You have the right to own and enjoy personal property without interference.
...
Therefore, taxation should be predicated on the voluntary act of consumption.

The wording seems inexact or might be cleaned up.

Why should consumption matter, and who defines consumption - when you buy a computer and monitor, is it a business expense or consumption? If I get water, is it for consumption or something else?

Do I have the right to voluntarily exchange property with you, Not crossing state, much less international borders, even gift for gift, without REPORTING both items to the government as well as requiring a chunk of property or money be given to the federal government? Does the 4th amendment becomes void as soon as I barter, buy, or sell?

Wages, originally were not income - they were philosophically and legally considered property, or the equivalent. A chunk of my life is exchanged for something. Income was interest on debt, rent, or capital gains. We need to return to that definition, and tax only income in the original definition - gains or returns from property, not property itself.

Taxing property makes us all slaves because it implies that the government has a prior and superior claim.

The acquisition of property is every bit as volitional an act as is the consumption of property. For that matter, taking a whiz in the compost pile is a voluntary act, but few would dispute that no rational public policy could support a tax on urination.

We need to address the basic question: On what fundamental principle(s) should tax policy be based? Should those who benefit most from government be the ones to support it? Should it be the function of taxation to effect social and economic change? Is redistribution of wealth ever the proper subject of taxation?

There are a few things that could be taxed - pollution - an effluvium tax. If I emit some smoke that creates a small nuisance for a large number of people, say $5/year of damage, it is impractical to handle judicially.

In another thread, I mentioned Corporations. Not partnerships (unlimited liability), or individuals since they are human. Because a corporation is entirely the creature (as in creation) of the state, the state is free to tax them at any rate and in any manner it sees fit. They wish to create a frankenstein monster (animated corpse) which may look and have some human characteristics but isn't human, they can control it.

There could be fees to use government services which would pay for things. Also the first claim to mineral rights or what was before public property.

I noted I'm for freedom of movement, but similar to the pollution above, vehicles damage the road, generally in proportion to the weight. A mileage tax, or even a fuel tax might be the easiest way to collect it - but you could tax the fuel coming into a state instead of at the pump.

Imports and exports can be taxed - international borders.

States could impose their own taxes in more forms as long as people were free to leave. North Dakota wants to eliminate all property taxes. Some states have no income tax. But that is a state/local matter.

The federal government has no business either to tax OR TO COLLECT THE INFORMATION NECESSARY to tax in violation of the 4th amendment.

The reason to base taxes on consumption (e.g. The Fair Tax) is that commerce in the general sense a privilege across state lines recognized as able to be regulated by the Federal Government, and within a state by the state.

If you wish to argue that the government should not have the ability to tax at all then you are taking an anarchist position. There's no reason for you to be in this debate at all if that is your position, and if it devolves to that, I'll ask (once) that you withhold your positions from this debate.

I agree that this part of the language needs to be tightened up and will work on that over the next day or so.

A consumption tax still tends to run afoul of the other principles.

First, what is "consumption"? Does it include services? It probably includes food and medicine and medical care, but should we tax food, shelter, and clothing? But if we exempt things, doesn't that start corruption.

Second, how do you collect or enforce it without doing a "guilty until proven innocent" provision that directly violates the 4th amendment?

There is one place to split things off. Private transactions - between individuals would not be reportable or taxable. If a business is open to the public - a storefront - would be subject to the tax. It would still need some clarification, but I want to be sure anyone "off the grid" didn't have to be dragged onto it. Think the FDA's jackboots to that Amish farmer for selling unpasteurized milk. It was a series of person-to-person transactions, all by referral.

One further note - social security is based on average wages for a number of quarters. One of the other fictions we need to end with this regressive tax (not an insurance policy) is requiring to report wages so the SS can know how much to pay you out of the empty purse.

