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

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

The most destructive idea in US History... the taxation of the product of one's labor. The cornerstone of nation's economy.

Psst... Hey idiots. Taxation DISCOURAGES whatever is being taxed.

Tax Porn...
Tax Unemployment
Tax Poor Grades
Tax Abortions
Tax Divorce
Tax WHATEVER needs to be discouraged.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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.

The most destructive idea in US History... the taxation of the product of one's labor. The cornerstone of nation's economy.

Psst... Hey idiots. Taxation DISCOURAGES whatever is being taxed.

Tax Porn...
Tax Unemployment
Tax Poor Grades
Tax Abortions
Tax Divorce
Tax WHATEVER needs to be discouraged.

"The power to tax is the power to destroy," Malbury vs Madison.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

The Sixteenth Amendment ought to be repealed although the same was not actually ratified. So the Sixteenth Amendment and Obama Hellcare are the products of legislative fraud.

Be that as it may, the powers that be are now claiming that the Tax on wages originated from the Victory Tax of 1942 . The Victory Tax was a DIRECT War Tax levied for two years. But the bureaucrats "forgot" to remove it.

Yep, the federal government , a continuing criminal enterprise indeed.


.

 

[Skylar]

The Sixteenth Amendment ought to be repealed although the same was not actually ratified. So the Sixteenth Amendment and Obama Hellcare are the products of legislative fraud.

The Secretary of State at the time of the amendment's ratification and the USSC disagrees. I'd say they're far more credible than Bill Benson shilling his 'law that never was' book.

Be that as it may, the powers that be are now claiming that the Tax on wages originated from the Victory Tax of 1942 . The Victory Tax was a DIRECT War Tax levied for two years. But the bureaucrats "forgot" to remove it.

You'll have to get a little more specific on which powers you're referring to, and in which cases.

 

[johnwk]

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.

The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment

“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the existing chains of taxation which now oppresses America‘s free enterprise system and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!

"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."

NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the apportioned tax to be laid.

"SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised by dividing its total population size by the total population of the united states and multiplying that figure by the total being raised by Congress, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."

NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish a deficit would be:

States’ population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE

Total U.S. Population

This formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to insure that those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution, i.e., representation with proportional obligation!

"SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."

NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.

"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after the required number of States have ratified it.


JWK




“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

 

[paulitician]

We need revolutionary change in our Tax structure. Dumping the Income Tax and abolishing the IRS would be a good start.

 

[SwimExpert]

We need revolutionary change in our Tax structure. Dumping the Income Tax and abolishing the IRS would be a good start.

Probably a little too drastic. Like it or not, there's $18 trillion in debt that has to be paid down one way or another. But, I've previously suggested eliminating income taxes on the bottom 95% of earners and reducing almost all areas of government spending by 50% of current levels, leading to a budgetary surplus that can be used to start paying down the debt.

It's funny though, because liberals thought the plan would be a handout to the rich, and so called "conservatives" said it would be a handout to the poor. Maybe the average USMB poster is just an idiot.

 

[paulitician]

We need revolutionary change in our Tax structure. Dumping the Income Tax and abolishing the IRS would be a good start.

Probably a little too drastic. Like it or not, there's $18 trillion in debt that has to be paid down one way or another. But, I've previously suggested eliminating income taxes on the bottom 95% of earners and reducing almost all areas of government spending by 50% of current levels, leading to a budgetary surplus that can be used to start paying down the debt.

It's funny though, because liberals thought the plan would be a handout to the rich, and so called "conservatives" said it would be a handout to the poor. Maybe the average USMB poster is just an idiot.

The Income Tax is wrong and the IRS as we know it, needs to go. There are better ways to tax and collect taxes. Time to get rid of the IRS. It's a corrupt cancerous bureaucracy at this point.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Got to love all the libbies that voted No. They are the enemies of America. They work hand in hand with the government that enslaves us.

The greatest honor is to defend one's country from its government; conversely, the greatest dishonor is aid and abet a tyrannical government in the destruction of one's country.

All liberals are traitors.

 

[johnwk]

We need revolutionary change in our Tax structure. Dumping the Income Tax and abolishing the IRS would be a good start.

Probably a little too drastic. Like it or not, there's $18 trillion in debt that has to be paid down one way or another. But, I've previously suggested eliminating income taxes on the bottom 95% of earners and reducing almost all areas of government spending by 50% of current levels, leading to a budgetary surplus that can be used to start paying down the debt.





It's funny though, because liberals thought the plan would be a handout to the rich, and so called "conservatives" said it would be a handout to the poor. Maybe the average USMB poster is just an idiot.

