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

[Contumacious]

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.

Is Mr. Benson an American?

Is the Constitution ours?

Does he have a right to access Article III Courts to have his grievances redressed?

The constitution is ours. Not his alone.

WE THE PEOPLE are the guardians of the Constitution. And it was adopted for OUR benefit. And we can not let bureaucrats in black robes USURP powers. We can not let the motherfuckers drag this great nation into economic abyss.

. But the federal judiciary.

We no longer have Article III Courts. They were abolished by FDR and the welfare/warfare state in 1935.

Justice James Clark McReynolds DISSENT opposing the nationalization of OUR GOLD was SUPPRESSED, CENSORED, the "federal judiciary" refused to publish the same.


So SHUT THE FUCK UP AND CONTINUE SMOKING YOUR MEDICAL MARIHUANA.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

No it shouldn't be repealed. If you get rid of income taxes, new taxes in other areas would have to be implemented to pay the difference. Better to have a discussion on voluntary taxation, than get rid of income tax.

Right, because government can't possibly make do with less. No matter what, it needs trillions of our tax dollars to maintain it's quasi socialist existence.

 

[Flash]

We need to stop all Federal taxation.

We then need to reduce the size of the Federal government to the bare necessity like Defense, courts, state department, CIA, Veterans and not a whole lot more. Absolutely no welfare, subsidizes entitlements or bailouts. No government transfer payments. We don't need to be funding departments of this and departments of that like HUD, Energy, Education, ATF, Labor, HHS etc.

Then we need to figure out a way to fund that government in a way so that every American has to pay its share. No free rides.

 

[Contumacious]

We need to stop all Federal taxation.

We then need to reduce the size of the Federal government to the bare necessity like Defense, courts, state department, CIA, Veterans and not a whole lot more. Absolutely no welfare, subsidizes entitlements or bailouts. No government transfer payments. We don't need to be funding departments of this and departments of that like HUD, Energy, Education, ATF, Labor, HHS etc.

Then we need to figure out a way to fund that government in a way so that every American has to pay its share. No free rides.

The Founding Fathers had ALREADY figured that out.

The ONLY thing the motherfuckers need to do is

Repeal the Sixteenth and Seventeenths "Amendments"

Abolish the Federal Reserve Board

Restore the GOLD Standard.


.

.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

What makes it "wrong," other than the fact that it's tax and nobody likes having to pay taxes?

I am not Paul but Ill answer this anyway as I don't think that Paul actually has an answer other than what you already stated

Its wrong because tax law and the IRS no longer serve the purpose that they are supposed to serve (funding the government). Instead, we have a tax code that is far more interested in social engineering than it is in actually properly funding the government. We have a tax code that thrives on taxes that are wholly hidden to the taxpayer.

Wage earners do not pay 7.5% in SS taxes - they pay 15% but the tax man does not want you to actually know what you are really paying into the system - it would piss you off. Same thing with a host of other taxes. Then the wealthy are able to enjoy a host of tax 'breaks' that do nothing in actually funding the nation but certainly help big business (many of the ones enjoying those breaks) defeat small upstarts that would give them real competition.

Then the federal government is able to tax the cash a state needs to build roads and then, essentally, gift it back to them if they sing the federal governments tune. How much power do you actually think that a state has when the feds can force money out of it and hold its return based on it falling in line? None. The idea that we have a federal system of governance anymore is fallacy and it has a LOT to do with the fact that the feds are a middle man in the flow of money from the states own populace. Tax monies that should be going straight to the state without federal involvement.

Why do you get a cash payment from the IRS when you have a child? Why do you get a tax break for buying a specific window or water heater? What have these things to do with funding the government? Nothing of course. What they have to do with is CONTROL and POWER. We need to eliminate that particular power - it is getting grossly out of control.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

44% of USMB members are parasites or enslavers. Which is better?

All liberals are traitors.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You hate the US Constitution!

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

Shame on you!

Are you saying anyone who wants to repeal an Amendment hates the Constitution?

 

[bripat9643]

Wait your turn.

RW traitors are way too busy fighting the First Amendment to fool with anything else right now.

Turds like you are fighting the First Amendment, shit for brains.

 

[Flash]

No it shouldn't be repealed. If you get rid of income taxes, new taxes in other areas would have to be implemented to pay the difference. .

Why?

Why not spend less money?

Ron Paul came up with a great budget plan to reduce the Federal budget about a trillion a year, which is about how much is paid into income tax. The plan preserved defense, social security, Medicare and all the other necessary government function while eliminating many of the unnecessary ones.

Although Paul's plan was a good start I think we need to go even farther. Not only cut out the income tax but corporate tax. That would still leave about a trillion in Federal income and that is all the federal government we need.

We spend more money in the US on the combined cost (Fed, state and local) than the GNP of all but the top three or four countries on earth. It is over 40% of our GNP. We could get by with a lot less government than we now have. Of course the welfare queens that suck off the teat of the taxpayers would have to get off their fat asses and get a job but so be it. With the Federal government taking a couple of trillion less out of the productive economy there would be plenty of jobs for everybody that wanted to work.