The government's ability to tax is something like its ability to enforce public health policy - it is clearly an evil, but a necessary one. Originally it was apportioned by state - and the states could decide what manner of taxation their citizens would accept, and then collect and forward the funds. That would be acceptable - Alaska could pay it's entire share out of oil revenue and no information would ever have to go between me and the feds if I lived there in peace. Other states could do it via sales and use taxes. Still others could do property or income taxes. But a high income tax will cause the talented and wealthy to leave.

(I would note the individualism is not absolute - You can't refuse to have a levee across your 20 foot of waterfront property when it has to go 20 miles in either direction to prevent a flood. It would be an eminent domain taking. This is a hard but real case).

Quote:

First, what is "consumption"? Does it include services? It probably includes food and medicine and medical care, but should we tax food, shelter, and clothing? But if we exempt things, doesn't that start corruption.

The Fair Tax does not exempt but does pay a prebate to provide a measure of progressive taxation. That seems like a reasonable compromise.

Quote:

Second, how do you collect or enforce it without doing a "guilty until proven innocent" provision that directly violates the 4th amendment?

You impose the tax upon business entities selling goods and services at retail. Since business entities already must register with the State in which they do business in some form (LLC, Corporation, Sub-S, DBA, etc) and in most states you must have a county or state-issued license (at nominal cost) there's no violation of the 4th Amendment involved.

Commerce in the general sense can be regulated under the Constitution without implicating the 4th Amendment.

One way to get the government's mind right on property taxation is to ram a "you think it's worth that much, government dear, it's SOLD TO YOU for 70%, 80%, 90% of your assessment" provision down their throats.

You'd have to have it voted on in the form of a ballot proposition, because there's no way in hell your legisthieves would EVER draft a bill to do that.

I'm still trying to figure out when & how every fricking state government crafted and ran the con on our parents and grandparents who agreed to let the states take their homes & land via the property tax. I know in our state it was a gradual thing - they only ran the "three years and we sell it" con about a decade ago.

Quote:

You impose the tax upon business entities selling goods and services at retail. Since business entities already must register with the State in which they do business in some form (LLC, Corporation, Sub-S, DBA, etc) and in most states you must have a county or state-issued license (at nominal cost) there's no violation of the 4th Amendment involved.

Fine, as long as if I'm not doing "sales to the public", I don't need a license and won't be taxed.

I think I would just add the wording "Any taxation will respect the individual rights under the constitution including not requiring a TSA like exposure of financial records, no forced self-incrimination, and full due process". Plus maybe "Public retail or wholesale establishments are subject to state licensing and taxation but is only required to maintain its own transaction log and not of or for any customer". Wholesale would be like a VAT - the distinction is arbitrary now with Costco and Sam's club.

Quote:

Wholesale would be like a VAT - the distinction is arbitrary now with Costco and Sam's club.

No it's not. In order to not pay sales tax at either you must have a resale certificate (your tax registration with the state) on file with them.

I know the CURRENT system has a distinction between retail and wholesale. I don't know that there is fundamental philosophical justification for it. I am agnostic as to which is a better system, and would let states figure out how to do it.

How about the Fed Gov does NOT have the right to tax? The right to tax thus belonging only to the states. That allows local accountability and control and a much more civil discussion at the federal level as to what contributions might be requested from the states to fund the fed gov.

Then have broad language to protect individual rights yet allowing the states the ability to determine the matter of taxation.

@Riceday - the 16th amendment (along with the 17th) needs to be repealed, but even the original constitution said the federal government could tax if it apportioned it. Also they could do tariffs (across international borders).

For a government to exist it must have the ability to raise revenues, and you can play semantic and other games, bit it means it has the authority to tax. The scope and manner of taxation are the topic of discussion.

My point: Decentralizing taxation disperses power. If the only budgetary battles we had to fight were at the state level, we'd be done by now.

In addition to discussing the manner(s) of taxation (which have consistently been added to with little difficulty), I do think it is important to discuss where the control rests so as to limit the power. Scope and manner of taxation can change with every election cycle. That change would be limited if the control were limited. Maybe the 16th should be on the table.

