5 ms·

>standardize on a single sales tax rate across the country My modest proposal, do what Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon have all done and e

by Wohlf 6y ago

>standardize on a single sales tax rate across the country My modest proposal, do what Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon have all done and eliminate it. Sales tax is annoying and regressive.

jakeogh 6y ago
I'll take sales tax over income tax; it's unconstutional in more than one way and an astounding waste of resources. RIP Aaron Russo.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  > it's unconstutional in more than one way There was an entire amendment specifically declaring the ability to levy (unapportioned) income tax. It was sufficiently passed, and overrides everything else that came before it. You can't play a game of 'gotcha' and invalidate something like that off the way you want a word interpreted or some bureaucratic misstep.
  - jakeogh 6y ago
    Lets assume the 16th was ratified (it wasnt, but set that aside). One might ask the IRS Comissioner where the law is, plenty of IRS agents have tried: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNNeVu8wUak https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNNeVu8wUak It's also a rather obvious violation of the 5th. The gov does not own us; it's the other way around. So far 9 states have removed state income tax completely: AL, TN, FL, NH, SD, WY, TX, WA, NE. A good start; seems to really bother the authortarians.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      Where what law is? And something like this can't be undone by being clever. The intent of congress is for income tax to exist, and so it is enforced by the executive, under the supervision of the judiciary. That's all that really matters. And the case law is solid on how to interpret the rules. The most that could happen is congress going 'oh, that was worded badly' and fixing the wording. The 16th amendment cannot be in violation of the 5th. That's not how amending works. Also doesn't that argument apply to all taxes? It seems pretty clear that blocking all taxes was not the intent, based on the rest of the constitution. > A good start; seems to really bother the authortarians. Really? I've never seen anyone bothered by that. Sounds fun to watch.
      - jakeogh 6y ago
        It's a good doc, check it out. All taxes: no. Tarrifs for example are... excellent ethical and thoroughly constitutional.. Otherwise country X can just attack with slave labor. Inalienable rights aren't called that because they can be overridden.
        Dylan16807 6y ago
        The gap between a sales tax and an income tax is not that big. It's not a human rights issue.
        jakeogh 6y ago
        Why would the gap be relevant? Perhaps we should ignore a small % of X Amendment claims? That would be a small gap right? The Amendments dont confer rights to the people; they only remind the people of the things they gov has no power to do. See Amendment 0: "THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution." https://drexel.edu/ogcr/resources/constitution/amendments/preamble/ https://drexel.edu/ogcr/resources/constitution/amendments/pr...
        Dylan16807 6y ago
        > Why would the gap be relevant? Because I can at least understand an argument like "all taxation is theft". When it's "sales tax is okay, but income tax violates innate rights", that's a pretty finicky argument. The difference barely matters.
        jakeogh 6y ago
        Inalienable rights and differences in outcome are unrelated things, hence mentioning tariffs as protection by attack with slave labor. It's the primary job of a government to protect it's borders, physically and economically. As that documentary nicely lays out, there is no constitutional law that anyone can point to on individual income tax. The IRS commissioner admits it. Recent interview with former IRS agent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXua-6xr_Kw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXua-6xr_Kw She asks in the beginning, "At what percentage is it not slavery?"
crazygringo 6y ago
I'm personally not a big fan of sales tax either, but I do concede there are two good arguments for it. First, it's the main tax foreigners pay when visiting (hotel taxes being the other). And since foreigners are benefting from local roads, police, and everything else just like citizens do, there's an argument they should contribute local taxes too. But second, that sales taxes are aren't necessarily regressive, and could be made progressive. You don't pay sales tax on necessities like rent and supermarket food, so that's already a progressive aspect. And sales tax could be made more progressive if it were higher based on product categories (e.g. expensive cell phones, etc.). Many countries have a huge number of sales tax brackets by product category for this reason -- but they're built into the price, so stores know but consumers don't see the difference. I do personally think it would be simpler though to just set sales tax to zero, fund local taxes with income+property taxes mainly, and jack up hotel taxes (in a highly progressive way) in destinations with so many tourists that they actually make a big difference to local infrastructure costs.

by Wohlf 6y ago

jakeogh 6y ago

I'll take sales tax over income tax; it's unconstutional in more than one way and an astounding waste of resources. RIP Aaron Russo.

