The unsustainable federal income tax gap
posted at 9:25 am on April 10, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
David Harsanyi sees the same kind of serious implications in the iniquity of the federal tax code as DocZero and wonders how this administration could have let this happen. After all, Joe Biden insisted that paying federal income taxes was “patriotic.” In fact, Biden actually insisted that low taxes were unpatriotic, which means that the progressive tax system’s increased progressivism over the last few years is creating a lot of unpatriotic Americans — at the expense of the few:
According to the Tax Foundation, this year the top 10 percent of earners are on the hook for around 73 percent of all the income taxes collected by Washington.
On the flip side, nearly 50 percent of households — because they don’t make enough or have various deductions — do not pay any income tax whatsoever. (Your payroll taxes “fund” your own stake in Social Security and Medicare.)
If there’s a smoother way to spread the wealth, I’d love to hear about it. But if government is a force of righteousness, a wondrous $3 trillion gift that saves lives and imbues America with hope, why is it that so many of her citizens aren’t fully invested in the magic?
To be fair, as burdensome as income taxes seem to everyone, most of us are disconnected from the genuine and growing cost of government. Tax payments have been declining for the majority of Americans (good for the economy and your freedom) while government spending is increasing.
Now, I hate people who are richer than I am as much as the next guy, but how long can we keep relying on the wealthy?
Not for very much longer, and in fact that time may have already expired. The Obama administration seems perplexed at the continuing drag on jobs in their so-called recovery, but it’s not terribly difficult to see why we’ve gone the longest time in a post-war recession without a significant uptick in employment. Barack Obama keeps increasing taxes on those people with the capital to invest in the market, and sends signals that more taxation on that group is coming. Instead of investing the money, they’re sheltering it instead.
Barack Obama came to office in part on his populist ranting about how his predecessor gamed the tax system in favor of the wealthy, but that’s just demagoguery:
The total income taxes paid by the top 1 percent of earners as a share of GDP has doubled since the early ’80s. At the same time, the bottom 95 percent of earners pay a significantly smaller share. I’m not an economist (sorcerers!) but this strikes me as an unsustainable policy.
It’s true that President Barack Obama has come up with more than $3 trillion in new taxes during his short tenure, but that’s not enough. Paul Volcker, the president’s informal adviser and former Federal Reserve chairman, recently broached the idea of “value-added tax,” a consumption tax embedded into everything you buy, and a new carbon or energy tax.
It’s entirely unsustainable, but the VAT would make the situation worse. A VAT acts as a brake on consumption by making everything more expensive. It eats into the buying power of the middle class far more than it does the wealthy, who have a much higher level of disposable income. Liberals like to call state-run lotteries a “regressive tax” on the poor, but at least the lottery is voluntary. The long-term result of a VAT will be lower consumption, which means fewer jobs, and that would hit the working and middle classes hardest.
We need comprehensive tax reform in this country, and these numbers show it. If paying income taxes is the Great Patriotic Duty of all citizens, as Joe Biden insisted, then it needs to include all citizens. In the meantime, though, we need to end the class warfare through tax policy that is keeping our economy moribund more than two years after the start of the last recession. If we keep demonizing those with the means to invest, we’re never going to get this nation back to work.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
What happens if they all go Galt?
Disturb the Universe on April 10, 2010 at 10:56 AM
Taxing wealth is Marxist.
thomasaur on April 10, 2010 at 10:57 AM
We tax wealth until fairness has been reached and the goodness has been spread around to everyone, regardless of their station in life.
That being said, my bikes are mine and if you want them, Molon Labe.
Bishop on April 10, 2010 at 10:58 AM
Well don’t worry about the regressiveness of the VAT. Does anyone really think that the Obama and the Dems would institute a VAT without a special deduction or credit or even a check-in-the-mail for people under a certain income level?
SlaveDog on April 10, 2010 at 10:58 AM
“If This Goes On…” ;)
Who is John Galt on April 10, 2010 at 11:00 AM
Hear that whirring sound, that is the HA Virtual Predator Drones warming up. Easy now.
Bishop on April 10, 2010 at 11:01 AM
Heheheheheheh. Who?
Who is John Galt on April 10, 2010 at 11:01 AM
It’s funny that people are framing this like it’s some sort of liberal, Obama-induced situation.
The number one reason that the percentage of non-payers jumped suddenly is the $1000 per child off-the-top tax credit that the Republicans pushed through a few years back.
