Negative Income Tax

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by johnmayo, Mar 26, 2013.

  1. johnmayo

    johnmayo New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Messages:
    13,847
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Based upon the Constitution a State can only pay it's debts in gold and silver coin and the (unenforced) statutory requirement that the Federal Reserve must redeem Federal Reserve notes in "lawful money" in Title 12 › Chapter 3 › Subchapter XII › § 411 › ("Federal reserve notes.... shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.") I don't believe that the US Supreme Court could reach any decision other than on behalf of the State demanding redemption of Federal Reserve notes in "American Eagle coins" that are the "lawful money" of the United States today.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/411

    The only problem is that I don't believe that any of the States have the balls to do this because it would bankrupt the Federal Reserve. Just $1 billion represents 20 million ounces of gold in American Gold Eagles (based upon the Gold Coinage Act of 1985) and I don't believe the Federal Reserve can lay it's hands on that much gold coinage.

    The Secretary of the Treasury is not required to redeem Federal Reserve notes that are issued by the Federal Reserve in gold coinage as Congress has exempted the Treasury from redeeming Federal Reserve notes in gold under statutory law. The Treasury can simply replace Federal Reserve notes with Treasury notes which is fair because the US Treasury didn't receive "lawful money" when it borrowed but instead accepted the promissory notes being issued by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve still has to redeem Federal Reserve notes in Gold but the Treasury does not.

    It would be a great case if any state had the balls to do it because it really lays the Constitution on the line and, as noted, the Supreme Court would be basically forced to require redemption of the Federal Reserve notes in American Gold Eagles based upon Juilliard v Greenman, the Constitution and statutory law. .[/QUOTE]

    This case has been tried.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Tender_Cases

    At work now, but had to throw that out there. Would be nice to have what you are calling for, but not likely to happen, and not possible with our social welfare state.
     
  2. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is the same Supreme Court case I referenced (i.e. Juilliard v Greenman) that only addressed whether the Federal Government could issue legal tender currency (promissory notes) in addition to "lawful money" (i.e. gold and silver coinage) based upon the provisions of Article I Section 8 Clause 1 (to borrow against the credit of the United States). The decision allowed two forms of "legal tender" with one being currency (promissory notes) and the other being "lawful money" (gold and silver coinage). In it's decision it noted that the issuance of "legal tender" currency by the US Government did not prevent the States from using "legal tender" (gold and silver) coinage to pay their debts in accordance with the provisions in Article I Section 10.

    The "gold standard" has nothing to do with the "social welfare state" which is a completely different issue.

    The US can return to "gold standard" by simply enforcing the law that requires the Federal Reserve to redeem Federal Reserve notes in gold and silver US coinage but there is a caveat to that. The Congress would have to "re-value" gold and silver coinage (authorized by Article I Section 8 Clause 4 - "to coin money and regulate the value thereof) just as it did in the Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985.

    I ran the numbers a year or so ago and based upon the national debt and current gold reserves held by the US government it would need to base the revaluation upon a $5,000 one-ounce gold coin as opposed to the current $50 American Gold Eagle today that contains one-ounce of gold.

    That is much higher than the current market trading value of gold which would mean there wouldn't be a rush for people to trade in their currency for gold coins but a person could and a $5,000 "new-American gold eagle" would still be worth $5,000 in the United States. Export of these coins would have to be prohibited but that is Constitutional based upon another Supreme Court decision (but I forget which one). All foreign debt would be payable in US goods and services exclusively and not in our national coinage that is only for use in the United States.

    As noted under the law we're still on the "gold standard" and always have been although it was "suspended" temporality by the Emergency Banking Act under FDR but that act was repealed in 1974 under the Ford Administration. The problem is that the US government is not enforcing the statutory laws and not that the laws aren't on the books. It is also fiscally irresponsible because it has "borrowed" more money that it can ever hope to repay based upon the current "value" of gold and silver coins as set by Congress in 1985.

    Congress simply needs to revalue "US gold and silver coins" and then enforce the existing laws. Problem solved.
     
  3. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Now back to the problem I identified with the NIT.

    Based upon an arbitrary tax of 25% and a tax credit of 20% of median income it doesn't balance the US budget.

    Paying the authorized expenditures of government is a responsibility of the American people, not the government, and to not do so is fiscally irresponsible.

    It is the responsibility of Congress to collect enough in tax revenues from the People to pay for the expenditures they authorize.

