3 ms·

No thanks. How about 0 income tax (which is already on shaky legal ground) and only usage tax?

• exabrial 4y ago
  I'm actually ok with a usage tax, but it's nearly impossible to have a sliding scale usage tax and maintain relative anonymity of the user.
• deathanatos 4y ago
  > which is already on shaky legal ground … > The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes — The Constitution of the United States Oh, and the 16th Amendment, > The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived
• Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
  How can you possibly claim the income tax is on shaky legal ground when there's a Constitutional Amendment that explicitly makes it legal? How far to the right do you have to go when you start considering the Constitution is shaky? I mean, yeah, people quibble over interpretations, but the 16th Amendment is pretty explicit.
  • deathanatos 4y ago
    > How far to the right do you have to go when you start considering the Constitution is shaky? Not that far? For example, the GOP in Texas's Senate passed a law requiring the Commandments in public schools. I find that hard to view as anything other than direct contempt for the Establishment clause. The only pragmatic reading of such a law, should it become law, in today's political climate, is that it exists solely to be challenged, on the hopes that the Supreme Court will … IDK, strike that portion of the 1A or otherwise reinterpret it as completely ineffectual? The Establishment clause is also quite clear (though I grant, not as clear as the 16A, but not as vague as say, "A well regulated Militia" makes the 2A). That's not the only such law, or portion of the Constitution, either, though I'd certainly say it's one of the more clear ones…