It was billed as “pro-family;” now it’s some sort of insidious liberal plot.
notropis on April 10, 2010 at 11:02 AM
People should pay as much of the cost of the goods and services they consume as they can so that they will use them wisely. Government supplied goods and services should only be those that are necessary and should be provided without charge only to those truly unable to contribute to the cost. This should mean, means testing entitlements like medicare and social security. The reduction in goverment expenditures can allow for reduction on those levies that discourage investment and intiative e.g. lowering the combined double taxation of corporate income and dividends and allow us to maintain the low capital gains tax rates of recent years. The reduced government expenditure can also lower the deficit burden left to future generations so that they are not taxed at rates that discourage having children and making investments so that our society can be more dynamic in the future as well.
KW64 on April 10, 2010 at 11:03 AM
One side point on the tax-the-wealth question:
They already do.
It goes like this. Imagine that you have $100 in post-tax money (hooray!) and you decide to be “smart” and invest it in the Perfect Corporation. You hold onto the stock of Perfect Corporation until the stock doubles; you sell the stock and pay the 15% on the $100 profit. You now have $185 (good for you!).
BUT — in the long years you held onto Perfect Corporation, there was sufficient inflation (cumulatively) that the $100 you originally invested, is now worth only about half that — (this is actually pretty normal) —
so your $100 investment would only have been treading water BUT THE GOVERNMENT GOT TO TAX IT ANYWAY!
zenscreamer on April 10, 2010 at 11:05 AM
The trolls on this thread don’t seem to understand the truth about wealthy people here in America.
F**k with us long enough, hard enough, and bad enough; we take our wealth and we bail to safer grounds. Along with that, we take your jobs off shore and provide such jobs to those who appreciate such work and the possibility of career opportunities.
Over regulation by the American government has already forced millions of such jobs off American land.
Wake-up you idiots. The wealthy are an important ingredient in our lives. You have allowed the MSM and other Progressives to paint such people as demons when in truth they are absolutely necessary.
Keemo on April 10, 2010 at 11:09 AM
Sing it from the mountain tops Keemo.
thomasaur on April 10, 2010 at 11:15 AM
Another thing I’ve never understood about the left.
They view the successful and wealthy as the enemy, yet build a lifestyle that relies on the very existence of the wealthy, then they cry foul if the government ever seems to show favoritism to the wealthy, which it must, to pay for the welfare state.
cntrlfrk on April 10, 2010 at 11:15 AM
Unsustainable
Unsustainable, that’s what you are
Unsustainable, near term or far,
A weight of debt that clings to me
How the thought of this does things to me
Never before has something been more
Unsustainable in every way.
Apologies to Nat King Cole
Paul-Cincy on April 10, 2010 at 11:19 AM
Basic statist “strategery” — make the majority envious of the minority, create a scapegoat, and lead the sheep to the shearing.
But…. no worries, the whole ship is going down soon enough. We’re past the point of no return economically.
zenscreamer on April 10, 2010 at 11:20 AM
If Pelosi and Reid were responsible for getting the child tax credit passed it would be hailed as a monumental victory for the middle class, lifting millions of Americans above the poverty line. But no, it was evil republicans who pulled off this budget buster, while Chimpy McHitler beat them with a cat-of-nine-tails.
We are so tired of hearing the Bush’s Fault meme. When does Hussein Obama start to accept the blame for the economic abyss we have fallen into?
fogw on April 10, 2010 at 11:23 AM
Envy, by itself, is not a bad thing. But envy coupled with a defeatist attitude is a very bad thing. That’s what breeds resentment. When you don’t even strive for what you want, but hate those who have what you don’t, it brings everyone down.
Read this Progessive drivel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeping_up_with_the_Joneses
Jaynie59 on April 10, 2010 at 11:30 AM
I hope not, but logic and open eyes both tell me you are correct.
Sigh
Who is John Galt on April 10, 2010 at 11:30 AM
Where’d you get that BS talking point, notropis? You’re going to try to convince us that the Dems, who held Congress for the most part throughout the 20th century, had nothing to with the current “progressive” nature of the tax code?
And, anyways, you’re missing the point. The real problem is entitlements and other tax outflows, not tax breaks. This particular statistic is being flogged because it unambiguously demonstrates so that even the most clueless of Americans might start to understand the situation that there are indeed two Americas, pace John Edwards: net tax producers and net tax consumers. The insidious plot, to which you are referring, always was to create a majority of tax consumers who will vote for Dems to keep the gravy flowing. The social disparity of who pays taxes is a feature, not a bug of the tax code as far as Dems are concerned.
shazbat on April 10, 2010 at 11:36 AM
shazbat: “The insidious plot, to which you are referring, always was to create a majority of tax consumers who will vote for Dems to keep the gravy flowing. The social disparity of who pays taxes is a feature, not a bug of the tax code as far as Dems are concerned.”
