Can the Federal Government Constitutionally redistribute wealth?

[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.

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.

You act like property exist in a vacuum, it's not property unless it is possessed or owned by someone or some legal entity. He is the one avoiding my questions by coming up with absurd BS.

 

[dcraelin]

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

I GAVE an example. The Civil War income tax................but here are some links

The First Income Tax
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html

 

[kaz]

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.

You mean like this?

If my racist, misogynist opposition (you and others like you)

What I am dealing with has been clear for a long time. Your feigned self righteous indignation is just laughable. I don't take you seriously. That you jump in now as if somehow you've been serious all this time and this is where things changed is just clueless.

You did make a good point and documented it that Dad2three made the original statement about the 28%. His description was ridiculous. Closing loopholes is a laughable summary of it. Believe it or not with all the discussions going on I do lose track of who started a discussion and who joined in a liberal tag team. So it's fair to point that out, you are correct on that you were tag teaming, it wasn't your claim. A fact which could be simply pointed out without all the butt hurt over it. But it's not an issue, see point 1 that I don't take you seriously.

I was serious about one thing. I do my own research before challenging anyone. You may not have made the point, but you tag teamed it. He made a claim and gave a hand waiving description of the 28% proposal that missed the key points. You are reinforcing that your interest in actually understanding the issue is completely disingenuous. I'm not doing research for you that you're too lazy to do on your own then you will ignore anyway.

 

[kaz]

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.

Fair enough, but you raised Hamilton.

 

[LiberalMedia]

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.

You act like property exist in a vacuum, it's not property unless it is possessed or owned by someone or some legal entity. He is the one avoiding my questions by coming up with absurd BS.

What? You're the one that responded to dcraelin's post about progressive taxes with, "Where is the language in it [the Constitution] that says congress can treat one dollar differently than another?" You initially responded to Rightwinger's concerns with, "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."

By all appearances, you're avoiding the nature of the progressive tax discussion by attempting to turn it into "hurr y u tax 1 dollar but not anuthr, das racis". A better way to phrase this would be, "The establishment of a progressive income tax is inherently discriminatory because it subjects one group of people to a different standard of taxation than others, much like the jizya tax of Islamic countries. The unconstitutionality of a progressive tax system should be replaced by..."

Of course, that sample phrasing I gave you is completely wrong because the progressive income tax is a wonderful thing and entirely Constitutional, but really I'm not trying to help you in what you think, but rather how you word it when communicating with others.

 

[kaz]

What? You're the one that responded to dcraelin's post about progressive taxes with, "Where is the language in it [the Constitution] that says congress can treat one dollar differently than another?" You initially responded to Rightwinger's concerns with, "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."

And you think his point about treating one dollar differently than another is in reference to the dollar itself and not actually the person who earned it?



Seriously?

 

[OKTexas]

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

I GAVE and example. The Civil War income tax................but here are some links

The First Income Tax
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html

From your first link: This bill was repealed in 1872 and declared to be unconstitutional. What the confederacy did is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[dcraelin]

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

I GAVE and example. The Civil War income tax................but here are some links
The First Income Tax
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html

From your first link: This bill was repealed in 1872 and declared to be unconstitutional. What the confederacy did is irrelevant to this discussion.

The Civil war tax was not declared unconstitutional in its time ..........the courts acted against ANOTHER INCOME TAX BILL some 30 years after........its actions were seen by the vast majority of the country as hypocritical and as the court groveling for the rich. And the earlier bill wasnt the confederacy either.I see that the first link gives the wrong impression on that.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

You act like property exist in a vacuum, it's not property unless it is possessed or owned by someone or some legal entity. He is the one avoiding my questions by coming up with absurd BS.

What? You're the one that responded to dcraelin's post about progressive taxes with, "Where is the language in it [the Constitution] that says congress can treat one dollar differently than another?" You initially responded to Rightwinger's concerns with, "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."

By all appearances, you're avoiding the nature of the progressive tax discussion by attempting to turn it into "hurr y u tax 1 dollar but not anuthr, das racis". A better way to phrase this would be, "The establishment of a progressive income tax is inherently discriminatory because it subjects one group of people to a different standard of taxation than others, much like the jizya tax of Islamic countries. The unconstitutionality of a progressive tax system should be replaced by..."

Of course, that sample phrasing I gave you is completely wrong because the progressive income tax is a wonderful thing and entirely Constitutional, but really I'm not trying to help you in what you think, but rather how you word it when communicating with others.

