# Should we abolish the 16th and 17th Amendment?



## Sacrarium Spiritus lumine (Jul 21, 2019)

16th Amendment is: 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

Read this please. 16: Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution empowers Congress to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” Article I, Section 9, further states that “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

17 amendment is: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

Then read this please 17: Article one, section three of the US Constitution sets forth the original laws regarding the US Senate. This includes the provision of two senators per state, each serving a six-year term and each having one vote. It further provides that such senators shall be elected by the legislature of the state they represent. The 17th amendment provides for the same quantity of senators and votes, and for the same term of office, but it changes the method of election to a popular vote of the people, or electors. It further provides that such electors must meet voting qualifications, which is meant to include qualifications such as age and residency.


For context: prior to these amendments Taxes on the Federal duty was collected in uniform. Also no income tax. Also senators where elected by the state legislators of the home origin.

I personally think that this is the biggest problem the  United States is facing. What do you think?


----------



## ES 148 (Jul 21, 2019)

I think the biggest problem the United States is facing is Sam Hyde. If we can only detain him, everything will be solved.


----------



## VV 422 (Jul 21, 2019)

federal income tax is annoying and should be lower but most people who bring up the idea of abolishing it entirely are libertarians with an irrational fear of properly maintained roads


----------



## break these cuffs (Jul 21, 2019)

jackolasboot said:


> federal income tax is annoying and should be lower but most people who bring up the idea of abolishing it entirely are libertarians with an irrational fear of properly maintained roads


TAXATION IS THEFGT


----------



## OB 946 (Jul 21, 2019)

Just have a consumption tax. The further removed from necessity the higher the tax. Helps the poor and generates more revenue.


----------



## RetardedCat (Jul 21, 2019)

Crippled Eagle said:


> Just have a consumption tax. The further removed from necessity the higher the tax. Helps the poor and generates more revenue.


So is the VAT on McD's shit high or low?


----------



## Sped Xing (Jul 21, 2019)

Crippled Eagle said:


> Just have a consumption tax. The further removed from necessity the higher the tax. Helps the poor and generates more revenue.



Why does Uncle Sam get to decide what's "necessary" for me?  Feck off.


----------



## Teignmouth Electron (Jul 21, 2019)

16th Amendment: no. I hate taxation, but some level of taxation is necessary to maintain national defense at the very least.
17th Amendment: yes. Empowering state legislatures to appoint people to the Senate would in theory add an extra layer of insulation to the upper chamber to keep it from getting too distracted by the 24 hour outrage cycle and allow it to serve its function as a non-partisan deliberative body to advance the interests of the several states. The House is the riff-raff chamber, the Senate is supposed to represent the states.


----------



## OB 946 (Jul 21, 2019)

Ped Xing said:


> Why does Uncle Sam get to decide what's "necessary" for me?  Feck off.


Just have different categories. Food and guns and shit goes into the lowest, probably untaxed, and then there's just different levels of consumer goods, with the highest being shit like private jets.

Edit: or alternatively just put a tax on how much you spend. The more you spend in a year the higher your taxes are.


----------



## Teignmouth Electron (Jul 21, 2019)

Crippled Eagle said:


> Just have different categories. Food and guns and shit goes into the lowest, probably untaxed, and then there's just different levels of consumer goods, with the highest being shit like private jets.


This is more arbitrary than the current system, isn't it? Even with a progressive income tax, we can all agree that $100k is more than $40k. Where does a smart phone fall into the "necessary" vs. "luxury" category, for example?


----------



## Sped Xing (Jul 21, 2019)

I mean, sure, but we're talking about the US fucking Legislature.  Watch them decide I don't "need" a pickup because "muh fuel economy," since it's perfectly reasonable to tow livestock with a Prius


----------



## OB 946 (Jul 21, 2019)

Teignmouth Electron said:


> This is more arbitrary than the current system, isn't it? Even with a progressive income tax, we can all agree that $100k is more than $40k. Where does a smart phone fall into the "necessary" vs. "luxury" category, for example?