The Income Tax is wrong and the IRS as we know it, needs to go. There are better ways to tax and collect taxes. Time to get rid of the IRS. It's a corrupt cancerous bureaucracy at this point.

paulitician,



I agree with you. It is sheer lunacy and stupidity to keep alive a system of taxation which has proven to be the root cause of so many of our nation’s sufferings. Is our current federal tax system not used by our federal government as a weapon against political foes, and to silence free speech? Is it not used to intentionally seek out our most productive and hardworking citizens, who are then taxed directly on their earned wages which is then used by corrupted politicians to buy the votes of those who have been made dependent upon “free government cheese”? Is it not also used by Congress to generate class warfare and divide American Citizens into countless factious groups, each of which attack each other and seek to benefit from unequal tax law? And how about the billions of dollars wasted each year by America’s taxpayers to conform to its regulations and record keeping, and its mandatory divulgence of personal information? Is this not in itself a cause to reject this hideous and oppressive form of taxation?



The fact is, I agree with you fully, and that is why I support going back to our Constitution’s original tax plan which would go a long way to end the tyranny which Congress carries out under the guise of taxation.



Keep in mind that if our Constitution’s original tax plan were in effect, Congress would be forced to finance its functions from imposts, duties, and excise taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption, preferably articles of luxury. Raising revenue as described above limits Congress’ revenue to taxes on consumption. Hamilton, in Federalist No. 21 points out with regard to taxes on consumption,


“There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counter balanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.



It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four.'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”


Let us say for conversation purposes that Congress is only allowed to raise its revenue by selecting specific articles of luxury and placing a specific amount of tax on each article selected. The flow of revenue into the federal treasury under such an idea would of course be determined by the economic productivity of the nation. If the economy is healthy and thriving and employment is at a peak, the purchase of articles of luxury will be greater than if the economy is stagnant and depressed. And thus, Congress is encouraged to adopt policies favorable to a healthy and vibrant economy because the flow of revenue into the federal treasury can be disrupted should Congress adopt oppressive regulations which impeded and burden our founder’s intended free market system.



And so, if Congress is limited to raising its revenue by taxing specifically selected articles of luxury, it suddenly becomes in Congress’ best interest to work toward a healthy and vibrant economy which in turn produces a productive flow of revenue into the federal treasury! It should also be noted that taxing any specific article too high, will reduce the volume of its sales and diminish the flow of revenue into the national treasury, and thus, taxing in this manner allows the market place to determine the allowable amount of tax on each article selected as Hamilton indicates above.



Some may claim that if Congress is required to select each specific article for taxation and place a specific amount of tax on each article, such a system would invite abuse and allow Congress to exercise favoritism with impunity and would certainly pander to countless lobbyists looking for an advantage in the selection of taxable articles. But let us take a closer look at the consequences involved if Congress should attempt to abuse this power. If Congress should abuse the system and tax one article while excluding another for political gain, consumers are treated to a tax free article and Congress reduces its own flow of revenue into the national treasury. In addition, for every penny lost by excluding a lobbyist’s particular article from taxation, another article’s tax will have to be increased to reclaim that penny. And with each increase upon any specific article the reality of diminished sales becomes a very sobering factor for Congress to deal with as explained by Hamilton in Federalist No. 21.



Finally, under our Constitution’s original tax plan, let us remember that if Congress does not raise sufficient revenue from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on specifically chosen article of consumption and spends more than is brought in which creates a deficit, it is at this time that the apportioned tax is to be used to extinguish the deficit created, and each state’s congressional delegation must return home with a bill in hand for its state’s apportioned share of this tax and place this burden upon their Governor and State Legislature, and would deplete their own state’s treasury.



The bottom line is, what do you think would happen if California’s big spending Congressional Delegation had to return home with a bill for its citizens to pay an apportioned share to extinguish the 2014 federal deficit? I kind of think tea parties would change to tar and feather parties and big spenders in Congress would REAP THEIR JUST REWARDSfor their irresponsible and tyrannical spending.



Why is it that not one of our “conservative” media personalities [Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Doc Thompson, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz, Mike Huckabee, Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, Herman Cain, etc.] will discuss the wisdom of our Constitution’s original tax plan, especially when it paved the way to not only control Congress, but created the economic underpinning which led to America becoming the economic marvel of the world?



JWK






Are you 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”?

 

[Skylar]

“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the existing chains of taxation which now oppresses America‘s free enterprise system and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!

There has never been a prohibition on income tax. It was merely limited by the apportionment clause. The 16th ammendment created no new taxation authority. It simply lifted restrictions on how funds collected via income tax would be spent.

Are you 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”?

And where did you get those numbers? I think you'll find you're quite wrong.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the existing chains of taxation which now oppresses America‘s free enterprise system and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!

There has never been a prohibition on income tax. It was merely limited by the apportionment clause. The 16th ammendment created no new taxation authority. It simply lifted restrictions on how funds collected via income tax would be spent.

Are you 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”?

And where did you get those numbers? I think you'll find you're quite wrong.

