USMB POLL: Repeal the 16th Amendment (Income Tax)

[dblack]

I should be clear though, I don't actually think that an income tax is wrong. I find that I think it is far better than a consumption tax. The perverted income tax we currently have is wrong though - it is not a tax system but a social engineering and payback system.

Exactly. The taxation powers we grant government should be used for funding government, not as a loophole around constitutional limits on its legislative authority.

 

[dblack]

That was nothing more than an emotional tirade about why you hate the government. It does not say anything about why income tax is "wrong."

Dante's sock joins (rejoins, adjoins?) the fight.

You think swim is a sock?

Or is he implying Dante is a foot?

 

[johnwk]

The Income Tax is wrong and the IRS as we know it, needs to go. There are better ways to tax and collect taxes. Time to get rid of the IRS. It's a corrupt cancerous bureaucracy at this point.

What makes it "wrong," other than the fact that it's tax and nobody likes having to pay taxes?

I am not Paul but Ill answer this anyway as I don't think that Paul actually has an answer other than what you already stated

Its wrong because tax law and the IRS no longer serve the purpose that they are supposed to serve (funding the government). Instead, we have a tax code that is far more interested in social engineering than it is in actually properly funding the government. We have a tax code that thrives on taxes that are wholly hidden to the taxpayer.

Wage earners do not pay 7.5% in SS taxes - they pay 15% but the tax man does not want you to actually know what you are really paying into the system - it would piss you off. Same thing with a host of other taxes. Then the wealthy are able to enjoy a host of tax 'breaks' that do nothing in actually funding the nation but certainly help big business (many of the ones enjoying those breaks) defeat small upstarts that would give them real competition.

Then the federal government is able to tax the cash a state needs to build roads and then, essentally, gift it back to them if they sing the federal governments tune. How much power do you actually think that a state has when the feds can force money out of it and hold its return based on it falling in line? None. The idea that we have a federal system of governance anymore is fallacy and it has a LOT to do with the fact that the feds are a middle man in the flow of money from the states own populace. Tax monies that should be going straight to the state without federal involvement.

Why do you get a cash payment from the IRS when you have a child? Why do you get a tax break for buying a specific window or water heater? What have these things to do with funding the government? Nothing of course. What they have to do with is CONTROL and POWER. We need to eliminate that particular power - it is getting grossly out of control.

That was nothing more than an emotional tirade about why you hate the government. It does not say anything about why income tax is "wrong."

That is not an 'emotional tirade' and I don't hate the government so both of your suppositions are simply trying to sidestep a real answer.

I should be clear though, I don't actually think that an income tax is wrong. I find that I think it is far better than a consumption tax. The perverted income tax we currently have is wrong though - it is not a tax system but a social engineering and payback system.

What I propose is to follow our Constitution's original tax plan as it was intended to operate by our founders.



Impost and duties first [taxes at our water's edge] and if more revenue is needed then internal excise taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption, preferably articles of luxury. And if the above sources are insufficient and a deficit results, then have a direct apportioned tax among the states to extinguish the annual deficit'




Our Constitution's fair share formula for the direct tax:


States’ population
_________________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE

Total U.S. Population




An example showing this legislative intent can be found in several of our Constitution’s ratification documents, such as the Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire:


Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from …….


For an example of this apportioned tax see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied.


And then see Section 7 of the direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.



STOP TROLLING THE THREAD!

JWK

To support Jeb Bush is to support our Global Governance crowd and their WTO, NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA, all used to circumvent America First trade policies, while fattening the fortunes of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation.

 

[dblack]

[What I propose is to follow our Constitution's original tax plan as it was intended to operate by our founders.

I honestly don't care about our founders' intentions. They'll always be open to interpretation and modification. What matters most about a constitution is consent of the governed, broad consensus on what the powers and purpose of government should be. If we don't have that, or can't create that, no piece of paper will cover it up.

 

[paulitician]

The Income Tax is immoral, and so is the IRS at this point. Both need to go as soon as possible.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What I call for is returning to our Constitution's original tax plan, as our founders intended it to operate, and allows for imposts, duties, excise taxes and any direct taxes so long as they are apportioned. Why do you ignore what our Constitution's states in crystal clear language?

JWK

the founders? Stop hiding behind them. The Constitution allows amendments. We can change anything we want

You are absolutely correct that we can change anything we want. And that is why I support CHANGE by supporting

The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment Did you read it?


