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

[Skylar]

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.

Its a system of taxation that takes into account one's capacity to pay. If you're unemployed, or disabled, or had a bad year, you pay less or none. If you had a good year, you pay more.

I find nothing wrong with a system of taxation that takes into account one's capacity to pay. In fact, I think its probably one of the most moral and ethical systems of taxation we've yet invented.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Its a system of taxation that takes into account one's capacity to pay. If you're unemployed, or disabled, or had a bad year, you pay less or none. If you had a good year, you pay more.

I find nothing wrong with a system of taxation that takes into account one's capacity to pay. In fact, I think its probably one of the most moral and ethical systems of taxation we've yet invented.

Why bother quoting me if you do not address a single point in the comments that statement went with?

 

[Skylar]

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.

Its a system of taxation that takes into account one's capacity to pay. If you're unemployed, or disabled, or had a bad year, you pay less or none. If you had a good year, you pay more.

I find nothing wrong with a system of taxation that takes into account one's capacity to pay. In fact, I think its probably one of the most moral and ethical systems of taxation we've yet invented.

Why bother quoting me if you do not address a single point in the comments that statement went with?

I was addressing your characterization of income tax as social engineering and payback system. Its simply a tax system that takes into account one's capacity to pay. That the poor pay less and the rich more is a factor of this capacity. Not 'social engineering'.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Its a system of taxation that takes into account one's capacity to pay. If you're unemployed, or disabled, or had a bad year, you pay less or none. If you had a good year, you pay more.

I find nothing wrong with a system of taxation that takes into account one's capacity to pay. In fact, I think its probably one of the most moral and ethical systems of taxation we've yet invented.

Why bother quoting me if you do not address a single point in the comments that statement went with?

I was addressing your characterization of income tax as social engineering and payback system. Its simply a tax system that takes into account one's capacity to pay. That the poor pay less and the rich more is a factor of this capacity. Not 'social engineering'.

That is false.

If the system were just that - a simple tiered system - you might have a point but that is blatantly false. You get a paycheck if you have a child, buy the right windows, car or water heater, buy a house or a million other things that the government wants you to do. And that does not include the real kick in the pants either with corporate taxes. There are a million different tax breaks to 'incentive' a particular behavior.

That is inherently wrong in a 'free' society.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Its a system of taxation that takes into account one's capacity to pay. If you're unemployed, or disabled, or had a bad year, you pay less or none. If you had a good year, you pay more.

I find nothing wrong with a system of taxation that takes into account one's capacity to pay. In fact, I think its probably one of the most moral and ethical systems of taxation we've yet invented.

Why bother quoting me if you do not address a single point in the comments that statement went with?

I was addressing your characterization of income tax as social engineering and payback system. Its simply a tax system that takes into account one's capacity to pay. That the poor pay less and the rich more is a factor of this capacity. Not 'social engineering'.

That is false.

If the system were just that - a simple tiered system - you might have a point but that is blatantly false. You get a paycheck if you have a child, buy the right windows, car or water heater, buy a house or a million other things that the government wants you to do. And that does not include the real kick in the pants either with corporate taxes. There are a million different tax breaks to 'incentive' a particular behavior.

Ah. I see your angle on this. Its not that income tax itself is inherently social engineering, its the incentives and such. The government certainly tries to encourage certain behaviors with tax incentives.

That is inherently wrong in a 'free' society.

I don't see how its wrong. Its done via a democratic process involving constitutional authority that the government possesses. There's nothing particularly wrong in incentivising behavior that is thought to be beneficial to society. The idea that government is a tabula rasa on the common good and takes no position nor role is false. Its supposed to reflect the opinions and mores of the people it represents.

 

[Kosh]

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.

Its a system of taxation that takes into account one's capacity to pay. If you're unemployed, or disabled, or had a bad year, you pay less or none. If you had a good year, you pay more.

I find nothing wrong with a system of taxation that takes into account one's capacity to pay. In fact, I think its probably one of the most moral and ethical systems of taxation we've yet invented.

Why bother quoting me if you do not address a single point in the comments that statement went with?

I was addressing your characterization of income tax as social engineering and payback system. Its simply a tax system that takes into account one's capacity to pay. That the poor pay less and the rich more is a factor of this capacity. Not 'social engineering'.

That is false.

