Grover Norquist: Follow Kansas and End the Income Tax
"I think it speaks to the health of American society that people don't buy into envy and class antagonisms the way that the Left thinks they do," says Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and author of End the IRS Before It Ends Us: How to Restore a Low Tax, High Growth, Wealthy America.
Ending the income tax is part of Norquist's wide-ranging push to reign in spending and reform government entitlements. As he explains to Reason's Nick Gillespie, the revolution is beginning in the most unlikeliest of states: Kansas.
"Kansas is the future. Kansas is the model," Norquist says. "It became a Reagan-Republican House, Senate and governorship only with Governor Brownback's governorship. He…passed a law that fazes out the income tax over time. As revenue comes in from economic growth–more than 2%–you ratchet down the income tax."
As Americans realize states don't need an income tax to fit their budgets, Norquist argues, people will start to question why the federal government needs one too. "For most of our country's history we didn't have an income tax," Norquist explains. "In our 50 states, nine don't have income taxes. I think in the next 15 years it will be 25 that don't have income taxes."
For Norquist stopping ever-growing government and taxation is the only way to bring economic competitiveness back, but it's average Americans that will make that change. "For those of us who think small government and low taxes is a better idea, guess what? Most people are with us. People are moving from high-tax states to low-tax states."
About 18 minutes.
Produced by Joshua Swain. Shoot by Todd Krainin and Swain.
Scroll down for downloadable links, and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for daily content like this.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Yeah, we should adopt a model that results in budget crisis and ballooning deficits.
http://www.kansascity.com/opin.....24256.html
Because we can't measure the prosperity that has resulted from these policies but, you see, we have these models right here in our Microsoft excel spreadsheets. Someone should tell Grover-- maybe in black rock city--that the state with the highest rate of job creation is california.
Detroit is awesome. Can't argue with that.
Are right-wingers incapable of sticking to the issue at hand?
So you're saying that the places with the highest taxes have no budget crisis or deficits? Let's use the example of California. Please elaborate.
Cutting taxes probably will not work unless you cut spending also. Spending is typically the biggest problem with states these days, along with the federal government. No matter how much they raise taxes, they remain in a state of crisis because they increase spending at an even greater rate.
The answer is to cut spending, then cut taxes. There's only so much you can tax people before you kill all productivity. So, again, it's like this, states and feds, No, fuck you, cut spending!
Because the government can't actually create wealth (why would it have to tax if it could), then taking less money from those who can create wealth should increase the tax base...theoretically.
Well, it will, but if they don't cut spending, they're going to remain in a state of crisis. This is why Murikan does not have a point about tax cuts being bad because Kansas cannot manage their budget.
Indeed government cannot create wealth.
All it does is redistribute from those who did create to those who did not.
Government certainly can create wealth. If the resources used (which are paid for with tax receipts) generate something of greater value, then wealth is generated. The problem is that government employees - bureaucrats and politicians - have little, or no, incentive to create wealth. And even if they try to, there is no mechanism that can tell them whether they're being successful, such as the price and profit mechanisms in the private economy. So while I quibble with how you got there, we end up at the same place.
The answer is to cut spending, then cut taxes.
In a reasonable world that's correct. Politics is not a reasonable world.
Cut spending and you end up with a surplus. Special interests will go after a surplus like alligators swarming a gazelle. Usually they'll manage to spend at least 200% of the available funds.
There's a fun parlour game I like to play in my house. It's called, "Point To The Time In History When Government Claimed it Had Plenty of Money"
No one's ever won.
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/re.....bs-in-2014
You may want to check your sources. Or at least post them.
You expect accurate economic statistics from "american socialist"?
You are arguing percentages, I think AS is talking raw numbers.
You mean like Florida, a state with no income tax but runs a yearly surplus.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/p.....ss/1187229
It's those bingo dollars, dude!
It's against the law for the legislature to borrow and spend in Florida. If only the Feds would adopt this rule.
