ignoring the USSC though conservatism takes strong exception to the USSC when it ignores its constitution role as interpreter of existing law and presumes to assume the role of the Legislative Branch of government. That was the whole big deal in the question posed at Saddleback - what SCOTUS justices would you not have appointed? - and the issue of what manner of judges at new POTUS might appoint.

0 Replies

@parados,

Parados, it is obvious to me that the Supreme Court has been politicized, otherwise why 5 to 4 decisions, 6 to 3 decisions and so on, generally along political leanings. If the constitution says something, it has said it, regardless of political views. So I, as just a simple minded okie sitting out here, I have concluded that there have been many justices that have not rightly interpreted the constitution correctly, and I believe from what I have seen that it is primarily the liberal judges that are guilty. Example, right to privacy as a reason for abortion, which makes absolutely no common sense, period.

Now, as to whether we respect Supreme Court rulings, yes, we have to, but we also want to elect politicians that we believe will appoint judges that have common sense, which more often than not is one with conservative views. Conservatism, by definition, tends to stick to what is known for sure, what is established as common sense, whereas the liberal mind tends to want to go off on new tangents, to get to another legal destination according to their political leanings or idealistic views, through very tenuous arguments, that end up with very convoluted, wrongheaded, and unintended consequential rulings. Liberal rulings focus more on desired results of a game than original intent of the rules of the game.

1 Reply

@okie,

There are three issues:

(1) What does the USA Constitution mean by its phrase:
"all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"?

(2) IF the phrase in the Constitution, "all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States," means that impost taxes on incomes shall be equal for each dollar taxed, THEN is a progressive income tax illegal?

(3) IF progressive income taxes are illegal, THEN is it worth our while to try to get Supreme Court justices appointmented that will decide progressive income taxes are illegal?

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

MY ALLEGATION

I allege that the USA Constitution requires that all direct federal taxes on people or on dollars of income shall be uniform throughout the United States. Neither Congress or judges of any court may lawfully decide otherwise. If you can, find in the Constitution anything that refutes this allegationn, please present it.

HERE IS MY EVIDENCE THAT PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAXES ARE ILLEGAL

Quote:

Amendment X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Amendment XIII. (1865) Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Amendment XVI. 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. (i.e., uniform and not progressive per dollar of income)

Article I. Section 2. … Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Article I. Section 8. … 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;

Article I. Section 9. … No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Article VI. … 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.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

There are three issues:

(1) What does the USA Constitution mean by its phrase:
"all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"?

I believe it means that it can't vary from state to state, but thats about all you can conclude for sure. I don't think you can prove that it applies equally to every dollar made, or every product, or every type of commerce.

Honestly, I have not studied all the court cases, and I am not a lawyer, but simply based on the simple language of taxes being uniformly applied throughout the United States, I can't conclude that it makes an uflat tax illegal. If it had said uniformly applied to all revenue or commerce something like that, it would be a different story.

I am not prepared to argue the constitutional law here with anyone, all I can do is make a common sense interpretation of what it says. Someday, it would be interesting for me to plow through all the court cases, but right now I don't have the time.

1 Reply

@okie,

I understand your point of view. However, I am not asking for an interpretation of Constitutional court cases. I am asking for your own direct interpretation of the Constitution as written.

Frankly, okie, I think the court cases on this issue are irrelevant for the reasons you have already cited. That is, too many of these court decisions are politcally motivated and not legally motivated. My way of saying that is, too many of these court cases are legislating the Constiotution and not interpreting it.

However, I respect your position and will not further harass you on this topic.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know