Like I said, have different levels of consumer goods. I think it's pretty obvious that telecommunications are a necessity in modern day society but not as necessary as food or guns, so it would be above the bare necessity bracket in like the lowest category of consumer goods.

Listen man this is just a thought experiment. Nothing more, nothing less. The point is while as a middle class American you may spend more on individual items, you overall spend less on taxes.

Edit: listen it's really not fair to bring government incompetence into this. We're building a brand new hypothetical tax system from the ground up. Nobody is going to take this seriously.


----------



## ICametoLurk (Jul 21, 2019)

Abolish all amendments.


----------



## whatever I feel like (Jul 21, 2019)

The sixteenth amendment is, strictly speaking, not necessary. There's nothing that made it illegal in the first place, it was only passed to shut the whiners up and get the legislation through a brought and paid for court system.

I actually do favor the repeal of the seventeenth, but its so unlikely and such a ethereal issue (oh, these people should be arguing for their state's interests, _as if that was what happened before the repeal and stopped afterwards_) that there's little purpose to putting serious thought into it.


----------



## Teignmouth Electron (Jul 21, 2019)

Crippled Eagle said:


> Like I said, have different levels of consumer goods. I think it's pretty obvious that telecommunications are a necessity in modern day society but not as necessary as food or guns, so it would be above the bare necessity bracket in like the lowest category of consumer goods.
> 
> Listen man this is just a thought experiment. Nothing more, nothing less. The point is while as a middle class American you may spend more on individual items, you overall spend less on taxes.
> 
> Edit: listen it's really not fair to bring government incompetence into this. We're building a brand new hypothetical tax system from the ground up. Nobody is going to take this seriously.


You cut off any response I could have with your edit - if government incompetence is out, then I concede your point.


----------



## OB 946 (Jul 21, 2019)

Teignmouth Electron said:


> You cut off any response I could have with your edit - if government incompetence is out, then I concede your point.


Yeah no, practically I work advocate for a significant reduction in taxes and a selloff of government assets to private companies.


----------



## whatever I feel like (Jul 21, 2019)

How does a consumption tax help the poor? Thats the opposite of what conventional political/economic thought says. Since poor people put a bigger portion of their income into direct spending, they get taxed more while people who can afford to save (the rich) do not.


----------



## OB 946 (Jul 21, 2019)

Lou Wrong said:


> How does a consumption tax help the poor? Thats the opposite of what conventional political/economic thought says. Since poor people put a bigger portion of their income into direct spending, they get taxed more while people who can afford to save (the rich) do not.



Yeah like I said you just make things you actually need untaxed or taxed at an absurdly low rate.


----------



## whatever I feel like (Jul 21, 2019)

Crippled Eagle said:


> Yeah like I said you just make things you actually need untaxed or taxed at an absurdly low rate.


Poor people still put more of their income into those things than the rich do. Your ideal world does not mimic reality. Thats true of most economic planning, but yours is flat-out less realistic than the current system so why should anyone pretend that its better than what we have now.


----------



## Sacrarium Spiritus lumine (Jul 21, 2019)

jackolasboot said:


> federal income tax is annoying and should be lower but most people who bring up the idea of abolishing it entirely are libertarians with an irrational fear of properly maintained roads


My big  argument was that the income tax was not flat. ( I might have to re-edit to  clarify ) . My issue is the Federal government picking winners and losers VIA tax code.  Back in the day the reason why income tax was not necessarily use this because it was hard to keep track of one’s income .  Now that “eyes are everywhere“, income tax can be practical. I would still prefer a  VAT tax.


----------



## Niggernerd (Jul 21, 2019)

Do not step on snek
Free my money 
Taxes are for homos (Brit's)


----------



## OB 946 (Jul 21, 2019)

Lou Wrong said:


> Poor people still put more of their income into those things than the rich do. Your ideal world does not mimic reality. Thats true of most economic planning, but yours is flat-out less realistic than the current system so why should anyone pretend that its better than what we have now.



