tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8591018003444406729.post2328577818972715838..comments2023-10-25T06:13:28.265-04:00Comments on The Conservative Wahoo: Principle #6 of the Republican Renaissance--TaxesThe Conservative Wahoohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17818674434286683162noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8591018003444406729.post-22760945613058285362009-05-17T10:26:00.000-04:002009-05-17T10:26:00.000-04:00Cavalier dismissal, Mark? I hardly think so. I m...Cavalier dismissal, Mark? I hardly think so. I make the necessary distinction between income taxes (which fund the operations of the government) and payroll taxes (which provides for benefits directly aimed at returning to the payer). In case, those taxed are responsible for the operations of the entire government AND their own care and feeding in dotage/ill health; in the other, only the latter is seen to. Hardly cavalier. Just the facts.The Conservative Wahoohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17818674434286683162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8591018003444406729.post-32100733076170319922009-05-16T23:56:00.000-04:002009-05-16T23:56:00.000-04:00Well, you managed a pretty cavalier dismissal (lik...Well, you managed a pretty cavalier dismissal (like the pun?) of the payroll tax, which everyone does pay at the same rate, up to a cap. It's also evil economically (it's an overt tax on jobs).<br /><br />I also vote for the VAT. Even better is a carbon tax - best of all - a huge excise tax on imported oil. That would do a lot to reduce oil comsumption and hurt all those evil nations that get rich selling it to us - Russia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc etc etc.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09459565678293998751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8591018003444406729.post-63692733658533282202009-05-12T20:03:00.000-04:002009-05-12T20:03:00.000-04:00Malcolm Forbes had the tax answer a long time ago,...Malcolm Forbes had the tax answer a long time ago, - "a value added tax". Fair and workable for every living soul.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8591018003444406729.post-9733640496743440092009-05-12T09:11:00.000-04:002009-05-12T09:11:00.000-04:00Interesting line of thought which begs the questio...Interesting line of thought which begs the question of what exactly conservatives would seek to conserve. I offer that the whole notion of income taxes in their current form are antithetical to the founding fathers' notion of federalism and constitutional republican government. As noted in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, SCOTUS ruled that most income taxes are direct taxes, the results of which must be apportioned to the States. If we conserved this principle by repealing the 16th amendment, we would see a dramatically more responsible government in my view, as the taxes from capital gains and property would go to the states for their control rather than for federal purposes.<br /><br />And while income taxes on wages can be viewed as indirect taxes in other cases, I think the responsible use of those taxes depends upon the direct/indirect distinction--which is why the federal government could not reasonably levy an income tax until after the 16th amendment. Many of the abusive spending practices we see today result from the abandonment of this principle.<br /><br />The founders knew spending would get out of control if the federal government was allowed an unlimited power to tax, and sought to limit that power by apportionment to the states. I offer this for consideration as a conservative notion: federal taxes have dangerous potential and money is best managed by the States as originally specified in the US Constitution.Acehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10799512006888426137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8591018003444406729.post-28451881194942701892009-05-12T09:09:00.000-04:002009-05-12T09:09:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Acehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10799512006888426137noreply@blogger.com