Graduated Taxation is Unconstitutional

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by RunningOnMT, May 25, 2009.

  1. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Nov 19, 2008
    Akron, Ohio
    In this current financial crisis as the national debt grows to enormously high levels the federal government will be forced to look for ways to increase revenue. In the wisdom of the current administration and liberal congress, this is done through taxation. However the administration has promised tax cuts to lower income Americans. It is obvious then that they will have to increase taxes for those not in the lower income category. Such an action will only exacerbate the grossly unfair system of taxation in this country. In addition to this faulty economic logic being a disincentive to the creators of jobs which ultimately decreases GNP and in turn revenue, the government of the United States simply does not have a right under the constitution to levy income taxes per the present and long practiced method of the application of graduated tax rates. It is simply unfair and violates the spirit of not only the constitution but the Declaration of Independence.

    We often hear liberals demanding that others pay "their fair share" of the tax burden. What is anyone's fair share? Isn't the answer so fundamentally logical that we have been demanding everyone pay their fair share in most things without even thinking? Ones fair share of anything is simply to divide the cost of something by the number of people benefitting by or participating in the thing. For example, let's say 50 people decide to form a a gun club. Suppose they find a vacant building for sale for $30,000.00 and decide it would be an ideal meeting place. $30,000.00 divided by 50 equals $600.00. So each member contributes that much toward the purchase. That's fair isn't it? You wouldn't find some members demand that some should pay more than others. Most all of us have learned to apply principles of fairness everyday for most of our lives. When you go to the store a dozen eggs costs the same whether you are white , black, short, tall, rich or poor. Why should it be any different for taxes? And yet while we have all learned to apply rules of fairness to everything else in our lives we have been indoctrinated into the belief that "fairness" means that some pay more than others when it comes to income taxes.

    But, you say, "The cost is simply too high, I can't afford it." Well is fair only fair when it is easy or convenient for you? Maybe if each American citizen was made to realize how much was spent by our government because of paying their fair share, collectively they would decide it was too much. and demand that government spend less.

    Let us suppose for a minute that we concede the point about fairness and allow that the average per capita cost of the national budget is simply too much for many people to pay. So instead of the cost being divided equally we decide to levy taxes on a percentage of income basis. After all ten percent of $1,000,000.00 is a lot more than ten percent of $20,000.00 isn't it. Isn't that "fair" enough?

    What shall the percent be? Well we would have to determine what percent of each persons income added to the same percent of every other persons would equal the national debt. Imagine it works out to 30% of your income. "Oh, my, I can't afford that" you say. Still don't think the government is spending too much?

    So in it's infinite wisdom our government has decided to apply a graduated scale to income taxes. Meaning that the percent of ones income paid in taxes increases as their income increases. Currently that scale runs from 0 to 35%. If the current administration gets it's way the highest income bracket would have to be increased to about 53%. To put this in perspective, the top 1% (one percent) pays a little over 38% of all federal income taxes received. Major businesses pay up to 50 % of their profits in taxes. This is after they take advantage of all those "tax loopholes" you hear people talking about. Yeah, I'm tired of corporate welfare and the rich not paying their fair share.

    Clearly this is unfair. The Declaration of Independence states "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal....". Does this mean that all men are the same height and weight? Of course not. Does it mean they all have the same talents and abilities? No. It means that they are all born with the same rights. They are entitled to equal justice under the law.

    The 14th amendment acknowledging and granting rights to former slaves guarantees "equal justice under the law" to all men regardless of their circumstances. It has been used to apply to the "due process" clause of the 5th amendment. It is my belief that taxation on a graduated scale ( not to mention a flat rate ), deprives many Americans of their property without due process and is a violation of at the least the 5th amendment to the constitution and to the spirit of the constitution.

    I don't pay taxes. I am on social security disability and partial VA disability. In my working life I never made a great deal of money. I certainly have nothing to gain financially by advocating for fair taxation. But it is a matter of ethics and an ethic is not determined by what benefits you personally but what is right. To me the Democrat party has always appealed to the "what benefits me" concept rather than any sense of fairness and true justice. Their legislation always looks at not what benefits all or even a majority, but what benefits itself and the class they represent. They specialize in class warfare.

    "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
    Karl Marx

    If you subscribe to the above principle then we have nothing further to discuss. If however you find it repugnant and a usurpation of God's blessings then let us work together for a fair system of taxation.
  2. alhefner

    alhefner New Member

    Feb 4, 2009
    Reno, NV
    Darn good post! When it comes to income taxes, if we have to have income (or wages) taxation, it should be a flat rate tax. I m not 100% convinced that an income tax is actually needed.

