Fundamental error in the US constitution

[ZNPaaneah]

17% of Americans work for the government (Fed, State or Local). The Tax to GDP ratio is 26%. The Government budget is 36% of GDP.

So the amount of money the "government" in the US spends is more than a third of the total money produced (Fed, State, local). With that expense they employ 17%, whereas the private sector employees 83% with 64% of GDP. That means the private sector employs 3 times as many people as government for the same amount of money.

These numbers tell me that the money given to government is extremely inefficient at producing jobs. Likewise money sent to the government is much less likely to result in economic advancement for this country (patents, copyrights, and other examples of innovation).

It seems incredible to me that there is no accountability for these very poor results.

I think the US constitution should stipulate what percent of GDP goes to the government in the form of tax. Second, the % of government jobs needs to be tied to this. Public sector jobs pay about 8% more than private sector, so why is there such a disparity between tax revenue and the amount of jobs? Also, I think the ability to declare war needs to be spelled out much clearer. The federal government should be allowed to declare war, however, the armies should be State raised militias.

The US constitution is a contract between the people and the government. In this contract we are agreeing to pay, on average, 36% of our annual income, yet have little idea about what we are paying for or what the government is using the money for. Why is it that when you buy anything else you have a clear idea what you are getting, that contract law requires contracts to clearly spell out what is taking place, yet we give 36% of our income each year to the government and we do not have that same clarity.

The US government should be allowed to create a budget each year on how to best spend the amount of money they are receiving, but they should not be allowed to change how much they receive without a constitutional amendment. Therefore the tax code needs to be simplified and also be part of the US constitution. Is it a poll tax? An income tax? A sales tax? A land tax?

In addition to this we should have oversight of the government handled by non government staff. It is absurd that the government polices the government and the Vice President is not policed by anyone (according to Dick Cheney). The justice department and Supreme court should not be political appointees. You are clearly asking for corruption.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

17% of Americans work for the government (Fed, State or Local). The Tax to GDP ratio is 26%. The Government budget is 36% of GDP.

So the amount of money the "government" in the US spends is more than a third of the total money produced (Fed, State, local). With that expense they employ 17%, whereas the private sector employees 83% with 64% of GDP. That means the private sector employs 3 times as many people as government for the same amount of money.

These numbers tell me that the money given to government is extremely inefficient at producing jobs. Likewise money sent to the government is much less likely to result in economic advancement for this country (patents, copyrights, and other examples of innovation).

It seems incredible to me that there is no accountability for these very poor results.

I think the US constitution should stipulate what percent of GDP goes to the government in the form of tax. Second, the % of government jobs needs to be tied to this. Public sector jobs pay about 8% more than private sector, so why is there such a disparity between tax revenue and the amount of jobs? Also, I think the ability to declare war needs to be spelled out much clearer. The federal government should be allowed to declare war, however, the armies should be State raised militias.

The US constitution is a contract between the people and the government. In this contract we are agreeing to pay, on average, 36% of our annual income, yet have little idea about what we are paying for or what the government is using the money for. Why is it that when you buy anything else you have a clear idea what you are getting, that contract law requires contracts to clearly spell out what is taking place, yet we give 36% of our income each year to the government and we do not have that same clarity.

The US government should be allowed to create a budget each year on how to best spend the amount of money they are receiving, but they should not be allowed to change how much they receive without a constitutional amendment. Therefore the tax code needs to be simplified and also be part of the US constitution. Is it a poll tax? An income tax? A sales tax? A land tax?

In addition to this we should have oversight of the government handled by non government staff. It is absurd that the government polices the government and the Vice President is not policed by anyone (according to Dick Cheney). The justice department and Supreme court should not be political appointees. You are clearly asking for corruption.

I once asked a IRS agent for a copy of the contract that I supposedly entered into with the IRS. He said, "filing your first income tax entered you into the contract." I said, "than I was trapped without my knowledge, into a contract that wasn't a mutual agreement." It didn't matter. I still had to pay taxes.

And taxes on property means you don't own that property.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I once asked a IRS agent for a copy of the contract that I supposedly entered into with the IRS. He said, "filing your first income tax entered you into the contract." I said, "than I was trapped without my knowledge, into a contract that wasn't a mutual agreement." It didn't matter. I still had to pay taxes.

