O tema da Reforma Tributária tornou-se um dos assuntos mais frustrantes entre juristas, tributaristas e mesmo entre políticos. Apesar de ser tido como consensualmente necessário e inadiável, torna-se objeto de cizânia a partir da passagem da discussão do diagnóstico para o momento de prognóstico e das medidas necessárias. De um lado, aparenta ser uma espécie promessa de ano-novo, sempre presente nas listas de desejo e sempre afastada do cotidiano concreto. Em situações mais sérias parece cada vez mais como um tema incômodo, do qual todos fogem após ressaltar sua importância.
Em nossa percepção o atual modelo de debate esgotou sua credibilidade e não levará a lugar algum, se não houver uma mudança de estratégia. Existe um erro de avaliação, de pressupostos e uma agenda equivocada. O erro de percepção decorre das dificuldades inerentes ao sistema democrático, que criam dificuldades claras ao próprio projeto de uma reforma unitária, profunda e técnica. O sistema democrático possui duas características que neutralizam os esforços de uma reforma tributária ampla: opacidade e consensualidade.
A opacidade é a incapacidade dos eleitores, dos agentes buscadores de votos e das instituições formadas por votados, em valorizar o debate tributário como um elemento de definição de poder, em suma, a bandeira da reforma tributária não dá votos. Os eleitores em sua maioria pagam os impostos de modo oculto no preço das mercadorias (ICMS, IPI,PIS,COFINS ou retidos na fonte) e, portanto, não avaliam corretamente o peso dos impostos na diminuição do seu bem estar social. Evoluir para uma sociedade de pessoas com renda e impostos transparentes deve ser a solução.
Para os políticos defender uma reforma tributária ou aumentos de impostos não é uma estratégia vencedora, visto que não se trata de um produto muito vendável. No modelo concorrido pela busca de votos é bem mais agradável defender o aumento de direitos fundamentais (saúde, educação, transportes, etc.) do que defender aumento de impostos. Aumentando-se a demanda, pode-se gerar o consenso necessário para a instituição de impostos. Bem como se provou (CPMF), que a criação de impostos não significa a ampliação de serviços públicos (ex. saúde).
Outro elemento é que o modelo democrático representativo possui uma base muito simples: um eleitor e um voto em seu representante. Dada esta premissa inicial tudo mais se torna opaco. O eleitor não tem mais controle sobre os votos dado em seu nome na assembléia de representantes, não pode tirar o representante por condução indevida de seu mandato ou mesmo avaliar o modo como os projetos são definidos. Este sistema se torna opaco para o eleitor que não entende como a máquina representativa funciona no seu cotidiano, dando espaço aos grupos melhor organizados que controlam e entendem os meandros e tecnicidades do processo legislativo e dominam a sua agenda.
A segunda característica é a consensualidade. Por óbvio é mais fácil criar consensos sobre distribuição de ganhos, do que sobre a distribuição de encargos ou a retirada de rendas de um grupo para transferir para outro. Em períodos de normalidade é mais provável a realização de pequenas reformas e ajustes fiscais pontuais, do que uma grande alteração revolucionária que afete todo o sistema econômico, a distribuição de força entre as classes sociais e os fundamentos do modelo eleitoral e de repartição das instituições de poder entre os partidos.
Considerando estas duas características torna-se claro que insistir em uma agenda de uma grande reforma tributária ampla, profunda e técnica longe de um processo constituinte originário é uma ilusão. Uma nova agenda deve ser buscada.
Um projeto factível de reforma tributária deve possuir os seguintes pressupostos: deve ser tecnicamente eficiente, ou seja, incentive a criação de riqueza interna; socialmente justa, partilhando a riqueza nacional e ser políticamente viável, criando um consenso sobre como transferir (retirar) a riqueza de produtores e para quem e como distribuir. Em suma, estes pressupostos devem ser entendidos como realmente são: conflitantes. A redistribuição de renda implica que os produtores deverão posteriormente transferir o fruto de sua produção para setores necessitados. Logicamente esta é uma situação contraditória, visto que não há incentivo à produção, dado que o incentivo à criação de riqueza geralmente não decorre de argumentos altruístas em prol do bem comum, mas de argumentos competitivos de produção de patrimônio próprio.