    Many will voice the opinion that we must have taxation on our wages to fund the "humanitarian" programs but those programs are so bloated with administrative idiocy that most of the funding never gets to the target problem. Of course that goes for EVERY federal bureaucracy in existence today.

    Oh well, I have to stop here or I'll be in a major rant again.

  3. Bobitis

    Bobitis Guest

    I have a real problem with this type of lunacy.
    One tax rate is all we need. We're all equal right?
    Why should that change if I make more than you?
    You make less than me, so you feel entitled to some of MY money?:eek:

    Ya know! I really like clues! Why? Cuz they're FREE!:D

    Go earn your OWN!:mad:

    I don't want any of Bill Gates money. He earned it. It's HIS money.
    His company provides 10s of thousands of jobs.
    He gives away BILLIONS every year to charity.
    And you say he should; he's got enough.:confused:

    While I make a tad too much to get help for my sons college, your brats get a free ride. And you sit back smugly in your subsidized housing, collecting welfare and food stamps that I pay for.

    And then you have the gall to say it's only fair.:mad:
    Your kid gets free college, cuz you don't wanna work, and my 50 hours a week gets my kid 1 class a quarter.

    I guess our definitions don't quite agree.

    Whare can I join ya Al?
  4. alhefner

    alhefner New Member

    Feb 4, 2009
    Reno, NV
    Good question! In about a month anyone wanting to join me for a cup of coffee will have to find my campsite...and wait for me to get back to camp. To simply say howdy, you can find me here or at one of my own web sites whenever I get into cell phone range.
  5. hkruss

    hkruss Active Member

    Mar 13, 2008
    Mobile, Al.
    Outstanding post ROMT. Problem is, you are using rational, common sense thinking - something the Dems lack!
    They want to rule us based on a couple of things (IMHO). They propose and try to pass laws based on self righteousness or emotion. The former is used based on their notion that it simply is not right for someone who works/studies hard and gets ahead to have more in life than those "poor people" who have to subsist on the government dole. The latter, ties in to the first. Convince a good many Americans by appealing to their emotions, that it is the morally right thing to help these poor souls who do not have the opportunities afforded to the middle and upper class. What they fail to recognize is the main reason the middle and upper class have these opportunities is because these people got up off their asses, worked hard or educated themselves to improve their lot in life!!
    I assure you, most politicians have never had to live around or interact with poor people of WHATEVER color who choose to subsist on government handouts.
    Do all poor people fall in this category? Of course not!! I know many who make a meager wage but at least have enough pride in themselves to go to work each day and try their utmost to get ahead. I also have no problem with some government help for those who truly, due to circumstances beyond their control, need TEMPORARY help. I will help my fellow man as long as he is making the effort to improve himself.
    The ones I have a problem with, are those who milk the Gov't for their entire subsistence. I once overheard a conversation where one lowlife remarked to another how she could receive 'X' more dollars (from the Gov't) if she had another baby! Disgusting, yet this is the mentality of so many. Here's the thing. The Dems know that that is a good percentage of their voting base. If it will keep them in power, rest assured the Dems will pander to these lowlifes.
    Sadly, ROMT, the good common sense you shared is lost on them.
  6. 4EvrLearning

    4EvrLearning New Member

    Feb 27, 2009
    Left Coast
    ROMT: Excellent post; very well thought out and reasoned, and you covered a lot of ground, as well.

    In regards to gov't spending....sensible thinking realizes that the government cannot continue to run on a deficit; that's just economics 101. I don't know how, or if, the things you suggest are possible to implement at this point without one of two things happening: an all-out revolt, or the majority of government officials (from the top, down) getting on board and agreeing to trim back to the bare bones.

    Then, of course, our citizenry has to get on board. Austerity is a forgotten concept. Remember being a young married couple, or hungry college student, and you had to be REALLY careful how you spent your meager earnings? We need that mindset across the board. A sense of "entitlement" has taken over so much of our American approach to life that we are truly reaping the consequences. There is no free lunch.....

    If I went off on a tangent, I apologize.

    Thanks again for your post, ROMT. When are you going to run for public office? :)
  7. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Nov 19, 2008
    Akron, Ohio
    You know the reason I think we have all of the spending on social programs is more the fault of conservatives and republicans than liberals. We know the dems are tax and spenders but they couldn't do nearly as much damage without the republicans in congress going along with them.

    The reason for this....because many in the republican party and I'm including many who consider themselves true conservatives don't have the courage of their convictions. They are afraid of austerity. Most of us have gotten used to and benefitted to some degree from the social fact to some extent we have been made to become reliant on them. These people know that certain things aren't consistent with conservative values but they realize how many are dependent on them and fear devastating poverty if they should disappear.

