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

[Skylar]

Stop the argument authority from authority bullshit.

In terms of interpreting the constitution, there actually is a leviathan: the USSC. And above them, the State legislatures via amendment. There's nothing higher than an amendment in our system of laws.

You citing yourself doesn't amount to much legally. Since ours is a discussion of the law, legal standard matter as does legal authority. If you want to discuss say, objective moral truth or the will of God then your opinion would have as much weight as anyone else's. As there is no leviathan. There is in the law.

You may wish to believe that anything you imagine binds the courts and our laws. But neither your belief nor your imagination have any particular legal relevance.

My income is MY PROPERTY which I earned by working.

And your income is subject to taxation, by consent of the governed.

My ONLY responsibility towards the federal government is to pay for those activities which were SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED.

Specifically enumerated....according to who? The founders themselves created the First Bank of the United States based on implied powers, in the very first session of congress. Are you going to tell us that you know the constitution better than the founder's themselves?

Good luck with that.

No explanation has been , nor can any be , provided explaining how they can tax my wages?

Obvious nonsense. The authority to tax is laid out in the constitution. Both the 'tax and spend' clause of the original document, and in the 16th amendment.

That you reject that authority doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That you ignore the explanation doesn't mean that the explanation doesn't exist. The world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes.

 

[Skylar]

We have representation under our form of government.

.....which I stated with 'You have representation under income tax'.

Did you actually read my post?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We have representation under our form of government.

.....which I stated with 'You have representation under income tax'.

Did you actually read my post?

that phrase makes absolutely no sense, and unfortunately, I read most every post I respond to

 

[RKMBrown]

We have representation under our form of government.

.....which I stated with 'You have representation under income tax'.

Did you actually read my post?

that phrase makes absolutely no sense, and unfortunately, I read most every post I respond to

Ayup... "representation under income tax" makes no sense. I'm sure sky will be along any moment now explaining that we are just assholes for not understanding what was really meant. Sky probably means our fore-fathers elected the assholes that drafted and approved the 16th... thus we should just shut up cause it is the way it is. Of course on other topics we're to listen to sky bitch and moan that changes must be made. IOW if it's sky's idea it's good, everyone else should just shut up and listen.

 

[Contumacious]

My income is MY PROPERTY which I earned by working.

And your income is subject to taxation, by consent of the governed.[/quote]

My "income" is.

However, There is NO EVIDENCE in the 1909 Congressional Record that Congress intended to tax the source, ie, wages and salaries. You are free to identify the page wherein the Senate suggested that wages and salaries were considered TAXABLE INCOME.

 

[johnwk]

Apparently you do not agree with the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction...

Where you get this?. What can you quote from the linked posts that brings you to this conclusion?

I documented my sources concerning the fundamental rules of constitutional construction.


JWK

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Apparently you do not agree with the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction...

Where you get this?. What can you quote from the linked posts that brings you to this conclusion?

I documented my sources concerning the fundamental rules of constitutional construction.


JWK

you linked to a description of something. You claimed something. you have a point to make?

you wrote: Apparently you do not agree with the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction...
yet, how you came to this conclusion is baffling

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Ayup... "representation under income tax" makes no sense. I'm sure sky will be along any moment now explaining that we are just assholes for not understanding what was really meant.

thanks

 

[FA_Q2]

So, are you then contending that slavery was 'right' or just?

I'm contending that the government enacting the will of the people isn't inherently wrong or unjust. But what government is supposed to do. And that the morality or justice of a policy is judged by its outcome and intent. Not by its mere existence.

That is a rather pointless contention. I have never stated that the will of the people is inherrently wrong or unjust. As you have stated before, you are not disagreeing with anything I have stated here.

SPECIFICALLY, the removal of property from one individual and the gifting of it to another for making the 'correct; decisions IS inherrently wrong. You seem to be caught up on this 'will of the people' manure anyway. That is rarely the will of anyone outside of the legislator in question. Here is how it basically works.

