Imagine - A new Constitution

Not 'whom' but 'by whom'.

Please direct me to where you find that in the Constitution, prior to the 16th amendment.

I'm not questioning what income is, although it is a complexity of the Federal tax code.
Also, where are you finding that taxes on earnings from property had to be returned to the States in proportion to their population?

After passage of the 16th amendment, the Federal government became the primary destination of taxes, allowing it to redistribute money to the States rather than the States tax their constituents relative to their wants and needs.

I presume you mean the 16th amendment increased the revenue collected by the Federal government, which I agree totally that it did, but then much of that money, and more (borrowed), as a result of returning more back to some of the States and funding the wages, salaries, pensions and other benefits of those employed by the Federal agencies required to oversee the operations.

We did indeed have a rising Federal debt under Clinton, and the last time the debt was actually reduced was in 1957 when the debt was reduced to $270,527,171,896.43 from the previous (1956) years debt of $272,750,813,649.32 under the Eisenhower administration.

The debt can only be eliminated by repaying it, but as long as those who run for office in the Federal government are able to purchase votes by bringing home more bacon than was collected from them and provide benefits to be paid for by future generations, nothing will change for the better.

How many people do you know who would be willing to pay for something they can get for free? But then the rich can afford it, but take note that they too are not paying.

The year I was born, my portion of the Federal debt was $2143,and for someone born in 2010 their portion was $43,888 while those born in 2012 the share was $51,166. From my birth until 2012 my share has increased an average of $636 each year. For those born in 2010, their share has increased $3639 each year.

But who cares about the future generations as long as we can fulfill our wants and needs in the present?

Repeal of the 16th and 17th amendments with the Federal government taxing the States, not the people directly, proportionate to the population total would make several beneficial changes.

1. Federal spending would be more constrained by the people as it would require their Congress person more accountable to his/her constituents back home as their State government would have to collect its proportionate share from them to be provided to the Federal government.

2. The Senators would be made more answerable to their State government who appointed them requiring them to be more fiscally responsible.

3. A balanced Federal budget would be more easily achieved, and spending kept under control as States would have to raise taxes or borrow to pay their proportionate share of Federal spending, making individual States and their citizens bear more responsibility for who they elect to represent them.

 

That is true.

That is what should be repealed.

The 16th amendment only extends the power of the Federal government to tax income of individuals directly, or indirectly in the sense that the employer withholds the tax from the employees wages.

Yes they can, and should be where the Federal government obtains the revenues it requires to operate, eliminating the need to return money to the States.

Originally Posted by Meagain:
"If I understand the whole thing correctly.

This would seem to me to increase Federal income, not decrease it."
The word "This" left me to presume you meant it to mean the 16th amendment. As to how and on what the Federal government spends money should be what the people and the States authorize it.

My words are from what I was taught in school 60 or more years ago.

 

For that too, you would have to go back to 1957.

Actually the Federal government has never been debt free, although the year 1835 was the lowest debt, $ 33,733.05.

Once again, debt can only be reduced by making principle payments, and elimination of deficit spending by requiring balanced budgets. Sort of the same as a family living within its means and not borrowing to live beyond its means.

The Senate was supposed to represent their States interests.

 

The 16th amendment does not include either of the words 'property' or 'wages', it simply states that

"The Congress shall have the 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."


Prior to the 16th amendment, the Congress had the power to tax, but except for a period of time during the Civil war, when the Federal government taxed income to fund the war using the 'Revenue Act of 1861' which imposed a flat tax on income, which was repealed and replaced by the 'Revenue Act of 1862' which replaced the flat tax with a progressive tax on income, which was to be a temporary means only and to be terminated in 1866, but instead was replaced by the 'Revenue Act of 1864' raising the progressive tax rates, and was allowed to expire in 1873 as the population viewed it as a temporary necessity related to the war.

Once again, in 1894 an income tax was imposed with the 'Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act', with a 2% income tax on incomes over $4,000 to make up the losses of reducing tariff rates, which was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1895, and led to the Constitution being amended by the 16th amendment allowing the Federal government to tax the income of individuals directly.