Amazingly concise and precise summation!! thx!!
As stated numerous times here and elsewhere, the system will collapse if this goes on…
Go Galt, and starve the Federal beast!
Justrand on April 10, 2010 at 11:43 AM
That has to be one of the more ignorant statements I have heard in a long time. How do I feel about those who are richer than me? I don’t care, because it is none of my business.
This type of statement is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Vashta.Nerada on April 10, 2010 at 11:44 AM
“(Your payroll taxes “fund” your own stake in Social Security and Medicare.)”
Reality check. The millions of folks getting the EITC refund don’t pay into SS or MC. Historically, the EITC is supposedly a refund for SS & MC taxes for low income workers. So millions and millions of people don’t pay into SS and MC, which means higher income earners and those who don’t qualify for the EITC are somehow covering the bill thru their ‘regular taxes’.
drfredc on April 10, 2010 at 11:46 AM
FIFY
thomasaur on April 10, 2010 at 11:47 AM
Sorry to say, but this does look like the case.
Even if the republicans do well enough to repeal 0bamacare, we’re still on the hook for social security, medicare/medicaid, etc., all enough to bankrupt us – sooner rather than later.
And once the hyperinflation from 0bama’s monetizing the debt and China refusing to buy more debt – we are well and truly screwed.
If someone can see a way out of this impending doom, I’d like to hear it, because there seems no way to avoid paying the piper.
Rebar on April 10, 2010 at 11:51 AM
DO WE STILL HAVE NO CLUE what is going on here?
Both parties are trying to bankrupt the country to force us into what they have been working on for 100 years. A global government ruled by elites and served by serfs (to put it bluntly).
Did we not pay attention to Bush 41 when he publicly mentioned his push for a “New World Order” in his 1988 GOP Acceptance speech?
Have we not paid attention as the world has become more integrated economically with Global this and that? (for example International Accounting standards, the move to have a Global currency reserve, the move to GLOBAL HEALTHCARE standards, etc.)
Bankrupt the U.S. and force it’s debt ridden citizens to accept the new economic order or catastrophe for all Americans that have any debt at all.
Both parties have been taken over by the Progressives and we haven’t even begun to see the Death throes of this once great country yet.
We are SLAVES to our debt America……and soon we might begin to see what the chains of that slavery really look like.
PappyD61 on April 10, 2010 at 11:53 AM
And therein lies the problem. Who decides who really needs it? All of current Demo policy is predicated on the notion that those on the bottom “need” it and it is only the greed of those on the top that prevents them from having a better life. Once you give that kind of power to politicians, the game is over. The only way to prevent polkiticians from destroying the economy and the nation for their self-benefit is to deny them the power in the first place.
pehrsson on April 10, 2010 at 12:03 PM
It’s going to get ugly.
zenscreamer on April 10, 2010 at 12:10 PM
Socialist pap and drivel; truly a “must have” article to adequately describe the human condition. Wikipedia rockz!
/heavy sarc
ya2daup on April 10, 2010 at 12:18 PM
No they don’t. SCOTUS ruled in 1963 that you don’t have a right to receive a Social Security Check from the government and that Congress could spend the money how they pleased. Payroll taxes are just a different money flow for the general fund. Just like the upcoming VAT will be.
chemman on April 10, 2010 at 12:20 PM
Envy is not a necessary prerequisite to get ahead. Envy will always lead to wrong thinking.
chemman on April 10, 2010 at 12:28 PM
It’s already happening. This month, tax revenues will be down 50% from April of 2008. So far, this has been the quietest rev*lution the world has ever seen.
People use the term “go Galt” as if there’s something dramatic about it. Nothing could be further from the truth. People who know what they’re doing with their money (which is where practically all of the wealth and taxes come from) are, for now, simply obfuscating. Pretty much everybody who pays taxes, cheats on his taxes.
It’s only a question of how much. Right now everybody who makes money is “going Galt” to one extent or another. And most people who have significant assets see the handwriting on the wall.