If the system were just that - a simple tiered system - you might have a point but that is blatantly false. You get a paycheck if you have a child, buy the right windows, car or water heater, buy a house or a million other things that the government wants you to do. And that does not include the real kick in the pants either with corporate taxes. There are a million different tax breaks to 'incentive' a particular behavior.

Ah. I see your angle on this. Its not that income tax itself is inherently social engineering, its the incentives and such. The government certainly tries to encourage certain behaviors with tax incentives.

That is inherently wrong in a 'free' society.

I don't see how its wrong. Its done via a democratic process involving constitutional authority that the government possesses. There's nothing particularly wrong in incentivising behavior that is thought to be beneficial to society. The idea that government is a tabula rasa on the common good and takes no position nor role is false. Its supposed to reflect the opinions and mores of the people it represents.

Yes we know what the far left cult thinks about the tax system and the far left continues to show why they are the most dangerous religion on the planet.

 

[johnwk]

Its a system of taxation that takes into account one's capacity to pay. If you're unemployed, or disabled, or had a bad year, you pay less or none. If you had a good year, you pay more.

I find nothing wrong with a system of taxation that takes into account one's capacity to pay. In fact, I think its probably one of the most moral and ethical systems of taxation we've yet invented.

Why bother quoting me if you do not address a single point in the comments that statement went with?

I was addressing your characterization of income tax as social engineering and payback system. Its simply a tax system that takes into account one's capacity to pay. That the poor pay less and the rich more is a factor of this capacity. Not 'social engineering'.

That is false.

If the system were just that - a simple tiered system - you might have a point but that is blatantly false. You get a paycheck if you have a child, buy the right windows, car or water heater, buy a house or a million other things that the government wants you to do. And that does not include the real kick in the pants either with corporate taxes. There are a million different tax breaks to 'incentive' a particular behavior.

Ah. I see your angle on this. Its not that income tax itself is inherently social engineering, its the incentives and such. The government certainly tries to encourage certain behaviors with tax incentives.

That is inherently wrong in a 'free' society.

I don't see how its wrong. Its done via a democratic process involving constitutional authority that the government possesses. There's nothing particularly wrong in incentivising behavior that is thought to be beneficial to society. The idea that government is a tabula rasa on the common good and takes no position nor role is false. Its supposed to reflect the opinions and mores of the people it represents.

Yes we know what the far left cult thinks about the tax system and the far left continues to show why they are the most dangerous religion on the planet.

Some people refuse to admit there is no magic wand in government force which changes the definition of thievery. Those who use and rely upon government force to gain possession of the product of their neighbor’s labor for their personal economic needs are complicit in the act of thievery.


JWK




They are not “liberals”. They are conniving parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create

 

[RKMBrown]

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.)

So you agree with me that you should not have started your post with the falsehood that "the 16th amendment is the constitution." I'm glad we agree. FYI after stating what the 16th amendment is, then you don't have to repeat yourself. However, stating that "the 16th amendment is the constitution" at a later time would also have been wrong. Once you've stated that the 16th amendment is a part of the constitution, then all you need to do is stay "the 16th" means this or that for shorthand.

The phrase "the 16th amendment is the constitution" is not correct, period. That phrase is not short hand for this part, or for the 16th, or for the 16th amendment. If you like you could say the 16th amendment in/of the constitution __.. or this amendment.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Its a system of taxation that takes into account one's capacity to pay. If you're unemployed, or disabled, or had a bad year, you pay less or none. If you had a good year, you pay more.

I find nothing wrong with a system of taxation that takes into account one's capacity to pay. In fact, I think its probably one of the most moral and ethical systems of taxation we've yet invented.

Why bother quoting me if you do not address a single point in the comments that statement went with?

I was addressing your characterization of income tax as social engineering and payback system. Its simply a tax system that takes into account one's capacity to pay. That the poor pay less and the rich more is a factor of this capacity. Not 'social engineering'.

That is false.

If the system were just that - a simple tiered system - you might have a point but that is blatantly false. You get a paycheck if you have a child, buy the right windows, car or water heater, buy a house or a million other things that the government wants you to do. And that does not include the real kick in the pants either with corporate taxes. There are a million different tax breaks to 'incentive' a particular behavior.

Ah. I see your angle on this. Its not that income tax itself is inherently social engineering, its the incentives and such. The government certainly tries to encourage certain behaviors with tax incentives.

That is inherently wrong in a 'free' society.

