Purpose of taxes?

[MtnBiker]

What is the purpose of the government collecting taxes?

[Hagbard Celine]

To pay for public works and programs such as police, fire department, military, parks, roads, interstates, waste management, public education, social security, etc.

[Little-Acorn]

Originally, the purpose was to pay for the functions of government. Back when all government did was govern what they should. Paying for the courts, the military, diplomatic missions here and abroad, etc. There's a handy list in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8. And on a lower, more local level, to pay for police, some infrastructure, recordkeeping etc. that the people of the area agree on.

But in the last hundred years or so, those things have become secondary and minor. Most taxes nowadays are collected so that our masters can transfer them to other people who have nothing to do with government, but whom our masters somehow feel "deserve" the money more than the people who earned it. Another function is to sway the progress of society, as our masters "give" tax credits to activities they feel are good, and withhold them from activites they feel are bad.

The government giveth and the government taketh away. And the primary vehicle for the latter is taxes.

[glockmail]

To pay for public works and programs such as police, fire department, military, parks, roads, interstates, waste management, public education, social security, etc.I don't see anything in your list about needles and methadone for abusers, satellite television for those who choose not to work, support for art projects that nobody wants enough to pay for, health care for losers who don't want it bad enough to pay for it themselves, Viagra for nursing home patients, and all those pet projects for legislators to "bring jobs and economic development" into their districts.

[Hagbard Celine]

I don't see anything in your list about needles and methadone for abusers, satellite television for those who choose not to work, support for art projects that nobody wants enough to pay for, health care for losers who don't want it bad enough to pay for it themselves, Viagra for nursing home patients, and all those pet projects for legislators to "bring jobs and economic development" into their districts.

So should the tax system be abolished just because less than one percent of the population exploits it? It's completely unrealistic to make the examples you've pointed out seem more overblown than they really are.

[glockmail]

So should the tax system be abolished just because less than one percent of the population exploits it? It's completely unrealistic to make the examples you've pointed out seem more overblown than they really are. 1% we can handle, but we ar far in exceess of that. Non-Constitutional expenditures account for a huge percentage of the federal budget. We're talking size 38GG huge.

[Little-Acorn]

1% we can handle, but we ar far in exceess of that. Non-Constitutional expenditures account for a huge percentage of the federal budget. We're talking size 38GG huge.

The term is "unconstitutional". Give a far better reflection of what's been going on for the last 70+ years.

A chart I put together from government data many years ago. I have to bring it up to date, to show the spending of the recent liberal Republican and Dem congresses.

Quick quiz: Who controlled Congress (and thus controlled spending) until 1933? And who controlled it almost solidly after that time? Notice any differences in spending between the two periods? I think I can see one, somewhere in there, outside the spikes in defense spending during WWI, WWII, and Korea.

Bonus question: Of the programs listed on the right side of the chart, which ones are authorized by the Constitution for the Fed to spend money on, and which aren't?

http://www.little-acorn.com/pics/fedspn1w.jpg

[glockmail]

…..
Bonus question: Of the programs listed on the right side of the chart, which ones are authorized by the Constitution for the Fed to spend money on, and which aren't?



I would say that defense, most vet benefits, international affairs (depending on what is included), general government, justice, and interest are all within the enumerated powers, and everything else is not. I’d like to see that chart simplified for just those two categories.

[Little-Acorn]

I would say that defense, most vet benefits, international affairs (depending on what is included), general government, justice, and interest are all within the enumerated powers, and everything else is not. I’d like to see that chart simplified for just those two categories.

I put one together that did exactly that, have to see if I can still find it.

BTW, if the categories not authorized by the Constitution had had no spending by the Fed, want to guess how big the "Interest on National Debt" spending would have been?

[glockmail]

I put one together that did exactly that, have to see if I can still find it.

BTW, if the categories not authorized by the Constitution had had no spending by the Fed, want to guess how big the "Interest on National Debt" spending would have been?
I'm sure that its huge. Spending your money on crap means that there is less available to pay off the debt quicker.

[Hobbit]

The purpose of taxes is to raise fund for the normal operation of government. Obama seems to think the purpose of taxes is to create fairness.

[Little-Acorn]

I'm sure that its huge. Spending your money on crap means that there is less available to pay off the debt quicker.

My guess is, if we hadn't spent all that money on unconstitutional programs, money spent on interest on the National Debt would have been ZERO... because we wouldn't have had a national debt. We could have cut our levels of taxation by 2/3, and still had more than enough to pay off ALL the debt left over from the war years, before that interest got big enough to be visible on this chart.

