"Keeping the government out" of marriage
- Thread starter Ignatius21
- Start date
Knee V
It's phonetic.
- Sep 17, 2003
- 8,415
- 1,741
- 41
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
It's not that I don't believe in tax credits; it's that I don't believe that the tax system should be complex enough to even allow for them in the first place. A significant amount that the federal government spends should, according to our Constitution, be done by the States should they so choose to have those programs. The Federal Government doesn't need nearly the amount of revenue to function pursuant to the Constitution. If we limited Federal spending to the functions given to it in the Constitution, a national sales tax would be sufficient.
The overwhelmingly vast majority of the people of the United States do not earn an income as it was defined when the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913. The purpose of the Income Tax Amendment was to force "The Rich" to pay more taxes, as it was (and is) only the wealthy who have any form of income. What the Average Joe/Jane brings home are wages and salaries, which are quid pro quo - I do this for the company, and in return they give me money. That is not income. Income, as it was defined in 1913, is more or less investment profits above and beyond what is earned from a pay check.
My point is that by going beyond the constitutional bounds of our Federal Government, a massive bureaucratic nightmare was created that spends far more than it can ever bring in, and which wastes far too much of the money that does come in. There is no constitutional basis for the federal tax system to be as complex as it is, and tax incentives would have no place in a massively simplified tax system.
But that will never happen.
The overwhelmingly vast majority of the people of the United States do not earn an income as it was defined when the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913. The purpose of the Income Tax Amendment was to force "The Rich" to pay more taxes, as it was (and is) only the wealthy who have any form of income. What the Average Joe/Jane brings home are wages and salaries, which are quid pro quo - I do this for the company, and in return they give me money. That is not income. Income, as it was defined in 1913, is more or less investment profits above and beyond what is earned from a pay check.
My point is that by going beyond the constitutional bounds of our Federal Government, a massive bureaucratic nightmare was created that spends far more than it can ever bring in, and which wastes far too much of the money that does come in. There is no constitutional basis for the federal tax system to be as complex as it is, and tax incentives would have no place in a massively simplified tax system.
But that will never happen.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
