Can the Federal Government Constitutionally redistribute wealth?

[regent]

So what is the judicial decision that has said redistribution of wealth is unconstitutional?
Might check the Supreme Court decisions made during 1937 when the Court said taxes can be used for any social purpose as long as they promote the General Welfare. And what restrictions has the Court placed on the words: general welfare? If taxes were being used inappropriately under the General Welfare clause you can bet it would have been before the Court long before this.
And as Justice Hughes has said, the Constitution is what the Court say it is.

 

[OKTexas]

American corporations are American people, remember? a 40% percent corporate tax rate is most definitely "re-distribution" of wealth.

I agree with you on that, but that's not what this thread is about, it's about government transferring wealth directly from one citizen to another. I edited my original post to make that clearer.

OK....then it's not only illegal, but it's unconscionable. Probably why it's not YET being done to private individuals...

What makes you think they are not doing it to individuals, show me you tax dollars weren't used for cash for clunkers, or first time home buyer incentives, welfare, child tax credits, if you are a smoker they increased your taxes $6.00 per carton supposedly to expand the schip program. You can bet every tax payer is supporting other Americans directly.

 

[OKTexas]

Every nation has a system for redistributing the wealth, try to find a nation without a system. After the Revolution we were a confederacy with 13 governments, and a central government with no powers except the power to appeal to those 13 governments for help. The framers dropped the Articles as unworkable and created a central government with the power to tax for the general welfare. During the Lincoln administration the Republican Congress added an income tax and finally the Constitution was amended making the income tax Constitutional.

You seem to have forgotten that the framers said specifically in Article 1, Section 8 what federal endeavors were consistent with the "general welfare", none of them included giving money to a citizen that wasn't for services rendered.

 

[rightwinger]

Every nation has a system for redistributing the wealth, try to find a nation without a system. After the Revolution we were a confederacy with 13 governments, and a central government with no powers except the power to appeal to those 13 governments for help. The framers dropped the Articles as unworkable and created a central government with the power to tax for the general welfare. During the Lincoln administration the Republican Congress added an income tax and finally the Constitution was amended making the income tax Constitutional.

You seem to have forgotten that the framers said specifically in Article 1, Section 8 what federal endeavors were consistent with the "general welfare", none of them included giving money to a citizen that wasn't for services rendered.

That was left up to Congress.
They can give money for small business subsidies, farm subsidies, R&D....even poor or disabled folks

All under general welfare

 

[norwegen]

Liberals think general welfare is taking money from some and giving it to others. What a surprise.

 

[Bush92]

Necessary and Proper Clause (Elastic Clause) allows the Congress to pass legislation to support enumerated powers 1-17. One of those is the power to tax and that was Roberts reason to cast his lot in favor of Obamcare in his now infamous ruling. He said that the penalty was a "tax" and not a violation of interstate commerce. In fact, Wickard v. Filburn 1942 never even came into play. Can the Congress redistribute wealth? Oh yes. Absolutely. It all comes down to who the people elect. That's why your vote is important. Has this happened? Oh yes. Absolutely. Taking tax dollars from a person in one tax bracket to support someone in public housing in another tax bracket...is just that.

 

[OKTexas]

Every nation has a system for redistributing the wealth, try to find a nation without a system. After the Revolution we were a confederacy with 13 governments, and a central government with no powers except the power to appeal to those 13 governments for help. The framers dropped the Articles as unworkable and created a central government with the power to tax for the general welfare. During the Lincoln administration the Republican Congress added an income tax and finally the Constitution was amended making the income tax Constitutional.

You seem to have forgotten that the framers said specifically in Article 1, Section 8 what federal endeavors were consistent with the "general welfare", none of them included giving money to a citizen that wasn't for services rendered.

That was left up to Congress.
They can give money for small business subsidies, farm subsidies, R&D....even poor or disabled folks

All under general welfare

Show me in the federalist or anti-federalist papers that will back up your claim. No hurry I'll wait.

 

[saveliberty]

They don't directly pay kaz. The money goes from taxpayer A to the US Treasury, then it is appropriated by Congress to Federal programs which in turn send it to state programs. At that point the state screens recipients and distributes. I assume this is all a way of circumnavigating the Constitution.

