You really should read up on consumption based taxation.
Quote:You really should read up on consumption based taxation.
Been there, done that, still waiting for you to tell me why having 50 IRS implementations is superior to having a single one.
Quote:Been there, done that, still waiting for you to tell me why having 50 IRS implementations is superior to having a single one.
Local government is always preferable to large scale government because it's more tractable to the will of the people. That's why the Constitiution was written the way it is, to have the federal government only do what is absolutely essential, and clearly the founders did not find the IRS to be essential.
Quote:Local government is always preferable to large scale government because it's more tractable to the will of the people. That's why the Constitiution was written the way it is, to have the federal government only do what is absolutely essential, and clearly the founders did not find the IRS to be essential.
The founders also didn't find the air force to be essential. That's irrelevant.
Here is the flip side of your viewpoint that having a patchwork of tax rules is preferable: it's an impediment to business. It's also a point of structural weakness for an economy which allows for players powerful enough to actually play states against each other to ratchet up favorable conditions for their individual business. What's worse is due to the smaller captive nature of those in the area they're MORE likely to bend to the will of powerful corporations on such issues.
If you want good tax structure it has to be national. Your idea would essentially disintegrate the country and welcome the Chinese in to take over the nation.
Quote:The founders also didn't find the air force to be essential. That's irrelevant.
Here is the flip side of your viewpoint that having a patchwork of tax rules is preferable: it's an impediment to business. It's also a point of structural weakness for an economy which allows for players powerful enough to actually play states against each other to ratchet up favorable conditions for their individual business. What's worse is due to the smaller captive nature of those in the area they're MORE likely to bend to the will of powerful corporations on such issues.
If you want good tax structure it has to be national. Your idea would essentially disintegrate the country and welcome the Chinese in to take over the nation.
Taxation, which did exist in 1790, was addressed. The military, which existed in 1790, was addressed. The Air Force is a natural development of the military, so your talking point is pretty silly.
I didn't say the structure wouldn't be nationalized, merely the mechanism.
Quote:Taxation, which did exist in 1790, was addressed. The military, which existed in 1790, was addressed. The Air Force is a natural development of the military, so your talking point is pretty silly.
I didn't say the structure wouldn't be nationalized, merely the mechanism.
So taxation existed during the time of the drafting of the constitution, but having a tax collecting authority in government isn't a natural development of the government while having an air force IS a natural development?
You do a lot of yoga? Your back bending is pretty good.
Quote:So taxation existed during the time of the drafting of the constitution, but having a tax collecting authority in government isn't a natural development of the government while having an air force IS a natural development?
You do a lot of yoga? Your back bending is pretty good.
The founders had every opportunity to add an IRS for federal taxation, but they understood it's tyrannical nature and potential for abuse and therefore did not include one. It's only difficult to understand because you want it to be to reinforce your misguided beliefs. And that's ok, you have every right to be wrong.
Edit: My daughter is watching "Annie" on tv, and there's a scene that perfectly encapsulates the left view. Annie is sing to FDR and FDR turns around and tells Warbucks, "Sing Oliver, that's an order from your Commander in Chief." Yep, the executive has the authority to make a Republican who disagrees with him sing a song.
But for guys like you there's' just no line that the government can't cross to make you do what they want. You have no right to use your voice for your own purposes, you must sacrifice it to the state at the whims of the political class.
Quote:The founders had every opportunity to add an IRS for federal taxation, but they understood it's tyrannical nature and potential for abuse and therefore did not include one. It's only difficult to understand because you want it to be to reinforce your misguided beliefs. And that's ok, you have every right to be wrong.
So you're the one assigning motivations to lack of action and I'm the one with the misguided beliefs.
At least you're good for a laugh.
Quote:The majority of libertarians, at least the ones running for office, support a flat tax.
You need someone to intake the money. Whether you call it the IRS or the Department of the Treasury or the Department of Agriculture, it's irrelevant. No libertarian supports the IRS as it is currently, in any way, shape, or form. I think the Libertarian Party's platform is more the abolition of the IRS in its current state rather than its complete abolition, unless you just give some of their responsibilities to another department, but what's the difference really?
My brother the house painter gave me a long harangue in support of a flat tax and how it would "broaden the tax base." I told him that means I would pay less in taxes while he would pay more. He didn't know what to say about that.
Quote:My brother the house painter gave me a long harangue in support of a flat tax and how it would "broaden the tax base." I told him that means I would pay less in taxes while he would pay more. He didn't know what to say about that.
People never seem to get it. Behind every action there is a motivation. You can't assign motivation to inaction, but every action has one.