Everything that’s happening now is basically like the Seventies, except on steroids. People are shuffling accounts, setting up convoluted “tax shelters,” making sure that anybody who tries to confiscate productive property is eating a poison pill…
From this point on, the more the government clamps down, the less revenue they are going to get.
logis on April 10, 2010 at 12:29 PM
** facepalm **
By any chance are you one of those people who routinely receives a tax refund of several thousand dollars each year and thinks that by having done so you’ve “screwed the government”?
ya2daup on April 10, 2010 at 12:33 PM
Let\’s see-The Democratic Party:1 Which BOTH American Jews and Arabs support enthusiastically.2 Loved by both labor-destroying environmentalists and labor-intensive unions.3 Embraced by abortion-loving womens\’ rights activists and abortion-hating Catholics.4 Whose own Vice-President is quoted as saying \”The best way to get out of debt is to spend more money\”.5 Loved by blood-sucking trial lawyers and legislators who \”know\” better about what\’s \”best\” for our economy than businessmen or economists.Why should such a party, filled with inconsistencies, non sequiturs and dishonesty be troubled by the mutual exclusiveness of a shrinking tax base caused by tax increases designed to create just the opposite?
MaiDee on April 10, 2010 at 12:49 PM
I am waiting for a study from some right wing think tank that shows what will happen if the US defaults on some or all of its debt.
I have this notion that selected partial default is the only way to lessen the impact of the financial crisis we’re in.
platypus on April 10, 2010 at 12:55 PM
And therein lies the need for having people pay for things themselves. They will be the ones who decide if they really need it. The danger to our economy is not where a few destitute people are dependent on government support and thus subject to political manipulation; it is when the middle class becomes dependent on government programs and thus subject to political manipulation.
KW64 on April 10, 2010 at 12:57 PM
But don’t they tell us that it is more important to be in touch with your feelings than to be in touch with reality?
KW64 on April 10, 2010 at 1:00 PM
As our way of life is continually demonized here and abroad and our economy, which has fueled the global economy for the last 65 years, tries to withstand a self-inflicted political/philosophic ideological frontal assualt, I often wonder what solutions will be necessary to stop the current political/economic infections being spread by this administration. And each time the answer is The American People. The Progressives are empowered and have been emboldened with their current success and with their “by any means to justify the ends” attitude, November can’t get here soon enough. Hopefully, we will begin to the see the first phase of The American People answering the call to push back.
devolvingtowardsidiocracy on April 10, 2010 at 1:00 PM
Amen. I have never had a job where my employer was poor.
carbon_footprint on April 10, 2010 at 1:06 PM
I call it a tax on the stupid.
Monica on April 10, 2010 at 1:31 PM
VAT is a means to fund Obamacare.
Don’t fund it and let it starve on the vine.
Then salt the earth from which it sprouted so that the roots can never, ever, come back to life.
Kini on April 10, 2010 at 1:33 PM
KW64 Ah that “warm fuzzy” feeling you get from “doing good”. Just after the Haitian earthquake, outside of Costco, a group of woman were hustling for money for a bogus charity-none of the money going outside their pockets-let alone to Haiti. But you just knew who the liberals were-unquestioningly forking over $5 bills with shining eyes and smiles of the beatified.
MaiDee on April 10, 2010 at 1:35 PM
Tax fairness means nothing anymore.
Jeff2161 on April 10, 2010 at 1:39 PM
Here’s the link.
Zerohedge
Jeff2161 on April 10, 2010 at 1:40 PM
I know people who make more money than I do and pay less taxes, because they have kids and I don’t. And whose fault is that? The people who do not pay a lot of taxes are not the ones writing the tax codes, government officials to do that. And I don’t too many people in those upper rungs who would trade places with someone in the lower 48% just to save some money on taxes either. This is the problem with this kind of thing, on one hand we need to keep taxes down for the wealth creators, on the other hand taxing people with little money will not exactly make a difference in terms of balancing the budget. They can not give you what they don’t have to give.
The truth is the government goes where the money is, and a lot of those people do not have much. And they do pay taxes, medicare taxes and social security taxes and property taxes and county taxes and sales taxes. etc.
I have noticed that Democrats always demonize the rich. And I have also noticed that a lot of people who are not particularly liberal vote Democrat because they think they are for the working people. In fact one man told me that he did not vote for Republicans, because Republicans did not like people like him, he was not well off enough. This stereotype has hurt Republicans.
So much of this seems like class warfare to me.