Insistir, portanto, na atual agenda de uma ampla reforma, técnica, política, democrática, eficiente e consensual é como propor a quadratura do círculo: impossível. É necessário uma nova agenda que contemple os elementos listados acima. O debate deve ser realizado em um fórum especializado, permitindo voz direta aos setores afetados, fugindo da clássica solução de democracia direta de dar voto e perder o controle.
Este deve ser realizado por um foro público permanente e especializado o: Conselho Nacional de Finanças Públicas, integrado por órgão de todas esferas federativas (União, Estados, DF e Municípios), sociedade civil (Universidades, OAB e Conselhos) e entidades profissionais fazendários e dos setores econômicos. A competência do órgão seria de sugerir proposições para o Congresso Nacional com base nos elementos de harmonização do sistema. A previsão de um foro técnico, que apresente ao poder político as alternativas técnicas possíveis reduz a possibilidade de decisões incoerentes e meramente políticas. Claro que não elimina esta possibilidade. Poder-se-á alegar ser mais um conselho, contudo, o Brasil viu a formação de diversos conselhos salvo o mais necessário ao seu federalismo.
Cremos que esta proposta aumentará a coerência das propostas e a viabilidade da construção do consenso que permitam a reforma geral do sistema.
Dez medidas de finanças públicas
Raras vezes encontramos um debate tão vívido e acalorado sobre um tema crucial para o desenvolvimento do Estado: a situação de suas finanças. O Estado do Rio Grande do Sul tem presenciado um forte debate público sobre os rumos das suas finanças públicas, capazes de dotá-lo novamente do dinamismo econômico que o orgulhou no passado e que pode lhe trazer desenvolvimento econômico e sócio-ambiental no futuro. O desejo de Estado mais justo e próspero exige a contrapartida óbvia de recursos para seus propósitos de saúde, educação, segurança, entre tantas outras tarefas constitucionais. Creio que a grandeza do debate está em evitarmos duas saídas fáceis e errôneas: o mero sentimento fiscalista e o sentimento anti-Estado ou anti-fisco. A saída mais simples para qualquer administrador está em tão somente defender o aumento de alíquotas de impostos, contudo, como todos os administradores públicos já experimentaram as finanças públicas exigem uma bateria de instrumentos de arrecadação capazes de aliar o máximo de recursos públicos e o mínimo de dano à vontade dos empreendedores em empreenderem e dos consumidores em comprarem. Logicamente este ponto ótimo não é tarefa fácil. De outro lado, o simples discurso de sermos contra meios modernos e ágeis de arrecadação com base em chavões anti-fiscalistas geram o paradoxo de negar receitas e exigir serviços.
A título de contribuição ao debate sugerimos uma agenda de dez medidas de finanças públicas, exemplificativas, capazes de melhorar o quadro de nosso tesouro estadual:
1. Nota legal: trata-se de uma medida implementada por diversas legislações estaduais (DF, SP, CE, entre outros) que têm por objetivo premiar o cidadão que exige nota fiscal, permitindo que parte do ICMS recolhido seja devolvido ao contribuinte de fato (consumidor) sob a forma de créditos para o pagamento de outros tributos estaduais, tais como o IPVA. O efeito benéfico na educação fiscal da população é claro e o efeito fiscal poderia alcançar milhões de acréscimo;
2. Revisão de renúncias fiscais e guerra fiscal mediante regras mais rígidas de transparência e avaliação: o Estado deveria implementar dois vetores quanto aos benefícios fiscais: transparência e avaliação de impacto. Todos os benefícios fiscais deveriam ser publicados na internet, com os dados básicos de sua concessão, bem como de sua avaliação por setor. Deveríamos ter um, igualmente, critérios claros de análise da qualidade fiscal das renúncias, conforme exige a Lei de Responsabilidade Fiscal;
3. Questionamento da guerra fiscal no STF: O Estado do RGS deve ser duro no enfrentamento das medidas de guerra fiscal tomadas por outros Estados, glosando o crédito aproveitado indevidamente, ingressando com Ações Direta de Inconstitucionalidade, questionamento no Senado Federal, propondo novas leis complementares, visto que somente existe um caminho para evitar que as empresas gaúchas sejam vítimas de uma guerra fiscal nacional, mediante uma implacável campanha pública no STF, Senado, Confaz e CAF no Governo Federal.