I don't understand. Do rich people eat less? 

Let's say a working class person right now has a tax burden of like, 20%. I think the actual number for the average American is like 34% so 20 sounds alright. Let's say they spend 60% of that on food and other non taxed necessities. That's 60% of their income that just isn't being taxed. Even if the other 40% of the money they spend is taxed at 40%, which is pretty absurd that means that they are still only at an effective tax rate of 16%. Even then, realistically poor folks probably aren't going to buy a ton of expensive shit that would warrant a 40% tax rate.


----------



## Sacrarium Spiritus lumine (Jul 21, 2019)

Teignmouth Electron said:


> 16th Amendment: no. I hate taxation, but some level of taxation is necessary to maintain national defense at the very least.
> 17th Amendment: yes. Empowering state legislatures to appoint people to the Senate would in theory add an extra layer of insulation to the upper chamber to keep it from getting too distracted by the 24 hour outrage cycle and allow it to serve its function as a non-partisan deliberative body to advance the interests of the several states. The House is the riff-raff chamber, the Senate is supposed to represent the states.


I’m not saying “no taxes “ I’m saying all Federal taxes are to be flat and uniform.


----------



## whatever I feel like (Jul 21, 2019)

Crippled Eagle said:


> I don't understand. Do rich people eat less?
> 
> Let's say a working class person right now has a tax burden of like, 20%. I think the actual number for the average American is like 34% so 20 sounds alright. Let's say they spend 60% of that on food and other non taxed necessities. That's 60% of their income that just isn't being taxed. Even if the other 40% of the money they spend is taxed at 40%, which is pretty absurd that means that they are still only at an effective tax rate of 16%. Even then, realistically poor folks probably aren't going to buy a ton of expensive shit that would warrant a 40% tax rate.


Not all food is classified the same, lots of poor people only eat junk food, which is taxed. That is not going to change. The problem is that if they buy, say, a video game or a DVD or whatever with what is left over, that is a significant portion of their income, whereas a rich person would, despite spending more on luxuries, also be saving far more. You do not seem to understand that a huge portion of people save nothing.

And, assuming you aren't in favor of a huge deficit, these taxes would have to be massive to pay for everything the government does. Now, you say you want the government to stop doing most of those things, but the American people disagree. We actually do see these choices being made in the real world, for what its worth. States with balanced budget clauses (most of them) have to make choices between higher taxes and lower spending. And I'll give you a hint, lower spending does not always win, even in Republican states.


----------



## SmileyTimeDayCare (Jul 21, 2019)

Gotta have taxes unfortunately but the IRS needs to be torn down and a more transparent agency needs to replace it. The tax code needs to be burned and replaced with something straight forward.


----------



## OB 946 (Jul 21, 2019)

Lou Wrong said:


> Not all food is classified the same, lots of poor people only eat junk food, which is taxed. That is not going to change. The problem is that if they buy, say, a video game or a DVD or whatever with what is left over, that is a significant portion of their income, whereas a rich person would, despite spending more on luxuries, also be saving far more. You do not seem to understand that a huge portion of people save nothing.
> 
> And, assuming you aren't in favor of a huge deficit, these taxes would have to be massive to pay for everything the government does. Now, you say you want the government to stop doing most of those things, but the American people disagree. We actually do see these choices being made in the real world, for what its worth. States with balanced budget clauses (most of them) have to make choices between higher taxes and lower spending. And I'll give you a hint, lower spending does not always win, even in Republican states.



Again, we're talking about hypotheticals. As I've already said, if we wanted to actually make things more efficient we should just have the government sell off services that aren't absolutely necessary like the military and police. That being said, American corporations are so fucking corrupt that I don't really trust them either. I dunno. Maybe just burn it down and start over. Something something late Roman Republic.

Edit: or we can just do the normie thing and raise the marginal tax rate back to 90% which I think is totally fair. Do that while slashing corporate taxes to force rich folks to reinvest their money in the economy.


