2 edits | reply to tschmidt
Re: . said by tschmidt:said by Tzale:Taxes are wrong. So how do you propose funding government services? /tom When the country was founded, the Fed. gov't was supposed to provide basic fundamental services, like delivering the mail, national defense, and the Treasury, to name a few.
Maybe there are just too many gov't services that require funding.
Before the 16th amendment, there were no Fed. taxes. When they were implemented, it was 1% for all. |
|
|
|
| said by MrSpock29:When the country was founded, the Fed. gov't was supposed to provide basic fundamental services, like delivering the mail, national defense, and the Treasury, to name a few. Maybe there are just too many gov't services that require funding. Before the 16th amendment, there were no Fed. taxes. When they were implemented, it was 1% for all. This is a state tax...
--
---
Over ten plus years of carrying The Clue Bat... |
|
| said by NetAdmin1:said by MrSpock29:When the country was founded, the Fed. gov't was supposed to provide basic fundamental services, like delivering the mail, national defense, and the Treasury, to name a few. Maybe there are just too many gov't services that require funding. Before the 16th amendment, there were no Fed. taxes. When they were implemented, it was 1% for all. This is a state tax... Yes, of course it is. |
|
| The only reason I mentioned it was because you were talking about the federal government and federal taxes...
--
---
Over ten plus years of carrying The Clue Bat... |
|
 jgkoltPremium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH | plus how prominent was telephones when the country was formed ehhhhh. maybe thats why you didnt see them mentioning telephone with mail and national defense.
--
Learning how to invest? Sign up to get 3 free trades for you and for me each. PM me |
|
| reply to NetAdmin1
said by NetAdmin1:The only reason I mentioned it was because you were talking about the federal government and federal taxes... I know, but I took the comment I was responding too as a generalization, and not really just about this tax. In fact, I took both comments that way. But I think there is a point made there in either instance. |
|
 alanhdslPremium
join:1999-10-09
Phoenix, AZ
1 edit | reply to MrSpock29
said by MrSpock29 :
Before the 16th amendment, there were no Fed. taxes. When they were implemented, it was 1% for all. This is a myth. The Whiskey Rebellion in 1794 was over federal taxes on liquor.
If you're talking about the federal income tax specifically, it was first passed in 1861, 55 years before the 16th Amendment -- 3% of income over $800.
Contrary to popular belief, income taxes have always been legal. The 16th Amendment was in response to a Supreme Court ruling that income derived from rents and royalties was actually a property tax. The 16th overruled this by saying that income from "any source" could be taxed. Income from wages was still taxable during this time.
This of course has nothing to do with tax policy -- how much taxes and on what. That's a valid debate. But you should really understand the history correctly.
And it also has nothing to do with this tax, which is a state tax. Despite having some of the highest taxes in the country, California's population is expected to increase by 12.5 million by 2030. If it's so terrible, why does everyone want to move there? |
|
 amarryatVerizon FiOS
join:2005-05-02
Marshfield, MA
 ·Verizon FiOS
| said by alanhdsl:Despite having some of the highest taxes in the country, California's population is expected to increase by 12.5 million by 2030. If it's so terrible, why does everyone want to move there? Adjusted for general population growth of this country, and for illegal immigration, what does that number look like? The weather is probably a big factor, but you can probably find other states expecting more growth. |
|
| reply to alanhdsl
Its the apportionment clause that is the real killer in the 16th amendment:
"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."
Before this, the USCon stated,
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States..."
"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." |
|
alanhdslPremium
join:1999-10-09
Phoenix, AZ | reply to amarryat
#1 in percentage growth is Nevada, they rank #39 overall in state taxes. Although they don't have an income tax, they have high sales and property taxes, along with business taxes (gambling).
Alaska has the lowest personal state taxes, but they take in a lot in business (oil) taxes. Next lowest taxes are Mississippi, Montana, West Virginia, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and South Dakota.
On the other hand, biggest growth is in Nevada, Florida, Arizona, Texas, Utah, Idaho, North Carolina, Georgia, Washington, and Oregon.
Population figures: »www.census.gov/population/www/pr···sex.html
Tax figures: »www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/387.html
Montana has its charm, but all said I'd rather live in California or New York (#1 and #2 in taxes). |
|
alanhdslPremium
join:1999-10-09
Phoenix, AZ | reply to Anon1
said by Anon1 :
Its the apportionment clause that is the real killer in the 16th amendment:
"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."
Before this, the USCon stated,
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States..."
