Comments on: A Smart and Simple Tax

By: dobropet

dobropet — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:38:07 +0000

I understand, if you say as it is, that taxing “income” would not run afoul of the Constitution so long as income is defined as the transactions you suggest.

Currently, doesn’t the Department of Defense receive those types(if not, all) of taxes imposed? Of course I’m talking corporations as defined within the code as follows:

(3) Corporation
The term “corporation” includes associations, joint-stock companies, and insurance companies.

Which, as I seem to gather ,doesn’t necessarily include all companies or corporations when viewed in it’s context.

By: William John Cox

William John Cox — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:35:27 +0000

Good points, dobropet; however, there are several ways that a transaction tax would not run afoul of the Constitution. First, the current Supreme Court would probably view it as just another way of taxing income, or it could be a uniform excise tax, perhaps the better approach.

As to the differences between individuals and corporations and the manner in which they are taxed, a simple tax on all transactions would eliminate the “looseness” of current system that allows corporations to escape taxation.

It is true that the power to tax is the power to enslave, which is why it is the workers who are currently enslaved.

By: dobropet

dobropet — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:46:02 +0000

I disagree, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution did not allow congress any new power of taxation. It only required that the tax be apportioned if it was a direct tax, and divided equally if indirect (if I remember it correctly).

Using those 2 terms loosely (individual, and corporations) are not what we would expect to use to define those terms within the code. As every good lawyer knows “context” is the ultimate deciding factor when dealing with U.S.C. And when I last looked “income” is not defined within the code.

But more importantly, the power to tax is the power to enslave.