Quote from: Supposn on October 22, 2013, 12:35:22 PM
T Bone again, what dollar amount of tax credit would be revenue neutral to $3,800 deduction from individual filers' taxable incomes per capita for ech filer and their dependents?  That's the question that should be asked.  (That per capita tax credit amount should be annually cost of living adjusted).

I do not know what the median total or the gross adjusted incomes of filers are, but for the sake of discussion let us use $50,000 for individual and $100,000 per joint filing couples.

I'm suggesting a comparison of individuals' income taxes within our present per capita $3800 deductions from taxable incomes and the proposed undeclared revenue neutral amount of tax credits per capita.

Many lower income individuals do not now and would not under the proposed changes, fully benefit from the tax considerations per capita.
But many of those earning less than the median incomes would receive increased benefits due to this proposed change of tax regulations.  Those earning the median wage would receive little or no benefit due to the change but their taxes would not be increased.

You're contending it would be of significant consequences to individuals and/or to our economy if we revenue neutrally replaced a $3,800 per capita deductions from taxable incomes with an amount of tax credits per capita?

You do not believe there is a national benefit for more equitable tax regulations?  How much less median wage purchasing power would suit you?

Respectfully, Supposn

Let me simplify.

A very long time ago, representatives of thirteen separate and independent states decided to form a nation made up of those states, and along with that, a "federal" government that would be granted EXTREMELY limited powers to provide for the new nation the very few things (e.g. defense against foreign enemies) the states themselves could not do better and cheaper and more efficiently for themselves (e.g. just about everything else). Ever since then, it's been a chore to raise money so this new "federal" (derived from the federation of independent states) government can do its job.

One thing was strictly prohibited by the states in the original Constitution -- capitation taxes, such as income taxes. The Sixteenth Amendment changed all that, just 100 years ago. The first legal income tax legislation (there had been a couple of illegal shots at it before, especially during and after the Civil War), passed by Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress in 1913 and signed by "Mr. Progressive," Woodrow Wilson, empowered the government, through its Internal Revenue Bureau (as it was called then) to levy taxes on individual incomes at marginal rates that ranged from 1% to a whopping 7% for the richest of the rich. Even then, most people didn't pay anything at all.

I've taken the trouble to dig up an actual 1913 income tax return for you to peruse. As you can see, even a hundred years ago, the federal government was pretty good at putting out gobbledy-gook forms that are incredibly difficult to fill out. But it's easy to see that individuals who produced less than $3,000 in income -- most definitely a healthy middle-class income in 1913, the inflation-adjusted equivalent of a single person making around $70K today -- paid nothing. This is how the whole damn thing was sold to the American people -- it was supposed to be a tax ONLY on the wealthy. Yeah, right. The camel's nose was under the tent.

Let's just take a look at what happened to the top marginal rates over time.



Zowie! Even before Wilson left office, the top marginal rate had gone from 7% to over 70%! I find it instructive to compare the bar graph at 1913 to the bar graph at the FDR/Truman transition. Do you see what I mean about the camel's nose? Perhaps a better analogy is Pandora's Box?

But what doesn't show on this graph (or actually it does, in a way) is the downward slide of the income tax, in terms of the size of incomes being taxed. By that I mean the slow (but sure) fall of the lower threshold for income taxation that started post-WWII. The Leviathan had been born, and it had to be fed. That meant more taxpayers had to be taxed, all at increasingly higher rates.

Over time, it had become obvious that taxing high wage earners at marginal rates approaching 100% was counter-productive. They don't make lots of money because they're stupid, and you'd have to be stupid to lift a finger to make another dollar that was going to be essentially confiscated by Uncle Sam. So the top marginal rates dropped... but more folks got to be taxpayers, and got to pay at higher rates.