"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." That's correct, though I think the scope isn't the "killer" you say it is, as it's restricted to taxes on income. The Supreme Court said that that taxes on income derived from property, like rents and royalties, were actually direct taxes and thus subject to apportionment. The 16th moved those back into the class of income rather than direct taxes and thus not subject to apportionment. Taxes on other forms of income, such as wages, were unaffected by the whole thing. |
|
 pogPremium
join:2004-06-03
Kihei, HI
 ·Hawaiian Telcom
| reply to alanhdsl
said by alanhdsl:... Despite having some of the highest taxes in the country, California's population is expected to increase by 12.5 million by 2030. If it's so terrible, why does everyone want to move there? I wonder what proportion of those 12.5 million people go to CA with the express purpose of living off of social programs supported by those tax dollars.
IOW, it wouldn't surprise me if CA is attracting more than their share of welfare cases, illegal aliens, etc.
--
My Site |
|
alanhdslPremium
join:1999-10-09
Phoenix, AZ | California is #12 in median household income, New York is #19. This is the median, so a few Michael Eisners can't skew it high. Lowest is our low-tax nirvana, Mississippi. Alaska is the only low-tax state that ranked high. |
|
 TsumePremium
join:2004-02-23
Johnson City, TN
 ·Comcast
| But it really should be #1 to scale properly with the taxes =/
I think that data helps the argument of the moochers flocking over to Cali since it's so easy to hop on the welfare/foodstamp/WIC/low income housing/etc train.
I worked with this mexican dude who had 2 kids. He was living off of food stamps, had a low income housing place in a very nice development in San Marcos (which he all got by not listing his wife's income on the app), but made 12/hr full time with overtime. He was able to afford a brand new civic SI with all the insurance very easily, with much money left over for booze.
The system really needs fixing. |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·Cox HSI
 ·T-Mobile US
| said by Tsume:The system really needs fixing. The system is fine, aside from the liars. Somehow I doubt your coworker would have done so well were it not for the second income from his wife.
Besides, a Civic SI does not cost nearly as much as you think it does..it's only a $20,000 car, which on a 60 month loan is only about $350 a month.
What I find disturbing is that you think that $12/hr is enough to get by with two children. Well, that and you felt the need to mention he was Mexican, which really has no bearing on your story. I've seen plenty of poor white folk who game the system, as well as plenty who refuse to accept assistance, even when they're in dire need.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | reply to MrSpock29
The point is that our Founding Fathers limited the extent to which the federal government could tax, so as to leave the rest of context for the states. |
|
 jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | reply to wierdo
When food and rent are subsidized by others, $12 is obviously enough to get by on, and even thrive. The "poor" today in America are better off than anywhere else in the world at any time. |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·T-Mobile US
1 edit | said by jester121:When food and rent are subsidized by others, $12 is obviously enough to get by on, and even thrive. The "poor" today in America are better off than anywhere else in the world at any time. Even subsidized housing isn't that cheap, and you're not thinking of the two children. Children are expensive, in many more ways than just food. Can one "get by?" Sure. Can one afford things like health care? No.
$12 an hour today is like making $9 an hour in 1998. I would not say that any of the people I know who were making $9 an hour in 1998 were more than just scraping by.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. |
|
pogPremium
join:2004-06-03
Kihei, HI Reviews:
·Hawaiian Telcom
| I'm sure it varies around the country but it's too hard to sum up the "user experience" into one neat little package. Too many holes where certain classes of people are left out... as well as a LOT (I mean a LOT!) of benefits that overlap or do not take anything else into account.
Here in Hawaii, we have QUEST that provides gov sponsored health coverage to those that meet income/asset limits. Comparable dependent coverage is between $150-$600 depending on one's employer, number of dependents and the employer's available plan.
HUD provides housing vouchers based on family size charging no more than 1/3 of ones income for rent but approving suitable housing based on family size. A single mom with children of both sexes is likely to get approved for a 3 or more bedroom house... going rate for that is easily $1400 and up (and up). If mom pulls in $900 a month, she's charged $300.
Certain welfare programs also provide vehicle insurance, bus passes, food stamps, free after school programs, baby sitting, day care, school tuition, free school lunches, local utility bill relief, medical co-payments reduced or eliminated, etc.
The point is that if all these benefits are added up, many recipients would need to earn $60k-$75k+ in gross wages to actually pay everything for themselves.
The people who get left out are usually homeless (mental illness, drug abuse) or are those who try to get off the system one step at a time only to find that their benefits dry up with just a tiny increase in income. I literally have had employees refuse extra work just because it would jeopardize their benefits.
I don't have a problem with the fact that these services are available for people in need... I would just like a more cohesive accounting system AND some realistic goals/understandings in terms of self-sufficiency.
--
My Site |
|
| reply to MrSpock29
Morally speaking, the only just purpose and scope of government is to protect INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. That is implemented by a military to protect from foreign invasion, a police force to protect individuals from initiation of force by other individuals, and a court system to settle contract disputes among individuals and corporations. All other forms of government are improper, and are responsible for the widening noose of collectivism on individual rights and freedoms. Man was never meant to be a collective being. Collectivism is counter to man's nature, hence in ever society where it is force, there is conflict, violence and war. |
|