One good for FL! But they make up for it with all the bad. They have to, it's the rules.
No medical pot, no constitutional carry, No all ideal titles, I was trying to think of more but that's all I got right now.
Allodial. Auto-correct fail.
Are there any states that do have allodial title (ignoring the fedgov's eminent domain power)?
But refilling growlers will soon be legal. They're inching towards civilization.
Kansas's budget (non)crisis has nothing to do with its tax cuts. The state is doing better than its neighbors for job creation.
I find it quaint that progressives are worried about $300 million dollar deficits.
But even after the VA scandal, they can't reform the VA to work, and the VA wasted a billion dollars on a 182 bed hospital in Colorado.
There's a lot of misinformation about Kansas and it's "ballooning deficit." The state was in very dire economic straits when Brownback took over for Democrat Kathleen Sebelius. Sebelius had used every accounting trick in the book to balance the state's budget (as required by KS law), and the state was effectively broke, having pulled ahead all of the income it could muster, the cubpoards were bare.
Brownback quickly turned the budget crisis into a surplus, and then turned his attention to tax reform, enacting the plan to eliminate Kansas's income tax. At the same time as income taxes were being cut/reduced, federal money from the post-recession bailout started to be withdrawn, which resulted in the need for some planned spending increases to have to be drawn back a little. VERY little. Those teensy reductions in planned spending increases have lead to all the bithcing about "cuts" and budget "crises." It's all WAAAY overblown. Overall, Kansas schools are overfunded (due to Kansas Supreme Court rulings that funding must be increased year over year despite the fact that Kansas is well above average in per pupil funding at $13k per year per student), poverty levels are low, unemployment rates are very low, and Kansas is doing just fine.
Re: American Stolid,
Lower taxes creates budget crisis? Would't spending more than what you have create a budget crisis?
I mean, stop assuming everybody else is an idiot, ASs.
OM
I don't think the issue is that he is trying to pull one over on others. I think he truely believes that stuff.
$300 million.
We spent more on Ebola wards in Liberia that saw 28 patients.
We spent more on cost overruns on the VA hospital in CO.
Maybe we should save that money and give it Kansas.
Yeah, we should adopt a model that results in budget crisis and ballooning deficits.
OH IF ONLY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULD FINALLY ADOPT AN INCOME TAX, THEN WE WOULDN'T HAVE BALLOONING DEFICITS AND BUDGET CRISES!
"Kansas is the future. Kansas is the model"
Let's use that term with caution.
There seems to be this general rule about states, some weird sort of fucked up yin/yang, that however good a state is in one way, they must be equally bad in another way.
Take Kansas for instance. They eliminate the income tax and then try to sue CO for exercising their state rights. Then to make sure things are equal they snatch kids from their parents because the parent uses medical cannabis.
I wish there were a state where this rule does not apply, but I don't think there is.
Alaska could almost be good if they weren't so dependent on the federal government.
One reason more and more people are opting out of the totalitarian economy and doing business in the underground economy is they do not want to give a dime to the IRS because a big portion of that what is looted goes to fund the military colossus.
Don't be cannon fodder. Be a real man as real men do not join state sponsored military / terrorist organizations.
But they do express their opinions loudly, angrily, and anonymously on message boards!
Do you tear up at fly-overs? I love that. So awesome.
What does "fly-overs" mean? I just think you're sill because you get so mad (on a message board) and then make claims about "real men!" It's cute. There I said it, I think you're cute.
I think he means when the military jets fly over. Besides that, I have no fucking idea what he's rambling about.
Something about lizard people and hollow moons, I think.
OOOOOH...Thanks Hyperion.
And LM, no, I don't cry at fly-overs. I also don't have any comment on your actual opinion; I am not by any means the biggest military supporter around here. I just think your method of expression and extreme longing to actually change someone's mind on a message board is precious.
Changing minds and hearts one post at a time!
Yay!
