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

[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.

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

So anyone who doesn't already share your view must be excluded and ignored. You do realize that you create nothing but an echo chamber when you do this, yes? That using such a model, you would only hear what you already believe?

And that is what you call a 'debate'? I don't think the word means what you think it means.

And surely you also realize that your participation isn't necessary to systematically dismantle your claims. As you don't rob me of any ability to make any point. You only rob yourself of your ability to reply. My points remain pristinely uncontested. While yours are picked apart.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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.

Liberal Parasite, tell me, if our Founding Fathers revered John Locke, why is it that they used excise taxes and tariffs to support the federal government, instead of income taxes?

Are not excise taxes and tariffs drawn from our own estate?

It seems that you are applying a modern interpretation of John Locke's statement.

The key phrase is "the protection government offers."

Government was funded through tariffs and excise taxes because it protected Trade through positive action.

enjoys his share of the protection,

Now why would the someone pay a tax on their labor? What protection is the government providing on someone's labor, liberal parasite?

 

[paulitician]

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.

So anyone who doesn't already share your view must be excluded and ignored. You do realize that you create nothing but an echo chamber when you do this, yes? That using such a model, you would only hear what you already believe?

And that is what you call a 'debate'? I don't think the word means what you think it means.

And surely you also realize that your participation isn't necessary to systematically dismantle your claims. As you don't rob me of any ability to make any point. You only rob yourself of your ability to reply. My points remain pristinely uncontested. While yours are picked apart.

Entitlement douches obviously want the Government to steal more from its Citizens. They have a vested interest in it. Therefore they have to be excluded from the debate.

 

[Skylar]

I did not complain about the Treasury being ours to use for services rendered to us.

So at least you acknowledge that the treasury (of the United States) funds are not yours exclusively, but belong to us. And consequently any expenditure of those funds are the spending of *our* money. Not yours.

That's progress!

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.

This is your argument breaks again. As the funds being spent aren't yours. They are ours. We spend our money on programs that we agree is for the common good. Such as.....not letting children go hungry. Or public education. Or national defense. That you agree with some and disagree with others is irrelevant, as the judgment of what benefits the common good isn't yours alone anymore than the funds belong to you alone.

The judgement is ours. The funds belong to us.

You keep trying to project individual ownership of something that you don't own individually. But we own together.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The judgement is ours. The funds belong to us.

You keep trying to project individual ownership of something that you don't own individually. But we own together.

"One cannot be a judge of their own interest."

How do you own my labor?

Again quoting 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...

 

[Skylar]

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.

Liberal Parasite, tell me, if our Founding Fathers revered John Locke, why is it that they used excise taxes and tariffs to support the federal government, instead of income taxes?

More flexibility. There were no apportionment restrictions. All direct taxes were tied to the census. Excises and tarriffs weren't.

If the founders felt that income taxes were immoral and unethical, why didn't they forbid all direct taxation? Why did they levy direct taxes themselves? Neither of which supports your argument.

Government was funded through tariffs and excise taxes because it protected Trade through positive action.

Tarriffs don't protect trade. They inhibit it. As we're not the only nation that can levy them. If we put up tarriffs on say, french goods....the french will do the same with ours. Making our goods more expensive in the French Market place, and french goods proportionally less expensive. We erode our ability to sell goods overseas by reducing demand as price increases proportional to other goods.

None of which protects trade. It simply limits our ability to trade, by lowering demand for our goods in foreign markets.

Now, if we could apply tariff's unilaterally, without any nation applying them against us......then your claims might have some merit. Alas, the world just doesn't work that way. Tarriff's work in two directions. Its one of the reasons we backed away from tarriffs over time. They didn't work very well. They didn't generate the revenue we needed.

Now why would the someone pay a tax on their labor?

They don't pay a tax on their labor. They pay a tax on their increase. If you labored diligently to build a thousand widgets...but no one wants to buy them, you aren't subject to income tax. If labor alone was taxable, then housewives would have a frightful yearly tax bill, as they work their asses off.