4. Simples gaúcho: estabelecimento de medidas de estímulo às empresas gaúchas, com um programa simplificado de arrecadação estadual, que amplie os benefícios do Simples Nacional, em relação à arrecadação do ICMS, já prometido pelo Governo do Estado;
5. Gastos públicos eficiência e eficácia: estabelecimento de índices de acompanhamento da eficiência, eficácia e efetividade do gasto público, bem como implementar uma legislação sobre a lei de qualidade fiscal;
6. ICMS união fundo de compensação: rediscussão com a União do Fundo de Compensação estabelecido pela Lei Kandir, de modo a recompensar os Estados que somam esforços na busca do superávit externo, bem como da promoção comercial de produtos nacionais;
7. Revisão da partilha constitucional das contribuições: ampliação da partilha de recursos de Contribuições Federais, com aumento de recursos a serem destinados aos Estados e Municípios;
8. PPP: criação efetiva de instrumentos de Parcerias Público Privadas em áreas de interesse estadual, diminuindo a exigência de estabelecimento de novas estruturas públicas, de tal modo que o Estado possa se focar nas suas tarefas fundamentais de fornecer saúde, educação e segurança de qualidade;
9. Comitê gestor responsabilidade fiscal estadual: estabelecimento de regras de análise do impacto de renúncias fiscais, incentivos setoriais e gastos públicos por meio de um Comitê Gestor composto especialmente por funcionários da Fazenda Estadual, Governo e em menor grau por representantes da sociedade civil e outros poderes;
10. Combate à competição comercial internacional danosa (Guerra Comercial): ter como meta a perseguição eficaz às práticas comerciais predatórias de outros países (China, Sudeste Asiático, etc.), por meio de uma equipe de defesa comercial estadual que auxilie o governo federal e as empresas gaúchas na identificação e questionamento de dumping, uso ilícito de paraísos fiscais e importações fraudulentas.
Por óbvio estas medidas são somente exemplificativas das diversas e muitas possibilidades que podem ser executadas de melhoria das finanças públicas estaduais. O mais importante, contudo, está na abertura franca de um debate necessário sobre as finanças estaduais, que deve escutar as Universidades, o Corpo Técnico da Secretaria da Fazenda, as associações comerciais e industriais na busca do equilíbrio entre as tarefas estaduais constitucionais e os recursos necessários para a sua implementação.
Professor em Direito Tributário
“(…) So we have a huge opportunity, at this moment, to bring manufacturing back. But we have to seize it. Tonight, my message to business leaders is simple: Ask yourselves what you can do to bring jobs back to your country, and your country will do everything we can to help you succeed.
We should start with our tax code. Right now, companies get tax breaks for moving jobs and profits overseas. Meanwhile, companies that choose to stay in America get hit with one of the highest tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and everyone knows it.
So let’s change it. First, if you’re a business that wants to outsource jobs, you shouldn’t get a tax deduction for doing it. That money should be used to cover moving expenses for companies like Master Lock that decide to bring jobs home.
Second, no American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas. From now on, every multinational company should have to pay a basic minimum tax. And every penny should go towards lowering taxes for companies that choose to stay here and hire here.
Third, if you’re an American manufacturer, you should get a bigger tax cut. If you’re a high-tech manufacturer, we should double the tax deduction you get for making products here. And if you want to relocate in a community that was hit hard when a factory left town, you should get help financing a new plant, equipment, or training for new workers.
My message is simple. It’s time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas, and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in America. Send me these tax reforms, and I’ll sign them right away.
We’re also making it easier for American businesses to sell products all over the world. Two years ago, I set a goal of doubling U.S. exports over five years. With the bipartisan trade agreements I signed into law, we are on track to meet that goal — ahead of schedule. Soon, there will be millions of new customers for American goods in Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. Soon, there will be new cars on the streets of Seoul imported from Detroit, and Toledo, and Chicago.
I will go anywhere in the world to open new markets for American products. And I will not stand by when our competitors don’t play by the rules. We’ve brought trade cases against China at nearly twice the rate as the last administration — and it’s made a difference. Over a thousand Americans are working today because we stopped a surge in Chinese tires. But we need to do more. It’s not right when another country lets our movies, music, and software be pirated. It’s not fair when foreign manufacturers have a leg up on ours only because they’re heavily subsidized.