Yes, that is correct.

Not at all.

The Federal government would have to produce a budget, as always ignoring the last 5 years, which would require the consent of a majority of both the peoples Representatives in the House, and the States representatives in the Senate for passage, and billed to the State governments to determine how to produce their apportioned shares in payment to the Federal government as well as produce the means needed to fund and administer their own programs.

Nothing at all, the Federal government spending would be more directly controlled by both the people and the States, which you might see more clearly if you think about how the people would respond to both elected Federal Representatives, and their State government who they elect and allow to appoint Senate representation, and ultimately propose or concur with Federal spending that they are unwilling to fund.

Each individual State would be responsible for determining how to produce the revenues required to fund their share of Federal spending in addition to State government spending.

The population of each State would produce the proportion of revenue due the Federal government to fund the programs the Federal government would be given responsibility over by a majority of the representatives of both the people and the States.

If additional spending beyond what had been budgeted occurs, the Congress can easily vote to borrow the money needed resulting in the following years budget requiring repayment to be included in that budget with billing apportioned to each State in the following year.

If a State is incapable of sustaining its population, perhaps people would move to other States where they could find opportunities.

States would not be contributing to the Federal government, but be billed by the Federal government for the functions that their elected Representatives, and their States appointed representatives have approved of in their name. Nothing would be coming back to the States other than what a majority of all the people and all the State representatives have consented to be a function of Federal government, and are willing to pay for proportionate to their population allowing their State governments to employ whatever means necessary to obtain the revenues from them.

To a degree that is true. But who do our elected representatives actually represent the greatest? Their contributors, lobbyists, their National political party who also provides them funding and campaign support or the individuals who provide them the votes needed to win an election?

 

Monthly surpluses are not uncommon. The year to year results are more appropriate in accounting for fiscal responsibility. If you were to view Federal revenue on a daily basis you would probably some days with even much greater surpluses, but in the end it is the revenues collected over the budget period relative to the spending over the same period we should focus on, which shows that government spends beyond its means accumulating debt perpetually. I try to use the government sources and the St. Louis Federal reserve wherever possible as the source of my figures of debt, deficits, and money base.

The 17th amendment primarily changes Senators from being appointed by their States government who are made up of persons elected by the people of each State, to being directly elected by the people of each State.

 

That is correct, and not the same as "The way I'm reading it, the 16h only addresses income from property, not wages." from your earlier post.

Then you must be reading into them something I'm not saying.

Yes, that is and would continue to be how the Federal budget is created.

I never stated or implied that at all. Once the Federal budget is passed, the States would be made responsible for acquiring their portion in proportion to their population, like it or not, as the representatives elected by the people to represent them in the Federal government, along with the Senators appointed to represent the interests of the State government in the Federal government would be all that is required, leaving their constituents to take immediate action or in the next election if their voting actions in the Federal government placed undue burdens upon them against their wishes.

There would be no massive Federal pie to bicker over, State governments would operate more closely aligned with the consent of their respective citizenry, taxing or borrowing as they felt necessary to provide the wants and/or needs they would be willing to pay for. The Federal budget would be held to only what the representatives felt the people from their States would allow them to make them responsible for providing, leaving the means by which it would be collected to their State government.

Congress would as always have to approve the spending, and again, if it exceeded the revenues of the current years budget, it would have to be attended to in the following years budget, keeping the Federal government solvent and debt free.

The Federal tax laws would be applicable only to the States, who are much easier to access by their constituents, and special interest groups, lobbyists, and others who currently congregate in D.C. allowing them more direct contact with elected Federal government politicians than those they are sent to represent would then have to deal with 50 individual States, AND congressional districts making their activities more open and visible to the people who would be imposed upon by them.

 

Yes there have been. No I have not.

Or they could be used to implement some new program and spent, which I remember happening in the State of Georgia budget several decades back.
What I propose is the elimination of deficits, budgeting based on what revenues will be collected, with debt principal reduction a part of each years budget or the following years in cases where borrowing must occur, like war or natural disasters.