Thankfully, the tax is on income, the increase itself. If you're not making a profit, you're not paying income tax.

Its one of the reasons that income taxes are morally and ethically superior to more regressive taxes: they take into account your ability to pay. If you are unemployed, doing neceesary labor that is unpaid, disabled, or just had a bad year......your tax burden is radically reduced. If you had a good year, your tax burden increases. Income tax, unlike more regressive taxes, doesn't kick you while you're down. But is explicitly tied to your capacity to pay the taxes.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Government was funded through tariffs and excise taxes because it protected Trade through positive action.

Tarriffs don't protect trade. They inhibit it.

A strong Navy protects trade. You need tariffs for that.

Yes, a tariff can be made excessive on certain foreign products to prevent them from reaching the United States.

This is how a liberal parasite argues.

 

[RKMBrown]

I did not complain about the Treasury being ours to use for services rendered to us.

So at least you acknowledge that the treasury (of the United States) funds are not yours exclusively, but belong to us. And consequently any expenditure of those funds are the spending of *our* money. This is correct. Not yours. This is incorrect, I'm included in the term our as admitted by you, thus the phrase "not yours" is incorrect. However I know you mean "not exclusively yours." So I won't beat this dead horse.

That's progress! Only in your mind, you made incorrect assumptions.

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.

This is your argument breaks again. As the funds being spent aren't yours. They are ours. We spend our money on programs that we agree is for the common good. Such as.....not letting children go hungry. Or public education. Or national defense. That you agree with some and disagree with others is irrelevant, as the judgment of what benefits the common good isn't yours alone anymore than the funds belong to you alone.

Incorrect, my opinion is that the majority have chosen how to spend our shared income wrongly. Your assumption, is that might of the majority wins the argument regarding how best to spend our shared income. To be quite frank, this entire paragraph of yours is complete nonsense. If our minority opinions have no relevance at all why don't you son of a bitches take all of our income and spread it around as you see fit.

The judgement is ours. The funds belong to us.

You keep trying to project individual ownership of something that you don't own individually. But we own together.

in blue.

 

[Skylar]

The judgement is ours. The funds belong to us.

You keep trying to project individual ownership of something that you don't own individually. But we own together.

"One cannot be a judge of their own interest."

Then you're literally arguing that one cannot vote for their own self interest. Thus, any vote you would ever cast to lower your taxes would thus be self interested. And by your own standards, invalid.

How do you own my labor?

I don't claim any ownership of your labor. I'm not the one who taxes you. Nor is any tax levied upon you on your 'labor'. But instead, on your increase. And why? Locke himself explains it well:

"'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 Lock,
2nd Treatise, Chapter 11

The difference between regressive taxation and say, income taxes.....is that we've created a system of taxation in income taxes that takes into account your capacity to pay. So those who can pay, do pay. But those who can't aren't kicked while they're down. Making our system of taxation morally superior to the more regressive systems more popular in the past. And much more effective at generating revenue without destroying trade, as tariffs have a tendency to do.

 

[Skylar]

Government was funded through tariffs and excise taxes because it protected Trade through positive action.

Tarriffs don't protect trade. They inhibit it.

A strong Navy protects trade. You need tariffs for that.

Or income taxes! Which produced far more revenue than tarriff's ever did. And without the trade destroying effects of counter-tarriff's levied by foreign nations against our goods when we levy tarriff's against theirs.

Notice you don't actually disagree with me on the effects of counter -tarrifs. Or even address the topic....as if by ignoring the issue, somehow it goes away. That's not how it works. Close your eyes....and the world doesn't disappear. Pretend that counter-tarriff's don't exist....and they still effect trade.

All you've done is uselessly and pointlessly blinded yourself. Reality just keeps on chugging.

