Can the Federal Government Constitutionally redistribute wealth?

[Wry Catcher]

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From your first link: This bill was repealed in 1872 and declared to be unconstitutional.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.

Thanks for your opinion; too bad you're stupid, otherwise it might be considered by those of us with IQ's above two-digits.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Each person is treated the same. Each dollar of income is not

The same tax structure applies to each person

 

[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

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

Of course they do.
You are subject to the same tax structure as everyone else. Your first dollar earned is taxed at the same rate as everyone else's

 

[dblack]

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?

Each person is treated the same. Each dollar of income is not

The same tax structure applies to each person

The tax structure is deliberately discriminatory. It is used to 'incentivize' behavior by punishing those who refuse to comply and rewarding those who acquiesce. Congress has learned they can coerce society this way, without passing straightforward laws that would be overtly unconstitutional. It's a deliberate strategy to subvert limited government. That's why you like it.

 

[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.

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.

The people of England couldn't take care of themselves. Not with that government. That government let the rich rule the serfs. The people of Mexico can't take care of themselves. That government doesn't look out for the masses. The rich rule Mexico.

The only reason you can afford to be so cocky and arrogant is because of the liberal progressive democratic new deal pro labor government you had from FDR to Bush in 2000.

To be honest, Reagan was the first to attack the middle class but GW twisted the knife Reagan put in our backs.

30 years ago the American Middle Class was the best. Today people in Seattle wish they lived in Vancouver. Stupid fucking Americans.

 

[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.

Of course they do.
You are subject to the same tax structure as everyone else. Your first dollar earned is taxed at the same rate as everyone else's

Really, then why are there people who pay zero income taxes and still get money back, they won't let me do that, so no, not all dollars are taxed the same. No one with an income should be able to avoid all income taxes and get a welfare check on top of it. That way, as slow Joe says, everyone would have skin in the game.

 

[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?

Each person is treated the same. Each dollar of income is not

The same tax structure applies to each person

The tax structure is deliberately discriminatory. It is used to 'incentivize' behavior by punishing those who refuse to comply and rewarding those who acquiesce. Congress has learned they can coerce society this way, without passing straightforward laws that would be overtly unconstitutional. It's a deliberate strategy to subvert limited government. That's why you like it.

Yep, social engineering.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

I'm not sure that is the definition of an excise.....which at base is just another word for tax.....and not sure it was the definition back then.....The Carriage tax, I believe, did not require the purchase of a Carriage...............anyway some of the justices did not need to call it an excise to rule it permissible.

From justice IREDELL "As all direct taxes must be apportioned, it is evident that the Constitution contemplated none as direct but such as could be apportioned.
If this cannot be apportioned, it is therefore not a direct tax in the sense of the Constitution."

 

[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.

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.

Of course they do.
You are subject to the same tax structure as everyone else. Your first dollar earned is taxed at the same rate as everyone else's

Really, then why are there people who pay zero income taxes and still get money back, they won't let me do that, so no, not all dollars are taxed the same. No one with an income should be able to avoid all income taxes and get a welfare check on top of it. That way, as slow Joe says, everyone would have skin in the game.

You're stupid, but I suppose that's not your fault. I have no problem with citizens receiving aid from the government, even morons like you. I pay my taxes, and don't need or care that I don't need or receive government aid. But I'm a Christian, not a callous conservative like assholes like you.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

Of course they do.
You are subject to the same tax structure as everyone else. Your first dollar earned is taxed at the same rate as everyone else's

Really, then why are there people who pay zero income taxes and still get money back, they won't let me do that, so no, not all dollars are taxed the same. No one with an income should be able to avoid all income taxes and get a welfare check on top of it. That way, as slow Joe says, everyone would have skin in the game.

You're stupid, but I suppose that's not your fault. I have no problem with citizens receiving aid from the government, even morons like you. I pay my taxes, and don't need or care that I don't need or receive government aid. But I'm a Christian, not a callous conservative like assholes like you.

NO ONE should receive a "refund" that is larger than the amount they paid in taxes over the year. Come on now, that is just insane.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

I'm not sure that is the definition of an excise.....which at base is just another word for tax.....and not sure it was the definition back then.....The Carriage tax, I believe, did not require the purchase of a Carriage...............anyway some of the justices did not need to call it an excise to rule it permissible.

From justice IREDELL "As all direct taxes must be apportioned, it is evident that the Constitution contemplated none as direct but such as could be apportioned.
If this cannot be apportioned, it is therefore not a direct tax in the sense of the Constitution."

Excise tax in the United States is an indirect tax on listed items. Excise taxes can be and are made by federal, state and local governments and are not uniform throughout the United States. Excise taxes are collected by the producer or retailer and not paid directly by the consumer, and as such often remain "hidden" in the price of a product or service, rather than being listed separately. This is thought to explain their appeal to many politicians.