    The Negative Income Tax, as proposed, is fiscally irresponsible as it doesn't fund the authorized expenditures of Congress.

    How would this fiscal irresponsibility be resolved under a Negative Income Tax realizing that Congress has the authority to authorize expenditures under the US Constitution.

    Not even a "Balanced Budget Amendment" (that would never be ratified by the States) such as those previously proposed would not prevent Congress from increasing spending. The Balanced Budget Amendments simply impose a "super-majority" vote requirement that doesn't prevent deficit spending.
     
  4. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't see this as valid critique. NIT is all about integration of tax and benefit systems. You're merely using your ideological bent to ignore its purpose.
     
  5. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When the government of a nation authorizes expenditures those expenditures are a financial obligation of the people of the nation to pay and the government, as the agent of the people, has an obligation to collect the necessary funds from the people to fulfill the financial obligations. It is fiscally irresponsible of the government to not collect enough in tax revenues from the people that the government represents and to instead transfer that financial obligation to those people, often not yet born, that it doesn't represent by creating (national) debt.

    I may or may not agree with the authorized expenditures of my elected representatives in Congress but I do not deny it is my responsibility to pay for those obligations that they have made upon my behalf. Congress today has no authority create a financial obligation for our children that they don't represent. By analogy a father cannot create a financial obligation for their children.

    It is fiscally irresponsible for the elected government to not collect enough revenue to fund the expenditures it authorizes. Even in financially emergencies, which the US really hasn't faced since WW II, borrowing requires a planned repayment of the debt once the emergency is over.

    There is more than ample revenue by the People of the United States to pay the authorized expenditures of the Congress of the United States, and has been since WW II, so there is no rational financial reason for deficit spending by the United States government.

    My argument isn't with the NIT as it relates to the "integration of tax and benefits" system but with arbitrary rates being established. It's the arbitrary tax rate and tax credit that are disputed as they don't ensure that the authorized expenditures are funded. Now, if the tax rate and the tax credit were floating based upon authorized expenditures to ensure that the authorized expenditures would be funded then the proposal might have merit but I'd have to see how that was done based upon a proposal.

    This was a fundamental failure of the "FairTax.org" proposal for a consumption tax with prebates (ignoring the fact that it would take a Constitutional amendment to authorize) in that it didn't fund government as the rates were completely arbitrary.
     
  6. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have an ideological view and you have a reference to balance budgets. Can a NIT be constructed to ensure a balanced budget? Certainly. Your critique is therefore purely ideological and nothing to do with the practicalities of the NIT system
     
  7. Andelusion

    Andelusion New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I disagree. The only contract I have with my Federal Government, is the constitution. The constitution only authorizes the Federal Government to spend money on national defense, internal justice, for the protection of Life, Liberty, and Property. Beyond that, all other expenditures are not my responsibility, since I never authorized them to spend money on my behalf, for purposes I disagree with.

    "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

    And that is absolutely true. And as far as I'm concerned, I intend to elect anyone at all who promises to reduce taxes by any amount.

    If you don't like debt.... stop spending money that isn't yours to spend. Otherwise, I don't care. I'm in favor of cutting taxes. Sucks to be the leaches and blood sucking ticks of society.
     
  8. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    An interesting opinion in that the US Constitution is a social contract but the problem is that it is not a "social contract" of the People but instead is a "social contract" of the States. The federal government obtains it's "powers" from the States as the States, not the People, ratified the Constitution and all Amendments to it. the "People" of the United States cannot change the US Constitution but the States can under Article V.

    It is still a social "contract" though and the conditions of the "contract" are enforced by the Courts (i.e. the US Supreme Court) and our "opinions" don't matter.

    Even then we are entitled to our opinions and I happen to be a person that believes in a "conservative" interpretation of the US Constitution. There are only two "crimes" where there is an enumerated responsibility of Congress to address. Criminal laws and law enforcement related to piracy and counterfeiting are both enumerated as a responsibility of Congress in Article I Section 8. There is also implied criminal and civil law enforcement related to other provisions in the Constitution such as civil rights violations where our civil rights are protected by numerous Amendments. The Congress must have the authority to "enforce" the provisions of the Constitution.

    But I would like to see the Supreme Court employ a "conservative" interpretation of the Constitution as it would end numerous actions of the federal government. There are many things that would be quite different for example:

    US military (and CIA paramilitary) interventionism in the affairs of other nations would end. These are unrelated to the "defense of the nation" as the United States has not been attacked since WW II and the Constitution only authorizes the US military to provide for the "common Defence ... of the United States" (Article I Section 8 ).