Yes, a tariff can be made excessive on certain foreign products to prevent them from reaching the United States.

The reverse is also true. Where tarriffs against our goods can prevent them reaching foreign markets. Which is why we have shied away from tarriffs on foreign goods as time has gone on; the nations we levy tarriffs against tended to return the favor.

And you don't need a navy to protect trade when excessive tarriffs levied by other nations eliminate demand for our goods overseas by pushing the prices of them too high.

 

[RKMBrown]

The judgement is ours. The funds belong to us.

You keep trying to project individual ownership of something that you don't own individually. But we own together.

"One cannot be a judge of their own interest."

Then you're literally arguing that one cannot vote for their own self interest. Thus, any vote you would ever cast to lower your taxes would thus be self interested. And by your own standards, invalid.

How do you own my labor?

I don't claim any ownership of your labor. I'm not the one who taxes you. Nor is any tax levied upon you on your 'labor'. But instead, on your increase. And why? Locke himself explains it well:

"'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 Lock,
2nd Treatise, Chapter 11

The difference between regressive taxation and say, income taxes.....is that we've created a system of taxation in income taxes that takes into account your capacity to pay. So those who can pay, do pay. But those who can't aren't kicked while they're down. Making our system of taxation morally superior to the more regressive systems more popular in the past. And much more effective at generating revenue without destroying trade, as tariffs have a tendency to do.

You are not paying attention.

He was citing to property tax. Property taxes are not regressive. Sale taxes if applied to food, basic shelter, and health care etc. could be considered regressive, but if only applied to extras like fancy cars and expensive jewelry would not be considered regressive.

The very rich do not have income, they have accrued assets.

The mistake libs keep making is fighting for income taxes, vs. fighting to replace income taxes with non-regressive sales, excise, and property taxes.

Why punish income earners to the benefit of the very rich who may have no income to speak of?

 

[Skylar]

Incorrect, my opinion is that the majority have chosen how to spend our shared income wrongly.

You and everyone else. As there's virtually no one that is perfectly happy with the way all of the funds are being spent. There's always some program somewhere that someone doesn't want funded.

Welcome to a democratic republic. The decisions are made by us, not you alone. Just as the funds are spent by us, not you alone. And belong to us, not you alone.

Your assumption, is that might of the majority wins the argument regarding how best to spend our shared income.

My assumption is that in a democratic republic, authority is wielded collectively. Not individually. And that the threshold of the wielding of that authority is the majority. You alone don't make these decisions for us. We make them together. And if you disagree with the majority, suck it up. It happens to all of us, as the nature of compromise is that virtually no one gets everything they want.

The idea that you're victimized by not getting everything just the way you like it is merely petulance.

In terms of the protection of individual rights, there are protections provided by our constitution (that's the Constitution of the United States of America) that limit both State and Federal action. And there are certain powers that are delegated exclusively to the States and others to the Federal government (of the United States of America). Beyond this, the majority pretty much calls the shots. And it does so through layers and layers of redundancy to make power difficult to consolidate.

 

[Skylar]

He was citing to property tax. Property taxes are not regressive.

Property taxes apply regardless of your ability to pay them. If you are disabled, or retired, if you're a widow taking care of a family, if you're unemployed, the taxes still apply in the same amounts. Income taxes are far more moral and ethical, as they are based on your increase. Not simply the existence of property in your possession. Thus, if you don't have the capacity to pay the taxes, the burden of paying them is reduced. If you do have capacity, the burden goes up.

It is this responsiveness to circumstance and the capacity to pay that makes income taxes morally superior to ad valorem taxes. As ad valorem taxes mandate you continue to earn money or have large savings merely to hold on to property you've already purchased. While income taxes make no such requirement. If you're retired, your income taxes plummet.

If you're retired, your property taxes don't change at all.

 

[paulitician]

The Income Tax serves only to hurt those working hard and trying to be successful. While at the same time, it serves to help those who are not working hard and trying to be successful. It is immoral and unjust. Let's go with other more just ways to tax and collect taxes.