Me thinks someone has a chip on their shoulder about never having had the guts to join the military. Its okay - its not for everyone...
I never had the guts to join the military, but I'm pretty sure that message board yelling is just as courageous.
I missed the part where he was yelling.
Well those people are stupid ignoramuses, because the "military colossus" is just about at its smallest share of the government since World War II.
If you don't believe me, I'll be more than happy to post the graphs showing both defense spending as a share of GDP and defense spending as a share of total spending.
Now THIS Mike is ok....
Also, I think a lot of people would be okay with less spending if world events would cooperate.
Getting rid of the income tax is the single best thing that could happen in this country.
I don't care about any single political issue more than I care about getting rid of the income tax.
"To each according to their need" isn't the worst part of Socialism; the worst part is "From each according to their ability", and the latter is what the income tax is all about.
Never mind that the income tax artificially inflates the cost of hiring unemployed people and paying them their take home pay. Everything we hate about socialism we should hate about the income tax.
I owe you money because I earned it--only makes sense to a socialist. The harder I work, the more I earn, the more I owe you--only makes sense to a socialist. When we get past that kind of thinking to the extent necessary to abolish the income tax, raise the Libertopia flag 'cause Libertopia will be here.
The implementation of the income tax was the beginning of the slippery slope to serfdom. Now we're so far down the slope that we can't even see the top anymore. We have to assume that only the bottom exists as a reality.
In my honest opinion though, the most evil of all taxes is the property tax. It basically means that private property is an illusion and that it's impossible to be independent from the state. If there were no property tax, you could truly live off the grid and be self sustaining. But as it is, you always owe the government until the day you die, or you owe someone for rent. You cannot truly be free.
Absolutely. It made prohibition affordable, since they no longer depended on booze taxes, which I think had been something like 40% of revenue.
It also made WW I affordable, and it's arguable that without our entry, it would have eventually ended much like the 1870 Franco Prussion war, with no further consequences (Lenin, Hitler).
And it's made all government expansion ever since affordable. Withholding is evil too, because it hides the true value sucked out of pay checks.
I see no reason why Lenin still would not have risen to power.
He might have, but he might not have. If the US hadn't had the income tax to backstop their British favoritism, Germany might well have won sooner and not needed to give Lenin safe passage.
I doubt a German victory would have been good for the continent. America should not have gotten (directly) involved but that would not make a pristine history.
Germany was well aware it couldn't win in the West after Verdun, and to seek victory in the East, shipping Lenin is guaranteed to happen. All you would have is no foreign intervention, making it easier for Bolsheviks to win, while Poland, Ukraine and Baltic countries are occupied by the Germans.
Add to it that, had the Germans not blown their wad in spring of 1918 and managed to keep the Western Front from collapsing, they would have still lost as Allies (sans Americans) broke through the front at Salonika, knocked out Austria, Bulgaria and Turkey out of the war, and had nothing to oppose them all the way to Berlin.
The British would have been bankrupt after a year if it hadn't been for American bank loans, which the banker knew would be backed by the government. That would not have been the case without the easy money from income tax.
The French were probably much worse off, but I don't much about their finances.
British finances were bad, but not that terrible. London was a centre of commerce, after all, and they had vast gold reserves, plus a ton of real estate and other assets to sell as needed, so bankers would have made the loans regardless, at least at the start.
Of course, once you start financing them, you are tied into them winning the war, so may as well keep loaning them money while, at the same time, NYC becomes a centre of finance instead of London.
But I differ on property tax. It's the least intrusive tax; no receipts or other paperwork to verify and cheat on, and it can be paid anonymously; all the government cares about is that it be paid. You can also eliminate repossession for non-payment by simply refusing redress on any property with out of date property tax.
Valuation can be self-assesed the same way: limit redress to the self-declared value. Of course everyone will lowball their valuations, but since everybody will do it, the tax rate will self-correct.
I'd rather have no taxes and no government, but if there's going to be tax, I'd rather it be an anonymous self-assessed type.
