Debt Ceiling Debate - Killeen, TX

Discuss the national Debt Ceiling debate in Killeen, TX.

Should taxing the rich be part of the agreement to raise the debt ceiling?

Killeen undecided
Yes
 
2
No
 
2

Vote now in Killeen:

Comments
1 - 12 of 12 Comments Last updated -

Since: Oct 09

Harker Heights, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jul 17, 2011
 
The income tax should be abolished in favor of a return to taxation based upon an equal levy on each congressional district. That would keep taxation tied to representation. Anyone remember that principle?
Questioner

Doss, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jul 17, 2011
 
Dagobert II wrote:
The income tax should be abolished in favor of a return to taxation based upon an equal levy on each congressional district. That would keep taxation tied to representation. Anyone remember that principle?
Sounds a little off, DO YOU MEAN:

The Constitution of the United States: Article. I. Section. 2 "...Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons..."

OR with the implied modification:

AMENDMENT XIV Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868. Section 2.
Section 2.
"...Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed..."

Are you sure that the server at McDonalds ought to pay and will be able to pay the same amount as the CEO of Exxon Mobil?

Since: Oct 09

Harker Heights, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jul 17, 2011
 
Yep, equal taxation for equal representation. Those who can not afford what they vote for don't need to be allowed a vote otherwise they'll expect others to pay for the things they vote for. That's the impasse our government has arrived at today. Everybody wants their elected representative to bring home the pork but leave the bill for someone else to pay and the bill ain't getting paid. If someone favors taxing the corporations its only fair that the corporations be given a vote proportional to their taxes. If the wealthy are expected to pay more their votes should count for more than the votes of those who pay less.
Questioner

Doss, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jul 17, 2011
 
Dagobert II wrote:
Yep, equal taxation for equal representation.
The constitution apportions taxes based on population not representation. I don't think is says registered voters and there is no distinction for age, legal status etc. Since the census is taken only every 10 years population would for annual taxes would need to be estimated.
And each state has an equal number of Senators so representation is not one 'person' one vote. North Dakota a higher portion of representatives than California.

The devil is always in the details. If you want to shift taxes to the lower income groups look at H.R. 25.

Since: Oct 09

Harker Heights, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jul 17, 2011
 
Actually, with an individual income tax there is no apportionment of taxation and that's the problem. Representation in the House of Representative IS apportioned according to population.
Questioner

Doss, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jul 17, 2011
 
Dagobert II wrote:
Actually, with an individual income tax there is no apportionment of taxation and that's the problem. Representation in the House of Representative IS apportioned according to population.
True, but small states have more congressmen (reps & senators) relative to their population. Still, a head tax could be done and it would be easy to figure what you were paying for...
The income tax was first used to pay for the civil war, chiefly because of it would yield enough money (combined with what Chase could borrow) to fund the war.
Think of the assessment per individual just to fund the War on Terror (military and homeland security), how about Social Security, Medicare/medicade etc. for one fiscal year. Can and would you write a check to Uncle Sam. On average it would amount to about 18% of your income.
Before the income tax most federal revenue came from import duties (a protectionist variant of a sales tax). In the 1880s the duty was raised to 40% and total revenue declined.

Since: Oct 09

Harker Heights, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jul 17, 2011
 
Each congressional district has about the same number of persons in it so 'small' states are not over represented unless you refer to Senators where each state has two no matter what its population. Taxes and the budget, however, start in the House of Representatives, not the Senate, so every person is thus equally represented but not equally taxed at present. Social security should cease as a mandated government program and those who's money has been confiscated by the program should get there money back with reasonable interest so they can invest it in an investment of their choice or otherwise do what they want with it. The same should be done with Medicare. Medicaid should just be ended.

I suspect that if those who got to vote for the programs knew they were the ones who had to pay the bills there would be far fewer government programs than at present when everyone thinks 'the rich', who are always someone else, will pay for everything.

Since: Nov 09

Fort Huachuca, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jul 18, 2011
 
I say we go to a flat tax rate and cut out tax loop holes. We could erase the debt in a couple of years.

I agree with killing Social Security and giving those of us who have paid into (all our adult lives) the money back with interest. Also, make our elected officials participate in the same retirement and medical programs that the general public has to participate in. Maybe that will give them incentive to keep their hands out of the coffer.

We should also ban our Senators and Congressmen from voting on their own pay raises. If the rest of us can't get cost of living raises because the CPI is low, then they shouldn't get a raise either. Tie their pay raises to the CPI.

Questioner

Doss, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jul 18, 2011
 
To Dagobaert II - yes I was considering Senators. A Senator in California represents more people than those in N. Dakota. Do you want to keep one 'man' one vote? Remember the Senate must also approve spending and tax bills. One alternative is to elect senators according to the population of a state, sort of an 'at large' representative.

To Retired CPO - What would the flat rate need to be to generate the needed revenue? Last time I looked average fed tax was about 19%. It would need to be more until the debt is retired.
I agree elected officials should NOT be allowed to set their own pay rate. One alternative is to give the average annual salary in the US. Trouble with this is that the amount would be skewed right or left based on the size of the tails on the normal curve. Another is to allow registered voters to vote on the amount. In the latter case who would set the amounts to be voted on?

Since: Nov 09

Fort Huachuca, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jul 18, 2011
 
Questioner wrote:
To Dagobaert II - yes I was considering Senators. A Senator in California represents more people than those in N. Dakota. Do you want to keep one 'man' one vote? Remember the Senate must also approve spending and tax bills. One alternative is to elect senators according to the population of a state, sort of an 'at large' representative.
To Retired CPO - What would the flat rate need to be to generate the needed revenue? Last time I looked average fed tax was about 19%. It would need to be more until the debt is retired.
I agree elected officials should NOT be allowed to set their own pay rate. One alternative is to give the average annual salary in the US. Trouble with this is that the amount would be skewed right or left based on the size of the tails on the normal curve. Another is to allow registered voters to vote on the amount. In the latter case who would set the amounts to be voted on?
If you eliminate the tax loop holes then you are looking at closer to 10% tax rate.

Since: Oct 09

Harker Heights, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jul 18, 2011
 
Questioner wrote:
To Dagobaert II - yes I was considering Senators. A Senator in California represents more people than those in N. Dakota. Do you want to keep one 'man' one vote?
Not unless each vote bears an equal tax burden and if corporations are taxed they get votes as well.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Aug 10, 2011
 
but understand that 250000 is not rich

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

5 Users are viewing the Killeen Forum right now

Search the Killeen Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
TX Longtime GOP Texas Gov. Perry wins another term (Nov '10) 47 min That Fart Guy 21,713
TX Who do you support for Governor in Texas in 2010? (Oct '10) 49 min That Fart Guy 17,264
Coves Sales Taxes Down Again? (Feb '14) Wed When7 54
198th Light Infantry Brigade (Jul '09) Wed Wilber 13
Preschools Jul 29 LMB32682 1
Code enforcement Jul 29 skyline 3
15 people arrested for Copperas Cove drug distr... Jul 29 Cautionary Tale 3

Killeen Jobs

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]