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

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

Behold my Blade PANDORIA
kiwifarms.net
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.
 
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.
 

Zeke Von Genbu

Behold my Blade PANDORIA
kiwifarms.net
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?
 
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?
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

Behold my Blade PANDORIA
kiwifarms.net
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

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?
 
Last edited:
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.

Siden 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?
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 (wow!) it will blow your mind like a book of prophecy.
 
U

UQ 770

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

Ibn al-Haytham

kiwifarms.net
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.
 
Last edited:
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

reality cartoonist
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
He who has a good pair of boots is not unarmed. I tread on you, snake.
9a2.png
 
Top