Is property tax ever self-assessed?
Just stick to consumption tax or a citizenship fee.
Property tax is assessed by a county or city assessor. And they can make it anything they want. They can suddenly just double it for no fucking reason. It's happened to me and a lot of other people I know.
Don't pay it and see what happens.
Two years ago, I got a new assessment that cut the value of my home about 10%. it was really terrible to see the escrow withholding go down to cover the reduced property tax.
That's part of my plan -- the only punishment for failure to pay property tax is no redress in courts.
Not in FL. They can only reset it at sale. It is constrained to 3% change per year while owned by the same entity. Well, for private residences.
For private PRIMARY residences, meaning one that is your stated home, is occupied for the majority of the year and is subject to the homestead exemption deduction.
That's my point, slow reader. Let the owner self-asses its value, not the tax, let the government set the tax rate, and if any lawsuit concerning that property ever comes up, any verdict restitution is capped by the self-assessed value.
So if some joker self-assess his house at $1 and is burgled, vandalized, or in any other way harmed, including criminal activity, no court can award more than $1, and he is wide open to every punter in the neighborhood.
And then there's no incentive for him not to plunder other people's homes. No thanks.
Yes, there is, slow reader. If he plunders someone else house, they can still get their full self-assessed value.
So your plan is to exclude people from your monopolist court system for not paying their tax?
Only to the extent of owed restitution.
If you're going to have coercion, at least make it less bad than it is now. I'm all ears if you have some other idea.
Any redress system has to have some way of enforcing redress. If it's ancap and all contracts, there's some kind of shunning involved. That's all this is, but on a system-wide scale. It's better than confiscating the land.
I'm not sure I follow. Victims of crime don't get restitution from the state anyways. But placing someone outside of the protection of law is a fate worse than death. Especially since you're placing someone outside the protection of your monopoly law system, so it's not as though the person could seek out another provider of such services.
A voluntary system is one thing, but your "system wide scale" is a monopoly and thus it's not a simple exclusion from your courts. Monopolists, owing their position to the aggression, cannot legitimately exercise freedom of association and thus outlawry for failing to pay your extortionist fees amounts.
There is no libertarian compliant taxation or defense of taxation. If you know of a tax that doesn't violate the non-aggression principle, I'm all ears.
The income tax was introduced before the currency was completely backed by paper. With the ability to borrow and spend, I don't think Washington needs the income tax as much as it once did.
Eh, it's way down my list. Just making a flat or even flatter tax with no/few deductions would be a huge improvement. I think big cuts in government spending and an end to mass immigration would have far more positive effects.
an end to mass immigration would have far more positive effects.
But that's because you're economically illiterate.
Well it depends. If those immigrating are net users of entitlements, wouldn't they be a strain on the economy? Mind you I have no actual idea what the real number is, just theoretically.
They aren't net users of entitlements anymore than their native peers in their wealth cohort. Even if they were they are still massively beneficial to the economy.
How would it benefit the economy if a group were net users of entitlements. In other words, their economic output is less than their intake of entitlements? I'm not arguing, I'm honestly interested?
Immigrants tend to fill up 'holes' in the labour market and displace native workers up the income ladder. We are richer for them being here. The entitlement money is getting spent anyway,
I mean, let's just theoretically say that 100% of immigrants was on entitlements. Then it would be a strain on the economy. I think that's where the anti-immigration argument tends to come from.
There should definitely be a ban on entitlements for people who just walk across the border. Because if there's not, why wouldn't every poor person just come?
That's what we are seeing right now. I'm pro-immigration, but without entitlements unless you become a citizen or are at least here legally.
Does anyone really think that the USA cannot support every poor person in the world? There are billions of them.
in their wealth cohort
And what rate are they in the lowest wealth cohort compared to the native population? Come on now.
I'm all for a loose immigration policy, but there's no need to be stupid about it. Immigrants don't exclusively bring sunshine and roses, Shikha.
