My Brand of Socialism

[C1ay]

For the US Congress, by the rights granted by the 16th Amendment to the Constitution.

 

The language of this amendment is very broad, entitling Congress to take the income of any person and give it to any other however they see fit.

 

The 16th Amendment gives Congress the right to lay and collect taxes, nothing more, nothing less.

 

What Congress may or may not do with those collected taxes is not spelled out in the 16th amendment. It is contained in the US Code, the laws written and enacted by Congress. That Congress makes laws that allow it to redistribute income from the taxes it collects does not make it moral.

[CraigD]

The 16th Amendment gives Congress the right to lay and collect taxes, nothing more, nothing less.

The Amendment gives Congress substantially less than the unqualified right to lay and collect taxes – it gives it the right to collect taxes on incomes.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Though “income” as written is a very broad term, it excludes many other taxable sources, such as property, tariffs, trade, and manufacturing. The main body of the Constitution gives Congress the right to tax these as well, but with the restriction that such taxes must be uniform among the states, and apportioned according to their numbers (populations). Prior to the 16th Amendment, Congress could have imposed a “head tax” of some number of dollars per resident per year, but not, practically, a tax of some percentage of each resident’s wages or other earnings.

What Congress may or may not do with those collected taxes is not spelled out in the 16th amendment. It is contained in the US Code, the laws written and enacted by Congress.

Judging by the Federal budgeting, the only limits on what Congress may do with tax receipts is that it may not spend it in conducting illegal activity, such as establishing a state church, and they must receive Executive approval for their spending. They may spend it on War, Healthcare, art, investment, repayment of debt, etc. In addition to approving the adopted budget, the Executive advises Congress by preparing the budget.

That Congress makes laws that allow it to redistribute income from the taxes it collects does not make it moral.

True, but it does make it legal, and legality, unlike morality, though complicated, is explicit, codified, and ultimately determined by our elected representatives. If we elect a large majority of representatives who act as our moral standards dictate, that makes their actions in agreement with the morality of the majority.

 

In a representation democracy (a republic), or a direct democracy, it is nearly certain that government will act in ways that some individuals consider immoral – an inevitability that these individually may find bitterly intolerable. Much of the success of the US government has been due, I believe, to another, earlier Amendment to its Constitution, the Tenth:

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.

This Amendment explicitly specifies an un-enumerated collection of powers reserved to individual people, to be exercised as their personal morality dictates.

 

The accumulation and possession of wealth, however, is not one of these un-enumerated powers, no matter how greatly we might wish it to be, consider it immoral not to be, believe the authors of the Constitution understood it to be, etc.

 

My personal take on monetary wealth is contained in an adapted parable from the Bible: When I look at a bill of US currency, it usually has the face of an officer of the government on it. Therefore, I consider any money in my possession to be loaned to me by the government to help in my daily business. Income taxes, to me, are just an administrative demand placed on me by the government – as I don’t think of the money to every be my possession, I’m little trouble by returning whatever amount the tax code specifies I should.

 

The government cannot without my consent legally command my service, allegiance, or use of my property, which provides for me ample freedom to adhere to my personal moral code.

[C1ay]

True, but it does make it legal, and legality, unlike morality, though complicated, is explicit, codified, and ultimately determined by our elected representatives.

 

And the only point of my original question was of one's moral right to take someone's money and give it to someone else, not the legality of it. IMO, much of the reason that we have redistribution of income is a result of our representatives making promises from the treasury to buy votes from a majority. They know that the minority affected by this practice do not have the voting power to block this. Once elected the representatives then lay progressive taxes to fund the gifts they have promised the majority at the expense of the minority. It is basically the same problem that always rears its head in direct democracies.

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

All societies have redistribution of resources. The difference is how much and to where.

[Mike C]

To All

 

Did you see the world news (NBC) last night on TV (US)?

 

Warren Buffet had admitted to an NBC reporter that the wealthy do not pay an income tax that is fair to others such as his employees. For your information, Warren Buffet is a billionaire and ranks 3rd as the richest person in the US.

He was actually trying to get Congress to change the income tax code to correct the unfairness.

He said he paid only 17% on his income while his employees in the middle class income bracket were paying in the 30% tax range.

So you can see why this bothered him. Even he is aware of these inequities in the income tax code.

 

Like I said before on other threads, This income tax code should be changed to tax SURPLUS INCOME only. This would be income that is left over after a persons LIVING EXPENSES are deducted and the remainder is then considered as SURPLUS income.