----------



## Clop (Jul 21, 2019)

Crippled Eagle said:


> I don't understand. Do rich people eat less?


Yes. When you're poor, you don't want to eat something that's healthy, you want something that hits you right in the dopamines because you're poor and money does indeed get you a bit of happiness through financial security. Then the government comes along to tax that food to stop you from eating it but you need that shit because you're poor and life sucks bad enough without rich cunts taking away your hamburgers.

It's just like smoking. There's a reason why people smoke cigarettes, but fucking nobody who _doesn't_ smoke gives a fuck, they just want to preach to people who are feeling miserable.


----------



## Teignmouth Electron (Jul 21, 2019)

Sacrarium Spiritus lumine said:


> I’m not saying “no taxes “ I’m saying all Federal taxes are to be flat and uniform.


A flat tax has to be based on income or consumption.

Consumption taxes tend to be incredibly regressive unless you rig the structure such that it functions as a backdoor income tax (exempt food and basic necessities, higher consumption taxes on luxury goods). A flat income tax would be fine, there's nothing in the 16th Amendment that requires a progressive income tax.


----------



## Zeke Von Genbu (Jul 21, 2019)

Sacrarium Spiritus lumine said:


> I’m not saying “no taxes “ I’m saying all Federal taxes are to be flat and uniform.



What do you mean by this and why is this a good idea? Flat taxes are generally considered more unfair, even if they are simpler, because the reason the progressive tax system exists is because it in theory makes sense that the rich can bare the burden of higher taxes then the poor.


----------



## OB 946 (Jul 21, 2019)

Clop said:


> Yes. When you're poor, you don't want to eat something that's healthy, you want something that hits you right in the dopamines because you're poor and money does indeed get you a bit of happiness through financial security. Then the government comes along to tax that food to stop you from eating it but you need that shit because you're poor and life sucks bad enough without rich cunts taking away your hamburgers.
> 
> It's just like smoking. There's a reason why people smoke cigarettes, but fucking nobody who _doesn't_ smoke gives a fuck, they just want to preach to people who are feeling miserable.


Just like, don't tax shitty food.


----------



## Clop (Jul 21, 2019)

Crippled Eagle said:


> Just like, don't tax shitty food.


But gubmint don't know any other way to stop people from turning themselves into an obese liability. A 600lbs elephant likely can't pay back into the system, they just cost more tax dollars. You need a way to stop people from being miserable, which is fucking impossible.


----------



## Terminus Est (Jul 21, 2019)

Vrakks said:


> I think the biggest problem the United States is facing is Sam Hyde. If we can only detain him, everything will be solved.


I'm with you. This madness needs to end


----------



## OB 946 (Jul 21, 2019)

Clop said:


> But gubmint don't know any other way to stop people from turning themselves into an obese liability. A 600lbs elephant likely can't pay back into the system, they just cost more tax dollars. You need a way to stop people from being miserable, which is fucking impossible.


Just make opiates over the counter.


----------



## The Pink Panther (Jul 21, 2019)

Libertarianism to the 4th power.


----------



## Mender Bug (Jul 21, 2019)

Just legalize  all recreational drugs and just tax the shit out of it.


----------



## RadicalCentrist (Jul 21, 2019)

jackolasboot said:


> federal income tax is annoying and should be lower but most people who bring up the idea of abolishing it entirely are libertarians with an irrational fear of properly maintained roads


Ah yes American infrastructure, the envy of the world


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Jul 21, 2019)

Crippled Eagle said:


> Just have a consumption tax.



Shifting taxation from income to consumption would be a bad idea for two reasons: first, it would massively shift the tax burden from the richest to the poorest (for the reasons @Lou Wrong has already mentioned), and second, it would hinder economic growth by causing an increase in prices and a reduction in consumer spending.

A much more effective reform would be to increase taxes on corporations and capital gains, while reducing taxes on income for all but the very highest earners. The trouble with America's existing tax system is that it's weighted to favor the rich, when in actuality it's working and middle class consumers who primarily drive economic growth.