Super wealthy people aren't behind the idea of changing the tax code in bizarre ways because it would make them pay more in taxes. If that's what they wanted they could just be lobbying to close all the loopholes like Warren Buffett does.
All that 47% and flattening stuff is code for making poor people pay even more of their meager earnings so that wealthier people can pay less.
Quote: You can't assign motivation to inaction, but every action has one.
Speaking of good for a laugh. You should really get away from the bar room philosophy, you aren't very good at it.
You can't assign motivation to inaction? There's no motivation for your Dear Leader to not take action to deport the recent wave of criminals crossing our southern border? Preposterous.
Quote:Speaking of good for a laugh. You should really get away from the bar room philosophy, you aren't very good at it.
You can't assign motivation to inaction? There's no motivation for your Dear Leader to not take action to deport the recent wave of criminals crossing our southern border? Preposterous.
What is your motivation to stop beating your wife?
Quote:So you're the one assigning motivations to lack of action and I'm the one with the misguided beliefs.
At least you're good for a laugh.
As I said, they had every opportunity to add whatever they wanted when they wrote it. They didn't create a national income tax or a mechanism to collect it because they had the foresight to see how it would be abused by people who think the Constitution exists to allow the government whatever power it desires to accomplish whatever it wants.
Quote:As I said, they had every opportunity to add whatever they wanted when they wrote it. They didn't create a national income tax or a mechanism to collect it because they had the foresight to see how it would be abused by people who think the Constitution exists to allow the government whatever power it desires to accomplish whatever it wants.
So you're a time traveler and a mind reader?
Why wasn't there any power delegated for an FCC in the constitution?
The idea that the constitution wasn't constructed as a living document, and didn't specifically give the federal government the power to expand as needed is ridiculous.
Quote:What is your motivation to stop beating your wife?
You did it wrong, it should be "What is your motivation to NOT beat your wife." See, you're describing something as if it's already happened, but in the case of the abstract (I've never beaten my wife), the action or inaction is to no purpose. There can be no motivation to address something that does not exist, unlike our little unlawful invasion at the border that your hero won't address for his own nefarious purposes. But you keep trying kiddo, we'll keep a participation ribbon for you at the end.
Quote:So you're a time traveler and a mind reader?
Why wasn't there any power delegated for an FCC in the constitution?
The idea that the constitution wasn't constructed as a living document, and didn't specifically give the federal government the power to expand as needed is ridiculous.
The founders established the road map for the future through the 9th and 10th amendments. Just because we've gone off the rails doesn't mean it was intended to be this way. I realize you worship at the altar of government, but no matter how many times you sing the Barack Obama song at your little closet shrine he isn't going to save you from the realities of life. He's just a scumbag politician who wants to take as much from you as he can while he has the time. And it's ok, we're free to disagree, at least until I get audited for all this posting.
Quote:You did it wrong, it should be "What is your motivation to NOT beat your wife." See, you're describing something as if it's already happened, but in the case of the abstract (I've never beaten my wife), the action or inaction is to no purpose. There can be no motivation to address something that does not exist, unlike our little unlawful invasion at the border that your hero won't address for his own nefarious purposes. But you keep trying kiddo, we'll keep a participation ribbon for you at the end.
No, I did it correctly. The federal government didn't exist when these guys wrote the constitution, and they recognized they were starting things, not finishing things.
That's why to imply that what we started with is all that can ever be is absurd.
Quote:No, I did it correctly. The federal government didn't exist when these guys wrote the constitution, and they recognized they were starting things, not finishing things.
That's why to imply that what we started with is all that can ever be is absurd.
As I said, they provided for the future, but people like you have taken the American life away from us. I'm sure you're proud of yourself.
Quote:The founders established the road map for the future through the 9th and 10th amendments. Just because we've gone off the rails doesn't mean it was intended to be this way. I realize you worship at the altar of government, but no matter how many times you sing the Barack Obama song at your little closet shrine he isn't going to save you from the realities of life. He's just a scumbag politician who wants to take as much from you as he can while he has the time. And it's ok, we're free to disagree, at least until I get audited for all this posting.
All that the ninth amendment does is clarify that the bill of rights isn't an exhaustive list of rights. The tenth amendment similarly only clarifies that what the legislation hasn't decided will be part of the federal government's role is allowed for decision of the individual states.
We've already been over this.
The constitution is clear, the legislative branch can expand the role of government as it sees fit in the interest of the general welfare of the people. It doesn't need any other part of the constitution to allow it.
Quote:As I said, they provided for the future, but people like you have taken the American life away from us. I'm sure you're proud of yourself.
The only way I'll be more proud is when you're forced to have your gay marriage. :teehee: