The Anti-Socialist

Original intent of the 10th amendment was for the states to handle all domestic (internal) government, and limit the feds to only handle international (external) government.

(Defense, trade, relations,etc)

Wouldn't sending most government back to the state level, be better. Don't they know their citizens specific problems and needs better. Couldn't government be more specifically tailored, more efficiently managed, and less costly?

Seriously! The Central government would be half its size and cost, but the states taxes would double. (zero sum gain)

Why do we pay federal taxes? Well, that’s a pretty easy question, isn’t it? We pay taxes to fund the functions of the federal government.

But that’s not all. Some of this money is handed down to states and localities, usually in return for doing something the feds want done, but do not have the jurisdiction to do on their own. It is reverse extortion, and an abusive overreach of federal power over the people. It is an end run around the 10th amendment of the constitution, written with the purpose of limiting the power of the federal government over the people, by leaving domestic or internal government to the states and localities.

Worse yet, the federal government has been corrupted by lobbyist and special interest money, given to support the campaigns of politician’s, but with the end goal of getting tax policy changes that favor those interests.

Both issues above are just quick examples of what is wrong -w- federal government. Internal and external pressures to overreach, either with goals of merit or not, fly in the face of the original intent of our founders when they constructed the greatest country on earth. I think i’ve come up -w- a solution that, while probably causing secondary issues, at least moves those issues to a more local level. It is a 10 step process of removing the federal revenue collection from the federal government.

1) Federal government revenue

To be provided by the individual states. They would collect taxes, which are first collected by their individual counties. (it’s a whole bottom up approach)

2) Revenue flow

Counties get a small percentage for the collection, enforcement, and data processing. States split remaining funds -w- the feds

3) Equal contribution

States decide how taxes are collected, but each state must provide equal amounts “per capita” to the feds. (not including unemployed, disabled, or poverty-stricken citizens)

4) Tax adjustments

Federal government can pass a bill requiring a per capita increase from the states, but the bill would require 3/4 passage by the states, before becoming law. (like a constitutional amendment)

5) State tax

States can impose any variety of taxes; business tax, sales tax, income tax (progressive or flat), property tax, payroll tax, etc. That is their business. The states, however, are not allowed to impose tariffs or tolls on each other, unless in return for government services.

6) Delegated powers

The federal government uses it funds to deal -w- national security and international issues such as trade and treaties (All external affairs). The individual states are responsible for domestic concerns (All internal affairs). (10th amendment balance of power lives again!)

7) Constitutional amendment

17th amendment is repealed by a new constitutional amendment. This same amendment will forbid the federal government from any other sources of income, except from the sale of treasury bonds, and where tariffs are found necessary in international trade policy.

8) Constitutional amendment (2)

16th amendment is repealed, returning a state government voice to the federal legislature.

9) Debt

States are still prevented from incurring any debt, and must pass balanced budget bills. Feds are allowed to incur debt, but no more than 15% of annual revenue without 3/4 state approval.

10) Tax cuts (economic stimulus)

Federal government can pass a bill requiring a per capita decrease from the states. The bill would require the states to proportionally reduce taxes on their people. This can be done without requiring the bill receive 3/4 passage by the states, unless it violates the 15% of revenue debt limit.

My hope is that the counties funding would prevent the need for property taxes. That states eliminate business taxes, or sharply reduce them, and replace them -w- a sales or consumption tax. That the states, if not fully funded through a sales tax, would simplify income tax calculation -w- a flat tax, without the games of deductions and exemptions.

My goal is to make tax collection more local, and tax calculation more personal. To make all government more local. This concept could be taken further if you change it from states and federal, to counties and state, townships and county, or cities and township. Obviously there are different balances of powers to take into account, but in regards to tax collection and the provision of government services, why not bottom up funding.

I see a federal government that adheres to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Where the 10th Amendment does restrict the federal government to international issues only, and the states have sole jurisdiction over domestic policy, unless they determine it to be better addressed by a collective system, administered by the feds.

Sure this means 1/2 the federal tax needed, but probably 2-3x the state taxes. And, all taxes are levied through a combination of a flat tax (instead of progressive income tax), and a sales tax (instead of the business tax) All taxes are collected by the states, and they, in turn, fund the Feds on a per capita basis (not including unemployed, disabled, and below poverty citizens)

America will be a place where government stays out of your personal life, unless it directly infringes on the personal lives of others.

