Can the Federal Government Constitutionally redistribute wealth?

[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.

I voted "yes" because I unlike you understand the principle we are discussing here.

The PEOPLE have the right to vote yes on taxation no matter what the issue and all taxation is a redistribution of wealth. Sometimes we benefit from it, sometimes we don't. But in balance, we should benefit from it most of the time.

I know the Libertarian and Tea Party bias political noobs want to think we aren't allowed to vote for " 3 meals a day for a blind person" but sorry to burst your bubble, We The People can.

Not it's time for these parties to discuss if they want to vote for the spending on the actual issues, or want to police the people that take advantage of a flawed system driven by bias idiots that are unwilling to close loopholes and want to Nix it instead of Fix it......

MANY Americans along with me voted to provide meals for blind people and deaf people. It's time for you to stop attacking with a blanket approach and understand the American Constitution.

THE PEOPLE RUN AMERICA, NOT YOU, NOT THE CONSTITUTION. If the people want change, they can Change the Constitution, let's not let it come to that. Let's use some common sense first. ..

(Also, curious why people still don't know the Constitution can change and why people think Government Controls people and not the People controlling government....)

When did the people vote for higher taxes?

Where in the Constitution does it say the people do not need to follow the Constitution? We are not even talking about the people we are talking about congress and the President. That's just whacked.

So you disagree with all court rulings that laws any law Unconstitutional? That is what you just said. The courts cannot overturn "bans" on gay marriage? In fact in many of those cases, the people voted directly for it much less through elected representatives. The courts have been blocking school vouchers, so that's wrong? The people can ignore the Constitution and Congress is the people?

You didn't think this one through.

 

[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.

In a way - yes. It's called taxation. Look at Burger King (the latest corporation to abandon the US). 40% Corporate taxes. The HIGHEST in the world. This has been Obama's plan all along. Raise the corporate tax structure to the point that business leaves this country - as it is - then make the slaves (er...people) completely dependent on Uncle Sugar. HE decides how much "re-distribution" takes place in America.

He'll be gone soon and perhaps we can get back to a business friendly environment in this country and business will return.

Ignorant tool. Corp tax rate is 35% THOUGH that's the marginal rate, tax burden (EFFECTIVE) is around 12% lowest in 40+ years


US ACTUAL TAX RATE IN INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD IS ONLY LOWER FOR MEXICO AND CHILE

Ignorant tool, so Burger King is moving to Canada not knowing this? LOL, sure they are... This is square on the Democratic party. Expecting our corporations to bend over and pay through the nose to the State is ridiculous, as is that we screw our corporations. We need to incent them to stay, or at a minimum, not push them to leave.

And what a bunch of ridiculous children you are. Instead of fixing it, you attack them. Read your own post and how you're saying what your party is saying and you will realize ... why they want to go.

They are great Americans, making the right choice. I don't own stock in them, that's about to change.

 

[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.

SCOTUS SAID YES, YES, GAWWWWD YES...

The government said it can ignore Constiutional limits. Wow, what a compelling argument.

I don't have to follow traffic laws, I just decided...

 

[kaz]

Gotcha Comrade, all money is the people's money, so not taking someone's money is giving them money. LOL, sure it is.

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

Franklin was a Marxist? Sure he was...

 

[kaz]

Gotcha Comrade, all money is the people's money, so not taking someone's money is giving them money. LOL, sure it is.

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

He wasn't talking about the federal government, why didn't you give us the whole context?

You know why....

 

[kaz]

Link?

Third World countries. One of the things they all had in common was a small, very rich elite, small middle class, and a large lower class. They also shared very low economic growth as a result. This has been known for at least 50 years. The US has been going in this direction for at least the last 30 years as we have gradually de-industrialized and government policies (such as trickle down economics) have promoted the shift of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the economic elite



In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!

Do you know how long these discussions are? What did I ask for a link to, dumb ass. I don't see anything I've said this is relevant to.

 

[kaz]

Gotcha Comrade, all money is the people's money, so not taking someone's money is giving them money. LOL, sure it is.

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

He wasn't talking about the federal government, why didn't you give us the whole context?

"The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets .... They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their (government's) Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.

All Property, indeed ... seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

-- letter to Robert Morris, Dec. 25, 1783

Property Benjamin Franklin to Robert Morris

LOL, as OKTexas said, the context would show your ignorance. He is just saying that government can tax at will, he says that people cannot cheat on their taxes. He is saying that when a ...justly due ... tax is withheld, that is wrong. Once a justly due tax has been levied, at that point, the tax is the people's money. It does not say all money is the people's money, only the taxes, justly due taxes.

