Can the Federal Government Constitutionally redistribute wealth?

[rightwinger]

If the taxation power is being used to redistribute wealth, or other wise manipulate society, it's being abused. The purpose of taxes is to fund the legitimate functions of government, not to use as a 'workaround' for things government would like to do, but otherwise haven't been authorized by the Constitution.

I think those who pushed for the 16th amendment knew that wealth can pool up in a society at the top.....this is essentially what happened in the monarchy the founding generation rejected. Progressive Income taxes allowed by the 16th,(and not really disallowed by the Constitution in its original form either) is a partial remedy for that. Some may choose to call that "redistribution"

What makes you think the 16th allows for a progressive tax. Where is the language in it that says congress can treat one dollar differently than another? Seems that would violate the equal protection guaranteed elsewhere.

Dollars do not have Constitutional rights

 

[OKTexas]

The Constitutionally formed government did

And yes YOU, as a private citizen, have a right to challenge those interpretations of our Constitution

What are you waiting for?

I was waiting for a HarryReidshna to explain it to me. Got it, thanks.

I'm sure he can...

Our Constitution allows you, as a citizen, to challenge all laws through the courts or the elective process. You obviously don't agree with the way our Constitution has been interpreted for the last 200 years. But rather than take action against laws you disagree with, you choose to bitch on an anonymous message board

Except the supremes have ruled that an individual tax payer doesn't have standing, care to try again?

In some cases, you may not have standing
But if the law is impacting you personally, you sure as hell have standing

Ever see Loving vs Virginia?

Sure but you have to show that you are being impacted much more than average tax payers.

 

[OKTexas]

If the taxation power is being used to redistribute wealth, or other wise manipulate society, it's being abused. The purpose of taxes is to fund the legitimate functions of government, not to use as a 'workaround' for things government would like to do, but otherwise haven't been authorized by the Constitution.

I think those who pushed for the 16th amendment knew that wealth can pool up in a society at the top.....this is essentially what happened in the monarchy the founding generation rejected. Progressive Income taxes allowed by the 16th,(and not really disallowed by the Constitution in its original form either) is a partial remedy for that. Some may choose to call that "redistribution"

What makes you think the 16th allows for a progressive tax. Where is the language in it that says congress can treat one dollar differently than another? Seems that would violate the equal protection guaranteed elsewhere.

Dollars do not have Constitutional rights

Dollars are individual pieces of property, hence the individual serial number. Where does the 16th say one piece of property can be treated differently than the rest just because of where it happens to fall in a stack. Come on, quote it.

 

[OKTexas]

Your post says the Constitution is a leftist document. First, when meanings and terms are legislative prerogatives, that's leftist. Second, when the legislature decides for the country what meanings and terms are, that's leftist.
And when you give 50 cents to a panhandler, you have enriched him.

I dont see why making something a legislative prerogative means its leftist..........but whatever. 50 cents certainly doesn't make anyone rich...........but I see your being a bit picky on definitions.See my post 165

You need to do some research how those terms were defined at the time they were used, that is the only way to get true intent.

Perhaps thats the only way to get at understanding of the general population..............but I think the intent of the "big government" Federalists is proof enough of the intent of the framers anyway.

u also said somewhere "What makes you think the 16th allows for a progressive tax. Where is the language in it that says congress can treat one dollar differently than another? Seems that would violate the equal protection guaranteed elsewhere. "

The history of the tax up until then. It had been applied progressively before.

Of course you have examples that were not held unconstitutional, right? Care to share?

 

[Little-Acorn]

It's humorous how frantically the big-govt pushers keep trying to ignore the part of the Constitution that forbids their attempts to buy votes by redistributing wealth.

Redistributing wealth, as described in the OP, has two parts, of course:

1.) Taking money from one person,
2.) Giving that money directly to another person.

The first is taxation, which the Fed govt clearly has the power to do.

The second is spending, which the Constitution explicitly restricts to programs that will help all Americans equally (see the so-called "Welfare Clause"). Handing money directtly to one person or group, blatantly violates that restriction.

It is flatly unconstitutional for the Fed govt to redistribute wealth. Despite the number of times the liberals desperately try to pretend that if the first is legal, then the second must also be legal.

.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Yes. It's called taxation.

 

[kaz]

Yes. It's called taxation.

Giving money to people is taxation? That makes no sense.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Giving money to people is taxation? That makes no sense.

No it doesn't, but then you're not commenting on anything I said either so go figure.

 

[kaz]

Giving money to people is taxation? That makes no sense.

No it doesn't, but then you're not commenting on anything I said either so go figure.

Silly me, I thought you were discussing the thread you are posting in. Notice the "OP" by my name.

 

[rightwinger]

If the taxation power is being used to redistribute wealth, or other wise manipulate society, it's being abused. The purpose of taxes is to fund the legitimate functions of government, not to use as a 'workaround' for things government would like to do, but otherwise haven't been authorized by the Constitution.

I think those who pushed for the 16th amendment knew that wealth can pool up in a society at the top.....this is essentially what happened in the monarchy the founding generation rejected. Progressive Income taxes allowed by the 16th,(and not really disallowed by the Constitution in its original form either) is a partial remedy for that. Some may choose to call that "redistribution"

What makes you think the 16th allows for a progressive tax. Where is the language in it that says congress can treat one dollar differently than another? Seems that would violate the equal protection guaranteed elsewhere.

Dollars do not have Constitutional rights

Dollars are individual pieces of property, hence the individual serial number. Where does the 16th say one piece of property can be treated differently than the rest just because of where it happens to fall in a stack. Come on, quote it.

Property does not have rights

 

[rightwinger]

It's humorous how frantically the big-govt pushers keep trying to ignore the part of the Constitution that forbids their attempts to buy votes by redistributing wealth.

Redistributing wealth, as described in the OP, has two parts, of course:

1.) Taking money from one person,
2.) Giving that money directly to another person.

The first is taxation, which the Fed govt clearly has the power to do.

The second is spending, which the Constitution explicitly restricts to programs that will help all Americans equally (see the so-called "Welfare Clause"). Handing money directtly to one person or group, blatantly violates that restriction.

It is flatly unconstitutional for the Fed govt to redistribute wealth. Despite the number of times the liberals desperately try to pretend that if the first is legal, then the second must also be legal.

.

There is no way to take money from one person and give it to another

There is no way to pass legislation or spending that helps all people equally

 

[sealybobo]

The Constitution enumerates the powers of the Federal government. Then to make it clear that those are the only powers the Federal government has, they wrote the 10th amendment, which says anything the Federal government is not authorized to do, it is prohibited from doing. And to go even further, they said any right of the people not protected in the Bill of Rights or other amendments is as important as any right that is protected in the Bill of Rights or other amendments.

Which means, protecting people from having their wealth confiscated and redistributed, which is clearly not in the constitution, is as important as have our speech restricted or our property searched without a warrant.

So, for those of you who consider it to be a legitimate use of Federal force to redistribute wealth, what Constitutional authority is that based on? Be specific.

EDIT: Redistribution of wealth refers specifically to taking money from one citizen and giving it to another. That means, at the Federal level, all forms of welfare including food stamps, AFDC, social security, medicare/medicaid, earmarks. All things which specifically take money from one citizen and place them directly in the hands of another.

It does not include the military, courts, national parks, anything that is for the general welfare, not specific welfare.

You are all brainwashed sheep. When the gap between the rich and poor get too big it is the government's job to step in and fix the problem. Even rich people understand its not good to have 10% of the people having 90% of all the money. Wake up America. There is so much wrong with you people I don't even know where to begin.

A millionaire was on NPR last night explaining how for 30 years no one said this because it was considered wealth distribution or class warfare.

TRUST ME Americans, as your lives get shittier and shittier, you'll start to open your eyes that the rich were brainwashing you to defend them as they systematically stole your wealth. Yes class warfare exists and they are winning.

And now you guys want to destroy our government so it is powerless and give the corporations all the power. You are god damn fools.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Cool. Care to answer the question?

this multi-quote thing is really throwing me off. Did they change something, in the way it works?
Anyway the answer to the opening question if thats what you mean is: It is Consitutional.

I agree on the quotes, it's been confusing. And that is the first part of the question, the rest of it is, where does the Constitution grant the Federal government that authority since the Constitution is a document of enumerated Federal powers.

I wish they would have a simple option to highlight parts of a post you wish to respond to and put it in as quotes. Theres probably a way to do it....but I dont find it simple in any way.

OK on the subject. I believe the General welfare clause authorizes welfare payments, cant remember how the federal powers are enumerated but you may have a point in that welfare payments are not specifically mentioned, However, like a lot of things the federal government does, it does this where the states do not want to do it. In other words If the feds werent handling it the states would be and your tax burden would be roughly the same or ....even more since the states generally have balanced budgets.

General welfare means that it applies to everyone. Like the military. The military does not discriminate, it protects all the population. The courts, everyone has access to redress grievances. The police protect everyone. Taking money from one person and giving it to another is not general welfare, it clearly benefits only the person receiving the money. Try again.

Also ask yourself why if "general welfare" means they can do anything they want, they bothered making 20% of the Constitution the 9th and 10th amendments. Why limit power you just said was unlimited?

General Welfare does not apply to each individual the same. No law can help each person equally. General Welfare applies to the nation as a whole. We are better off as a nation if we have roads. We are better off if we have safe food, we are better off if we do not have poor people begging in the streets

We are better off if we don't have contagious people riding public transportation, sitting in theaters or standing in line at the store.

 

[OKTexas]

If the taxation power is being used to redistribute wealth, or other wise manipulate society, it's being abused. The purpose of taxes is to fund the legitimate functions of government, not to use as a 'workaround' for things government would like to do, but otherwise haven't been authorized by the Constitution.

I think those who pushed for the 16th amendment knew that wealth can pool up in a society at the top.....this is essentially what happened in the monarchy the founding generation rejected. Progressive Income taxes allowed by the 16th,(and not really disallowed by the Constitution in its original form either) is a partial remedy for that. Some may choose to call that "redistribution"

What makes you think the 16th allows for a progressive tax. Where is the language in it that says congress can treat one dollar differently than another? Seems that would violate the equal protection guaranteed elsewhere.

Dollars do not have Constitutional rights

Dollars are individual pieces of property, hence the individual serial number. Where does the 16th say one piece of property can be treated differently than the rest just because of where it happens to fall in a stack. Come on, quote it.

Property does not have rights

The people who own the property have rights, now try to deny that.

 

[LiberalMedia]

Bullshit, prove all of these claims. Provide specific citations via links to the posts I have made on USMB that back up all of these statements

LOL, do as you say, not as you do. What an intellectual shill.

So let's recap the conversation. You claimed that Obama proposed cutting the corporate tax rate to 28%. I said that he did not just propose doing that, it was part of a broader package.

Now you have butt hurt that you want me to find links to disprove your unsubstantiated claim. You have no responsibility to prove anything, it's my job to prove what you say wrong. And I'm failing miserably at that. And you're mad as hell about it. LOL, can't make up the shit you people believe.

I am not disproving your claim no matter what a bitch you want to be about it, my dear. It's YOUR claim. You back it up. You back up that Obama proposed cutting the corporate tax rate to 28%, no strings attached.

OMG, you people are hilarious. It's not to be believed. Can you blow your stack again that I am shirking my message board duty by not proving you wrong? LOL, what a tool. Now that's funny.

I stopped reading after your second paragraph. It's really sad to know that there are so many people on this board that don't take it seriously, but rather resort to inane trolling in an attempt to derail legitimate discussions and destroy the quality of the boards.