 

[johnwk]

“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the existing chains of taxation which now oppresses America‘s free enterprise system and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!

There has never been a prohibition on income tax. It was merely limited by the apportionment clause. The 16th ammendment created no new taxation authority. It simply lifted restrictions on how funds collected via income tax would be spent.

And how does you comment apply to what I posted?


JWK




If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon an Obama, welfare, food stamp, section 8 housing, college loan check, and now free Obamacare along with FREE BACON, we can blackmail them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Our Washington Establishment’s Free Cheese Democracy, designed to establish a federal plantation which redistributes wealth that wage earners, business and investors have worked to create.

 

[Contumacious]

The Sixteenth Amendment ought to be repealed although the same was not actually ratified. So the Sixteenth Amendment and Obama Hellcare are the products of legislative fraud.

The Secretary of State at the time of the amendment's ratification and the USSC disagrees. I'd say they're far more credible than Bill Benson shilling his 'law that never was' book.

Be that as it may, the powers that be are now claiming that the Tax on wages originated from the Victory Tax of 1942 . The Victory Tax was a DIRECT War Tax levied for two years. But the bureaucrats "forgot" to remove it.

You'll have to get a little more specific on which powers you're referring to, and in which cases.

As a government supremacist/socialist you will always claim that the government version is the correct one.

The Documents submitted by Mr. Benson were CERTIFIED by each of the 50 states. So I have no idea what you mean by "far more credible" - probably just a pretext to side with the powers that be.

But as indicated , the welfare/warfare police state has a tremendous appetite and it needs to steal our money anyone they can . So now they claim that the WITHHOLDING TAX AT THE SOURCE is supported by the 1942 Tax.

 

[Skylar]

As a government supremacist/socialist you will always claim that the government version is the correct one.

More accurately, I recognize the authority to make such decisions. The ruling of the Secretary of State is authoritative. The ruling of the USSC is authoritative.

Bill Benson isn't. Thus, his opinions carry no legal weight. And the findings of the Secretary of State and USSC carry plenty. As the passage of the 16th amendment is a legal question, the issue is resolved.

The Documents submitted by Mr. Benson were CERTIFIED by each of the 50 states. So I have no idea what you mean by "far more credible" - probably just a pretext to side with the powers that be.

Um, why would Mr. Benson have documents certified from States....that didn't exist when the 16th amendment was ratified? And its not the States that are insisting the 16th amendment wasn't ratified. It is Mr. Benson.

Its apparently not an argument Mr. Benson actually believes in. As during his own trial for tax evasion, he didn't argue that the 16th amendment wasn't ratified. He argued that he was confused by the tax laws and made a mistake.

So apparently Mr. Benson's argument is good enough to sell to people like yourself. But not good enough for him to use. That speaks volumes.

But as indicated , the welfare/warfare police state has a tremendous appetite and it needs to steal our money anyone they can . So now they claim that the WITHHOLDING TAX AT THE SOURCE is supported by the 1942 Tax.

Says who? You'll need to get more specific.

 

[Big Black Dog]

I believe that income taxes should be revamped. Everybody, from the poorest man (or woman), to the richest of the elite, should pay the very same thing - 10%. No more. No less. No loopholes. No deductions. Then taxes would be fair and equal. There should be a law that states the government cannot collect more than 10% of your income for taxes. Same deal for States except they should be held to only 5%. Time to make the playing field equal.

 

[Skylar]

I believe that income taxes should be revamped. Everybody, from the poorest man (or woman), to the richest of the elite, should pay the very same thing - 10%. No more. No less. No loopholes. No deductions. Then taxes would be fair and equal. There should be a law that states the government cannot collect more than 10% of your income for taxes. Same deal for States except they should be held to only 5%. Time to make the playing field equal.

And why 10%? Seems a nice, round number. But rather arbitrarily so.

 

[rightwinger]

The 16th amendment ROCKS!

 

[Big Black Dog]

I believe that income taxes should be revamped. Everybody, from the poorest man (or woman), to the richest of the elite, should pay the very same thing - 10%. No more. No less. No loopholes. No deductions. Then taxes would be fair and equal. There should be a law that states the government cannot collect more than 10% of your income for taxes. Same deal for States except they should be held to only 5%. Time to make the playing field equal.

And why 10%? Seems a nice, round number. But rather arbitrarily so.

As Ray Stevens says in his song, "If 10% is good enough for Jesus, it ought to be enough for Uncle Sam."

 

[rightwinger]

OMG...... who in the world would be stupid enough to have a wife like that???

Oy, Gewalt.

And the dude is so calm and cool and collected.....

The dude is a liberal. The gal is a TPer.

Oh, I spoke to quickly. They are divorcing:

Looks like she is on the market again.....

I'm thinking of fixing her up with Judicial Review