And taxes on property means you don't own that property.

That's right. No one owns property, they just rent it. Stop paying taxes, and see who keeps the house and the land.

I once read that income tax began as a "voluntary" contribution.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's right. No one owns property, they just rent it. Stop paying taxes, and see who keeps the house and the land.

I once read that income tax began as a "voluntary" contribution.

"A tax on income is the price you pay for working; a tax on profits, the price you pay for success; and a tax on capital gains, the price you pay for taking risks that work out." https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevefo.../#7e6db1d4364f

The income tax was started to pay the Federal Reserve, that was started a few months prior, back in 1912/13, respectively.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

17% of Americans work for the government (Fed, State or Local). The Tax to GDP ratio is 26%. The Government budget is 36% of GDP.

So the amount of money the "government" in the US spends is more than a third of the total money produced (Fed, State, local). With that expense they employ 17%, whereas the private sector employees 83% with 64% of GDP. That means the private sector employs 3 times as many people as government for the same amount of money.

These numbers tell me that the money given to government is extremely inefficient at producing jobs. Likewise money sent to the government is much less likely to result in economic advancement for this country (patents, copyrights, and other examples of innovation).

It seems incredible to me that there is no accountability for these very poor results.

I think the US constitution should stipulate what percent of GDP goes to the government in the form of tax. Second, the % of government jobs needs to be tied to this. Public sector jobs pay about 8% more than private sector, so why is there such a disparity between tax revenue and the amount of jobs? Also, I think the ability to declare war needs to be spelled out much clearer. The federal government should be allowed to declare war, however, the armies should be State raised militias.

The US constitution is a contract between the people and the government. In this contract we are agreeing to pay, on average, 36% of our annual income, yet have little idea about what we are paying for or what the government is using the money for. Why is it that when you buy anything else you have a clear idea what you are getting, that contract law requires contracts to clearly spell out what is taking place, yet we give 36% of our income each year to the government and we do not have that same clarity.

The US government should be allowed to create a budget each year on how to best spend the amount of money they are receiving, but they should not be allowed to change how much they receive without a constitutional amendment. Therefore the tax code needs to be simplified and also be part of the US constitution. Is it a poll tax? An income tax? A sales tax? A land tax?

In addition to this we should have oversight of the government handled by non government staff. It is absurd that the government polices the government and the Vice President is not policed by anyone (according to Dick Cheney). The justice department and Supreme court should not be political appointees. You are clearly asking for corruption.

Your facts are screwed up. I don't know what your income is, but, if you're paying 36%, you should probably hire an accountant, as you may not know what you're doing.

Your idea of "oversight of the the government by non-governmental staff" is funny. Don't you see that would simply be another layer of government to pay for.

It's an age-old problem. As Plato asked in The Republic, "Who will watch the watchers?"

If you want anarchy, maybe you should try Somalia or some other failed state. If Trump has his way, we'll have a full blown police state. Maybe you'll like that better.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Your facts are screwed up. I don't know what your income is, but, if you're paying 36%, you should probably hire an accountant, as you may not know what you're doing.

Your idea of "oversight of the the government by non-governmental staff" is funny. Don't you see that would simply be another layer of government to pay for.

It's an age-old problem. As Plato asked in The Republic, "Who will watch the watchers?"

If you want anarchy, maybe you should try Somalia or some other failed state. If Trump has his way, we'll have a full blown police state. Maybe you'll like that better.

So let's work out the numbers:

1. You pay federal tax.
2. You pay Social Security.
3. You pay State and local taxes.
4. You pay sales tax.
5. You pay tolls.
6. You pay annual registration fee for your car.

You might think that is it, but you are wrong.

In addition to this you are buying stuff from corporations that also paid tax.

If you were going to replace the total tax collected by the State, Local and Federal government with a sales tax that tax is estimated to be 40%.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So let's work out the numbers:

1. You pay federal tax.
2. You pay Social Security.
3. You pay State and local taxes.
4. You pay sales tax.
5. You pay tolls.
6. You pay annual registration fee for your car.