 

[RKMBrown]

Incorrect, my opinion is that the majority have chosen how to spend our shared income wrongly.

You and everyone else. As there's virtually no one that is perfectly happy with the way all of the funds are being spent. There's always some program somewhere that someone doesn't want funded.

Welcome to a democratic republic. The decisions are made by us, not you alone. Just as the funds are spent by us, not you alone. And belong to us, not you alone.

Your assumption, is that might of the majority wins the argument regarding how best to spend our shared income.

My assumption is that in a democratic republic, authority is wielded collectively. Not individually. And that the threshold of the wielding of that authority is the majority. You alone don't make these decisions for us. We make them together. And if you disagree with the majority, suck it up. It happens to all of us, as the nature of compromise is that virtually no one gets everything they want.

The idea that you're victimized by not getting everything just the way you like it is merely petulance.

In terms of the protection of individual rights, there are protections provided by our constitution (that's the Constitution of the United States of America) that limit both State and Federal action. And there are certain powers that are delegated exclusively to the States and others to the Federal government (of the United States of America). Beyond this, the majority pretty much calls the shots. And it does so through layers and layers of redundancy to make power difficult to consolidate.

And that is what makes you a Marxist. A government that does not protect the individuals right to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. That's what you want. You want a country where the life, liberty, and pursuits of the people are managed by the desires of the majority. For example, you and people like you want to sit on your asses your entire life benefiting from the labors of others, and you think that's cool cause you are in the majority. Yeah well that's why the tea was dumped. Keep going in this direction and your and your majority will feel the bite.

 

[RKMBrown]

He was citing to property tax. Property taxes are not regressive.

Property taxes apply regardless of your ability to pay them. If you are disabled, or retired, if you're a widow taking care of a family, if you're unemployed, the taxes still apply in the same amounts. Income taxes are far more moral and ethical, as they are based on your increase. Not simply the existence of property in your possession. Thus, if you don't have the capacity to pay the taxes, the burden of paying them is reduced. If you do have capacity, the burden goes up.

It is this responsiveness to circumstance and the capacity to pay that makes income taxes morally superior to ad valorem taxes. As ad valorem taxes mandate you continue to earn money or have large savings merely to hold on to property you've already purchased. While income taxes make no such requirement. If you're retired, your income taxes plummet.

If you're retired, your property taxes don't change at all.

All taxes are taken whether or not you have a need for the money, no? What part of that is confusing you? You think I don't need the money taken from me in the form of taxes? ROFL

How is wanting to hold onto property any different than wanting to hold onto income? Do you not realize that income is property?

 

[Skylar]

Incorrect, my opinion is that the majority have chosen how to spend our shared income wrongly.

You and everyone else. As there's virtually no one that is perfectly happy with the way all of the funds are being spent. There's always some program somewhere that someone doesn't want funded.

Welcome to a democratic republic. The decisions are made by us, not you alone. Just as the funds are spent by us, not you alone. And belong to us, not you alone.

Your assumption, is that might of the majority wins the argument regarding how best to spend our shared income.

My assumption is that in a democratic republic, authority is wielded collectively. Not individually. And that the threshold of the wielding of that authority is the majority. You alone don't make these decisions for us. We make them together. And if you disagree with the majority, suck it up. It happens to all of us, as the nature of compromise is that virtually no one gets everything they want.

The idea that you're victimized by not getting everything just the way you like it is merely petulance.

In terms of the protection of individual rights, there are protections provided by our constitution (that's the Constitution of the United States of America) that limit both State and Federal action. And there are certain powers that are delegated exclusively to the States and others to the Federal government (of the United States of America). Beyond this, the majority pretty much calls the shots. And it does so through layers and layers of redundancy to make power difficult to consolidate.

And that is what makes you a Marxist.