Legislator A runs for office and wins. He owns stock in (or purchase it through proxy) in a water heater company. Then he pays anyone that buys that water heater 200 dollars for purchasing it. Legislator A leaves office a millionaire. That is WRONG and a simplified version of what happens when you allow the government to incentive specific behavior.

Said behavior is going to be either enriching the politician that is backing it, his 'friends' or is a practice in vote buying.

- A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury.
Elmer T. Peterson

If the 'people's' will is counter to freedom then yes, it is wrong.

Who says that incentives are counter to freedom? The government reflecting the will of the people is an expression of freedom.

You're beginning with the assumption that incentives are completely counter to freedom. But you can't back that position with anything more than your ability to type it. Your fundamental assumption hasn't been factually established. Its simply been stated.

? Do you understand the concept of freedom? The government is an expression of force. If that force comes and takes from us but promises to return some if we make the 'right' choice that is, by its very definition, coercion. That is not a state of freedom.

Are you really contending that freedom is maintained under a coercive force?

What you are referring to is NOT a free society.

Begging the question. You merely insist that your belief must be so. But offer no evidence nor even a reasoned argument to establish it.

I reject your assertion on the grounds that its factually baseless and factually refuted by the consent of the governed. There's nothing inherently counter to freedom in a government reflecting the will of the people.

Though, as you've noted, the consent of the governed doesn't make every policy moral or just. A given policy can be unjust, depending on the content and consequences of
the policy itself.

See above.

You can reject away but the idea that the will of the people can essentially control your decisions but you are still completely 'free' is rather silly.

Again, this makes anything perfectly justifiable.

No, it doesn't. It simply removes your arbitrary designation that any incentive or policy is unjust or immoral. A given policy's morality and justice can be judged and justified by its own merit, outcome and intent. Or its immorality and injustice by the same standard.

Thus, slavery would be immoral and unjust because of the intent and outcome of the policy. While say, incentivising home ownership and two parent families would be moral and just by the same standards.

LOL. You really brought up home ownership as an example of a policy that is not incorrect or wrong. You are aware of the actual outcome of that policy, right? the outcome of that particular governmental involvement was MASSIVE and terrible.

 

[Skylar]

We have representation under our form of government.

.....which I stated with 'You have representation under income tax'.

Did you actually read my post?

that phrase makes absolutely no sense, and unfortunately, I read most every post I respond to

Then let me walk you through it. The founders were opposed to taxation without representation. That's their largest tax beef with the British, one of the primary causes for the Boston Tea Party, and cited specifically in the Declaration of Independance as one of their many grievances.

In our system of government today we have taxation with representation. A method of taxation used today is income tax. And the method of representation is elected officials. Thus, you have representation under income tax. Or put less succinctly, you have elected representation in the government under the system of taxation known as income tax.

Does that help clarify?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We have representation under our form of government.

.....which I stated with 'You have representation under income tax'.

Did you actually read my post?

that phrase makes absolutely no sense, and unfortunately, I read most every post I respond to

Then let me walk you through it. The founders were opposed to taxation without representation. That's their largest tax beef with the British, one of the primary causes for the Boston Tea Party, and cited specifically in the Declaration of Independance as one of their many grievances.

In our system of government today we have taxation with representation. A method of taxation used today is income tax. And the method of representation is elected officials. Thus, you have representation under income tax. Or put less succinctly, you have elected representation in the government under the system of taxation known as income tax.

Does that help clarify?

whatever the f()ck your smoking, please stop.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Skylar I will say I think I know what you are TRYING to say and we'd probably agree if not for the fact that your nonsense hurts the brain

 

[Skylar]

SPECIFICALLY, the removal of property from one individual and the gifting of it to another for making the 'correct; decisions IS inherrently wrong. You seem to be caught up on this 'will of the people' manure anyway. That is rarely the will of anyone outside of the legislator in question. Here is how it basically works.

Property isn't taken from one person and given to another. Property is taken from one person in the form of taxation. That money is spent on all sorts of programs that benefit us individually and collectively. 'Your' money isn't given anyone. Our money is. As the money is no longer yours. Its ours. And its not spent on one program. Its spend on thousand of programs. Some you might agree with. Some you wouldn't. All enacted by duly elected representatives weilding the sovereign authority of the people they represent.