Today the top rate is around 40%, but the BOTTOM rate is 10%, and that applies to a much poorer demographic (relatively speaking) than the well-off folks who were completely exempt in 1913. The IRS tax code now runs somewhere north of 70,000 pages. No human exists who understands it. We piss away hundreds of billions of dollars each year simply trying to comply with a tax code that God couldn't explain. Today's income tax is a burden, yes, but worse, it's a pure political tool. It is a source of power for politicians because it controls the amount of money you have to pay to the government to fund it -- and it also allows politicians to craft regulations that excuse selected groups from paying any income tax at all. THAT is called "buying votes."

It is my position -- and the position of many others on this board -- that the federal income tax should never have existed in the first place. (Keep in mind that was exactly the position of the men who wrote the Constitution.) I'm not saying that we shouldn't fund the federal government. I'm saying that the federal government we know today simply wouldn't exist without the Sixteenth Amendment. And that, sir, would be a GOOD thing, as Martha Stewart likes to say.

I'd love to spend an hour or two on research, just to create a list of agencies and commissions and authorities and divisions of the federal government that did not exist in 1913. DHS, EPA, FBI, DOE, Education, HUD, Medicare, Medicaid, SS, TVA, BUREC, HHS, the list is endless. The agencies on the list were simply not possible without the virtually unlimited fountain of money provided by the Sixteenth Amendment. (Also the Federal Reserve, another creature of Wilson's banner year, 1913, which simply prints money when it's in short supply, an act that's considered counterfeiting when done by anyone else.)

You have to understand the sequencing of it all. The federal government as it existed in 1912 didn't have or need an income tax. It was a tiny enterprise that got by nicely on tariff and excise tax collections mostly. After 1913, the building of the federal Beast began. In 1933, with the inauguration of FDR, it took off like a rocket. With the Kenyan in office, the rocket got a lot faster.

Again, I recommend that you get and read The FairTax Book. You can plow through it in a couple hours, and you'll learn a lot of stuff that you clearly don't know now. The only fault I find with the overall concept is that it attempts to retain the "progressive" nature of taxation that has given us a nation where more than half of its inhabitants pay no taxes. (See the "prebate" thing.)

But one point is inarguable -- a gradual transition from an income tax to a sales tax will leave us with the ugliest possible result: an income tax AND a sales tax. There has to be a clean break. The FairTax proposal actually includes an amendment to the Constitution that completely repeals the Sixteenth Amendment, and language that totally defunds the IRS.

Dear God, how I hate the IRS. (Here they come! Audit THIS, sucka!  ) As the book says, April 15 (my mom's birthday, as it happens) would become just another spring day.

Understand? I don't want to argue with you about details of the income tax because I truly believe there shouldn't have ever been one in the first place, and I'd like to see it go away completely, along with the agency that enforces it.

Quote from: TboneAgain on October 22, 2013, 03:06:29 PM
Let me simplify. ... One thing was strictly prohibited by the states in the original Constitution -- capitation taxes, such as income taxes. The Sixteenth Amendment changed all that. ...

T Bone again,
Regarding U.S. Constitution's article, section 9, clause 4; (i.e. "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken"):
Income tax is not a not a "capitation" tax.

The 16th amendment; : (i.e. "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 or enumeration") explicitly permits federal income taxes.

We agree that things change in time and this is particularly true of a national currency's purchasing powers.
[I'm a proponent that the mentioning finite numbers of dollars within federal laws or regulations be annually adjusted to compensate for the U.S. dollar's changing purchasing powers,  Any exception to this policy should be explicitly stated within the drafting of the individual laws or regulations].

I believe that the fair tax will never be passed and enacted as a single step transformation.  I believe that to the extent it was enacted incrementally, significantly additional proportion of our population would not be required to file income tax returns.  Additionally as income brackets' regular rates are reduced, additional proportions of our population will not be required to file income tax returns,  the reductions of regular income tax rates reduces the comparative advantage of all other rate exceptions that are expressed as finite percentages of the favored income sources; (i.e. tax loop holes become less advantageous).

I'm of the opinion that a federal sales tax and the reduction or even the elimination of income taxes will not eliminate the need for tax enforcement.  If we eliminated the IRS, we'd have to replace it with a similar bureaucracy and your concept of what's a Utopia is very naive.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Solar on October 22, 2013, 06:27:40 AM
So now the truth finally comes out, you despise rich people, even though they pay the lion share of taxes.
Like I have said time and time again, why are you ignoring a flat tax, why aren't you advocating that everyone pay taxes?