I'll leave a low, thin, safety net (vouchers for food, basic health care, etc) for those below the poverty level, but limit it to two years, -w- required civil service, or four years, when enrolled in an educational or job training program, and all money is to paid back if/when they are able.

Social security and ALL forms of Government health care...gone! (see private sector)

Subsities and tax breaks...gone (see sink or swim)

I keep seeing articles and posts related to taxes, and how the rich somehow get unfair tax write-offs and deductions. They claim the rich are the cause of our governments deficits and debt. They claim government cut-backs are due to tax cuts passed during the Bush era. Well, they never backed it up with real numbers, so I spent the day looking and found a Department of Labor chart showing real taxes collected, who they were collected from, and what their share of the wealth pie really is.

Below is a 2006 chart of the the American workforce in percentile groups, followed by each groups percentage of all adjusted gross income(AGI) earned in the United States, the adjusted gross income threshold of that group, and their percentage of all the income taxes collected by the government.(the federal tax structure has not changed much since 2003)

Percentile----------% of income----------Threshold-------% of income tax

Top 1%................... 21.8%...........(above $388,806)..…......39.9%

95-99%................... 15.4%.........($153,542 - $388,806)...…20.3%

90-95%................... 10.8%.........($108,904 - $153,542)......10.6%

75-90%................... 20.6%.........($64,702 - 108,904)..........15.5%

50-75%................... 18.8%.........($31,987 - $64,702)......… 10.7%

Bottom 50%............ 12.6%...........(below $31,987)..….........3.0%

Now you would think with the progressive income tax scheme we currently use, people would pay the same percentage of the income tax burden, as their percentage of all American income earned. If you make all the income, you pay all the income taxes. If you make half the income, you pay half of the income tax burden. That's fair in a liberal mind, right? All people, rich..poor...everyone who earns a certain percentage of the nations income, should pay that same percentage of the total income tax collected by the government.

The poorest, as a group, make 12.6% of all of the income in this country, and to be "fair", they should pay 12.6% of all of the income taxes. (But they don't, they only pay 3%)

The richest, as a group, make 21.8% of all of the income, and to be "fair", they should pay 21.8% of all of the income taxes. (They don't, they pay 39.9%)

So, let's be radically progressive!!, and move the "unpaid portion" of the poorest 50% of peoples taxes, and send it up to the richest 1%. It's kind of socialist, but lets call it compassionate conservatism. That tax-shift would move the richest 1% from a 21.8% income tax burden, up to 31.4%. Now!!, lets tax-shift the "unpaid portion" of the 2nd poorest group. That would bring the rich tax to 39.5%...........Still less than they are currently paying!

O.K., forget about the richest 1% of Americans. I think I've showed how they are already providing tax relief for more than three quarters of the country.

Lets look at the 2nd richest group. They pay 4.9% more of the income taxes of this country, than their percentage of the income earned in this country. Why? Because the 75-90% group falls 5.1% short of their "fair" share. So if you tax-shift the "unpaid portion" of the 4th richest group to the 2nd richest, you get 20.5%......well that's a little more than they currently pay, but close enough for radical progressives.

The 3rd richest group almost hold their own and should be left alone. They fall a little short, but as we saw above, the 2nd richest took care of that.

The numbers above indicate that, even with the most extreme form of radical, progressive, tax shifting, they believe is fairness, where the richest 1% pay the unpaid taxes of three quarters of the country, and the next richest 4% pay the unpaid taxes of people making between $64,000 and $108,000, there is actually need for a tax cut for the richest 5% of income earners. This, even after moving all of the "unpaid tax burdens" up from the bottom.

I know what your thinking. The wealthy don't properly report their income, or, the wealthy pay a lower percentage of their income toward other taxes. Well, that may be true, but that's an issue concerning the governments tax enforcement and the design fairness of those other taxes imposed. I'm all for rounding up tax cheats and scraping all those other taxes, so long as your for making taxes owed directly related to wealth earned, without the tax-shifting!

