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

[RKMBrown]

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. Living under the oppressive control of authoritarians such as yourself pisses the hell out of me. I'd prefer to live free from your oppression. I guess you think liberty is a joke.

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. The lower case i was deleted by the software when I used brackets.

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. A spelling error cause by the software is not incorrect meaning or context. Do you mean to say you meant in/of instead of is?

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? Answered.

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. In other words, you're a Marxist.

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. So you don't understand simple math either?

in blue

 

[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?

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.

What part of I didn't read the rest of your post because the first sentence was blatantly wrong, confused you? What part of me only quoting THAT SENTENCE confused you?

 

[RKMBrown]

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).

Using a middle man to steal money is not right and proper. Theft is theft. If you didn't earn the money, and the money was not freely given, it's theft, plain and simple. You can gloss over it with lofty goals and the high and mighty power of the majority, but it's still theft, plain and simple. Money goes from my pocket to the treasury then to your pocket by the POWER AND FORCE of the majority opinion that YOU NEED MY MONEY more than MY CHILDREN need my money.

 

[Skylar]

Living under the oppressive control of authoritarians such as yourself pisses the hell out of me. I'd prefer to live free from your oppression. I guess you think liberty is a joke.

You poor, hapless little victim. You have (gasp) pay taxes. Something the founders (of the United States of America) never, ever intended you to do.

The Boston tea party was about taxation, right? Where the founders (of the United States of America) demanded that they never be subject to any form of taxation, ever?

Or did they demand no taxation without representation. Which they fought for and won. Which you have.

But far be it from me to short circuit your melodrama with a little shot of history and reality. So are you going to need your fainting couch at the idea of having to pay taxes?

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. A spelling error cause by the software is not incorrect meaning or context. Do you mean to say you meant in/of instead of is?

'ncome' isn't a word. Oh, one can use common sense and context to infer its obvious meaning. But that's not something you're capable of. You're the soul who 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.)

So clearly common sense and context are tools you simply don't have at your disposal. Consequently, I have to check in when you toss up meaningless gibberish like 'ncome'. And will from now. In every post where I converse with you. On any topic.

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? Answered.

So you pay taxes and you do get services. Well that was easy.

I'm still waiting for the 'thieving' part to kick in.

In other words, you're a Marxist.

No. I don't believe in collective ownership of all means of production, or collective ownership of all means of communication or the centralization of all credit to the State, or the abolishment of all inheritance or the centralization of all means of transportation with the State, or the establishment of industrial armies, or the gradual abolishment of the distinction between town and country or the abolishment of private land ownership.

You know....actual marxism. I am, however, a big fan of the abolishment of children's factory labor and universal and free education for children.

Though I do recognize that the working poor don't have the same capacity to pay taxes as the fabulously wealthy. Or even the moderately wealthy. And I consider a system of taxation that takes one's capacity to pay into account to both moral and ethical. And of course, mathematically sound.

 

[Skylar]

What part of I didn't read the rest of your post because the first sentence was blatantly wrong, confused you? What part of me only quoting THAT SENTENCE confused you?

Should I have stopped at your meaningless gibberish of 'ncome'? That's clearly not a word in the English language.

Or would it make more sense to read the post I'm responding to and use common sense and context to infer its obvious meaning?

Its okay, RBK.....you've set the standard by which I'll be treating you from now on.

 

[RKMBrown]

Living under the oppressive control of authoritarians such as yourself pisses the hell out of me. I'd prefer to live free from your oppression. I guess you think liberty is a joke.

You poor, hapless little victim. You have (gasp) pay taxes. Something the founders (of the United States of America) never, ever intended you to do.

The Boston tea party was about taxation, right? Where the founders (of the United States of America) demanded that they never be subject to any form of taxation, ever?

Or did they demand no taxation without representation. Which they fought for and won. Which you have.

But far be it from me to short circuit your melodrama with a little shot of history and reality. So are you going to need your fainting couch at the idea of having to pay taxes?

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. A spelling error cause by the software is not incorrect meaning or context. Do you mean to say you meant in/of instead of is?

'ncome' isn't a word. Oh, one can use common sense and context to infer its obvious meaning. But that's not something you're capable of. You're the soul who 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.)

So clearly common sense and context are tools you simply don't have at your disposal. Consequently, I have to check in when you toss up meaningless gibberish like 'ncome'. And will from now. In every post where I converse with you. On any topic.

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? Answered.