But I digress, why not just shrink govt...
... Govt is too damn big, too intrusive, too damn restrictive to the point it stifles and slows production ...

... I know the answer, you love govt, a socialist at heart, you love the idea of a power that can slay the private sector into compliance, regardless of how damaging it is to the economy.
You do realize, you're on the verge of fascism, right?

Solar, do you despise the working poor and the poor that cannot work?
Under our present system, the insufficient purchasing power of the minimum wage is contra productive to many families' finances and our nation's economy.

Regarding the reduction of federal expenditures by reducing government services:  What we consider low fruit that's easy picking probably diametrically differ.  What each of us believes to be prime candidates for reduction or elimination, the other believes to be desirable and increasing that expenditure would be benefit /cost effective.

I'm a proponent of an Import Certificate trade policy.  It would increase our numbers of jobs, median wage, GDP and the sum of our nation's aggregate imports plus exports all more than otherwise. It is not "pure" free trade, but it is market rather than government driven and it is pure free enterprise.   
Are you more concerned for the benefits to nations that cannot or will not provide their laborers with greater purchasing powers to the detriment of USA wage and salary earning families?

The point is we all generally believe that acceptance of our views is to the best advantage to our nation and it's natural for people to believe that what's in their own best interests coincide with what's best for their nation.

I don't disrespect or question your motives.   You contend that if I do not agree with your concepts, I "despise the rich ... love government (for the sake of big government?) ... (am) a socialist at heart ... love the idea of a power that can slay the private sector into compliance, regardless of how damaging it is to the economy (and accuse me of being) on the verge of fascism"?

But we're digressing from the subject of this thread.
I'm an advocate of a general federal sales tax.  That's the ultimate flat tax and everyone would be subject to it.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on October 22, 2013, 08:04:25 PM
T Bone again,
Regarding U.S. Constitution's article, section 9, clause 4; (i.e. "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken"):
Income tax is not a not a "capitation" tax.

The 16th amendment; : (i.e. "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 or enumeration") explicitly permits federal income taxes.

We agree that things change in time and this is particularly true of a national currency's purchasing powers.
[I'm a proponent that the mentioning finite numbers of dollars within federal laws or regulations be annually adjusted to compensate for the U.S. dollar's changing purchasing powers,  Any exception to this policy should be explicitly stated within the drafting of the individual laws or regulations].

I believe that the fair tax will never be passed and enacted as a single step transformation.  I believe that to the extent it was enacted incrementally, significantly additional proportion of our population would not be required to file income tax returns.  Additionally as income brackets' regular rates are reduced, additional proportions of our population will not be required to file income tax returns,  the reductions of regular income tax rates reduces the comparative advantage of all other rate exceptions that are expressed as finite percentages of the favored income sources; (i.e. tax loop holes become less advantageous).

I'm of the opinion that a federal sales tax and the reduction or even the elimination of income taxes will not eliminate the need for tax enforcement.  If we eliminated the IRS, we'd have to replace it with a similar bureaucracy and your concept of what's a Utopia is very naive.

Respectfully, Supposn

I am hoist by my own petard. I grant you, this once, a point: the income tax is not a capitation tax. However, under the original terms of the Constitution, an income tax was not legal, since the Constitution is, as the Kenyan so heartily regrets, a negative empowerment of the federal government, especially through the Bill of Rights, and especially therein by Amendments 9 and 10. At every turn, the Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights, instructed the new government much more about what it might not do, than what it might. At least one early attempt at income taxation was negated in the courts because it taxed income from fixed sources, such as rental properties, and that was considered a "direct" tax on that property.

I'm pretty sure that the dollar's purchasing power is more a function of how many of them are in circulation than to any other factor. Right now the Fed is "printing" dollars via computer at a rate that would require thousands of printing presses working 24/7 were they paper dollars. Inflation is not when prices go up. Inflation is WHY prices go up. ONLY the federal government can cause inflation, because the term refers directly to the money supply and not prices.