You might think that is it, but you are wrong.

In addition to this you are buying stuff from corporations that also paid tax.

If you were going to replace the total tax collected by the State, Local and Federal government with a sales tax that tax is estimated to be 40%.

So which government do you propose we do without? Local? State? Federal?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

So which government do you propose we do without? Local? State? Federal?

I have not proposed doing away with any government. My point is that when you sign a contract that contract includes how much you are going to pay. The constitution is our contract with this government but it doesn't say how much we are going to pay, instead it leaves that up to the elected officials to decide. As a result our tax burden has grown steadily over the last 250 years.

Taxation in the United States in 1776 was incredibly different than what it is today. There were no income taxes, no corporate taxes, and no payroll taxes. Instead, the American Colonies (and to a larger extent, the British Crown) were primarily funded by tariffs and excise taxes.

During the Civil war the Union financed the war with bonds (about 2/3) and with excise taxes.

In 1913 the US passed the 16th amendment legalizing income tax.

Tax revenue in the US was around 5% of GDP or less until 1932. By 1942 we were up around 20% of GDP and never looked back.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So let's work out the numbers:

1. You pay federal tax.
2. You pay Social Security.
3. You pay State and local taxes.
4. You pay sales tax.
5. You pay tolls.
6. You pay annual registration fee for your car.

You might think that is it, but you are wrong.

In addition to this you are buying stuff from corporations that also paid tax.

If you were going to replace the total tax collected by the State, Local and Federal government with a sales tax that tax is estimated to be 40%.

You missed the biggest one, and the one that burns me up the most -- school tax.

If the ONLY taxation was sales tax, people would bypass it with bartering and an underground market.

What makes the current taxation operate is mandatory withdrawals -- from paychecks, mortgages, and cashiers. It is the business owners and self-employed who learn how to cheat the system.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You missed the biggest one, and the one that burns me up the most -- school tax.

If the ONLY taxation was sales tax, people would bypass it with bartering and an underground market.

What makes the current taxation operate is mandatory withdrawals -- from paychecks, mortgages, and cashiers. It is the business owners and self-employed who learn how to cheat the system.

I lumped school taxes under "local taxes". Parking tickets and other traffic tickets are a significant form of revenue for local police, which has them concerned now that self driving cars might eliminate that form of revenue.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I have not proposed doing away with any government. My point is that when you sign a contract that contract includes how much you are going to pay. The constitution is our contract with this government but it doesn't say how much we are going to pay, instead it leaves that up to the elected officials to decide. As a result our tax burden has grown steadily over the last 250 years.

Taxation in the United States in 1776 was incredibly different than what it is today. There were no income taxes, no corporate taxes, and no payroll taxes. Instead, the American Colonies (and to a larger extent, the British Crown) were primarily funded by tariffs and excise taxes.

During the Civil war the Union financed the war with bonds (about 2/3) and with excise taxes.

In 1913 the US passed the 16th amendment legalizing income tax.

Tax revenue in the US was around 5% of GDP or less until 1932. By 1942 we were up around 20% of GDP and never looked back.

Nobody likes to be taxed. But, the federal system doesn't raise sufficient revenue to finance government spending as it is. If it did, we wouldn't have a budget deficits and a growing national debt. Attempts to control government spending by cutting taxes haven't worked in the past. It seems like your "contract" plan would suffer the same fate.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Nobody likes to be taxed. But, the federal system doesn't raise sufficient revenue to finance government spending as it is. If it did, we wouldn't have a budget deficits and a growing national debt. Attempts to control government spending by cutting taxes haven't worked in the past. It seems like your "contract" plan would suffer the same fate.

That's why the Federal Government should have kept to their initial mandate -- national defense.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's why the Federal Government should have kept to their initial mandate -- national defense.

I guess your not a lover of the US Constitution like every politician claims to be. Article I, section 8 grants Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I guess your not a lover of the US Constitution like every politician claims to be. Article I, section 8 grants Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."

They should have placed limits on these powers.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

They should have placed limits on these powers.

I agree 100%. Who is to decide if the programs paid for by the government actually contribute to "the general welfare" and who is to judge if the money would have been better spent had they not taken in tax revenues?

