Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: XVI Amendment  (Read 38496 times)

Brien

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
  • I'm a Leo
    • standard transportation
XVI Amendment
« on: August 03, 2005, 10:57:49 am »

This early 20th Century Amendment needs to be debated.  First, if you believe that the government of the United States requires funding for the essentials to run the country, then please discuss HOW to fund the government.   Let's also define "essentials."  For instance the Military, the Administration, the Congress, and the Judiciary, etc.

Do you believe that an income tax is fair, albeit a flat tax, a graduated tax, or other forms of income levies?

Do you believe it to be more fair to institute a VAT to replace the income tax?

Do you believe in no tax to fund the government?  If this is your belief, please suggest the alternative to no tax, because it is the aim of this thread to discuss HOW to fund the government. 

Therefore, this presupposes you believe we have to fund the government as set up by the Constitution of the US.  So, let us discuss ideas.  ???  :)



« Last Edit: August 03, 2005, 11:02:43 am by Brien »
Logged
No country can be well governed unless its citizens as a body keep religiously before their minds that they are the guardians of the law, and that the law officers are only the machinery for its execution, nothing more......M. T.

Gabo

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 312
Re: XVI Amendment
« Reply #1 on: August 03, 2005, 01:32:57 pm »

Taxation is unconstitutional, ESPECIALLY the income tax.

Government should be funded by voluntary contributions.
Logged
I love my country!

It's my government that sucks...

Brien

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
  • I'm a Leo
    • standard transportation
Re: XVI Amendment
« Reply #2 on: August 03, 2005, 02:00:34 pm »

Taxation is unconstitutional, ESPECIALLY the income tax.

Government should be funded by voluntary contributions.

Gabo:  I respectfullyu disagree with you.  Taxation is Constitutional.  Voluntary contributions?? ??? ::)  This is a good idea in a perfect world but alas, where is that?  Otherwise,  I would refer you to Article I section 2, 7, and specifically section 8. of the Constitution of the United States.  I will not provide the copy.  Please look it up.  The authority of Congress to lay and collect taxes is there.

As far as Income tax, I would refer you to Amendment XVI.  I may not agree with the Amendment, but it is there.  It could be over turned by Congress but has yet to be done.

Btw, would you recognize the names :  John Langdon and Nicholas Gilman ? ???
« Last Edit: August 03, 2005, 02:05:50 pm by Brien »
Logged
No country can be well governed unless its citizens as a body keep religiously before their minds that they are the guardians of the law, and that the law officers are only the machinery for its execution, nothing more......M. T.

lloydbob1

  • Guest
Re: XVI Amendment
« Reply #3 on: August 03, 2005, 02:30:44 pm »

What is this discussion doing in the friendly forum.  This forum is for gooie stuff, like Russell being nice to leadership guys.
There are other areas for this type of ancient, worn out, much discussed subject in the FSP forum.
Logged

Brien

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
  • I'm a Leo
    • standard transportation
Re: XVI Amendment
« Reply #4 on: August 03, 2005, 03:08:16 pm »

What is this discussion doing in the friendly forum.  This forum is for gooie stuff, like Russell being nice to leadership guys.
There are other areas for this type of ancient, worn out, much discussed subject in the FSP forum.

Sooooo  sorry.  I didn't realize this was in violation of some rule.  It was my understanding this forum was for folks who wished to discuss topics in a civil manner without all of the insults and personal crap that gets in the way other places.

Ancient, and worn out??????????  ??? Yep, that's me. 

Also, I didn't realize that this was a " ancient & worn out" subject.  It never seems to go out of style in my libertarian discussions with other people I know away from this site.  I guess it is a "non issue" here  because it somehow has been discussed to death. 

There must be as many "ideas" as to how to fund the government as there are people who participate here, probably more.  Maybe you missed the point.  The thread is about "funding" the government of the United States.  Maybe I missed the point that you folks here have already solved that problem.  If so, please direct me to your answers.  

