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

[johnwk]

No American should be punished for working hard and being successful.

You think it "punishment" for supporting the country that has given you the highest standard of living and the most opportunity of any country ever known?

Why don't you get the fuck out?There are a lot of people around the world that would take your place in a heartbeat and be GLAD to pay the taxes that gives them the country where they could succeed and prosper.

Just go on and get the fuck out.

You confuse people supporting government with supporting your parasitic ass.


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

 

[Contumacious]

"When the explicit constitutional constraint on direct taxation (the apportionment rule) was removed with ratification of the 16th Amendment . . ."



There is nothing in the 16th Amendment stating that "direct taxes on income are not subject to apportionment". Those are your words. Let me repeat that "the 16th Amendment did not remove the constitutional requirement that "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken"

Well , as I stated before , we are being subject to a DIRECT TAX ON WAGES AND SALARIES without apportionment since the Revenue Act of 1942 "Victory Tax"


.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Well , as I stated before , we are being subject to a DIRECT TAX ON WAGES AND SALARIES without apportionment since the Revenue Act of 1942 "Victory Tax"


.

Was 1942 before or after the passage of the 16th Amendment?

 

[Contumacious]

Well , as I stated before , we are being subject to a DIRECT TAX ON WAGES AND SALARIES without apportionment since the Revenue Act of 1942 "Victory Tax"


.

Was 1942 before or after the passage of the 16th Amendment?

Actually "the Amendment " was never lawfully adopted. But the fascists claim it was adopted in 1913.


.

 

[Skylar]

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).

So anyone who could see benefit in any government policy should never be allowed to vote?

Would that include say, any conservative looking for a tax break? As per your logic, self interest would invalidate one's right to vote.

 

[Skylar]

Well , as I stated before , we are being subject to a DIRECT TAX ON WAGES AND SALARIES without apportionment since the Revenue Act of 1942 "Victory Tax"


.

Was 1942 before or after the passage of the 16th Amendment?

Actually "the Amendment " was never lawfully adopted. But the fascists claim it was adopted in 1913.

.

Actually it was ratified. As affirmed by both the Secretary of State at the time of its ratification and the USSC since. Which you already know. And I can even make you demonstrate it for us. Watch, its easy:

Which State that the Secretary of State affirmed ratified the 16th amendment claims that it didn't ratify that amendment.

Name the State. And then quote it.

 

[Skylar]

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.

And yet you're insisting that direct taxes like income taxes be forbidden. And even more laughably, insisting that forbidding such direct taxes was the founders 'original plan'.

Save that the founders never forbid income tax. They outlined instructions for direct taxes with apportionment. And we lifted that apportionment requirement with the 16th amendment.

Also, quoting Jefferson on the constitution is an act of useless futility. He had virtually nothing to do with it, wasn't a delegate for any state at the constitutional convention, didn't write a single passage and wasn't even on the North American continent while it was being written, debated or ratified.

Making him about the most useless famous founder you could cite on the topic.

 

[paulitician]

It is a human right to keep the fruits of your labor. The Income Tax has to go. And the IRS does too.

 

[paulitician]

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

Right, the Founding Fathers weren't opposed to taxation all-together. They were opposed to immoral and unjust taxation. That's what the Revolutionary War was all about. The Income Tax is immoral and unjust. There are better ways to tax and collect taxes. We need to explore those ways.

 

[Skylar]

It is a human right to keep the fruits of your labor. The Income Tax has to go. And the IRS does too.

Who says that income tax violates that human right? There's you and....who?

 

[JFK_USA]

Not this shit again.

Yes everyone hates taxes but Income taxes has been the most effective way to collect taxes for the federal government that NEEDS them to survive. I guarantee a number of Republicans would vote against a repeal of the 16th amendment.

 

[Skylar]

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

Right, the Founding Fathers weren't opposed to taxation all-together. They were opposed to immoral and unjust taxation. That's what the Revolutionary War was all about. The Income Tax is immoral and unjust. There are better ways to tax and collect taxes. We need to explore those ways.