First, the user Dad2three made this statement:

Obama proposed lowering the Corp tax rate to 28% and get rid of loopholes and use the extra revenues for infrastructure and guess what the party opf no said?

Next, you made this reply to Dad2three: Can the Federal Government Constitutionally redistribute wealth Page 10 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Obama's tax proposal of 28% was a fools trap, it came with downsides that were way worse than the cut. And it worked, it snared you.

AND THEN, I entered the discussion, responding to your post with this:

Name them.

Dad2three made the initial assertion, then you repeated it as fact and added even more claims to it which you have yet to substantiate. And now you pin not only your assertions, but also the burden of proof thereof, on me.

I'm disappointed in your intellectual dishonesty, but that's what we all get for believing that anyone here is an actual libertardian. All libertardians here--every single one, without exception--know that you're posting lies, yet you continue to do it anyway. Whether you're jovial trolls having a good time behind your computer screens or just con artists who love to lie for lying's sake, I don't know. What I do know is that you have outed yourself as a knowing, willing, deliberate liar in this thread, as well as establishing that you don't care about meaningful discourse--otherwise you would've responded to my original post in the thread either when I made it or at either of the two urges I made to you that you should respond to it rather than derailing the thread with your repeated insistence that I should do your research for you (because you're "tired" of doing it on your own) and that I should bear the burden of determining what your sources are for the claims you make, as well as analyzing the facts in such a way that I could come to the same faulty, unfounded conclusions you have drawn.

At least tell us: Do you troll here to have fun, or to disrupt actual intellectual discourse?

 

[Wry Catcher]

If the taxation power is being used to redistribute wealth, or other wise manipulate society, it's being abused. The purpose of taxes is to fund the legitimate functions of government, not to use as a 'workaround' for things government would like to do, but otherwise haven't been authorized by the Constitution.

I think those who pushed for the 16th amendment knew that wealth can pool up in a society at the top.....this is essentially what happened in the monarchy the founding generation rejected. Progressive Income taxes allowed by the 16th,(and not really disallowed by the Constitution in its original form either) is a partial remedy for that. Some may choose to call that "redistribution"

What makes you think the 16th allows for a progressive tax. Where is the language in it that says congress can treat one dollar differently than another? Seems that would violate the equal protection guaranteed elsewhere.

The billionaire pays the same tax as do I on my total income, his/her rates go up incrementally as their income rises. Thus, each dollar earned is treated the same; I thought everyone knew that.

However, some people believe money invested ought to be treated differently, thus a man who earns $50,000 by his labor, should in their mind, pay more than the person who buys stocks and earns $50,000 doing nothing.

Seems to me the laborer's equal protection is the one violated.

 

[LiberalMedia]

If the taxation power is being used to redistribute wealth, or other wise manipulate society, it's being abused. The purpose of taxes is to fund the legitimate functions of government, not to use as a 'workaround' for things government would like to do, but otherwise haven't been authorized by the Constitution.

I think those who pushed for the 16th amendment knew that wealth can pool up in a society at the top.....this is essentially what happened in the monarchy the founding generation rejected. Progressive Income taxes allowed by the 16th,(and not really disallowed by the Constitution in its original form either) is a partial remedy for that. Some may choose to call that "redistribution"

What makes you think the 16th allows for a progressive tax. Where is the language in it that says congress can treat one dollar differently than another? Seems that would violate the equal protection guaranteed elsewhere.

Dollars do not have Constitutional rights

Dollars are individual pieces of property, hence the individual serial number. Where does the 16th say one piece of property can be treated differently than the rest just because of where it happens to fall in a stack. Come on, quote it.

Property does not have rights

The people who own the property have rights, now try to deny that.

What Rightwinger has been attempting to tell you--or rather, attempting to get you to realize on your own--is that the Constitution deals with the rights of U.S. citizens, not inanimate objects. Why you are attempting to derail the conversation into a theater of the absurd by arguing that inanimate objects have constitutionally-protected rights is beyond me.