I don't see how its wrong. Its done via a democratic process involving constitutional authority that the government possesses. There's nothing particularly wrong in incentivising behavior that is thought to be beneficial to society. The idea that government is a tabula rasa on the common good and takes no position nor role is false. Its supposed to reflect the opinions and mores of the people it represents.

"behavior that is thought to be beneficial to society"... while punishing others who's behavior is not thought to be beneficial to society.

For example, no home loan, no interest deduction, single vs. married different tax rates, children? here's some tax breaks for that decision, no health insurance? here's a penalty for paying in cash for your health care needs, you earn more than the next guy? here's a higher tax rate, here's an AMT penalty, you have no income to speak of but are a billionaire living off accrued assets? here's some tax payer funds for your investments cause we like you.

Where's the liberty in redistributing income based on the opinions and mores of the "representatives" of people for a simple majority of the people?

What if the majority decides to tax gay married couples at double the standard tax rate, would that be "fair?" Can you explain why it would or would not be justified?

 

[Skylar]

Why bother quoting me if you do not address a single point in the comments that statement went with?

I was addressing your characterization of income tax as social engineering and payback system. Its simply a tax system that takes into account one's capacity to pay. That the poor pay less and the rich more is a factor of this capacity. Not 'social engineering'.

That is false.

If the system were just that - a simple tiered system - you might have a point but that is blatantly false. You get a paycheck if you have a child, buy the right windows, car or water heater, buy a house or a million other things that the government wants you to do. And that does not include the real kick in the pants either with corporate taxes. There are a million different tax breaks to 'incentive' a particular behavior.

Ah. I see your angle on this. Its not that income tax itself is inherently social engineering, its the incentives and such. The government certainly tries to encourage certain behaviors with tax incentives.

That is inherently wrong in a 'free' society.

I don't see how its wrong. Its done via a democratic process involving constitutional authority that the government possesses. There's nothing particularly wrong in incentivising behavior that is thought to be beneficial to society. The idea that government is a tabula rasa on the common good and takes no position nor role is false. Its supposed to reflect the opinions and mores of the people it represents.

Yes we know what the far left cult thinks about the tax system and the far left continues to show why they are the most dangerous religion on the planet.

Some people refuse to admit there is no magic wand in government force which changes the definition of thievery. Those who use and rely upon government force to gain possession of the product of their neighbor’s labor for their personal economic needs are complicit in the act of thievery.


JWK




They are not “liberals”. They are conniving parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create

So all that lip service to the founders, to their wisdom and their virtue........and now they're nothing but thieves, huh?

 

[Skylar]

Its a system of taxation that takes into account one's capacity to pay. If you're unemployed, or disabled, or had a bad year, you pay less or none. If you had a good year, you pay more.

I find nothing wrong with a system of taxation that takes into account one's capacity to pay. In fact, I think its probably one of the most moral and ethical systems of taxation we've yet invented.

Why bother quoting me if you do not address a single point in the comments that statement went with?

I was addressing your characterization of income tax as social engineering and payback system. Its simply a tax system that takes into account one's capacity to pay. That the poor pay less and the rich more is a factor of this capacity. Not 'social engineering'.

That is false.

If the system were just that - a simple tiered system - you might have a point but that is blatantly false. You get a paycheck if you have a child, buy the right windows, car or water heater, buy a house or a million other things that the government wants you to do. And that does not include the real kick in the pants either with corporate taxes. There are a million different tax breaks to 'incentive' a particular behavior.

Ah. I see your angle on this. Its not that income tax itself is inherently social engineering, its the incentives and such. The government certainly tries to encourage certain behaviors with tax incentives.

That is inherently wrong in a 'free' society.

I don't see how its wrong. Its done via a democratic process involving constitutional authority that the government possesses. There's nothing particularly wrong in incentivising behavior that is thought to be beneficial to society. The idea that government is a tabula rasa on the common good and takes no position nor role is false. Its supposed to reflect the opinions and mores of the people it represents.

"behavior that is thought to be beneficial to society"... while punishing others who's behavior is not thought to be beneficial to society. For example, no home loan, no interest deduction, single vs. married different tax rates, children? here's some tax breaks for that decision, no health insurance? here's a penalty for paying in cash for your health care needs, you earn more than the next guy? here's a higher tax rate, here's an AMT penalty, you have no income to speak of but are a billionaire living off accrued assets? here's some tax payer funds for your investments cause we like you.