----------



## Y2K Baby (Jul 21, 2019)

Yes, fuck the feds. State taxes only.
(Which means Texas will have no income tax. :^)


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jul 21, 2019)

Abolish the 15th amendment, the blacks have gotten too uppity for too long.  BOTTOM TEXT.


----------



## BoingoTango (Jul 21, 2019)

Crippled Eagle said:


> Edit: or alternatively just put a tax on how much you spend. The more you spend in a year the higher your taxes are.


That sounds like a really good way to stifle the economy and cause collapses. You need people to spend money for the economy to work. That's part of our problem now is that you have a few people with way, way more money than they could possibly spend, so it is effectively taking out of the economy.


----------



## Sacrarium Spiritus lumine (Jul 21, 2019)

Zeke Von Genbu said:


> What do you mean by this and why is this a good idea? Flat taxes are generally considered more unfair, even if they are simpler, because the reason the progressive tax system exists is because it in theory makes sense that the rich can bare the burden of higher taxes then the poor.


Then be in a state with a progressive tax code. My problem is the government has the authority to pick winners and losers on a federal level. How many times have you heard of the “big bad evil corporates” evading taxes (in all honesty I would like to see corporations abolish or at least reform) evading taxes? Well the 16th allows it to happen .


----------



## Zeke Von Genbu (Jul 21, 2019)

Sacrarium Spiritus lumine said:


> Then be in a state with a progressive tax code. My problem is the government has the authority to pick winners and losers on a federal level. How many times have you heard of the “big bad evil corporates” evading taxes (in all honesty I would like to see corporations abolish or at least reform) evading taxes? Well the 16th allows it to happen .



I'm not against the idea of reforming the tax code to make evading taxes more difficult or impossible. Though I'd have no idea where to even begin with that.

I just don't see why we need a flat tax to do that unless we're trying to ultra simplify the entire tax code, but even then I don't quite understand why it has to be a flat tax rate and not a progressive system. Also why are we talking about states when you're talking about federal taxes? Those are different types of taxes.


----------



## Sacrarium Spiritus lumine (Jul 26, 2019)

Zeke Von Genbu said:


> I'm not against the idea of reforming the tax code to make evading taxes more difficult or impossible. Though I'd have no idea where to even begin with that.
> 
> I just don't see why we need a flat tax to do that unless we're trying to ultra simplify the entire tax code, but even then I don't quite understand why it has to be a flat tax rate and not a progressive system. Also why are we talking about states when you're talking about federal taxes? Those are different types of taxes.


You stop  tax evasion by making it uniformed. Everyone pays “this”, black and white with no wiggle room. There are various form of tax systems for this: flat tax, fair tax, VAT tax, and my personal favorite VAT fair tax. Why did I talk about states? The 16th altered the federal constitution, but it has no interference with the states own constitution’s .  So as I was saying, if you want a progressive tax just go to a state with one.


----------



## AF 802 (Jul 27, 2019)

What about taxing people I don't like and me receiving the taxes? It's like a jizya for being a troon.


----------



## Zeke Von Genbu (Jul 28, 2019)

Sacrarium Spiritus lumine said:


> You stop  tax evasion by making it uniformed. Everyone pays “this”, black and white with no wiggle room. There are various form of tax systems for this: flat tax, fair tax, VAT tax, and my personal favorite VAT fair tax. Why did I talk about states? The 16th altered the federal constitution, but it has no interference with the states own constitution’s .  So as I was saying, if you want a progressive tax just go to a state with one.



State and federal are entirely different and separate taxes. Federal taxes are that thing everyone pays to the US government and if you owe your state taxes for whatever reason that means you can owe state taxes in addition to your federal taxes. So it doesn't matter if my hypothetical state is a progressive system if the entire federal government taxes me on a flat rate, because well they're entirely different taxes. So that entire point, as it stands with our current system unless we just remove federal taxes as a concept, means nothing unless I misunderstand something.