Dylan16807 6y ago
> it's unconstutional in more than one way There was an entire amendment specifically declaring the ability to levy (unapportioned) income tax. It was sufficiently passed, and overrides everything else that came before it. You can't play a game of 'gotcha' and invalidate something like that off the way you want a word interpreted or some bureaucratic misstep.
- jakeogh 6y ago
  Lets assume the 16th was ratified (it wasnt, but set that aside). One might ask the IRS Comissioner where the law is, plenty of IRS agents have tried: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNNeVu8wUak https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNNeVu8wUak It's also a rather obvious violation of the 5th. The gov does not own us; it's the other way around. So far 9 states have removed state income tax completely: AL, TN, FL, NH, SD, WY, TX, WA, NE. A good start; seems to really bother the authortarians.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    Where what law is? And something like this can't be undone by being clever. The intent of congress is for income tax to exist, and so it is enforced by the executive, under the supervision of the judiciary. That's all that really matters. And the case law is solid on how to interpret the rules. The most that could happen is congress going 'oh, that was worded badly' and fixing the wording. The 16th amendment cannot be in violation of the 5th. That's not how amending works. Also doesn't that argument apply to all taxes? It seems pretty clear that blocking all taxes was not the intent, based on the rest of the constitution. > A good start; seems to really bother the authortarians. Really? I've never seen anyone bothered by that. Sounds fun to watch.
    - jakeogh 6y ago
      It's a good doc, check it out. All taxes: no. Tarrifs for example are... excellent ethical and thoroughly constitutional.. Otherwise country X can just attack with slave labor. Inalienable rights aren't called that because they can be overridden.
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
        The gap between a sales tax and an income tax is not that big. It's not a human rights issue.
        jakeogh 6y ago
        Why would the gap be relevant? Perhaps we should ignore a small % of X Amendment claims? That would be a small gap right? The Amendments dont confer rights to the people; they only remind the people of the things they gov has no power to do. See Amendment 0: "THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution." https://drexel.edu/ogcr/resources/constitution/amendments/preamble/ https://drexel.edu/ogcr/resources/constitution/amendments/pr...
        Dylan16807 6y ago
        > Why would the gap be relevant? Because I can at least understand an argument like "all taxation is theft". When it's "sales tax is okay, but income tax violates innate rights", that's a pretty finicky argument. The difference barely matters.
        jakeogh 6y ago
        Inalienable rights and differences in outcome are unrelated things, hence mentioning tariffs as protection by attack with slave labor. It's the primary job of a government to protect it's borders, physically and economically. As that documentary nicely lays out, there is no constitutional law that anyone can point to on individual income tax. The IRS commissioner admits it. Recent interview with former IRS agent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXua-6xr_Kw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXua-6xr_Kw She asks in the beginning, "At what percentage is it not slavery?"

crazygringo 6y ago

I'm personally not a big fan of sales tax either, but I do concede there are two good arguments for it. First, it's the main tax foreigners pay when visiting (hotel taxes being the other). And since foreigners are benefting from local roads, police, and everything else just like citizens do, there's an argument they should contribute local taxes too. But second, that sales taxes are aren't necessarily regressive, and could be made progressive. You don't pay sales tax on necessities like rent and supermarket food, so that's already a progressive aspect. And sales tax could be made more progressive if it were higher based on product categories (e.g. expensive cell phones, etc.). Many countries have a huge number of sales tax brackets by product category for this reason -- but they're built into the price, so stores know but consumers don't see the difference. I do personally think it would be simpler though to just set sales tax to zero, fund local taxes with income+property taxes mainly, and jack up hotel taxes (in a highly progressive way) in destinations with so many tourists that they actually make a big difference to local infrastructure costs.