    All immigration laws would basically end as there isn't a delegated authority to control immigration anywhere in the US Constitution.

    All drug prohibition laws would end as there isn't a delegated authority to control what a person grows, processes or consumes in the US Constitution.

    Direct welfare assistance programs for the "person" (e.g. Social Security/Medicare) would end but federal assistance to the States so that they could provide welfare assistance to the "person" could continue (e.g. Medicaid) and the US Constitution does authorize taxation and spending to provide for the "general Welfare of the United States" (not the person) in Article I Section 8.

    All presidential candidates would have to be born in the United States (which would have excluded John McCain born in Panama and Ted Cruz born in Canada) as they would not meet the 14th Amendment's provision of being "born in the United States" that establishes "natural born citizenship" required for eligibility to be president. Note: All Americans born in foreign countries are naturalized citizens based upon the Constitutional authority of Congress to pass "uniform laws of naturalization" in Article I Section 8. A person that obtains citizenship based upon statutory law as opposed to "by birth" as established in the 14th Amendment is a naturalized citizenship.

    Basically if we want to know what would be "unconstitutional" under a "conservative" interpretation of the US Constitution we need only look at any split decision by the Supreme Court. If even one Supreme Court justices has opposed the "Constitutionality" in a case then the law or action is of dubious Constitutionality and under a "conservative" interpretation we would not have any laws or actions of government that are of dubious Constitutionality.

    Legal tender currency (i.e. Federal Reserve notes) would be unconstitutional.

    Any law restricting/prohibiting abortion would be unconstitutional.

    The federal minimum wage (and other "interstate" commerce laws) would be unconstitutional.

    The FCC, NSA, DEA, NASA and even the USAF would all be unconstitutional as there are no provisions in the Constitution to authorize them or their activities.

    An interesting proposition though but, as noted, the US Supreme Court is the legal authority over enforcement of the provisions of the US Constitution (Contract between the States) and not the individual American.

    Congress does have the authority to tax and spend and Congress, not the American People, has that delegated power under the US Constitution.
     
  9. Andelusion

    Andelusion New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't care. To me, there is a higher authority than the courts, even the supreme court. And when their opinion, violates the laws of G-d, that's grounds for a revolution in my book.

    Yes and no. It would require authorization for the use of force, by congress. I would agree with that. The president should never be allowed to send troops into combat, without Congress signing on the dotted line (so to speak).

    Only at the Federal level, not the state. States have the right to deport non-citizens. All rights reserved for the states, means just that.

    True at the Federal level, although again, states rights. If a state wants to ban X, that's their right to do so.

    But none of those programs provide general welfare. It provides benefits to a specific group, at the expense of other groups. Those programs are a direct violation of that provision. The whole point was to not allow the government, to pick winners and losers in a game of social programs, for political benefit.

    I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. - James Madison.

    Again, making the point that "general welfare" does not mean taxing from group A, to give favors to group B.

    "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

    General Welfare is not to be used as a justification for anything, except those things specifically set as duties of the Federal Government. Not Social Security. Not welfare. Not food stamps, or section 8 housing.

    True, but there's no way that's not going to happen. They would pass an amendment. Granted, I'd rather have them do that, than this unconstitutional system.

    I would think a right to 'life' would make murder something that can be constitutionally banned. Either murder is wrong, or it's not.
     
  10. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In short you don't believe in the US Constitution at all so why even post an opinion about it?

    By the way if God ever shows up and decides to be a tyrant then we'll deal with God just as we would with any other tyrant. God might be able to kill us all but I swore an oath to defend and protect the US Constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic, with my life if that is necessary, and "God" is a foreigner. If he shows up in America and tries to usurp the US Constitution then I'd treat him just like any other foreign enemy of the US Constitution.
     
  11. unrealist42

    unrealist42 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Messages:
    3,000
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So you support religious based revolution, jihad. There is no difference between you and the Taliban or Al Queda.
     
  12. Andelusion

    Andelusion New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    G-d is here now. And uh.. quite frankly, he's doing as he pleases with or without you being against him.

    But back to the Constitution. I follow the Constitution, only as far as it does not contradict G-d. And that's all there is too it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    So? Was that supposed to be an insult? You fail. I don't care. G-d is first. Constitution second. Don't like that? Too bad I can vote huh?
     