Terrye on April 10, 2010 at 1:41 PM
The 2nd Bill of Rights
Our country is currently in a crisis the likes of which it has never seen before. The Federal government has assumed powers which would be inconceiveable to our Founding Fathers. It has done this through a long, slow process of increasingly larger and more expensive socialist programs starting with FDR and currently ending with the Health Care debacle. None of these programs are listed in the Enumerated Powers section of the Constitution:
“Section 8: The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;—And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”
I see nothing in there about maintaining a welfare state. I see nothing in there about health care, the redistribution of wealth, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, bailouts of companies, bailouts of states, bailouts of industries, loaning money to students, giving money to banks or anything else that the Federal Government is currntly doing outside of its jurisdiction.
Unfortunately, the Federal Government has assumed all of these powers through the “Commerce Clause”, the second point above,:
“To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;”
Slowly and creepingly, over the years, this has come to be interpreted to mean, if it involves any type of commerce (or has any effect on commerce whatsoever), that Congress may make a law addressing it. This, unfortunately means that nothing would ever be out of Congress’ purview. This was obviously not the framer’s intent. The entitlement programs created by the government are currently bankrupting our country. We are, at the time of this writing, almost $13 Trillion in debt. Social Security alone is insolvent and would probably bankrupt the country within thirty years. Medicare alone is also insolvent and would probably bankrupt the country within thirty years. Both of them, along with the new health care bill, will probably bankrupt the country within fifteen years.
The entitlement state in which we live is unsustainable, unconsitutional is inompatible with prosperity and liberty.
We must reverse this course. Therefore, I am humbly proposing these Amendments to the Constitution. I will explain the reasoning behind each one after it’s Text. I will Refer to them as Amendment A, Amendment B, etc. for purposes of reference and so that they are not confused with the current actual amendments.
Amendment A
Section 1. Congress shall make no law which directly or indirectly requires citizens to participate in government programs against their will, excepting military conscription during times of war. All such previous laws are declared null and void and all such programs are dissolved. The right to create such programs are reserved for the states.
Section 2. Congress shall create no mandates for the citizens of the United States to purchase and/or use any product or service. All such previous laws are declared null and void and all such programs are dissolved.
Section 3. Congress’ ability to regulate via the commerce clause of Arcitle I, Section 8 shall only be regulation of actual commercial activity. It shall not be construed to allow regulation of inactivity. It shall not be construed to allow regulation of activity which is not actual commerce between states, but which could directly or indirectly affect such activity. It shall not be construed or to allow regulation of personal behaivor, consumption or production.
Section 4. The government shall not be involved in providing or guaranteeing non-enumerated services such as, but not limited to, health care, retirement programs, loan services, educational services, grant programs, welfare programs or entitlement programs.
Section 5. Congress shall not give more than 10% of its total annual budget for any year directly back to the states for any reason, and no more than 1% to any individual state.
This amendment should dissolve Social Security, Medicare, the new Health Care Bill, and the department of Education. While these things can still be kept up and done, they should be done on a state by state basis. If Maine wishes to have a universal retirement program or universal health care, then they can. If Texas wants to stay away from such programs, then they can. Such things were left up to the states via the Tenth Amendment. Section 5 is to prevent the federal government from bailing out any individual state (governmental welfare) because of that state’s failed policies. It is also to prevent the federal government from bribing states to do its will in order to get around the 10th Amendment (for example, the withholding of highway funds unless state seat-belt laws are enacted).
The 10th Amendment:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Welfare programs (welfare, food stamps, etc.) should not be confused with “for the general welfare” programs such as NASA, road building, military, etc..
Amendment B
Section 1. Congress shall make no law guaranteeing any industry, business or service. Congress shall not bailout any industry, business or service. Congress shall not nationalize any industry, business or service.
Section 2. Congress shall sell off to the highest bidder any stakes that it may currently hold in any bailed out industry or company. Congress shall have seven years from the time of the ratification of this amendment to hold bidding for and finalize such sales.
Section 3. Congress shall make no law whose main purpose is the redistri bution of wealth.
This should stop the industry bailouts. It should also end the government’s ownership of General Motors, etc. It would also put a stop to the government takeover of the student loans. It would also end the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac scenario because it could to place guarantees on any industry. The third section is self-explanitory.
Amendment C
Section 1. The budget of the Federal government for a fiscal year shall not exceed 10% of the GDP for the country for the calender year dated three years before.
Section 2. Any amount taken in by the Federal government in excess of their budget shall be used to pay off the debt until it is retired. After the debt has been retired, any excess shall be set aside to be used as deemed necessary by Congress to pay for future wars. It may be used for no other purpose.