What cohort they are in does not matter because they tend push the natives in their cohort up the income ladder.
Thanks for the compliment I like Shikha.
"I like Shikha"
Ah! Gross!
?
She can't write! Even if you agree with her, at least tell me that you wish someone with any talent were expressing the thoughts!
What cohort they are in does not matter because
It absolutely does matter. By making this assertion you have to show that immigrants, particularly those that the US tends to get the most of, contribute more value in a macro sense (job creation, tax revenue, CPI, etc) than they cost (increased spending on welfare, police, education, and costs of UI & welfare to the displaced workers that they have outcompeted). It's not necessarily so; there are plenty of scenarios where immigration can be a net negative economically.
they tend push the natives in their cohort up the income ladder.
I'd really like a cite for this, since it's the first I'm hearing about it and I'm interested in the mechanism. I'm betting that it's over a mid- to long-term period, which is scant solace to the 49 year old landscaper whose jerb was terk.
This has been demonstrated many many times. It's called 'American history'.
. Even though the number of legal and illegal immigrants in the United States has risen strongly since the early 1990s, the size of the economic underclass has not. In fact, by several measures the number of Americans living on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder has been in a long-term decline, even as the number of immigrants continues to climb.
.
.
.
That same win-win dynamic may have been at work a century ago during the "great migration" of immigrants from eastern and southern Europe. Most of those immigrants were lower-skilled compared with Americans, and their influx also exerted downward pressure on the wages of lower-skilled Americans. It was probably not a coincidence that during that same period the number of Americans staying in school to earn a high-school diploma increased dramatically in what is called "the high-school movement." From 1910 to 1940, the share of American 18-year-olds graduating from high school rose from less than 10 percent to 50 percent in a generation.10 Today's immigrants are arguably contributing to the same positive dynamic.
http://www.cato.org/publicatio.....icans-move
Egads, that analysis has holes you can drive a Mack truck through. It's also not much of a cite, since its merely offering the same hypothesis you put forth without much supporting evidence beyond idle speculation.
I'm shocked somebody was paid for that, it reads like an undergrad term paper.
The economic illiterates are those who think the law of supply and demand doesn't apply to immigration, and that it's impossible to have too much of a good thing.
The economic illiterate is the one who thinks that the labor market is homogenous and is impervious to evidence. I tire of your ignorance educate yourself:
Mariel boatlift, a mass migration in 1980 that brought more than 125,000 Cubans to the United States. According to David Card, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, roughly 45,000 of them were of working age and moved to Miami; in four months, the city's labor supply increased by 7 percent. Card found that for people already working in Miami, this sudden influx had no measurable impact on wages or employment. His paper was the most important of a series of revolutionary studies that transformed how economists think about immigration. Before, standard economic models held that immigrants cause long-term benefits, but at the cost of short-term pain in the form of lower wages and greater unemployment for natives. But most economists now believe that Card's findings were correct: Immigrants bring long-term benefits at no measurable short-term cost.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03......html?_r=0
HUR DUR SUPPLY AND DEMAND -STFU I have evidence and real understanding of the economy; you don't.
I responded to that b.s. study when you posted it yesterday. David Card is the same fool who tried (with Krueger) to prove that minimum wage hikes don't increase unemployment. Nope, supply and demand operates there, as well.
Um. That's now logic works PapayaSF. You can't just point at a completely different study to discredit the one I'm talking about. Holy fuck you are the epitome of the know-nothing conservaderp ignoramus.
And you are polite and rational as always.
The economic illiterates are those who think the law of supply and demand doesn't apply to immigration
Who said that? There are supply and demand factors at play in all cases. Unless you are saying price is irrelevant (?!), then "the law of supply and demand" doesn't have anything to do with immigration. If the supply is restricted, then prices will be high. If the supply is broadened, then prices will fall. TANSTAAFL
"the law of supply and demand" doesn't have any particularly unique implications with regard to tightening or loosening immigration
This is a better phrasing of what I meant.