This is a side issue, but just think how thin it is -- the ice we're skating on. Consider the debt piled up over the last six years, issued at interest rates approaching zero. Interest rates are going to change, you can bet on that. And I'm pretty sure they won't go down. There's a holy-shit moment to think about.

I understand your incremental approach, and the reasons for it. But it won't work. A little fat kid comes walking along licking on an ice cream cone. You offer him a juicy hot dog. He greedily grabs the red hot, and you tell him he has to give up the ice cream cone. Or he can keep the ice cream cone, but he has to give up the red hot. Ain't no happenins'. The kid is going to run away as fast as he can with an ice cream cone in one hand AND a hot dog in the other. That's how government works.

What we have to do is force the kid to give up the ice cream cone entirely in exchange for the hot dog. He fills his fat belly with one or the other, but not both. That's how the Fair Tax is designed to work.

I see no reason at all to replace the IRS with something else. The Fair Tax is designed to take advantage of the fact that most states already collect sales taxes, and they could simplify modify their systems and forward the new tax proceeds to the US Treasury. Setting up sales tax in those few states that don't already have it is a pretty minor affair compared to, say, reworking a fifth of our entire economy to fit the mandates of KenyaCare, wouldn't you agree?

The biggest problems with the Fair Tax are that it makes sense, and it's actually fair -- two factors that are anathema in Washington DC. But I'll stand by it as it's proposed. Incrementalizing it is the same as killing it. You may be correct that the Fair Tax as proposed will never pass both houses of Congress. (Losing more than 70,000 pages of regulations is losing 70,000 pages of POWER, and every legislator knows that.) But incremental transfer will likewise never happen, as you admit, because folks will start harping because they're paying these higher sales taxes AND the same old income taxes too. The transfer process will halt, and there we'll be, with BOTH a federal income tax AND a federal sales tax on the books.

That little fat kid done got away with the ice cream cone AND the hot dog.

Please scroll up a bit to see a graph that shows what that little fat kid does with tax rates.

T Bone Again, for a moment let's put aside our contrary views regarding the incremental or single step transference from my income taxes to a sales tax.

The members of CPF's primarily to my right; I'm a populist.  We do not share our cynicism of government's stated goals and the actual delivered performance and achievements to the same extent but I'm far from fully trustful of stated promises and/or the methods by which our elected officials may attempt to achieve their stated goals,

I'm troubled by Fair Tax proponents acceptance of the "Prebate", (i.e. prepayment per capita of equal compensation amounts to mitigate the sales tax's greater hardship upon lesser income persons).

I envision that as an equal annually COLA modified federal direct deposited monthly amount to the accounts of USA's entire population.
I'd be opposed to the prebates being income qualified, or individuals' prebate amounts being dependent upon the recipients' annual incomes.  That would require IRS continue in size and scope to administer monitor prebate recipients in the same manner as it now monitors individual income earners.

I speculate that the proposal of "fair tax's prebates are simply a sales gimmick.  It's strange that I, a populist find fault with prebates but those considering themselves to be to positioned to my right on the political spectrum would willingly accept enactment of prebates.

Empathizing with what I believe is your own viewpoints, I imagine that conservatives should be much more amiable to some compromises with those of us that are populists and less amiable to the concept of prebates.

Beware of what you wish for.  Among my fears there are two common dreads.  I fear not receiving what I'm entitled to; I also fear that I may get EVERYTHING that I deserve.

Respectfully, Supposn

Curious, would you still be a populist sheep if the country had fallen under communist control?

Quote from: Solar on October 25, 2013, 07:56:43 AM
Curious, would you still be a populist sheep if the country had fallen under communist control?

Solar, my concept of "populism" is not seeking and going along with what's the "popular" opinion or what emerges from "focus" groups.  I, no less than anyone else within CPF am a proponent of what I believe is in our nation's net best interests.

