Interesting. Here is a thought, though: isn’t that a demographic that is also less likely to vote, and more likely to believe propoganda
That tax plan could sustain a rural backwater in the early 1800’s.
It could not sustain a global superpower.
We have been borrowing money since the beginning of this country.
You have a mythical…and false…view of the Founders’ intent.
Did you miss the fact that direct taxation is not to be used unless Congress spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and, internal excise taxes intended to be laid on specifically selected articles of consumption? How are those taxes regressive, and exactly what do you mean by “regressive”?
JWK
Yes.
On the other hand, a television advertising barrage in opposition would be able to use graphics that even the most ignorant could understand, showing how they would be harmed by a change in systems.
Additionally, the next 25% of the population, those from 50% to 75%, would, for the most part, be harmed by such a change. Only the top 25%, actually, less than that, would really have a chance of benefitting.
1 Like
Stop making stuff up. If the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment were adopted, there is no provision in it which limits the amount which can be raised under it.
Stop misrepresenting the FSBBA
JWK
Well sure, but according to section 2,
How long do you think it will take Congress turn this tax into the same annual levy we have now, and doing so becomes as routine as raising the debt limit is now? I say less than five years.
Truly, it appears that all this does is change the manner of collection.
Did you forget that if Congress spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and excise taxes each State’s Congressional Delegation must then return home with a bill in hand for its State Legislature to make good on, and that would deplete the State’s Treasury?
To put it another way, the FSBBA encourages each state’s Congressional Delegation while in Washington, to follow the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson:
“……with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address
I take it you have a problem with a very real moment of accountability and a wise and frugal Government?
JWK
No, I didn’t forget it, that is the point. All you are doing is shifting the collection burden from the feds to the states.
And you are going to have to do this, because there is no way you collect enough duties or internal excises to fund the federal budget.
Perhaps your mind was unable to comprehend the significance of each state’s Congressional Delegation having to return home with a bill for their State Legislature to deal with, and would deplete the State’s Treasury.
Picture California’s Congressional Delegation returning to California with a bill in its hand for its State Legislature to pay its State’s apportioned share of a deficit out of the State’s Treasury, because its Delegation refused to practice sound fiscal policies while in Washington and live within the revenue raised from imposts, duties and excise taxes.
You seem to recoil from the moment of real accountability which the FSBBA creates, and that it makes every member of each State’s Congressional Delegation immediately accountable whenever Congress spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties, and internal excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year. Do you not think State Legislators and Governors will not hold their Congressional Delegation accountable for reckless spending, which leads to the apportioned direct tax?
JWK
Think of everything the federal government funds right now…including the military.
Imagine what would happen if you suddenly pulled all funding from it other than those raised from imports, duties and excise taxes.
Then tell me what you think would result…especially to the economy.
For once, if you can, do not come back with talking points but try and think it through.
I won’t hold my breath.
To the contrary, I think that you are vastly over-estimating the impact that would have. After all, taxes are being paid now, and…nothing but impotent whining.
I am not recoiling, I am saying I don’t think the scheme changes anything but the collection mechanism.
No. Again, federal taxes are being paid now. Whete is this groundswell of outrage that you imagine?
♤♡◇♧
I do have a question though, if you wouldn’t mind answering it: what happens with the current debt?
The one thing that changes is excise taxes, imposts and duties are going to bring in far less revenue than our current tax scheme.
And the results of that in a modern economy will be nothing short of cataclysmic.
You can’t run an exonomy in 2022 with a tax scheme from 1787.
1 Like
It will stop spiraling out of control as it is now doing. Did you miss Sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment?
.
“SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year’s deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit.”
NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the direct apportioned tax to be laid in order to balance the budget on an annual basis.
“SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State’s apportioned share of the total sum being raised by dividing its total population size by the total population of the united states and multiplying that figure by the total being raised by Congress, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury.”
In reference to the above Section see: FIRST DIRECT TAX LAID BY CONGRESS, 1798
NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish an annual deficit would be:
States’ population
---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE
Total U.S. PopulationThe above formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to ensure that each state’s share towards extinguishing an annual deficit is proportionately equal to its representation in Congress, i.e., representation with a proportional financial obligation! And if the tax is laid directly upon the people by Congress, then everybody taxpayer across the United States pays the exact same amount!
Based on the text of the OP , doesn’t that really just mean “federal sales tax”? They try to allay the fact by saying
but I don’t think that means anything.
Far, far less. A quick back of the envelope calculation appears to show the total dollar amount of imports is only about a quarter of the 2021 budget. This may not be a tax per se, but the taxpayer still pays.
So all in all, as I previously posted, I think the scheme of yearly voting to borrow becomes as routine as the debt limit voting is now
You failed to answer my question, let’s try again:
Do we use this new scheme to pay it off? Let it ride? What?
Actually if we’re just looking at states Mississippi is the poverty capital of the US with Louisiana in second place.
You were there. How’s the taliban doing these days?
If you knew any economics you would know you can’t use a national standard to access poverty because it does not take in the cost of living. I’ve also told you this over and over, but look you still believe the myth the TV tells you.
3 Likes
Census dot gov is not the TV. The TV tells me about Saul Goodman. I don’t watch TV news.
