No More Entitled to Tax Deductions Than Food Stamps

[BakshisMouse]

Do you have any idea what the fuck you are blabbering about?
No, I didnt think so either.

Can you find any law that says citizens of the USA are entitled to their taxed income?

Yup. 10th Amendment to the US Constitution.
Now shut the fuck up and quit wasting everyone's time.

By the way, amendments are just as binding as the original document written in 1787. In fact, if amendments that are correctly enacted contradict the original document, the amendments take precedence. In addition to this, amendments can amend other amendments.

16th Amendment gives the Federal Government the privilege of taxing income, period. It is just as binding as if it were written in 1787.

So this:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Does not negate this:

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.

 

[FA_Q2]

Did anyone ever make the argument that taxes were unconstitutional? The statements in the constitution have nothing to do with the welfare program as it exists today as they have nothing to do with the 'general welfare' but instead have everything to do with one persons specific welfare. I would like to know who has claimed that welfare programs are unconstitutional though. I do not believe I have heard that argument either.

You're argument is, AT BEST, a straw man. If you have a point then make it. No one here, that I am aware of, claims that taxes are unconstitutional. Welfare is another point entirely and, again, who is claiming that it is unconstitutional?

 

[BakshisMouse]

Did anyone ever make the argument that taxes were unconstitutional? The statements in the constitution have nothing to do with the welfare program as it exists today as they have nothing to do with the 'general welfare' but instead have everything to do with one persons specific welfare. I would like to know who has claimed that welfare programs are unconstitutional though. I do not believe I have heard that argument either.

You're argument is, AT BEST, a straw man. If you have a point then make it. No one here, that I am aware of, claims that taxes are unconstitutional. Welfare is another point entirely and, again, who is claiming that it is unconstitutional?

Well duh, this is a strawman argument. How the fuck else am I going to piss off so many arrogant middle-class dumbshits?

You, however, deserve props for being the first person outside of the OP to even admit that income taxes and welfare payments are not unconstitutional.

 

[BakshisMouse]

I am shocked that such an inflammatory thread didn't receive any responses.

Bumped.

^^^^
Same principle applies here.

 

[BakshisMouse]

I'm willing to admit I might have been wrong about something in the OP.

Without the 16th amendment, the 10th amendment could probably negate the income tax.

That is hypothetical, so everyone should just stop whining.

 

[Warrior102]

But I am curious. Who told you that you were entitled to the other guy's stuff?

No one is actually entitled to anything from the Federal Government, as per the current Constitution.

You're not even entitled to your untaxed income!

That is my fucking point!

Stick a Food Stamp in your fucking piehole and STFU idiot.

 

[The T]

I am shocked that such an inflammatory thread didn't receive any responses.

Bumped.

^^^^
Same principle applies here.

^^^^ Fuck Off.

 

[BakshisMouse]

But I am curious. Who told you that you were entitled to the other guy's stuff?

No one is actually entitled to anything from the Federal Government, as per the current Constitution.

You're not even entitled to your untaxed income!

That is my fucking point!

Stick a Food Stamp in your fucking piehole and STFU idiot.

Only after you stick wads of Benjamins down all of your orifices and attempt to sing the "Star Spangled Banner".

 

[BakshisMouse]

I am shocked that such an inflammatory thread didn't receive any responses.

Bumped.

^^^^
Same principle applies here.

^^^^ Fuck Off.

^^^^
Drink Less.

 

[Gremlin-USA]

Giving food stamps or not giving foods stamps does not violate the Constitution

Just because the Constitution gives the power to collect taxes, does mean it is a duty or obligation to collect taxes.

The Government is not forced to collect taxes according to the Constitution


.

 

[BakshisMouse]

Giving food stamps or not giving foods stamps does not violate the Constitution

Just because the Constitution gives the power to collect taxes, does mean it is a duty or obligation to collect taxes.

The Government is not forced to collect taxes according to the Constitution


.

Perhaps the second person to respond to this troll thread (which by the way, was mostly factually accurate in the OP) with further facts.

 

[The T]

^^^^
Same principle applies here.

^^^^ Fuck Off.

^^^^
Drink Less.

Keep speaking to what you have no clue over you fucking rat.

 

[BakshisMouse]

Psychological projection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Cecilie1200]

First, let’s look at the Constitution:

From Article I, Section 8

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

And for a good measure, 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.

By the way, amendments are just as binding as the original document written in 1787. In fact, if amendments that are correctly enacted contradict the original document, the amendments take precedence.

Just by looking at these details, I can reasonably conclude that the Food Stamp Program is in no way in violation of this Constitution, even if the spending on them causes budget deficits. And Amendment XVI makes it very clear that the government can tax income. The government probably could still tax income even without the amendment, just because of Article I, Section 8, Clause 1. (If I'm wrong, sue me.)

What is the point of my pointing this out if most educated people would have known this already?

My point is that all of you comfy, chuffed, upper middle class arrogant dumbshits who complain so much about entitlement programs and taxes and yet trumpet the Constitution as the greatest wisdom ever written by men have no more of a Constitutional claim to your taxed income than a welfare queen has to her food stamps! "Welfare" is in the constitution multiple times; "Capitalism" a big fat zero!



Yes, there are limits. If Congress enacted a 100% tax on all income, while this might be a shitty idea, it would not be a Constitutional or legal issue! You would just vote those assholes out of office when the time came!

If you think I’m being crude or harsh, or that my generalizations are unfair, just look at your favorite radio host, Rush Limbaugh. You reap what you sow, hypocrites!