Tonight, I’m announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating unfair trade practices in countries like China. There will be more inspections to prevent counterfeit or unsafe goods from crossing our borders. And this Congress should make sure that no foreign company has an advantage over American manufacturing when it comes to accessing finance or new markets like Russia. Our workers are the most productive on Earth, and if the playing field is level, I promise you — America will always win.
I also hear from many business leaders who want to hire in the United States but can’t find workers with the right skills. Growing industries in science and technology have twice as many openings as we have workers who can do the job. Think about that — openings at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work.
That’s inexcusable. And we know how to fix it.
Jackie Bray is a single mom from North Carolina who was laid off from her job as a mechanic. Then Siemens opened a gas turbine factory in Charlotte, and formed a partnership with Central Piedmont Community College. The company helped the college design courses in laser and robotics training. It paid Jackie’s tuition, then hired her to help operate their plant.
I want every American looking for work to have the same opportunity as Jackie did. Join me in a national commitment to train two million Americans with skills that will lead directly to a job. My Administration has already lined up more companies that want to help. Model partnerships between businesses like Siemens and community colleges in places like Charlotte, Orlando, and Louisville are up and running. Now you need to give more community colleges the resources they need to become community career centers — places that teach people skills that local businesses are looking for right now, from data management to high-tech manufacturing.
And I want to cut through the maze of confusing training programs, so that from now on, people like Jackie have one program, one website, and one place to go for all the information and help they need. It’s time to turn our unemployment system into a reemployment system that puts people to work.
These reforms will help people get jobs that are open today. But to prepare for the jobs of tomorrow, our commitment to skills and education has to start earlier.
For less than one percent of what our Nation spends on education each year, we’ve convinced nearly every State in the country to raise their standards for teaching and learning — the first time that’s happened in a generation.
But challenges remain. And we know how to solve them.”
What’s at Stake
We are in the midst of yet another great American discussion about taxation. Perhaps no policy area has become more sensitive or controversial. At stake are two vital concerns for the American future: How will we generate sufficient revenue to balance our budget without discouraging economic activity, and will the burden of taxation fall equitably on all Americans?
Tax policy shapes almost everything individuals and enterprises do as they participate in the economy. With bad design, tax policy can discourage economic activity. With good design, it can encourage it. Yet our current tax system is an accretion of decades of patchwork decisions that came into being with no systematic thought for their implications for job creation or economic growth. Every year, individual taxpayers are forced to confront a Rube Goldberg contraption of bewildering complexity that leads to a range of undesirable outcomes, including the fact that millions of Americans have to pay hundreds of dollars to have their tax returns prepared by a professional who understands the rules. Corporations, for their part, are subject to rules and regulations that all too often encourage tax gamesmanship while discouraging reinvestment in the American economy.
In approaching the nation’s fiscal challenges, President Obama has repeatedly called for a “balanced approach,” by which he means cutting spending but also raising taxes. That may sound appealing on the surface. However, the reality is that before President Obama exploded the size of the federal government, our existing tax rates were more or less adequate to pay for the government we needed. President Obama claims now to be offering a compromise. In fact, by undoing only some of the harm he has inflicted on our fiscal health over the past three years, he would ratchet up permanently the size of government and the tax burden on the American people.
President Obama’s proclivity for fostering uncertainty about the long-term shape of the tax code is particularly troublesome. He has embraced one temporary solution after the next while rejecting permanent adjustments that would bring some predictability and stability to investment decision-making. The result is a business climate marked by hesitation. When President Obama complains about banks refusing to lend and businesses refusing to hire, he should consider the impact of his own policies on that state of affairs.
No discussion of President Obama’s tax policies would be complete without a reference to Obamacare and its $500 billion in tax increases. Whenever President Obama discusses the need for more tax revenues, Americans should remember that he already got them and spent them on a health care scheme that is itself proving to be hugely disruptive to the economy.
Mitt Romney will push for a fundamental redesign of our tax system. He recognizes that we need to simplify the system. He also recognizes that we need both to lower rates and to broaden the tax base so that taxation becomes an instrument for promoting economic growth. We also need to find a way to keep the tax structure stable so that investors and entrepreneurs are not confronted with a constantly shifting set of rules that makes it impossible for them to plan ahead.
Mitt Romney believes in the conservative principle that Americans, to the maximum extent possible, should be able to keep the money they earn. Unfortunately, as Benjamin Franklin wrote, there are only two things that are unavoidable: death and taxes. We need taxes to pay for the operations of government. But they should be collected by a system that is simple and fair, and that causes the least possible disruption to the productive economy.