Section 3. The maximum percentage of income allowed to be taken by the income tax under the 16th Amendment shall not exceed 15%. Whatever the percentage taken by the tax (15% or less), it shall be taxed to all persons and entities evenly without exceptions, exemptions or loopholes.
Section 4. Once the debt has been retired, the maximum percentage of income allowed to be taken by the income tax will be reduced to 12%.
This amendment will reign in runaway government spending. For example, the GDP was $14.2 trillion in 2009. Thus, the Budget for the Federal Government could not exceed $1.42 trillion for the 2012 budget year. With the removal of the entitlement programs, this limit should never need to be exceeded. The second section works to retire the debt and builds an actual war chest once the debt is retired. The third and fourth sections reduce the income tax to a level which will promote long term investment and prosperity.
Amendment D
Section 1. No person shall serve more than two full or partial terms in the House. No person shall serve more than two full or partial terms in the Senate.
Section 2. Congress shall make no law for the people which excempts them from equality under that law.
This amendment is very, very straightforward. It would go a long way towards eliminating career politicians.
Amendment E
A citizen of the United States shall be somebody who was born abroad of two U.S. Citizen parents, who was born in the United States or any of its territories of at least one parent who is a U.S. Citizen or who has been naturalized as a Citizen through a process as is established by Congress.
This amendment will correct a misreading/misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment and will disallow the “anchor babies”. With the removal of entitlement programs federally, the lure of entitlements would be greatly reduced, but the fact that many states will continue to carry on entitlement programs (which is their right under the 10th Amendment), they would still be a problem without this amendment.
Programs should be tried by states if they wish. The programs that work will be adopted slowly by other states. The programs that fail will be abandoned. People will always vote with their feet by moving from one state to another when things become too bad in the state where they currently live. Thus, some states will always have entitlement programs.
Feel free to debate and add to these if necessary. I believe that these five amendments would greatly correct the course of our country and it would bring back prosperity for all.
We can even propose and amend these state-by state (by-passing Congress if necessary): (emphasis mine)
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. “
We can do this, and, for the love of the country, I suggest that we start soon.
Theophile N. Guimbelleaux
Theophile on April 10, 2010 at 1:44 PM
So, does that include people making less than $10,000 a year? It seems to me that there needs to be some bottom there. When Bush passed his tax cuts, it lead to huge gains in federal revenues initially. In fact in 2006 the IRS had its biggest pay day and Bush had taken some people off the bottom of the rolls. People say his tax cuts were just for the wealthy but they were not, they were broad based than that. I am not saying people should not pay or whatever, but then again be prepared for the bumper stickers stating that Republicans want to tax old ladies on food stamps.
Terrye on April 10, 2010 at 1:45 PM
Envy is the root of crime.
Envy leads to stealing.
Envy leads to murder… ever hear of Cain and Able?
Envy leads to adultry.
And worst of all Envy leads to socialism.
Envy is the main manipulation tool of the left. Envy is how they get people to vote for them.
It is not greed that ruins capitalism it is envy.
Envy is used more than anything else by the left to perpetuate the socialist agenda.
petunia on April 10, 2010 at 1:47 PM
VAT is an economy killer, no doubt about it. But then again, everyone will pay. I would prefer a straight up consumption tax to a VAT, because at least then there are times when people could just say no and not buy something. But with a VAT it is a tax on every level of production and that just sucks so much out of the economy it will bleed it dry.
Terrye on April 10, 2010 at 1:48 PM
I think they use fear. There are an awful lot of rich Democrats out there living high on the hog not envying anyone. Hollywood is full of them. And they pay a lot of taxes too. They just have so much money they don’t miss it. It is hard to believe how many well educated professionals with high paying jobs voted for Obama. I wonder how many of them regret it today.
I think that a lot of people vote for Democrats because they are afraid they can not make it without them and their programs.
Terrye on April 10, 2010 at 1:52 PM
First, this is the most severe post-war recession in American history. The housing collapse and near collapse of the entire financial system were events that will take many, many years to recover from.
Because so many households lost wealth, even the wealthiest Americans are facing balance sheet problems. What we know from these scenarios in the past is that tax cuts targeting higher income earners typically don’t result in more spending or investment. Instead, those households tend to save the additional money in an attempt to recover lost net worth. And as Barron’s recently pointed out, business investment is driven by consumer demand, not by lower taxes. The trickle down miracle that was supposed to occur under George W. never happened, despite deep capital gains tax cuts. All Bush realized was a bubble housing economy, with nothing substantial to fill the voice once it collapsed.
bayam on April 10, 2010 at 2:34 PM
California!