This amendment gives the US government unlimited power. No limit as to how much they can tax and any program at all can fall under the nebulous heading of "general welfare".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I agree 100%. Who is to decide if the programs paid for by the government actually contribute to "the general welfare" and who is to judge if the money would have been better spent had they not taken in tax revenues?

This amendment gives the US government unlimited power. No limit as to how much they can tax and any program at all can fall under the nebulous heading of "general welfare".

Which amendment says we must have "open borders?"

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Which amendment says we must have "open borders?"

That depends on what was meant by the word "posterity" in the preamble.

Then there's "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" in Article 1 Section 8.

I don't think the constitution supports closing our borders.

Our founding documents contained moral truths. Therefore there's a moral issue with immigration.

Which shouldn't be an issue for a nation that claims to have a Christian majority.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

That depends on what was meant by the word "posterity" in the preamble.

Then there's "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" in Article 1 Section 8.

I don't think the constitution supports closing our borders.

Our founding documents contained moral truths. Therefore there's a moral issue with immigration.

Which shouldn't be an issue for a nation that claims to have a Christian majority.

That evil America with those evil Christians.

Did you see how those "evil" ones separated an immigrant woman from her daughter.

Her conclusion: "None of those evil Americans have a heart."

Apparently she checked all of them, some 300+ million.

Then they were made to stand in various lines for free housing, food stamps, welfare, health insurance, and public transportation. Like Obama's minister the Reverend Wright told us, "Not God bless America, but God d**m America!"

[Ohio]

Trump still has his job, but it's not been so good for some fake news types, here's the story about ...

Brian Ross and 15 Others Whose Anti-Trump Mania Cost Them Their Media Jobs

Drain the swamp!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I agree 100%. Who is to decide if the programs paid for by the government actually contribute to "the general welfare" and who is to judge if the money would have been better spent had they not taken in tax revenues?

This amendment gives the US government unlimited power. No limit as to how much they can tax and any program at all can fall under the nebulous heading of "general welfare".

Article I Section 8 is not an amendment. It is part of the original frame of the US Constitution which conservatives claim to love. Something very much like your proposition was enacted in Colorado with a resulting decline in public services and quality of life.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Article I Section 8 is not an amendment. It is part of the original frame of the US Constitution which conservatives claim to love. Something very much like your proposition was enacted in Colorado with a resulting decline in public services and quality of life.

My question is this, are you happy with the way in which the Federal government spends your money? If so, more power to them.

If not, then reign them in.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My question is this, are you happy with the way in which the Federal government spends your money? If so, more power to them.

If not, then reign them in.

Sounds like you're running for office. Will there be a chicken in every pot?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Sounds like you're running for office. Will there be a chicken in every pot?

Sounds like you are evading the question. The rhetoric always sounds great, but then it seems 80 cents of every tax dollar goes to paying interest on the debt and to the Pentagon. When you want to see what the pentagon budget is all about it is top secret, national security, etc.

They don't raise taxes, they simply borrow more money, then when they are about to run out they pass "emergency budgets" which allow them to run over, and they do that again, and again, and again, ad infinitum.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Sounds like you are evading the question. The rhetoric always sounds great, but then it seems 80 cents of every tax dollar goes to paying interest on the debt and to the Pentagon. When you want to see what the pentagon budget is all about it is top secret, national security, etc.

They don't raise taxes, they simply borrow more money, then when they are about to run out they pass "emergency budgets" which allow them to run over, and they do that again, and again, and again, ad infinitum.

But, it has been shown that limiting taxes to control spending doesn't work. Google "starving the beast" and TABOR in Colorado to see some of the ways this policy goes wrong, if you don't believe me.

I agree government borrowing and spending is out of control, and there ought to be a way for the American public to reign it in. But, I don't think you've found it yet.

As usual, the Republicans made a lot of noise about it when they were not in power, but now that they are, they're cutting taxes for billionaires and corporations and spending money like there is no tomorrow.

It's another way in which the two party system seems to be failing. We need to get beyond partisan rancor to get things done for the good of all.