I don't consider that situation to be particularly immoral or unjust. Lets try a different scenario:

Lets say that legislator A runs for office on a platform of home ownership for families and wins. He then co-sponsors tax breaks for home owners and tax breaks for parents with children. And with his support, this legislation passes and becomes law. He is engaging in 'social engineering' by the standards you've offered. He's clearly attempting to encourage both homeownership and family through incentives. You might characterized it as 'attempting to force and control the actions of its people'.

I would disagree. He has been duly elected, ran on a platform of homeownership and family, and helped enact the policies he said he was going to enact. He's weilding the people's authority for policies that benefit the people he represents. In this case we have government acting in the interests of the common good, intent on benefiting the people. And with the tax break making both home ownership and children less expensive, helping to encourage a 'positive' outcome: more families owning homes.

I don't consider that situation to be unjust or immoral. As government is wielding the authority of the people for the benefit of the people with the consent of the people. And that's something I think government should absolutely do.

- A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury.
Elmer T. Peterson

No system of government is permanent. The laws of thermodynamics alone mandate that any system eventually break down. Given that our system of government has survived for centuries and is one of the longest lived governments currently standing, we're clearly doing something right.

? Do you understand the concept of freedom? The government is an expression of force. If that force comes and takes from us but promises to return some if we make the 'right' choice that is, by its very definition, coercion.

No it isn't. As you don't have to buy a home in the above scenario. Its simply less expensive for you if you choose to. You don't have to have kids in the above scenario. But its less expensive if you choose to. Better yet, a solid majority want to do both. People generally aren't being 'coerced' into home purchases. They aren't being 'coerced' into starting families. These are activities they actively pursue. These are life goals. Both of which help benefit the individual , their family, their children, and society at large.

With their government, wielding their authority, elected by them, acting in their interests , enacting policies that benefit them and society.

That's what government is supposed to do. And there's nothing immoral or unjust about it.

You can reject away but the idea that the will of the people can essentially control your decisions but you are still completely 'free' is rather silly.

You don't have to have kids. 1 in 4 people don't. You don't have to purchase a home. 1 in 3 never do. Your actions aren't 'essentially controlled'. The policies that the majority supports, enacted by their representatives, are simply easier and less expensive. If the government invests in say, hydro electric power....electricity is cheaper and easier. If the government invests in roads......transportation is cheaper and easier. If they government invests in say, education......education is cheaper and easier.

And none of this inherently 'immoral' or 'unjust'. This is how a constitutional republic works and should work. Where the priorities of the government are shaped by the will of the people, weilding the people's authority on behalf of the people, for the benefit of society and the individual.

AKA....the common good.

The idea that the entirety of government spending has to be a tabula rossa that can never reflect the will and priorities of the people or its completely contrary to freedom....is blithering nonsense. The government is *supposed* to reflect the will and priorities of the people. And on an individual level, no one is every going to agree with every expenditure. That's just the nature of compromise.

 

[Skylar]

Skylar I will say I think I know what you are TRYING to say and we'd probably agree if not for the fact that your nonsense hurts the brain

I'm trying to be civil with you Dante.....but this is the third post in a row where you've offered me no substantial or specific comment on any point I've raised.....and merely replied with vague and awkward insults.

I'm not interested.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Dead-Enders: REPEAL EVERYTHING!! AMURKA, GODDAMNIT, AMURKA!

 

[dblack]

Property isn't taken from one person and given to another. Property is taken from one person in the form of taxation. That money is spent on all sorts of programs that benefit us individually and collectively. 'Your' money isn't given anyone. Our money is. As the money is no longer yours. Its ours. And its not spent on one program. Its spend on thousand of programs. Some you might agree with. Some you wouldn't. All enacted by duly elected representatives weilding the sovereign authority of the people they represent.