This place can be so disappointing sometimes.  ::)     :(       Ughh                                                          

"Ancient and Worn out"  Does that apply to the Constitution as well?  Hmmmmmmmmm, I wonder?

Btw, do you recognize the names John Langdon and Nicholas Gilman? Huh? ???  Who????

« Last Edit: August 03, 2005, 03:21:36 pm by Brien »
Logged
No country can be well governed unless its citizens as a body keep religiously before their minds that they are the guardians of the law, and that the law officers are only the machinery for its execution, nothing more......M. T.

lloydbob1

  • Guest
Re: XVI Amendment
« Reply #5 on: August 03, 2005, 05:39:18 pm »

No
Logged

Brien

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
  • I'm a Leo
    • standard transportation
Re: XVI Amendment
« Reply #6 on: August 03, 2005, 07:22:30 pm »

No

I would suggest some research on the United States Constitution. :)
Logged
No country can be well governed unless its citizens as a body keep religiously before their minds that they are the guardians of the law, and that the law officers are only the machinery for its execution, nothing more......M. T.

jeanius

  • Guest
Re: XVI Amendment
« Reply #7 on: August 03, 2005, 07:56:53 pm »

Ohhhh, thanks Lloyd!  Don't forget, I know what you look like now!  :)

Brien, chances are you're not going to find a lot of folks on the 'how to fund the government' side of this debate.  I think many of us are more interested in getting the government to need less funding first and foremost.  However, use fees are one alternative method.  My husband would argue that no taxes at all are necessary.  I guess I would argue for very limited property taxes.  However, the problem is breaking the current taxing pattern, IMO. 

Sometimes, the *rest* of the forum is unpleasant because heated debate is unpleasant.  Sometimes people are just rude.  I don't think heated debate is a bad thing or disallowed here.  What is important, IMO, is that folks who are new to the FSP can pose questions and not be treated as children for raising issues that while old hat to long time libertarians (and FSP posters) are new issues to them.  In general I hope our goal is to inform and educate and get folks a better idea of libertarianism and the FSP.  I hope we can get such folks to keep coming back. 

Brien, the friendly rule applies to you too.  While I know it is hard when you are feeling provoked, please try to ignore annoying digs and keep on topic.

And Lloyd, Russell likes being nice to leadership guys ... he just doesn't like to admit it!  (shhhhhhhhh)

Jean
Logged

Herself

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1959
  • Western Science *is* *so* wonderful!
Re: XVI Amendment
« Reply #8 on: August 04, 2005, 05:39:55 pm »

Why would a government not funded by compulsory means result in the end of modern society?

     Okay, a lot of Federal workers would have to go get jobs instead of shuffling papers, but other than that?  What does the Federal government do for you, Brien, rather than to you?

     No, I don;t accept it; let the Feds have raffles ("Win an all-expense-paid trip for to to McMurdo Sound!  To The North Pole!  To the MOOOOON!  Vacation at Camp David!) and bake sales; let them set out penny jars.  Have them allow earmarking of funds contributed by individuals.  But no taxes!

     As for constitutionality, just because something is constitutional, that doesn't mean it is right.  Slavery was constitutional -- it still is if done as punishment for a crime, in fact.

     --Herself
Logged
Civilization in the United States ended by 1913.

Gabo

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 312
Re: XVI Amendment
« Reply #9 on: August 05, 2005, 11:54:21 am »

Brien, I don't agree with everything in the Constitution.
The only law that governs me is natural law.

I respect the life, liberty, and property of others, and they must respect my equal rights as well.



The only part of government that could *possibly* be required is a judicial system when people can't settle disputes.
But that could easily be funded by a loser pays system.

All parts of government can be provided cheaper, better, and WITHOUT THE USE OF FORCE if done by private institutions.
Logged
I love my country!

It's my government that sucks...