Keep reading dear, I have my own style.

 

[MikeK]

Yes. The Federal Government can constitutionally redistribute wealth.

The Sixteenth Amendment enables taxation. The revenues derived may be used to finance defense and to facilitate the general welfare.

One way FDR redistributed the excessive wealth accumulated by greedy corporate Robber Barons was to impose a 91 percent progressive tax rate. An extremely productive application of the derived revenues was the WPA and CCC make-work programs which enabled my own father and millions of other Americans, unemployed and impoverished by the Great Depression, to survive the Great Depression.

These people were employed mainly in infrastructure restoration programs, a policy which continued throughout the Eisenhower Administration and resulted in the construction and maintenance of our Federal Highway System.

Thus wealth which was generated by Americans within America was applied to improving the integrity of America. The rich were not harmed by this federal action but simply became less rich.

 

[LiberalMedia]

What? You're the one that responded to dcraelin's post about progressive taxes with, "Where is the language in it [the Constitution] that says congress can treat one dollar differently than another?" You initially responded to Rightwinger's concerns with, "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."

And you think his point about treating one dollar differently than another is in reference to the dollar itself and not actually the person who earned it?



Seriously?

Yes, because that's what he said. He made no reference to the owning individuals.

 

[OKTexas]

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

I GAVE and example. The Civil War income tax................but here are some links
The First Income Tax
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html

From your first link: This bill was repealed in 1872 and declared to be unconstitutional. What the confederacy did is irrelevant to this discussion.

The Civil war tax was not declared unconstitutional in its time ..........the courts acted against ANOTHER INCOME TAX BILL some 30 years after........its actions were seen by the vast majority of the country as hypocritical and as the court groveling for the rich. And the earlier bill wasnt the confederacy either.I see that the first link gives the wrong impression on that.

It's simple they violated Article 9, Clause 4, any direct tax that was not based on population were unconstitutional prior to 1913 and the passage of the 16th Amendment. The 16th did not allow for a progressive tax in its text, it's that simple, we have the courts and congress to thank for that.

 

[dcraelin]

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

I GAVE and example. The Civil War income tax................but here are some links
The First Income Tax
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html

From your first link: This bill was repealed in 1872 and declared to be unconstitutional. What the confederacy did is irrelevant to this discussion.

The Civil war tax was not declared unconstitutional in its time ..........the courts acted against ANOTHER INCOME TAX BILL some 30 years after........its actions were seen by the vast majority of the country as hypocritical and as the court groveling for the rich. And the earlier bill wasnt the confederacy either.I see that the first link gives the wrong impression on that.

It's simple they violated Article 9, Clause 4, any direct tax that was not based on population were unconstitutional prior to 1913 and the passage of the 16th Amendment. The 16th did not allow for a progressive tax in its text, it's that simple, we have the courts to thank for that.

I've probably had this argument with you before................but the income tax was not seen as a direct tax.............not by those that passed the Civil War income tax................and wouldnt have been by the founders, tho they were not widely known of at the time........There is some reference to a carriage tax that treated the wealthy differently, that was allowed I believe around the time the Constitution was first put in place.

 

[OKTexas]

What? You're the one that responded to dcraelin's post about progressive taxes with, "Where is the language in it [the Constitution] that says congress can treat one dollar differently than another?" You initially responded to Rightwinger's concerns with, "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."

And you think his point about treating one dollar differently than another is in reference to the dollar itself and not actually the person who earned it?



Seriously?

Yes, because that's what he said. He made no reference to the owning individuals.

Right, because taxes are collected on random dollars all the time, give me a freaking break.

 

[OKTexas]

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

I GAVE and example. The Civil War income tax................but here are some links
The First Income Tax
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html

From your first link: This bill was repealed in 1872 and declared to be unconstitutional. What the confederacy did is irrelevant to this discussion.

The Civil war tax was not declared unconstitutional in its time ..........the courts acted against ANOTHER INCOME TAX BILL some 30 years after........its actions were seen by the vast majority of the country as hypocritical and as the court groveling for the rich. And the earlier bill wasnt the confederacy either.I see that the first link gives the wrong impression on that.

It's simple they violated Article 9, Clause 4, any direct tax that was not based on population were unconstitutional prior to 1913 and the passage of the 16th Amendment. The 16th did not allow for a progressive tax in its text, it's that simple, we have the courts to thank for that.

I've probably had this argument with you before................but the income tax was not seen as a direct tax.............not by those that passed the Civil War income tax................and wouldnt have been by the founders, tho they were not widely known of at the time........There is some reference to a carriage tax that treated the wealthy differently, that was allowed I believe around the time the Constitution was first put in place.

You say it wouldn't have been seen as a direct tax, without an explanation as to why that would be. Your link said it was repealed and declared unconstitutional, how can that be if it were not a direct tax?

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Taxing is a power of the Feds. Always has been. Spending for various types of activities has always been there. People have been receiving checks from the feds since the start of this nation. The Civil War Amendments and the income tax amendments to the Constitution made wage slaves of us all.

 

[RKMBrown]

The federal government has a constitutional role to set the tax structure.

If it results in a redistribution of wealth......so be it

No shit...it's been redistributed UP for the last 30 or so years...

Retard.

 

[dcraelin]

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

I GAVE and example. The Civil War income tax................but here are some links
The First Income Tax
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html

From your first link: This bill was repealed in 1872 and declared to be unconstitutional. What the confederacy did is irrelevant to this discussion.

The Civil war tax was not declared unconstitutional in its time ..........the courts acted against ANOTHER INCOME TAX BILL some 30 years after........its actions were seen by the vast majority of the country as hypocritical and as the court groveling for the rich. And the earlier bill wasnt the confederacy either.I see that the first link gives the wrong impression on that.

It's simple they violated Article 9, Clause 4, any direct tax that was not based on population were unconstitutional prior to 1913 and the passage of the 16th Amendment. The 16th did not allow for a progressive tax in its text, it's that simple, we have the courts to thank for that.

I've probably had this argument with you before................but the income tax was not seen as a direct tax.............not by those that passed the Civil War income tax................and wouldnt have been by the founders, tho they were not widely known of at the time........There is some reference to a carriage tax that treated the wealthy differently, that was allowed I believe around the time the Constitution was first put in place.

You say it wouldn't have been seen as a direct tax, without an explanation as to why that would be. Your link said it was repealed and declared unconstitutional, how can that be if it were not a direct tax?

Well the case on Carriage taxes Hylton v. United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia called such taxes excise taxes. Hamilton himself argued in favor of the Carriage tax.

AND I did explain....you have to read a little into things.....that a later court ruled a different income tax proposal unconstitutional....in that sense the earlier income tax could also be said to have been ruled unconstitutional......tho that is not technically correct I suppose.

 

[OKTexas]

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

I GAVE and example. The Civil War income tax................but here are some links
The First Income Tax
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html

From your first link: This bill was repealed in 1872 and declared to be unconstitutional. What the confederacy did is irrelevant to this discussion.

The Civil war tax was not declared unconstitutional in its time ..........the courts acted against ANOTHER INCOME TAX BILL some 30 years after........its actions were seen by the vast majority of the country as hypocritical and as the court groveling for the rich. And the earlier bill wasnt the confederacy either.I see that the first link gives the wrong impression on that.

It's simple they violated Article 9, Clause 4, any direct tax that was not based on population were unconstitutional prior to 1913 and the passage of the 16th Amendment. The 16th did not allow for a progressive tax in its text, it's that simple, we have the courts to thank for that.

I've probably had this argument with you before................but the income tax was not seen as a direct tax.............not by those that passed the Civil War income tax................and wouldnt have been by the founders, tho they were not widely known of at the time........There is some reference to a carriage tax that treated the wealthy differently, that was allowed I believe around the time the Constitution was first put in place.

You say it wouldn't have been seen as a direct tax, without an explanation as to why that would be. Your link said it was repealed and declared unconstitutional, how can that be if it were not a direct tax?

Well the case on Carriage taxes Hylton v. United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia called such taxes excise taxes. Hamilton himself argued in favor of the Carriage tax.

AND I did explain....you have to read a little into things.....that a later court ruled a different income tax proposal unconstitutional....in that sense the earlier income tax could also be said to have been ruled unconstitutional......tho that is not technically correct I suppose.

The big difference an excise tax requires you to enter into commerce, which people did by buying a carriage. A whole different animal from an income tax.

 

[Antares]

Republican President Eisenhower made a good go of it...

It's cute how you Lefty's think the Right marches in lockstep like you do with whomever you elect.

We don't