Ideally, yes. That's how it's supposed to work. But in reality, it goes a different way. For example:

I don't consider that situation to be particularly immoral or unjust. Lets try a different scenario:

Lets say that legislator A runs for office on a platform of home ownership for families and wins. He then co-sponsors tax breaks for home owners and tax breaks for parents with children. And with his support, this legislation passes and becomes law. He is engaging in 'social engineering' by the standards you've offered. He's clearly attempting to encourage both homeownership and family through incentives. You might characterized it as 'attempting to force and control the actions of its people'.

Yes. That's exactly what it is. This IS the problem. The taxation power has been co-opted and converted from a means of financing legitimate government services to an all-purpose tool for manipulating society. It's essentially Congress doing an end-run around Constitutional limits on their power.

The ACA brought this fact out into the light. If Congress had passed a law fining everyone who failed to buy health insurance it would have been readily struck down as unconstitutional. But, even though ACA does effectively the exact same thing, it's all good (according to Justice Roberts) because it's implemented as a tax incentive. That's why they implemented it implemented as a 'tax penalty', and why they setup the IRS to collect it. Letting Congress play these kinds of games with the tax code has radically expanded their power.

I would disagree. He has been duly elected, ran on a platform of homeownership and family, and helped enact the policies he said he was going to enact. He's weilding the people's authority for policies that benefit the people he represents. In this case we have government acting in the interests of the common good, intent on benefiting the people. And with the tax break making both home ownership and children less expensive, helping to encourage a 'positive' outcome: more families owning homes.

I don't consider that situation to be unjust or immoral. As government is wielding the authority of the people for the benefit of the people with the consent of the people. And that's something I think government should absolutely do.

No, this is absolutely what government must NOT do. The consent of the people is not unconditional. We agree to give government power over our lives only in very specific circumstances, regardless of whether they represent the majority.

? Do you understand the concept of freedom? The government is an expression of force. If that force comes and takes from us but promises to return some if we make the 'right' choice that is, by its very definition, coercion.

No it isn't. As you don't have to buy a home in the above scenario. Its simply less expensive for you if you choose to. You don't have to have kids in the above scenario. But its less expensive if you choose to. Better yet, a solid majority want to do both. People generally aren't being 'coerced' into home purchases. They aren't being 'coerced' into starting families. These are activities they actively pursue. These are life goals. Both of which help benefit the individual , their family, their children, and society at large.

With their government, wielding their authority, elected by them, acting in their interests , enacting policies that benefit them and society.

That's what government is supposed to do. And there's nothing immoral or unjust about it.

No. It's not. Government is supposed to prevent this kind of thing from happening. Government is supposed to prevent people from forcing their will on others. It's supposed to protect our freedom to live our lives as we wish, not impose conformity to the will of the majority.

 

[johnwk]

My income is MY PROPERTY which I earned by working.

And your income is subject to taxation, by consent of the governed.

And direct taxes, which includes taxes on property, are subject to the rule of apportionment!

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

 

[johnwk]

Apparently you do not agree with the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction...

Where you get this?. What can you quote from the linked posts that brings you to this conclusion?

I documented my sources concerning the fundamental rules of constitutional construction.


JWK

you linked to a description of something. You claimed something. you have a point to make?

you wrote: Apparently you do not agree with the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction...
yet, how you came to this conclusion is baffling

I made my point. You seem to ignore the fundamental rules of constitutional construction.


JWK



"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Apparently you do not agree with the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction...

Where you get this?. What can you quote from the linked posts that brings you to this conclusion?

I documented my sources concerning the fundamental rules of constitutional construction.


JWK

you linked to a description of something. You claimed something. you have a point to make?

you wrote: Apparently you do not agree with the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction...
yet, how you came to this conclusion is baffling

I made my point. You seem to ignore the fundamental rules of constitutional construction.

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

Huh? You never offer evidence of this, so this is something you've decided has to be true because?

 

[Contumacious]

Supreme Court Declares Income Tax Unconstitutional The Partners Network

The Supreme Court declared the income tax to be null and void in a momentous 5-4 decision written by the Chief Justice...

Stupid. So what? What is your point? No one disputes this? The 16th amendment remedied this.

Or do you think the people do NOT have a right to change anything the founders believed in?

Amend, yes.

Substitute our Constitutional Republic for Communism? NO.

.