If you increase the supply of labor, the price of labor will fall. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but in an economy with high unemployment, a welfare state that's rapidly going broke, and an economy with decreasing need for unskilled labor, adding millions more unskilled laborers is not a good idea.
That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but in an economy with high unemployment, a welfare state that's rapidly going broke, and an economy with decreasing need for unskilled labor, adding millions more unskilled laborers is not a good idea.
Indeed, but that has nothing to do with supply or demand per se and everything to do with a shit ton of bad government policies.
Immigration increases employment, so wrong again.
Immigration increases employment, so wrong again.
This is pretty facilely disproved. If you have nothing to offer and simply consume or destroy, then the shifting of your presence does not magically invent employment. A thug does not add value to society simply by moving from one place to another.
Immigration is generally symptomatic rather than causal. Neither you nor PapayaSF really seem to understand this. Ceteris paribus, people moving are not taking anything away from the world; but nor are they adding anything, either. It takes some other actions, on their own part and on the parts of others, for wealth to be created or destroyed.
Put another way, "immigration increases employment if and only if the destination is a liberal and proprietary society".
immigration increases employment if and only if the destination is a liberal and proprietary society
I'd like to note the interesting corollary that the uncivilized frontier is the most liberal and proprietary society, by dint of having no one to interfere with your liberty or property. Hence, in part, why the US became so wealthy so quickly.
I think big cuts in government spending and an end to mass immigration would have far more positive effects.
If you had the first, why would you need the second?
Because DEY TRK R JERBS
I think ending drug prohibition, central banking, and state education are higher up the list but ending the income tax is still a biggie.
Good thinking.
What I hate most about the income tax is the necessary massive invasion of privacy. People have been trained for so long now that it is normal and proper for the government to know all about your finances that hardly anyone questions it. But it's pretty fucked up if you think about it. Every significant transaction you make that isn't cash under the table gets reported to the government in some way or other.
+~$1.5TT
Income tax also provides data to push income inequality.
Without data, I suspect most people would be blissfully unaware of inequality.
You know who else though their state was the future...
Francisco Solano Lopez?
(to my shame I had to Google his exact name)
amsoc is right, America was an unlivable hell-hole before the IRS. People burned the elderly in the streets just to keep warm, and to cook the babies they were eating for dinner. Yep, the standard of living in the US then was lower than anywhere else on the planet.
People burned the elderly in the streets just to keep warm, and to cook the babies they were eating for dinner
Good god man, what did people do before the government invented the elderly and babies!?
The income tax is an interesting topic with regard to leftists. It is a subject that brings the crazy every single time.
That should be "phases out."
You beat me to it.
Why are you all engaging with the scum?
Do you not take any pleasure in seeing people seething with anger on a message board because everyone doesn't see the world just like they do? Is this why you think I'm a troll?
Is this why you think I'm a troll?
I would think it was a result of your constant trolling, could there be some other reason? See, "u mad bro" is clever and witty, but mindless and childish at the same time. The fact that "how much do you bench press" is about the sum of your posts since your unfortunate return, I am going to have to go with, "You ARE a troll". Duh.
I thought you were talking about American Socialist.
I was.
🙁 that was supposed to be a little heart. I used a 3 and a < and everything.
I know a lot of people who are still saving money after losing so much during the recent financial meltdown. This means they have cut their expenses elsewhere in order to deal with the long term. Also, just because taxes are being eliminated in a state doesnt mean that companies are going to pick up and move there right away. There are commercial leases, clientele, manufacturing and so on that must be considered prior to just running off to Kansas or any other state.
Maybe these tax cuts could have been structured better. But eliminating the income tax is still not a bad idea. It took decades of tax laws to make the mess that this country and many states are in. It cannot be unwound overnight. Tax cut policies can take years to have a measurable affect.