As it is, though, by the 1990s unconstitutional spending, and interest on the debt it created, comprised more than 3/4 of the entire Federal budget.

[Little-Acorn]

The purpose of taxes is to raise fund for the normal operation of government. Obama seems to think the purpose of taxes is to create fairness.

He's not the only one who thinks so. But since he is the most liberal member of the Senate, who never saw a tax increase or "entitlement" program he didn't like, I'd guess he's the biggest pusher of that idea, currently.

[Joe Steel]

What is the purpose of the government collecting taxes?

"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;

Art. 1, Sec. 8, U. S. Constitution

The key phrase is "provide for the...general welfare." It means, essentially, that Congress can raise taxes to do anything it wishes.

[Hobbit]

"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;

Art. 1, Sec. 8, U. S. Constitution

The key phrase is "provide for the...general welfare." It means, essentially, that Congress can raise taxes to do anything it wishes.

Article V, Amendment 10

"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."

No, they can't.

[Little-Acorn]

"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;

Art. 1, Sec. 8, U. S. Constitution

The key phrase is "provide for the...general welfare." It means, essentially, that Congress can raise taxes to do anything it wishes.

The so-called "Welfare Clause" was never a permit for Congress to do anything and everything that might help people. That would have invalidated most of the Constitution, making it redundant to later list only specific thing Congress was permitted to do.

The clause was actually part of a statement saying what tax money could be spent on. And "general welfare" was written to distinguish it from "particular welfare", which would be the welfare of exclusive groups (blacks only, merchants only, left-handed redheads only etc.).

The entire sentence read: “The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . .” .

Cutting down to the relevant parts here, “Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes... to provide for the... general welfare of the United States. . .” .

"General Welfare" meant things that would benefit ALL people in the U.S., not just special-interest groups.

In other words, the "general welfare" clause is a restriction, not a permission. It says that taxes can only be spent on things that benefit everybody equally. Govt-paid health care, for example, in a country where most people already pay for their own health care, would only help those who don't, and so is forbidden. As are most other things liberal big-govt addicts have tried to shovel into the "General Welfare" clause.

[Classact]

"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;

Art. 1, Sec. 8, U. S. Constitution

The key phrase is "provide for the...general welfare." It means, essentially, that Congress can raise taxes to do anything it wishes.General welfare I suggest at the time the constitution was written was the construction of bridges, or operation of ferries. The nation was created as a result of problem with the tax man.

[Joe Steel]

Article V, Amendment 10

"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."

No, they can't.

The Tenth Amendment is functionally meaningless. It says merely that all power resides in the People whether exercised through the state or federal governments. The People are sovereign and can command their creatures, the state and federal governments, to do whatever the People wish done.

Secondly, the Tenth Amendment was added to the Constitution to settle the fears of state officials that they would be made meaningless by the federal government. The Tenth Amendment assured them that the Constitution would not alter the balance of power between the states and the federal government at the time of its adoption but it does not guarantee the balance forever. The People may change the balance whenever they wish.

Finally:

" This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Article 6, U. S. Constitution.

[Little-Acorn]

General welfare I suggest at the time the constitution was written was the construction of bridges, or operation of ferries.

It actually meant, things that could help everybody equally. As opposed to things that could help only pennsylvanians, or landowners, or etc.

[Joe Steel]

The so-called "Welfare Clause" was never a permit for Congress to do anything and everything that might help people. That would have invalidated most of the Constitution, making it redundant to later list only specific thing Congress was permitted to do.

The clause was actually part of a statement saying what tax money could be spent on. And "general welfare" was written to distinguish it from "particular welfare", which would be the welfare of exclusive groups (blacks only, merchants only, left-handed redheads only etc.).

The entire sentence read: “The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . .” .

Cutting down to the relevant parts here, “Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes... to provide for the... general welfare of the United States. . .” .

"General Welfare" meant things that would benefit ALL people in the U.S., not just special-interest groups.

In other words, the "general welfare" clause is a restriction, not a permission. It says that taxes can only be spent on things that benefit everybody equally. Govt-paid health care, for example, in a country where most people already pay for their own health care, would only help those who don't, and so is forbidden. As are most other things liberal big-govt addicts have tried to shovel into the "General Welfare" clause.

Where does the Constitution say that?

[Joe Steel]

General welfare I suggest at the time the constitution was written was the construction of bridges, or operation of ferries. The nation was created as a result of problem with the tax man.

Where does the Constitution say that?

[Joe Steel]

It actually meant, things that could help everybody equally. As opposed to things that could help only pennsylvanians, or landowners, or etc.

Where does the Constitution say that?

[Little-Acorn]

The Tenth Amendment is functionally meaningless.
Somehow I knew that this statement lay at the core of little joesteel's bizarre impression of the Constitution.

In fact, the 10th is probably the most significant anti-big-government phrase in the document, perhaps in ANY legal document ever written. No wonder modern liberals hate it.

It says that the Fed govt has ONLY the powers explicitily listed in the Constitution. Any other powers are forbidden to the Fed, and can only be exercised by lower governments or the people themselves.

[Classact]

The Tenth Amendment is functionally meaningless. It says merely that all power resides in the People whether exercised through the state or federal governments. The People are sovereign and can command their creatures, the state and federal governments, to do whatever the People wish done.

Secondly, the Tenth Amendment was added to the Constitution to settle the fears of state officials that they would be made meaningless by the federal government. The Tenth Amendment assured them that the Constitution would not alter the balance of power between the states and the federal government at the time of its adoption but it does not guarantee the balance forever. The People may change the balance whenever they wish.

Finally:

" This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Article 6, U. S. Constitution.Much of what the government spends tax on is not mandatory spending. The constitution states a military/navy national defense as a priority and then there is "mandatory spending", that required by law. Few of the expenditures are mandatory spending and mandatory spending has a negative balance of unfunded liabilities in the trillions of dollars. There is no excuse a responsible law maker or candidate can make for spending other than existing mandatory spending until there is a balance in the budget.

Edited to add http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/glossary.html

[Joe Steel]

Somehow I knew that this statement lay at the core of little joesteel's bizarre impression of the Constitution.

In fact, the 10th is probably the most significant anti-big-government phrase in the document, perhaps in ANY legal document ever written. No wonder modern liberals hate it.

It says that the Fed govt has ONLY the powers explicitily listed in the Constitution. Any other powers are forbidden to the Fed, and can only be exercised by lower governments or the people themselves.

Sorry, no.

It merely noted the balance of power of at the time of ratification. It does not prohibit changes in the balance.

[Joe Steel]

Much of what the government spends tax on is not mandatory spending.

I think you're missing the point. The Constitution place no restriction on spending. All is permissible, mandatory or otherwise.

[Classact]

Sorry, no.

It merely noted the balance of power of at the time of ratification. It does not prohibit changes in the balance.You are wrong. The mandatory spending is all related to the Social Security Act that uses the Buck Act to control state citizens when they accept the SS# it put state citizens in federal control. Read and learn. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/glossary.html

[Joe Steel]

You are wrong. The mandatory spending is all related to the Social Security Act that uses the Buck Act to control state citizens when they accept the SS# it put state citizens in federal control. Read and learn. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/glossary.html

What's your point?

[Classact]

What's your point?Wrong link try this one http://www.svpvril.com/OACL.html#Buck_ActTHE STORY OF
THE BUCK ACT
Richard McDonald
edited by
Mitch Modeleski

In order for you to understand the full import of what is happening, I must explain certain laws to you.

When passing new statutes, the Federal government always does everything according to the principles of law. In order for the Federal Government to tax a Citizen of one of the several states, they had to create some sort of contractual nexus. This contractual nexus is the "Social Security Number".

In 1935, the federal government instituted Social Security. The Social Security Board then created 10 Social Security "Districts". The combination of these "Districts" resulted in a "Federal area" which covered all the several states like a clear plastic overlay.

[Little-Acorn]

Sorry, no.

It merely noted the balance of power of at the time of ratification. It does not prohibit changes in the balance.

Ah, that public-school education shines through again. Few people have your talent for reading X and saying Y. A generous dose of ignorance in history no doubt helps your cause.

The Constitution was the document that created the current Federal government... and assigned it its powers. If a power was not assigned to the Fed by the Constitution, then that meant the Fed didn't have that power, and was forbidden to make laws in that area.

And some of the powers NOT included in the Constitution that was ratified in 1789, were the power to require or forbid religion, the power to restrict the press, the power to ban or restrict guns, etc. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, etc. were not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution when it was ratified. And so the Fed had NO power to restrict those things - it was forbidden.

Some of the framers felt that wasn't enough, though. They wanted various rights explicitly named in the Constitution, so they could be guaranteed. Other framers disagreed. Not because they opposed the rights, but because they were worried about the results of naming some rights and leaving out others. It was impossible to name every last right, of course.

The people who opposed the BOR were worried that, for example, since the right to peaceably assemble was guaranteed by the Constitution but the right to ride horses was not, then some slick joesteel-type lawyer might try to claim this meant that people didn't have the right to ride horses.

But some states insisted that a list of the "most important rights" be included, as a condition of their ratifying the Constitution in 1789. So a list was drawn up. And to satisfy those worried about omissions, another amendment was added, saying that the rights listed in the Constitution weren't necessarily the only rights the people had. That became the 9th amendment.

Then they started worrying that those same slick joesteel types would start arguing that, since the people had rights that were not listed in the Constitution, that meant that the Fed also had additional powers that were not listed. And so the framers drew up one more amendment, saying explicitly that the powers of government listed in the document, WERE the only powers the Fed government had, but that the states and the people could have others if they wanted. That became the 10th amendment.

The 10th (and 9th) amendments were sort of a complementary pair. The 9th says that the rights of the people were not limited to those listed in the Const, and the 10th says that the powers of government WERE restricted to those listed.

The most basic concept in the Constitution - that of a limited government with enumerated powers - is enshrined in the 10th amendment. Unsurprisingly, it is probably the most-violated part of the document, by the big-government addicts infesting our country.

[Hobbit]

Joe, you've been sold a pack of lies. The 10th amendment clearly states that any power not specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution is a power that the federal government does not have. If you believe this myth about the balance of power shifting, then why skirt the amendment instead of trying to get your own amendment passed that removes that little restriction.

This blatant redefining of the Constitution infuriates me. Next thing you know, the first amendment will only apply to book collectors and that whole religion thing will be deemed 'outdated' and 'only relevant in the time in which it was written.' Double jeopardy will only apply if the first trial was 'fair.' Anybody not making a living wage will be defined as a 'slave' as per the 13th amendment. It makes me sick.

[Little-Acorn]

Tried to rep you for that one, Hobbit, but couldn't. Excellent description of the logical extensions of the liberals' efforts to redefine the Constitution.

[glockmail]

Where does the Constitution say that?


Where does the Constitution say that?


Where does the Constitution say that?

You're stuck on stupid. :laugh2:

[Joe Steel]

The most basic concept in the Constitution - that of a limited government with enumerated powers - is enshrined in the 10th amendment. Unsurprisingly, it is probably the most-violated part of the document, by the big-government addicts infesting our country.

The notion of limited powers is utter nonsense. The Constitution clearly creates a government of virtually unlimited power. Nothing in the Constitution explicitly limits its power and its language implies plenary power; promote the general welfare (Preamble,) provide for the general welfare (Art. Sec. 8,) supreme law of the land (Art. 6,) petition Congress for a redress of grievances (First Amendment,) powers...reserved..to the People (Tenth Amendment.)

[Joe Steel]

Joe, you've been sold a pack of lies. The 10th amendment clearly states that any power not specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution is a power that the federal government does not have. If you believe this myth about the balance of power shifting, then why skirt the amendment instead of trying to get your own amendment passed that removes that little restriction.

This blatant redefining of the Constitution infuriates me. Next thing you know, the first amendment will only apply to book collectors and that whole religion thing will be deemed 'outdated' and 'only relevant in the time in which it was written.' Double jeopardy will only apply if the first trial was 'fair.' Anybody not making a living wage will be defined as a 'slave' as per the 13th amendment. It makes me sick.

Your simplistic misconstruing of the Constitution is insulting to anyone who treasures it. Clearly, you know nothing more of it than has been preached to you by the hatemongers and snakeoil peddlers of the extremist right wing.

[Joe Steel]

You're stuck on stupid. :laugh2:

I guess I am; but you're entertaining, if a bit pathetic.

[Hobbit]

The notion of limited powers is utter nonsense. The Constitution clearly creates a government of virtually unlimited power. Nothing in the Constitution explicitly limits its power and its language implies plenary power; promote the general welfare (Preamble,) provide for the general welfare (Art. Sec. 8,) supreme law of the land (Art. 6,) petition Congress for a redress of grievances (First Amendment,) powers...reserved..to the People (Tenth Amendment.)

You mean other than the part where it specifically states that 'Those powers not enumerated to the federal government and not forbidden to the states are reserved for the states, respectively, or for the people.' I don't know how it can be much clearer, I mean, "Those powers not enumerated to the federal government...are reserved for the states, respectively, or for the people.' It's clear as day to anyone with half a brain.

I would also like you to explain to me how a group of men, the sum total of whose historical impact amounted to overthrowing a government they claimed to be too far reaching and who wrote dozens of papers and books decrying big government as oppression and warning the people of their new country about how bad things could get if the government got very powerful wrote in the founding document of their country that their government gets the very unlimited powers they devoted their lives to fighting against.

[midcan5]

Cynic's cap on: the purpose of taxes today is strictly ideological, it is a slogan word that can be used by various wingnuts to heap praise on themselves or some other wingnut and to heap criticism on any foe all the while giving government subsidies or engaging in regulatory malfeasance to their corporate sponsors who in turn will reward them with a cushy job after they get out of office. Cap off.

[Joe Steel]

You mean other than the part where it specifically states that 'Those powers not enumerated to the federal government and not forbidden to the states are reserved for the states, respectively, or for the people.' I don't know how it can be much clearer, I mean, "Those powers not enumerated to the federal government...are reserved for the states, respectively, or for the people.' It's clear as day to anyone with half a brain.

There's your problem.

I've already dealt with the Tenth Amendment issue. Please try to keep-up.



I would also like you to explain to me how a group of men, the sum total of whose historical impact amounted to overthrowing a government they claimed to be too far reaching and who wrote dozens of papers and books decrying big government as oppression and warning the people of their new country about how bad things could get if the government got very powerful wrote in the founding document of their country that their government gets the very unlimited powers they devoted their lives to fighting against.

They weren't opposed to big government. They were opposed to big government they couldn't control.

[Little-Acorn]

The notion of limited powers is utter nonsense. The Constitution clearly creates a government of virtually unlimited power. Nothing in the Constitution explicitly limits its power and its language implies plenary power; promote the general welfare (Preamble,) provide for the general welfare (Art. Sec. 8,) supreme law of the land (Art. 6,) petition Congress for a redress of grievances (First Amendment,) powers...reserved..to the People (Tenth Amendment.)

Wow. You're clinging to your ignorance of history against all available fact, and even your baffling "interpretation" of the Constitution against a straightforward understanding of the English language, aren't you, with all four feet and your tail.

I'm talking about the U.S Constitution, that was ratified in 1789, and the Bill of Rights that was added some several years later. The one for the United States of America. You seem to be referring to a different one, possibly for some other country. Other countries do have governments with virtually unlimited powers. Many have collapsed or are on their way to collapse, often after starving or murdering large proportions of their populations. If those are what you're talking about, we can form separate threads about them if you like. But what you've been saying has very little in common with our Constitution and BOR, or the intentions of those who wrote and ratified it.

[Little-Acorn]

Clearly, you know nothing more of it than has been preached to you by the hatemongers and snakeoil peddlers of the extremist right wing.

I get my interpretations from hatemongers such as James Madison, and snakeoil peddlers such as James Wilson and Alexander Hamilton. You know, the guys who wrote it. And who explained their intentions very clearly in tons of letters written during and after.

It also helps that I read it. More than once. It's actually a pretty straightforward document. Check it out sometime, between your weird rants.

[Joe Steel]

Wow. You're clinging to your ignorance of history against all available fact, and even your baffling "interpretation" of the Constitution against a straightforward understanding of the English language, aren't you, with all four feet and your tail.

I'm talking about the U.S Constitution, that was ratified in 1789, and the Bill of Rights that was added some several years later. The one for the United States of America. You seem to be referring to a different one, possibly for some other country. Other countries do have governments with virtually unlimited powers. Many have collapsed or are on their way to collapse, often after starving or murdering large proportions of their populations. If those are what you're talking about, we can form separate threads about them if you like. But what you've been saying has very little in common with our Constitution and BOR, or the intentions of those who wrote and ratified it.

Your misconstruction of the Constitution is an insult to American traditions of government. I'd like to think it was nothing more than intellectual laziness but I fear it's historical revisionism in service of an extremist ideology.

[Joe Steel]

I get my interpretations from hatemongers such as James Madison, and snakeoil peddlers such as James Wilson and Alexander Hamilton. You know, the guys who wrote it. And who explained their intentions very clearly in tons of letters written during and after.

It also helps that I read it. More than once. It's actually a pretty straightforward document. Check it out sometime, between your weird rants.

You may have read it but you sure don't understand it. Maybe you could get someone to explain it to you.

[glockmail]

I guess I am; but you're entertaining, if a bit pathetic.
This from a guy approaching 14,000 neg points. That ain't easy to do. You ahve to really, really suck at debating. :laugh2:

[MtnBiker]

Obama seems to think the purpose of taxes is to create fairness.

That's right. Do you suppose Obama wants to be the person to decide what is fair?