Excise tax in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Wiki got one thing wrong in their definition, federal excise taxes must be uniform through out the US.

 

[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.

Of course they do.
You are subject to the same tax structure as everyone else. Your first dollar earned is taxed at the same rate as everyone else's

Really, then why are there people who pay zero income taxes and still get money back, they won't let me do that, so no, not all dollars are taxed the same. No one with an income should be able to avoid all income taxes and get a welfare check on top of it. That way, as slow Joe says, everyone would have skin in the game.

You're stupid, but I suppose that's not your fault. I have no problem with citizens receiving aid from the government, even morons like you. I pay my taxes, and don't need or care that I don't need or receive government aid. But I'm a Christian, not a callous conservative like assholes like you.

Fuck off, you keep interjecting yourself into conversations that don't involve you with your childish name calling. Go grow the hell up.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

I'm not sure that is the definition of an excise.....which at base is just another word for tax.....and not sure it was the definition back then.....The Carriage tax, I believe, did not require the purchase of a Carriage...............anyway some of the justices did not need to call it an excise to rule it permissible.
From justice IREDELL "As all direct taxes must be apportioned, it is evident that the Constitution contemplated none as direct but such as could be apportioned.
If this cannot be apportioned, it is therefore not a direct tax in the sense of the Constitution."

Excise tax in the United States is an indirect tax on listed items. Excise taxes can be and are made by federal, state and local governments and are not uniform throughout the United States. Excise taxes are collected by the producer or retailer and not paid directly by the consumer, and as such often remain "hidden" in the price of a product or service, rather than being listed separately. This is thought to explain their appeal to many politicians.Excise tax in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Wiki got one thing wrong in their definition, federal excise taxes must be uniform through out the US.

thats a settled definition now

I repeat tho "anyway some of the justices did not need to call it an excise to rule it permissible."

From justice IREDELL "As all direct taxes must be apportioned, it is evident that the Constitution contemplated none as direct but such as could be apportioned.
If this cannot be apportioned, it is therefore not a direct tax in the sense of the Constitution."

 

[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.

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.

Of course they do.
You are subject to the same tax structure as everyone else. Your first dollar earned is taxed at the same rate as everyone else's

Really, then why are there people who pay zero income taxes and still get money back, they won't let me do that, so no, not all dollars are taxed the same. No one with an income should be able to avoid all income taxes and get a welfare check on top of it. That way, as slow Joe says, everyone would have skin in the game.

You're stupid, but I suppose that's not your fault. I have no problem with citizens receiving aid from the government, even morons like you. I pay my taxes, and don't need or care that I don't need or receive government aid. But I'm a Christian, not a callous conservative like assholes like you.

NO ONE should receive a "refund" that is larger than the amount they paid in taxes over the year. Come on now, that is just insane.

Really, so they should rely on local and federal aid, in fact subsidizing their employer who exploits them? You're really not very bright, are you?

 

[dblack]

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.

Of course they do.
You are subject to the same tax structure as everyone else. Your first dollar earned is taxed at the same rate as everyone else's

Really, then why are there people who pay zero income taxes and still get money back, they won't let me do that, so no, not all dollars are taxed the same. No one with an income should be able to avoid all income taxes and get a welfare check on top of it. That way, as slow Joe says, everyone would have skin in the game.

You're stupid, but I suppose that's not your fault. I have no problem with citizens receiving aid from the government, even morons like you. I pay my taxes, and don't need or care that I don't need or receive government aid. But I'm a Christian, not a callous conservative like assholes like you.

NO ONE should receive a "refund" that is larger than the amount they paid in taxes over the year. Come on now, that is just insane.

Really, so they should rely on local and federal aid, in fact subsidizing their employer who exploits them? You're really not very bright, are you?

They should rely on government, so that we have a ready supply of labor and compliant soldiers.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

Of course they do.
You are subject to the same tax structure as everyone else. Your first dollar earned is taxed at the same rate as everyone else's

Really, then why are there people who pay zero income taxes and still get money back, they won't let me do that, so no, not all dollars are taxed the same. No one with an income should be able to avoid all income taxes and get a welfare check on top of it. That way, as slow Joe says, everyone would have skin in the game.

You're stupid, but I suppose that's not your fault. I have no problem with citizens receiving aid from the government, even morons like you. I pay my taxes, and don't need or care that I don't need or receive government aid. But I'm a Christian, not a callous conservative like assholes like you.

NO ONE should receive a "refund" that is larger than the amount they paid in taxes over the year. Come on now, that is just insane.

Really, so they should rely on local and federal aid, in fact subsidizing their employer who exploits them? You're really not very bright, are you?