 

[kaz]

The Constitution enumerates the powers of the Federal government. Then to make it clear that those are the only powers the Federal government has, they wrote the 10th amendment, which says anything the Federal government is not authorized to do, it is prohibited from doing. And to go even further, they said any right of the people not protected in the Bill of Rights or other amendments is as important as any right that is protected in the Bill of Rights or other amendments.

Which means, protecting people from having their wealth confiscated and redistributed, which is clearly not in the constitution, is as important as have our speech restricted or our property searched without a warrant.

So, for those of you who consider it to be a legitimate use of Federal force to redistribute wealth, what Constitutional authority is that based on? Be specific.

EDIT: Redistribution of wealth refers specifically to taking money from one citizen and giving it to another. That means, at the Federal level, all forms of welfare including food stamps, AFDC, social security, medicare/medicaid, earmarks. All things which specifically take money from one citizen and place them directly in the hands of another.

It does not include the military, courts, national parks, anything that is for the general welfare, not specific welfare.

You are all brainwashed sheep. When the gap between the rich and poor get too big it is the government's job to step in and fix the problem. Even rich people understand its not good to have 10% of the people having 90% of all the money. Wake up America. There is so much wrong with you people I don't even know where to begin.

A millionaire was on NPR last night explaining how for 30 years no one said this because it was considered wealth distribution or class warfare.

TRUST ME Americans, as your lives get shittier and shittier, you'll start to open your eyes that the rich were brainwashing you to defend them as they systematically stole your wealth. Yes class warfare exists and they are winning.

And now you guys want to destroy our government so it is powerless and give the corporations all the power. You are god damn fools.

Right, we brainwashed fools think we can take care of ourselves. You, being intelligent and aware of your surroundings know you can't, government has to do it for you. The rich control government, so you want to make government stronger so the rich who control it in their greed can take care of you.

LOL, you're a tool.

 

[OKTexas]

The Constitution enumerates the powers of the Federal government. Then to make it clear that those are the only powers the Federal government has, they wrote the 10th amendment, which says anything the Federal government is not authorized to do, it is prohibited from doing. And to go even further, they said any right of the people not protected in the Bill of Rights or other amendments is as important as any right that is protected in the Bill of Rights or other amendments.

Which means, protecting people from having their wealth confiscated and redistributed, which is clearly not in the constitution, is as important as have our speech restricted or our property searched without a warrant.

So, for those of you who consider it to be a legitimate use of Federal force to redistribute wealth, what Constitutional authority is that based on? Be specific.

EDIT: Redistribution of wealth refers specifically to taking money from one citizen and giving it to another. That means, at the Federal level, all forms of welfare including food stamps, AFDC, social security, medicare/medicaid, earmarks. All things which specifically take money from one citizen and place them directly in the hands of another.

It does not include the military, courts, national parks, anything that is for the general welfare, not specific welfare.

You are all brainwashed sheep. When the gap between the rich and poor get too big it is the government's job to step in and fix the problem. Even rich people understand its not good to have 10% of the people having 90% of all the money. Wake up America. There is so much wrong with you people I don't even know where to begin.

A millionaire was on NPR last night explaining how for 30 years no one said this because it was considered wealth distribution or class warfare.

TRUST ME Americans, as your lives get shittier and shittier, you'll start to open your eyes that the rich were brainwashing you to defend them as they systematically stole your wealth. Yes class warfare exists and they are winning.

And now you guys want to destroy our government so it is powerless and give the corporations all the power. You are god damn fools.

Only a really ignorant person sees wealth as a zero sum game, wealth is created and destroyed all the time, it's never stagnant.

 

[dcraelin]

Is that what he thought? The legislature can do whatever it wants?

Alexander Hamilton: I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

Hamilton was a hypocrite, this is what he said to avoid getting a bill of rights.......but it was he who pushed for the national bank...............which was not a power enumerated, and therefore by the quote above should not have been allowed.

But it does explain to a certain amount the conflict and confusion that can arise with amendments.