  13. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So slavery, segregation, and the subjugation of women to men, that are all supported by Biblical passages, take precedent over the Constitutional Amendments that prohibit all of the above under the law.

    Of course no logical person claims the the Bible is the "word of God" as we know that every passage in it was written by very superstituous men (not even women) over 2000 years ago. There isn' a single recorded passage in any religious text that is from "God" so I wonder what people based their beliefs in what God says. It is all apparently based upon heresay from ignorant people thousands of years ago.
     
  14. unrealist42

    unrealist42 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Messages:
    3,000
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Jihadist,

    confirmed by your own words.
     
  15. dnsmith

    dnsmith New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,761
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oral tradition in the early Church, which occurred simultaneously as different apostles went in different directions, suggests that those words ascribed to Jesus in the New Testament are indeed what Jesus said, at least in the context of his meanings. Now if you choose not to believe that Jesus was the son of God, thus being on of the 3 personages of the Christian God, that is your prerogative. When someone who does believe uses terminology suggesting "the word of God" in that context they are expressing their opinion based on that belief. Why not just accept that they believe as their belief and be done with it? The tendency of non-believers to always (most of the time) to answer the assertion by bringing up the accuracy of believers is not a valid argument against the opinion and belongs in a "religion" forum.

    There are many religious beliefs in this world, but the primary ones of which the majority of people believe, recognize the same basic tenets as all of the others. The devil is in the details, but they all believe in basically the same set of moral codes and it is the religious moral codes which most governments use to create civil laws by which to govern. I am not Muslim, but I believe most of the general morality of Islam are good and proper. I am not Hindu, but I accept most of their religious culture to be Godlike in nature. I am not Buddhist but I totally respect most of their teaching. Morality and values came from those religions.

    In those parts of the world in which the people had not yet been exposed to religious morals tended to kill strangers. Stole what they needed and felt no need to be truthful outside of their cultural requirements.

    Andelusion's comment to the effect that he holds God's law to be superior to man's law is not in the least alien to reality. Most believers if required to take a choice shortly before death would automatically consider God's law superior to man's law. I know I would, but fortunately since our civil law tends to be based on religious values I shall never have to make that choice.

    In other words, if you don't want to believe in God or what is thought to be his word, have at it. But to criticize anyone for their beliefs is the beginning of bigotry. It is not the belief which is bigotry, but the attack on another's belief which is bigoted.
     
  16. smevins

    smevins New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    6,539
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Since people thousands of years ago would have been alive during the time of the Bible's writing, they would seem to be in a position of less ignorance than you are thousands of years after the period covered by the Bible.
     
  17. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is no such thing as "God's Law" as all religious writings from Hindu beliefs to Christian beliefs are "Man's Laws" that were written by men that were leaders of the "church" that had their own reasons for writing them.

    In fact when we look at the Bible, based upon liquistic studies, it appears that not a single author of any of the "books" was actually who the "Church" claimed it was. The Books of Moses were not written by Moses and the Books of Matthew, Luke and John were not written by Matthew, Luke, or John.

    We can also note that the Laws of the United States are NOT based upon religious beliefs and, in fact, they would be unconstitutional if they were. While many of the laws have commonality with religious beliefs the laws themselves are based upon the protections of the Inalienable Rights of the Person which is not supported by any religious belief.

    This is why a woman has a Right to an abortion, why a white person has a Right to marry a black person, why a woman has a Right to equality with a man, and why a person has a Right of liberty so they cannot be subjected to slavery, all in violation of "Bibical" teachings, in the United States under the US Constitution.

    The Inalienable Rights of the Person are the foundation for the Laws of the United States and not any religious teachings.

    I'm unaware of any religious writings that propose that "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed..... with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." and yet that is the foundation for the government and the laws of the United States. It is the protection of those Rights that is the foundation for government in the United States and that is NOT based upon any religious teachings.
     
  18. dnsmith

    dnsmith New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,761
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Your opinion. My opinion is that even the basic Hindu beliefs, Muslim beliefs, Jewish beliefs, Christian beliefs et al, are all writings which were divinely inspired and culturally interpreted. I further believe the core moral values of man are all basically divinely inspired. Specific words mean little, but the meaning is all. But what the hey, believe what you want.
     
  19. Andelusion

    Andelusion New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As if. :smile:
     

Share This Page