Also even you're basically making everyone that is poor move to a progressive tax code state, assuming any exist and are functional because why would rich people ever go to a progressive system and if mostly the poor exist in the state how well will it function compared to its peers? The latter point is just speculation, but I think just going up and moving presents some challenges due to cost of moving and finding new employment as soon as possible.

Also our current tax system despite all the bullshit does generally make some positive things happen. For example once charity deductions were messed with in the latest tax reform, due to the cap on SALT deductions that was introduced alongside the increased standard deduction, suddenly I heard stories of people getting mail from charities they've legitimately never heard of that apparently have existed for a long time. Because they're desperate for money because charitable donations got screwed over because their are less tax incentives to donate. In addition, what about deducations on buying equipment for small businesses/start ups? You can take those costs immediately, instead of using MACRS depreciation, which can help lower your taxes during likely the most unstable and stressful point of your start up the first couple years or just to reduce your income for whatever reason while buying something for your business.

So I suppose my next question is, what do you say to those part of the tax code that it actively helps and pushes up sections of society that we probably should care about like small businesses and charities?


----------



## Sacrarium Spiritus lumine (Jul 29, 2019)

Zeke Von Genbu said:


> State and federal are entirely different and separate taxes. Federal taxes are that thing everyone pays to the US government and if you owe your state taxes for whatever reason that means you can owe state taxes in addition to your federal taxes. So it doesn't matter if my hypothetical state is a progressive system if the entire federal government taxes me on a flat rate, because well they're entirely different taxes. So that entire point, as it stands with our current system unless we just remove federal taxes as a concept, means nothing unless I misunderstand something.
> 
> Also even you're basically making everyone that is poor move to a progressive tax code state, assuming any exist and are functional because why would rich people ever go to a progressive system and if mostly the poor exist in the state how well will it function compared to its peers? The latter point is just speculation, but I think just going up and moving presents some challenges due to cost of moving and finding new employment as soon as possible.
> 
> ...


First paragraph: I think we are in agreement, I just need practice to express my idea/opinions. As I believe we have a miss communication with each other.

second paragraph: well then I guess the state would have to be  responsible with the money they are given in a high tax system. Obviously my bias is low taxes, no deductions, flat (Value Added Tax) but someone can point to the Scandinavian nation and say “ their taxes are high and they are doing great “ . I would then point out that they are very free market, and their public system aren’t as broken and corrupted as ours (USA). If the state can show the the public funds, go where it’s supposed to, do what it’s supposed to, and not be a place for bloated overpaid corrupt voting bloc ( I know my bias is showing on the last clause) then you could see wealthy people staying in progressive tax system. Last part, nothing stopping states from having  deductions .

3rd: this is where we might have some major differences in opinions. Why have deductions when we could just have low federal taxes, then donate? And in a high tax state then I guess you are donating to your state, and maybe your state is putting it to good use. Like supporting  etc. etc. 

You under stand that the SALT tax screws over the Low taxed states?  The exemption keeps money in the state of high taxed areas and low taxed states don’t get that exemption. Do you not see that as a problem?  Do you think people need to be encouraged to donate by deductions? There was a time when that was not the case, “Democracy America” explains it very well. Not that I am open to discussion. Peace


----------



## Zeke Von Genbu (Jul 29, 2019)

Sacrarium Spiritus lumine said:


> First paragraph: I think we are in agreement, I just need practice to express my idea/opinions. As I believe we have a miss communication with each other.
> 
> second paragraph: well then I guess the state would have to be  responsible with the money they are given in a high tax system. Obviously my bias is low taxes, no deductions, flat (Value Added Tax) but someone can point to the Scandinavian nation and say “ their taxes are high and they are doing great “ . I would then point out that they are very free market, and their public system aren’t as broken and corrupted as ours (USA). If the state can show the the public funds, go where it’s supposed to, do what it’s supposed to, and not be a place for bloated overpaid corrupt voting bloc ( I know my bias is showing on the last clause) then you could see wealthy people staying in progressive tax system. Last part, nothing stopping states from having  deductions .
> 
> ...