Melissa Harris Perry thinks you should pay more taxes, just like her.... oh wait... I mean the rest of the reporters at MSNBC, just like them .... oh wait...
That air head is still on TV?
Last I heard, she was running from the IRS.
Is she the tampon earring one that said children belong to all of use? She's vaguely ethnic, almost attractive...Am I thinking of the right person?
She is the one who said that children belong to all of us, whether we want any children or not. She also is constantly bawling on about how everyone should pay more taxes. I guess she was referring to everyone but her, since the IRS are after her for 70k in back taxes.
She has a lisp and is almost unbelievably stupid. Like, the first time I saw her I was ready for some stupidity, but she actually managed to surprise me.
The income tax is a hangover from Prohibition. Before Prohibition the federal government got most of its revenue from liquor taxes. Leading up to Prohibition they needed a new source of revenue, and amended the Constitution to allow for the income tax. When Prohibition ended, the income tax remained.
I thought income tax was brought about by WW1? I guess it could be both?
It preceded prohibition. The theory is that it was put in place as a lead up to prohibition so that there could be a replacement for the alcohol tax revenue.
They lost one evil, they had to find another evil just as big to replace it with.
Sixteenth Amendment passed Congress in 1909 and was ratified in 1913, so it really predates both. Basically, government needed a steady source of income, Supreme Court declared taxing of income from rents and interests and such unconstitutional, and in those days that meant you needed an amendment rather than an executive order.
Or so Wikipidia says.
It was in preparation for Prohibition. The federal government depended on alcohol taxes for thirty to forty percent of its revenue. So they needed to replace that revenue before making alcohol illegal.
Well, I'm impressed - to start preparing the ground 13 years ahead of time requires a lot of forethought and planning.
I'm serious - imagine if, say, War on Poverty or Obamacare had the financial basis handled first, ahead of time and ready to go before they were implemented. It'd still be evil, but at least it would be organized and competent evil.
Prohibition also need the women's vote, which wasn't granted until the 20's.
BTW, suffragettes in California were opposed by liquor interests who said that women voting would lead to prohibition. My daughter was researching Susan B Anthony, and the book laughed at this thought.
I made sure to point out that indeed after women got the vote nationally, in came Prohibition, so maybe those guys in California were correct.
Fee for service government.
Voluntary, based on demand as actually revealed by the consumers of said services, not, "I need some of that guy's money."
That wouldn't wor, because that would mean that the socialists couldn't whine about needing to pay for food inspectors.
Here in Maine, Republican guvnah LePage is trying to eliminate the state income tax and make up for it by raising and broadening the sales tax. Unsurprisingly, the Democrats are trying to block it (though they do like the idea of raising and broadening the sales tax).
He seems awesome. What is he like on other issues? Like civil liberties?
He's a zealot when it comes to the drug war, but he's pretty good on economic liberty and limiting welfare. He's got quite the personal story as well. Ran away from abusive parents at the age of eleven, so he knows what it's like to pull yourself up by the bootstraps. He's got no pity for poor people.
Okay, maybe not presidential material then. Oh well.
Can't have it all.
And yeah, he's definitely not presidential material. He's more gaff-prone than Biden, though infinitely more intelligent.
More gaffe-prone than Biden? Let's not be hasty, I'd like to see him in a VP slot then!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.....sonal_life
There is no tax that a Democrat doesn't love.
If there wete a special abortion tax. If...
I would be in favor of seeing the IRS go bye bye in favor of a max capped sales tax. That way, the government only gets as much money as the economy is prosperous.
I see now reason that states cannot work the same way.
*no reason
the government only gets as much money as the economy is prosperous.
I don't see how that would change anything. Revenue is already basically soft-capped at ~18% of GDP.
Ask Mike Hihn about his 9 - 9 - .9 tax plan.
Moonbeam just had a coronary!
"Follow Kansas"?!? Kansas is going bankrupt because of its tax cuts!
No it isn't.
How long til the point of no return?
