Hello everybody

[giblets]

Oh? Then why didn't the founders pass an income tax?



It was originally 1 percent of the income of only the highest earners. A far cry from what it is today. The government did just fine in protecting America prior; increased taxation simply expanded the size of the government beyond all reason. America is by the people, for the people and of the people, not by the government - the government does not issue us our rights, our rights are God-given, and cannot be alienated.



I follow what the constitution says. And the constitution explicitly limits the authority of the government, because of the concern that government expansion expanded the grip of tyranny over the people and had to be kept in check. America existed prior to the 13th and America will exist just fine if the 13th were repealed.



All of the expansion of the United States occurred prior to 1913. America is what she is today because of the decisions made in the 19th century to build and develop, going from a weak colonial power to a super power. If you had asked Lincoln what he would have thought of poor people paying a third of their income, are you saying he would have said, yes! We need to make government bigger and more powerful?

America is not some "cult of the founding fathers" that will forever do things the way they did them. As time goes on, society adopts new practices and abolishes old ones so that people will be better off. It's called progress. America as a whole is more free now than it was a hundred years ago when women and blacks couldn't even vote in many states. People have far more "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" now than they did a hundred or two hundred years ago. They live longer, have more choices in life and a higher standard of living. America would still exit if we repealed the 13th amendment, but people would be less free under actual slavery where they have no say in what sort of work they perform, how much they have to work, where they live, who they can marry, and where they are only allowed to keep enough to survive and must live under the fear of getting publicly whipped. Gee, that's completely different from paying a 25% tax rate while earning over $50,000 a year in the occupation and city of your choice. And if you're poor and in the bottom quintile the federal government takes less than 1% of your income in taxes. The tyranny of 21st century America is truly horrifying. Of course having Herman Cain impose a massive tax increase on the bottom two quintiles would be a step in the right direction...

[Ben Kenobi]

Of course having Herman Cain impose a massive tax increase on the bottom two quintiles would be a step in the right direction

Have you actually ran the numbers? Dismantling the IRS would mean massive savings of public dollars. Instead of getting money withheld and taken off your check, you'd be able to control when the payments were made. That's a huge plus, rather than giving interest free loans to the government every year.

A 9 percent tax will put more money into their pockets, not less, even if they have to pay more for what they buy. I'm one of those folks who would fall in that bracket and I'd save around 2-300 dollars a year under Cain's plan. Not to mention that if I make more I come out further ahead.

[giblets]

People in the lowest quintile currently pay 0.8% of their total income in net taxes, not including excise taxes. I'd like to know what kind of financial voodoo allows them to pay less in taxes under a 9% flat income tax plus a 9% national sales tax.

[giblets]

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=3222&DocTypeID=2

According to the Tax Policy Center the 9-9-9 plan would raise taxes for the bottom four quintiles so that the top quintile could keep more.

[Flubber]

How so? Again, if your primary concern is 'not getting pregnant', it seems to me this is the obvious solution. There are plenty of ways to have fun that don't even entail a pregnancy risk.

Abstinence?? We have no plans for more children and take appropriate birth control methods-- abstinence !!! -- yeegads

[Flubber]

Since 1913, yes. Prior to that, no. Things worked differently back then.

.

Are you assertting something major happened in 1913 that made a radical difference? You seem to be asserting a step change pre and post 1913. I had thought it was just an arbitrary year

This isn't something American specific, btw. It has to do with income taxation. Again, I suggest you read Hayek.

and I have any number of suggestions for you LOL.


There is nothing any theorist can say that can give credence to any credible credence between slavery and income taxation in a free democracy. Are there element of appropriation of labour-- sure but Ben . . . . if I wish I can move somewhere with no taxation. MY government would not stop me. I am fundamentally free to leave the country and as a Canadian, if I cease to reside in the country, my obligations to pay Canadian taxes can cease.

