White House punts on saving Big Bird's tax deduction

[JonNC]

What? Just because something isn’t in the constitution doesn’t mean that the government shouldn’t do it.

It means the Federal government shouldn’t do it.
The 10th amendment:

*The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. *

The entire basis of the American constitutional representative republic is precisely that: the people via the Constitution grant to the Federal government specific and limited powers. The federal government has no powers other than those granted to it by the people via the Constitution. It has no other powers, nor does it have the power to grant itself more powers. Only the people have the rights to grant it additional powers, and then only through the constitutional amendment process.

So, if it isn’t in the Constitution, the federal government shouldn’t do it. The fact that over the last nearly hundred years we haven’t required the government to only do what the the Constitution gives it permission to do is exactly why we are in the mess we’re in - $16 Trillion in debt, trillions more debt in unfunded entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare, HHS mandates limiting religious liberty, declining prublic schools due in part to federal interference. The list goes on.

Jon

 

[ProVobis]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Then it becomes an interpretation of the document. Note the bolded which MAY apply. I stand neutral on the topic.

Section 8

1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And

18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Then it becomes an interpretation of the document. Note the bolded which MAY apply. I stand neutral on the topic.

Context. That talks about patents, not giving money for research. Look after the comma.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Point of contention in most debates. Lower number of deductions et ceteris paribus means individual and corporate higher tax bill generally. Also it would affect entities, such as charities in this case, especially those charites which have contributions from large donors, which makes the charities even more dependent on the government for survival.

But however you look at it, the tax code as long as we have it generally allows social engineering on the part of government. Newt Gingrich got that part right.

That’s why I don’t support eliminating deductions. I want lower tax rates and more deductions.

I don’t like this idea of lowering taxes and broadening the base. We should lower taxes and be done with it.

 

[austenbosten]

That’s why I don’t support eliminating deductions. I want lower tax rates and more deductions.

I don’t like this idea of lowering taxes and broadening the base. We should lower taxes and be done with it.

Problem is deductions make the tax laws bloated. A simple flat rate of 5%-20% or simple Progressive tax with a Maximum Tax Rate of 30% and a Standard Deduction along with Itemized Deductions for:

Charity
Health Expenses
Business
Saving
Debt Reduction (Yes debt is a problem not just for the government but people as well)
Retirement
Home
Family

Eitherway I was a Herman Cain fan of the 9-9-9 Plan of a simple 9% Income Tax, 9% Corporate Tax and 9% Sales Tax.

 

[JonNC]

Then it becomes an interpretation of the document. Note the bolded which MAY apply. I stand neutral on the topic.

From James Madison:

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress… **Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
**it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America.” ****

and,

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

Clearly, the man knows what the founders and writers meant.

Jon

 

[ProVobis]

Context. That talks about patents, not giving money for research. Look after the comma.

I saw that but are you saying the entire 60’s space program, which ultimately led to satellite, cable, internet, and cellular technologies and provided a boom for the U.S. economy, was a waste of taxpayer money? Do you really think Bank of America would have competed with the Russians to be first on the moon and first in communications?

 

[Yerusalyim]

You guys realize that there are more shows than sesame street? The two BEST kids shows that I have seen (super why and word world) are funded by the government and on PBS. They are by far the most educational shows for toddlers.

The amount of money that goes into pbs is so minuscule when you look at the total government expenditure that there seems to be no reason to cut it.

Is it worth borrowing money from China on your kid’s credit card? If these shows are good the money will come from private sources. The taxpayer should NOT be funding this.
Cuts to the budget MUST be made…eliminating a lot of small expenditures helps too.

 

[Yerusalyim]

I just think that the government shouldn’t be restricted to a document written over 200 years ago. I guess it makes sense that the constitution doesn’t mention anything about TV though.

That “document written over 200 years ago” embodies the principles that have made our nation great. We need to stick to that document or risk losing our freedoms. The point being, the federal government should not be in the business of subsidizing information and entertainment.

 

[Yerusalyim]

That honor would go to the Donald.

Good line.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

I saw that but are you saying the entire 60’s space program, which ultimately led to satellite, cable, internet, and cellular technologies and provided a boom for the U.S. economy, was a waste of taxpayer money? Do you really think Bank of America would have competed with the Russians to be first on the moon and first in communications?

This is a false dilemma. You can argue whether or not the space program was worth the money. Furthermore, you can argue whether or not you needed the space program for those technologies. Private companies come out with new technologies all the time, irrespective of government funding. And as for space travel, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

politico.com/politico44/2012/10/white-house-punts-on-saving-big-birds-tax-deduction-137642.html?hp=r5

Think this will hurt Mitt The “Stormin’ Mormon” Romney?

(Hope that nickname doesn’t get me in trouble =/)

Sesame Street has been a profitable enterprise for a long time, if you consider merchandise and everything. Why are taxpayers subsidizing it again?

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Problem is deductions make the tax laws bloated. A simple flat rate of 5%-20% or simple Progressive tax with a Maximum Tax Rate of 30% and a Standard Deduction along with Itemized Deductions for:

Charity
Health Expenses
Business
Saving
Debt Reduction (Yes debt is a problem not just for the government but people as well)
Retirement
Home
Family

I’m fine with making taxes simpler, believe me I am. However, I don’t want taxes to be raised in the process.

Eitherway I was a Herman Cain fan of the 9-9-9 Plan of a simple 9% Income Tax, 9% Corporate Tax and 9% Sales Tax.

I’m not comfortable with giving the federal government a new income source. The income tax was supposed to be always less than 10%. Yeah right, that lasted just a few years before it went soaring.

 

[katcecelia]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the fed gov’t was supposed to use tariffs on (name removed by moderator)ort/export to pay for itself… um pretty sure income tax from the fed is not consttutional

 

[Dawnia]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the fed gov’t was supposed to use tariffs on (name removed by moderator)ort/export to pay for itself… um pretty sure income tax from the fed is not consttutional

AMENDMENT XVI
Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.

The Congress shall have 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.

 

[JonNC]

Dawnia:
…and it needs to be repealed.

However, this is precisely how, when the government wants to have a power not enumerated, that it can receive it from the people. Unfortunately, the government has decided it can determine for itself new powers without consent of the governed (constitutional amendment).

Jon

 

[katcecelia]

Dawnia:
ratified 1913… the beginning of the era of big gov’t… and the beginning of the end of freedom from gov’t

 

[Yerusalyim]

I’m fine with making taxes simpler, believe me I am. However, I don’t want taxes to be raised in the process.

I’m not comfortable with giving the federal government a new income source. The income tax was supposed to be always less than 10%. Yeah right, that lasted just a few years before it went soaring.

Simplifying the tax code will increase revenues…that’s not necessarily a tax increase…with a flat tax rates would go down…and the tax base would be increased. Currently, a family of four has to make just about $50,000 before they have a federal income tax liability. I propose a flat tax (or VERY simplified progressive tax) that begins taxing income at 150% of the poverty level.

 

[JonNC]

ratified 1913… the beginning of the era of big gov’t… and the beginning of the end of freedom from gov’t

The 17th amendment was probably worse in this way, as it rendered the states impotent in controlling the federal government through the Senate.

Thank you, President Wilson. :nope:

Jon

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Simplifying the tax code will increase revenues…that’s not necessarily a tax increase…with a flat tax rates would go down…and the tax base would be increased. Currently, a family of four has to make just about $50,000 before they have a federal income tax liability. I propose a flat tax (or VERY simplified progressive tax) that begins taxing income at 150% of the poverty level.

Fine, but I want lower taxes and lower revenue to constrain government spurning which breeds dependence. Everything else is gravy