That line of reasoning only works if you view the lack of incentive as punishment. If that's the way you view the world, then almost everything you do is punished.

Where's the liberty in redistributing income based on the opinions and mores of the "representatives" of people for a simple majority of the people?

Income isn't' redistributed'. When you pay your taxes, what you pay not longer belongs to you alone.

What if the majority decides to tax gay married couples at double the standard tax rate, would that be "fair?" Can you explain why it would or would not be justified?

Then the majority would need a valid reason and a compelling government interest. As you've jumped from a lack of incentive to an active penalty based solely on one's sexual orientation.

 

[RKMBrown]

I was addressing your characterization of income tax as social engineering and payback system. Its simply a tax system that takes into account one's capacity to pay. That the poor pay less and the rich more is a factor of this capacity. Not 'social engineering'.

That is false.

If the system were just that - a simple tiered system - you might have a point but that is blatantly false. You get a paycheck if you have a child, buy the right windows, car or water heater, buy a house or a million other things that the government wants you to do. And that does not include the real kick in the pants either with corporate taxes. There are a million different tax breaks to 'incentive' a particular behavior.

Ah. I see your angle on this. Its not that income tax itself is inherently social engineering, its the incentives and such. The government certainly tries to encourage certain behaviors with tax incentives.

That is inherently wrong in a 'free' society.

I don't see how its wrong. Its done via a democratic process involving constitutional authority that the government possesses. There's nothing particularly wrong in incentivising behavior that is thought to be beneficial to society. The idea that government is a tabula rasa on the common good and takes no position nor role is false. Its supposed to reflect the opinions and mores of the people it represents.

Yes we know what the far left cult thinks about the tax system and the far left continues to show why they are the most dangerous religion on the planet.

Some people refuse to admit there is no magic wand in government force which changes the definition of thievery. Those who use and rely upon government force to gain possession of the product of their neighbor’s labor for their personal economic needs are complicit in the act of thievery.


JWK




They are not “liberals”. They are conniving parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create

So all that lip service to the founders, to their wisdom and their virtue........and now they're nothing but thieves, huh?

The founders were warning us. Apparently that warning went over your head.

 

[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.)

So you agree with me that you should not have started your post with the falsehood that "the 16th amendment is the constitution." I'm glad we agree. FYI after stating what the 16th amendment is, then you don't have to repeat yourself. However, stating that "the 16th amendment is the constitution" at a later time would also have been wrong. Once you've stated that the 16th amendment is a part of the constitution, then all you need to do is stay "the 16th" means this or that for shorthand.

The phrase "the 16th amendment is the constitution" is not correct, period. That phrase is not short hand for this part, or for the 16th, or for the 16th amendment. If you like you could say the 16th amendment in/of the constitution __.. or this amendment.

If you read this:

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

And pulled from my post that I thought that the 16th amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America was the entire Constitution of the United States of America, then its clear that I have to be extraordinarily explicit with you lest you become hopelessly confused.

Going forward, when ever I address you I'll be sure to be equally explicit so you can follow.

 

[Skylar]

That is false.

If the system were just that - a simple tiered system - you might have a point but that is blatantly false. You get a paycheck if you have a child, buy the right windows, car or water heater, buy a house or a million other things that the government wants you to do. And that does not include the real kick in the pants either with corporate taxes. There are a million different tax breaks to 'incentive' a particular behavior.

Ah. I see your angle on this. Its not that income tax itself is inherently social engineering, its the incentives and such. The government certainly tries to encourage certain behaviors with tax incentives.

That is inherently wrong in a 'free' society.

I don't see how its wrong. Its done via a democratic process involving constitutional authority that the government possesses. There's nothing particularly wrong in incentivising behavior that is thought to be beneficial to society. The idea that government is a tabula rasa on the common good and takes no position nor role is false. Its supposed to reflect the opinions and mores of the people it represents.

Yes we know what the far left cult thinks about the tax system and the far left continues to show why they are the most dangerous religion on the planet.

Some people refuse to admit there is no magic wand in government force which changes the definition of thievery. Those who use and rely upon government force to gain possession of the product of their neighbor’s labor for their personal economic needs are complicit in the act of thievery.


JWK




They are not “liberals”. They are conniving parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create

So all that lip service to the founders, to their wisdom and their virtue........and now they're nothing but thieves, huh?