 

[OKTexas]

Necessary and Proper Clause (Elastic Clause) allows the Congress to pass legislation to support enumerated powers 1-17. One of those is the power to tax and that was Roberts reason to cast his lot in favor of Obamcare in his now infamous ruling. He said that the penalty was a "tax" and not a violation of interstate commerce. In fact, Wickard v. Filburn 1942 never even came into play. Can the Congress redistribute wealth? Oh yes. Absolutely. It all comes down to who the people elect. That's why your vote is important. Has this happened? Oh yes. Absolutely. Taking tax dollars from a person in one tax bracket to support someone in public housing in another tax bracket...is just that.

Right, Roberts gave his official oki doki to another unconstitutional direct tax. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4, prohibits direct taxation, the only constitutional exception is contained in the 16th Amendment, that being on income. This new ACA tax is not triggered by income therefore it does not meet the exception in the 16th Amendment.

 

[OKTexas]

They don't directly pay kaz. The money goes from taxpayer A to the US Treasury, then it is appropriated by Congress to Federal programs which in turn send it to state programs. At that point the state screens recipients and distributes. I assume this is all a way of circumnavigating the Constitution.

Then explain the child tax credit, there is no middle man and it's a welfare program, how can you refund monies that were never paid in the first place?

 

[saveliberty]

They don't directly pay kaz. The money goes from taxpayer A to the US Treasury, then it is appropriated by Congress to Federal programs which in turn send it to state programs. At that point the state screens recipients and distributes. I assume this is all a way of circumnavigating the Constitution.

Then explain the child tax credit, there is no middle man and it's a welfare program, how can you refund monies that were never paid in the first place.

Negative tax.

You can achieve the same result with capital gains tax.

 

[norwegen]

The Necessary and Proper clause is one of the departures from our revolutionary principles that worried the anti-federalists. The constitutional debates, though, as far as I'm aware, didn't involve the redistribution of property from one citizen to another, but rather its redistribution to a growing elite ruling class. As Patrick Henry warned, an unrestrained taxing authority will lead to a Senate living in splendor and a "great and mighty president . . . supported in extravagant magnificance, so that the whole of our property may be taken by this American government, by laying what taxes they please, giving themselves what salaries they please, and suspending our laws at their pleasure."

Redistributing property among the population was essentially unheard of, but lo, wasn't Henry prophetic. Congessmen make quadruple the average salary, and the president some 10 or twelve times. Servents, are they? This kind of redistribution is despotic.

 

[OKTexas]

They don't directly pay kaz. The money goes from taxpayer A to the US Treasury, then it is appropriated by Congress to Federal programs which in turn send it to state programs. At that point the state screens recipients and distributes. I assume this is all a way of circumnavigating the Constitution.

Then explain the child tax credit, there is no middle man and it's a welfare program, how can you refund monies that were never paid in the first place.

Negative tax.

You can achieve the same result with capital gains tax.

There are no constitutional provisions for a negative tax, it exist only in the minds of liberal politicians.

 

[dcraelin]

The question isn't about "taxes" it's about "redistribution of wealth." That is referring to taking money from one citizen and giving it to another. It is not saying government cannot tax for the general good, like the military and courts that all have equal access too. I thought people realized that, maybe not. I'll edit my post to make that clear.

your attempt to split the general good from welfare payments has no basis in any law I know of. The legislative system determines what the country thinks the general welfare is and at some point Congress thought welfare payments met the general interests of society. On the tax side the 16th amendment authorizes progressive taxes.

 

[saveliberty]

They don't directly pay kaz. The money goes from taxpayer A to the US Treasury, then it is appropriated by Congress to Federal programs which in turn send it to state programs. At that point the state screens recipients and distributes. I assume this is all a way of circumnavigating the Constitution.

Then explain the child tax credit, there is no middle man and it's a welfare program, how can you refund monies that were never paid in the first place.

Negative tax.

You can achieve the same result with capital gains tax.

There are no constitutional provisions for a negative tax, it exist only in the minds of liberal politicians.

I was asked to explain, didn't say I agreed.

