redrum said:
why shouldn't the IRS get tougher? wow. you'll pardon me as i cough cough. i hardly think that a tougher IRS is a good thing. i do not believe that giving the govt. more power to reach into the daily lives of citizens is a good thing.
oh and there's one other thing. technically, the income tax is illegal according to the constitution. that's right - it's illegal. nowhere in the constitution does is say that the federal govt. has a right to tax the wages which means that citizens should not have to pay it.
how would we pay for our infrastructure you ask? roads? education? the same we always have, through state taxes. about .43 cents of every income tax dollar is spent on the military. how much is spent on education? about .03 cents. more money is spent on paying interest on existing debts than on education.
does this sound like a country that's headed in the right direction to you?
our country was built and created before the income tax ever existed. it was instituted in 1913 along with the Federal Reserve Act, you guessed it, the same act that formed the Fed. and we all know what a crooked central that is.
now that the obamacare has passed, they are supposedly planning on hiring another 16,000 IRS agents to police small business and individuals to make sure you are purchasing the insurance.
again, big govt., more IRS, more taxes, more budget deficits - these are all bad things. very bad things.
The IRS will not be hiring 16,000 people to run around and enforce and unenforceable mandate. That is pure Republican
spin.
"But wait, you said 'unenforceable'?" According to
page 131 of H.R. 3590:
‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In the case of
any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed
by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any
criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
So, um, you'll be fined, but you won't be subject to criminal prosecution or penalty. Pretty much throws out the need for the 16,000 new IRS employees, doesn't it? I'm guessing that they didn't report this on FOX News...
The only thing I would dispute about states having to pay for everything on their own is that not all states are equal. (Egads! SOCIALISM!) Border states, like Texas and Arizona, would be unfairly forced to pay for their border security without federal tax dollars, when clearly border security is important for all states. Furthermore, highways would likely be substandard in many states that don't have the public funds to pay for them. For example, Montana has less than a million people, and it also has a pretty extensive network of highways like most other states. Needless to say, it's doubtful that the
million people in Montana would be able to pay the bill for the maintenance and construction of all highways. MT just can't collect
that much in tax dollars.
You see this with education, not just between states, but also between different school districts within a state. The federal government provides very little funding for public primary and secondary schools. In my state (MO), schools are funded by local property tax dollars and state tax dollars. Due to the way schools get their funding, the quality of education differs across the board. In MO, a school in an affluent suburb of St. Louis might pay around $10,000 USD per student. However, in some of the rural, poor areas, it's normal to see some schools spend around $5,000-$8,000. Affluent communities clearly have more high-dollar homes to tax than rural, poor ones, and the children who live in the more affluent communities have a better quality of education, more access to opportunities, etc. Surprise, surprise. Thus, I'm afraid if you took away federal tax dollars for highways and roads, et al., similar quality issues observed between schools within states and among states would be observed.