The founders were warning us. Apparently that warning went over your head.

The founders of the United States of America were warning us that taxation was theft.......by levying taxes on the citizens of the United States of America?

How does that work exactly?

 

[RKMBrown]

Why bother quoting me if you do not address a single point in the comments that statement went with?

I was addressing your characterization of income tax as social engineering and payback system. Its simply a tax system that takes into account one's capacity to pay. That the poor pay less and the rich more is a factor of this capacity. Not 'social engineering'.

That is false.

If the system were just that - a simple tiered system - you might have a point but that is blatantly false. You get a paycheck if you have a child, buy the right windows, car or water heater, buy a house or a million other things that the government wants you to do. And that does not include the real kick in the pants either with corporate taxes. There are a million different tax breaks to 'incentive' a particular behavior.

Ah. I see your angle on this. Its not that income tax itself is inherently social engineering, its the incentives and such. The government certainly tries to encourage certain behaviors with tax incentives.

That is inherently wrong in a 'free' society.

I don't see how its wrong. Its done via a democratic process involving constitutional authority that the government possesses. There's nothing particularly wrong in incentivising behavior that is thought to be beneficial to society. The idea that government is a tabula rasa on the common good and takes no position nor role is false. Its supposed to reflect the opinions and mores of the people it represents.

"behavior that is thought to be beneficial to society"... while punishing others who's behavior is not thought to be beneficial to society. For example, no home loan, no interest deduction, single vs. married different tax rates, children? here's some tax breaks for that decision, no health insurance? here's a penalty for paying in cash for your health care needs, you earn more than the next guy? here's a higher tax rate, here's an AMT penalty, you have no income to speak of but are a billionaire living off accrued assets? here's some tax payer funds for your investments cause we like you.

That line of reasoning only works if you view the lack of incentive as punishment. If that's the way you view the world, then almost everything you do is punished.

Where's the liberty in redistributing income based on the opinions and mores of the "representatives" of people for a simple majority of the people?

Income isn't' redistributed'. When you pay your taxes, what you pay not longer belongs to you alone.

What if the majority decides to tax gay married couples at double the standard tax rate, would that be "fair?" Can you explain why it would or would not be justified?

Then the majority would need a valid reason and a compelling government interest. As you've jumped from a lack of incentive to an active penalty based solely on one's sexual orientation.

Yes, this federal government punishes us for nearly everything we do. From cradle to grave, from the food we eat to flushing the toilet everything is regulated and nearly every act of liberty is punished. Authoritarians have taken power of both political parties and have a stranglehold on liberty.

You say, "ncome isn't' redistributed'." When you pay your taxes for service rendered that is not re-distribution. However, the portion that is "distributed" to other citizens, that is income redistribution. Do I need to draw a picture? Just because the government took something from me, does not forgive how they spend what they took from me. This government works for me, I'm their employer. I'm gonna fire them for insubordination.

So you think it's fair and balanced that half of income earners pay no personal income tax, and 10% pay over 1/4th of their earnings in personal income tax? I can see how someone with NO INCOME TAX would not see income tax as punitive.

You say the majority needs "a valid reason and a compelling government interest" to punish people with higher taxes. Ok what's the a valid reason and a compelling government interest in punishing singles and people who don't have a home loan and people that don't have children?

 

[RKMBrown]

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.)

So you agree with me that you should not have started your post with the falsehood that "the 16th amendment is the constitution." I'm glad we agree. FYI after stating what the 16th amendment is, then you don't have to repeat yourself. However, stating that "the 16th amendment is the constitution" at a later time would also have been wrong. Once you've stated that the 16th amendment is a part of the constitution, then all you need to do is stay "the 16th" means this or that for shorthand.

The phrase "the 16th amendment is the constitution" is not correct, period. That phrase is not short hand for this part, or for the 16th, or for the 16th amendment. If you like you could say the 16th amendment in/of the constitution __.. or this amendment.

If you read this:

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

And pulled from my post that I thought that the 16th amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America was the entire Constitution of the United States of America, then its clear that I have to be extraordinarily explicit with you lest you become hopelessly confused.

Going forward, when ever I address you I'll be sure to be equally explicit so you can follow.

When the first sentence of your post is incorrect, why would you be surprised if someone responds telling you that the first sentence of your post is incorrect? Did you really expect me to trudge through your TLDR to get to the part where you contradicted your first incorrect statement?