The question doesn't relate to what I'm saying. With rare exceptions, as noted above, there should be no Federal deficits, and States would be taxed at an amount to cover the budgeted spending and debt principal reduction. Of course, if the Federal government were to find a way, post budget to spend less than what was budgeted creating a surplus, that money could be used to reduce the Federal debt principal or returned to the States.

 

That is correct.

The burden of supporting the Federal government would be shared equally relative to the population.

Border protection is one of the responsibilities of the Federal government enumerated in the Constitution, and therefore be remain a Federal budget item.

Taxation by the States would cover the wants and needs demanded by the people of each State AND an additional amount to cover funding Federal programs which the Representatives of both the people and the States have agreed to in the budget produced by Congress. State government representatives who appoint a poorly functioning Senator to serve in the Federal government could very well be voted out of office back home. But don't ignore the fact that Federal spending could be reduced dramatically if many of the Federal programs which collect money from the States and then redistribute much of the money back to the States would be carried out by the States without first sending the money to Washington. Currently the Federal government is spending about $1,000 per month, or $12,000 per year, per man, woman and child making up the population of the U.S.

We would vote out those in State or Federal government based on their performance relative to the effect it had on us.

What do you see as State issues, and National issues?

Essentially, the taxes currently collected by the Federal government would instead be collected by the State governments. There would be 50 much larger pies in each State, and a very small Federal pie adequate to fund the programs the people by their consent would authorize it to be responsible for, such as the military, border protection, dealing with foreign nations, etc.

I believe the people of each State would approve their States taxing them for the provision of their wants and needs. And of course there would be a massive downward spiral of funds available to the Federal government as the States would assume operation of many programs now run by the Federal government. States could, with the consent of their citizenry, strengthen, weaken or eliminate programs currently run by the Federal government. The Federal government would remain responsible for defense, budgeting and passing on the cost of it to the States.

I'm sure some of that will continue to exist, and it would be at a more local level which would make it much easier for the people to control through the election of their State representatives.

Not at all, I'm only proposing that the full amount of feed is given directly to the pig, with the pig being able to choose what and how much to eat.

It would force State governments to take more responsibility in tending to the needs and wants of their citizenry, allowing people to move to or from States who are governed more rationally and efficiently, or in accordance with the wishes and consent of their citizenry.

 

Note: I didn't answer the agree or disagree post as the questions posed were more or less like asking someone if they had quit beating their wife, yes or no.

Also take note, that I am not suggesting the elimination of an income or any other form of taxation, simply where the taxes would be collected, and redistribution by the Federal government.

 

The questions couldn't really be answered properly with an 'agree' or 'disagree' response, and I felt a lengthy response to each would not be productive as I feel the 16th and the 17th amendments created many of the problems we face today.

Initially, no programs would be eliminated, but they would be implemented within the State with funding collected by the State, eliminating need for Federal agencies and employees that currently administer them. The citizens of each State would be responsible for deciding which programs to continue and how much to budget those kept as well as which to eliminate. The citizens of some States might consider Head Start worth keeping while others might not.

It would be left to the citizens of each individual State to decide which programs to keep and fund, and which to eliminate.

I would think that nearly all programs would need to be discussed on a case by case basis.

With few exceptions, I would say the individuals of each State would make more rational and cost effective decisions related to helping their States fellow citizens. In addition, eliminating the Federal government as the source of macro managing the economy, we would have 50 States taking over that function, allowing those who are more successful to be emulated by those who are not wherever possible. The Federal government would still have responsibilities, representatives from the States would still make the laws applicable to all, leaving the State governments to implement and enforce the law within their State. Making State and local governments more responsible allows the people greater access to where changes would take place, and being able to see the lives of the population of another State improving while theirs is not would put pressure on their State and local governments to make changes to satisfy the masses rather than the few who might try to control their State or local government, allowing the people to employ the democratic process.