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

[Skylar]

Our Founders weren't opposed to taxation all-together. They were opposed to immoral and unjust taxation. That's what the Revolutionary War was all about.

Have you ever heard of the term 'taxation without representation'? Because its that last part that really got under the Founder's skin. The founders didn't have any particular problem with the idea of taxation itself. And eagerly taxed themselves once in power.

And the Income Tax is immoral and unjust.

Says who? So far, your argument is like the nested russian dolls of assumption.

Every person has the human right to keep what they've earned.

Sounds to me like you're opposing all taxation again.

 

[Skylar]

The 16th amendment is there because god told the framers to put an amendment process in place so future generations could make things better

Under that philosophy we need to get rid of the 21st Amendment and return to Prohibition.

Um...why? See, in your example you're citing an amendment that overturned a previous amendment.

Where's the amendment that overturned the 16th?

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

I could if they were to give me an ebt card. See how that works?

 

[RKMBrown]

The 16th amendment is there because god told the framers to put an amendment process in place so future generations could make things better

Under that philosophy we need to get rid of the 21st Amendment and return to Prohibition.

Um...why? See, in your example you're citing an amendment that overturned a previous amendment.

Where's the amendment that overturned the 16th?

What part of we are arguing that there "SHOULD" be an amendment to overturn the 16th, is confusing 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.

I could if they were to give me an ebt card. See how that works?

Do you have an EBT card? No?

Then you're not spending any federal monies at the walmart. So much for the money you sent to the treasury (of the United States of America) 'being yours'. Its ours.

Now, if the funds you sent to the treasury (of the United States of America) were still yours, you could spend them on whatever you'd want. Like say, a big screen TV. Or a vacation.

Yet you can't. See how that works? There has been a transfer of ownership of those funds.

 

[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?

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.

What part of "is" does not mean "of" or "in" is confusing you? What part of "ncome" being a spelling error is confusing you? What part of changing the meaning of a phrase by using incorrect words is not the same as a spelling error, is confusing you?

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

I could if they were to give me an ebt card. See how that works?

Do you have an EBT card? No?

Then you're not spending any federal monies at the walmart. So much for the money you sent to the treasury (of the United States of America) 'being yours'. Its ours.

Now, if the funds you sent to the treasury (of the United States of America) were still yours, you could spend them on whatever you'd want. Like say, a big screen TV. Or a vacation.

Yet you can't. See how that works? There has been a transfer of ownership of those funds.

So my income that I earned is my money if I rate an EBT card and it's your money if I don't rate an EBT card.

When a thief comes to your house and takes your EBT card then goes to walmart and spends it there has been a transfer of ownership of those funds. See how stealing works? It's just a simple "transfer of ownership."

 

[RKMBrown]

I have no problem with my taxes going into the Treasury. My issue is with the transfer of my labor in the form of dollars from my paycheck to your EBT card using armed IRS agents as facilitators for this theft.

 

[Skylar]

What part of "is" does not mean "of" or "in" is confusing you?

The part where you took 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.)

Clearly using context and common sense to infer meaning is so utterly beyond you as to make the very concepts foreign to you. Which brings us to this your next question....

What part of "ncome" being a spelling error is confusing you?

I'd say its pretty obvious from context and applying common sense that 'ncome' was supposed to be 'income'. But that's not how you work. You don't use context. You don't use common sense. You don't infer meaning that way. You don't actually read the posts you're responding to.

So applying your own standards to you, I'm sadly left with 'ncome'. Which is meaningless gibberish.

You've established the standards I'll be applying to you from now on. In any thread. On any topic.

 

[Skylar]

So my income that I earned is my money if I rate an EBT card and it's your money if I don't rate an EBT card.

'If'? "If' creates a conditional sentence. You said the money is yours. Thus, there need be no conditions. I can spend my money anyway I wish.

So why don't you go spend the money you sent to the Treasury (of the United States of America) in taxes at the Walmart on your insta-grits. Or on a big screen TV? Or on a vacation? Or any manner you wish?

Either the money is still yours. Or it isn't. And from your sudden backpedalling and use of conditional sentences, the money you send to the federal government (of the United States of America) clearly isn't yours anymore.

Its ours.

 

[bendog]

Every time I find a new angle in which imperial cultural marxists have wrought destruction upon this nation, I realize that it's the 16th Amendment that gives them the funding to carry out their treason against the Constitution of the United States. From the welfare state (democrats) to the imperialists (republicans), it seems that both of them fund their Big Government Tyranny (internally and externally) by garnishing our wages.

We pay for the destruction of our own liberties at home and the desolation of foreign nations abroad.

The 16th Amendment is what created the IRS and the income tax.

Amendment XVI
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.

Look! A WINDMILL!! (sorry, but it was low hanging fruit.)

 

[Skylar]

I have no problem with my taxes going into the Treasury. My issue is with the transfer of my labor in the form of dollars from my paycheck to your EBT card using armed IRS agents as facilitators for this theft.

You seem confused. I don't have an EBT card. And you aren't loading the EBT card of anyone. The Federal government (of the United States of America) is, from its Treasury. Those funds aren't yours. Those funds are ours.

Your argument keeps breaking at the 'change of ownership' part of the equation. Where you keep insisting that the funds you pay to the Treasury (of the United States of America) is still yours alone.

Um, no. It isn't...those funds are ours.

 

[Anathema]

Um...why? See, in your example you're citing an amendment that overturned a previous amendment.