So you pay taxes and you do get services. Well that was easy.

I'm still waiting for the 'thieving' part to kick in.

In other words, you're a Marxist.

No. I don't believe in collective ownership of all means of production, or collective ownership of all means of communication or the centralization of all credit to the State, or the abolishment of all inheritance or the centralization of all means of transportation with the State, or the establishment of industrial armies, or the gradual abolishment of the distinction between town and country or the abolishment of private land ownership.

You know....actual marxism. I am, however, a big fan of the abolishment of children's factory labor and universal and free education for children.

Though I do recognize that the working poor don't have the same capacity to pay taxes as the fabulously wealthy. Or even the moderately wealthy. And I consider a system of taxation that takes one's capacity to pay into account to both moral and ethical. And of course, mathematically sound.

Fuck you, ya oppressive bitch. You want my income for your pocket? Come take it instead of hiding your skirt behind federal guns.

 

[Skylar]

Using a middle man to steal money is not right and proper.

That's not a middle man. That's a change of ownership. The money you pay in taxes (to the Federal Government of the United States of America) isn't your money anymore. Its our money. You can imagine its still yours alone. But your imagination has no moral, ethical or legally valid basis.

And you have to pay for programs you may or may not like. Welcome to a democratic republic. You alone don't make decisions on what our money is spent on.

If you don't like it, change it. Unlike the founders (of the United States of America) under British rule, you have taxation *with* representation. Have your representatives change the tax system to your liking. If you lack the votes, then welcome back to a democratic republic. Where we get a say. Not just you.

I'm reasonably certain that the system of government where you alone get to decide everything for us would be called a monarchy.

Theft is theft.

Which taxation isn't.

If you didn't earn the money, and the money was not freely given, it's theft, plain and simple.

So the founders were thieves, were they?

As they had mandatory taxation. Ask the folks in the Whiskey Rebellion how 'voluntary' taxation was. And who lead the army that put them down.

Here's a hint: it wasn't Marx.

 

[RKMBrown]

What part of I didn't read the rest of your post because the first sentence was blatantly wrong, confused you? What part of me only quoting THAT SENTENCE confused you?

Should I have stopped at your meaningless gibberish of 'ncome'? That's clearly not a word in the English language.

Or would it make more sense to read the post I'm responding to and use common sense and context to infer its obvious meaning?

Its okay, RBK.....you've set the standard by which I'll be treating you from now on.

When changing a letter from a quote to correct case, you place a left bracket the lower case letter then a right bracket. However when you do that with this software and the letter is i, the software deletes the text. I said "income" not "income" only I surrounded the letter 'i' with brackets and the software deleted it. You did not have a spelling error, you clearly were trying to imply that the 16th amendment is the constitution, as in is a permanent part of it, na na na na you can't touch my source of income as coming from your pocket while sticking your tongue out kind of argument.

 

[Skylar]

Living under the oppressive control of authoritarians such as yourself pisses the hell out of me. I'd prefer to live free from your oppression. I guess you think liberty is a joke.

You poor, hapless little victim. You have (gasp) pay taxes. Something the founders (of the United States of America) never, ever intended you to do.

The Boston tea party was about taxation, right? Where the founders (of the United States of America) demanded that they never be subject to any form of taxation, ever?

Or did they demand no taxation without representation. Which they fought for and won. Which you have.

But far be it from me to short circuit your melodrama with a little shot of history and reality. So are you going to need your fainting couch at the idea of having to pay taxes?

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. A spelling error cause by the software is not incorrect meaning or context. Do you mean to say you meant in/of instead of is?

'ncome' isn't a word. Oh, one can use common sense and context to infer its obvious meaning. But that's not something you're capable of. You're the soul who 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.)

So clearly common sense and context are tools you simply don't have at your disposal. Consequently, I have to check in when you toss up meaningless gibberish like 'ncome'. And will from now. In every post where I converse with you. On any topic.

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? Answered.

So you pay taxes and you do get services. Well that was easy.

I'm still waiting for the 'thieving' part to kick in.

In other words, you're a Marxist.

No. I don't believe in collective ownership of all means of production, or collective ownership of all means of communication or the centralization of all credit to the State, or the abolishment of all inheritance or the centralization of all means of transportation with the State, or the establishment of industrial armies, or the gradual abolishment of the distinction between town and country or the abolishment of private land ownership.

You know....actual marxism. I am, however, a big fan of the abolishment of children's factory labor and universal and free education for children.