Brien

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
  • I'm a Leo
    • standard transportation
Re: XVI Amendment
« Reply #10 on: August 05, 2005, 12:32:46 pm »

Brien, I don't agree with everything in the Constitution.
The only law that governs me is natural law.

I respect the life, liberty, and property of others, and they must respect my equal rights as well.



The only part of government that could *possibly* be required is a judicial system when people can't settle disputes.
But that could easily be funded by a loser pays system.

All parts of government can be provided cheaper, better, and WITHOUT THE USE OF FORCE if done by private institutions.

Gabo: Lets look at what you wrote.     

I agree with privatization in many cases.   But I have written some questions concerning this matter another thread that have yet to be addressed by anyone on this site.  Please be my guest and see the thread.   "A Doomed Cause"  Reply #16                                                                                        

What about the Military as provided in the Constitution by Article I section 8?  Ok, lets forget that one because it takes a lot of money to fund the Military.   So tell that to the Muslim extremists when they are coming down your driveway to kill you.  Or tell them you believe in "natural law."  Or you could defend yourself with the arms you are holding as protected by the 2nd Amendment, which I fully support  The professional "jihadist" would make short work of you.  Just explain to me how you privatize the military. 

Now if you would suggest privatizing the vendors of the military and holding them accountable for what they provide, I am with you.  But we already have the private sector outfit the military.  It is the government idiots in the Defense Department that screw that up.  Yet the military must remain under the control of the government.  The government being made up of the citizens of the US.  Otherwise, American society in the modern world today is headed for failure.  What there needs to be is ACCOUNTABILITY to the citizens for inferior weapons and supplies.  And if the citizens don't control the Military, then this can be as dangerous as the Colonists being forced to live under King George's military.
And please don't tell me that the citizens don't control the military.  Because at the end of the day, the military will not obey just one man, or a group of men, out to destroy our own society.

The only part of the Government required is the Judicial system?  Say again?  How do you plan organize American Society?  No Congress and No Administration?  You would dismantle the two other branches of the Federal Government?

Then sir, I would suggest you do not believe in the US Constitution, nor the American Government, and would ask you to explain what you would replace it with so the United States can function in the modern world today?  And please no rhetoric.  I have had enough of that on this site for an entire lifetime of ten people.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2005, 12:38:32 pm by Brien »
Logged
No country can be well governed unless its citizens as a body keep religiously before their minds that they are the guardians of the law, and that the law officers are only the machinery for its execution, nothing more......M. T.

Dreepa

  • First 1000
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5124
Re: XVI Amendment
« Reply #11 on: August 05, 2005, 12:48:59 pm »

VAT would probably be the fairest.
That way 'poor' people would only be taxed when they bought X items ( food and certain clothing being excluded from the VAT).
People who say would not have to pay much tax and spenders would pay tax.

I think a VAT is fairer than an income tax.


Gabo-- voluntary tax?  Come on who would pay?
Logged

svillee

  • Friend of the FSP
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 105
  • I favor a constitutional plutocracy.
Re: XVI Amendment
« Reply #12 on: August 05, 2005, 01:22:58 pm »

Please discuss HOW to fund the government.

The most offensive tax for me is the progressive income tax, because it is not apportioned (in the constitutional sense).  That is, not all voters are paying it at the same rate.  The least offensive tax for me is a property tax, because the cost to the government of protecting someone's property is at least vaguely related to the value of that property.

My ideal way of funding government is through auctioning seats in government.  See my discussion of a constitutional plutocracy.
Logged

Gabo

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 312
Re: XVI Amendment
« Reply #13 on: August 05, 2005, 08:53:27 pm »

I agree with privatization in many cases.   But I have written some questions concerning this matter another thread that have yet to be addressed by anyone on this site.  Please be my guest and see the thread.   "A Doomed Cause"  Reply #16
In that thread, in reply 16, you state some concerns about pollution of rivers.

