Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
thats a settled definition nowExcise 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 encyclopediaI'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.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.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.
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."
Wiki got one thing wrong in their definition, federal excise taxes must be uniform through out the US.
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."
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.
Yes, you want their money, and they are greedy because they won't give it to you. I am quite familiar with that, you have made it very clear.
I advocate tax cheats, but I don't cheat on my taxes because I keep my eye on the sparrow.
Yes, you want their money, and they are greedy because they won't give it to you. I am quite familiar with that, you have made it very clear.
Weird how it's 'their' money yet made in a society with OUR laws and history. Why didn't they make that money in a 3rd world nation like Somalia?
The problem with the conservative (YES, LIBERTARIANS ARE FARRR RIGHT ECONOMICS) movement in America is that it is based on bigotry, hatred, and, greed. Above all, greed. Money is their god. They worship money and the holders of it and despise those who don't have it.
Once again, you deleted the context of the statement so you could take the statement out of context.
You couldn't build the steel mills, which built the railroads, which moved the oil, which promoted the auto industry without great amounts of capital in the hands of a few visionaries.
You couldn't build the steel mills, which built the railroads, which moved the oil, which promoted the auto industry without great amounts of capital in the hands of a few visionaries.
A great argument in favor of total income confiscation.
You still cut out the part he said he was referring to levied taxes, not all money. You're the liar.
Are you intellectually engaged, or do you just want to play cat and mouse? BTW, Google would answer that question for you simply if you just want to know, which is why I doubt the seriousness of your question. That and you're generally not interested in doing anything but defending Democrats.
I'll tell you what, if this is a genuine request, why don't you do a quick search and show me you're actually engaged in this. I'm tired of doing research for liberals who then never process the information anyway.
Which only goes to prove that you've managed to get through life with only a lower brain stem.
Once again, you deleted the context of the statement so you could take the statement out of context.
NONSENSE, AGAIN. Sorry you can NEVER be honest.
"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."
Thomas Jefferson
You couldn't build the steel mills, which built the railroads, which moved the oil, which promoted the auto industry without great amounts of capital in the hands of a few visionaries.
A great argument in favor of total income confiscation.
These visionaries had a product or service which the public found important, they rewarded these people by purchasing. Just how is that going to happen without income?
Except the supremes have ruled that an individual tax payer doesn't have standing, care to try again?
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.
You couldn't build the steel mills, which built the railroads, which moved the oil, which promoted the auto industry without great amounts of capital in the hands of a few visionaries.
A great argument in favor of total income confiscation.
These visionaries had a product or service which the public found important, they rewarded these people by purchasing. Just how is that going to happen without income?
Simple, institute communism.
No one makes any income because of a 100% federal income tax being levied on their wages. However, no one needs that money for anything because resources are being efficiently distributed by the federal government at no cost to the consumer.
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.
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.
lol, Let me guess, right wingers got it right. The most liberal people of the day, the US Founders, were conservatives, lol
You couldn't build the steel mills, which built the railroads, which moved the oil, which promoted the auto industry without great amounts of capital in the hands of a few visionaries.
A great argument in favor of total income confiscation.
These visionaries had a product or service which the public found important, they rewarded these people by purchasing. Just how is that going to happen without income?
Simple, institute communism.
No one makes any income because of a 100% federal income tax being levied on their wages. However, no one needs that money for anything because resources are being efficiently distributed by the federal government at no cost to the consumer.