- Maintain current tax rates on personal income
- Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
- Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
- Eliminate the death tax
- Pursue a conservative overhaul of the tax system over the long term that includes lower, flatter rates on a broader base
Our system of corporate taxation is also in urgent need of an overhaul. Right now, with a top marginal rate of 35 percent, it vies for the developed world’s highest, placing our companies—indeed, our entire country—at a competitive disadvantage. That is the bad news. The good news is that with the rate set so high, there is a lot of room to bring it down.
- Reduce corporate income tax rate to 25 percent
- Pursue transition from “worldwide” to “territorial” system for corporate taxatio
Continuing our presentation of the thinking of U.S. presidential candidates on Taxation we bring Newt Gingrich´s program below:
Jobs and the Economy
“Creating jobs and getting back to 4% unemployment is the most important step to a balanced budget.” – Newt Gingrich
The Gingrich Jobs and Growth Plan
America only works when Americans are working. Newt has a pro-growth strategy similar to the proven policies used when he was Speaker to balance the budget, pay down the debt, and create jobs. The plan includes:
- Stop the 2013 tax increases to promote stability in the economy. Job creation improved after Congress extended tax relief for two years in December. We should make the rates permanent.
- Make the United States the most desirable location for new business investment through a bold series of tax cuts, including: Eliminating the capital gains tax to make American entrepreneurs more competitive against those in other countries; Dramatically reducing the corporate income tax (among highest in the world) to 12.5%; Allowing for 100% expensing of new equipment to spur innovation and American manufacturing; Ending the death tax permanently.
- Move toward an optional flat tax of 15% that would allow Americans the freedom to choose to file their taxes on a postcard, saving hundreds of billions in unnecessary costs each year. This optional flat tax system will preserve deductions on charitable giving and home ownership, and create a new personal deduction of $12,000 for every American. This deduction is well above the current poverty level, ensuring that this new system does not unfairly target the poor.
- Strengthen the dollar by returning to the Reagan-era monetary policies that stopped runaway inflation and reforming the Federal Reserve to promote transparency.
- Remove obstacles to job creation imposed by destructive and ineffective regulations, programs and bureaucracies. Steps include: Repealing the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which did nothing to prevent the financial crisis and is holding companies back from making new investments in the U.S; Repealing the Community Reinvestment Act, the abuse of which helped cause the financial crisis; Repealing the Dodd-Frank Law which is killing small independent banks, crippling loans to small businesses and crippling home sales; Breaking up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, moving their smaller successors off government guarantees and into the free market; Replacing the Environmental Protection Agency with an Environmental Solutions Agency that works collaboratively with local government and industry to achieve better results; and Modernizing the Food and Drug Administration to get lifesaving medicines and technologies to patients faster.
- Implement an American energy policy that removes obstacles to responsible energy development and creates jobs in the United States.
- Balance the budget by growing the economy, controlling spending, implementing money saving reforms, and replacing destructive policies and regulatory agencies with new approaches.
- Repeal and replace Obamacare with a pro-jobs, pro-responsibility health plan that puts doctors and patients in charge of health decisions instead of bureaucrats.
- Fundamental reform of entitlement programs with the advice and help of the American people. Read an extended white paper on this here.
Continuing our presentation of the thinking of U.S. presidential candidates on Taxation we bring Ron Paul´s program below:
Ron Paul supports the elimination of the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). He asserts that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax and has introduced legislation to repeal of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified on February 3, 1913.
An income tax is the most degrading and totalitarian of all possible taxes. Its implementation wrongly suggests that the government owns the lives and labor of the citizens it is supposed to represent. Tellingly, “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax” is Plank #2 of the Communist Manifesto, which was written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and first published in 1848.
To provide funding for the federal government, Ron Paul supports excise taxes, non-protectionist tariffs, massive cuts in spending.
Ron Paul discusses the income tax and the “FAIR Tax” in May 2007:
On November 20, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times / Freakonomics interview:
“I want to abolish the income tax, but I don’t want to replace it with anything. About 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal income tax. That means that about 55 percent — over half of all revenue — comes from other sources, like excise taxes, fees, and corporate taxes.