Besides, even if you come up with a workable solution, do you know how difficult it is to pass a constitutional amendment?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

But, it has been shown that limiting taxes to control spending doesn't work. Google "starving the beast" and TABOR in Colorado to see some of the ways this policy goes wrong, if you don't believe me.

I agree government borrowing and spending is out of control, and there ought to be a way for the American public to reign it in. But, I don't think you've found it yet.

As usual, the Republicans made a lot of noise about it when they were not in power, but now that they are, they're cutting taxes for billionaires and corporations and spending money like there is no tomorrow.

It's another way in which the two party system seems to be failing. We need to get beyond partisan rancor to get things done for the good of all.

Besides, even if you come up with a workable solution, do you know how difficult it is to pass a constitutional amendment?

So then we all agree, the US government is not a responsible party to be given a blank check and the credit card of the US taxpayer.

I could go into ten reasons why the US government is a profligate spender and should not be entrusted with the keys to your bank account. Do you remember that famous bank robber who was asked why he robs banks and he said "because that is where the money is". Well all the thieves know that the US govt budget "is where the money is".

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So then we all agree, the US government is not a responsible party to be given a blank check and the credit card of the US taxpayer.

I could go into ten reasons why the US government is a profligate spender and should not be entrusted with the keys to your bank account. Do you remember that famous bank robber who was asked why he robs banks and he said "because that is where the money is". Well all the thieves know that the US govt budget "is where the money is".

We may be able to agree on the problem but when it comes to finding a solution the devil is in the details. Lobbyists for special interests in Washington seem to have far more influence than the General Public. And Washington politicians of both parties enrich themselves through their Insider connections. The donor class is running the show. United States is a plutocracy. Question is what to do about the problem.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

We may be able to agree on the problem but when it comes to finding a solution the devil is in the details. Lobbyists for special interests in Washington seem to have far more influence than the General Public. And Washington politicians of both parties enrich themselves through their Insider connections. The donor class is running the show. United States is a plutocracy. Question is what to do about the problem.

Two hundred years ago you needed representatives, but today with the internet I see the potential for "taking a vote" to be much more. Second, I see the potential for "representatives" to be different. For example, AARP can act as a representative for the elderly, Unions can act as the representative for their members. So although we can't be expected to read every law, anymore than our elected representatives, we can expect unions, and other organizations to be fully aware of relevant legislation.

Second, I would like to remove the power to wage war and maintain this huge military complex from the Federal government and distribute it among the fifty states.

I think the Federal government should be permitted to have the CIA and NSA to advise state governments if we need to raise an army. I think each state should be fully involved legally if any of their residents are being surveilled.

Third I don't think the Federal government should be allowed to borrow money. The only exception to this rule is if the 50 states have voted to go to war.

I am not against a fiat currency, nor am I against debt. Instead I think that Social Security and the treasury should be rolled into one entity that is completely independent from the Federal government, and given certain mandates like a pension fund manager. If a fund manager had been put in charge of Social Security it would have been invested in a much better way which would have stimulated our economy. Instead the Federal government stole that money and the only way they have to stimulate the economy is to lower interest rates. I feel our low interest rates are a symptom of federal government stealing Social Security and not reinvesting it in the economy.

Although I am referring to "a" fund manager, in reality I am thinking you would have a multitude of managers so that inept ones could be fired, corrupt ones imprisoned, and those that perform well like Warren Buffet rewarded.

Our military complex has morphed into this massive, all consuming force that acts in secrecy and which one mad president has disproportionate power to wield. I don't think our military complex makes us safer, on the contrary I think there are many people around the world and even in the US that are threatened by this entity. Why?

So then what about our nuclear missiles or Navy? We need to keep these, however, the cost would become something that is taxed on the State level. This way each State government would have access to see what we are paying for and have to justify it to the people. An average sized state would pay 2% of the cost, but have oversight to the entire budget. If you don't know what you are paying for then that is no different than "taxation without representation".

[ZNPaaneah]

When the constitution was made they were supposed to balance power between the states and the Federal govt. But since the Federal govt can run up debts, declare war, and maintain a standing army, CIA and NSA there is no balance at all. That is the fundamental error.