 

[JWBooth]

Repeal the 17th, 19th, and 26th as well.

 

[Flash]

Repeal the 17th, 19th, and 26th as well.

I would like to see the government actually enforce the 13th Amendment.

If they actually enforced the law against slavery then a lot of this big government would go away because the government puts us in slavery more than anything else.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Wait your turn.

RW traitors are way too busy fighting the First Amendment to fool with anything else right now.

So you agree corporations have free speech rights too?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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:

Uh...the guy had a job and needed to work that weekend. He's hardly a liberal. She's Nancy Pelosi not getting her spending and taxing bills rammed thru Congress anymore.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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”?

Someday I hope to find our what your opinion is on these taxing topics. But it won't be until you can state it in 3 or 4 sentences MAX.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Notice you don't actually disagree with me.

I've been studying this issue and I've seen your copied and pasted argument thrown many times before. It gets tiring, and the other guy is saying what I used to say in the past.

I don't argue with traitors anymore, because there's no point. I can only hope that readers (99% of which don't post) come to the best judgement. My heavy-weight days at USMB ended more than a few months ago.

The exact same people enter a new thread and spew the exact same argument. When you engage them and subdue them they leave the thread. However, this victory is only temporary, because the exact same people that you subdue return in another thread and repost the same argument.

This means they aren't learning from their mistakes. Even if they were ultimately right, wouldn't it suit them better to learn how to exploit the hole in my argument then next time it comes up? Yet they don't. They literally repost the same shit.

I've realized this is a tactic of the Liberal Soldier. To wear down an opponent through attrition. I also admit that the tactic works quite well.

So you're remark was neither clever, smart or original. It's something I've seen reposted a hundred times, and I argued against and defeated the argument ninety-nine times, but I no longer have the willpower and fortitude to do it the 100th time.

However Contumacious has engaged you (with the same debate that I used to have on that issue), so I will enjoy watching him subdue you, and I will also enjoy Contumacious dismay when he sees you repost the same shit tomorrow in another thread.

You're a Liberal Soldier. An agent of the Counter-Enlightenment hellbent and reducing mankind under absolute and total government. Truth is not in your best interest.

The layman version of what you liberal soldiers do is: "Throw enough shit at the wall and it will eventually stick."

And that's all you do, you throw the same shit at the wall on every new blog, facebook post and internet thread, no matter how many times you're defeated.

It's how the Communists took over Union leadership.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

You hate the US Constitution!

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

Shame on you!

Are you saying anyone who wants to repeal an Amendment hates the Constitution?

Nope, I'm saying that anyone who hates every change to the constitution, while claiming any change violates the spirit of it, is wholly uninformed and woefully ignorant. People can disagree about the amendments, but your cafeteria style adoration of the document is f()ked

 

[Dot Com]

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.

^ that

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We need to stop all Federal taxation.

We then need to reduce the size of the Federal government to the bare necessity like Defense, courts, state department, CIA, Veterans and not a whole lot more. Absolutely no welfare, subsidizes entitlements or bailouts. No government transfer payments. We don't need to be funding departments of this and departments of that like HUD, Energy, Education, ATF, Labor, HHS etc.

Then we need to figure out a way to fund that government in a way so that every American has to pay its share. No free rides.

The Founding Fathers had ALREADY figured that out.

The ONLY thing the motherfuckers need to do is

Repeal the Sixteenth and Seventeenths "Amendments"

Abolish the Federal Reserve Board

Restore the GOLD Standard.


.

.

The Founding Fathers had ALREADY figured out that future generations were entitled to live the way THEY desired, so allowed for an amendment process

The ONLY thing you motherfuckers need to do is

STFU about Repealing the Sixteenth and Seventeenths "Amendments"

Abolishing the Federal Reserve Board is as nutty as allowing you outdoors without a leash on

and Restoring the GOLD Standard is about as fruity as Going back to having only 13 states

 

[Contumacious]

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.

What makes it "wrong," other than the fact that it's tax and nobody likes having to pay taxes?

I am not Paul but Ill answer this anyway as I don't think that Paul actually has an answer other than what you already stated

Its wrong because tax law and the IRS no longer serve the purpose that they are supposed to serve (funding the government). Instead, we have a tax code that is far more interested in social engineering than it is in actually properly funding the government. l.

Yes, indeed.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-...-cuts-on-rich-again-offset-by-new-breaks.html
Obama Proposes New Tax Hikes on Wealthy to Aid Middle Class

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You hate the US Constitution!

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

Shame on you!

Are you saying anyone who wants to repeal an Amendment hates the Constitution?

Nope, I'm saying that anyone who hates every change to the constitution, while claiming any change violates the spirit of it, is wholly uninformed and woefully ignorant. People can disagree about the amendments, but your cafeteria style adoration of the document is f()ked

Since no one ever claimed that your accusation is groundless.