Though I do recognize that the working poor don't have the same capacity to pay taxes as the fabulously wealthy. Or even the moderately wealthy. And I consider a system of taxation that takes one's capacity to pay into account to both moral and ethical. And of course, mathematically sound.

Fuck you, ya oppressive bitch. You want my income for your pocket? Come take it instead of hiding your skirt behind federal guns.

You have as much representation as I do, RBK. If you don't like our tax system, change it. If you lack the votes......then welcome to a democratic republic. Where we get a say in how our money is spent.

Not just you.

 

[RKMBrown]

Using a middle man to steal money is not right and proper.

That's not a middle man. That's a change of ownership. The money you pay in taxes (to the Federal Government of the United States of America) isn't your money anymore. Its our money. You can imagine its still yours alone. But your imagination has no moral, ethical or legally valid basis.

And you have to pay for programs you may or may not like. Welcome to a democratic republic. You alone don't make decisions on what our money is spent on.

If you don't like it, change it. Unlike the founders (of the United States of America) under British rule, you have taxation *with* representation. Have your representatives change the tax system to your liking. If you lack the votes, then welcome back to a democratic republic. Where we get a say. Not just you.

I'm reasonably certain that the system of government where you alone get to decide everything for us would be called a monarchy.

Theft is theft.

Which taxation isn't.

If you didn't earn the money, and the money was not freely given, it's theft, plain and simple.

So the founders were thieves, were they?

As they had mandatory taxation. Ask the folks in the Whiskey Rebellion how 'voluntary' taxation was. And who lead the army that put them down.

Here's a hint: it wasn't Marx.

No the government works for me and the rest of this country, there is no change of ownership of our income when it moves to the treasury. The change of ownership is the transfer to your bank account.

 

[Skylar]

What part of I didn't read the rest of your post because the first sentence was blatantly wrong, confused you? What part of me only quoting THAT SENTENCE confused you?

Should I have stopped at your meaningless gibberish of 'ncome'? That's clearly not a word in the English language.

Or would it make more sense to read the post I'm responding to and use common sense and context to infer its obvious meaning?

Its okay, RBK.....you've set the standard by which I'll be treating you from now on.

When changing a letter from a quote to correct case, you place a left bracket the lower case letter then a right bracket. However when you do that with this software and the letter is i, the software deletes the text. I said "income" not "income" only I surrounded the letter 'i' with brackets and the software deleted it. You did not have a spelling error, you clearly were trying to imply that the 16th amendment is the constitution, as in is a permanent part of it, na na na na you can't touch my source of income as coming from your pocket while sticking your tongue out kind of argument.

I just looked up 'ncome' in the dictionary online. It wasn't there. Oh, the online dictionary had all sorts of common sense suggestions for what it was supposed to mean. The most obvious being 'income'. But since you insist we don't actually read the post we're responding to, don't apply any common sense or context to infer its obvious meaning...

.....I guess I'm stuck with 'ncome'. Which is meaningless gibberish.

 

[RKMBrown]

Living under the oppressive control of authoritarians such as yourself pisses the hell out of me. I'd prefer to live free from your oppression. I guess you think liberty is a joke.

You poor, hapless little victim. You have (gasp) pay taxes. Something the founders (of the United States of America) never, ever intended you to do.

The Boston tea party was about taxation, right? Where the founders (of the United States of America) demanded that they never be subject to any form of taxation, ever?

Or did they demand no taxation without representation. Which they fought for and won. Which you have.

But far be it from me to short circuit your melodrama with a little shot of history and reality. So are you going to need your fainting couch at the idea of having to pay taxes?

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. A spelling error cause by the software is not incorrect meaning or context. Do you mean to say you meant in/of instead of is?

'ncome' isn't a word. Oh, one can use common sense and context to infer its obvious meaning. But that's not something you're capable of. You're the soul who 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.)

So clearly common sense and context are tools you simply don't have at your disposal. Consequently, I have to check in when you toss up meaningless gibberish like 'ncome'. And will from now. In every post where I converse with you. On any topic.

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? Answered.

So you pay taxes and you do get services. Well that was easy.

I'm still waiting for the 'thieving' part to kick in.

In other words, you're a Marxist.

No. I don't believe in collective ownership of all means of production, or collective ownership of all means of communication or the centralization of all credit to the State, or the abolishment of all inheritance or the centralization of all means of transportation with the State, or the establishment of industrial armies, or the gradual abolishment of the distinction between town and country or the abolishment of private land ownership.