I think I have properly explained that our federal income tax system is not fair, it is not just progressive, it is radically progressive. Liberals will not be happy until the two lowest groups, 75% of our workforce, pay none of their "fair share". If they achieve this on the backs of the 6 million most successful Americans, our economy will be doomed and our government will be bankrupt. They will have created a society where 90 million people, of our 120 million man workforce, will be deadbeats in the eyes of fair peo

Original intent of the 10th amendment was for the states to handle all domestic (internal) government, and limit the feds to only handle international (external) government.

(Defense, trade, relations,etc)

Wouldn't sending most government back to the state level, be better. Don't they know their citizens specific problems and needs better. Couldn't government be more specifically tailored, more efficiently managed, and less costly?

Seriously! The Central government would be half its size and cost, but the states taxes would double. (zero sum gain)

Why do we pay federal taxes? Well, that’s a pretty easy question, isn’t it? We pay taxes to fund the functions of the federal government.

But that’s not all. Some of this money is handed down to states and localities, usually in return for doing something the feds want done, but do not have the jurisdiction to do on their own. It is reverse extortion, and an abusive overreach of federal power over the people. It is an end run around the 10th amendment of the constitution, written with the purpose of limiting the power of the federal government over the people, by leaving domestic or internal government to the states and localities.

Worse yet, the federal government has been corrupted by lobbyist and special interest money, given to support the campaigns of politician’s, but with the end goal of getting tax policy changes that favor those interests.

Both issues above are just quick examples of what is wrong -w- federal government. Internal and external pressures to overreach, either with goals of merit or not, fly in the face of the original intent of our founders when they constructed the greatest country on earth. I think i’ve come up -w- a solution that, while probably causing secondary issues, at least moves those issues to a more local level. It is a 10 step process of removing the federal revenue collection from the federal government.

1) Federal government revenue

To be provided by the individual states. They would collect taxes, which are first collected by their individual counties. (it’s a whole bottom up approach)

2) Revenue flow

Counties get a small percentage for the collection, enforcement, and data processing. States split remaining funds -w- the feds

3) Equal contribution

States decide how taxes are collected, but each state must provide equal amounts “per capita” to the feds. (not including unemployed, disabled, or poverty-stricken citizens)

4) Tax adjustments

Federal government can pass a bill requiring a per capita increase from the states, but the bill would require 3/4 passage by the states, before becoming law. (like a constitutional amendment)

5) State tax

States can impose any variety of taxes; business tax, sales tax, income tax (progressive or flat), property tax, payroll tax, etc. That is their business. The states, however, are not allowed to impose tariffs or tolls on each other, unless in return for government services.

6) Delegated powers

The federal government uses it funds to deal -w- national security and international issues such as trade and treaties (All external affairs). The individual states are responsible for domestic concerns (All internal affairs). (10th amendment balance of power lives again!)

7) Constitutional amendment

17th amendment is repealed by a new constitutional amendment. This same amendment will forbid the federal government from any other sources of income, except from the sale of treasury bonds, and where tariffs are found necessary in international trade policy.

8) Constitutional amendment (2)

16th amendment is repealed, returning a state government voice to the federal legislature.

9) Debt

States are still prevented from incurring any debt, and must pass balanced budget bills. Feds are allowed to incur debt, but no more than 15% of annual revenue without 3/4 state approval.

10) Tax cuts (economic stimulus)

Federal government can pass a bill requiring a per capita decrease from the states. The bill would require the states to proportionally reduce taxes on their people. This can be done without requiring the bill receive 3/4 passage by the states, unless it violates the 15% of revenue debt limit.

My hope is that the counties funding would prevent the need for property taxes. That states eliminate business taxes, or sharply reduce them, and replace them -w- a sales or consumption tax. That the states, if not fully funded through a sales tax, would simplify income tax calculation -w- a flat tax, without the games of deductions and exemptions.

My goal is to make tax collection more local, and tax calculation more personal. To make all government more local. This concept could be taken further if you change it from states and federal, to counties and state, townships and county, or cities and township. Obviously there are different balances of powers to take into account, but in regards to tax collection and the provision of government services, why not bottom up funding.

What's wrong -w- this vision for America? (Fair & Balanced)?