JWK

USMB POLL Repeal the 16th Amendment Income Tax Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[johnwk]

[What I propose is to follow our Constitution's original tax plan as it was intended to operate by our founders.

I honestly don't care about our founders' intentions. They'll always be open to interpretation and modification. What matters most about a constitution is consent of the governed, broad consensus on what the powers and purpose of government should be. If we don't have that, or can't create that, no piece of paper will cover it up.

So you do not support our constitutionally limited system of government and enforcing the legislative intent of our Constitution?

From what you just posted you support democracy which turns out to be mob rule government, a system under which 51 percent of the people can vote to confiscate the property of the remaining 49 percent.



And just what did our Founding Fathers think of “democracy”? Madison, in Federalist No. 10 says in reference to “democracy” they




…have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.


And during the Convention which framed our federal Constitution, Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman, delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut, urged the Convention to create a system which would eliminate "the evils we experience," saying that those "evils . . .flow from the excess of democracy..."


And, then there was John Adams, a principle force in the American Revolutionary period who also pointed out "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel..."


And Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and favoring the new Constitution as opposed to democracy declared: " Democracy never lasts long” . . . "It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.". . . "There was never a democracy that ‘did not commit suicide.’"



And during the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."


And then there was Benjamin Franklin, who informed a crowd when exiting the Convention as to what system of government they created, he responded by saying "A republic, if you can keep it."


Democracy, or majority rule vote, as the Founding Fathers well knew, whether that majority rule is practiced by the people or by elected representatives, if not restrained by specific limitations and particular guarantees in which the unalienable rights of mankind are put beyond the reach of political majorities, have proven throughout history to eventually result in nothing less than an unbridled mob rule system susceptible to the wants and passions of a political majority imposing its will upon those who may be outvoted, and would result in the subjugation of unalienable rights, and especially rights associated with property ownership and liberty [witness the recent Kelo case]. And so, our Founding Fathers gave us a constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government, guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.



JWK







Are we really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?

 

[Flash]

Skylar, just say it, you want our money.

It is called greed and all these Moon Bats suffer from it.

 

[dblack]

[What I propose is to follow our Constitution's original tax plan as it was intended to operate by our founders.

I honestly don't care about our founders' intentions. They'll always be open to interpretation and modification. What matters most about a constitution is consent of the governed, broad consensus on what the powers and purpose of government should be. If we don't have that, or can't create that, no piece of paper will cover it up.

So you do not support our constitutionally limited system of government and enforcing the legislative intent of our Constitution?

From what you just posted you support democracy which turns out to be mob rule government, a system under which 51 percent of the people can vote to confiscate the property of the remaining 49 percent.

Not at all. I'm vehemently against it. But it won't matter what you or I think, or what the Constitution says, if a critical mass of voters can no longer appreciate why limiting government power is important.

 

[Skylar]

The Income Tax is immoral, and so is the IRS at this point. Both need to go as soon as possible.

How is the income tax 'immoral'?

 

[Skylar]

So you do not support our constitutionally limited system of government and enforcing the legislative intent of our Constitution?

The 16th amendment is the constitution.

The founders intended the constitution to be able to be amended. The constitution was amended with the apportionment clause revoked for income taxes. What about this process do you find so egregious?

Oh, and the founders 'original plan' never forbid income tax or any direct tax. You made all that up.

Are we really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?

John...you're confused. The constitution doesn't require apportionment of income taxes. Read again:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Amendment XVI
16th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

That's the constitution for you right there. As any amendment to the constitution becomes part of the constitution. There are no apportionment requirements for income taxes. You either don't know how the constitution works, or are intentionally misrepresenting the constitution.

Either renders your perspective irrelevant.

 

[Kosh]

The Income Tax is immoral, and so is the IRS at this point. Both need to go as soon as possible.

How is the income tax 'immoral'?

Ok far left drone explain how it is "moral"..

 

[Skylar]

What I call for is returning to our Constitution's original tax plan, as our founders intended it to operate, and allows for imposts, duties, excise taxes and any direct taxes so long as they are apportioned. Why do you ignore what our Constitution's states in crystal clear language?

JWK

the founders? Stop hiding behind them. The Constitution allows amendments. We can change anything we want

You are absolutely correct that we can change anything we want. And that is why I support CHANGE by supporting

The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment Did you read it?


JWK

Yup. And your commentary on it is blithering nonsense.

