—“Is not the graduated income tax (communist manifesto) that is dysgenic? Also worth noting: the Supreme Court in Pollack v. Farmers Loan Trust Co. in 1895 ruled the income tax unconstitutional.”—Scott De Warren
I. Constitutionality of the Income tax.
… 1. the court did its job by correctly ruling that according to the constitution, the federal government could not enact any tax that was not apportioned to the states by population (a flat tax).
… 2. The constitution did it’s job correctly by forcing the legislature to pass a constitutional amendment permitting the income tax.
… 3. The legislature did its job correctly by passing a constitutional amendment through the amendment process.
… 4. The states did their jobs by passing the constitutional amendment through the amendment process.
I do not see the problem with the income tax per se, but with the amount of it, and the uses that it was put to. So the income tax is a slippery slope. The answer to the slippery slope is quite simple – if it redistributes reproduction downward it’s bad. If it constrains reproduction its bad. But that was exactly what the communists wanted – underclass paradise parasitic extraction from the meritocratic classes thereby reversing the benefits of thousands of years of eugenic practices by our ancestors.
… 1. a graduated income tax is fine if it’s outside the reproductive cost curve. In other words, if it doesn’t affect reproduction.
… 2. A flat tax regulates taxation best by keeping it low
… 3. Fees rather than taxes eliminate discretion.
… 4. Direct economic voting controls the misuse of fees.
… 5. This combination of taxes forces the construction of voluntary commons (civil society).
a. Commons are by nature always redistributive (flat fees).
b. Income Taxes are by nature redistributive of benefits.
c. Flat taxes by their nature redistribute burden.
d. Fees by nature meritocratic.
The answer is fees.
Keeping an account of all inputs and outputs per person would provide evidence necessary for policy.
Having each generation pay for the rearing of their children, and children paying for the retirement and care of their parents creates eugenic incentives.
Ending false-education and credit-financialization so you (a) pay for children when young, (b) save when mature, (c) are independent when aged, and (d) insured by your children, (e) passed on your inheritance to them in toto as compensation, would restore the intergenerational system of building healthy families of sufficient size and restoring long term thinking to the polity, rather than all this short term consumer consumptionism.
There is a reason that the left suppresses data collection that would show white men > 35 and < 65 support the entirety of the population, and that women consume 70% of resources, and spend 70% of income such that this is an incredibly unequal system of benefits in favor of women.
The P-Constitution does all this.