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

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?
 

break these cuffs

THANK YOU AJ
kiwifarms.net
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 :stickup:

galveston flag.jpg
 

Teignmouth Electron

Mike Zulu Uniform Whiskey
kiwifarms.net
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.
 
O

OB 946

Guest
kiwifarms.net
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

Mike Zulu Uniform Whiskey
kiwifarms.net
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?
 
O

OB 946

Guest
kiwifarms.net
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.
 

whatever I feel like

Disney Diaper Size Fetish Enthusiast
kiwifarms.net
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

Mike Zulu Uniform Whiskey
kiwifarms.net
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.
 
O

OB 946

Guest
kiwifarms.net
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

Disney Diaper Size Fetish Enthusiast
kiwifarms.net
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.
 
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.
 
Top