Where's the amendment that overturned the 16th?

It's my understanding that the OP was discussing the idea that we need an amendment to repeal the 16th amendment. Then you said that shouldn't be done because the "will of the people" was to create the 16th amendment. Therefore, I likened it to the issue of the 18th and 21st amendment.

 

[Skylar]

Um...why? See, in your example you're citing an amendment that overturned a previous amendment.

Where's the amendment that overturned the 16th?

It's my understanding that the OP was discussing the idea that we need an amendment to repeal the 16th amendment. Then you said that shouldn't be done because the "will of the people" was to create the 16th amendment. Therefore, I likened it to the issue of the 18th and 21st amendment.

There is no amendment to repeal the 16th. While there is an amendment to repeal prohibition. See, that's where your argument breaks.....at the 'will of the people' point. As there is no 'will of the people' to repeal the 16th. There was to repeal the 18th.

 

[Anathema]

There is no amendment to repeal the 16th. While there is an amendment to repeal prohibition. See, that's where your argument breaks.....at the 'will of the people' point. As there is no 'will of the people' to repeal the 16th. There was to repeal the 18th.

The OP was suggesting that there should be one, and I agree whole-heartedly. Either repeal or replace the existing system with a low rate (10% maybe) flat tax on all NEW income. No deductions. No graduated rate schedule. Just 10% off the top. Period.

 

[Skylar]

There is no amendment to repeal the 16th. While there is an amendment to repeal prohibition. See, that's where your argument breaks.....at the 'will of the people' point. As there is no 'will of the people' to repeal the 16th. There was to repeal the 18th.

The OP was suggesting that there should be one, and I agree whole-heartedly. Either repeal or replace the existing system with a low rate (10% maybe) flat tax on all NEW income. No deductions. No graduated rate schedule. Just 10% off the top. Period.

There's no will of the people to repeal the 16th. There was the will of the people to repeal the 18th. That's the distinction I'm drawing between your example and reality.

 

[Jarhead]

I have no problem with my taxes going into the Treasury. My issue is with the transfer of my labor in the form of dollars from my paycheck to your EBT card using armed IRS agents as facilitators for this theft.

You seem confused. I don't have an EBT card. And you aren't loading the EBT card of anyone. The Federal government (of the United States of America) is, from its Treasury. Those funds aren't yours. Those funds are ours.

Your argument keeps breaking at the 'change of ownership' part of the equation. Where you keep insisting that the funds you pay to the Treasury (of the United States of America) is still yours alone.

Um, no. It isn't...those funds are ours.

Those funds were his and he gave them up due to a law that forced him to give them up. SO he still sees it as HIS funds that he was forced to give up, but would still have if he were not forced to give them up.

Sure, it is semantics.....and to be frank, it is the fact that we, and more importantly, our politicians, play semantics, no one truly knows what the other side really feels...and thus there is no respect for those that think differently than we do.

 

[Skylar]

I have no problem with my taxes going into the Treasury. My issue is with the transfer of my labor in the form of dollars from my paycheck to your EBT card using armed IRS agents as facilitators for this theft.

You seem confused. I don't have an EBT card. And you aren't loading the EBT card of anyone. The Federal government (of the United States of America) is, from its Treasury. Those funds aren't yours. Those funds are ours.

Your argument keeps breaking at the 'change of ownership' part of the equation. Where you keep insisting that the funds you pay to the Treasury (of the United States of America) is still yours alone.

Um, no. It isn't...those funds are ours.

Those funds were his and he gave them up due to a law that forced him to give them up. SO he still sees it as HIS funds that he was forced to give up, but would still have if he were not forced to give them up.

And yet once he gives them up, they no longer belong to him. They belong to us. Thus, any money spent by the Treasury is our money. Not any individual's.

That taxes are mandatory isn't in dispute. That mandatory taxation is 'theft' most certainly is in dispute.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

2/3 Patriots, if these were the States, it would be enough to force Constitutional Convention to repeal it.

True. But 3/4 would be required to actually repeal it.

If you have the numbers, go for it.

"One cannot be a judge of their own cause." Greatest Maxim of Law.

Therefore, if you discount all the people that are parasites and leeches benefiting from the 16th Amendment, I can guarantee the remaining population is 9/10 in favor of repealing it (and that's a generous guess).

 

[johnwk]

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

How is the income tax 'immoral'?

It's unjust theft.

Income tax specifically, or any form of taxation?

We should never punish anyone for being successful in America.

You're not punishing someone for being successful. You're applying taxation on the basis of one's ability to pay. The less you make, the less capable you are paying. The more you make, the more capable you are of paying.

Its a pretty moral and ethical system, as it doesn't kick you when you're down. And applies a tax burden when you're capable of paying it.

That goes against everything our Nation is about. Our Founding Fathers would call the Income Tax immoral and unjust as well. There are other ways to tax and collect taxes. And it's time to explore those other avenues.

Then why didn't the founders forbid direct taxes like income taxes?

Our Founding Fathers would not have supported the Income Tax. In fact, there probably would have been another Revolution over it. No American should be punished for working hard and being successful. They have the human right to keep the fruits of their labor. It's time to overhaul the taxing structure. There are better ways. The time has come for revolutionary change.

Jefferson stated it this way:




“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address



As to the question "why didn't the founders forbid direct taxes like income taxes?" They only allowed imposts, duties and excise taxes, and demanded that any direct tax would be apportioned among the states.


JWK