Any law under which I can be imprisoned or taxed for that matter must be passed in a legislature-- very different than a rape at the whims of a slave lord.


AS for American specific comments- you were the one that raised the issue of when slavery ended in America so I thought it appropriate to talk about America

[Ben Kenobi]

Are you assertting something major happened in 1913 that made a radical difference? You seem to be asserting a step change pre and post 1913. I had thought it was just an arbitrary year

Seems everyone thinks that. Why? I don't know. 16th amendment was ratified, and Wilson immediately called a session of Congress in April of 1913 enacting an income tax in the united states.

Prior to this, most of the government was funded indirectly rather than directly. Canada put theirs through in 1917 and kept it after the war.

There is nothing any theorist can say that can give credence to any credible credence between slavery and income taxation in a free democracy.

You can assert it, but there's a substantial difference between the assertion and the proof.

if I wish I can move somewhere with no taxation. MY government would not stop me. I am fundamentally free to leave the country and as a Canadian, if I cease to reside in the country, my obligations to pay Canadian taxes can cease.

You're a lawyer. Residency isn't that simple. I have to file + report for both US and Canada, as I have substantial and ongoing interests on both sides of the line. Just moving isn't enough to change residency, according to the tax treaty, you have to have greater ties to your new country and not to the old. You can live on one side, but if you maintain a permanent home in Canada, and if your spouse stays there, you'll remain a tax resident of Canada, even if you move to another country.

[Ben Kenobi]

Gribbler:

The analysis you posted misses out on this part of the plan:

Mr. Cain also proposes to eliminate the payroll tax and instead fund entitlement programs such as Social Security from the simplified tax structure.

Which has a substantial impact. He ditches all the regressive elements of the current tax system, which actually improves the lot of the folks currently paying taxes from where they are now. Everyone has to pay for SS and payroll, regardless as to how much they make, and this takes the biggest bite out of these folks' paychecks.

[giblets]

Gribbler:

The analysis you posted misses out on this part of the plan:



Which has a substantial impact. He ditches all the regressive elements of the current tax system, which actually improves the lot of the folks currently paying taxes from where they are now. Everyone has to pay for SS and payroll, regardless as to how much they make, and this takes the biggest bite out of these folks' paychecks.

The second footnote says:

(2) Baseline is 2013 current policy. Proposal replaces the individual income tax, corporate income tax, payroll tax and estate tax with presidential candidate Herman Cain's 9‐9‐9 Plan.

From what I can see, the analysis doesn't ignore the removal of the payroll tax. Without a large reduction in federal tax revenue, Herman Cain simply can't deliver his promised cuts for higher earners without raising taxes for lower earners. Of course, it could be that Cain was planning large cuts in spending in addition to what already is needed to bring about long term fiscal balance. I simply don't see a flat tax as something that would benefit the poor.

[Lorizael]

Depending on how you look at it, I've had either two or three majors. Physics/Astronomy and History. Physics/Astronomy was a combined program at UBC, which I did for 2 years, and then switched. Half my degree is science credits; I have pretty close to the minimum for arts credits and history credits depending on how you class some of my courses. Not all of them transferred over properly. Spent close to a year getting everything all worked out with the registrar when I transferred over to UNBC. *sigh*. Glad that's done and I don't ever have to deal with that hassle again.

[rah]

The point being that most agencies have policies where two parent families get preference.

That's not what you said. You made something up and when you got called out on it, you didn't admit you were wrong, you say we misunderstood your point. That does make debating easier. "I wasn't wrong, you just misunderstood" Yes we misunderstand you quite often.

And I'm still trying to figure out how if a tiny percentage of a tax you pay used for someones health care can be twisted into you not being allowing you to practice your religion. Does it mean you can't go to church anymore? Receive the Sacraments? What is it stopping you from doing?

[Ming]

You're a lawyer. Residency isn't that simple. I have to file + report for both US and Canada, as I have substantial and ongoing interests on both sides of the line.