Populists' goal (in my opinion) are to significantly increase the largest segment of our population's lives and  thus more likely approach the optimum net benefit to our nation.
That's why as a populist I can be no less a proponent of free enterprise but not accept pure free trade;

I can be a proponent of a federal sales tax which is the ultimate flat tax and still be a proponent of some compensating populist provisions that mitigate sales tax's greater hardship upon the working poor.

Populist can consider what's more feasible because we're not locked into any particular ideological prohibitions that are in some circumstances far from political or economically feasible and/or effective. 

There's no reason to believe that we should always march in step with each other and there's no reason for us to question each others motives when we differ.

Respectfully, Supposn

T  Bone Again, I want secure USA borders that halt contraband or illegal persons entry into the USA.  If that requires a federal ID card which in effect is a dossier for every individual in the USA, would more secure borders justify that price?

(I'm a proponent of gun registrations) but why would anyone opposed to it or concerned of our individual privacy be amiable to federal IDs' for everyone?  Wouldn't that inevitably leave the door open for gun registration?

If a federal ID card is not enacted, I don't believe that the Fair Tax concept of "Prebates" would be feasible; I do not believe that the U.S. Congress would pass a replacement of any portion of income taxes with a sales tax unless there are additional considerations for the working poor.

That requires some compromise to enact more populist accompanying laws or regulations if any federal sales tax bill is to pass in the U.S. Congress.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on October 26, 2013, 07:26:36 AM
Solar, my concept of "populism" is not seeking and going along with what's the "popular" opinion or what emerges from "focus" groups.  I, no less than anyone else within CPF am a proponent of what I believe is in our nation's net best interests.

Populists' goal (in my opinion) are to significantly increase the largest segment of our population's lives and  thus more likely approach the optimum net benefit to our nation.
That's why as a populist I can be no less a proponent of free enterprise but not accept pure free trade;

I can be a proponent of a federal sales tax which is the ultimate flat tax and still be a proponent of some compensating populist provisions that mitigate sales tax's greater hardship upon the working poor.

Populist can consider what's more feasible because we're not locked into any particular ideological prohibitions that are in some circumstances far from political or economically feasible and/or effective. 

There's no reason to believe that we should always march in step with each other and there's no reason for us to question each others motives when we differ.

Respectfully, Supposn

Then you may want to choose a different qualifier.

QuotePopulist:
A politician who only advocates policies that are popular.

Quote from: Solar on October 26, 2013, 08:59:55 AM
Then you may want to choose a different qualifier.

Solar, I cite this source, what's yours?
Respectfully, Supposn
Refer to:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/populist
1pop•u•list
noun \ˈpä-pyə-list\
Definition of POPULIST
1
:  a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people; especially often capitalized :  a member of a United States political party formed in 1891 primarily to represent agrarian interests and to advocate the free coinage of silver and government control of monopolies
2
:  a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people
— pop•u•lism noun
— pop•u•lis•tic adjective

Quote from: Supposn on October 26, 2013, 10:27:43 AM
Solar, I cite this source, what's yours?
Respectfully, Supposn
Refer to:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/populist
1pop•u•list
noun \ˈpä-pyə-list\
Definition of POPULIST
1
:  a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people; especially often capitalized :  a member of a United States political party formed in 1891 primarily to represent agrarian interests and to advocate the free coinage of silver and government control of monopolies
2
:  a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people
— pop•u•lism noun
— pop•u•lis•tic adjective

LOL, now you're claiming to be a free mkt proponent?
From the party platform.
Granted they had some good ideas that did come to fruition, though many were contradictory to what they actually claimed / proposed, as posted below.

QuoteTRANSPORTATION.—Transportation being a means of exchange and a public necessity, the government should own and operate the railroads in the interest of the people. The telegraph and telephone, like the post-office system, being a necessity for the transmission of news, should be owned and operated by the government in the interest of the people.
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/eamerica/media/ch22/resources/documents/populist.htm

Quote from: Solar on October 26, 2013, 10:44:17 AM
LOL, now you're claiming to be a free mkt proponent?
From the party platform.
Granted they had some good ideas that did come to fruition, though many were contradictory to what they actually claimed / proposed, as posted below.