The Revolutionary war was about taxation without representation. You may want to actually to read the Declaration of Independence some time. It never mentions income tax, or says any of what you just did. Instead, it cites among its many grievances taxation without representation.

And you have representation.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

It is a human right to keep the fruits of your labor. The Income Tax has to go. And the IRS does too.

Who says that income tax violates that human right? There's you and....who?

John Locke

 

[Skylar]

It is a human right to keep the fruits of your labor. The Income Tax has to go. And the IRS does too.

Who says that income tax violates that human right? There's you and....who?

John Locke

Quote him on income taxes. And it violating a basic human right.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

the federal government that NEEDS them to survive.

Then how did the federal government survive for the first century and a half without incomes taxes?

You lied.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

It is a human right to keep the fruits of your labor. The Income Tax has to go. And the IRS does too.

Who says that income tax violates that human right? There's you and....who?

John Locke

Quote him on income taxes. And it violating a basic human right.

John Locke:

Though the Earth, and all inferior Creatures be common to all Men, yet every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the State that Nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, and joyned to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property. It being by him removed from the common state Nature placed it in, hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other Men. For this Labour being the unquestionable Property of the Labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joyned to, at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others.

Also, according the most ancient maxim of law, "One cannot be a judge of their own interest," a parasite like you is ineligible to discuss the merits of the Income Tax anyway.

 

[paulitician]

It is a human right to keep the fruits of your labor. The Income Tax has to go. And the IRS does too.

Who says that income tax violates that human right? There's you and....who?

John Locke

Quote him on income taxes. And it violating a basic human right.

John Locke:

Though the Earth, and all inferior Creatures be common to all Men, yet every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the State that Nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, and joyned to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property. It being by him removed from the common state Nature placed it in, hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other Men. For this Labour being the unquestionable Property of the Labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joyned to, at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others.

Also, according the most ancient maxim of law, "One cannot be a judge of their own interest," a parasite like you is ineligible to discuss the merits of the Income Tax anyway.

Agreed, Entitlement douches have to be excluded from the debate. They have a vested interest in continuing to steal from fellow Citizens.

 

[Skylar]

It is a human right to keep the fruits of your labor. The Income Tax has to go. And the IRS does too.

Who says that income tax violates that human right? There's you and....who?

John Locke

Quote him on income taxes. And it violating a basic human right.

John Locke:

Though the Earth, and all inferior Creatures be common to all Men, yet every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the State that Nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, and joyned to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property. It being by him removed from the common state Nature placed it in, hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other Men. For this Labour being the unquestionable Property of the Labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joyned to, at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others.

Also, according the most ancient maxim of law, "One cannot be a judge of their own interest," a parasite like you is ineligible to discuss the merits of the Income Tax anyway.

So where does John Locke mention income tax? Remember, John Locke didn't have a problem with taxation:

"'Tis true, governments cannot be supported without great charge, and 'tis fit everyone who enjoys his share of the protection, should pay out of his estate his proportion of the maintenance of it".

John Locke
(Second Treatise, Chapter 11).

And our taxation is through the consent of the majority. We have representation.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Firstly, if it's ours, it's still partly mine. But I only feel that I deserve the liberty to speak for what I put in the shared Treasury.

I'll say it again, with more clarity this time, cause you don't seem to understand yet. I did not complain about the Treasury being ours to use for services rendered to us. My issue is with the transfer of "our" shared income, if you will, to selected people, where those people are not selected based on services rendered to us, but rather based on the majority decision that our shared income should be distributed as hand-outs. Thus re-distributed from one source, such as me, to others, such as you or anyone else who receives said welfare as a hand-out.

If you want to give your money away as hand-outs go for it. I prefer hand-ups. More particularly hand-ups from local organizations that know the people receiving said hand-ups. I like to see bang for my hard earned buck. Worse, I despise the idea the my hard earned money is being used to hand cuff people with hand-outs.

 

[paulitician]

Time to advance and explore other methods of taxation and collection. The IRS has become a corrupt cancerous bureaucracy. It has to go. Period, end of story.