DSchoen on April 10, 2010 at 3:03 PM
the construction of the underclass welfare state warrants it. The free stuff that never comes.
tarpon on April 10, 2010 at 3:10 PM
I would love that, but realistically what libtard would agree to it?
It’s about as likely to happen as putting a stop to North Korea’s and Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
As for allowing only taxpayers to vote, it is fun to dwell on a conservative utopian dream, is it not?
Sweet_Thang on April 10, 2010 at 3:11 PM
Your statement doesn’t make any sense; in fact it’s self-defeating.
“jumped suddenly” and “a few years back”
To make this statement true you would have to claim
“jumped a few years back”
Or
“jumped suddenly due to tax credit that the Republicans pushed last year”
However your “talking point” doesn’t claim that.
The TRUTH concerning the $1000 per child off-the-top tax credit comes from the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
And that is the TRUTH to your bogus claim.
DSchoen on April 10, 2010 at 3:35 PM
And who has the capital to invest?
BTW, Consumer demand is a result of a product or service Consumers want.
Products or services are a result of capital investment. And there is no guarantee that people will want this product or service.
Who has the Capital to invest?
If the product or service is a success many people will want to invest in it, call it “riding the wave”.
The point is a lot of things have to happen BEFORE there is consumer demand.
Although under Obama this is changing. Under Obama Consumer demand is a result of government edict, you WILL buy this product or service or YOU WILL BE BREAKING THE LAW !
DSchoen on April 10, 2010 at 4:04 PM
Kibitzing here …. and the answer is “kinda sorta ….”
There’s a problem when a majority can vote itself largess at the expense of the minority – such a system is doomed to collapse because the majority will never accept the “golden goose” limitation on their demands.
Consider how arguments for tax cuts, spending limits / discipline, etc. are treated in the American political community – anyone arguing for any of these things is condemned as selfish, heartless, lacking compassion, etc. Saying “look, we can’t afford to buy all of you a pony no matter how badly you want one” is considered cruel. The premise is “the people who are paying for all this s*** ought to have more say than the people who aren’t.”
Something will limit the reach of Leviathan – government will either lessen its demands voluntarily or they will be lessened by the system collapsing (which will be far less pretty).
BD57 on April 10, 2010 at 4:36 PM
Easy peasy. Allow only income tax payers and property owners to vote. Imagine how much better the country would be. The government would be vastly smaller yet far more efficient, economic growth would be consistently healthy– creating a robust private market that pumped out enough jobs for anyone and everyone motivated enough to get one. Freeloaders would be SOL–thus “highly motivated” to get off the arse and find work.
Sadly, only in a perfect world….
I’m SO GLAD to be moving to Switzerland this summer. True, I have to put up with insane penalties for traffic infractions, but taxes are very low, quality of life is great, employment laws are extremely reasonable and flexible for management, and outside of a few crazies in Geneva working for the UN and Red Cross, most locals are affably conservative in outlook. Hell they are banning minarets and telling Europeans who squeal in horror to go pound sand…
AttilaTheHun on April 10, 2010 at 5:16 PM
Barrack’s going to take a bite out of your wallet!
Cybergeezer on April 10, 2010 at 5:58 PM
If you renounce your citizenship, are you free from taxes at that point?
Cybergeezer on April 10, 2010 at 5:59 PM
Good guess, but guess again.
ericdijon on April 10, 2010 at 6:01 PM
Good luck with that;
Under this REGIME, government will only take more and more control to “fix” things.
Tyranny now; Anarchy soon!
Cybergeezer on April 10, 2010 at 6:02 PM
Preacher Choir
Democrats are outside not with their hands over their ears. They don’t care about these points.
Sultry Beauty on April 10, 2010 at 6:10 PM
Not only that, but hear this and listen up you dumbsh*t trolls and scum-sucking liberals, but no matter what rate you set as the confiscatory rate, we will NOT continue to support you.
For example, if you set the confiscatory rate to kick in at 300k, I will stop working at 299k. If you set it as 250k, I will stop working at 249k. Why do you think everyone is dumping investment property? We know you are going to increase the cap gains rate, so there’s no incentive to hold on. Why do you think there is so little hiring going on? We know you are going to try to implement even more “screw the man” policies, why should we create jobs?
You will not financially rape us. We’re too smart for you. F*ck you. Create your own jobs, like we did. Make your own wealth.