We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund the same level of big government we had in the late 1990s. We don’t need to “replace” the income tax at all. I see a consumption tax as being a little better than the personal income tax, and I would vote for the Fair-Tax if it came up in the House of Representatives, but it is not my goal. We can do better.”
On May 7, 2001, Ron Paul wrote the following column:
The Case Against the Income Tax
Could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of its history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker’s paycheck. In the late 1800s, when Congress first attempted to impose an income tax, the notion of taxing a citizen’s hard work was considered radical! Public outcry ensued; more importantly, the Supreme Court ruled the income tax unconstitutional. Only with passage of the 16th Amendment did Congress gain the ability to tax the productive endeavors of its citizens.
Yet don’t we need an income tax to fund the important functions of the federal government? You may be surprised to know that the income tax accounts for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Only 10 years ago, the federal budget was roughly one-third less than it is today. Surely we could find ways to cut spending back to 1990 levels, especially when the Treasury has single year tax surpluses for the past several years. So perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all.
The harmful effects of the income tax are obvious. First and foremost, it has enabled government to expand far beyond its proper constitutional limits, regulating virtually every aspect of our lives. It has given government a claim on our lives and work, destroying our privacy in the process. It takes billions of dollars out of the legitimate private economy, with most Americans giving more than a third of everything they make to the federal government. This economic drain destroys jobs and penalizes productive behavior. The ridiculous complexity of the tax laws makes compliance a nightmare for both individuals and businesses. All things considered, our Founders would be dismayed by the income tax mess and the tragic loss of liberty which results.
America without an income tax would be far more prosperous and far more free, but we must be prepared to fight to regain the liberty we have lost incrementally over the past century. I recently introduced “The Liberty Amendment,” legislation which would repeal the 16th Amendment and effectively abolish the income tax. I truly believe that real tax reform, reform that so many frustrated Americans desperately want, requires bold legislation that challenges the Washington mind set. Congress talks about reform, but the current tax debate really involves nothing of substance. Both parties are content to continue tinkering with the edges of the tax code to please various special interests. The Liberty Amendment is an attempt to eliminate the system altogether, forcing Congress to find a simple and fair way to collect limited federal revenues. Most of all, the Liberty Amendment is an initiative aimed at reducing the size and scope of the federal government.
Is it impossible to end the income tax? I don’t believe so. In fact, I believe a serious groundswell movement of disaffected taxpayers is growing in this country. Millions of Americans are fed up with the current tax system, and they will bring pressure on Congress. Some sidestep Congress completely, bringing legal challenges questioning the validity of the tax code and the 16th Amendment itself. Ultimately, the Liberty Amendment could serve as a flashpoint for these millions of voices.
Ron Paul introduced the Liberty Amendment in 1998, 1999, 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2009. It is currently know as H. J. RES. 48 and has 2 cosponsors, Roscoe G. Bartlett (MD-6) and Don Young (AK). Here is the text of the proposed amendment:
Section 1. The Government of the United States shall not engage in any business, professional, commercial, financial, or industrial enterprise except as specified in the Constitution.
Section 2. The constitution or laws of any State, or the laws of the United States, shall not be subject to the terms of any foreign or domestic agreement which would abrogate this amendment.
Section 3. The activities of the United States Government which violate the intent and purposes of this amendment shall, within a period of three years from the date of the ratification of this amendment, be liquidated and the properties and facilities affected shall be sold.
Section 4. Three years after the ratification of this amendment the sixteenth article of amendments to the Constitution of the United States shall stand repealed and thereafter Congress shall not levy taxes on personal incomes, estates, and gifts.’.
On April 30, 2009 Ron Paul introduced the Liberty Amendment with the following speech:
Ron Paul: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Liberty Amendment, which repeals the 16th Amendment, thus paving the way for real change in the way government collects and spends the people’s hard-earned money. The Liberty Amendment also explicitly forbids the Federal government from performing any action not explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution.
The 16th Amendment gives the Federal government a direct claim on the lives of American citizens by enabling Congress to levy a direct income tax on individuals. Until the passage of the 16th amendment, the Supreme Court had consistently held that Congress had no power to impose an income tax.
Income taxes are responsible for the transformation of the Federal government from one of limited powers into a vast leviathan whose tentacles reach into almost every aspect of American life. Thanks to the income tax, today the Federal government routinely invades our privacy, and penalizes our every endeavor.
