How do you achieve the funding for #1 without #1? For that matter how do you fund prisons as well?

 

Sales tax will only get you so far and my question becomes "Is that a federal sales tax or state one?" If state, how do you support the military?

 

Here is how!

Here is how!

 

Hey, I'm all for a Fair Tax Plan.

 

But that still is a TAX.

 

 

Maybe Fundamental wasn't clear enough but the statement read as if all Federal Income Tax would be abolished. He didn't say go to this plan or that one. In fact he argued against the government's power to tax.

Hey, I'm all for a Fair Tax Plan.

 

But that still is a TAX.

 

 

Maybe Fundamental wasn't clear enough but the statement read as if all Federal Income Tax would be abolished. He didn't say go to this plan or that one. In fact he argued against the government's power to tax.

Fair Tax has nothing to do with income.

Fair Tax has nothing to do with income.

 

I understand that.

 

I don't care which system we are talking about, it is a tax.

 

The original post ONLY said the elimination of the Federal Income Tax. Fine. What do you replace it with? He did not state anything. Therefore I ask again how do you support what you want without a Federalized tax of some form.

 

If it's the Fair Tax Plan, fine. But nothing was said by the poster of where the money would come from. Even if we have some money, is it enough?

 

I just think if we are throwing out ideas fine, but chase it to the end of how it will be funded and what that will do to other programs and needs.

Why? How will our military be paid and our roads paved?

 

I have no problem with paying income tax. I feel that I get a decent return out of it.

 

Because it is unconstitutional!

 

Roads are a state issue, much like education

 

military is where I am stumped to be honest, could go back to the model that we have at the beginning of this great nation.

I think the Federal Government is way to big and has broken the constitution a number of times including the Federal Income Tax, which again was never ratified. It does not matter if good comes out of it or not, it is unconstitutional.

 

I propose we become once more self reliant on ourselfs (in my case on God, who sent His Son to die for my sins and your case may be different, which is constitutional) instead of big brother.

 

How does a government become smaller, as we have found out in this state, cut funding.

 

If organizations (such as a church) wishes to help with social justice (proverty) or some other cause great, all for it! Not the government!

 

However, no one can show in the constitution about Bail-Outs (again with our own future money), wel-fare, social security, medicade and medicare just to name a few.

 

Also another thing I want my government to do is go back to the Gold Standard, that way we have to have a balance budget.

 

Thoughts?

Because it is unconstitutional!

 

Roads are a state issue, much like education

 

military is where I am stumped to be honest, could go back to the model that we have at the beginning of this great nation.

 

State militias that move at the whim of the State rather than the national need?

 

This nation's military was a problem because it wasn't centralized very well until during and after the Civil War.

 

Today's warfare cost a lot more than any wars fought then. Much more. Technological development as well deployment would all be huge cost problems that state budgets could not afford.

I think the Federal Government is way to big and has broken the constitution a number of times including the Federal Income Tax, which again was never ratified.

 

It does not matter if good comes out of it or not, it is unconstitutional.

 

I propose we become once more self reliant on ourselfs (in my case God and your case may be different, which is constitutional) instead of big brother.

 

How does a government become smaller, as we have found out in this state cut funding.

 

If organizations (such as a church) which to help with social justice (proverty) or some other cause great, all for it!

 

However, no one can show in the constitution about Bail-Outs (again with our own future money), wel-fare, social security, medicade and medicare just to name a few.

 

Also another thing I want my government to do is go back to the Gold Standard, that way we have to have a balance budget.

 

Thoughts?

 

Again, how can the military protect us without the funding? How can we have the prisons you stated earlier without funding? Even if you cut all welfare spending where will you get the funds to adequately support what you are saying you do want?

State militias that move at the whim of the State rather than the national need?

 

This nation's military was a problem because it wasn't centralized very well until during and after the Civil War.

 

Today's warfare cost a lot more than any wars fought then. Much more. Technological development as well deployment would all be huge cost problems that state budgets could not afford.

 

I agree it was a problem but they over came the problem didn't they (War of 1812 and Revolutionary War.)

 

Wars are more costly only because capitalism has not truely taken effect. Take for an example of the car industry. People didn't want the Big Three, but they do want a car, hense Toyota.

 

People will try to make a profit where one is to be made, so more and more people into the industry means the lower the price and better the quality.

 

Just a thought.

Again, how can the military protect us without the funding? How can we have the prisons you stated earlier without funding? Even if you cut all welfare spending where will you get the funds to adequately support what you are saying you do want?