I see a federal government that adheres to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Where the 10th Amendment does restrict the federal government to international issues only, and the states have sole jurisdiction over domestic policy, unless they determine it to be better addressed by a collective system, administered by the feds.

Sure this means 1/2 the federal tax needed, but probably 2-3x the state taxes. And, all taxes are levied through a combination of a flat tax (instead of progressive income tax), and a sales tax (instead of the business tax) All taxes are collected by the states, and they, in turn, fund the Feds on a per capita basis (not including unemployed, disabled, and below poverty citizens)

America will be a place where government stays out of your personal life, unless it directly infringes on the personal lives of others.

I'll leave a low, thin, safety net (vouchers for food, basic health care, etc) for those below the poverty level, but limit it to two years, -w- required civil service, or four years, when enrolled in an educational or job training program, and all money is to paid back if/when they are able.

Social security and ALL forms of Government health care...gone! (see private sector)

Subsities and tax breaks...gone (see sink or swim)

Taxes, even if proportioned to share of wealth, are way too high on the best and brightest. What to you think?

I keep seeing articles and posts related to taxes, and how the rich somehow get unfair tax write-offs and deductions. They claim the rich are the cause of our governments deficits and debt. They claim government cut-backs are due to tax cuts passed during the Bush era. Well, they never backed it up with real numbers, so I spent the day looking and found a Department of Labor chart showing real taxes collected, who they were collected from, and what their share of the wealth pie really is.

Below is a 2006 chart of the the American workforce in percentile groups, followed by each groups percentage of all adjusted gross income(AGI) earned in the United States, the adjusted gross income threshold of that group, and their percentage of all the income taxes collected by the government.(the federal tax structure has not changed much since 2003)

Percentile----------% of income----------Threshold-------% of income tax

Top 1%................... 21.8%...........(above $388,806)..…......39.9%

95-99%................... 15.4%.........($153,542 - $388,806)...…20.3%

90-95%................... 10.8%.........($108,904 - $153,542)......10.6%

75-90%................... 20.6%.........($64,702 - 108,904)..........15.5%

50-75%................... 18.8%.........($31,987 - $64,702)......… 10.7%

Bottom 50%............ 12.6%...........(below $31,987)..….........3.0%

Now you would think with the progressive income tax scheme we currently use, people would pay the same percentage of the income tax burden, as their percentage of all American income earned. If you make all the income, you pay all the income taxes. If you make half the income, you pay half of the income tax burden. That's fair in a liberal mind, right? All people, rich..poor...everyone who earns a certain percentage of the nations income, should pay that same percentage of the total income tax collected by the government.

The poorest, as a group, make 12.6% of all of the income in this country, and to be "fair", they should pay 12.6% of all of the income taxes. (But they don't, they only pay 3%)

The richest, as a group, make 21.8% of all of the income, and to be "fair", they should pay 21.8% of all of the income taxes. (They don't, they pay 39.9%)

So, let's be radically progressive!!, and move the "unpaid portion" of the poorest 50% of peoples taxes, and send it up to the richest 1%. It's kind of socialist, but lets call it compassionate conservatism. That tax-shift would move the richest 1% from a 21.8% income tax burden, up to 31.4%. Now!!, lets tax-shift the "unpaid portion" of the 2nd poorest group. That would bring the rich tax to 39.5%...........Still less than they are currently paying!

O.K., forget about the richest 1% of Americans. I think I've showed how they are already providing tax relief for more than three quarters of the country.

Lets look at the 2nd richest group. They pay 4.9% more of the income taxes of this country, than their percentage of the income earned in this country. Why? Because the 75-90% group falls 5.1% short of their "fair" share. So if you tax-shift the "unpaid portion" of the 4th richest group to the 2nd richest, you get 20.5%......well thats a little more than they currently pay, but close enough for radical progressives.

The 3rd richest group almost hold their own and should be left alone. They fall a little short, but as we saw above, the 2nd richest took care of that.

The numbers above indicate that, even with the most extreme form of radical, progressive, tax shifting, they believe is fairness, where the richest 1% pay the unpaid taxes of three quarters of the country, and the next richest 4% pay the unpaid taxes of people making between $64,000 and $108,000, there is actually need for a tax cut for the richest 5% of income earners. This, even after moving all of the "unpaid tax burdens" up from the bottom.