 

Of course, this scale would be graduated from 95% for the highest surplus bracket to 5%for the lowest income bracket.

By deducting their 'living expenses', this would not effect the current lifestyles of the wealthy. They could still enjoy their luxurious lifestyles.

 

As I have said, PAYING ones taxes is a 'patriotic' duty for everyone that enjoys living in these US of A.

 

This tax code would be a way of 'sharing the wealth' besides paying higher wages to those that create the real weath like the workers.

 

Mike C

[C1ay]

Like I said before on other threads, This income tax code should be changed to tax SURPLUS INCOME only. This would be income that is left over after a persons LIVING EXPENSES are deducted and the remainder is then considered as SURPLUS income.

 

So Bill Gates' income that he lives off of would be exempt but the income he uses to pay tens of thousands of employees would not. Me thinks a lot of laid off people are not going to like your idea very much. How about the billions he and Warren give to charity? Would it be exempt?

[Mike C]

So Bill Gates' income that he lives off of would be exempt but the income he uses to pay tens of thousands of employees would not. Me thinks a lot of laid off people are not going to like your idea very much. How about the billions he and Warren give to charity? Would it be exempt?

 

I am talking about ones 'personal' income. That does not include his company that operates under different tax codes.

I believe the corporations are allowed to deduct their expenses and losses before reporting any income.

 

I do not hear much about his charity donations and when you do, they amount to a stingy 2-3 million.

His non profit foundation has over 30 billion, I believe.

 

Mike C

[C1ay]

I do not hear much about his charity donations and when you do, they amount to a stingy 2-3 million.

His non profit foundation has over 30 billion, I believe.

 

Mike C

 

Then you are sadly misinformed. He founded the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation with an initial endowment of $126 million, not some alleged "stingy 2-3 million". The fact that you would even refer to a 2-3 million dollar donation as stingy illustrates an immoral expectation of entitlement from someone else's earnings.

 

Within 2 years he had grown the funding to over $2 billion. The foundation has a solid record of funding qualified needy causes so that the money is well spent on those that really need it and not squandered on those that don't. Warren Buffet was so impressed with the quality of charity performed that he donated over $30 billion to the fund.

 

You would do well to do your homework before you run around calling the largest charitable givers in the world "stingy". Such unsupportable remarks are a reflection on your character, not theirs.

[Zythryn]

I am talking about ones 'personal' income. That does not include his company that operates under different tax codes.

 

Could you clarify this for me? Are you saying that a business owner should pay no taxes on the income he/she generates from the business??

...

You are running for office, aren't you:naughty:

[Mike C]

Then you are sadly misinformed. He founded the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation with an initial endowment of $126 million, not some alleged "stingy 2-3 million". The fact that you would even refer to a 2-3 million dollar donation as stingy illustrates an immoral expectation of entitlement from someone else's earnings.

 

Within 2 years he had grown the funding to over $2 billion. The foundation has a solid record of funding qualified needy causes so that the money is well spent on those that really need it and not squandered on those that don't. Warren Buffet was so impressed with the quality of charity performed that he donated over $30 billion to the fund.

 

You would do well to do your homework before you run around calling the largest charitable givers in the world "stingy". Such unsupportable remarks are a reflection on your character, not theirs.

 

If I was managing those foundations, I would give all the funds away except the needed operating funds by the management.

How much is that? well, I would say about one million.

These are supposed to be 'NON Profit" organiztions.

There are plenty of organization or charities in need of funds.

There is no shortage of people needing help.

All these non profit foundations should have no hoarded funds in their bank accounts. All they need is money for managing the funds as they distribute them.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

Could you clarify this for me? Are you saying that a business owner should pay no taxes on the income he/she generates from the business??

...

You are running for office, aren't you:naughty:

 

Of course all businesses should pay taxes. They should do this gladly since government grants them licenses to do busines and especially the inventors and copywriters that are given rights as a monopoly eliminating all competition.

 

Of course the taxes should be graduated according to the size of the income for all payers.

 

Mike C

[Michaelangelica]

from another thread

 

Quote:

socialism takes away the need to try

This is the oft-sprouted proposition I would like to see some proof of; it is more like a meme or possibly a factoid.

http://hypography.com/forums/social-sciences/14003-illiteracy-its-end-world-we-know-5.html#post206659

but probably more appropriate here?

OK?

Any thoughts?

[Buffy]

Which former Soviet Block country would you like to start with as an example?

 

Do remember that its really the definition of the word "Socialism" that needs to be defined first: The statement you're questioning really refers to a fully state-controlled command economy in which all labor is considered equal.