“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the existing chains of taxation which now oppresses America‘s free enterprise system and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!

NOTE: you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, John. The founders never forbid income taxes or any other direct tax.

Your claims that forbidding income tax was the founders 'original plan' is quite simply wrong.

 

[Kosh]

What I call for is returning to our Constitution's original tax plan, as our founders intended it to operate, and allows for imposts, duties, excise taxes and any direct taxes so long as they are apportioned. Why do you ignore what our Constitution's states in crystal clear language?

JWK

the founders? Stop hiding behind them. The Constitution allows amendments. We can change anything we want

You are absolutely correct that we can change anything we want. And that is why I support CHANGE by supporting

The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment Did you read it?


JWK

Yup. And your commentary on it is blithering nonsense.

“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the existing chains of taxation which now oppresses America‘s free enterprise system and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!

NOTE: you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, John. The founders never forbid income taxes or any other direct tax.

Your claims that forbidding income tax was the founders 'original plan' is quite simply wrong.

Once again the far left religious propaganda trumps reality and history..

 

[RKMBrown]

The 16th amendment is the constitution.

The 16th amendment is a portion of the amended constitution. The 16th amendment is no more the Constitution than your arm is a person.

 

[Skylar]

The 16th amendment is the constitution.

The 16th amendment is a portion of the amended constitution. The 16th amendment is no more the Constitution than your arm is a person.

You're not actually interpreting my statement as meaning that the 16th amendment is the entire constitution, are you?

 

[RKMBrown]

The 16th amendment is the constitution.

The 16th amendment is a portion of the amended constitution. The 16th amendment is no more the Constitution than your arm is a person.

You're not actually interpreting my statement as meaning that the 16th amendment is the entire constitution, are you?

You said "the 16th amendment is the constitution."

The word "is" does not mean "is a part of."

 

[Skylar]

The 16th amendment is the constitution.

The 16th amendment is a portion of the amended constitution. The 16th amendment is no more the Constitution than your arm is a person.

You're not actually interpreting my statement as meaning that the 16th amendment is the entire constitution, are you?

You said "the 16th amendment is the constitution."

The word "is" does not mean "is a part of."

If I have to get that explicit for you to follow me, how do you know which constitution I'm speaking of? Or which 16th amendment?

 

[RKMBrown]

The 16th amendment is the constitution.

The 16th amendment is a portion of the amended constitution. The 16th amendment is no more the Constitution than your arm is a person.

You're not actually interpreting my statement as meaning that the 16th amendment is the entire constitution, are you?

You said "the 16th amendment is the constitution."

The word "is" does not mean "is a part of."

If I have to get that explicit for you to follow me, how do you know which constitution I'm speaking of? Or which 16th amendment?

What makes you think I can't follow you?

If you don't understand what the word amendment means, why don't you just ask?

 

[Skylar]

What makes you think I can't follow you?

That you clearly couldn't follow my meaning, even when I provided you with this explicit description of exactly what I was discussing:

As any amendment to the constitution becomes part of the constitution.

I even bolded it, so it would be easier to find. But there are clearly some people that have to have it laid out for them with every single recitation throughout an entire post. To help you follow along, I've created just such a version of my post for you.

Just so you can follow.

So you do not support our constitutionally limited system of government and enforcing the legislative intent of our Constitution?

The 16th amendment of the 1787 Constitution of the United States of America is part of the 1787 Constitution of the United States of America.
The founders of the United States of America intended the 1787 Constitution of the United States of America to be able to be amended. The 1787 Constitution of the United States of America was amended by the the 16th amendment of the 1787 Constitution of the United States of America the apportionment clause revoked for income taxes. What about this process do you find so egregious?

Oh, and the founders of the United States of America 'original plan' never forbid income tax or any direct tax. You made all that up.

Are we really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?

John...you're confused. The Constitution of the United States of America doesn't require apportionment of income taxes. Read again:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Amendment XVI of the 1787 Constitution of the United States of America
16th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

That's part of the Constitution of the United States of America for you right there. As any amendment to the 1787 Constitution of the United States of America becomes part of the Constitution of the United States of America. There are no apportionment requirements for income taxes. You either don't know how the Constitution of the United States of America works, or are intentionally misrepresenting the Constitution of the United States of America.

Either renders your perspective irrelevant.

(I hope you were able to follow along easier than you did last time. I can't get much more explicit, RBK.)