 

[norwegen]

The question isn't about "taxes" it's about "redistribution of wealth." That is referring to taking money from one citizen and giving it to another. It is not saying government cannot tax for the general good, like the military and courts that all have equal access too. I thought people realized that, maybe not. I'll edit my post to make that clear.

your attempt to split the general good from welfare payments has no basis in any law I know of. The legislative system determines what the country thinks the general welfare is and at some point Congress thought welfare payments met the general interests of society. On the tax side the 16th amendment authorizes progressive taxes.

The Constitution is a centrist document, not a leftist document. The delegates at the Philadelphia Convention were not exempt from the larger American principles and conventions. That is, terminology was established and understood before the Constitution was even drafted.

That it would be a living document was an idea not seriously considered by the left until the Progressive Era.

The general welfare did not refer to the enrichment of some at the expense of others.

 

[regent]

The question isn't about "taxes" it's about "redistribution of wealth." That is referring to taking money from one citizen and giving it to another. It is not saying government cannot tax for the general good, like the military and courts that all have equal access too. I thought people realized that, maybe not. I'll edit my post to make that clear.

your attempt to split the general good from welfare payments has no basis in any law I know of. The legislative system determines what the country thinks the general welfare is and at some point Congress thought welfare payments met the general interests of society. On the tax side the 16th amendment authorizes progressive taxes.

The Constitution is a centrist document, not a leftist document. The delegates at the Philadelphia Convention were not exempt from the larger American principles and conventions. That is, terminology was established and understood before the Constitution was even drafted.

That it would be a living document was an idea not seriously considered by the left until the Progressive Era.

The general welfare did not refer to the enrichment of some at the expense of others.

The question isn't about "taxes" it's about "redistribution of wealth." That is referring to taking money from one citizen and giving it to another. It is not saying government cannot tax for the general good, like the military and courts that all have equal access too. I thought people realized that, maybe not. I'll edit my post to make that clear.

your attempt to split the general good from welfare payments has no basis in any law I know of. The legislative system determines what the country thinks the general welfare is and at some point Congress thought welfare payments met the general interests of society. On the tax side the 16th amendment authorizes progressive taxes.

The Constitution is a centrist document, not a leftist document. The delegates at the Philadelphia Convention were not exempt from the larger American principles and conventions. That is, terminology was established and understood before the Constitution was even drafted.

That it would be a living document was an idea not seriously considered by the left until the Progressive Era.

The general welfare did not refer to the enrichment of some at the expense of others.

Every nation has a system for redistributing the wealth, try to find a nation without a system. After the Revolution we were a confederacy with 13 governments, and a central government with no powers except the power to appeal to those 13 governments for help. The framers dropped the Articles as unworkable and created a central government with the power to tax for the general welfare. During the Lincoln administration the Republican Congress added an income tax and finally the Constitution was amended making the income tax Constitutional.

You seem to have forgotten that the framers said specifically in Article 1, Section 8 what federal endeavors were consistent with the "general welfare", none of them included giving money to a citizen that wasn't for services rendered.

That was left up to Congress.
They can give money for small business subsidies, farm subsidies, R&D....even poor or disabled folks

All under general welfare

Show me in the federalist or anti-federalist papers that will back up your claim. No hurry I'll wait.

The Federalist Papers are letters to the editor and have no powers.

 

[kaz]

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

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

That's all you care about, it being redistributed to you. That isn't the question though, try answering it. I realize based on your history that won't happen...

Far from it. In fact, my tax bracket would probably increase

But rather than resort to childlike personal attacks, why don't you admit the federal government has a constitutional role to set the tax structure?

Read the original post, moron, that isn't what this thread is about.

 

[kaz]

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...

Link?

 

[kaz]

The question isn't about "taxes" it's about "redistribution of wealth." That is referring to taking money from one citizen and giving it to another. It is not saying government cannot tax for the general good, like the military and courts that all have equal access too. I thought people realized that, maybe not. I'll edit my post to make that clear.

your attempt to split the general good from welfare payments has no basis in any law I know of. The legislative system determines what the country thinks the general welfare is and at some point Congress thought welfare payments met the general interests of society. On the tax side the 16th amendment authorizes progressive taxes.

Cool. Care to answer the question?