$300 million in deficit.
We waste that much on Ebola wards for 28 patients to use.
California ranked 57th last year in job growth among the states.
See how easy it is to make up total lies you commie fuck.
That was meant for amsoc
http://www.kansascity.com/opin.....20406.html
Kansas is #39! They are better than WV, AK, ME, MS, LA, MT, OK (Of those, only MT and WV have Democratic governors, but both are very conservative states).
That socialist hellhole, California, is #7, just ahead of Texas.
http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm
Kansas is 14th (tied) in unemployment. California is 43rd. What were you saying again?
How's California rank in poverty? Inequality? Its almost like you folks only claim to care about that stuff when ot fits your narrative.
Violent crime. California doesn't rank that well. The two sagest states are both ok with me conceal carrying a firearm that holds greater than ten rounds.
we should adopt a model that results in budget crisis and ballooning deficits.
Open ended promises? Entitlements which cannot possibly be funded? I thought w already had that.
As a Colorodo resident, I would just like to say
FUCK KANSAS AND GIVE THAT LADY HER KID BACK!!!!!!
Sad. Not that taxes are good or anything, or that the Federal government shouldn't have its budget cut with chainsaw. But...
Taxes have an indirect economic effect called the Excess Burden of Taxation. (the total burden of taxation is how much poorer it makes you over all, the excess burden of the difference between that and the revenue raised, you know, the excess...) You can't get away from it. Different taxes have different excess burdens, which also varies by the tax rate.
So the issue becomes, what tax system has the lowest excess burden? Well, THE lowest is a lump sum tax (everyone pays $X). This is impractical. After that income and consumption taxes are the most efficient.
So, for federal government level spending, it's either a national income tax or a large national sales tax. Given we don't want to single out the poor to be a victims of government policy, income taxes are the sensible way to go.
This guy? HE doesn't know anything about economics or public policy analysis.
income taxes are the sensible way to go.
No they're not. Fuck off and take your bleeding heart faux-argument with you. The sales tax has been a boon everywhere it's been implemented.
Sales taxes are also extremely regressive. The poorer you are, the larger a percentage of your income you spend. Consumption taxes have the direct effect of taxing the poor at a higher percentage of their income than the rich.
Make food non-taxable.
You just made in more progressive.
Also, rich people who don't consume are investing, which is a good thing.
before I saw the receipt 4 $4157 , I didn't believe that...my... neighbour was like they say realie bringing in money part-time at there labtop. . there neighbour haz done this for less than 1 year and just repayed the morgage on there condo and bought Citro?n DS .
more information.... http://www.Work4Hour.Com
I'd rather have an income tax than property tax. As long as there is property tax and government can take "your" property for not paying the tax on it, property "ownership" is a fictional thing.
Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
This is wha- I do...... ?????? http://www.incomejoin70.com
I'm all for no income tax and I'm sure that could be done on the federal level, but my comment is about grammar: "Ending the income tax is part of Norquist's wide-ranging push to reign in spending... ." "Reign in" should be rein in.
The income tax amendment was when voters realized they could vote to have "other people" pay the bills. It cemented a fatal mindset into the U.S.
Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
This is wha- I do...... ?????? http://www.netjob80.com
Follow? Kansas?!? But something's the matter with it!
Time warp alert. Reason is running out of material again.
Kansas does not exist. LOOK IT UP!
Some Bloomberg View columnist was making fun of Kansas because they had a $300 million shortfall due to tax cuts.
Funny, the VA can waste 1 billion dollars on a 182 bed hospital, which could cover 3 years of KS shortfalls, and these guys are silent.
Its pretty simple to cut more money or even raise taxes back a bit.
Its impossible to recover the 1 billion dollars already given to contractors because the VA didn't think to consider the size of the machinery they planned to put in rooms.
So Cytotoxic, what's your take on Rachel Notley? All I've read is that she supports a progressive income tax, higher corporate taxes and more health and education spending.