Re: [OT] Bruce Perens talks to BBC
Carl Fink wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 09:11:07PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
From what I heard the constitution explicitly defines two types of taxes
(I forget the names), but basically they are "taxes on things" and "just
you have to pay it" taxes, and our government is only supposed to
collect the first kind. It was what the big hoopla was with Britain was
all about.
But you can't fight city hall. So, I agree, our tax system needs to be
chucked. But the government needs money, lots of it. That ain't going
away.
Perhaps you've heard of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution,
explicitly authorizing an income tax?
Which according to many was never properly ratified:
http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/ratification.htm
while others point out that the Supreme Court considers it a valid law
so this argument is moot:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/1154/16thamendment.html
Even if the 16th were declared void, it wouldn't matter, because since
that amendment was "passed", the courts have decided that an income tax
was constitutional all along, with our without the amendment:
http://www.taxableincome.net/articles/othertax/16thamend.html
So, my plan:
Basic A Plan:
Federal Flat tax of 20%, no exceptions.
Basic B Plan:
For every 2% the individual puts into a qualified retirement plan, up to
a total of 10%, the income tax is reduced by 1%. Maximum = 15% to the
Federal government + 10% to self-managed retirement plan = 25%
Basic C Plan:
For every 2% the individual puts into a qualified charity (organization
must show 51% of budget going to charitable purposes), up to a total of
10%, the income tax is reduced by 1%.
Maximum = 15% to the Federal government + 10% to charity = 25%
Basic D Plan:
A combination of B & C.
Maximum = 10% to the Federal governent + 10% to retirement + 10% to
charity = 30%
People who are already giving 10% to their churches plus 28% to the Feds
plus some to their retirement would automatically get to keep more
money. People who don't care about taking care of themselves in the
future, or about others, would see a drop in their tax burden. "Tax
time" and the IRS would be vastly simplified. Much of the federal
welfare program would be shifted to the charities, where each dollar is
likely to be spent more efficiently. Churches would all of a sudden put
a lot more emphasis on charitable programs, and less on fancy buildings
and nice haircuts, to prevent their members from moving their "tithes
and giving" to other organizations. The feds would still get a good
chunk of change for the various federal projects.
Maybe not a perfect plan, but I like it.
--
Kent
Reply to: