🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <yjcshr=@dixie.com>, jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
|> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
|> 
|> >I agree with you only in that there is an imbalance in Federal vs. Local
|> >control of taxes.  I do not have the opinion of Federal taxes are wrong.
|> >I think they are essential for the nation - it is why the constitution
|> >was created in the first place.  Certain things must be done at a federal
|> >level, and certain regions of the country will be net payers and others
|> >net "tit-suckers".  Preferably, the government will allow this only
|> >where it truly benefits the nation as a whole.  It is up to us to elect
|> >officials who will do this correctly - any failing is directly due to
|> >voting for the wrong person.
|> 
|> Actually Richard, the Constitution was written specifically to prohibit
|> federal income taxes.  The founding fathers rightly feared a strong federal
|> government and realized that taxes were the root of power.  Check Article
|> 8, para 1 and 22.

Shouldn't that be Article I, section 8, para 1 & section 9 para 4?

At the time of the signing of the constitution no country had ever imposed an
income tax on its citizens. Britain was the first in 1799, although even this
was a temporary emergency measure. The common methods of taxation were head
taxes and consumption taxes. Since the paragraph in question specifically
addresses head taxes, and since there had been no history of income taxes in
the America or England, I would think the intent was to ensure uniformity of
congressionally imposed head taxes rather than prohibition of income tax.

The founding fathers did not in general fear a strong federal government ...
the Federalists were in power the first 12 years of constitutional rule. If
the founding fathers simply wanted a loose association of states they would
have stuck with the original Articles of Confederation.

|>  Note that any taxes levied against the citizens
|> must be uniform and based on the census.  Only after the ill-begotten
|> 16th amendment did the federal government gain the means of seizing
|> power from the states and the people.  (BTW, has anyone contemplated
|> the fact that the 16th did not repeal the requirement of Article 8, para 1
|> that taxes be uniform?  That would sure kill "progressive" [newspeak for
|> 'soak the worker, give to poor and gov't tit suckers'] tax schemes.)

A progressive income tax is not uniform, but then a flat income tax is not
either. Since sales taxes are regressive, having a progressive income tax
does not seem unreasonable to me.

hmm, this doesn't really seem to be directly relevant to energy does it ...

Larry Edwards