You know....actual marxism. I am, however, a big fan of the abolishment of children's factory labor and universal and free education for children.

Though I do recognize that the working poor don't have the same capacity to pay taxes as the fabulously wealthy. Or even the moderately wealthy. And I consider a system of taxation that takes one's capacity to pay into account to both moral and ethical. And of course, mathematically sound.

Fuck you, ya oppressive bitch. You want my income for your pocket? Come take it instead of hiding your skirt behind federal guns.

You have as much representation as I do, RBK. If you don't like our tax system, change it. If you lack the votes......then welcome to a democratic republic. Where we get a say in how our money is spent.

Not just you.

What makes you think my income is "our" money? What kind of person thinks that way? Other than slave owners that is.

 

[RKMBrown]

What part of I didn't read the rest of your post because the first sentence was blatantly wrong, confused you? What part of me only quoting THAT SENTENCE confused you?

Should I have stopped at your meaningless gibberish of 'ncome'? That's clearly not a word in the English language.

Or would it make more sense to read the post I'm responding to and use common sense and context to infer its obvious meaning?

Its okay, RBK.....you've set the standard by which I'll be treating you from now on.

When changing a letter from a quote to correct case, you place a left bracket the lower case letter then a right bracket. However when you do that with this software and the letter is i, the software deletes the text. I said "income" not "income" only I surrounded the letter 'i' with brackets and the software deleted it. You did not have a spelling error, you clearly were trying to imply that the 16th amendment is the constitution, as in is a permanent part of it, na na na na you can't touch my source of income as coming from your pocket while sticking your tongue out kind of argument.

I just looked up 'ncome' in the dictionary online. It wasn't there. Oh, the online dictionary had all sorts of common sense suggestions for what it was supposed to mean. The most obvious being 'income'. But since you insist we don't actually read the post we're responding to, don't apply any common sense or context to infer its obvious meaning...

.....I guess I'm stuck with 'ncome'. Which is meaningless gibberish.

You still confused about how the software deleted the letter 'i' from my post?

 

[Skylar]

No the government works for me and the rest of this country, there is no change of ownership of our income when it moves to the treasury. The change of ownership is the transfer to your bank account.

So when you send that money to treasury.....you can still spend it? You can still head down to your local Walmart and buy your insta-grits and your grape Koolaid with the money you sent to the treasury?

You might want to check with your Walmart on that one. Because I think you may be in for a bit of a surprise.

 

[Conservative65]

No the government works for me and the rest of this country, there is no change of ownership of our income when it moves to the treasury. The change of ownership is the transfer to your bank account.

So when you send that money to treasury.....you can still spend it? You can still head down to your local Walmart and buy your insta-grits and your grape Koolaid with the money you sent to the treasury?

You might want to check with your Walmart on that one. Because I think you may be in for a bit of a surprise.

When you get your EBT reloaded each month, you do at the expense to people like me.

 

[Skylar]

Living under the oppressive control of authoritarians such as yourself pisses the hell out of me. I'd prefer to live free from your oppression. I guess you think liberty is a joke.

You poor, hapless little victim. You have (gasp) pay taxes. Something the founders (of the United States of America) never, ever intended you to do.

The Boston tea party was about taxation, right? Where the founders (of the United States of America) demanded that they never be subject to any form of taxation, ever?

Or did they demand no taxation without representation. Which they fought for and won. Which you have.

But far be it from me to short circuit your melodrama with a little shot of history and reality. So are you going to need your fainting couch at the idea of having to pay taxes?

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. A spelling error cause by the software is not incorrect meaning or context. Do you mean to say you meant in/of instead of is?

'ncome' isn't a word. Oh, one can use common sense and context to infer its obvious meaning. But that's not something you're capable of. You're the soul who 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.)

So clearly common sense and context are tools you simply don't have at your disposal. Consequently, I have to check in when you toss up meaningless gibberish like 'ncome'. And will from now. In every post where I converse with you. On any topic.

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? Answered.

So you pay taxes and you do get services. Well that was easy.

I'm still waiting for the 'thieving' part to kick in.

In other words, you're a Marxist.

No. I don't believe in collective ownership of all means of production, or collective ownership of all means of communication or the centralization of all credit to the State, or the abolishment of all inheritance or the centralization of all means of transportation with the State, or the establishment of industrial armies, or the gradual abolishment of the distinction between town and country or the abolishment of private land ownership.