Perhaps your comfy little dipshit analogy should take into account the simple fact that, while food stamps and other welfare programs involve giving people money that was not previously theirs, tax cuts involve NOT TAKING MONEY AWAY FROM THE PEOPLE TO WHOM IT BELONGS. In short, I don't NEED to look at the Constitution to find the "entitlement" to tax cuts; I need only look at simple morality and common sense, which tells me that one is "entitled" to one's own belongings and that which one earns.

Indeed, while you're up on your high horse, waving around the Constitution like a banner, could you please tell me where it says that all wealth belongs to the government, that the government is entitled to all the proceeds of the earnings of its citizens, to dole back out as and when it sees fit?

This is what always happens with leftist twits: they have to substitute legality for morality and common sense, and it's always an inferior stand-in.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

First, let’s look at the Constitution:

From Article I, Section 8

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

And for a good measure, 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.

By the way, amendments are just as binding as the original document written in 1787. In fact, if amendments that are correctly enacted contradict the original document, the amendments take precedence.

Just by looking at these details, I can reasonably conclude that the Food Stamp Program is in no way in violation of this Constitution, even if the spending on them causes budget deficits. And Amendment XVI makes it very clear that the government can tax income. The government probably could still tax income even without the amendment, just because of Article I, Section 8, Clause 1. (If I'm wrong, sue me.)

What is the point of my pointing this out if most educated people would have known this already?

My point is that all of you comfy, chuffed, upper middle class arrogant dumbshits who complain so much about entitlement programs and taxes and yet trumpet the Constitution as the greatest wisdom ever written by men have no more of a Constitutional claim to your taxed income than a welfare queen has to her food stamps! "Welfare" is in the constitution multiple times; "Capitalism" a big fat zero!



Yes, there are limits. If Congress enacted a 100% tax on all income, while this might be a shitty idea, it would not be a Constitutional or legal issue! You would just vote those assholes out of office when the time came!

If you think I’m being crude or harsh, or that my generalizations are unfair, just look at your favorite radio host, Rush Limbaugh. You reap what you sow, hypocrites!

Perhaps your comfy little dipshit analogy should take into account the simple fact that, while food stamps and other welfare programs involve giving people money that was not previously theirs, tax cuts involve NOT TAKING MONEY AWAY FROM THE PEOPLE TO WHOM IT BELONGS. In short, I don't NEED to look at the Constitution to find the "entitlement" to tax cuts; I need only look at simple morality and common sense, which tells me that one is "entitled" to one's own belongings and that which one earns.

Indeed, while you're up on your high horse, waving around the Constitution like a banner, could you please tell me where it says that all wealth belongs to the government, that the government is entitled to all the proceeds of the earnings of its citizens, to dole back out as and when it sees fit?

This is what always happens with leftist twits: they have to substitute legality for morality and common sense, and it's always an inferior stand-in.

Always remember that the progressive assumes that the state is entitled to all that you have... so anything they don't take is a gift.

It is a morally bankrupt ideology.

 

[Cecilie1200]

But I am curious. Who told you that you were entitled to the other guy's stuff?

No one is actually entitled to anything from the Federal Government, as per the current Constitution.

You're not even entitled to your untaxed income!

That is my fucking point!

The problem with your "fucking point" is that my untaxed income isn't FROM the federal government, so my entitlement to it has nothing to do with being "entitled to something from the government". The question regarding taxes is about what the government is entitled to from me. And the answer is NOT "whatever the fuck greedy, ignorant leftists decide to take".

 

[BakshisMouse]

Still pissing off arrogant middle-class assholes.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Promote" the general welfare...............

This surely means that clueless bureaucrats should steal from one person and give to another so that he/she can enjoy public education, free university, food stamps, unlimited unemployment, childcare, civil servant benefits, universal healthcare and govt subsidized retirement ..........

Those are certain constitutional gurantees, no doubt about it...............lol

Repealing the food stamp program would not be a Constitutional or legal issue.

Neither would enacting a 100% income tax be a Constitutional or legal issue!

Can you address that?

Actually, yes.

The Fourth Amendment protects the people's right to be secure in their persons, papers, houses, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. While this is generally applied to occasions of law enforcement, the Fourth Amendment does not specify ONLY those occasions, and I think any court in the land up to and including the Supreme Court would find that the federal government imposing a "tax" that confiscates 100% of citizens' income would qualify as an "unreasonable seizure of property".

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Right now, it could be argued that our "compensation" for the taking of our taxes for public use is the government services those taxes fund, but it could also be argued quite convincingly that we already are not getting our money's worth, given how much fraud and waste and pork there is in the federal government. Either way, it would be impossible to convince anyone that we are getting enough "compensation" from the federal government to justify the taking of 100% of our income.

The Ninth Amendment acknowledges the rights of the people and the states beyond what is enumerated in the Constitution. This would certainly include the most basic right of ownership of the fruits of one's labor.

And, of course, there is common sense, which tells us that the people of the United States do not exist to serve the government, and that the government does not exist for its own sake. Like all institutions, it exists solely for the purpose of serving its constituents, and as such, certainly does not have the right to enslave those constituents by taking their property. If you weren't so busy sucking the cock of Big Government in all its imagined glory, you might realize these simple facts which other - sane - people take as understood.

 

[BakshisMouse]

By the way, amendments are just as binding as the original document written in 1787. In fact, if amendments that are correctly enacted contradict the original document, the amendments take precedence. In addition to this, amendments can amend other amendments.

16th Amendment gives the Federal Government the privilege of taxing income, period. It is just as binding as if it were written in 1787.

So this:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Does not negate this:

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.

^^^^
Still pertinent.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

We could give those assholes in congress 100 percent of our money and we'd still be 20, 30 trillion in debt in 10 years. I'd rather give them little as possible.