Should we abolish the 16th and 17th Amendment?

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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
Crippled Eagle said:
I don't understand. Do rich people eat less?
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: George Geef
Sacrarium Spiritus lumine said:
I’m not saying “no taxes “ I’m saying all Federal taxes are to be flat and uniform.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Sacrarium Spiritus lumine said:
I’m not saying “no taxes “ I’m saying all Federal taxes are to be flat and uniform.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Just like, don't tax shitty food.
 
  • Like
Reactions: George Geef
Crippled Eagle said:
Just like, don't tax shitty food.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Just make opiates over the counter.
 
Crippled Eagle said:
Just have a consumption tax.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Agree
  • Disagree
Reactions: George Geef, whatever I feel like and Y2K Baby
Yes, fuck the feds. State taxes only.
(Which means Texas will have no income tax. :^)
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: George Geef and Teignmouth Electron
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back