2nd: So if I understand you correctly, you want to basically dismantle the federal government and just make the states run themselves? Because we seem to be running off the idea of abolishing the federal income tax which would basically unbudget the federal government. One possible issue that I see is states trying to compete for the types of citizens they want so they'll keep adjusting their tax codes around to get what they want, just lower taxes just to say "We lowered taxes!!!" in an election without any real care for what the state actually needs. Is that really a good idea?

I think this sort of reforming goes beyond just adjusting the tax code, though perhaps I am misunderstanding you. So please confirm. I also will admit to being a ignorant American and say I don't know anything about Scandinavia so I can't really respond to that, just saying this so I don't look like I'm ignoring what you said, I just don't have a response right now. I'm just an accounting student who saw something questionable in what you said regarding flat taxes vs a progressive system, so I'm not exactly the type to have deep conversations about worldly politics, so I'm arguing mostly from what I've learned from my studying of the tax code and what I've asked my professors regarding the tax code.

3rd: Because you're assuming people will just donate and not just amass money for themselves, or invest in something to amass more money, or just buy stupid shit. Their are plenty of things you can do with money, and to some people charity isn't one of the first 5 things that cross their mind unless they have a special attachment to a charity. I don't think what I'm saying is that unrealistic or pessimistic, maybe a generation or two later things might start to adjust to this mindset you're thinking of, but right now with how we currently think? I'm pressing X to doubt on that one.

I mean sure it is unfair from low to high on average though any amount of SALT is useful if you can itemize, though it highly depends on the rest of your itemized deductions for that year and what the standard deduction threshold actually is, but if that tax gets reduced to your federal taxes it is much easier to ask your citizens to give them more tax dollars. What if you actually need such high taxes to function without a reform of some sort, then the SALT is a means to lessen the burden on the people. Especially for the middle class, as the poor in my anecdotel experience don't pay much/any taxes in general so SALT is useless to them, who need deductions more than anyone and the rich if they actually are forced to pay can afford to pay basically any taxes they want.

Side note, I don't know what "Democracy America" is referring to, could you point me in the right direction so I can at least understand what you're talking about?


----------



## Spech (Jul 29, 2019)

Crippled Eagle said:


> Just have a consumption tax. The further removed from necessity the higher the tax. Helps the poor and generates more revenue.


In some places, this is called a sales tax


----------



## An Account (Jul 29, 2019)

Abolish all taxes and have the government fund itself through patreon.


----------



## Sacrarium Spiritus lumine (Jul 29, 2019)

Zeke Von Genbu said:


> 2nd: So if I understand you correctly, you want to basically dismantle the federal government and just make the states run themselves? Because we seem to be running off the idea of abolishing the federal income tax which would basically unbudget the federal government. One possible issue that I see is states trying to compete for the types of citizens they want so they'll keep adjusting their tax codes around to get what they want, just lower taxes just to say "We lowered taxes!!!" in an election without any real care for what the state actually needs. Is that really a good idea?
> 
> I think this sort of reforming goes beyond just adjusting the tax code, though perhaps I am misunderstanding you. So please confirm. I also will admit to being a ignorant American and say I don't know anything about Scandinavia so I can't really respond to that, just saying this so I don't look like I'm ignoring what you said, I just don't have a response right now. I'm just an accounting student who saw something questionable in what you said regarding flat taxes vs a progressive system, so I'm not exactly the type to have deep conversations about worldly politics, so I'm arguing mostly from what I've learned from my studying of the tax code and what I've asked my professors regarding the tax code.
> 
> ...


2nd: I  must have the hardest time in trying to communicate, and it’s not just you.  The first page of this thread of having me be a dumb libertarian who wants no taxes. Yes, I want the federal government to get taxes, the reason why we had to void the “ Articles of confederation” and replace it with our current constitution was because the federal government was too weak and had no revenue. My argument is how the taxes are implemented. 