 

Even within the Soviet Union, you would find some really brilliant and motivated individuals, but usually its because either they had their "dream job" or they actually were rewarded far above what the "common worker" was and was motivated to excel in order not to *lose* that position.

 

Trade Unionism is not Socialism: it is the Capitalism of the Proletariat, :hihi:

Buffy

[Michaelangelica]

Agreed we need to define our tems first.

 

I don't see old soviet block countries as socialistic.

They are Communistic ( ? is that a word)- a very extreme form of socialism

 

Recently the USA objected to the 'socialism' policy of the Oz government in subsiding medicines for the poor or sick (Part of our "Free Trade Agreement" sic)

I would see Scandinavian countries as more socialistic (terrible word sorry)

 

Do you see trade unionism as (ug) 'socialistic'

[Buffy]

Agreed we need to define our tems first.

Essential if one is to have analytical contemplation of the topic! :)

I don't see old soviet block countries as socialistic. They are Communistic ( ? is that a word)- a very extreme form of socialism

Personally, I would agree, but most folks who "advocate socialism" either are Communists or they hedge rather severely on advocating a limited set of "socialistic" programs within the context of a democratic, capitalistic, and free-market society--mainly in order to say "I'm not a Communist!"

Recently the USA objected to the 'socialism' policy of the Oz government in subsiding medicines for the poor or sick (Part of our "Free Trade Agreement" sic)

You need to understand that the extreme right-wingers in the current US Administration consider "socialism" as an inherently pejorative term which requires no explanation in their view: you might as well say "ax-murdering pedophiles" and it would mean the same to them.

 

I would see Scandinavian countries as more socialistic (terrible word sorry)

We should suck Tormod into this discussion, but my own experience in Scandinavia is that while most folks there do indeed feel a strong affinity for promoting government-funded social welfare programs, they're all pretty fond of democracy and capitalism. Do you wonder why Nokia and Eriksson are two of the biggest manufacturers in the world? Its not because they want to promote a Dictatorship of the Proletariat!

 

Go back to step 1, because until you differentiate "Socialism" from "Social Welfare" this whole discussion is going to get hopelessly confused...

 

Do you see trade unionism as (ug) 'socialistic'

That had Buffy's Asterisk on it... you should look it up! B)

 

Every socialistic type of government where the State theoretically owns everything, and everybody does their little part to help the State, inevitably produces bad art, it produces social inertia, it produces really unhappy people, and it is more repressive than any other kind of government, ;)

Buffy

[paigetheoracle]

from another thread

 

 

This is the oft-sprouted proposition I would like to see some proof of; it is more like a meme or possibly a factoid.

http://hypography.com/forums/social-sciences/14003-illiteracy-its-end-world-we-know-5.html#post206659

but probably more appropriate here?

OK?

Any thoughts?

 

What motivates people to act? And if you don't motivate them but take away all their worries, what do they actually do with their lives? There was a Twilight Zone episode (original series) where a gangster found all his needs met and complained to the curator of what he thought was heaven, that he shouldn't be there because of who he was but should have been sent to the other place. At this the curator said 'This is the other place!'

 

A lot of people dream of having nothing to do with their time but wallow in luxury but apart from the really tired or sick, is this really heaven or hell?

[paigetheoracle]

A DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST STATE revised

 

Guaranteed jobs for all citizens.......... No unemployment!

Guaranteed pensions for all citizens.............For workers, management personnel, government employees and any other responsible citizens.

Guaranteed health care.............For all citizens that should include the ‘alternative’ health care practitioners.

And any other essential needs at a reasonable subsistence level.

 

(1) Not everyone wants to work - so are you going to force them to? If so this would then become a dictatorship: Life is voluntary (carrot) - death is obligatory (the stick, used by all bullies to get others to conform to their wishes). Life isn't fair, people lie,steal and cheat. It's idealist claptrap to believe you can ever wipe it out but you can control it easier by admitting it exists and making room for it (Any cornered animal will fight)

 

Income taxes could be graduated on SURPLUS income only, from a rate of about 95% for the top earners to a bottom rate of about 5% for the minimum earners. This type of tax would not affect the current living lifestyles of the citizens and even the capitalists.

Mike C

 

(2) A fair tax punishes no-one. It should be by percentage of earnings because that means it's the same chunk for everyone, so no-one (rich or poor) can claim victimisation. 10% of a $100 or a $1,000 is the same equivalent ($10 or $100).