I don't normally respond to such stupidity, but I'll give you a chance

FIrst of all, I believe the minimum wage should be raised significantly

Second of all, Someone isn't "not very bright" simply because they disagree with your OPINION

Thirdly, no one HAS to rely on government assistance. Okay, I won't say no one because there are a few people out there who just aren't able to earn, but the vast majority of people out there not earning a decent living are doing so because of choices THEY made. If you can't admit that simple fact then we really have nothing further to discuss on the topic.

NO ONE should get a "refund" that is larger than what they paid in. The income tax is not a welfare program.

 

[norwegen]

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.

Of course they do.
You are subject to the same tax structure as everyone else. Your first dollar earned is taxed at the same rate as everyone else's

Really, then why are there people who pay zero income taxes and still get money back, they won't let me do that, so no, not all dollars are taxed the same. No one with an income should be able to avoid all income taxes and get a welfare check on top of it. That way, as slow Joe says, everyone would have skin in the game.

You're stupid, but I suppose that's not your fault. I have no problem with citizens receiving aid from the government, even morons like you. I pay my taxes, and don't need or care that I don't need or receive government aid. But I'm a Christian, not a callous conservative like assholes like you.

NO ONE should receive a "refund" that is larger than the amount they paid in taxes over the year. Come on now, that is just insane.

Really, so they should rely on local and federal aid, in fact subsidizing their employer who exploits them? You're really not very bright, are you?

Is exploitation not actionable?

You're stupid, but I suppose that is your fault. No one can be born that bad off.

 

[dblack]

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.

Of course they do.
You are subject to the same tax structure as everyone else. Your first dollar earned is taxed at the same rate as everyone else's

Really, then why are there people who pay zero income taxes and still get money back, they won't let me do that, so no, not all dollars are taxed the same. No one with an income should be able to avoid all income taxes and get a welfare check on top of it. That way, as slow Joe says, everyone would have skin in the game.

You're stupid, but I suppose that's not your fault. I have no problem with citizens receiving aid from the government, even morons like you. I pay my taxes, and don't need or care that I don't need or receive government aid. But I'm a Christian, not a callous conservative like assholes like you.

NO ONE should receive a "refund" that is larger than the amount they paid in taxes over the year. Come on now, that is just insane.

Really, so they should rely on local and federal aid, in fact subsidizing their employer who exploits them? You're really not very bright, are you?

Is exploitation not actionable?

You're stupid, but I suppose that is your fault. No one can be born that bad off.

Do any of you really think the authors of the constitution granted Congress the power to levy taxes so they could fine people who don't buy health insurance? Or reward people who invest in solar heating? Or any of the other thousands of spurious incentives and surcharges that make up our insane tax code???

 

[eagle1462010]

To Kaz and the Op............I agree that we have strayed away from the original intent of the Constitution. The enumerated the powers because they feared a strong Federal Government. In the Federalist papers they over and over again Warn us about the situation we are in today and stressed as local as possible in Government, which is why they reserved most of the powers to the States. To the poster that said the Federalist Papers mean nothing, I would remind that poster that they were published to explain the INTENT of the Constitution to get it ratified. Written by those who helped write it..................So, those papers show the intent of the Constitution whether you like it or not.

Our country has moved to a Strong Central Gov't. Evaporation of State's Rights, and we are now more a pure Democracy than a Republic. The Founders Warned about this and specified Greece. Where Greece allowed Career politicians to rule the roost and were corrupt as hell, even to the point of taken gold from their enemies in the end.

A temporary Simple Majority has time and time again proven why they created Checks and Balances to PREVENT THE TYRANNY OF the Majority. aka 51% can force their views down the other 49% who disagree at a specific time.

We are in a mountain of debt with unfunded liabilities out the ass. We are paying over 400 Billion a year on interest on the debt....425 BILLION LAST YEAR ALONE.............We are approaching the 100% of the GDP debt from living and spending beyond our means. And countries are trying to ditch the dollar.

And people here still don't get it...........Ignore it, and hope we don't implode while they are around. It's like a drug addict that wants another fix before it kills him tomorrow and it is insane.

 

[eagle1462010]

A Flat Tax at a set rate for everyone would conform to the Uniformity Clause of the Constitution. Eliminated the need for a large staff at the IRS. Because people get returns after paying 0% we are losing revenues in excess of 200 BILLION A YEAR.

We have waste and Fraud in Gov't, including duplicate programs being performed by several agencies which if corrected could save us possibly 200 Billion a year.

We give foreign aid that we have to borrow every year to the tune of nearly 50 Billion a year.

We pay farmers not to farm.

We pay 6% to sell bonds on the debt. Given to the Stock Holders of the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve gives out .25% loans to themselves and their buddies but charge us for loans on our own currency.

If people think this is normal and we can't cut then I believe they need to get their heads examined. They may make the call from their Gov't supplied Cell Phone Free of Charge to them paid for by the Tax payers of America.