The Founding Fathers realized that “the power to tax is the power to destroy,” which is why they did not give the Federal government the power to impose an income tax. Needless to say, the Founders would be horrified to know that Americans today give more than a third of their income to the Federal government.
Income taxes not only diminish liberty, they retard economic growth by discouraging work and production. Our current tax system also forces Americans to waste valuable time and money on compliance with an ever-more complex tax code. The increased interest in flat-tax and national sales tax proposals, as well as the increasing number of small businesses that question the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) “withholding” system provides further proof that America is tired of the labyrinthine tax code. Americans are also increasingly fed up with an IRS that continues to ride roughshod over their civil liberties, despite recent “pro-taxpayer” reforms.
Madam Speaker, America survived and prospered for 140 years without an income tax, and with a Federal government that generally adhered to strictly constitutional functions, operating with modest excise revenues. The income tax opened the door to the era (and errors) of Big Government. I hope my colleagues will help close that door by cosponsoring the Liberty Amendment.
vamos iniciar os nossos compativos entre as propostas de candidatos à eleição nos EUA pela plataforma do conservador Rick Santorum, que foi a sensação no caucus de Iowa. Vejam:
Rick Santorum believes that to have a strong economy, we must have strong families – because the family is the first economy. Our government must recognize this and create an environment for our families, our small businesses, and our communities to thrive. Senator Santorum believes we are a land of opportunity where all Americans have the chance to rise on their own merits and hard work. Sadly, President Obama has done just the opposite by using class warfare to divide America and limit opportunity for all.
Rick Santorum is committed to reviving our economy, restoring economic growth, and creating jobs in America again by unleashing innovation and entrepreneurship through lower and simpler taxes for American businesses, workers, and families. He also will roll back job killing regulations, restrain our spending by living within our means, and unleash our domestic manufacturing and energy potential. His vision for America is to restore America’s greatness through promotion of freedom and opportunity for all. This is just the start. A plan made in America to promote America’s families and prosper its businesses.
THE SANTORUM SOLUTION
- Cut and simplify personal income taxes by cutting the number of tax rates to just two – 10% and 28% and return to Reagan era pro-growth tax rate;
- Simplify the tax code and reduce middle income taxes by eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT);
- Simplify the tax code, encourage savings and investment, and reduces taxes by eliminating the Death Tax;
- Lower the Capital Gains and Dividend tax rates to 12% to spur economic growth and investment;
- Reduce taxes for families by tripling the personal deduction for each child;
- Reduce and simplify taxes for families by eliminating marriage tax penalties throughout the federal tax code;
- Retain deductions for charitable giving, home mortgage interest, healthcare, retirement savings, and children;
- Eliminate the cap on deductions for losses incurred in the sale of a principal residence;
- Cut the corporate income tax rate in half to make our businesses competitive around the world, from 35% to 17.5%;
- Eliminate the corporate income tax for manufacturers to spur middle income job creation in the United States and benefit from the job multiplier effect in manufacturing;
- Increase the Research & Development Tax Credit from 14% to 20% and make it permanent to spur on innovation in America;
- Eliminate the tax on repatriated taxable corporate income invested for manufacturers equipment investment, 5.25% corporate tax rate on other repatriated income invested in the USA, and 100% expensing for new business equipment;
During his time in public office, Senator Santorum was a strong advocate for a family and small business-friendly tax code, serving as the point man to pass the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 that revitalized our economy after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. For his work on reducing the tax burden on all Americans, Senator Santorum has received praise from groups ranging from the Club for Growth to Americans for Tax Reform and the National Federation of Independent Business.
Verifico aqui em Madrid um grande debate sobre os meios de superar a crise que o Euro enfrenta, especialmente no caso espanhol. Dentre as diversas e dolorosas medidas tomadas está o controle das despesas das regiões autônomas. No Brasil seria uma matéria inconstitucional e não seria autorizada a intervenção do governo central sobre o assunto. Na Espanha não há garantia constitucional expressa à matéria financeira. Vejam a matéria:
EB dice que las Cámaras autonómicas deben dar un “no contundente” a que el Gobierno del PP controle sus presupuestos
12:41- Europa Press – EspañaEl portavoz de Ezker Batua-Berdeak, José Navas, ha afirmado que los parlamentos autonómicos deben dar “una negativa contundente y conjunta” a la pretensión del Gobierno central de asumir la función de controlar sus presupuestos.