Welcome to the internet's top destination for the civil discussion of politics. This is a forum for discussion and debate of the issues, and not for personal remarks aimed at other discussants.
This forum has no political affiliation and welcomes your perspective on the issues. Membership is free. If you would like to join the discussions and debates please REGISTER HERE.
All new members should review the forum rules. The "Today's Posts" button automatically adjusts itself to fit your screen on its first use for Firefox and on its second use, for Internet Explorer. Have a pleasant day. (This is a spam free board.)
Just so you know, rich people don't pay the brunt of corporate taxes. You and me do. Economists estimate that corporate taxes result in a 22% markup on retail prices. Worse, the money the government steals (yes, steals) from them is money that doesn't get re-invested (which would inevitably create more jobs and more production).
Though I don't completely disagree with him... I don't think the brunt of the tax burden should be on workers, I just don't think it should be on businesses either. For the most part it should be non-existent.
I also agree corporations own the government, and they shouldn't.
The People ultimately pay ALL taxes. If you want to reduce the tax burden on the People then reduce government spending.
Bravo. Absolutely true.
Let's return to Constitutional government and Constitutional taxation:
Thomas Jefferson repealed all internal taxes during his administration, and except for the temporary taxes levied during the War of 1812, America was tax free from 1800 to 1860. And that was the original intent of the Constitution, as clarified by Madison in Federalist 45, that the powers of the federal government were few and defined and that its revenue was to come solely from tariff revenue. Internal taxation was meant only as a temporary measure for emergencies.
"Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Convention [see Federalist Paper #45] reveal clearly that the framers of the Constitution believed for some time [and wrote this requirement into the Constitution] that the principal, if not sole, support of the new Federal Government would be derived from customs duties and taxes connected with shipping and importations. Internal taxation would not be resorted to except infrequently, and for special [emergency] reasons. The first resort to internal taxation, the enactment of internal revenue laws in 1791 and in the following 10 years, was occasioned by the exigencies of the public credit. These first laws were repealed in 1802. Internal revenue laws were reenacted for the period 1813-17, when the effects of the war of 1812 caused Congress to resort to internal taxation. From 1818 to 1861, however, the United States had no internal revenue laws and the Federal Government was supported by the revenue from import duties and the proceeds from the sale of public lands. In 1862 Congress once more levied internal revenue taxes. This time the establishment of an internal revenue system, not exclusively dependent upon the supplies of foreign commerce, was permanent."
The People ultimately pay ALL taxes. If you want to reduce the tax burden on the People then reduce government spending.
We have seen that the REPS won't reduce government spending, and
the DEMS can't wait to get back in power so they can Spend money on their
pet projects and hand out programs ect...
So I guess America will have to vote in a new party to get the job done?
Boy that's a revolutionary Idea. I wonder why it wasn't thought of before.
why it wasn't thought of before.
We could also stop funding useless programs like the National Endowment of the Arts, and subsidizing agriculture and failed industries.
I'll probably get burned for this, but why stop there? The Department of Education, the IRS, Homeland Security, Department of Energy, FEMA, WTO, etc.
I don't think many people would deny the failures of these agencies, but for some reason think they are necessary to continue with the lifestyle we currently have.
I'll probably get burned for this, but why stop there? The Department of Education, the IRS, Homeland Security, Department of Energy, FEMA, WTO, etc.
I don't think many people would deny the failures of these agencies, but for some reason think they are necessary to continue with the lifestyle we currently have.
I totally agree. However, I wouldn't really say pulling out of WTO is a good idea. See, free trade is a bit of a prisoner's dilemma, and it works best if it's a two-way street. Trade agreements should be bilateral and the WTO is there to guarantee they are.
I totally agree. However, I wouldn't really say pulling out of WTO is a good idea. See, free trade is a bit of a prisoner's dilemma, and it works best if it's a two-way street. Trade agreements should be bilateral and the WTO is there to guarantee they are.
Touche, but at the very least it should be seriously reformed, or am I totally off-base there?
Linear Mode