Solar, you do not read carefully and your preconceived notions lead you to false assumptions.
I'm a "populist" but I never described myself, nor am I a member of a "Populist Party".  I do support populist concepts on many issues.

Respectfully, Supposn 

Quote from: Supposn on October 27, 2013, 02:38:45 AM
Solar, you do not read carefully and your preconceived notions lead you to false assumptions.
I'm a "populist" but I never described myself, nor am I a member of a "Populist Party".  I do support populist concepts on many issues.

Respectfully, Supposn

Which makes no sense then, because what you're proposing is a socialist style fix, not a populist one.

QuoteThey propose to drown the outcries of a plundered people with the uproar of a sham battle over the tariff

So mostly you align with Fabian ideals, claim Populist as a cover, got it.

I am so frickin tired of liberals trying to screw around with the English language in an attempt to obfuscate their politics.  Every time the general electorate catches on to the fact they have merely wrapped Marxist Leninism with a new term they invent another one.  I got news for you Supposn....  It's still Marxist!!!!!  Like Palin is fond of stating, "You can put lipstick on a pig and it is STILL a pig."

Socialist have renamed themselves more times than you can count.  It's dizzying and will make your head spin.  Marxist, Leninist, Socialist, New World, Liberal, Progressive, and now Populist.  Give me a break.  How about you change your politics instead of constantly attempting to conceal it for what it is... a failure.  That fact liberals go to no end to change the presentation of it is all that need be said.  If it worked there wouldn't be a need to hide it with invented terminology and altered presentation.

I once had a guy who OBVIOUSLY professed Socialist doctrine.  He claimed he wasn't Socialist, rather he claimed he was progressive.  When I asked him what was the difference between Socialism and what he professed he replied,

"Socialists believe in confiscating all the wealth produced and dividing it up equally among all the citizenry.  We Progressives don't believe in that, we believe in confiscating all the wealth above the average income and distributing it to those below the average income."  Lol.  Populist?  Give me a break!!!

Quote from: Solar on October 27, 2013, 05:38:58 AM
Which makes no sense then, because what you're proposing is a socialist style fix, not a populist one.
So mostly you align with Fabian ideals, claim Populist as a cover, got it.

Solar, your posts certainly expand or refresh my vocabulary.
Many English words have multi- definitions and words have nuances.
Additionally your concepts applied to many political Issues, (possibly to all issues and everything else), are single dimensional.

You apparently believe that the same words and the meanings can accurately and fully label an individual's position on an issue.  You also seem to accept one method as THE one to be chosen for all similar problems and issues without fully considering the differences even among seemingly similar things and problems.

Yes, I believe that the Fair Tax concept should be enacted incrementally.  I do not believe that Fair Tax's prebates would be feasible without accompanying federal ID's for our entire population.  Even if I should agree that it's acceptable, I'd regret it as it would be a loss of freedom.

Upon this tax issue I believe incremental enactment is fully desirable and almost a necessity.  Single step enactment would be extremely imprudent.

I'm a proponent of free enterprise and self determination and I'm opposed to a national policy of pure free (global) trade.  I am not a socialist.

An Import Certificate policy would be much less effective if it were enacted incrementally, there's a practical limit to the extent of any possible incremental enactment, and even if it was possible to enact it in a significant incremental manner, that method of enactment would decrease the policy's effectiveness for years following its full enactment.

Respectfully, Supposn

/////////////////////////////////////////
[Refer to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fabian  :
Fa•bi•an
adjective \ˈfā-bē-ən\
Definition of FABIAN
1a :  of, relating to, or in the manner of the Roman general Quintus Fabius Maximus known for his defeat of Hannibal in the Second Punic War by the avoidance of decisive contests
1b :  cautious, dilatory

2:[the Fabian Society; from the members' belief in slow rather than revolutionary change in government];   of, relating to, or being a society of socialists organized in England in 1884 to spread socialist principles gradually

— Fabian noun
— Fa•bi•an•ism noun].