YOU MORON... You having "substantial and ongoing interests" is YOUR CHOICE. Plus, BOTH COUNTRIES HAVE INCOME TAX. You can pick up and go someplace that doesn't have income tax. NOTHING IS STOPPING YOU but YOUR OWN CHOICE to stay.

Frankly, I don't think anybody would really care if you simply thought taxes were unfair... Hell, many would agree with you. But your continued rants that it's the same as slavery is simply silly and stupid.

HERE IS YOUR CHOICE:

The life you currently lead with all the freedoms you have
Or be a slave with no freedoms.

PICK ONE.
But you will probably continue to make the moronic claim that they are the same... If that is the case, then I guess you wouldn't mind picking cotton as a slave.
Heck, your sex life would probably improve if you did pick real slavery...

[Ben Kenobi]

Abstinence?? We have no plans for more children and take appropriate birth control methods-- abstinence !!! -- yeegads

Hrm? Not much imagination apparently. There are lots of ways to have fun, without having to worry about pregnancy.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's not what you said.

So your own evidence says that 5 percent of all adoptions are made to single people. Are you suggesting that this indicates that it is a significant proportion? I don't see that. You dug it up to save your point and ended up confirming that the vast majority are not done with single people, confirming my point that there is a significant preference to place children with 2 parents.

Yes we misunderstand you quite often.

Where did I say I was misunderstood? Please, don't put words into my mouth. I'm sure you understood perfectly, and given the tack of your argumentation, you indicated to me that you precisely understood my point, since you tried to save your own argument.

You'd rather quibble over a nitpick and fail to see the forest for the trees.

And I'm still trying to figure out how if a tiny percentage of a tax you pay used for someones health care can be twisted into you not being allowing you to practice your religion.

I could make the argument, or I could just cite the Archbishop of New York, Timothy Dolan, who constructs the argument quite well.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203718504577178833194483196.html

He quotes Washington himself:

The conscientious scruples of all men should be treated with great delicacy and tenderness; and it is my wish and desire, that the laws may always be extensively accommodated to them.

Dolan writes:

[the Obama administration] has refused to exempt religious institutions that serve the common good—including Catholic schools, charities and hospitals—from its sweeping new health-care mandate that requires employers to purchase contraception, including abortion-producing drugs, and sterilization coverage for their employees.

Dolan goes on to say:

As Catholic Charities USA's president, the Rev. Larry Snyder, notes, even Jesus and His disciples would not qualify for the exemption in that case, because they were committed to serve those of other faiths.

Also:

hundreds of religious institutions, and hundreds of thousands of individual citizens, have raised their voices in principled opposition to this requirement that religious institutions and individuals violate their own basic moral teaching in their health plans.

Finally, he sums it all up:

Coercing religious ministries and citizens to pay directly for actions that violate their teaching is an unprecedented incursion into freedom of conscience.

And there you go.

Does it mean you can't go to church anymore? Receive the Sacraments? What is it stopping you from doing?

It is forcing me to act contrary to what my faith teaches in requiring me to pay for contraception and abortion. I'm not going to pay, and if that means I go to jail, so be it. I'll have good company. If Obamacare is upheld by the courts, and Texas forced to implement it, I am not going to pay a flat dime for it, regardless of what Obama requires me to do.

[Ben Kenobi]

I simply don't see a flat tax as something that would benefit the poor.

Well, that's quite debatable. I think providing a flat tax provides opportunities, and encourages people to work and make more money, while the current progressive system discourages them. I'd rather give people the opportunity to get out of poverty, rather than giving them incentives to stay.

I also agree with Cain that if everyone were paying some sort of taxes, that they would have skin in the game, and be much more aware of what taxation does. The present system is trying to take 50 percent plus one of the people to be entirely exempt from taxes (and is quite close to that number already, around 47 percent or so), and then get that 50+1 to vote themselves in more goodies and more taxes on everyone else.