CEOExpress Blogger Private Label
 CEOExpress Home


 Total visits to this poll: 20132

This icon appears on your homepage
when there are new posts.

      Search Messages:           
 
AllThis Forum

Do you think that the Trump Tax plan will help the middle class?

Yes
No
I have no idea



Forum View Preference: Basic | AdvancedOpen Forums/Previous Polls | Suggest a Poll
See All Messages

1-18 of 18

1. Tams Bixby CEOExpressSelect Member
     (11/21/2017 10:33:54 AM)
     Message ID #294046

Back To All Messages
If you want to change the Tax Structure of this country to something that will be FAIR on everybody, here's how to do it (it's a 4-step process and requires they ALL be done) ...
  • Step 1: Trash the entire CURRENT Tax Structure (incl. ALL exemptions, exceptions, loopholes, etc);

  • Step 2: Repeal the XVI Amendment (to eliminate Congress' authority to institute an Income Tax);

  • Step 3: Institute a Balanced Budget Amendment (i.e. the 28th Amendment)
    • Step 4 (below and stipulated in the Amendment) pays for the budget; w/ the ONLY exceptions being
    • Declared National Emergencies (President declares) and Declared Wars (Congress declares); and
    • Requiring the exceptions be paid back IN FULL in 10 years (from cessation);

  • Step 4: Institute a Consumption Tax (both wholesale & retail w/ the ONLY exemption being Unprepared Food) as a subsection of the Balanced Budget Amendment to formally tie it to same.


Oh! and FTR, I voted "No".

2. Noel Meyer
     (11/21/2017 2:54:32 PM)
     Message ID #294057

This message is in response to Tams Bixby ( message id #294046 )  Back To All Messages

" Trash the entire CURRENT Tax Structure (incl. ALL exemptions)"

Another example of "REPEAL & REPLACE" huh?

Didn't work so well for the Republican Party on healthcare Just like opening a Constitutional Convention- You might hope they will fix something until you find out they just want to wreck it all.

Tax Cut Plan???? Better the devil you know than the devil you don't. The simple fact that Mnuchin and the other billionaires want this plan is sufficient reason the middle class should say "NO"

" Institute a Consumption Tax (both wholesale & retail)" Isn't that the opposite of stimulating the economy?

" the ONLY exceptions being
◦Declared National Emergencies (President declares) and Declared Wars (Congress declares); and
◦Requiring the exceptions be paid back IN FULL in 10 years (from cessation)"


The war in Afghanistan has no end

Congress no longer declares war too much blame and accountability

That war on drugs didn't get the "NATIONAL EMERGENY" declaration so I guessing many national problems will not get the money needed to solve them because of that loophole.

3. Tams Bixby CEOExpressSelect Member
     (11/21/2017 1:09:10 PM)
     Message ID #294060

This message is in response to Noel Meyer ( message id #294057 )  Back To All Messages

Noel,

First things first ...

If it's codified (i.e. Placed into law) then it's at least easier to enforce (not that it will be but it's supposed to be);



"Another example of "REPEAL & REPLACE" huh?"

Well yeah, but isn't that the same as "changing a law that already exists" (like what happened to the military draft)???? It's just a slightly different approach to it.

---------------------

"Tax Cut Plan???? Better the devil you know than the devil you don't. The simple fact that Mnuchin and the other billionaires want this plan is sufficient reason the middle class should say "NO""

Not if you actually WANT a Tax Break. And another thing, if you re-read my original post, I DID vote "No".

---------------------

"" Institute a Consumption Tax (both wholesale & retail)" Isn't that the opposite of stimulating the economy?"

Well, for starters government has to pay for itself somehow; Second, w/ a single tax rate on EVERYTHING, then nobody gets a break; and Third, you can please some of the people some of the time, some of the people none of the time, and none of the people all of the time.

---------------------

"" the ONLY exceptions being
◦Declared National Emergencies (President declares) and Declared Wars (Congress declares); and
◦Requiring the exceptions be paid back IN FULL in 10 years (from cessation)"

The war in Afghanistan has no end

Congress no longer declares war too much blame and accountability

That war on drugs didn't get the "NATIONAL EMERGENY" declaration so I guessing many national problems will not get the money needed to solve them because of that loophole.
"

Well, if it's not "Declared as a National Emergency" or a "Declared War" then it better be budgeted, otherwise it doesn't get funded. And then in that case, maybe Congress will be forced into getting off their asses and doing their jobs. Nothing wrong w/ that. And if Congress/President doesn't want to do their jobs then "We, The People" will have another reason to stand up and say something (which won't be a bad thing either).

And "Yes", if "We, The People" are made to do their duty as well, I'm all for it. It's about time they were actually made to tow the line (WRT their civic duty) and hold their elected representatives to account as well.