Taxes, even if proportioned to share of wealth, are way too high on the best and brightest. What to you think?

I keep seeing articles and posts related to taxes, and how the rich somehow get unfair tax write-offs and deductions. They claim the rich are the cause of our governments deficits and debt. They claim government cut-backs are due to tax cuts passed back in the Bush era. Well, they never backed it up with real numbers, so I spent the day looking and found a Department of Labor chart showing real taxes collected, who they were collected from, and what their share of the wealth pie really is.

Below is a 2006 chart of the the American workforce in percentile groups, followed by each groups percentage of all adjusted gross income(AGI) earned in the United States, the adjusted gross income threshold of that group, and their percentage of all the income taxes collected by the government.

Percentile----------% of income----------Threshold-------% of income tax

Top 1%................... 21.8%...........(above $388,806)..…......39.9%

95-99%................... 15.4%.........($153,542 - $388,806)...…20.3%

90-95%................... 10.8%.........($108,904 - $153,542)......10.6%

75-90%................... 20.6%.........($64,702 - 108,904)..........15.5%

50-75%................... 18.8%.........($31,987 - $64,702)......… 10.7%

Bottom 50%............ 12.6%...........(below $31,987)..….........3.0%

Now you would think with the progressive income tax scheme we currently use, people would pay the same percentage of income taxes, as their percentage income earned.

All people, rich..poor...everyone.

The poorest make 12.6% of all of the income in this country, and to be "fair", they should pay 12.6% of all of the income taxes. (But they don't, they only pay 3%)

The richest make 21.8% of all of the income, and to be "fair", they should pay 21.8% of all of the income taxes. (They don't, they pay 39.9%)

So, let's be radically progressive!!, and move the "unpaid portion" of the poorest 50% of peoples taxes, and send it up to the richest 1%. It's kind of socialist, but lets call it compassionate conservatism. That would tax shift the richest 1% from a 21.8% income tax burden, up to 31.4%. Now!!, lets tax shift the "unpaid" portion of the 2nd poorest group. That would bring the rich tax to 39.5%...........Still less than they are currently paying!

O.K., forget about the richest 1% of Americans. I think I've showed how they are already providing tax relief for more than three quarters of the country.

Lets look at the 2nd richest group. They pay 4.9% more of the income tax of this country, than their percentage of the income earned in this country. Why? Because the 75-90% group falls 5.1% short of their fair share. So if you tax shift the "unpaid portion" of the 4th richest group to the 2nd richest, you get 20.5%......well thats a little more than they currently pay, but close enough for radical progressives.

The 3rd richest group almost hold their own and should be left alone. They fall a little short, but as we saw above, the 2nd richest took care of that.

The numbers above indicate that, even with the most extreme form of radical, progressive, tax shifting, they believe is fairness, where the richest 1% pay the unpaid taxes of three quarters of the country, and the next richest 4% pay the unpaid taxes of people making between $64,000 and $108,000, there is actually need for a tax cut for the richest 5% of income earners. This, even after moving all of the "unpaid tax burdens" up from the bottom.

I think I have properly explained that our tax system is not fair, it is not just progressive, it is radically progressive. Liberals will not be happy until the two lowest groups, 75% of our workforce, pay none of their "fair share". If they achieve this on the backs of the 6 million most successful Americans, our economy will be doomed and our government will be bankrupt. They will have created a society where 90 million people, of our 120 million man workforce, will be deadbeats in the eyes of fair people everywhere.

I know what your thinking. More tax cuts to the rich? Wont that create even larger deficits and debt? Wont that make matters worse? The answer is no. You could just as easily change all of the numbers above by raising the taxes on the 75% of Americans that are currently not paying their fair share. The amount of money taxed out of our economy is too high already. If government can't make budgets to match high taxes, we need a new government. If government does decide to impose higher taxes, take cover!!

The time for reducing governments size, cost, and its drag on our economy is now. Before events grow out of control, beyond the current non-violent marches, protests and rallies. Unlike most liberal groups, conservatives will not just wave signs for years on end. We are a results

Below is a 2006 chart of the the American workforce in percentile groups. Followed by each groups percentage of all adjusted gross income(AGI), the adjusted gross income threshold of that group and their percentage of all the income taxes paid.