    An example of this thinking came out in a conversation with a famiily member. After trying to explain to him my conservative principles he said "Well, where would you be without social security?" And it's true that I would be in quite a fix right now without it. I think many republicans accept that if we didn't have such programs the U.S. would look like Bombay India, or Somalia where thousands die every day from starvation.

    The error in this thinking is that a country without such programs breeds more self reliant individuals. They also keep more of the money they earn because of not having to pay other peoples way. So many wont have the need for government assistance.

    Yes some will still be impoverished. Has the 'New Deal" and "Great Society" wiped out poverty? has just changed the players around a bit, and increased their numbers. But which is better, to have those who work hard be poor, or those who do nothing? And yes there ARE a lot of working poor in this country. They are kept poor because of fewer opportunities for better jobs, and there are fewer opportunities because everybody is taxed to death, including employers.

    People always point to the "great depression" when making the case for social programs, using that as an example of what life would be like without them. Poppycock. Look to an earlier time in America when entrepreneurship and hard work was the name of the game. There were plenty of opportunities for the taking for those willing to work.

    I have worked three jobs where I was a member of a labor unions (another social institution, although not government run), and several others where I was not. I much preferred the non union companies. I was treated with more respect, I was rewarded for my hard work and appreciated. If I had a problem I could speak directly to the owner who took my complaint seriously and nine times out of ten would take action to correct the problem. I don't need a go between "negotiating' what he feels is best for me. When raises are mandated by the contract they are meted out to everyone equally not to those that truly deserve them. So in essence those who work hard pay for the wage increases of those who don't. It's exactly the same situation with government programs.

    It's time for those who call themselves conservatives to walk the walk not just talk the talk.
  8. walien

    walien Former Guest

    May 5, 2009

    You're basically advocating that we increase taxes on the majority of the population and lower them on the rich. Aside from that not ever being politically possible, how would that help families to get by, raise children and pay for the education necessary so that the people in the US can be qualified to work and make the country competitive with the likes of Korea, Germany, China, Japan, etc.

    What you're suggesting would exponentially increase the number of children living below the poverty line. That would lead to more crime and costs.

    I get what you're saying in that paying a fixed percentage is fair, but perhaps you want to take a close look at the other countries in the world where this is a huge disparity between the rich and poor. They're not exactly prosperous. Being able to leave a child in school until they're 18 is hardly seen as a luxury in the United States right now. Take away families' ability to feed themselves and you'll quickly see that turn into a luxury.

    I'm in a rather high tax bracket. If you don't pay taxes, I probably paid more in income tax than you declared. I have no problem with it as long as it is used properly. That said, giving me a tax cut while raising it on people like yourself isn't going to make things in the United States better.

    This really isn't a Democrat or Republican issue. Both parties are responsible for the tax code being how it is.

    "They are kept poor because of fewer opportunities for better jobs, and there are fewer opportunities because everybody is taxed to death, including employers."

    The United States has the lowest tax burden of any first world country period. Taxes aren't why people are struggling in this country. Illegal immigrants coming in and driving down the wage rates in many industries and a decade of governments who have stood by while China stole manufacturing jobs by manipulating its currency have a lot more to do with it than taxes. Globalization means that you can move manufacturing to cheaper countries.

    Better jobs often require better education and access to post-secondary education in this country is rather low when compared to Canada, Asia or Europe.

    I see plenty of entrepreneurship nowadays thank you. I put in plenty more hours than most people did way back when. I also don't have the benefit of a secretary to put together letters for me, make copies, get me coffee, etc.
    The challenge that you're referring to might have more to do with people not being ready for the global workplace. It's not just about hard work anymore. You need skills and education to be competitive in the global marketplace.

    "I have worked three jobs where I was a member of a labor unions (another social institution, although not government run), and several others where I was not. I much preferred the non union companies. I was treated with more respect, I was rewarded for my hard work and appreciated."

    There's a saying in union-management relations that if you get a union, you deserve the one you get. Basically, many of the companies who did treat their employees well were not organized. Of course, way back during the union movement, almost no companies treated their workers in a reasonable manner.

    I see your point about conservatives walking the walk. To me, balancing the budget is the first thing needed. I have no problem with a progressive tax system as long as it is reasonable. In terms of the other programs, it sure would have been nice for all of the people who are currently getting social security to have stepped up and demanded that the system be fully funded over the years. I can't imagine how much that will cost me.
  9. jacksonco

    jacksonco New Member

    Jul 11, 2007
    Jackson County West Virginia
    WOW! Excellent posts in this thread by ROMT and Walien. It gives a person definate reason to pause and think. The way money is being spent they just as well quit taxing all together because it isn't going to make a difference unless spending is brought under control. We can't possibley cover the tab with what we can reasonably tax our citizens for.

    We need - - - - - - - - FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY!
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Is the graduated income tax rate unconstitutional? Nov 8, 2010