From what you wrote, you don't seem to understand that a nuclear plant is highly unlikely to become owner of a very important and special river.
Whoever owns the river can tell the damn nuclear plant to stop polluting it.
And if the plant somehow DOES own the river, people can boycott that plant if they think the destruction it causes is a bad thing.

If enough people boycott, the plant will go out of business and thus be unable to pollute the water anymore.



Quote
So tell that to the Muslim extremists when they are coming down your driveway to kill you.  Or tell them you believe in "natural law."  Or you could defend yourself with the arms you are holding as protected by the 2nd Amendment, which I fully support  The professional "jihadist" would make short work of you.  Just explain to me how you privatize the military.
When you look at problems from one point of view, and make a solution from one point of view, you have a plan that works....... in one point of view.

You must ask yourself WHY the Muslim extremists are coming down your driveway to kill you.  Have you been supporting a tyrannical government that likes to use an imperial army to nation-build and interfere with the affairs of everyone on the planet?  Because at this point you are, and THAT is what pisses them off the most.

If we weren't policing and invading the lands these people live in, and if we weren't TRAINING these people in terrorism, there wouldn't be a problem.


Also, I see no reason why a person with a gun couldn't hold off an invader with a gun.  The person could have easily gotten training and could shoot the intruder.
If you are talking bomb-type weapons, then there isn't much you can do.  Even now with all our "wonderful" security measures, a terrorist could easily walk up to someone's house and blow themselves up.
The army doesn't do anything to help stop this.   In fact, mostly what they do is provoke this type of behavior.


Private protection agencies (like militias) could do a fine job defending people and their property.  And unlike a national army, they don't serve the best  interests of the STATE, they serve YOUR best interests.  Also unlike a national army, they aren't funded from stolen money, but from you paying them.  If they do anything you dislike, you can fire them.




Quote
The only part of the Government required is the Judicial system?  Say again?  How do you plan organize American Society?  No Congress and No Administration?  You would dismantle the two other branches of the Federal Government?
Excuse me?  Why am I or YOU or ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL "organizing American Society".  Every person in the country can organize themselves however they see fit.

I admit it would be valuable to have a figurehead for people to look to, but it isn't necessary.

And Congress is a joke.  All they ever do is pass laws that further limit the freedoms of the people.



Quote
Then sir, I would suggest you do not believe in the US Constitution, nor the American Government, and would ask you to explain what you would replace it with so the United States can function in the modern world today?  And please no rhetoric.  I have had enough of that on this site for an entire lifetime of ten people.
Replace it with....... a court system.  One that follows Common Law and uses a loser pays system.

I don't want THE UNITED STATES functioning in the modern world.  THE UNITED STATES is a corporate entity that continually sucks wealth from the american populace.

I want a large group of individual sovereigns to stand together and agree to uphold the rights of one another.
When rights are infringed upon, that is what they court system is for.  Sovereigns could utilize the court system to receive fair retribution if they are wronged.

I have no desire for the STATE to control and order us sovereigns to do anything.
Logged
I love my country!

It's my government that sucks...

svillee

  • Friend of the FSP
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 105
  • I favor a constitutional plutocracy.
Re: XVI Amendment
« Reply #14 on: August 05, 2005, 09:51:22 pm »

I happen to hold a BA Degree in American History from Rutgers University, Class of 1977.

For what it's worth, I don't put much importance on educational degrees.  Over the last few decades, the phenomenon of grade inflation has made it easier and easier for people to get degrees, and so the degrees have become less and less meaningful.  I prefer to judge a person's credibility based on the actual merits of what he has to say.

You keep mentioning these two people, John Langdon and Nicholas Gilman.  Beyond the fact that they represented New Hampshire at the Constitutional Convention, I don't see that they did anything really significant.  The topic here is how to fund government, right?  Did these two people have some unique insight on the subject?  Or do you have some ideas of your own about proper sources of government revenue?  Please enlighten us.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5   Go Up