Percentile------------% of income--------------------Threshold-----------------% of income tax

Top 1%................... 21.8%......................(>$388,806)..................... 39.9%

95-99%................... 15.4%......................(>$153,542)..................... 20.3%

90-95%................... 10.8%......................(>$108,904)..................... 10.6%

75-90%................... 20.6%......................(>$64,702)........................15.5%

50-75%................... 18.8%.......................(>$31,987)...................... 10.7%

Bottom 50%............ 12.6%.......................(<$31,987)........................ 3.0%

Now you would think with a liberal, progressive income tax scheme, people would pay the same percentage of all the income taxes paid, as their percentage of all the income earned.

All people, rich..poor...everyone.

If that were the case. The poor make 12.6% of all income, and to be "fair", they should pay 12.6% of all income taxes. (But they don't, they only pay 3%) The richest make 21.8% of all income, and to be "fair", they should pay 21.8% of all income taxes. (They don't, they pay 39.9%)

So, let's be radically progressive and move the unpaid portion of the poorest 50% of peoples taxes, and send it up to the richest. It's kind of socialist, but lets call it compassionate conservatism. That would move the richest 1% from a 21.8% income tax burden, up to 31.4%. Well that's not enough. Lets make the richest 1% pay all the unpaid taxes of the poorest 75% of our workforce. This would bring them up to 39.5%!!............Still less than they are currently paying!

O.K., forget about the richest 1%. I think I've showed how they are already providing tax relief for three quarters of the country.

Lets look at the 2nd richest group. They pay 4.9% more of the income tax burden, than their percentage of all the income. Why? Because the 75-90% group falls 5.1% short of their fair share. So if you tax shift the 4rd richest groups taxes to the 2nd richest, you get 20.5%.

Still a little short, but pretty close.

The 3rd richest group almost hold their own and should be left alone. But, they too, fall a little short.

The numbers above indicate, in the most extreme form of fairness. Even in the most extreme of tax shifting schemes, there is need for a 0.4% tax cut for the richest, and a 0.2% tax increase for the next two richest groups. This, after moving entire tax burdens up from the bottom.

Liberals will not be happy until the two lowest groups, 75% of our workforce, pay nothing. If they achieves this on the backs of the 6 million most successful Americans, our economy will be doomed and our government will be bankrupt. They will have created a society where 90 million people, of our 120 million man workforce, will be deadbeats in the eyes of fair people everywhere.

I know what your thinking. More tax cuts to the rich? Wont that create even larger deficits and debt? Wont that make matters worse? The answer is no. The amount of money taxed out of our economy is too high. If government can't make budgets to match high taxes, we need a new government. I truly believe historians of the future will be studying this point in American life as the start of the peoples revolt, leading to either a second revolution or an all out civil war. The people are angry! And the budget, along with all the bailouts and unrestrained spending since the housing collapse, has done nothing to ease that anger. Obama had an opportunity to really bring change, but traded it off for misguided political ideology and party harmony. The time for reducing governments size, cost, and its drag on our economy is now.

Why do we pay federal taxes? Well, that’s a pretty easy question, isn’t it? We pay taxes to fund the functions of the federal government.

But that’s not all. Some of this money is handed down to states and localities, usually in return for doing something the feds want done, but do not have the jurisdiction to do on their own. It is reverse extortion, and an abusive overreach of federal power over the people. It is an end run around the 10th amendment of the constitution, written with the purpose of limiting the power of the federal government over the people, by leaving domestic or internal government to the states and localities.

Worse yet, the federal government has been corrupted by lobbyist and special interest money, given to support the campaigns of politician’s, but with the end goal of getting tax policy changes that favor those interests.

Both issues above are just quick examples of what is wrong -w- federal government. Internal and external pressures to overreach, either with goals of merit or not, fly in the face of the original intent of our founders when they constructed the greatest country on earth. I think i’ve come up -w- a solution that, while probably causing secondary issues, at least moves those issues to a more local level. It is a 10 step process of removing the federal revenue collection from the federal government.