4. D James
     (11/21/2017 5:58:03 PM)
     Message ID #294071

This message is in response to Tams Bixby ( message id #294046 )  Back To All Messages

Www.fairtax.org

Article 5 Convention of the States needs to convene and address the vast overreach from WDC. It can properly take up both a new Balanced Budget Amendment, since our Fed politicians won't do so, and it can also take up repeal of the 16th Amendment which is necessary to enact a national sales tax which is described very well even for a dope like me in their website.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Message edited by user at 11/21/2017 6:04:27 PM

5. Eng SSN 754
     (11/21/2017 3:51:04 PM)
     Message ID #294073

This message is in response to D James ( message id #294071 )  Back To All Messages

One doesn't even have to think very hard to realize that the "Fair Tax" is not fair and will not work. Should not even be on the table for discussion. The exact same comments apply to the concept of a consumption tax (i.e., a sales tax, national or otherwise). A national sales tax would have an even more deleterious effect on the national economy than the so called “Fair Tax”.

Furthermore, the idiot(s) who thought that it would be a good idea to levy taxes on income and productivity should be excoriated (that which you tax more of, you get less of). And, yes, I know under which administration the first income tax was established in this country, and for what reason.

6. D James
     (11/21/2017 1:40:50 PM)
     Message ID #294079

This message is in response to Eng SSN 754 ( message id #294073 )  Back To All Messages

Mr/Ms 754, the Fair Tax has NEVER been tried as the primary means of collection of Federal taxes. You play fast and loose with your opinion as a substitute for fact. The fact is that the website is very well documented and sourced. Our VP has been one of its original and continuing supporters. It certainly, as a means of collection (and after all, that is what a tax is supposed to be, right? It should not be a means for social engineering) is a far more effective and efficient and fair means than the current progressive (an oxymoron, don't you agree?) income tax since nobody can hide from it. At the very least, the Article 5 Convention of States would be a great place to discuss alternatives to the current and proposed stupidities.

Message edited by user at 11/21/2017 1:44:49 PM

7. Eng SSN 754
     (11/21/2017 6:47:29 PM)
     Message ID #294082

This message is in response to D James ( message id #294079 )  Back To All Messages

First off, I have to apologize. I conflated and confused the fair tax (i.e., a consumption tax or national sales tax) with the flat tax. I thought the former was the latter. This was my error. I know the difference, and I stand by my comments.

I am well familiar with the “Fair Tax”. The problems with it are two-fold (at least). It is a HIGHLY regressive form of taxation that, even with its “prebates” will disproportionally affect the middle and lower income strata of society simply because they have less discretionary buying power and decision-making ability compared to higher income stratas. Second, it will have unpredictable and potentially unintended effects on national production and GDP. For instance, with the national sales tax at 23% (which is barely sufficient based upon the current spending of the Federal government and is insufficient based on future spending projections), a $100 item that would cost $108 (including current sales taxes) will now require more than $130 to come out of pocket. That is some sort of sticker shock. Yes, I recognize that there will be more money in pocket because of no Federal income (and maybe payroll) tax withholding (plus prebates), but… And, this will also have unpredictable consequences on the “new versus used” markets. Late model used will look incrementally more attractive because of lower cost PLUS lower tax expense (think automobile, higher cost, durable goods-type purchases). The list of potential examples is virtually endless.

Regarding the “fast and loose” assertion, and the statement that the “website is very well documented and sourced”, those are both statements of opinion, as much as you think that my statements are “opinion as a substitute for fact”. While the Fair Tax web site is comprehensive, it is also promoted by a demographic that will garner disproportionate benefit from a national sales tax scheme. You validate this assertion when you state that our Vice President has been one of its original and continuing supporters. The web site does not address with sufficient adequacy (or at all) some of the potential problems from such a plan, some of which I have articulated above.

It would be a far more effective and efficient form of tax collection. That is for certain.

I agree that we NEED a Convention of the States. Our system of taxation is, in many ways, just a symptom of more systemic problems. The Federal government has grown too big for its britches!

8. Noel Meyer
     (11/21/2017 4:56:41 PM)
     Message ID #294084

This message is in response to Eng SSN 754 ( message id #294082 )  Back To All Messages

Just wondering-

If the flat tax or the fair tax is such a good idea, why is it so hard for the Republican Party to promote either plan as their tax reform?

Permanent tax cuts for corporations and the very rich, temporary tax cuts for the middle class, pennies for the middle class while the corporations and the very rich get almost a 50% tax cut.

NO, the Trump Tax plan (why is it called the Trump Tax Plan? Trump spent no involvement in creating it) is for the corporations and the very richest only.

9. D James
     (11/21/2017 7:53:36 PM)
     Message ID #294086

This message is in response to Eng SSN 754 ( message id #294082 )  Back To All Messages

Excellent post. That's why we need a Convention of States. All roads lead to Rome. Well done.

Message edited by user at 11/21/2017 7:53:57 PM

10. Tams Bixby CEOExpressSelect Member
     (11/21/2017 6:08:34 PM)
     Message ID #294081

This message is in response to D James ( message id #294071 )  Back To All Messages

According to my read David ...

First, Congress has the authority to levy a National Sales Tax w/o the repeal of the XVI Amendment (see 2nd link).

