Taxing income is and always has been unconstitutional. Individuals have God given rights that include the right to life, liberty and property. When a person trades his labor for another man's money is not income. Income is the profit that one earns from corporate activity.
Corporations do not have rights because they are legal fictions created by governments. The do not have rights, they have privileges. I think that Congress should stop taxing the people and should increase the tax rates on corporations to over 50%. This would motivate many of the owners of corporations to become sole proprietorships.
Sole proprietorships would have a substantial advantage over corporations and would make it very difficult for the corporations to compete. One of the main functions of the Federal government is to protect the individual's lives, liberty and property from the abuse of power by corporations.
Giving a corporation a tax deduction for bribing Congressmen is a stupid idea. Corporation can't vote and they should not be allowed to donate money to elect candidates. Only individuals have rights and corporation have their power diminished.
A Corporate CEO should be taxed at the same rate as the corporations that employ them. Employees of corporations would also be subject to income tax because the money they receive is derived from corporate activity. Individuals that are not employees of corporations would not pay income tax while corporate employees would be subject to the income tax.
So Morton, we come back to the whole reason why the FairTax is revenue neutral. No tax plan, regardless of how wonderful or despicable will ever pass, if those proposing it can't promise revenue neutrality. The FairTax offers tremendous advantages, all across the economy. But if you can't get any of those advantages if you can't get it passed and you can't get it passed without demonstrating revenue neutrality.
In reality, revenue neutrality is a non-issue, since revenue and spending are not connected. It's a point that FairTax supporters make, only to insure that if it gets to a vote, that issue won't block it.
For a look at goals for tax reform, I suggest that you read, "A ‘Goals-Based’ analysis of tax reform proposals" at http://therichdontpaytax.com/blog/?p=284
You know John,
The more we hash this out, the more I think that we actually agree more than we disagree. I FULLY support a "Fair" way of getting money from people for government to work. I think I have spent a tremendous amount of time writing about similar and surrounding issues.
I understand that to get past the corruption and resistance, one may have to offer up a totally innocuous prize like "revenue neutrality", but if we really want to change the atmosphere in D.C., we must curtail spending which makes this, as you said a "Non-issue since revenue and spending are not connected." I couldn't agree more.
I will get back later after I read your link. Thanx for the info.
Thanks, Morton. I too, think that we agree more than disagree.
More people need to understand that the only way that we will ever be able to tie revenue and spending together, is with a balanced budget amendment. Until that happens, we all need to keep in mind that trying to tie taxes to spending is a tax and spend crowd trick, to undermine real, comprehensive tax reform, regardless of what name that tax reform carries. They think that by tying spending to taxes that they can get those like us, who want to see spending drastically cut, to turn against any tax reform plan that doesn't reduce taxes, as though reducing taxes has ever resulted in less spending.
Of course, the tax and spend crowd doesn't want a balanced budget amendment that would tie spending to taxes, either. They certainly don't want to be forced to live within a budget, just as every American has to do.
I think that regardless of what else we do, in regards to tax reform, if we pass a plan that abolishes the IRS, then we will have taken a giant step in the right direction. Unfortunately, the flat tax idea that is floating through the halls of Congress right now, won't eliminate the IRS. In fact, it will make the IRS more prevalent in our lives, since they will be able to audit more people in the same amount of time, under a flat income tax.
John, you, me, and Morton are of the same mind as far as how things should work, and I don't want to be the fly in the ointment, but why do we think the Communists who have illegally taken control of our government and betrayed, with impunity, their Oath to our Constitution, will pay more than lip service to a balanced budget amendment?
Our debt is immoral, exacerbated by an amoral executive and legislative branch, and largely ignored by a misinformed and unaware public. This does not portend to a successful amendment. We also agree that the IRS is more than just counter-productive, it is destructive--especially with its threat to our economy growing exponentially as it takes control of our health care.
As pointed out earlier, I am fully supportive of the Fair Tax concept. If we only implemented Fair Tax, the positive impact on our economy would be immediate and dramatic. The best part of it being that the IRS would become a footnote in our history as an ill-advised and failed, 100-year experiment.
It is no experiment. It was deliberate.
Wayne, I submit for your consideration: Experiments are deliberate by definition--some succeed; some fail. This one has been failing for a hundred years. Every time we try to 'fix' this flawed concept, it just gets worse. It's time to try something based on objective study and intelligent, well-reasoned design--The Fair Tax--or a slightly modified version of it. More than $20 million has been invested in its formulation.
I concede, you are correct!
I could not have said it better. I don't see us getting a balanced budget amendment without a lot of hard work by taxpayers. Congress sure won't vote to bind themselves to living within a budget, unless we drag them kicking and screaming to that vote.
I don't know if, as Wayne suggests, that the whole thing was deliberate. I'm sure that some who voted for the 16th Amendment had less than ethical reason for voting for it. But where it really turned bad, was when the feds figured out how to use the tax code to bring down Al Capone. They realized that if they could use the tax code to bring down someone like Capone, they could use it to bring down anyone, regardless of guilt. After that, all bets were off.
Any tax reform plan that doesn't eliminate the IRS, just allows that same abuse to continue. As you stated, the FairTax would have an immediate and dramatic positive effect on our economy. But best of all, it would eliminate the IRS.