1) Federal government revenue

To be provided by the individual states. They would collect taxes, which are first collected by their individual counties. (it’s a whole bottom up approach)

2) Revenue flow

Counties get a small percentage for the collection, enforcement, and data processing. States split remaining funds -w- the feds

3) Equal contribution

States decide how taxes are collected, but each state must provide equal amounts “per capita” to the feds. (not including unemployed, disabled, or poverty-stricken citizens)

4) Tax adjustments

Federal government can pass a bill requiring a per capita increase from the states, but the bill would require 3/4 passage by the states, before becoming law. (like a constitutional amendment)

5) State tax

States can impose any variety of taxes; business tax, sales tax, income tax (progressive or flat), property tax, payroll tax, etc. That is their business. The states, however, are not allowed to impose tariffs or tolls on each other, unless in return for government services.

6) Delegated powers

The federal government uses it funds to deal -w- national security and international issues such as trade and treaties (All external affairs). The individual states are responsible for domestic concerns (All internal affairs). (10th amendment balance of power lives again!)

7) Constitutional amendment

17th amendment is repealed by a new constitutional amendment. This same amendment will forbid the federal government from any other sources of income, except from the sale of treasury bonds, and where tariffs are found necessary in international trade policy.

8) Constitutional amendment (2)

16th amendment is repealed, returning a state government voice to the federal legislature.

9) Debt

States are still prevented from incurring any debt, and must pass balanced budget bills. Feds are allowed to incur debt, but no more than 15% of annual revenue without 3/4 state approval.

10) Tax cuts (economic stimulus)

Federal government can pass a bill requiring a per capita decrease from the states. The bill would require the states to proportionally reduce taxes on their people. This can be done without requiring the bill receive 3/4 passage by the states, unless it violates the 15% of revenue debt limit.

My hope is that the counties funding would prevent the need for property taxes. That states eliminate business taxes, or sharply reduce them, and replace them -w- a sales or consumption tax. That the states, if not fully funded through a sales tax, would simplify income tax calculation -w- a flat tax, without the games of deductions and exemptions.

My goal is to make tax collection more local, and tax calculation more personal. To make all government more local. This concept could be taken further if you change it from states and federal, to counties and state, townships and county, or cities and township. Obviously there are different balances of powers to take into account, but in regards to tax collection and the provision of government services, why not bottom up funding.

I see a federal government that adheres to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Where the 10th Amendment does restrict the federal government to international issues only, and the states have sole jurisdiction over domestic policy, unless they determine it to be better addressed by a collective system, administered by the feds.

Sure this means 1/2 the federal tax needed, but probably 2-3x the state taxes. And, all taxes are levied through a combination of a flat tax (instead of progressive income tax), and a sales tax (instead of the business tax) All taxes are collected by the states, and they, in turn, fund the Feds on a per capita basis (not including unemployed, disabled, and below poverty citizens)

America will be a place where government stays out of your personal life, unless it directly infringes on the personal lives of others.

I'll leave a low, thin, safety net (vouchers for food, basic health care, etc) for those below the poverty level, but limit it to two years, -w- required civil service, or four years, when enrolled in an educational or job training program, and all money is to paid back if/when they are able.

Social security and ALL forms of Government health care...gone! (see private sector)

Subsities and tax breaks...gone (see sink or swim)

Original intent of the 10th amendment was for the states to handle all domestic (internal) government, and limit the feds to only handle international (external) government.

(Defense, trade, relations,etc)

Wouldn't sending most government back to the state level, be better. Don't they know their citizens specific problems and needs better. Couldn't government be more specifically tailored, more efficiently managed, and less costly?

Seriously! The Central government would be half its size and cost, but the states taxes would double. (zero sum gain)

Original intent of the 10th amendment was for the states to handle all domestic (internal)government, and limit the feds to only handle international (external) government.

(Defense, trade, relations,etc)

Wouldn't sending most government back to the state level be better. Don't they know their citizens problems and needs better. Couldn't government be more specifically tailored, more efficiently managed, and less costly?

Seriously! The Central government would be half its size, and the states would double.

Original intent of the 10th amendment was for the states to handle all domestic (internal)government, and limit the feds to only handle international (external) government.

(Defense, trade, relations,etc)

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RJ327GYVC3I37WKUUXYHGW6ICI...

liberal politicians ability to extort or blackmale (no pun intended) low income Americans for their vote.

Reply......now!