Quote:

You have the right to own and enjoy personal property without interference.
...
Therefore, taxation should be predicated on the voluntary act of consumption.

Taxation, by definition, is "predicated" on there being in existence an organization with the power to strong-arm cash out of hundreds of millions of people -- in what state of fantastic hallucination do you guys even briefly imagine that such an entity won't be immediately seized and controlled by bad men, and swiftly devolve into the exact same sordid debacle we have now?

-- You have no right to steal. Period. Full-stop.


The matter is "immutably closed" (see first link).


"...To even submit the matter to a vote represents a grievous assault on the very idea of rights...." http://groups.google.com/group/alt.curre....

"...They know the whole ****ing charade would fall right over if they could not claim to 'represent' us...." http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php?id=P....

What is consumption that isn't enjoying personal property? I enjoy my money by spending it.

Riceday,

Quote:

My point: Decentralizing taxation disperses power. If the only budgetary battles we had to fight were at the state level, we'd be done by now.

Congress had the power to tax income prior to the 16th amendment. Removing it won't remove the power to tax income. It would at best just put income from interest on bonds and from real estate and personal property into the category of direct tax, which needs to be apportioned among the states.

with respect to the platform position on property:

Quote:

You have the right to own and enjoy personal property without interference. If you own your body then you own the fruits of your labor. Taxation that rests upon the acquisition of personal property represents a claim that one obtains more value from government predicated on your ownership of said property. This is a dangerously-false premise. Property tax upon real estate, for example, presumes that the wealthy man with a $1 million house receives more value from the schools than someone who has a $100,000 house. There is no evidence to support this position;

It seems to me that the fruits of labor and the ownership of property are within the framework of protection that is provided by the government. For example, if Canada decides to push for the Gulf of Mexico someday, the guy with a 100 acre farm has more to protect than the guy sleeping homeless on a sidewalk somewhere, or even a guy with a quarter acre plot of land. If the 100 acre farm has a mansion then that is even more to protect. If he has a stash of gold, paintings, fur, rugs, tapestries, furniture, silverware, china, etc, then even more to protect. The farmer with the 100 acres and other property has a Put against invasion from Canada. Or any other country. or from roving bands of gangs. He is more of a target. The government may have to draft more people (which it still has the authority to do if it wants to) in order to protect his property, or find the people that took it. He gets a disproportionate amount of protection if he does not pay taxes that are in proportion to what he has as property.

Of course the income tax does not address this issue. Just because someone is lucky enough to make 1 million in one year does not mean he is rich with lots of property - he may be 10 million in debt even after the 1 million in one time income. Somehow people have confused having income above 200,000 in one year as being the same as being rich, which it isn't.

Anyway, why does the platform allow for the rich (in property, including savings accounts) to enjoy the protection of government for their property without paying for it with taxes? Why do the rich get to freeload off of the lives and time and injuries of others for the protection of their property?

Also under the category of property:

Quote:

The use of the eminent domain power must be restricted to actual public uses, and effective takings must be compensated. The Constitution permits the taking of private property for public use, provided the owner is compensated at fair market value.

What about when the government simply restricts the use of property without "taking" - thereby exercising the authority of ownership while letting the the property "owner" be an owner in name only, while still having to pay taxes on it. The platforms seems to only address formal takings under eminent domain, but what about informal takings that are effectively, de facto, takings?

Neither of your claims are correct in the platform as written.

I do understand "how" they get away with it, but I've never understood the reasoning behind the fed.gov's belief that it has the authority to tax the individual. Because the US.Cont is an agreement between state governments, it seems to me the the fed.gov had the authority to tax only the states, originally in proportion to each states' respective populations. When did they, if ever, get the legal authorization to tax individuals. Even the language in the 16th amendment, "without apportionment among the several States" still refers to states and not to individuals.