 

[Skylar]

I was addressing your characterization of income tax as social engineering and payback system. Its simply a tax system that takes into account one's capacity to pay. That the poor pay less and the rich more is a factor of this capacity. Not 'social engineering'.

That is false.

If the system were just that - a simple tiered system - you might have a point but that is blatantly false. You get a paycheck if you have a child, buy the right windows, car or water heater, buy a house or a million other things that the government wants you to do. And that does not include the real kick in the pants either with corporate taxes. There are a million different tax breaks to 'incentive' a particular behavior.

Ah. I see your angle on this. Its not that income tax itself is inherently social engineering, its the incentives and such. The government certainly tries to encourage certain behaviors with tax incentives.

That is inherently wrong in a 'free' society.

I don't see how its wrong. Its done via a democratic process involving constitutional authority that the government possesses. There's nothing particularly wrong in incentivising behavior that is thought to be beneficial to society. The idea that government is a tabula rasa on the common good and takes no position nor role is false. Its supposed to reflect the opinions and mores of the people it represents.

"behavior that is thought to be beneficial to society"... while punishing others who's behavior is not thought to be beneficial to society. For example, no home loan, no interest deduction, single vs. married different tax rates, children? here's some tax breaks for that decision, no health insurance? here's a penalty for paying in cash for your health care needs, you earn more than the next guy? here's a higher tax rate, here's an AMT penalty, you have no income to speak of but are a billionaire living off accrued assets? here's some tax payer funds for your investments cause we like you.

That line of reasoning only works if you view the lack of incentive as punishment. If that's the way you view the world, then almost everything you do is punished.

Where's the liberty in redistributing income based on the opinions and mores of the "representatives" of people for a simple majority of the people?

Income isn't' redistributed'. When you pay your taxes, what you pay not longer belongs to you alone.

What if the majority decides to tax gay married couples at double the standard tax rate, would that be "fair?" Can you explain why it would or would not be justified?

Then the majority would need a valid reason and a compelling government interest. As you've jumped from a lack of incentive to an active penalty based solely on one's sexual orientation.

Yes, this federal government punishes us for nearly everything we do.

If the lack of incentive is punishment, then you're missing your greatest opportunity to be a life long victim: life itself. As there's little additional incentive to do most things. Which means that you're just being punished constantly. At least in your re-imagining of the term.

Must be a horrible way to live.

You say, "ncome isn't' redistributed'." When you pay your taxes for service rendered that is not re-distribution.

I believe I said that 'income' isn't redistributed. I'm not quite sure what 'ncome' is. I mean, I can obviously infer meaning from context and the rest of your post. But given that you can't and don't, I'm afraid I'll have to be extra explicit with you.

Assuming 'ncome' means 'income, the you pay your taxes....and you don't get a national defense? You don't get highways? You don't get schools, police, social safety nets?

So you think it's fair and balanced that half of income earners pay no personal income tax, and 10% pay over 1/4th of their earnings in personal income tax? I can see how someone with NO INCOME TAX would not see income tax as punitive.

I think its completely ethical and explicitly moral to have a system of taxation that takes into account your ability to pay. A system that doesn't kick you while your down. One that decreases your tax burden as your capacity to pay taxes decreases. And increases as your tax burden as your capacity to pay taxes increases.

The idea that Bill Gates and a guy working 2 jobs to meet the basic needs of his family should pay the same in taxes is ridiculous.

 

[RKMBrown]

Ah. I see your angle on this. Its not that income tax itself is inherently social engineering, its the incentives and such. The government certainly tries to encourage certain behaviors with tax incentives.

I don't see how its wrong. Its done via a democratic process involving constitutional authority that the government possesses. There's nothing particularly wrong in incentivising behavior that is thought to be beneficial to society. The idea that government is a tabula rasa on the common good and takes no position nor role is false. Its supposed to reflect the opinions and mores of the people it represents.

Yes we know what the far left cult thinks about the tax system and the far left continues to show why they are the most dangerous religion on the planet.

Some people refuse to admit there is no magic wand in government force which changes the definition of thievery. Those who use and rely upon government force to gain possession of the product of their neighbor’s labor for their personal economic needs are complicit in the act of thievery.