JustTruth101 on April 10, 2010 at 8:11 PM
I wouldn’t dream of renouncing my citizenship! Work takes me to Switzerland for the next 5 years, and I’m looking forward to the lower local taxes. I’ll still owe US taxes but will overall pay less than I would being in the states, which I think is bogus… Taxation without representation. I’ll be outside the states, yet still have to pay a good chunk of my $$$ to fund all the bullshit that democrats lavish on their whiny non-taxpaying constituencies.
AttilaTheHun on April 10, 2010 at 8:36 PM
It’s a blatant and unjustifiable money-grab the thieving b@stards sneaked (snuck?) into law so you can’t avoid the IRS by leaving the country. If your keep your American Citizenship, you pay!
American Citizenship is getting more expensive by the day – soon it will be so expensive as to require a cost/benefit recalculation. The smart money is probably already gone or preparing to leave.
A sad catastrophe for the sheeple if enough Capitalists “go galt”.
Who is John Galt on April 11, 2010 at 3:37 AM
Yeah, Republicans love our country when it’s time for war or when it’s time to spend money.
Just think all those citizens of the USA that are utterly worthless. It makes one wonder how those people at the top would make their money, if absolutely no one had to work. Yes, Republicans love the soldier, yet the soldier pays no taxes, just as they love the factory production worker, the waitress, the barber, etc., when it’s voting time.
I hope I am conveying my disgust for this Anti-American logical fallacy clearly enough. Stop blaming the poor. Stop blaming the working class. Stop blaming America.
Observation on April 11, 2010 at 3:37 AM
A) Soldiers pay taxes like everyone else. B) We love them because they risk their lives to protect us.
We’re not. We’re blaming the limosine liberals and race-hustlers who want to keep them that way, and make more of them, because the hopelessness of the poor is the source of these vampire’s power.
drunyan8315 on April 11, 2010 at 10:39 AM
Soldiers do pay taxes. I did. I really dont know where people come up with this nonsense.
Ed, I agree and have been saying this for a year. When taxes go up that much the folks with money leave, because they are mobile.Bozo has no clue what he’s doing. He and his clown posse are complete idiots and they are destroying the economy by poisoning the private sector day after day.
Things will get worse and worse until we experience the complete collapse they are heading for.
dogsoldier on April 11, 2010 at 10:40 AM
Able-bodied welfare recipients shouldn’t get to vote. Period. I would think that if I fell on hard times (perish the thought), and had to avail myself of the state’s largess, I would understand that that I should have no say in how that largess is afforded to me. When you live on the kindness and grace of others’ hard work, you shouldn’t be able to dictate to them how they should provide you that charity.
Plus it makes for a nice incentive to get your ass off the dole ASAP.
You pay taxes, you vote. You don’t, you don’t. Watch how quickly and efficiently our system would right itself.
AttilaTheHun on April 11, 2010 at 11:54 AM
Hi OT wanted to let you know I am off to the Tea Party Express, which is on town in like an hr. or so. Newspaper said +20 speakers (!!!) and got my signs and a camcorder/cam so I can post pics.
ProudPalinFan on April 11, 2010 at 6:14 PM
Oh, that’s just what the Americans need, another “comprehensive reform.” Is there anyone who would like to be comprehensively left alone by all the comprehensive reformers?
Kralizec on April 11, 2010 at 7:37 PM
got back wow I am tired! About 400 or so people, 3 buses and my sign was enjoyed by the crowd. The best part of the Tea Partt – it’s when they give the mikes to us so we can talk; DAMN!
ProudPalinFan on April 11, 2010 at 9:26 PM
Wish I could have been there too.
On the taxes. If it is free it doesn’t mean anything to you. I been poor a lot too and know what it’s like but a person should always have a stake in the game geared to their income.
Herb on April 11, 2010 at 9:42 PM
FTFY.
I’d welcome with open arms someone who was actually for reform. And so should you.
What we have now is a bunch of statist screwballs cloaking their legalized robbery in fancy words. Notice that nobody have actually given any serious support to actually reforming the system. Scrapping the Infernal Robbers and Shysters department? No support. Replacing the ridiculous spaghetti-code we have for a tax system? Naught but empty promises.
Dark-Star on April 11, 2010 at 11:28 PM
I sometimes go back and review old comments threads, Dark-Star. I take your point, but please observe that you, too, have dropped the word “comprehensive.” Can we agree that the right sort of reform seems to involve making the “federal” government no longer comprehensive but federal?
Kralizec on May 2, 2010 at 12:54 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2