 

Funding again has to come from the states and again sales tax does that mean we pay a sales tax of 20% on items maybe. I just know that I believe in the constitution and the income tax is unconstitutional.

 

I will reply soon for the prision thoughts.

I agree it was a problem but they over came the problem didn't they (War of 1812 and Revolutionary War.)

 

Wars are more costly only because capitalism has not truely taken effect. Take for an example of the car industry. People didn't want the Big Three, but they do want a car, hense Toyota.

 

People will try to make a profit where one is to be made, so more and more people into the industry means the lower the price and better the quality.

 

Just a thought.

 

Actually both wars showed that victory was as much a drain on England's resources as our actual military victories. England, particularly in the War of 1812, had much bigger fish to fry with France than us. If they had not, they would have turned their full military might on the US and swamped us because of the very reasons I mentioned before.

 

I don't know how you can use that analogy for the price of the military. The military today of the US has to be transported throughout the world. The military of the wars prior to 1898 did not. The cost of producing bullets and gunpowder then versus computer and missle systems today is laughable in comparison.

 

I feel what you are wanting to stand for but the cold budget realities are that a Federalized nation with some form of tax support is the only hope we have to remain both free and strong.

Funding again has to come from the states and again sales tax does that mean we pay a sales tax of 20% on items maybe. I just know that I believe in the constitution and the income tax is unconstitutional.

 

I will reply soon for the prision thoughts.

 

So we are just passing the tax collection responsibilities to another level rather than federal but the burden would still be same on the people, would it not?

 

It reminds me of here in VA.

 

Jim Gilmore was elected on a platform of phasing out the car tax. It was smoke and mirrors. He eliminated all but 40% of it but then the localities had to raise local property taxes, etc. to replace the dollars the state level stopped sending because they had "cut the taxes." You have to pay for it all whether it's at level one, two or three. That's my take on the matter. :thumb:

No. The phrase: Founding Fathers implies the framers of the Constitution. They did not pass the 13th Amendment.

 

Now if you are pointing out they did set up an Amendment process, certainly. I do find it amusing that you want to do away with the Federalization of Personal Taxes but want a strong military. It didn't work well prior to the eventual Nationalization of this country over time in the 19th century. I don't think it work well now either. You asked for a lot in your post but then asked to do away with the means to fund it.

 

Please reread all posts. I did not suggest do away with the income tax. I pointed out that it was constitutionlal to tax because of the 16th amendment.

The Foundinf Fathers created a wonderful document. It allows for change, not easy change and that is what I meant by in part by original intent.

 

While I did agree with Mr. F, I thought by saying the 16th amendment allows for taxing income, I was showing a disagreement with him. I will try to be more clear in the future. What I would like to see the government fund only those items listed in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1-17. This would mean that to provide welfare programs a constitutional amendment would be needed. That would be original intent as the Constitution does not provide for welfare.

Whereas the military is mentioned several times in these clauses.

So we are just passing the tax collection responsibilities to another level rather than federal but the burden would still be same on the people, would it not?

 

It reminds me of here in VA.

 

Jim Gilmore was elected on a platform of phasing out the car tax. It was smoke and mirrors. He eliminated all but 40% of it but then the localities had to raise local property taxes, etc. to replace the dollars the state level stopped sending because they had "cut the taxes." You have to pay for it all whether it's at level one, two or three. That's my take on the matter. :thumb:

 

 

I agree funding has to come from somewhere and the people that want programs to do so. The questions that come before us are what (what kind of tax), why (why we need this or that program, and is that program constitutional)

 

If people do not like taxes they should be able to cut programs, hense money saved.

 

That case in Va, they never really cut any program did they, so funding still had to take place. For what programs!

Please reread all posts. I did not suggest do away with the income tax. I pointed out that it was constitutionlal to tax because of the 16th amendment.

The Foundinf Fathers created a wonderful document. It allows for change, not easy change and that is what I meant by in part by original intent.

 

While I did agree with Mr. F, I thought by saying the 16th amendment allows for taxing income, I was showing a disagreement with him. I will try to be more clear in the future. What I would like to see the government fund only those items listed in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1-17. This would mean that to provide welfare programs a constitutional amendment would be needed. That would be original intent as the Constitution does not provide for welfare.

Whereas the military is mentioned several times in these clauses.

 

I understood that! That is why I posted the link for the action that is being taken against the 16th.