Second, by way of a "Convention of the States" there also would be no need to repeal the XVI Amendment since the "Convention of the States" would be acting in the stead of Congress in the first place (see 1st link).




See here (Article V): https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlev


See here (XVI Amendment): https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxvi


And just to clean your shorts and giggle, here's the link to the entire website: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview

11. D James
     (11/21/2017 10:01:40 PM)
     Message ID #294085

This message is in response to Tams Bixby ( message id #294081 )  Back To All Messages

Tams, yes, Congress does have have the ability to levy a national sales tax or a VAT (totally different) without repeal of 16th Amendment. That's precisely why it needs repeal - do you want separate means of collections running in parallel for the Feds to feast off of? I didn't think so. As for the Convention of States, while they are acting in the stead of Congress on a very select group of items that have been set for discussion, that same Convention also has the ability to repeal the Amendment and enact a new Consitutional Amendment. That is, at the end of the day, one of its major functions.

I know one of your favorite sayings concerns "We the People". I agree. That's why I am with you in the guise of this absolutely essential tool to put the enumerated and implied powers back in their correct lanes. Cheers.

12. Tams Bixby CEOExpressSelect Member
     (11/21/2017 6:49:15 PM)
     Message ID #294088

This message is in response to D James ( message id #294085 )  Back To All Messages

David,

Well ... I guess maybe I'm missing something because when I said originally that "Step 1: Trash the entire CURRENT Tax Structure (incl. ALL exemptions, exceptions, loopholes, etc);" was necessary, it seemed to me that would supercede all the rest of the taxes. So how does that give Congress any additional authority than what they'd have anyway????

I mean whether you repeal and re-enact a NEW version of the XVI Amendment or keep the original, the Congress will still maintain the same authority. How does repeal and replace of XVI Amendment giver Congress any "separate means of collections running in parallel for the Feds to feast off of?"?????

Cheers back @ ya.

13. D James
     (11/21/2017 6:47:16 PM)
     Message ID #294089

This message is in response to Tams Bixby ( message id #294088 )  Back To All Messages

Repeal of the 16th Amendment is the only Way you eliminate the Fed income tax. Without doing so the income tax can be resurrected by the stroke of a pen at political whim. If your means of collection is The Fair Tax or something like it (national sales tax, NOT a VAT) the elements of the current tax system which we despise would necessarily be done away with. What you propose then, and in what I concur, is trashing the current tax structure. The Convention of States could do that in common with repeal of the 16th A and replacing it with a superseding 16th A with the enactment of a national sales tax, along with the 28th Amendment, a Balanced Budget Amendment.

14. Tams Bixby CEOExpressSelect Member
     (11/22/2017 12:04:34 AM)
     Message ID #294090

This message is in response to D James ( message id #294089 )  Back To All Messages

XXVIII Amendment -- Yeah, no brainer ... I get that.

But I still don't see where repeal & replace of the (current) XVI Amendment is necessary to do away w/ the govt's ability to enact an Income Tax along w/ a Consumption Tax. The govt. could re-enact an Income Tax (along w/ the Consumption Tax) under the auspices of the NEW XVI Amendment just as easily.

Message edited by user at 11/22/2017 12:05:00 AM

15. D James
     (11/22/2017 5:11:35 AM)
     Message ID #294091

This message is in response to Tams Bixby ( message id #294090 )  Back To All Messages

Wrong. The 16th Amendment specifically enacts the Income Tax. Prior to it there was none. All revenues were derived from tariffs, excise taxes and other specific levies.

16. Tams Bixby CEOExpressSelect Member
     (11/22/2017 9:15:35 AM)
     Message ID #294098

This message is in response to D James ( message id #294091 )  Back To All Messages

OK, OK, my bad. I went back and re-read it all again and see your point. And Yes, I know I'm a touch hard-headed at times (but I consider that a good thing).

ps (to above): I've gone back and amended my original post (#20) to include repeal of the XVI Amendment as part of the multi-step process.

To reiterate and sum up ...
  • Yes, a 28th Amendment is necessary for the Balanced Budget part of things (but we both already agreed about that);
  • Yes, the 16th Amendment will require being repealed (to eliminate the ability of govt. to collect Income Taxes);
  • Still not sure a NEW (version of the) 16th Amendment will be required (but it might be easier for the purposes of limiting the govt's taxing authority) as the Consumption Tax could be created as a subsection to the Balanced Budget Amendment in the 28th (which would formally tie the two together).


Message edited by user at 11/22/2017 9:21:04 AM

17. D James
     (11/22/2017 1:41:25 PM)
     Message ID #294113

This message is in response to Tams Bixby ( message id #294098 )  Back To All Messages

And guess what? Your state legislature and governor are four square behind the Convention of States!

Good show.

18. Tams Bixby CEOExpressSelect Member
     (11/22/2017 3:41:45 PM)
     Message ID #294123

This message is in response to D James ( message id #294113 )  Back To All Messages

Its' time is looooong past due.
  1-18 of 18