Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
If being forced to give our money to the government can be considered "involuntary servitude," could it be possible that we have been duly convicted of some crime without our knowledge? Or has Congress made slaves of the lot of us through "appropriate legislation."
If the nation incurs debt, using its citizenry as collateral, perhaps we have all been convicted in advance for non-payment of a debt.
I don't mind paying taxes as long as everybody else has to pay too, but I'd like to know whether I'm a slave or a criminal in the government's eyes. Probably both.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, us giving the money isn't involuntary servitude.
The same document that forbids slavery also allows income tax.
quote: Amendment XVI
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.
posted
newfoundlogic, I think the question isn't can the government tax us, it's how moral is it for them to tax us.
The sixteenth ammendment was created after the Supreme Court declared a federal income tax unconstitutional in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. 1895. At that time, the tax was for 2% on all who had an annual income over $4000. At the time, congressman wondered about the future possibilities of the bill, outraged that what if the tax increased to 5% or the unbelievalble 8 or 10%. Other congressman laughed them off, saying that something like that could never happen. Well, it could and it did. Now the average family needs to have two income earners, one just to cover the taxes.
To me, this is unbelievably immoral, and skillery, I'd have to vote for slave.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amanecer- Completely irrelevent. Any case before the Ammendment cannot be considered because an ammendment cannot be found unconstitutional. It is inherently part of the Constitution.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Err, yes, please feel free to share your outrage the next time you're in need of courts, policemen, firemen, or the military.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Amanecer- Completely irrelevent. Any case before the Ammendment cannot be considered because an ammendment cannot be found unconstitutional. It is inherently part of the Constitution.
I never said it was unconstitutional, in fact I said, "I think the question isn't can the government tax us, it's how moral is it for them to tax us." The question is not legality, but morality. Further, I was trying to say that I don't believe the creaters of the ammendment would happy with the way it is currently used.
Newfoundlogic, I'm all for "courts, policemen, firemen, or the military" but not via involuntary servtitude. I believe in the Fair Tax Plan, which essentially calls for a national sales tax. Then people aren't punished for earning.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A sales tax high enough to fund everything the federal government does would be deadly to the economy. People wouldn't buy anything short of food. The fact that people wouldn't buy anything would mean there be virtually no tax revenue and the government would be useless.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
nfl, Agreed. The answer? In my book, cut out just about everything short of what you listed: courts, policemen, firemen, or the military. I dream of the end of the welfare state, a world where the government exists to protect people's life, liberty, or property from force or fraud. To me, this is beautiful because it means self-responsibility, responsibility to family, and the need for personal charity. You might not share this dream, but I believe it is the best possible solution. I think that a sales tax would keep the government in check. When they take money directly from my check, I never really consider that money to mine. It's done without my consent and I feel helpless in the face of it. With a national sales tax, the power goes back to me. Everytime I purchase an item, I see how much the goverment is charging me. This makes every new funding bill seem far more important than it currently is. I think that most would join me in asking if such a bill was really necessesary, because if enacted we would FEEL the difference. This necessary checks and balances is instead replaced with the helplessness of the income tax.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about maintaining infrastructure? What about hospitals? What about schools? What about any number of other things? The end total cost of a modern society requires an income tax. Also don't forget that police, fire, and military are all underfunded as it is, so if we did cut other programs we should use that oppurtunity to better fund the essentials.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: What about maintaining infrastructure? What about hospitals? What about schools? What about any number of other things?
Privitization. People seem to think that only the government is capable of maintaining certain things, but they ignore the incredible ability that people have to do these things themselves. Catholic schools, a good example of privitized schooling because the income level of students varies greatly, are notorious for outperforming public schools. Governmental bureaucracy creates barriers to efficiency and success. Except in protecting us from each other, there is no need for the government to get involved.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think I want a private company completely in charge of my medical treatment.
We have enough of that problem with HMO's.
I bet you would change your mind if the "privatized" fire trucks decided to not go to your house when it was in flames...because it was too far away for them to make a profit on...
posted
I like the sales tax idea, but I think the taxed items should be categorized so that the tax dollars go to the segment of government that supports the structure around the purchased item.
Property tax (you live in a house, so you need...): fire dept., police(jails and courts), libraries(?)
Multifamily dwelling tax (you live in an apartment or condo, so you need more than regular home owners...): fire dept., police
Cold cereal tax, food tax (you are raising children or you are keeping yourself alive through the labor of others, so you need...): schools, and the part of the government that subsidizes the people who make your food (socialized health care, day care, food stamps, immigration, etc.)
(Please note that most of us would be dead if we had to produce our own food. Food and the cost of delivering it should be a lot more expensive than it currently is.)
Gasoline tax (you drive a car, so you need...): local roads, highway patrol, military protection for the oil delivery infrastructure
(In Utah part of our gasoline tax goes to schools. Consequently our roads suck.)
Consumer items and durable goods tax (these items are not made locally, so you need...): interstate highway system
(Most food is not manufactured locally, so put some of our food tax into interstate highways.)
Imported consumer goods tax (you like to buy stuff made in China, so you need...): U.S. customs, Coast Guard, military protection of trade routes.
Airline tax: FAA
Drug tax: FDA, socialized health care
Gun tax: BATF, socialized health care
Booze tax: police, fire, socialized health care
Tobacco tax: fire, socialized health care
Utilities tax: regulatory commissions and delivery infrastructure
posted
"Food and the cost of delivering it should be a lot more expensive than it currently is."
Interesting, then, that you would raise taxes on almost all necessities and eliminate taxes on almost all luxuries, thus ensuring that the poor would wind up spending a significantly higher percentage of their income on their tax burden. How would you avoid this situation without crippling a sales tax scheme?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Furthermore, to ensure that no American pays tax on necessities, the FairTax plan provides a prepaid, monthly rebate for every registered household to cover the consumption tax spent on necessities up to the federal poverty level. This, along with several other features, is how the FairTax completely untaxes the poor, lowers the tax burden on most, while making the overall rate progressive
So, the poor aren't getting hurt from this. Also, I don't understand where your "eliminate taxes on almost all luxuries" comes from. Luxuries sound like consumer goods, which would be covered by both the fair tax plan and skillery's plan. I'm lost there...
Skillery, I really like your plan. It sounds fair and makes a lot of sense. It turns the dollar into a vote. Don't like some area of government spending? then don't financially support it. That's truly awesome!
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What about maintaining infrastructure? What about hospitals? What about schools? What about any number of other things? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Privitization.
To everytime I drive, I'm driving on someone else's property? I have to trust that that person will maintain the roads even though they have little incentive to do so because even though they are charging me to drive on it, it will always be the shortest route for someone. The only Catholic schools that outperformed my public school were the few who simultaneously tested applicants and charged at least $10,000 a year, usually closer to 20K or higher. If education is the great equalizer, the failure to provide free education to the poor will ultimately create a much wider divide.
Similar problems with hospitals. How hugh would infant mortality rise if poor people couldn't go to a hospital to deliver their children because they wouldn't be able to afford it?
We can't go too far with this because we can't just cut poor people off and how much of an economic burden would it be on the middle class to have to pay for all these privatized expenses?
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:you would raise taxes on almost all necessities
The sales tax for a grocery cart full of rice and beans would be miniscule compared to that of a grocery cart full of beer, steak, and TV dinners.
A major function of our government is to facilitate the delivery of necessities. That function should be paid for by those who purchase the necessities.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The idea of a sales-tax-only system also has a built-in retirement savings plan. You only pay taxes when you spend the money. Until then you're earning interest.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