JWK




They are not “liberals”. They are conniving parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create

So all that lip service to the founders, to their wisdom and their virtue........and now they're nothing but thieves, huh?

The founders were warning us. Apparently that warning went over your head.

The founders of the United States of America were warning us that taxation was theft.......by levying taxes on the citizens of the United States of America?

How does that work exactly?

You're missing the parts about how the money is taxed and spent.

For example, when there is a known property tax on property when you buy the property you have agreed to pay the property tax. This choice has been freely made. When that property tax is spent on services rendered to you such as police, fire, rescue, parks in your region etc. those are funds are being rightfully spent on services rendered. Especially when the services rendered were already established when you bought the property.

For example, taxes spent on defending the country. It is widely known that the main purpose of the federal government is the defense of this country, and defending the border, but let's not deflect. Thus taxes taken and spent in defense of this country is not theft by any stretch of the imagination. Even if you disagree with our military strategy, it's still not theft.

Thus taxing income for defense.. yeah that has value, and that's why we allowed it in the first place to pay for war debt. It is important to note that the income tax was supposed to go away when the war debt was paid as it had with prior war debts being repaid. But that's also another discussion.

The part that's clearly "theft" is the taking of money from one citizen, to hand over to another citizen, not for services rendered but based on majority opinion that the other citizen needs your income more than you do. Charity should be optional, not forced.

 

[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.)

So you agree with me that you should not have started your post with the falsehood that "the 16th amendment is the constitution." I'm glad we agree. FYI after stating what the 16th amendment is, then you don't have to repeat yourself. However, stating that "the 16th amendment is the constitution" at a later time would also have been wrong. Once you've stated that the 16th amendment is a part of the constitution, then all you need to do is stay "the 16th" means this or that for shorthand.

The phrase "the 16th amendment is the constitution" is not correct, period. That phrase is not short hand for this part, or for the 16th, or for the 16th amendment. If you like you could say the 16th amendment in/of the constitution __.. or this amendment.

If you read this:

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

And pulled from my post that I thought that the 16th amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America was the entire Constitution of the United States of America, then its clear that I have to be extraordinarily explicit with you lest you become hopelessly confused.

Going forward, when ever I address you I'll be sure to be equally explicit so you can follow.

When the first sentence of your post is incorrect, why would you be surprised if someone responds telling you that the first sentence of your post is incorrect? Did you really expect me to trudge through your TLDR to get to the part where you contradicted your first incorrect statement?

Like I said, RBK.....I'll be extra explicit with you from now on. As you clearly can't infer obvious meaning from context and the rest of the post. I mean, you read this:

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

And pulled from my post that I thought that the 16th amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America was the entire Constitution of the United States of America.

Wow. Just....wow.

I won't use context with you. I fully recognize you can't pull obvious meaning from it. I'll be explicit each and every time, as otherwise you simply can't follow.

 

[Skylar]

For example, when there is a known property tax on property when you buy the property you have agreed to pay the property tax. This choice has been freely made. When that property tax is spent on services rendered to you such as police, fire, rescue, parks in your region etc. those are funds are being rightfully spent on services rendered. Especially when the services rendered were already established when you bought the property.

There's a known tax on income. You know that, right?

For example, taxes spent on defending the country. It is widely known that the main purpose of the federal government is the defense of this country, and defending the border, but let's not deflect. Thus taxes taken and spent in defense of this country is not theft by any stretch of the imagination. Even if you disagree with our military strategy, it's still not theft.

Thus taxing income for defense.. yeah that has value, and that's why we allowed it in the first place to pay for war debt. It is important to note that the income tax was supposed to go away when the war debt was paid as it had with prior war debts being repaid. But that's also another discussion.

And then the representatives of the people(of the United States of America) decided to extend it. And did so through constitutional, democratic processes (that's the Constitution of the United States, mind you). Where does the 'thievery' start?

The part that's clearly "theft" is the taking of money from one citizen, to hand over to another citizen, not for services rendered but based on majority opinion that the other citizen needs your income more than you do. Charity should be optional, not forced.

But the money isn't handed from one citizen (of the United States of America) to another citizen (of the United States of America). Its handed from one citizen (of the United States of America)to the Federal Government (of the United States of America) in the form of taxation.

The money no longer belongs to that any one person. But all the citizens (of the United States of America).

From there the people's money is spent one what we deem right and proper, within the bounds of the constitution (of the United States of America).