Damn, you people need to learn to read.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

SCOTUS SAID YES, YES, GAWWWWD YES...

The government said it can ignore Constiutional limits. Wow, what a compelling argument.

I don't have to follow traffic laws, I just decided...

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?

 

[kaz]

Gotcha Comrade, all money is the people's money, so not taking someone's money is giving them money. LOL, sure it is.

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

He wasn't talking about the federal government, why didn't you give us the whole context?

"The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets .... They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their (government's) Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.

All Property, indeed ... seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

-- letter to Robert Morris, Dec. 25, 1783

Property Benjamin Franklin to Robert Morris

Written almost 6 years before the Constitution was completed, what does that have to do with this thread, which is questioning "Constitutionality" of a specific act.

It also doesn't say all money is the people's money, it only says legitimate taxes are the people's money. It doesn't even define what taxes are legitimate. He's only arguing against tax evasion.

 

[kaz]

Weird, I presented PART of the quote, you implied it wasn't relevant, then asked for the full letter, when SHOWN IT DEALT WITH THE FEDERAL GOV'T, YOU NOW QUESTION IT? lol Typical

You posted the whole thing, and it showed you were wrong. It did not say all money is the people's money as you claimed. You need to learn to read. Maybe restart in elementary school. LOL. Liberalism, I couldn't make up the shit you actually believe. Look at Jamestown, you are looking in a mirror. That could have been you.

 

[rightwinger]

Gotcha Comrade, all money is the people's money, so not taking someone's money is giving them money. LOL, sure it is.

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

So if Franklin contradicted the Constitution, who is wrong? Franklin? Or the Constitution?

(Hint: Franklin's private correspondence is not law, but the Constitution IS law.)

The Constitution allows for the Government to levy taxes

 

[rightwinger]

The FF listed the duties of the federal government in two sentences "to provide for the common defense" and "to promote the general welfare". The 16th Amendment gave the federal government the right to redistribute wealth.

Um...the 16th says government can take income, where does it say it can hand it out to someone else?

Article 1, Section 1

 

[kaz]

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.

 

[kaz]

The FF listed the duties of the federal government in two sentences "to provide for the common defense" and "to promote the general welfare". The 16th Amendment gave the federal government the right to redistribute wealth.

Um...the 16th says government can take income, where does it say it can hand it out to someone else?

Article 1, Section 1

Article 1, Section 1: All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Gotcha. So what do the 9th and 10th amendments say, Big Guy? How's the kool-aid? Didn't you say your favorite flavor is grape?

 

[rightwinger]

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

 

[rightwinger]

The FF listed the duties of the federal government in two sentences "to provide for the common defense" and "to promote the general welfare". The 16th Amendment gave the federal government the right to redistribute wealth.

Um...the 16th says government can take income, where does it say it can hand it out to someone else?

Article 1, Section 1

Article 1, Section 1: All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Gotcha. So what do the 9th and 10th amendments say, Big Guy? How's the kool-aid? Didn't you say your favorite flavor is grape?

If you feel either the 9th or 10th Amendment is being violated, your state has a right to take the Federal Government to court. Why haven't they?

If you are so big on states rights, why isn't your own state supporting you?

 

[kaz]

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

Sorry I made you so upset Big Guy. It's OK, calm down. Don't have a coronary over this, it's just a discussion. Have a biscuit, you'll feel better.

BTW, you may want to Google what a message board is. LOL, what an idiot you are. And you prove it every day in every way.

 

[Mac1958]

.

"Redistribution" and taxation are fundamental functions of any organized government and civilized society. The existence of redistribution is not the issue for me, equilibrium is.

When redistribution and taxation are functioning properly, the individual has fewer constraints but still the presence of a reasonable safety net. When they are not functioning properly, the individual has either become too dependent on the government or the government is retarding the individual's growth too much.

I would make some changes in our taxation system, yes, but I don't think that equilibrium is the problem. A culture in rapid decay is the problem. A stronger, healthier culture would look less to the government and more inside itself and each other.

.

 

[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.

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.

My post says nothing about the Constitution being a leftist document. The term general welfare was not a specific term. It was to be determined by the Congress. "Enrichment" of some at the expense of others was likely widely frowned upon. But, Id hardly call welfare "enrichment".

 

[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.