3nd: we are going to have a difference in opinion. I don’t know why “the State” should hold your money until you decide to deduct it is beyond me to comprehend, but you do you. ( there must be something I don’t know)
And don’t get me wrong: roads need to be paved, First responders need to be paid, and schools need to be available. It’s just that it’s a whole lot easier to reach the mayor(and city council) then the President (and Congress) if the funds are miss managed. 

So here is my big take, Was the first President to use income tax, to fund the civil war.  A few decades later  the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. The American people collectively  said “ the income tax wasn’t that bad let’ Make it a Amendment. In comes the 16th (and 17th but that’s a different story) it only involved with the 2% of the population and it was only one sheet of paper. Now the tax code can fill a semitrailer and I am not joking.

So my rabbit hole: I use to be a meat head, Bushite singing “and i’m Proud to be an American” kind of  idiot . Then I joined the Air Force. Then I left the Air Force  as a disenfranchised  angry libertarian. So I spent some time taking on “The Federalist Papers” and realized that a libertarian system is what I prefer, but I should not enforce that system on any city county or state I don’t live in. Which I guess it makes me a Federalist  constitutionalist ( because we need labels on everything). So here I am making a post on Kiwi Farms I am shocked people are talking about it . 

If you want to know how my mind was shaped in regards to taxes ,please The Federalist Papers: No.12, 30 to 36. A free Audio is on YouTube. It is also public domain so free copies can be found on the internet. 

Ps. Democracy in America is written by Alexis De Tocqueville (1805-1859) and old book about his Observations of the American people. There’s both good and bad things he has to say about the United States and it’s half the size of the Bible. have fun

Pps. It’s also public domain  etc. etc. 

Ppps. I don’t want to come off like I know everything, but the Federalist Papers (!) it will blow your mind like a book of  prophecy.


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 30, 2019)

He who has a good pair of boots is not unarmed. I tread on you, snake.


----------



## Ibn al-Haytham (Mar 25, 2021)

The only hope for any return to normalcy for America would be to abolish ALL of the robber amendments, being all of the ones imposed at gunpoint. Going through them all:
13 - Legalizes slavery as a "punishment for a crime"
14 - Revokes the right of the citizenry to define citizenship on national lines, allowing the state to import "citizens" at will
15 - Explicitly gives the right to vote to people of other "color" (being not of the founding stock) and illiterate former slaves.
16 - Allows the federal government to tax you for working
17 - Abolishes the right of the states to control the federal government by turning the Senate into another House of "Representatives"
18 - A good attempt to fix a societal ill, also the only amendment to be repealed, basically establishing precedent for the repeal of 1-12 (particularly 2)
19 - Women are given political power over men at will
20 - Nullifies the capacity for lame duck Presidents to contest an election (see 2020)
21 - Revokes power of states to enforce their own liquor laws without federal involvement
22 - "Now that our demagogue basically ruined America, we are going to make sure YOU can't elect one to reverse the damage done"
23 - D.C. inhabitants now have an inflated representation in elections
24 - Abolishes states' rights to regulate their own election, such as the right to prevent illiterates from voting unknowingly for expansion of federal power
25 - Gives whoever controls congress the ability to remove any President who goes to far against their wishes
26 - Gives everyone fresh out of state-run high school a vote equal to those generations who have actually experienced enough to understand how the system works
27 - Ok fine this one is based, only because it was over 200 years old at the time of "ratification"
Of course, it is unlikely that any of these will be repealed, but don't be surprised if your grandkids in public school learn about how stunning and brave it was for those congressmen to stand up to the NRA and repeal the 2A.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Mar 25, 2021)

There are multiple states in which income taxes don’t exist. In Tennessee it’s unconstitutional.

the federal government survived over a hundred years without an income tax.


----------



## Webby's Boyfriend (Mar 25, 2021)

UQ 770 said:


> He who has a good pair of boots is not unarmed. I tread on you, snake.


----------