I don't think Marxism means what you think it means. I don't support ownership of all private property by the State. Or ownership of all means of production by the State. Or centralization of all means of communication by the State. Or centralization of all means of transportation by the State. Or the abolishment of inherenitence. Or the centralization of all credit with a state monopoly. Or the establishment of industrial armies.

You know, actual Marxim.

A government that does not protect the individuals right to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

Who then is tasked with preventing the States from violating individual rights in the 14th amendment? Who prevented say, the city of Chicago from outlawing most handguns in a case involving a man named McDonald?

I'll give you a hint: its not Marx.

You want a country where the life, liberty, and pursuits of the people are managed by the desires of the majority.

Actually, no. I haven't said any of that. I've said. I've said this:

My assumption is that in a democratic republic, authority is wielded collectively. Not individually. And that the threshold of the wielding of that authority is the majority. You alone don't make these decisions for us. We make them together. And if you disagree with the majority, suck it up. It happens to all of us, as the nature of compromise is that virtually no one gets everything they want.

The idea that you're victimized by not getting everything just the way you like it is merely petulance.

In terms of the protection of individual rights, there are protections provided by our constitution (that's the Constitution of the United States of America) that limit both State and Federal action. And there are certain powers that are delegated exclusively to the States and others to the Federal government (of the United States of America). Beyond this, the majority pretty much calls the shots. And it does so through layers and layers of redundancy to make power difficult to

You really suck at paraphrasing.

And note, you have yet to even disagree with me.

Yeah well that's why the tea was dumped. Keep going in this direction and your and your majority will feel the bite.

Actually, no. That was taxation without representation. The founders were demanding to be taxed by their own elected representatives and not the British Parliment in which they had none.

You kinda suck at paraphrasing history too. You'll understand if I don't grant much credibliity to your vague predictions of future events, given how poorly you've summarized past events.

 

[Skylar]

The Income Tax serves only to hurt those working hard and trying to be successful.

The income tax serves the raising of revenue. And does a spectacularly good job of it without damaging our international trade as tarriffs would. Nor applying indiscriminate of one's ability to pay, as ad valorem taxes might. Income taxes increase as your capacity to pay increases. And decrease in kind.

That's effective, thoroughly moral (as it takes into account the capacity to pay) and doesn't hurt international trade.

Which is probably why we and most of the world use it.

 

[Skylar]

He was citing to property tax. Property taxes are not regressive.

Property taxes apply regardless of your ability to pay them. If you are disabled, or retired, if you're a widow taking care of a family, if you're unemployed, the taxes still apply in the same amounts. Income taxes are far more moral and ethical, as they are based on your increase. Not simply the existence of property in your possession. Thus, if you don't have the capacity to pay the taxes, the burden of paying them is reduced. If you do have capacity, the burden goes up.

It is this responsiveness to circumstance and the capacity to pay that makes income taxes morally superior to ad valorem taxes. As ad valorem taxes mandate you continue to earn money or have large savings merely to hold on to property you've already purchased. While income taxes make no such requirement. If you're retired, your income taxes plummet.

If you're retired, your property taxes don't change at all.

All taxes are taken whether or not you have a need for the money, no?

Need for the money wasn't my standard. Capacity to pay was. If you're not making money, you're not paying money in income tax. If you're not making money, you are paying money in ad valorem taxes.

That's the fundamental difference. A difference you don't even disagree with.

 

[paulitician]

The Income Tax serves only to hurt those working hard and trying to be successful.

The income tax serves the raising of revenue. And does a spectacularly good job of it without damaging our international trade as tarriffs would. Nor applying indiscriminate of one's ability to pay, as ad valorem taxes might. Income taxes increase as your capacity to pay increases. And decrease in kind.

That's effective, thoroughly moral (as it takes into account the capacity to pay) and doesn't hurt international trade.

Which is probably why we and most of the world use it.

It's punishment and theft. Nothing more.