|
|
A Stimulus Never Considered
|
Posted 10/20/2010 8:53 PM PDT on news10.net Amendment XVI and what our forefathers were concerned about with regards to Article I Section. 8. I read arguments and findings by the supreme court. The Amendment was established to put to rest questions about how the federal government would collect revenue.
The forefathers expressed concerns about financial burden of the poor and the wealthy. The arguement against apportionment is even distribution of cost by state without regard to the burden upon the individual. An example provided that a single wagon owner under the apportionment clause might pay the full tax burden of the Federal tax obligation.
Language of Direct and Indirect tax confused the objective of the government to obtain money and gave incentive for the Federal government to create the fourteenth amendment which allows for tax collection without apportionment.
There is a relative constitutional use and need argued by Pollack and agreed upon by the Supreme Court Ruling with regard to constitutional law.
I applied the original apportionment requirement to unemployment taxes collected from employers. Included is the unemployment tax based on the current capitatin of income of $7000. The apportionment of costs were not evenly distributed over earned incomes. The low wage earners unemployment tax was a larger portion of their income, while the higher wage earners were smaller.
Placing a CAP on income taxed is contrary to the apportionment amendment. There is not an equal burden placed upon states as defined by social position or rank (people) defined by the equal portion (percentage) per capita. The courts were specific in the "shared burden" explanation and concerned with unequal portions. Taft was concerned with the the poor having a greater burden than the wealthy. The forefathers were concerned about taxation of the wealthy property owners.
Experiment: Unemployment tax based on the current capitation of income of $7000. The low wage earners unemployment tax was a larger portion of their income, while the higher wage earner was smaller. The 1913 Taft intent of the amendment. "His proposed tax on corporate net income was 1% on net profits over $5,000. It was designated an excise on the privilege of doing business as a corporation whose stockholders enjoyed the privilege of limited liability, and not a tax on incomes as such. (Taft, 2010)" Taxes on Net not Gross and clearly on business not individuals. The amendment did not eliminate the original amendment. It clarified it in terms for business tax collection.
Apportionment prevented the wealthy states from being over taxed in relation to the burden of the federal governmet. The wealthy states did not allow taxation that would target the wealth of individuals. Others shared the concerns of the cost to the poor. The apportionment rule was made to prevent totalitarianism by equally sharing the cost of the federal government over all states. Wealthy states were concerned with being charged an overwhelming portion. Government was concerned with a "shared burden" of cost with consideration for the individual especially the working class and economically poor.
Conclusion: Federal taxation that recognizes a threshold for the needed cost of living, is just. (Considers the Poor) Taxation that CAPS income eligible for tax contribution is unjust. (Favors the Rich) This principle of income capitation for taxation is also used in the current Social Security (OASDI) system and is unconstitutional under the apportionment rule. Benefits from unemployment and social security pensions are enjoyed by all income earners and apportioned based on economic class earnings.
Test:
20 employees with no income cap on taxes reduced the percentage from 6.2% down to .65% over 52 weeks and established the same total yearly contribution by the employer. The upfront burden of costs was removed, the cost to employ was evenly distributed among all wage earners, and the monthly benefit costs to the employer were evenly spread for easy financial management.
A spreadsheet is included to show how the cost to a small business is absorbed in the first 90 days of employment, and in the beginning of the fiscal year. Many layoffs occur near Christmas possibly because of the employer's inability to meet employment costs. Much of the new hiring begins in the second quarter. The apportionment of tax cost is not evenly distributed with the cap of $7000. This tax structure problem contributes to the employer's financial burden. There must be a better way. | 7000 CAP | Weekly | No CAP | Weekly | | compensation | 0.062 | % of Income | compensation | 0.0065 | % of Income | | empl 1 | 400.00$ | 24.80 | 0.020865385 | empl 1 | $400.00 | 2.60 | 0.0065 | | empl 2 | 400.00$ | 24.80 | 0.020865385 | empl 2 | $400.00 | 2.60 | 0.0065 | | empl 3 | 600.00$ | 37.20 | 0.013914231 | empl 3 | $600.00 | 3.90 | 0.0065 | | empl 4 | 600.00$ | 37.20 | 0.013914231 | empl 4 | $600.00 | 3.90 | 0.0065 | | empl 5 | 800.00$ | 49.60 | 0.010432692 | empl 5 | $800.00 | 5.20 | 0.0065 | | empl 6 | 800.00$ | 49.60 | 0.010432692 | empl 6 | $800.00 | 5.20 | 0.0065 | | empl 7 | 1,000.00$ | 62.00 | 0.008346154 | empl 7 | $1,000.00 | 6.50 | 0.0065 | | empl 8 | 1,000.00$ | 62.00 | 0.008346154 | empl 8 | $1,000.00 | 6.50 | 0.0065 | | empl 9 | 1,200.00$ | 74.40 | 0.006951154 | empl 9 | $1,200.00 | 7.80 | 0.0065 | | empl 10 | 1,200.00$ | 74.40 | 0.006951154 | empl 10 | $1,200.00 | 7.80 | 0.0065 | | empl 11 | 1,400.00$ | 86.80 | 0.005961538 | empl 11 | $1,400.00 | 9.10 | 0.0065 | | empl 12 | 1,400.00$ | 86.80 | 0.005961538 | empl 12 | $1,400.00 | 9.10 | 0.0065 | | empl 13 | 1,600.00$ | 99.20 | 0.005222308 | empl 13 | $1,600.00 | 10.40 | 0.0065 | | empl 14 | 1,600.00$ | 99.20 | 0.005222308 | empl 14 | $1,600.00 | 10.40 | 0.0065 | | empl 15 | 1,800.00$ | 111.60 | 0.004638077 | empl 15 | $1,800.00 | 11.70 | 0.0065 | | empl 16 | 1,800.00$ | 111.60 | 0.004638077 | empl 16 | $1,800.00 | 11.70 | 0.0065 | | empl 17 | 2,000.00$ | 124.00 | 0.004173077 | empl 17 | $2,000.00 | 13.00 | 0.0065 | | empl 18 | 2,000.00$ | 124.00 | 0.004173077 | empl 18 | $2,000.00 | 13.00 | 0.0065 | | empl 19 | 2,200.00$ | 136.40 | 0.003791538 | empl 19 | $2,200.00 | 14.30 | 0.0065 | | empl 20 | 2,200.00$ | 136.40 | 0.003791538 | empl 20 | $2,200.00 | 14.30 | 0.0065 | | Employer Cost | 26,000.00$ | 1612.00 | 0.006420485 | Employer Cost | $26,000.00 | 169.00 | 0.0065 |
Tags: Constitutional Law Taxes Apportionment
|
|
|
|