You know....actual marxism. I am, however, a big fan of the abolishment of children's factory labor and universal and free education for children.

Though I do recognize that the working poor don't have the same capacity to pay taxes as the fabulously wealthy. Or even the moderately wealthy. And I consider a system of taxation that takes one's capacity to pay into account to both moral and ethical. And of course, mathematically sound.

Fuck you, ya oppressive bitch. You want my income for your pocket? Come take it instead of hiding your skirt behind federal guns.

You have as much representation as I do, RBK. If you don't like our tax system, change it. If you lack the votes......then welcome to a democratic republic. Where we get a say in how our money is spent.

Not just you.

What makes you think my income is "our" money? What kind of person thinks that way? Other than slave owners that is.

The transfer of ownership through taxation (by the government of the United States of America). The moment that tax is paid, your money becomes our money. As the money now belongs to the Federal government (of the United States of America). Which belongs to the people.

Not just you.

 

[Skylar]

No the government works for me and the rest of this country, there is no change of ownership of our income when it moves to the treasury. The change of ownership is the transfer to your bank account.

So when you send that money to treasury.....you can still spend it? You can still head down to your local Walmart and buy your insta-grits and your grape Koolaid with the money you sent to the treasury?

You might want to check with your Walmart on that one. Because I think you may be in for a bit of a surprise.

When you get your EBT reloaded each month, you do at the expense to people like me.

Tell us more about the reloading your 'EBT'. As clearly you know more about it than I do.

 

[Conservative65]

No the government works for me and the rest of this country, there is no change of ownership of our income when it moves to the treasury. The change of ownership is the transfer to your bank account.

So when you send that money to treasury.....you can still spend it? You can still head down to your local Walmart and buy your insta-grits and your grape Koolaid with the money you sent to the treasury?

You might want to check with your Walmart on that one. Because I think you may be in for a bit of a surprise.

When you get your EBT reloaded each month, you do at the expense to people like me.

Tell us more about the reloading your 'EBT'. As clearly you know more about it than I do.

I like to know where MY money goes when you spend it.

 

[Skylar]

What part of I didn't read the rest of your post because the first sentence was blatantly wrong, confused you? What part of me only quoting THAT SENTENCE confused you?

Should I have stopped at your meaningless gibberish of 'ncome'? That's clearly not a word in the English language.

Or would it make more sense to read the post I'm responding to and use common sense and context to infer its obvious meaning?

Its okay, RBK.....you've set the standard by which I'll be treating you from now on.

When changing a letter from a quote to correct case, you place a left bracket the lower case letter then a right bracket. However when you do that with this software and the letter is i, the software deletes the text. I said "income" not "income" only I surrounded the letter 'i' with brackets and the software deleted it. You did not have a spelling error, you clearly were trying to imply that the 16th amendment is the constitution, as in is a permanent part of it, na na na na you can't touch my source of income as coming from your pocket while sticking your tongue out kind of argument.

I just looked up 'ncome' in the dictionary online. It wasn't there. Oh, the online dictionary had all sorts of common sense suggestions for what it was supposed to mean. The most obvious being 'income'. But since you insist we don't actually read the post we're responding to, don't apply any common sense or context to infer its obvious meaning...

.....I guess I'm stuck with 'ncome'. Which is meaningless gibberish.

You still confused about how the software deleted the letter 'i' from my post?

Oh, I can certainly apply common sense and wrap my head around the concept. I can certainly read your post and infer obvious meaning from context.

But you insist we don't actually read the posts we're responding to, remember? You don't use common sense or context to infer obvious meaning, remember?

So I'm sadly left with 'ncome'. Which is just gibberish. Sigh....sad, that.

 

[Skylar]

No the government works for me and the rest of this country, there is no change of ownership of our income when it moves to the treasury. The change of ownership is the transfer to your bank account.

So when you send that money to treasury.....you can still spend it? You can still head down to your local Walmart and buy your insta-grits and your grape Koolaid with the money you sent to the treasury?

You might want to check with your Walmart on that one. Because I think you may be in for a bit of a surprise.

When you get your EBT reloaded each month, you do at the expense to people like me.

Tell us more about the reloading your 'EBT'. As clearly you know more about it than I do.

I like to know where MY money goes when you spend it.

And when pray tell did I spend your money? Are you one of my many customers? If so, did you buy one of my stock pieces, or did I do a custom design for you? You know I retain rights for all original works I do, so I may have taken the original design and resold it by now.