The problem with consumption tax is that is it a direct tax forbidden by the constitution.
|
The problem with consumption tax is that is it a direct tax forbidden by the constitution.
In what way is it a "direct tax" and how is it forbidden by the Constitution?Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.yet
A consumption tax is a tax on the product, not on the person. If anything an INCOME TAX is a direct tax on the person. A consumption tax is not.
And where in the Constitution is a consumption tax prohibited?
Elliot
Interesting point... worth further examination
Article 1, Section 9, Clauses 4 and 5 of the U.S. Constitution:
"Clause 4: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
Clause 5: No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."
I'll have to check with a Constitutional expert about if a national sales tax falls into these clauses.
However I'd gladly trade an amendment for it if the 16th Amendment was repealed .
You should read your Constitution direct taxes are allowed, Article 1, but must be distributed to the states. I know it is unpalitable for your Government to share power with your state legislatures because they would lose much of their pork barreling ability.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.yet
How would this be illegal when you already have sales taxes and excises. You pay income taxes under the 16th Amendment so obviously it is possible to amend the Constitution to apply a fairer tax.
Hello again, El:
Well, after the presidents speech, I'll bet the insurance industry will jump on board the public option.. If they're going to be regulated to the degree that they're going to have to accept people with preexisting conditions, and they can't cap awards any more, and they can't drop coverage in the middle of an illness, and they can't bankrupt people with out of pocket expenses any more, I'll bet they'll be GLAD to have a government company to take on those people.
After all, if you had to insure sick people, you couldn't make any money. Now, it looks like they're going to have to start doing that - or pass the buck..
excon
Yes works for meQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
They are already regulated to the point that it makes a mockery of the concept of a "private " company. What part of their services is not so over regulated already that competition isn't already squeezed out of the equation?
The President claims that in some States almost all of the services are provided by single insurance companies. Well how did that happen ? Because of State and Federal mandates already in place that make it impossible for the smaller providers to compete . It is government that is responsible for the current system not the insurance providers.
If the President gets his way you will be well on your way to your desired single payer system.
The other obvious solution that you are trying hard to ignore is to scrap any plans to further regulate one of the most over-regulated industries in the world, and let insurance companies enter into contracts with customers that are dictated by the free market and not government fiat.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
So... if insurance companies can't stay in the black without limiting the services that they provide to patients with pre-existing conditions, what makes you think that the government will be able to? Is it because the government is so much more efficient than insurance companies? Or is it because they are going to cap something? Or is it because they don't care whether they lose money or not because they can alwayse take more of it from us?Quote:
After all, if you had to insure sick people, you couldn't make any money. Now, it looks like they're going to have to start doing that - or pass the buck..
Excon
Elliot
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:51 AM. |